Ever since Professor Wenthe mentioned back in August that Langland is considered by some to be the most boring poet ever (or something to that effect), I've been anxious about reading Piers Plowman. My first impressions were that it was going to be a lot easier to follow than Pearl, which I found sort of difficult at times, but despite the reasons Piers should be a more accessible poem, I can't help but find it, well, boring. I've been thinking a lot about the similarities and differences in the poems and the poets, since I did my bibliographic essay on the Gawain-poet, so I thought I would write about some of the reasons that I expected to like it better, and why I think I don't.
The language Langland uses is considerably easier to understand - there are whole lines that are almost identical to modern English. Of course, his poem doesn't have the same incredibly complex structure as Pearl, so he wouldn't have had to use synonyms to fit his words in the form. But, more than that, the differences in their dialect (Langland's southern vs the Pearl-poet's northern) make Piers Plowman more accessible in that sense. One of the critics I wrote about in my essay (Derek Brewer) wrote that “Chaucer and Langland would have found the Gawain-poet’s dialect difficult.”
In addition, Piers Plowman has more of a physical representation of what it's getting at (the workers in the field, the tower, etc), which seemed to me at first like it would be helpful. So did the fact that his vision is a series of dreams, broken up by waking moments, rather than one long one. Still, at the end of the day, Pearl just appealed to me more because, while it had a bit of a lecture-y tone to it, it was about something we can all relate to: loss. Piers so far seems more like a general translation of religious doctrine into poetry and English: lecture-y without that more human element to make it resonate.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Most Boring Poet Ever?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Let me hasten to Langland's defense by saying that it was not he who had (has?) the reputation of being the most boring poet in English. That dubious accolade falls to John Lydgate, monk of Bury, a fifteenth-century poet. But Lydgate has enjoyed something of a critical recuperation in recent years. By the end of term you may decide which of the two you think should take the palm (as it were)!
I agree that it was difficult getting through Langland. Comparing him to the Pearl poet, I think grammatically Langland could be easier. Though for me it was easier to be situated in "Pearl" because the plot is clear: a man is speaking to his pearl who has died. And even though the religious aspects of that poem is strong, and arguably the purpose, the doctrines are still founded on the simple and clear plot.
With Langland it could have been harder because the plot he is relating tends to get muddled at times. This could be due to multiple dreams, the allegorical figures (who are sometimes hard to place within the “reality” of the waking world…and the transgression of “Nede” into the waking world adds to the confusion), and the seemingly lack of suspense (Will the dreamer prays and dreams about religious doctrines, then awakens and tries to follow them. This is hardly a “story” in the modern sense. However, as Prof Wenthe has pointed out in class, the question of how to save one’s soul is more permeated in the Middle Ages, therefore, the conflict and stake for the readers of that time could be much more heightened that for modern readers).
I agree, my problem was largely that I just didn't feel like I had a stake in the outcome, and it was harder to sort of assume that set of beliefs that would give the poem urgency. I do sort of owe William Langland an apology though...
Post a Comment