Okay, so I know that there is no reason to assume that The Vampyre and The Picture of Dorian Grey would be connected, but I am working on a project where I am trying to tie as many Elizabethian/Victorian novels together as I can, and I noticed some similarities between these characters.

Both are charismatic hedonists who corrupt young nobles. Neither of them care about traditional morality, and neither of them suffers their comeuppance within the story. I couldn't really find any stark contrasts between their descriptions either. The largest hurdle I have is the timeline. I figure there is roughly 40 years between the end of The Vampyre and the start of Dorian's story. That doesn't seem like enough time to assume a new lordly identity, and it seems like they would travel in similar social circles. So people would still be around and active that could recognize him.

I thought that that chaos following the Napoleonic War and Crimean War might make it easier for Ruthven to assume the new idenity.

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

As title says, I'm sort of trying to figure out whether it was coined while he was alive, or done by academics after extensive study. Apparently it might be Lady Caroline Lamb, but I do highly doubt it. Does any one know?

Consider Milton's Satan, or protagonists who meet their demise by challenging the traditional institutions without the, otherwise progressive, author seeking any sort of explicit or implicit sympathy from the reader. I find that it makes these values that much more compelling when dragged through the mud and held up to critique. I suppose the tension between idealism and reality, and the tragic consequences of defiance of societal norms, are what led me to think that there might be something deeply Romantic at play. Furthermore, the refusal to seek understanding or sympathy from the reader might place an author in a position of self-contained defiance - showing the strength of their views by standing firm in their convictions without needing extra approval, and despite the critique that they themselves put forth, rather than through the strength of their arguments.

I started thinking about this after I stopped watching Sorry to Bother You (2018), directed by the communist filmmaker Boots Riley, midway through the film, while protagonist was still reaping all the benefits of capitalist machinery, with no leftward turn yet in sight. I was left with the impression that viewing the movie this way - without seeing a resolution - probably made a greater impact on me than if I had watched it in its entirety. I sort of locked the protagonist in a suspended state of complicity, where the critique resonated most profoundly, leaving defiance to speak for itself.

i want to know on what is romanticism on art movement and philosophy but i do not know where to start , I really need this in my life as i feel empty and frustrates with my self. so please anything will help.

Basically what the title says. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Ty!

I want to know more about romanticsm

Hello guys, hope you're having a good time. I've recently become interested in the topic of Romanticism, especially in literature, and I was wondering if there's a book that specifically goes over how women are depicted in books written during the Romanticism Era.
Please keep in mind that I'm fairly new to it all, and simple books that start from the very basics are preferred over the more complicated ones. However, those are welcome too and I'd be glad to be recommended both.

illustrative cover only to highlight post

A few weeks ago I posted a short essay about the figure of Prometheus in the works of the famous Shelley couple. Percy uses the myth in his 'Vindication for a Natural Diet,' while Mary obviously does in 'Frankenstein.'

the reflection is here:

https://meltingintoair.substack.com/p/fire-from-the-sky-frankenstein-and

My definition is romanticism is the struggle of real versus ideal because of surrounding factors like economic, political, cultural and religious.

if you know russian composers i might not know abt please give me names, even the nichest thing ever, I've never posted here but I'm a big romantic nerd and I love russian musics

While playing RDR2 for the first time, I realized that the way the game is animated looks very similar to paintings inspired by the sublime. Vast landscapes with layered atmosphere in which you are not the focal point. It also has this beautiful back and forth between the wants of man and preservation of nature. We see how many people long for a world pre-civilization, while still being in the beginning stages of civilization. Most of the time the story is only trying to show you how the environment interacts with the main characters. Usually the environment swallows you whole and makes you feel completely insignificant. Mainly though, it puts forth this idealized idea of western expansion that directly contradicts what the Wapiti tribe endures. This of course is a personal take of mine, but I sometimes pull it into my romanticism unit for my class. The students seem more interested!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsV5FpHVMXI

How did romantics view masculinity? What were their ideals of masculinity and what're some examples of romantic masculine expression? Did masculinity change at all during this time period? Are there analyses or specific stories that I can look at to get an idea?

I’m looking for a good anthology of William Blake’s prophetic books. Specifically one that includes the illustrations but also has modern readable type and not just the prints on their own. Ive been obsessed with its cosmology, art and ideas and would love to have it in one nice to look at place. Any help would be appreciated.

Often the word “meaning” is used when dealing with philosophical topics regarding why we get up in the morning and do what we do, especially as someone who isn’t spiritual or religious. However, I don’t prefer using this word. Sometimes I want to replace it with value, but if I replace it with value then I can no longer say there’s no “inherent value,” because there is.

For reductionists, we can strip the world of inherent abstract value, but we can’t deny the ecological value around us every day. We can’t deny how pollination, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling affect our daily life. Or the reality that every organism plays some sort of role in the interconnectedness of biological life.

Sometimes I get lost in reductionist views, usually when my emotions are overwhelming or my heart is broken. But something always draws me back to a place of wonder. And that is John Keats’ very simple statement in a letter to his brothers.

In 1817 he penned a letter to his brothers and at the very end mentioned his coined phrase, negative capability.

“Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.”

As someone who naturally relates to Coleridge more than Keats, this reminder always illuminates and quiets my endless reductionism. Rather than stripping everything down to nothing, I start to build things out of nothing. And I feel more at home and at ease in creation, building, and transcending — not reducing all to nothing.

Keats is implying that Coleridge’s endless pursuit of rationalizing everything causes him to miss out on the beauty in uncertainty. His need for complete knowledge marks him incapable of embracing half-knowledge and the value of mystery. I wonder if Coleridge, in our current culture, would have found our access to information a beneficial thing or a hindrance to his creativity.

I know what Keats would have thought. And at my core, as much as I enjoy relentless research and learning, I agree with Keats.

We live in a time where we can look up anything, forgetting that there once existed a time when no one knew what the sun was, why it rose every day, what a sunset was, and they survived just fine. Understanding every morsel of life isn’t necessary, we only think it is because information is so readily available. Because of that shift, we now equate truth with the complete stripping down of everything around us, rather than the building and expanding of everything around us.

We look for truth in atoms, in the dark basement of rationalization, instead of looking outward (or not looking for it at all).

Negative capability challenges this modern compulsion. It encourages us to embrace the unknown. And why? Why would we embrace uncertainty?

Innovation often comes out of uncertainty. Which reminds me of the Einstein quote, “I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence and the truth comes to me.” How often do our greatest ideas come during showers or walks or long drives?

Creative minds often dwell in spaces where not everything is known or predictable, so Keats was on to something when he said the sanctum of mystery is necessary for a great poet.

What if we aren’t trying to be poets though?

In science and math, as shown by Einstein, breakthroughs often come from those willing to explore the unknown without trying to reduce or explain every facet. Take for instance the legendary Paul Erdős or Andrew Wiles’ romantic pursuit of Fermat’s Last Theorem. There is beauty and creativity (and dare I say poetry?) even in mathematical pursuits.

Embracing a more phenomenological stance can lead to innovative ideas which rigid approaches might overlook. By embracing negative capability instead of purely objective or quantitative facts, we elevate ourselves from the basement of rationality into creativity. It’s an expansion of our minds and lives, rather than a constant pursuit of reducing everything around us to insignificance. Rather than disprove value, we sit in the small silences of life and create value. We bring life back to life.

Here's the song in question. It is a very echo-ey and reverb-y recording (out of my control, sorry), and I am fairly certain of it to be a romantic-era composition for organ, though it may be composed for piano perhaps. If anyone could point me in the direction of any specific composer or piece, help is much appreciated! :)