Wordsworth: misunderstood, or just plain pretentious?
"I cannot be insensible of the present outcry against the triviality and meanness both of thought and language, which some of my contemporaries have occasionally introduced into their metrical compositions; and I acknowledge that this defect where it exists, is more dishonorable to the Writer's own character than false refinement or arbitrary innovation, though I should contend at the same time that it is far less pernicious in the sum of its consequences."
Umm, what? Throughout the Preface to Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth tries to convince the reader that he does not utilize the same elevated language as other poets. Yet he says so in the exact wording that he denounces. Wordsworth claims that he would rather focus on the purpose behind the poem, and he believes that the meaning he attempts to convey should take precedence over high, intellectual language. By keeping the diction simple, and not focusing on structure or poetic cliches, Wordsworth believes that he will then stay true to the "low and rustic life" that he writes about. This poses a problem to me. If Wordsworth groups himself socially with the other poets, and not with the "low and rustic life," trying to write simply in order to be understood seems a bit conceited and premature. While the working class people do not typically speak in as elevated language as the wealthy, they are not stupid, as Wordsworth makes them out to be. Wordsworth does not need to, in essence, dumb down his poems in order to write like a commoner. To me, that seems condescending and unnecessary. His poem Tintern Abbey is an example of getting back to nature, and relating to real life through simple, effective imagery. Compared to the vocabulary in the Preface to Lyrical Ballads, the language he uses in Tintern Abbey is a definite contrast. But which side of Wordsworth is real?
Is Wordsworth at his core a member of the "low and rustic life"? He claims this simple life is free of social vanity, and therefore does not have a need for elaborate expressions. How would he truly be able to write about this social class if he were not a part of it himself? If so, he contradicts the theory of their simplistic life by using the "elaborated expressions" and ostentatious wording that is apparently not present. If he truly were a part of the life he writes about, why would he even need to defend his way of writing? Wordsworth acts as if using elevated language and trivial poetic cliches beyond him; as if he alone knows what type of poetry is the most correct.
Either way you look at the situation, Wordsworth is neither a part of the wealthy class, nor a part of the merchant, working class. He is simply in the middle, trying to appease both sides of the spectrum; he attempts to appeal to the low and rustic life through his plain-worded poems, as well as the wealthy through his lofty defense of his poems. Shouldn't he just be content with the work he produces and not worry about having to please anyone?
