Michel Foucault, in his seminal essay, What is an Author?, considers the relationship between the author , the text and the reader: “…the squabbles and confrontations that a writer generates between himself and his text cancel out the signs of his particular individuality. a text. Keats's poetic character and temperament, as evident in his letters and exercised in his odes, can be characterized by his ideal of negative ability, which he defines as a state of mind in which "the man is capable of being in uncertainty, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable search for facts and reason. In the narrative conveyed by Keats's letters, the concept appears only once, formally, but Keats's development of an aesthetic theory of his own is always present. In order to contextualize this development, various passages from the letters must be considered alongside biographical information. , which contrasts the modes of thought between Charles Wentworth Dilke and the “exemplary” model of Keats, Shakespeare Negative Capability, for Keats, arises from the dichotomy that these characters pose as methods of “true poetry”; To reach the level of “true poetry,” Keats required the poet to be receptive rather than searching for facts or reasons. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Although Keats's condensed work does not include a prescribed text for his conception of aesthetic theory, which was a trend among his Romantic contemporaries, Keats's work contains his thoughts on poetic character and “non-identity” is affirmed through a series of letters. Keats fundamentally believes that aestheticism requires the suppression of one's identity during the creative process; Poetry writing must be approached by an individual who has nothing of himself to convey while possessing the ability to control his own personality. This notion can also be extracted from one of Keats's lowest odes, "Ode on Indolence", an 1819 poem that explains the process of writing and the need to remove the author. The content is relatively mundane, as it follows the contemplation of the speaker, presumably a poet, on a morning spent in idleness. Three figures approach the poet as he enters a state of “indolence”: Ambition, Love and Poetry. During the speaker's interactions with the characters, he realizes that poetry, or "poetry", cannot be entirely banished; indolence is a state necessary for productive poetry, combined with the dissociation of identity and the self or, in Foucauldian terms, the “subject”. Foucault's theory of interpreting texts with awareness of the absence or "death" of the author is compatible with the ode. Keats's other odes tend to thematize ideas rather than put them into practice, as "Ode on Indolence" demonstrates; Just as the proponents of Foucault's essay and poststructuralist thought deny any identity to a text, Keats intrinsically denies any temperament and identity to the poet. Keats confronts the lived reality of poetic spectacle, not only as an aesthetic space for displaying expression, but also as a coercive agent for invading and structuring modes of thought and human consciousness. The origin of "negative capacity" is easily traced in the perpetual revisited letter written by Keats to his brothers George and Tom on December 21, 1817; the term, in the formal sense, appears only once in all of Keats's writings. In terms of theory, however, Keats was constantly concerned withthe elucidation of a process of writing “real poetry”. Keats's contemporary and personal companion, Charles Dilke, proposed facets of aesthetic theory that relied on categorization and didactics. In his letter of September 17-27, 1819, addressed to George Keats, Keats describes Dilke's character, calling him "a man who cannot feel that he has a personal identity unless he has made up his mind about everything." » (Cox, 326). Li Ou, in his biographical exhibition, “Keats and Negative Capability,” contextualizes the relationship between Dilke and Keats, as well as the influence Dilke had on him: “…Dilke, like Coleridge, who searches irritably for facts and reason , an example of something. opposed to negative capacity in its “consecutive” and dogmatic approach to experience. » (Or, 5) Influence, according to Ou, occurs in the form of a contradiction; Dilke's logic, which dictates a "dogmatic approach", is not compatible with Keats's perspective. In a letter to John Reynolds, Keats detailed his admiration for Shakespeare: "One of the three books I have with me is the Poems of Shakespeare: I never (never) found so much beauty in the sonnets – they seem to be full of nice things said. unintentionally – in the intensity of the elaboration of conceits. Is this something to bear? Listen to yourself! According to this theory, Shakespeare is at the epicenter of Keats's aesthetic thought. Considering Shakespeare as a poet who produces works while “elaborating conceits”, he participates in an early formation of what Keats will call a capacity “to be in uncertainty”. According to Ou, Shakespeare was responsible for an early knowledge of what Keats would later call "negative capability." She states: "A successful man with negative abilities is a camellia poet without personality of his own but with metamorphic identities... It is no wonder that Shakespeare is again designated as the exemplary camellia poet, while Wordsworth, like Coleridge of old , is on the opposite side” (Or, 6) “Camelion Poet” refers to the quality of identity displacement that Shakespeare, according to Ou, systematically applied to himself. Keats usually adopts this quality in his formation of poetic character and “non-identity”. Ou's mention of William Wordsworth is also important to consider; Like Dilke, he influenced Keats through incompatible ideals. Keats possesses an awareness of theoretical thought that was contemporary with his writing career. Although he held Shakespeare in high esteem, he did not share this respect with Wordsworth for two reasons: first, Wordsworth's influence was attributed to Keats