Wordsworth’s Theory of Poetry and my misunderstandings with his recommendations
Wordsworth says, Poetry is a ‘spontaneous overflow of intense emotions; it takes it origin from emotions recollected in tranquility'
I disagree. I disagree not with the part where he describes it as intense emotion, but with the part which asks me to recollect it in tranquility. Because for me, the turmoil, the disturbed state of mind, the high level of hormones/adrenaline is when the words make most sense or are at least pouring out.
My tranquility is not the one which can be used for recollection of every emotion, most at most it might revive some guilt, some remorse, some love, some nostalgia, but it won't revive for me the freedom of love, the edge of the anger, the depth of the pain, the colours of the rainbow if I'm not living in the moment. Recollection morphs the meanings for me, it might be grammatically more correct, poetically more brilliant, but it would be pragmatically hollow and mannerly pretentious.
I just finished watching Looking for Alaska, a series streaming on Hulu, adapted from a book with the same title written by John Green. It brought out a surge of emotions, a reckless urge to cry, a flashback of memories, and I embraced it all. I let it all flood me to the point I need to write it all out and make the world read it.
That brings me back to Wordsworth's theory of poetry, I won't be able to write anything if I try tomorrow or two hours later, I needed to get it out of me. And then the thoughts connect again, because he defied himself when he said, 'spontaneous overflow of intense emotions' and then further went on to add, 'recollected in tranquility'. If it's spontaneous, then it needs not to be recollected. Or maybe, just like so many other things in life, I misunderstood this one too.
And then I read more upon it, and explored more about it, to understand it better. And I realised, I was half quoting Wordsworth all this time. All this time while disagreeing with him, I was reading only a part of the definition and basing my assumptions on that only.
So here goes the complete quotation:
"I have said that [Romantic] poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility: the emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquility gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind. In this mood successful composition generally begins, and in a mood similar to this it is carried out..."
So he did agree with what we all feel requires the intensity of the moment we feel it in to understand enough to write about it. And I realised how I have half-assed my graduation.
We all remember the ‘spontaneous overflow' and ‘recollection in tranquility’, but rarely one reads beyond these two phrases ( I didn’t go beyond these) which in turn makes me sad and curious. I’m curious why didn’t I go further, and why didn’t I need it till now, till I really wanted to vent out my feelings after watching a TV show? Not to forget this was something that I was supposed to study in my semesters.
Maybe you all have an answer for that. I would love to solve this conundrum of stupid ignorance.