I’ve just written an article for the Magma Newsletter, titled ‘Which Poets Do You Give the Benefit of the Doubt?’.
The premise is that when we read a poem, our response is mediated by what – if anything – we already know about the poet. So if we encounter a ‘difficult’ poem, then it makes a big difference whether it’s by T.S. Eliot (in which case, we may well give it benefit of the doubt and re-read it to try to penetrate the mystery) or A.N. Other (in which case, we’re much more likely to dismiss it as gibberish).
The article will only appear in the Magma Newsletter, and will come out next week – so if you want to read it, you’ll need to subscribe to the newsletter this week. Which is a smart move anyway, as there’s invariably good stuff in it.
How about Blake? He could wrench a rhyme like nobodies business.
Great example. I love (some of) Blake but I think he’s a case where if anything he gets too much of the benefit of the doubt. i.e. We cherish the image of the mad/inspired Romantic genius, which can lead to reading through rose-tinted spectacles.
I think John Milton, in two regards: (1) a contemporary reader might not read through an overtly christian-themed work like P.L., except that it is already famous; and (2) his style is elevated to relay utmost beauty, yet becomes difficult to comprehend thus advanced.
I give Milton the benefit of the doubt, and i love his poetry; yet, for the same reasons above, I can see how some people would not. And if so, it is unfortunate.
Great choice. I resisted Milton when I had to read him as a student, mostly because of his theology. These days I’m still not a fan of his version of religion, but I’m a lot more appreciative of his poetry. He was a great poet and deserves the benefit of anyone’s doubt.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean I’m going to read Paradise Lost again all the way through.