While Shumway's diction, syntax, and conceptual organization prove that he is a stylish essayist who is tackling an incredibly broad and largely undefinable topic (cultural studies), there is one area in particular that I am resilient to agree with.
On page 106 of his article, Shumway states "In a sense, my move here is to try to embrace the wide application of 'taste' that Wordsworth rejected...in doing so I'm also appealing to the more literal meaning of 'taste' as a particular kind of sense experience". The main issue that I find with this commentary is that not only does Wordsworth believe in a singular sort of "taste", but he also acknowledges numerous forms of it. Take for example his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads where Wordsworth expresses that the only true poet is the lowliest peasant. Sure, Wordworth does not accept a conventional definiton of taste; he does not, after all, find taste to be relative to one's wealth or cultured-ness. Rather, he believes that he who is best connected to the earth and overall the most natural is best suited to capture the essence of true human emotion. In other words, Wordsworth does believe that certain individuals have a natural taste for self-expression.
On another level, Wordsworth would most definitely accept taste as a "sense experience". After all, Wordsworth did devote a hearty portion of his poetic career to understanding the Laws of Association and the role sense impressions play in our lives. In his Two-Part Prelude Wordsworth reflects upon his life, starting with childhood. He recalls sounds, smells, and sights from his earliest and most present days. As with the rest of human sensation, taste is no doubt acknowledged by Wordsworth.
On a last note, maybe I'm just misinterpreting what Shumway is saying!:D After all, I'm no scholar.
Hope you guys enjoyed your weekend, see you tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment