In the NY Times this week, a discussion on the social role of poetry: nytimes/2014/11/23/books/review/how-has-the-social-role-of-poetry-changed-since-shelley.html?_r=2 This seems to be an ongoing debate lately, but its always been, as the writers point out. Your thoughts? Adam Kirsch: Shelley was wrong to think that writing poems like “Queen Mab” or “Prometheus Unbound” would bring revolutionary change to England, but his conviction that they would is what allowed him to write the poems in the first place. Leslie Jamison: We are meant to buck, to resist, to protest, to rail against. The splinter stays lodged under the skin; it does not become the skin. This is part of negative capability too, this refusal — it offers a willing vessel for complexity and contradiction.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:23:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015