That said, I don't see that "The Second Coming" is a reactionary poem. Perhaps Yeats intended it to be, but it has drifted away from any authorial intent and is a universal lament now, appropriate to many situations. Anyone pondering the enervation of the American Left when compared with the fury of the Tea Baggers would easily conclude that "the best lack all conviction, while the worst/are filled with passionate intensity."
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> The other day, when I was trying to recall Harold Bloom's argument about
> why Yeats's "The Second Coming" is a reactionary poem, Michael Pollak
> helpfully scanned and posted the passage. I tried reading it and felt very
> frustrated - it was all passing me by. I wondered if my brain was
> atrophying, or if I'd become a philistine, or something else horrific. Just
> before he posted it, though, I'd ordered a copy of the book, which just
> arrived today. I was just reading the passage and found it thoroughly
> comprehensible and stimulating - it reminded me of how I was seduced by
> Bloom's influence and still sorta remain under his spell all these years
> later.
>
> So I'm wondering - what is it about the screen vs. the page? Is it just
> that I'm from a generation raised on print, habituated to the idea that
> serious writing is ink on paper and stuff on the screen is basically just
> news or gossip, totally in-the-moment stuff? Or is it something about the
> media themselves? Anyone else have this experience?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>