Wordsworth Reading Response

I commenced my review of Wordsworth’s “I wandered lonely as a cloud” by going online, which included listening to poem read by a British lady who used more emphasis and tone than when I silently read the poem.  I was able to read much of the handwritten manuscript, but I found the provided text and annotations useful. 

The 19^th century printings were delightful.  The Latin phrases on the 1807 version were a little intimidating as I don’t read Latin. The 1807 title page of Poems had more emphasis while the 1815 version included more information using smaller fonts.  The 1807 poem was printed in Volume II, with the 1815 version contained in Volume I.  The inclusion of ‘Lyrical Ballads, Miscellaneous Pieces of the Author. With Additional Poems, a New Preface, and a Supplemental Essay’ made me think there were many additions not included in the previous edition by the same publisher. The title page of the 1965 scholarly book edited by Jack Stillinger, mentions prefaces, which would be of interest in understanding the diverse editors’ viewpoints. The title page for the 1983 book edited by Jared Curtis was distinctive as it mentions the time span of 1800-1807. 

Comparing the versions between all mediums demonstrated that while similar, they were not identical.  Capitalization of various words assisted me in determining which versions were from 1807 and 1815.  The additional stanza, along with the word changes (i.e. jocund, and ‘Fluttering and dancing in the breeze’ vs. Ten thousand dancing in the breeze’), demonstrated that Wordsworth continued to revise the poem. The annotations in Curtis’ book were distracting, but I blame that on me and would welcome it if I was doing a more thorough investigation into the poem itself.

-Diane Culpin

Mohammed Alhamili

Dr. Dahlia Porter

ENGL 5750

Sep 7, 2016

“Daffodils”

            The poem is a magnificent work of literature that I enjoyed reading specially when considering the variety of versions that it had which makes it an appealing literary pursuit. The abstract experiences are not easily rendered on pages since they happen with a blink of an eye, but bearing in mind that the poem has more than three versions it becomes manageable at least to convey the differences between them.

            When looking at the title page, I was struck by the introduction of William Wordsworth through his work instead of just writing his name which raises the question of whether the seriousness of the people’s pursuit of literature as one of the dominant pillars of education at that time was directly related to the work itself without considering the author or his importance that they needed to be reminded of the author’s works or was it a way of advertising? Personally, I think it was more of an advertisement than it was a reminder since poetry was the most famous genre in that period.

            Upon turning the title page, I was expecting a title for the poem, but then I thought maybe the title was on a separate page and it was not included in the packet. The poem materialized the definition of poetry; “literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm.”  Daffodils was an intensified language that shows the readers the beauty of nature and the mentality of Wordsworth as a poet and how he conveyed the image in the poem in a balanced manner between having no details and overloading the poem with descriptions that are hard to imagine or have contradiction when presented in the same time. In the 1815 version Wordsworth modified the poem in what I consider destructive rewriting. Wordsworth was striving to make his poem perfect, which led him to add more details that have already been stated in the previous versions. In the first stanza he depicts the Daffodils “along the lake, beneath the trees, fluttering and dancing in the breeze, but in the second stanza the scene shifts from “along the lake” to be “along the bay.”  The poem swerved from being a musical genius that makes the readers dance on the beat with Daffodils to a riddle that needs to be solved. These modifications may have come as a result of Wordsworth first success after he altered the Lyrical Ballads to the taste of the readers.  

Wordsworth Response

As a general rule, when we think of the production of a piece of writing, we expect authorial intent to reign supreme. Should the roles of the publisher, editor, and printer/distributer act solely as catalysts for the writer’s intentions? How does one truly know what a writer intends, particularly if he or she has not left specific instructions on how to carry out a particular wish?

The first major difference I noticed between the versions of Wordsworth’s “I wandered lonely as a cloud” was the way in which the role of the editor seemed to increase along with the publication year. Evidence of this can be found immediately, almost glaringly on the title pages—particularly in how the editor’s name is displayed in conjunction with Wordsworth’s. In the 1965 edition edited by Stillinger, Wordsworth’s name appears in all-caps, text larger than Stillinger’s, which is in italics near the bottom of the page. Alternatively, in the 1983 edition edited by Curtis, not only does Curtis’s name appear to be in larger text than Wordsworth’s, it is also in all caps, while Wordsworth’s is not. Such a development affirms the increasing prominence of the editor, which is mirrored by Curtis’s sizeable involvement in the poem via footnotes.

As opposed to the freestanding versions of the poem (the original manuscript + 1807 edition), the information contained in Curtis’s footnotes—not to mention that which accompanies the poem online through the Wordsworth Trust and British Library—inevitably shapes the way we read it. Did Wordsworth intend for his audience to know that he was inspired to write the poem by his sister Dorothy’s account of the experience? Academically, I appreciated the extra information I garnered from Curtis’s footnotes and the listed websites. Aesthetically, I preferred the 1807 edition due to its lack of surrounding textual clutter.

Versions of Wordsworth

Within the printed editions of the poem, I found myself focusing mainly on the paratext and what editions chose to include the extra stanza of the poem. I find it fascinating that in the 1807 printer’s manuscript Wordsworth did not include this second stanza for the printers, but in later versions of publication he added this stanza and changed some of the language. This brings up an interesting question of which version should be used as copy-text for editions, and which version we consider the true version of the poem. It seems that Stillinger and Curtis both have different ideas about what constitutes the correct version of this poem (this goes beyond even the added stanza, with the 1983 edition punctuating and capitalizing lines very differently). In the 1983 edition the 1807 printer’s manuscript is the main version, but the paratext includes the extra stanza from the 1815 printing of the poem. I am curious as to what my peers think about this handling of the two versions. The 1983 paratext also informs us that Wordsworth titled the poem "Daffodils" in many of his manuscripts and collections, and yet very few editions use this title for the poem. The paratext makes me question the choice of some of the publishers or editions, and also makes me think more about the idea of control. Though Wordsworth had different versions of this poem and controlled the additions to the 1815 texts, it seems the printers and editors have far more control when it comes to which version has more authority, and control the title of the poem entirely.  Perhaps Curtis does not title the poem because the title given by Wordsworth was not “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud”, but Stillinger keeps this title for the poem. The paratext illuminates what different editors find important to include in printings of the poem.

Wordsworth Response

I felt that the reading experience was different over different versions. Specifically, the online versions felt somehow less authentic than the printed versions. The manuscript versions, however, also felt incorrect because they seemed unofficial, lacking the authority of a printed text. The printed editions and manuscripts also gave a sense of context – sometimes only that there was a context of other pieces in which this poem was situated rather than specifically showing that context. The online version from the Poetry Foundation offered a great deal of context-creating potential, but I still felt there that the poem was isolated. The Wordsworth Trust situated the context before the text of the poem, and I found myself reading it as I scrolled down to the poem’s text. The online versions seemed to be pushing towards a specific reading f the poem, especially with the Poetry Foundation’s audio clip of the poem. I also noticed the gradual revelation of the structure of the poem visually online. The break in the poem to a new column of text separated the content in a different way in different editions. Online, the entire poem was not immediately visible whereas in print it generally was. One print edition did split the poem between pages, which seemed disruptive but also enabled the poem to be placed in very close proximity physically to the pieces surrounding it. All of these aspects came together for me to indicate different foci for the reader, although whether these would be deliberately chosen on the part of the reader or an unsought result of the editor/publisher’s choices would likely vary.

Wordsworth Response

My reading experience differed slightly between each printing of Wordsworth’s poem. My preferences are primarily in place due not to the printing of the poem, but the other works on the page surrounding it. For reading’s sake, I prefer the version printed in 1807. My reasoning for this preference is the space between lines and stanzas. The spacing makes for a slower reading, and in reading the piece at a slower pace, it becomes musical, which is what I assume Wordsworth’s intention was. Furthermore, I appreciate that it is the only text on the page. Due to this preference of mine, the version printed in 1815 is another of my preferred versions of this poem. I am guilty of becoming a skimmer, and when a there is only one work to focus on, the stress of making sure I get everything read in a timely manner goes away. The 1815 version comes second to 1807 printing only because I prefer a larger font size. My perception of the medium of the different pages reflects my previous answer about the printed 1807 version, which is my preferred because of the space between the lines and stanzas, as well as it being the only poem on the page. My least favorite version comes from the Stilllinger book written in 1965. I dislike this particular layout because the page feels too cluttered. Historically speaking, my favorite version of the poem is the printer’s manuscript from 1807. Though the text is not especially clear, it can be made out that Wordsworth has written a few notes starting with “to the printer”, that seem to outline how he wants the poem printed. This is an aspect of literature, namely pamphlet era works, which I don’t often think about. It sparks a curiosity that has me questioning why Wordsworth wanted it printed in the specific way he asked, and what his intentions of having it printed that way were. Did he want it to be the only text on the page, as it is in the 1807 version? It’s also visible that he asks for his poems to be printed in a certain order. All of these aspects make me as a reader curious about the process of printing, the authors preferences, and how the two work hand in hand. Over all, my preferences are based heavily upon the size of the text, the material on the page other than the poem at hand, and spacing. I am interested to see my peer’s response.

Wordsworth Response

Having not known (or forgotten) about the different versions of this poem, my initial reading experience was shaped by attempts to place each version in historical/literary context. My readings were altered by printing style (antique vs. modern), and by digital layouts, not to mention the hilarious Julie Andrews-as-Mary Poppins impression on the voice recording for the Poetry Foundation Web site. Nineteenth-century printings felt more like artifacts than books of poetry, and twenty-first century print editions felt more accessible, if a bit studious (akin to a high-school assignment). The Poetry Foundation offered interesting and pertinent links for further exploration, while the Wordsworth Trust offered both valuable context (Dorothy’s journal) and inanity (comments on Wordsworth’s favorite flower and possible motivations for revising the poem were both farfetched). The Wordsworth Trust site was also poorly designed and I actively ignored other links because of this.

Each facsimile version was insightful, though the online version offered more context and a helpful transcript. In both cases, their appearance as the last selection in each batch of reading material for class (print and online), effectively withheld context regarding authorial intent and its interaction with editorial and publishing/printing choices. I read the intrusive 1815 edition note as a failed attempt to influence/undermine the poem’s meaning, though I thought the modernization of vocabulary (i.e. shew to show), as well as the modernization of punctuation in the 1965 edition to be more useful. I don’t think the essential meaning of the poem changed across presentations, but it did deepen with the addition of the note about Dorothy’s journal and with Wordsworth’s facsimile notes. This indicates that I am more interested in authorial intent than editorial intent; the former seems less susceptible to changes in aesthetics and/or format.