I don't often read poetry, with one exception. The exception is Shakespeare, whose works I regularly read. I didn't much like his language when I was introduced to him in school, but that's because at 400 years of age, it's very different to modern English. The first Shakespeare I ever read was teh play Macbeth when I was twelve years old. The story was great, but the language really was a problem, and that made it difficult to enjoy. In fact, I didn't enjoy it. Happily, over the course of high school we had to study more of Shakespeare, and perhaps with experience, the language became less of a problem, and instead of the words getting in teh way, they started to contribute to the pleasure and joy that comes from Shakespeare: the meaning, the sounds, the rhymes and rhythms all work together to work their magic. Even Macbeth is now fun to read for the words as well as the witches, murders and general blood and horror. (I think it was a good choice for 12 year old boys, who would at least like the bloody and violent content.)
More recently, I was reminded of one of my favourite English poets when someone slipped the phrase bosom friend into his essay. I was trying to think of examples of when it might be used; the only one that came to mind was: "close bosom friend of the maturing sun", from the poem "To Autumn", a well-loved ode by the poet John Keats, extolling his experiences of the season of autumn. And that sounds like a nice title for this post: it neatly captures an important aspect of how I judge a poem to be good or not.
In case you are interested, Keats is only 200 years old, so his English is much more accessible than Shakespeare's. In fact, when I read Shakespeare today, I use the much more scholarly OUP editions rather than the little Penguin edition we had in the first form in high school, which merely glossed the most obscure words - I like to learn more about the language because it all helps to enjoy the poetry, and it's fun.
In case you are interested, Keats is only 200 years old, so his English is much more accessible than Shakespeare's. In fact, when I read Shakespeare today, I use the much more scholarly OUP editions rather than the little Penguin edition we had in the first form in high school, which merely glossed the most obscure words - I like to learn more about the language because it all helps to enjoy the poetry, and it's fun.
I was just rereading my post, and wanted to add another comment about Macbeth.
ReplyDeleteIt really is a bloody and violent play. I sort of think that if it were something written today, or perhaps made as a video game, that a lot of people would be calling for it to be banned because it corrupted children.
Hmmm, I'm not sure if studying the play at the tender and impresssionable age of 12 years has turned me into a murdering, blood thirsty monster or not.
And then there was Hamlet ...
And Romeo and Juliet isn't all that sweet either - and certianly not innocent.
Keats, on the other hand, is probably fairly safe from the censors.
One thing I like about poetry is that it stimulates readers imagination. The poet would use very concise wording to convey his feeling and then readers would interpret what the poet tell us. When I read a poem I usually feel like solving a puzzle, whenever I get a reasonble interpretation of the poem or I can create the picture in the poem, I would feel like I can solve a puzzle.
ReplyDeleteAnother good thing about poem is that it has plenty space for readers' imagination. It does not state things in a very clear and precise manner, therefore readers can relate the content of the poem with their own experience. This might make the poem attractive; it can get along well with people from great variety of backgrounds.
I once opened a Shakespeare book, and I was totally confused. I simply asked myself "Is it english?", then closed the book.
ReplyDeleteI hope that one day in a far-far-away-future, I'll be able to understand Shakespeare's. But, for the nearer future, I just hope I can really enjoy Pride and Prejudice.
"Keats is only 200 years old" (Peter, 2010), that means he's older that Austen, right? That statement doesn't make Keats' works sound tempting to me.
Good for me my major is not English literature.