Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why is Romantic poetry considered more of heart and sentimental?
Complete Subject: Why is Romantic poetry considered more of heart and sentimental rather than being rational? 

Friends, there is a general tendency that scholars and critics, even the readers, consider the Romantic age poetry (of Wordsworth, Keats, Shelley, Byron and others) more sentimental, emotive and out of the heart. Is it justified? Can we classify all the romantic poets so simply? What do you think of this proposition? 
If we compare the romantic poetry with the Victorian or the neo-classical poetry, we can easily find what's there. There is a contrasting difference. The neo-classics like Pope and Dryden were more concerned about the humane and a poet like Keats was often deluding himself with the 'lost world' and realism was missing. However, a poet like Wordsworth cannot be simply judged with a single phrase - poet of heart. His poetry did discuss a lot about the humanity and the needs in humanity. So, I can partly agree and partly disagree.
I don't think that William Wordsworth can simply be called a poet of the heart and that's all! Wordsworth is serious; Wordsworth is as serious as brooding Arnold in the Victorian age or lamenting T. S. Eliot in the age of chaos... Yes, there were the poets like Keats and Byron who rather enjoyed remaining with their wounded souls in the fantasy land where realism seldom escapes to get the light of the day. Even Shelley cannot be classified as a poet of heart...

Forum Jump: