Rule And Energy Analysis

J.D. Scott actually gave the name to the Movement by capitalizing it in his Spectator article “In the Movement’’. He agrees that: “The English literary scene has not been transformed in such a way since the 1930s,and contrasts the social, political and moral consciousness of that age with seeming of the 1950s, consciousness of that age with a lost idealism and in terms of a vigilant readjustment to an unsettled postwar ironic England: The Movement, as well being anti-phoney, is anti-wet; skeptical, robust ,ironic, prepared to be as comfortable in a wicked, commercial, threatened world which doesn’t look, anyway, as if it’s going to be changed much by a couple of handfuls of young English writers” (Scott 400).
The anthology which had the greatest
The Movement poets, in this respect are seen to represent a new ‘classicism’ in English poetry. Yet it is clear throughout Rule and Energy that this disbelieve of exaggerated rhetoric and large emotional gestures is only one aspect of a much broader postwar tendency. Press claims that the most outstanding characteristic feature of English poetry in these years is: “the general retreat from direct comment on or involvement with any political or social doctrine” (Press
A distaste for sensational journalism can be detected in the Movement’s critics, a narrow view is taken by some in a sense that the only bonafide movement is one in which all poets gather and others seem symptomatic of dislike of being associated with any group activity. Most of the disavowals were made in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the writers were commencing to move in diverse directions and wanted their individual talents to be known. Movement poets seem sometimes to be writing against their natural impulse in order to adhere to the group principles and they have also given their consent to it. There were certain contradictions too but at least for a time being there was considerable agreement and interaction that was developed by the Movement harmony and