within the poetic circle, and Keats was conscious of ensuring his independence in relation to this influence, and secondly, Wordsworth's contribution to aesthetics. the theory was essentially at odds with Keats's ideas. In a letter to Reynolds, Keats demonstrates his disdain for "selfish" logic: "But for the sake of a few fine imaginative or domestic passages, must we allow ourselves to be intimidated into a certain philosophy begotten by the whims of an egoist. Every man has his speculations, but every man does not ponder and consider them until he makes counterfeit money and deceives himself… We detest poetry which has a palpable design upon us” (Cox , 121). It is this “palpability” which causes the incompatibility between poets; Keats considered sensitivity and humility to be qualities of the poetic figure, while Wordsworth advocated his own "speculations" as an objective mode of thought. Jacob Wigod, author of “Negative Capability and Wise Passiveness,” attempts to reconcile the inherent differences between Wordsworth and Keats bycomparing the two concepts, as the title suggests. He states that "far from looking at the world in a Shakespearean or negative way, Wordsworth had developed a strictly limited set of didactic and moral principles from which he would not deviate. » (Wigod, 385) Wordsworth, whose poetic career considerably precedes that of Keats, entered into a status of canonicity while that career was still active. At the time, Wordsworth was nationally acclaimed, and through his writings in the preface to the Lyrical Ballads, he established a universal form of poetic discourse. Keats does not accept the “set of didactic and moral principles” promoted by Wordsworth, because negative capacity is based on opposition. Wigod comments on the connecting factor between the poets: “The whole of Wordsworth's influence on Keats is almost impossible to trace. While Keats rejoiced in a wise passivity, Wordsworth's individualistic poetic force prevented him from assuming a Shakespearean role of negative capacity. exist. The concept arose from the inability to balance opposing viewpoints, and with the context provided by Ou and Wigod, it becomes possible to conceive of it concretely and trace it back to Keats's poetic writing. Negative capacity and Keat's corresponding aesthetic theory are composed of the "non-self", the "non-identity" of the poet and the act of accepting binary oppositions, or rather the contentment associated with "the between -two ". In a letter to JA Hessey Keats gives a stable definition of poetic character which conforms to the negative capacity: "As for the poetic character itself... it is not itself – it has no self – he is everything and nothing – he has no character – he loves light and shadow; he lives with enthusiasm, whether foul or righteous, high or low, rich or poor, mean or lofty - He has as much pleasure in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen. Which shocks the virtuous philosopher. , delights the camellia poet” (Cox, 287) The “poetic character” as stated by Keats in the passage is one which has no identity of its own which can surpass his imaginative faculty and leave an impression of his identity on what the imagination conceives. Keats affirms that the "true poet" is one who has nothing to transmit but who is endowed with the capacity to control his own personality. He must retain the capacity to project himself into identity. of others and to actively participate in all types of life's experiences, both moral and immoral Walter Jackson Bate, a notable figure in Keats scholarship, authored a seminal doctoral dissertation titled simply ". Negative capacity". In the publication, he authenticates an interpretation and definition of negative capacity and "poetic character" he defines this character as follows: "This self-annihilation of the poet by a sympathetic identification of himself with his subject; – whether a creature or a phenomenon – will be accomplished through the Imagination, immediately and intuitively” (Bate, 32). “imagining” is treated as a conscious mental exercise; Keats demonstrates this awareness in letters, and will also be examined and excerpted from “Ode on Indolence”. Keats states that a poet who has no identity is certainly “the most antipoetic of all that exists; because it has no identity – it is continually in – and fills another body – the Sun, the Moon, the Sea and Men and Women who are impulsive creatures are poetic and have in them an attribute immutable: the poet has none; no identity” (Cox, 295). The paradox that Keats presents in the excerpt becomes tangible in his poems, especially those that present a grand narrative. , like Lamia or existing versions of Hyperion. Theory itself, when understood as a writing tool, is moreapparent in the odes, particularly in the "Ode on Indolence", which can be seen as an exposition of the function of writing. To further authorize Keats's conception of "poetic character", he wrote to Richard Woodhouse on October 27, 1818: "When I am in a room with people, if ever I am free to speculate on the creations of my own brain, then this It is not me who goes home: but the identity of everyone in the room begins to press upon me that, in a very short time, I am destroyed" (Cox, 295). The poetic gift self-annihilation, which allows an artist to accept the opposites – the paradoxes and contradictions – of life, does not allow the poet to remain self-centered. Bate's argument embraces Keats's previously contested influences and attributes the states. of absence of character to these. negative capacity: "Such a manifestation of the poetic gift will only be permitted to the poet who possesses the quality of negative capacity, who is himself without character and without identity, who will not only tolerate but will welcome without hesitation the erasure of himself… This is the philosophy, not of Wordsworth or Milton, but of Shakespeare and Keats himself. » (Bate, 29) Bate supports Keats's independence both as a poet and a theoretical critic; reader and writer, with a suspension of identity and preconceived notions of self. By examining negative capacity and poetic “non-identity” and its relationship to writing, it is plausible to establish a connection with poststructuralist thought, particularly that mandated by Michel Foucault. Keats's theoretical conceptions lend themselves easily to a Foucauldian perspective; What is an author? questions the precedence of authorial identity in texts, just as Keats justifies the suppression of "poetic identity" in the act of writing texts. Although Foucault considers allegiance to structuralism a more appropriate method for deconstructing the text, the notion of “nothingness” that structures his essay is inherently poststructuralist. Jo-Anne Cappeluti's publication, “For the Sake of Nothing: Auden, Keats, and Deconstruction,” connects Keats's ideals to those of poststructuralist thought. She argues that “deconstruction is by definition an exercise in the intellect's predilection to refute and deny aesthetic experience. Deconstruction likes to deny this “nothing”, but it seems to ignore the extent to which attempts at demystification further entangle the intellect with the imagination. » (Cappeluti, 345) The “entanglement” between “intellect and imagination” can be interpreted as an assumption that regulates romantic thought. Negative capacity aims to displace intellect and personal speculations and substitute “non-identity” in their place. Indolence, as depicted in “Ode on Indolence,” requires the denial of “aesthetic experience”; to be in a state of indolence is to reject aesthetic thought and personal identity in order to experience "real poetry." Keats, again in a letter to Reynolds, declares that: "The genius of poetry must work its own salvation in man: it cannot be matured by law and precept, but by sensation and vigilance in him -even. What is creative must create. himself. ” (Cox, 287) Just as negative capacity does not approve of “law and precept,” neither can “The Genius of Poetry.” The text, especially the creative one, relies on itself for its meaning; the absence of identity, the absence of an author are necessary for the development of a discourse or a way of thinking. Foucault, in his essay, explores the consequences of the interpretation of a text and the dispossession of the credited author of that text. Likewise, “Ode on Indolence” isessentially a call for authors to consciously enter a state of “indolence” to produce their work; there must first be an absence, to initiate a presence. Foucault defines the function of writing as follows: “The essential foundation of this writing is not the exalted emotions linked to the act of composition or the insertion of a subject into language. Rather, it is above all about creating an opening where the subject of writing disappears endlessly. » (Foucault, 1477) Keats's ode is almost empty of emotion; on the contrary, the speaker abandons emotion, represented by the figures of Ambition and Love. “Oh madness! What is Love? And where is she?/ And for this poor ambition — it springs/ From the short fit of fever of a man's little heart...” (lines 42-44) the speaker exclaims when he realizes that he cannot join them when he experiences indolence. Conversely, the “Poetry demon” cannot be dismissed so easily. Keats may be referring to the necessary withdrawal of self which gives access to “true poetic thought”; because the speaker cannot abandon Poetry, he is paradoxically inclined to desire and reject it. Keats discovered a mind associated with indolence, which was a narrow private path and not a "passage for all thoughts." (Wigod, 390) Cappeluti also comments on the connection between poetry and a method of deconstruction: “Poetry invites this process, and deconstruction thrives on doing nothing with it, but the answer lies in the power of language… Poets see language as a powerful way to engage people with the aesthetic nature of being human. » (Cappeluti, 356) Cappeluti emphasizes the importance of human action in the language of poetry. To conceive of indolence linguistically is to consider it not only as a state which gives access to “poetry”, but also as a space in which a poet can acquire action and a sense of humanism. This requires the withdrawal and stripping away of identity to enter into indolence, and therefore experience aesthetic movement. Foucault also underlines the primary necessity of a “sacrifice of identity”: “Writing is now linked to sacrifice and the sacrifice of life itself; it is an obliteration of the self that does not need to be represented in books because it takes place in the writer's daily existence. » (Foucault, 1477) The “obliteration of the self” corresponds to the “self-annihilation” mentioned above. Foucault is aware of the authorial sacrifice that a writer must make to produce a text; Keats's negative capacity can be seen as an early method of deconstruction in this context, as it is a facet that manifests itself in the poet rather than in his work. Deconstruction envisions a state of mind in which intrinsically opposed and irreconcilable ideas exist simultaneously without any possibility. of a synthesis, which can lead to certainties. Although Keats does not speak of irreconcilable ideas in his letters, uncertainties presuppose such a situation, while reason eliminates uncertainties to arrive at certainties. In “Ode on Indolence,” the relationship between the speaker and Poetry can be defined as a relationship between “irreconcilable ideas.” The idea of ​​existing "between" is characteristic of Keats in his letters, poems and theoretical discussions; this contradictory character aims to attenuate any concrete regulation or convention that categorizes or organizes poetry. Foucault's argument includes the author and his belonging to “contradictions”: “The author serves to neutralize the contradictions that we find in a series of texts. This function is governed by the conviction that there must be – at a particular level of an author's thought, of his desire.