While Ferlinghetti's and Ginsberg's tones, attitudes, and not to mention styles differ greatly, I believe they have similar underlying themes and opinions. The actual expression of these shared thoughts seems to vary in intensity in a way that reflects the nature of their lives. While both poets seemed to find solace in the isolation of their progressive 'island', they interpret its beauty and harshness with different levels of optimism and cynicism.
Where Ferlinghetti is gentle, Ginsberg seems rough in comparison. Where Ferlinghetti is more idealistic, Ginsberg is more open, blunt, and intense. For instance, "Howl" is a self proclaimed biography where highs and lows seem to reflect the topography of the city in which it was written. However, Ginsberg is not limited by San Francisco; he writes about America as a seperate entity, as in his poem "America."
Do either of these poets depict San Francisco more accurately than the other? Is it not about accuracy but personal experience? Is our interpretation of their interpretation based on our own life experiences?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sara...the difference in style might be a side effect of personality, interests, etc. It's interesting to think about why artists' styles come out the way they do, or for that matter, why readers read the way they do. The difference between LF and AG also seems connected to the question of audience. While LF is a more "official" poet (poet laureate), AG was working the more underground, counter-cultural scene. Maybe this is why his poems are more raw...
Though they seem to have a lot of thematic similarity I'm also wondering whether the harshness of SF and life in general are also parallel. Is one more hopeful than the other?
Post a Comment