Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simply calling William Wordsworth a romantic poet is enough? What else he was?
Can we end this thing by just calling William Wordsworth a romantic poet? When I read his poems, I feel he was more intellectual than the important figures of the literature of intellect. Don't you guys think the same? I mean calling Wordsworth a romantic poet is just something that has come into popular fashion or culture as they say it. He was emotional but also wise - wiser than many other poets in many other ages. Do I have some argument here?
I think that the attribute 'romantic poet' is a misplaced or overt concept that limits (unconsciously) a poet's domain. If you construe a poet's oeuvre by calling him a romantic poet, you will limit your interpretation as well. Wordsworth was a philosopher and an admirer of things around him, especially the thing we call nature. He believed that nature is the sustainer of human life and he was right to his rights. What is the definition of being a romantic poet? First of all, we will need to define romantic poetry and then romantic poet and then only we can debate whether calling Wordsworth a romantic poet is justified or not.

Forum Jump: