I always buy books thematically. About six months back, it was poetry. Ted Kooser expanded my shelves, Garrison Keillor's Good Poetry suddenly arrived, I memorized long passages from Beowulf. Then it swung to early American history, and Alexander Hamilton and debates about the constitution started arriving in the mail. Then, a fit of children's fantasy took over, and their shining covers still brighten my shelves. After that, Greece and Rome (I bought the Iliad, technically poetry, but it's the same idea) Bibles have now taken a large chunk out of my pocketbook, and I still can't resist them, especially if I find them used.
Now, it is come full circle to poetry. It started with the Norton Critical Edition of Paradise Lost. Brand new from Borders, and jammed with all those wonderful juicy extras that Norton always includes, it cost me $10. That's right. $10. Try your Borders, that's a steal.
I am currently trampling my way through, recording some observations in a separate notebook, refusing to defile those shining margins. At least, until I've read through it at least once. When Milton's sentences have thoroughly saturated my mind, I pick up Wordsworth, his Prelude, in another Norton Critical edition.
I resisted temptation mightily when trying to decide between Wordsworth and Tennyson at the bookstore; I love Tennyson, one of the few poets that I do love, and yet I knew that I needed to broaden my horizons. I hadn't read enough of Tennyson. I nearly hurled both of them back onto the shelf and grabbed Robert Browning, but I knew, deep inside, that it was a compromise. I don't dislike Wordsworth or Browning, I simply love Tennyson very much.
At least I have decided on one thing: I will purchase my poetry more systematically. Because those Norton Critical editions are well-designed, jammed with extras and extraordinarily cheap (usually from $12-14, with a few in the $20s) I intend to buy my poetry in that format, and lend at least a show of order to my disorganized, wild, and crazy library.
The author realizes that this post somewhat contradicts the previous, however, said author has decided to call it 'tension' instead of contradiction, and feels quite happy about hitting upon such a neat solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting -- I also decided to read PL and PR this week and just ran across this entry. I like the Teskey edition too, but this time, I decided to read it using an annotated version by Isaac Asimov -- it is a lot of fun. The Norton Critical Editions vary a lot in quality, but the best ones are very good (and Teskey is quite good.)
Happy reading!
OpMin, just a note to tell you I got such a chuckle from your posting over at Pyroblog re dating non-Christians. I, too, would NEVER, EVER marry either a milquetoast man, nor a male chauvinist, and the thought of "submitting" makes me urgently run to the meds cabinet for the pink stuff (I'm 52 and over the years have turned down 15 "applicants"). Even among believers, I have NEVER seen a marriage I could endorse as a model for my own (theoretical one).
Part of the problem in my case is I'm an INTJ (are you, by any chance, as well?): we need our freedom the way the eagle needs his. And guys just don't get that being argumentative is the way an INTJ **LEARNS** and fits 2gether the "pieces" in trying to make sense of things (understanding being our addiction).
Marriage (post-Fall) just strikes me as a horrid straitjackeet, a life-long Stehbunker, an investment with negative dividends.
Take care!
Whims
Hi, whimsical, I just read your comment, and I started to giggle. I'm actually an INTP, self-identify as a ENTP as well, and BOTH of those personalities are obsessed with that kind of thing. Thanks a lot for a little backup---it can get pretty wearisome when you're told over and over that your nature is to submit to some guy, despite the fact that your entire nature revolts at the illogical idea of submitting to someone, 'just because' not because they're right, or good.
Post a Comment