I was impressed by the language of "The Flea" to the extent that it led me to wonder how language had evolved over the generations. It was leaps and bounds more understandable than anything we'd read so far, and was also far more stirring. It seems as though the arts are the only feature of society that, given time, becomes less sophisticated whereas everything else grows in complexity. In fact, simplicity has become a point of praise when it comes to art. This is justified upon the pretense that the simpler it is the greater an audience it will attract. But this presents us with a consequence which might not have been intended--the loss of artists' identities. Not every artist is the same, but in the pursuit of making their work more approachable, they change. The manner in which an artist works is as much a reflection of his identity as the work he produces. So upon any instant when an individual compels another to change his work to make it more approachable, he compels also the artist to change himself, to make himself more approachable.
In a way, I saw the extensive language and metaphors as a way to cloak what he was implying. I feel like because of the grace and manners in this time period, he couldn't flat out write a poem that told the girl she should sleep with him, and that doing so would actually be ok. So, instead he masked his intentions and desires through symbolism, conceit, and long, extensive metaphors, sprinkled with intense language to make it literally "poetic." That could just be me, though. Thoughts?
ReplyDelete