I love Lord Byron and am piecing together a future post featuring him as the Byronic Hero, but for now this post will have to do.
Lord Byron was a British poet during the Romantic period (early 1800s), and was Romantic in every sense and breath of the word; in fact, he helped give it its definition. A complicated figure, he was often misunderstood, and was once described by a close female acquaintance as being “mad, bad and dangerous to know.” Critics cited him for being bold and crass because (amongst other things) he described feelings and actions that were taboo subjects during his time; but did he care? Pffft, no. He did what he wanted.
Here he is in his "exotic" Albanian attire. A lot of people thought this was really weird, but look at him, look at that face, he is owning this outfit.
Despite his obvious flaws, his writing propelled him into the national spotlight and he became one of Britian’s greatest celebrities. I wrote a paper for one of my English classes titled “A Rock Star’s First Kiss: Hedonism and Moral Reform in Lord Byron’s ‘The First Kiss of Love.’” In the essay I talk about why Lord Byron became such a huge phenomenon. His rockstar status got to the point where there were even Lord Byron collecter’s edition plates made–yes, this guy was a big deal; it is no exaggeration to call him one of the world’s first major celebrities.
In case you have ever wondered what exactly it is that an English major does during his or her four years of college, here is the introduction to my essay about Byron that I wrote last summer:
Often hailed as “the first rock star,” the Romantic celebrity Lord Byron’s fame came from both his literature and his life. In her essay, “Tainted Love and Romantic Literary Celebrity,” Clara Tuite defines celebrity as “the point at which the public figure engages interest at the level of private life,” and she establishes Byron’s celebrity through his notorious “love life” (60). Coined “Byromania” by his wife, Byron’s life and literature were peddled fodder to the gossip-hungry, scandal-starved British public. With the public’s interest engaged, his personal life entered theirs. In awe, his many critics (both in and after his time) have wondered what exactly it was about this man that ignited a nation’s—and eventually a world’s—avid interest. The answer: unabashed hedonism. Incubated in the liberal precepts of the romantic period, and schooled in the life of hard knocks, the Byronic Hero emerged, cranked up the literary volume, and shattered the mold of canty, prude prose perpetuated by the enlightenment, harbored by religion, and worshiped by tradition. One of Byron’s earliest poems, “The First Kiss of Love” (1806), written in his teenage years, evidences his budding hedonistic propensities and his brazen angst with the culture’s restrictive mores. Byron wrote during a period of great political, societal, moral, and religious change; and while his readers may not have openly shared his sentiments, they were enthralled and captivated by them. This captivation led to fanaticism, creating fans, and giving birth to the first “modern celebrity,” something Mark Bostridge equates to “the modern rock star” (1). As a result of his literature, the ensuing public interest in, and fascination with, Byron’s debaucheries exhibited a shift in social morality, and a tolerance for decadent behavior that was formerly unspoken taboo. A close reading of, “The First Kiss of Love,” not only establishes Byron’s unabashed hedonism, it hint’s at his generation’s moral restlessness, appetite for relinquished religiosity, and desire for a liberated life, even if it is to be lived vicariously.
Good stuff right? Now I bet you’re just dying to read the rest of the essay. In any case, Byron was awesome. Like one of my other favorite literary heroes, Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron was a unique individual that broke all of society’s rules, and in doing so he helped pave the way for progress. He was hated and loved by many, but he was talked about by all. He became a scapegoat for many of society’s problems, yet in doing so, he gave society permission to talk about those problems.
In my film class I learned that it is through conversation that we arrive at comprehension. The problems of anyone’s time are not going to be solved unless they are discussed. This goes with our personal problems as well. So often we feel that we have to conform to what we think society wants us to be that we lose sight of who we “really” are. How refreshing would it be to just do and say whatever you wanted? Not in some crazy “f*** you world!” fashion, but in a healthy way, one that promotes communication, honesty, and trust; a way that cultivates a culture of tolerance and un-jedgementalness, where we can be who we want and not fear the fiery wrath of our harshest critics: our friends and yes, sadly enough, our families. So, thank you Lord Byron for just being you, the good and the bad, because we learned a great deal from both.
We love you Lord Byron!
In my classic lazy-writer fashion, I will end with a quote. This is Lord Byron trying–like we all do–to describe what is quite often undescribable: himself. Like my other post on “life”where I quoted Emerson, here Lord Byron is explaining how he can and does change:
‘People take for gospel all I say, and go away continually with false impressions . . . I am so changeable, being everything by turns and nothing long – such a strange melange of good and evil . . . But there are two sentiments to which I am constant – a strong sense of liberty, and a detestation of cant, and neither is calculated to gain me friends.’
Lord Byron
The word “cant” as Byron uses it means “hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature.” The cant that Byron is referring to is that petty, judgmental small talk. The kind of talk that only seeks to label and destroy someones character, but it’s a talk done in a sanctimonious manner; often hypocritical, and always with the sneer of jealousy, insecurity, and trifling defamation. I know of one “culture” in particular that uses religion to justify criticizing others, as if it’s okay to talk about and slander them because they are an example of what not to do. Yes, let’s criticize them for their mistakes and label them a wrongdoer, that will make everything better! When really all is does it make us feel “better” about ourselves.
Returning again to the idea of change, or us being afraid or unwilling to change. So often we label change as bad. We have an idea about ourselves and the world that we perpetuate, “this is just how it is.” So we actually try not to change, and we stop others from doing it; yet, can’t change be good too? Don’t we have to change to evolve? Yes friends, yes we do, and evolve we will once we can free ourselves from the shackles of “self:” that person we think we were born as and have to be, the person that others expect us to be, that person we hate being sometimes, but submit in times of crisis to the phrase, “It’s just who I am.” That is rubbish. You are who you want to be: the good and the bad. And guess what, just like they did with Lord Byron, people will love you for you, the “good” and the “bad.” Because when it comes down to it, as humans, we are made up of both. But even just to use the labels “good” and “bad” feels wrong. So I will rescind my statement and say that, when it comes down to it, we are just one big grey area, a big grey area that really just needs and desperately wants to be loved and accepted for who they are, but quite often feels continually judged for being anything but white. Well, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m grey. Will you love me anyway?
(I thought it was appropriate that I end Byron’s post with a rhyme)
reading
After leaving his profession as a priest he was in the church on Good Friday, it was a beautiful spring day and he was 23. In church, he saw a 17 year old girl named Laura; it was love at first sight. She was already married to an older man and refused Petrarch because of that, but did that stop his love? Absolutely not.
