Fanny Brawne
Aside of poems, I thought it just to critique a more general sense of Keats and his poetics, with particular attention on Fanny, his forever in waiting bride.
I personally found Keats to be a bit deep in one sense and shallow in another. His personality was rather a mix of both sets, as he often retained stubborn character towards others, despite what they did or said for the most part, but also took their critiques to heart very seriously. I would like to consider that this meant he built upon his prior models and improved, which seemed at least partly true. He did begin with Shakespeare, toss it through the Romantics, and then gave his own spin to things, as often poets do. While this did make him unique, some things he incorporating were rather frustrating to examine in each instance, particularly with regards the natural Romantics and the romantical love.
His romantic roots were dandy for giving one a great image in the face of natural facets, while also being a soft ground to sow the seeds of love, which stayed figurative. However, as the later part of Keats' work evolved, this part remained raltively similar, almost to a point where it became a sort of mini-archetype for Keats to use, albeit with slight adjustment to reflected the more unique feel of each work. So, if I had to pick some more than love to critique, my view would fall here for its repeated appearance, but only tarish is its seeming lack of evolution, but not in a destitute sense.
The love aspect was not exactly omnipresent for Keats, but where it did mostly show up, it came out a slightly different but similar beast. I was tempted to reverse the role given to the romantic here, but thinking further, it was the love image that fit the nuances of the romantic as versus the reverse. Whether it was a contour lying nearby or a shape in the sky, Keats found a way to make the person portrayed different, while still feeling like Franny was in each one. Sadly, I am quite shorthanded on explained or critiqueing this poetic, but it was definitely worth mention versus mere adversion of it.
As a character, Keats became as frustrating as he was interesting. From his deep profound way of words, there was an air above them that simply made solely reading them a bit tiredsome from piece to piece, for reasons already said. While that did not stop me from trying, I do feel it dampened the power of my response after going through such a plethora of work as Keats'. Though, once reovered later and the tear has worn off, I definitely will return with gusto again, for wear is half the fun in such an adventure. Although, for poetry the wear can be quite more... daunting. So, would I reccommend Keats? Of course I would, as his poetics are stellar, but I would encourage it with a a bit of biographic context, which is in itself porblematically metaphorical early on, for it opens new meaning into Keats thought, as well as what he mean and why he says what he does. After all, beauty is truth, truth beauty, and all is known for that is all you need to know (Keats' golden line - Urn).
No comments:
Post a Comment