Curiosity of Matthew Arnold

After doing some research about Arnold, I came across a blog that explains Arnold's reasoning in a more clear and concise way than I could ever attempt to try.

Curiosity vs. Culture

Enjoy!

Are you a Dandy or Flaneur?

"Keep cool, my babies."

"The most interesting man in the world..."

http://tinyurl.com/FlaneurPhotography

 

You may be asking yourself, "Why is Ellen posting so many pictures of Robert Redford and random Youtube/Vimeo videos?" The reason, my babies, is to help you understand Baudelaire's meaning in using the terms "dandy" and "Flaneur" in his works. The Dandy was someone who was wealthy and offered nothing economically to society. The Flaneur, on the other hand, was someone who stayed in the shadows and watched life pass him or her by.  The Flaneur movement in photography is really interesting to me but I can't help but wonder, why is a Flaneur more respected than a Dandy? They both clearly have time on their hands, whether they spend said time being social or photographing others living their lives. I encourage you to read more of Baudelaire's work and decide for yourself if you're a Dandy or a Flaneur! 

Samuel Johnson The Rambler & Preface to Shakespeare

Samuel Johnson defines the novel in very modern terms; ordinary events happening to people like me and you. Johnson felt the goal of the novel is to produce an interesting reality without wild impossible plot points and characterizations. He also stated that many works of fiction were comfortable because they are formulaic and predictable. Johnson illustrates a complex relationship between the characters' experience. He also surmises that readers compare the events of a novel based on personal experience and then measure their personal experience based on the novel's events. 

Johnson also feels that the younger generation can become deceived by novels if authors write wild and dangerous behaviors with little or no consequence. Johnson reminds us that romances were not realistic, therefore making them not dangerous because they could not be imitated. 

I enjoyed reading Johnson's theories and personal thoughts. I respected him before but now that respect has definitely grown. I appreciated that he did not discount any future works but gently put forth guidelines for future writers to be true to themselves and to look to the past, not their contemporaries, for inspiration. Below I will provide a link to an interesting article about Johnson's "The Rambler"...

Click here for Enlightenment!

Does Samuel Johnson not look like Richard Lewis?!

"It matters not how a man dies, but how he lives. The act of dying is not of importance, it lasts so short a time."

Taylor Mali performs "Ars Poetica"

Should we take Horace's advice?

For today's entry, I will be reviewing Horace's "Ars Poetica", a treatise on poetics and the place that decorum and form have in contemporary and future poetry.  At the beginning of the letter, Horace outlines his belief that writers possess a certain degree of freedom in his or her writing, within the bounds which keep them from polar extremes. He states this idea clearly on page 122**: "let the work of art be whatever you want, as long as it is simple and is unified."


The rest of Horace's letter, however, simply seems to illustrate certain limitations, guidelines, and rules a poet, playwright, or any other writer should follow. All of his proposed guidelines aim toward a common goal: to please the audience. Horace emphasizes "popular favor", "fan(s) in the audience", "popular demand", giving the public pleasure, "invent to please".


I wonder, then, what freedom a writer truly has who is a slave to popular opinion. While one may assent to the writer's right to write anything within certain loose bounds, is he able to exercise this right practically? How should the writer combine both the need to please the audience and the freedom to write whatever he chooses? 


Here are some points to remember during reading: 


1. It is better to follow a traditional story than to invent a new one. 


2. Good writing reflects good thinking. 


3. A play should be five acts--no more, no less. 


4. Graphic scenes should not be performed but saved for narration. 


5. Fictions need to keep as near as possible to real life. 


**The book I'm citing is The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism.