The tyger

[Albus Dumbledore]

...........

[JCamilo]

The theme of this poem is the existense of evil. In a sense, Blake is more religious than philosophical (if we consider the philosophy of the Romanticism the rational philosophy developed during the enlightiment), Blake is a mystic. If we compare him with, for example, Shelley, we are going to find two different poets in this sense. Also, Blake themes are not as humanist, do not have the commom nation, etc that romanticism used to have.
In other hand the duality, the conflict is very romantic. He is moving in direction that is not classicist and bring up Shakespeare/Milton references that are typical in the english romanticism (although not exactly in this poem), also have some notion about children education...

[lisa t]

Hi,

In stanza 2 Blake refers to Prometheus (fire) and Icharus (wings). The romantics ofter referred to greek mythology in their work.
In stanza 5 he is referring to the war in heaven when satan was cast out. The Romantics tended to be more accepting of satan than their predecessors and saw him as an anti-stablishment figure at a time of revolution (French, American war of independance).
Perhaps Blake was also questioning the good and evil in his own soul, 'could he who made the lamb make thee?' (Songs of innocence, The Lamb'.

[blazeofglory]

The theme of this poem is the existense of evil. In a sense, Blake is more religious than philosophical (if we consider the philosophy of the Romanticism the rational philosophy developed during the enlightiment), Blake is a mystic. If we compare him with, for example, Shelley, we are going to find two different poets in this sense. Also, Blake themes are not as humanist, do not have the commom nation, etc that romanticism used to have.
In other hand the duality, the conflict is very romantic. He is moving in direction that is not classicist and bring up Shakespeare/Milton references that are typical in the english romanticism (although not exactly in this poem), also have some notion about children education...

Blake is much more than that, and here the tiger is not simply a thing of evil, and there is much more than that, of course a commingling of both devilishness and goodness.

Please read deeply and absorbingly you will come upon something different in his poems, somethiong different than you imagined.

[Stephanne]

I do agree that the poem is about much more than about the existence of evil. This poem was written and re-written several times by Blake, and he worked specifically to remove the "evilness" of the tiger.In the first two versions, the poem is indeed about Evil, but the tiger qualitatively changes in the next draft. Its evident that the tiger is the force needed to rise above the corruption that "experience" brings. It's terrible, but it's also beautiful, like a storm.
The symbolism used in the poem is largely Blake's personal symbolism. Like many of Blake's other poems where the symbols have to be decoded.

[JCamilo]

That is evil to Blake, not just a moral power, but a power of change and creation. The poem still part of duality evil/good as it is song of innocence, song of experience.
And obviously, in 7 lines I can not say everything about Blake. Not my intention. Just to set apart romantic elements in this poem. The question asks for a reduction and asnwering that Blake could easily be not-romantic would not answer it.

[Stephanne]

The tyger is about creation, definitely, the creation of a power to rise above the forces of corruption, and are you saying that this power has a dual nature?

[JCamilo]

In a simple way, Blake was dealing with that silly question "If God is all powerful, how he allowed evil to be created? Wouldn't be evil's God creation as well?"
One way that it was explained and that seems to be have some influence over's Blake was that there was a creator primeval and he have both evil and good nature and God, with only the good nature. The Tyger is a force of nature, strong, wonderful and yet able to cause evil and damage. He is not pure yet fascinating.
That is a simplistic way, part of Swenderborg heritage, Blake moved a little ahead but that is the basic.

[USA187]

In a simple way, Blake was dealing with that silly question "If God is all powerful, how he allowed evil to be created? Wouldn't be evil's God creation as well?"
One way that it was explained and that seems to be have some influence over's Blake was that there was a creator primeval and he have both evil and good nature and God, with only the good nature. The Tyger is a force of nature, strong, wonderful and yet able to cause evil and damage. He is not pure yet fascinating.
That is a simplistic way, part of Swenderborg heritage, Blake moved a little ahead but that is the basic.

I don't think that's the question Blake was asking. I think it was more of, if God created good, what is the purpose of bad? A more of, why are we here question, than a why is evil here? Thy fearful symmetry to me implies the yin/yang of good & Evil. One can't exist w/o the other. I also think the tyger alludes to the "tyger" in us... the choice between the lamb and Tyger.

[JCamilo]

Nice, except that Blake had no ying yang thing, except that he did read Swenderborg, except that you only ask what is the purpose of bad as you said, if you have God that is all powerful to have created it. Otherwise there is no question, evil exists just because it as power outside the Creator.

[USA187]

Nice, except that Blake had no ying yang thing, except that he did read Swenderborg, except that you only ask what is the purpose of bad as you said, if you have God that is all powerful to have created it. Otherwise there is no question, evil exists just because it as power outside the Creator.

I do not understand what you said at all. Please try using proper punctuation.

[whiteangel]

Nice, except that Blake had no ying yang thing, except that he did read Swenderborg, except that you only ask what is the purpose of bad as you said, if you have God that is all powerful to have created it. Otherwise there is no question, evil exists just because it as power outside the Creator.

Blake has no ying/yang?
I mean all his work is about the two "contrary state" without which there can be "no progression"- thus are Ying and Yang not two contraries of their own?
He did not just read Swendenborg, he was a part of this insane mans Church....but then Blake...later in his life, moved away from this church and developed his own more radical theology.



BTW. for the record- there was nothing wrong with your punctuation




The poem is very much about how God can create a "meek, mild lamb" and a "fearful...tyger". hence I suppose it does question the benevolence of God - like many of his poems e.g. The Fly. I think he is saying that without the "fearful symmetry of the tyger" the good in the Lamb can never be recognised and vice-versa....in conclusion the two need each other and that is why God has created them. The poem therefore answers the question it poses, not by itself but using its contrary.

[JCamilo]

Blake has no ying/yang?
I mean all his work is about the two "contrary state" without which there can be "no progression"- thus are Ying and Yang not two contraries of their own?

Well, truly Yang and Yang is not about opposites (which the poster meant by the dictomy between evil and good) and that the source of Blake is not budhism but a gnosticism that traveled by Swendenborg (among others) until reached Blake. That is what I meant, of course, there is similarities which we can explore.


He did not just read Swendenborg, he was a part of this insane mans Church....but then Blake...later in his life, moved away from this church and developed his own more radical theology.

Yeah, Blake had his own original ideas, just wanted to imply that his idea of origiem of evil and good had origem with Swendenborg visions. Of course, Blake is much better than that and could imagine a universe on his own.



BTW. for the record- there was nothing wrong with your punctuation

Thanks, but I confess that I like when people are confused :D





The poem is very much about how God can create a "meek, mild lamb" and a "fearful...tyger". hence I suppose it does question the benevolence of God - like many of his poems e.g. The Fly. I think he is saying that without the "fearful symmetry of the tyger" the good in the Lamb can never be recognised and vice-versa....in conclusion the two need each other and that is why God has created them. The poem therefore answers the question it poses, not by itself but using its contrary. Blake once infamously said that "without contraries is no progression" in his Marriage of Heaven and Hell [which was interestingly, an extension of Swedenborg's book "heaven and hell"] and here it seems that without the Lamb the question about the tyger is unanswered, but in using the lamb...we can progress.... his readers are therefore forced to experience the dual nature of his poetry and witness that with contraries there IS progression.

Yes, yes. Must add that from Swendeborg there is the idea that evil was a primitive force, necessary for the creation of the universe. Once it is created, it was necessary only good (hence Jesus and the "other god" and the new testament) and Blake started from there (until he created his own cosmology). This way we can see why the Tyger is picked, since it can be a source of primitive power (and natural and necessary evil, the predator). Evil and good were not concepts to nullify each other, but necessary impulses that add "vital" impulse. Thsi way, I admit, they can be ying-yang like.

[whiteangel]

Another reason many have said that he picked a Tiger is because he was apparently one of the first people to ever see it, but I feel that its a weak interpretation....logically the Tyger is the direct opposite of a Lamb - In the sense one is "meek and mild" and one is "fearful" and so the two would act as good contraries.

do you think that the poem has any sort of political or a social message?

[whiteangel]

P.s.
are there any other Blake poems that you like?

[JCamilo]

Another reason many have said that he picked a Tiger is because he was apparently one of the first people to ever see it, but I feel that its a weak interpretation....logically the Tyger is the direct opposite of a Lamb - In the sense one is "meek and mild" and one is "fearful" and so the two would act as good contraries.

do you think that the poem has any sort of political or a social message?

I think that reason is clearly a mistake. I mean, there was Marco Polo, the tyger was one of the zodiacal chinese signs and looking quickly over the net Lineaus gave the scientific classification of the tiger back in 1758...
Yeah, I remember the whole Songs of Inocence and Songs of Experience are not meant to be interpretated as isolated poems but as a whole work. I remember I read there is an short of pedagogical intention from Blake with those works, which are supposed to be read by the youth. This make up for some short of social message on his work and If it is not true, I prefer to think it is because will make his message and intention to reach the "Innocence" and protect them be a bit like his actions.
I like The Angel, A Divine Image, A Dream, Love's Secret, Mock On Voltaire and Rosseau, The Sick Rose, Silent Silent Night... others, Blake is among my favorite writers.

[whiteangel]

I think that reason is clearly a mistake. I mean, there was Marco Polo, the tyger was one of the zodiacal chinese signs and looking quickly over the net Lineaus gave the scientific classification of the tiger back in 1758...
Yeah, I remember the whole Songs of Inocence and Songs of Experience are not meant to be interpretated as isolated poems but as a whole work. I remember I read there is an short of pedagogical intention from Blake with those works, which are supposed to be read by the youth. This make up for some short of social message on his work and If it is not true, I prefer to think it is because will make his message and intention to reach the "Innocence" and protect them be a bit like his actions.
I like The Angel, A Divine Image, A Dream, Love's Secret, Mock On Voltaire and Rosseau, The Sick Rose, Silent Silent Night... others, Blake is among my favorite writers.



I mean i like Him, [I am studying him for an exam ...which is sooo very soon and I have very little understanding of him and his works i think, i struggle on meter and verse a lot ...
I mean He is highly complex and all this poetry is insane because there is just SOOO much to it! argh i am stressing now :flare:

[JCamilo]

I dunno about exams, I glad that english literature is not taught in Brazil, anyways, just imagine how he complained that his illustrations are meant to be published with the poems so they would help the understantment. Tell your teacher he was the inventor of comic books :D

[whiteangel]

LOl the infernal method just a way for him to preach democracy to be honest---

[JCamilo]

yeah, it is no wonder that XIX century had such awesome book illustrators. It was a great help to give impulse for romances and novels. (And comic books are pretty much democratic :D ) But the funny part is Blake believing he is actually helping anyone to understand anything and in the end, he just managed to add complexity to the interpretations of his works since everyone is always looking to his works as they try to find the secret message on persian carpets.
But you see, form and substance in this social message in Blake's work.

[whiteangel]

yeah, it is no wonder that XIX century had such awesome book illustrators. It was a great help to give impulse for romances and novels. (And comic books are pretty much democratic :D ) But the funny part is Blake believing he is actually helping anyone to understand anything and in the end, he just managed to add complexity to the interpretations of his works since everyone is always looking to his works as they try to find the secret message on persian carpets.
But you see, form and substance in this social message in Blake's work.




I mean if there was no interpretation to his poetry, it would literarly be a load of muble-jumble.....so I mean it NEEDS to have a literary meaning or else it is not literature but a puzzle.

[JCamilo]

Puzzles are literature also, do you know the Green Snake and Lili by Goethe? A joke he pulled, a faery tale using the massonary codes and all. He never explained it, just laughed. Or we have Lewis Carroll, Mallarmé and Joyce. Because in the end, interpretations does not mean understandment.

But in Blake case, yes, I agree. There is strong allegoric motifs on his work, which means he had reasons behind everything. I think the easier/nursery diction and rhyme is indeed to acess the so called youth or at least, represent his intention towards inocence. I compare with a later work - with someone who indeed had more capacity to address to kids (and to think that in Blake time, pedagogy was just starting, so it was not in their mindset the psychological difference between kids and adults, or at least, not in the degree we have today) - that is Stevenson Children Garden of Verse. He also works with nursery rhymes but the themes are much less metaphysical than Blake.
Blake was not gratuitous, but in his own complexity - Dr.Blake and Mr.Blake - there is a different between his intent and accomplishment. Good for us, because the complexity from such apparently clear symbolism is what make his poetry so strong. He is better read where the light is dim and the darkness just a shroud.

[whiteangel]

literary puzzles are no longer puzzles when interpretations have been applied to them....hmm interesting are they? i mean surely once you decipher it, than its no longer a puzzle....

His complexity definitely makes his poetry much more interesting, i suppose there it is always fun deciphering a puzzle and that is what analysis of Blake's work quite literally is.
Im looking at the Lamb now, and just concluded that there is no innocence in the world of innocence in Blakes "Songs of innocence" because there so much hidden experience in this apparently innocent world - making it far from innocent. He uses so many literary techniques to cover this up, i.e. he uses pastoral imagery, liberal use of repetition luring the reader into this sense of comfort only to find on a close reading that there is a complex rhyme scheme within this simplistically appeared poem [although the first stanza is adheres to a ABAB patter, this does not follow in stanza's 2 and 3, but appears again in for, only to disappear in 5 - very irregular, and luring don't you think?]. Hence his world of innocence is if anything, more dangerous than his world of experience for at least in that world one actually is aware of complexity, the diction is harsher, the verse more complex.....but that is all expected....making it less surprising and thus more innocent...

[JCamilo]

literary puzzles are no longer puzzles when interpretations have been applied to them....hmm interesting are they? i mean surely once you decipher it, than its no longer a puzzle....

There is those who enjoy the traval as much as the vacation, or even more, no?


His complexity definitely makes his poetry much more interesting, i suppose there it is always fun deciphering a puzzle and that is what analysis of Blake's work quite literally is.
Im looking at the Lamb now, and just concluded that there is no innocence in the world of innocence in Blakes "Songs of innocence" because there so much hidden experience in this apparently innocent world - making it far from innocent. He uses so many literary techniques to cover this up, i.e. he uses pastoral imagery, liberal use of repetition luring the reader into this sense of comfort only to find on a close reading that there is a complex rhyme scheme within this simplistically appeared poem [although the first stanza is adheres to a ABAB patter, this does not follow in stanza's 2 and 3, but appears again in for, only to disappear in 5 - very irregular, and luring don't you think?]. Hence his world of innocence is if anything, more dangerous than his world of experience for at least in that world one actually is aware of complexity, the diction is harsher, the verse more complex.....but that is all expected....making it less surprising and thus more innocent...

Makes you think how a big challege to write to children is the language. If you render it to make it less complex, you have a dated and maybe, not lasting work, less artistic. It is necessary something else to be atractive and when it happens, the work no longers is just for children... like the experience hidden in Blake poems. He certainly wanted to reach those with less developed vocabulary but no intention to turn into one of them, hence he is bit like his own notion of evil, hiding the poetry as a form of corruption while using apparently simple forms, or a worm inside an apple, eating slowly from inside. No wonder he was not well understood by the other romantic poets, it takes time to reach the surface of the apple.

[whiteangel]

There is those who enjoy the traval as much as the vacation, or even more, no? [QUOTE]


:thumbs_up yes there are those ;) i suppose just not me eh...



[QUOTE] Makes you think how a big challege to write to children is the language. If you render it to make it less complex, you have a dated and maybe, not lasting work, less artistic. It is necessary something else to be atractive and when it happens, the work no longers is just for children... like the experience hidden in Blake poems. He certainly wanted to reach those with less developed vocabulary but no intention to turn into one of them, hence he is bit like his own notion of evil, hiding the poetry as a form of corruption while using apparently simple forms, or a worm inside an apple, eating slowly from inside. No wonder he was not well understood by the other romantic poets, it takes time to reach the surface of the apple.


I personally don't think he was catering to children at all - his works are far to political, democratic, social to serve that purpose....Issac watts does- similarly structured like Blake for childeren.

yes the worm is exactly how Blake eats away his own created innocence in his songs. However, you cannot Blame the other Romantics [if we classify Blake as one that is] because Blake begins with a red apple, and by the time one looks again, it is green.....the difference is big...even though it seems small.

[JCamilo]

I do not think he did either, it was just a nice way to think it. He aims as you point to a class of readers yet to be "Instructed", maybe the youth (as his nature towards change would lead him) and not exactly kids. Altough he goes for language that could be what we would latter link to it. Of course, when Blake wrote there was no children literature yet as we know, so, he would not know the difference. It is just us rewriting the past.

Yeah, I do not blame the others - Coleridge and Wordsworth are clearly walking to a different path and theme, altough we could say that the search for a simple daily language could entice Blake. Keats was lost (and much latter) on his own world and aesthetic dream in search of the small and sublime and not the impact of Blake. Shelley too skeptic and Byron, who could maybe like the individualist fight of Blake, was too different to get with him. But they should have reckoniged Blake efforts towards a new diction and metric.

[whiteangel]

Children In Blake's times were not viewed as children; they were workers of the industrial revolution, they were victims of chimney sweeping, rascal attacks, basically treated like adults...arguable in Blake's times the child never existed, unless you were affluent --- i mean this is what frustrates me, the fact that the child didin't exist in his era, and he as a social reformist- omits the child as well.....for he too presents them like adults in much of his poetry and the adult like the child....very confusing i do not understand why, mockery? sarcasm? if so there is not enough evidence to prove from the text.
I mean I don't even consider Blake as a Romantic....the rest well clearly THEY fall into the batch.

[JCamilo]

There is many reasons. People lived less, so they had to mature quicker. Also, the children mortality was too big, they could not care so much for all growing phase if it could end that fast. Among poor, as long it was possible to work or marry, children have to move foward and act like addults.
It was necessary the social changes caused by the Revolution, Enlightment and even guys like Blake. When Rousseau start to deal with education, he starts to see the children with a different light - Blake is hinting at it, but far from having the philosophical capacity to develop it (only with the german nationalism they would really start to move foward), plus the raising of the burgoise class, created a new class of individuals that needed a new education: they are educated for liberal professions, not for politics or handwork, and better alimentation and the build of the family with more time with the mother (plus the feminism giving them this power), raizing life expectation changed the notion of what is a children and they could start to see also the psychological differences between one and addult.
Do not blame Blake for being a man of his time; using children as tiny addults as the form to notice them.
(I am not bothered by genre definitions, I can fit Blake on definitions of romantics, but it is really pointless. So I wont discuss this unless it is for fun).

[whiteangel]

Ha, well I really cannot fit him in that "Romantic" category personally.....well unless we say that he was the FIRST romantic and the LAST, for the rest do not follow his extremism....one only has to read Marriage of Heaven and Hell and then compare it to Shelly, Keats, Byron, Coleridge etc for that.



Yes Blake was a man of his time, but his views were not of his time, he was a supporter of democracy and of the French revolution, he hated the church and all other institutions, from what i could deduce of M of H+H, he "was of the devils party" without knowing it -[exactly what he himself said about Milton]. His priority is social realism rather than the imagination and to focus on how society can be improved.....and clearly childeren and the harsh way in which they live is one of his targets - which is why he gives the Child a voice in his poetry- shockingly radical for his times... yet the voice he gives them is of an adult....well perhaps to show that the child can never escape the world of experience just as the adult can never escape innocence, for they are like he concluded ; "two contrary states....necessary for human progression"

Perhaps is all I can conclude with. Darn!

[whiteangel]

But.. Hmm what do you make of Blake's presentation of adults in his poetry?
I always got the impression that are the darkness in innocence....
They are separated by allegorical figures i think, of the father and the mother but they never dominate either world...they are just used by Blake to portray his themes...but is that not the purpose of all characters?

[JCamilo]

Ha, well I really cannot fit him in that "Romantic" category personally.....well unless we say that he was the FIRST romantic and the LAST, for the rest do not follow his extremism....one only has to read Marriage of Heaven and Hell and then compare it to Shelly, Keats, Byron, Coleridge etc for that.


I am doing just for fun, but if we compare Shelley to Wordsworth you will find differences too. Of course the genre thing is a way to put in a bag apples and oranges just because they are fruits. But there is many things that can link Blake to those poets besides the quality of their work.
For example, Wordsworth. He was not into the cosmic thing of Blake, looking themes in the daily life. But he was also up for the renovation of rhyme, metric and vocabulary. Also, I remember in the Preface to Lyricall Ballads he also seeks some purity or innocence of language on idiots, communers and villagers, somehow they would not be "corrupted" by the past (which means many things such as the norms of metric, and ideals).
Shelley, Byron, Coleridge and Wordsworth are all under heavy influence of the french revolution ideals, just like Blake.
If They looked for a past in the greek-roman myths or some short of celtic background, Blake also looked the past, just in the biblical past. There is the great influence of John Milton on all of them. Somehow they all looked after paths to go down to hell and vallued aspects of Lucifer in their works. (not exactly Keats, but well). Blake was clearly more "dark" or grotesque (which can be a romantic trait as well, Poe can be classificated as Romantic also ,and thinking well, Poe and Blake would do a good pair).
But of course, doing this as fun, and depends what we mean as romanticism, blake social ideals may put him in the same bag as Victor Hugo, who knows...



Yes Blake was a man of his time, but his views were not of his time, he was a supporter of democracy and of the French revolution, he hated the church and all other institutions, from what i could deduce of M of H+H, he "was of the devils party" without knowing it -[exactly what he himself said about Milton]. His priority is social realism rather than the imagination and to focus on how society can be improved.....and clearly childeren and the harsh way in which they live is one of his targets - which is why he gives the Child a voice in his poetry- shockingly radical for his times... yet the voice he gives them is of an adult....well perhaps to show that the child can never escape the world of experience just as the adult can never escape innocence, for they are like he concluded ; "two contrary states....necessary for human progression"

Well, that is what I mean. It was the change caused by those with democracy/socialism/equality in their mind that finally allowed the second wave of changes that helped to bring the queston of kids unto scene. Blake may be giving the impulse of the first step, i doubt he could go futher.
But yeah, he had everything on the devil side. Looked the abyss for too long I guess. Which is funny, idealism and dark nature, he is a byronic (non) hero :D. I do not think Blake could have even imagined a different voice for children, so you must be right. Infancy is a state that must be put on montion by addults, which is experience working on innocence...
As adults, you just make me think about then. I suppose they are just archetypes because what you said about using a language that can be understood. Also, maybe he saw addults as individuals. Blake. Dante. Swenderborg. Milton. Idols with clay feet, something to move foward, and this may be his visionary side...But I am not sure from where i got those...


Perhaps is all I can conclude with. Darn!

That is what I said about puzzles. Even if you arrive in the correct interpretation (exactly what Blake meant), this will never be the last. There will always be new interpretations coming up.

[whiteangel]

I am doing just for fun, but if we compare Shelley to Wordsworth you will find differences too. Of course the genre thing is a way to put in a bag apples and oranges just because they are fruits. But there is many things that can link Blake to those poets besides the quality of their work.

Well there are similarities between them- greatly at that. They all adore Prometheus.....Shelly writes a play on him and Byron a poem.... they all love nature, they all are quite wealthy individuals, they focus very little on social realism - these similarities which are so consistent bind them into the label of a "Romantic"....Blake cannot fit in this for he does not share these similarities. Of course the literary context will place him there and so will the literary time-line but that does not mean we can not think beyond them.




For example, Wordsworth. He was not into the cosmic thing of Blake, looking themes in the daily life. But he was also up for the renovation of rhyme, metric and vocabulary. Also, I remember in the Preface to Lyricall Ballads he also seeks some purity or innocence of language on idiots, communers and villagers, somehow they would not be "corrupted" by the past (which means many things such as the norms of metric, and ideals).
Shelley, Byron, Coleridge and Wordsworth are all under heavy influence of the french revolution ideals, just like Blake.
If They looked for a past in the greek-roman myths or some short of celtic background, Blake also looked the past, just in the biblical past. There is the great influence of John Milton on all of them. Somehow they all looked after paths to go down to hell and vallued aspects of Lucifer in their works. (not exactly Keats, but well). Blake was clearly more "dark" or grotesque (which can be a romantic trait as well, Poe can be classificated as Romantic also ,and thinking well, Poe and Blake would do a good pair).
But of course, doing this as fun, and depends what we mean as romanticism, blake social ideals may put him in the same bag as Victor Hugo, who knows...

Is not then every poet a poet.....for it defies categorising them to say that they all seek sources Bible/Milton.....conciseness will be a better method to categories these poets...because then we are left with JUST POETS as a batch not movements in time.





Well, that is what I mean. It was the change caused by those with democracy/socialism/equality in their mind that finally allowed the second wave of changes that helped to bring the queston of kids unto scene. Blake may be giving the impulse of the first step, i doubt he could go futher.

Ahh harsh, well he cant can he? not if his work is being read by about 50 people max....due to his infernal method and idiosyncratic ways of producing it.



But yeah, he had everything on the devil side. Looked the abyss for too long I guess. Which is funny, idealism and dark nature, he is a byronic (non) hero :D. I do not think Blake could have even imagined a different voice for children, so you must be right. Infancy is a state that must be put on montion by addults, which is experience working on innocence...
As adults, you just make me think about then. I suppose they are just archetypes because what you said about using a language that can be understood. Also, maybe he saw addults as individuals. Blake. Dante. Swenderborg. Milton. Idols with clay feet, something to move foward, and this may be his visionary side...But I am not sure from where i got those...

hmm.... though they have much more of a purpose.....too much of a significance.



Even if you arrive in the correct interpretation (exactly what Blake meant), this will never be the last. There will always be new interpretations coming up.


Making Literature a unsolvable one.

[JCamilo]

Well there are similarities between them- greatly at that. They all adore Prometheus.....Shelly writes a play on him and Byron a poem.... they all love nature, they all are quite wealthy individuals, they focus very little on social realism - these similarities which are so consistent bind them into the label of a "Romantic"....Blake cannot fit in this for he does not share these similarities. Of course the literary context will place him there and so will the literary time-line but that does not mean we can not think beyond them.

Shelley have focus on socialism and except love for Nature, you cannt fit Keats there (and Coleridge was not really wealthy).



Is not then every poet a poet.....for it defies categorising them to say that they all seek sources Bible/Milton.....conciseness will be a better method to categories these poets...because then we are left with JUST POETS as a batch not movements in time.

Of course, hence i do not mind the genres things. From afar we can place anyone anywhere. But if we look close, only the individuality matter. Of all the list I made the only more serious thing to consider is the Miltonian Influence and the maybe the Wordsworth thing about vocabulary... The rest are just coincidences which will not help us to enjoy the poetry of any of them.


Ahh harsh, well he cant can he? not if his work is being read by about 50 people max....due to his infernal method and idiosyncratic ways of producing it.

Heh, in a few decades books would be cheaper and more people would be reading. About the sametime Coleridge was complaning how many are reading and writing, how easy was to pull books and that was damaging the quality of reading...


hmm.... though they have much more of a purpose.....too much of a significance.

probally,but you got me by surprise and I had to improvise :D


Making Literature a unsolvable one.

Or that is the solution that grants literature capacity of renovation and immortality, so we can be here talking about a dude that wrote 200 years ago and probally have nothing to do with us.

[whiteangel]

Shelley have focus on socialism and except love for Nature, you cannt fit Keats there (and Coleridge was not really wealthy).

Ahhh we will just agree to disagree, Or else I will have to start posting paragraphs on why he is not a Romantic! :p
and Coleridge was MUCH more wealthy then poor Blake who at times lived in extreme poverty






Heh, in a few decades books would be cheaper and more people would be reading. About the sametime Coleridge was complaning how many are reading and writing, how easy was to pull books and that was damaging the quality of reading...

Well, As books become more common, thoughts were able to break free from the restraints from the institutions that Blake hated so much....and eventually democracy prevailed - so Blake did achieve what he set out to, but he couldn't see his achievements because he died.








Or that is the solution that grants literature capacity of renovation and immortality, so we can be here talking about a dude that wrote 200 years ago and probally have nothing to do with us.

True, it is why literature never ages.

[JCamilo]

Ahhh we will just agree to disagree, Or else I will have to start posting paragraphs on why he is not a Romantic! :p
and Coleridge was MUCH more wealthy then poor Blake who at times lived in extreme poverty

Hey, he had to ask money friends and write to pay his debts at some point of his life.
If you seek, I bet you will find that all six have poem that mention a Nightingale too :D


Well, As books become more common, thoughts were able to break free from the restraints from the institutions that Blake hated so much....and eventually democracy prevailed - so Blake did achieve what he set out to, but he couldn't see his achievements because he died.

Well did he? I mean, it would not matter if he succed or not, it is how he did it that matters and I think he would not like much how this democratic age lacks also some degree of religiousity... how is the poem of the tree of death...


True, it is why literature never ages.

Because the journey, because the journey. That is I like to never need to do exams about my favorite books and writers and I can go around as much as I like ;):D

[whiteangel]

Hey, he had to ask money friends and write to pay his debts at some point of his life.
If you seek, I bet you will find that all six have poem that mention a Nightingale too :D [QUOTE]

he really isn't your traditional Romantic.



[QUOTE] Well did he? I mean, it would not matter if he succed or not, it is how he did it that matters and I think he would not like much how this democratic age lacks also some degree of religiousity... how is the poem of the tree of death...

i think he would love the democracy we live in and i think he is not religious at all...... he is anything BUT religious.



Because the journey, because the journey. That is I like to never need to do exams about my favorite books and writers and I can go around as much as I like ;):D

Lucky you! I have to do this exam very soon :( and as you can see i am lining up for failure....well i know very little about Blake.

[JCamilo]

[QUOTE=JCamilo;653752]
he really isn't your traditional Romantic.

Shouldnt all Romantics be non-traditional and rebels at heart? Remember, I only bother with that for fun :p


i think he would love the democracy we live in and i think he is not religious at all...... he is anything BUT religious.

Heh, I think the last think that man would ever be is feeling anything good about anything. Devil sides remember.
But I think he is religous, not in the go to church, catholic, etc sense. But being a man of faith, perhaps imagination and meditation - Not a scientifc man, looking for the pratical explanation of the world we have.


Lucky you! I have to do this exam very soon :( and as you can see i am lining up for failure....well i know very little about Blake.

Well, you know already that he created comic books, children literature, fantasy literature, went mad, walked wiht the devil, didnt like much things, wasnt liked by his peers. You can tell all this to your teacher and compare him to North-American literature, because seems closer to them than the english guys... who knows. your teacher may think you are crazy, you can say you dream a dream and have no idea of what is means, Angel :)

[whiteangel]

Shouldn't all Romantics be non-traditional and rebels at heart? Remember, I only bother with that for fun :p [/QU0TE]

Yes, they should be but they should also possess the fundamentals necessary to actual posses the title of a Romantic and well Blake lacks in these....he is A non-conformist Meaning that he CANNOT conform to ANY movement in literature.....so he CANNOT be a romantic through by definition of a non conformist he cannot conform. I suppose it is bad to take this ontological approach in actually defining a poet and then detracting from that his place in the literary time line -- but heh
;)

[QUOTE] Heh, I think the last think that man would ever be is feeling anything good about anything. Devil sides remember.
But I think he is religious, not in the go to church, catholic, etc sense. But being a man of faith, perhaps imagination and meditation - Not a scientifc man, looking for the practical explanation of the world we have.

Oh Blake is very religious, his work is based around religion....he has wrote bounds on "Angels, God, Heaven Hell, Devil" etc alll these which are religious figures and thus clearly as he wrote about them, he must be religious for you cannot write about things in such detail and knowledge if you do not know them and the fact that he does with such passion implies he was extremely religious.....to great extents...personally i find his extents a little insane... i mean to ask Ezkiel why he "eat dung" is just insane, and to read "the bible of Hell" you his "Particular friend" the devil is verging onto insanity!
Also his structure- well the structure of his "Songs" is very hymn like, displaying that he even the structure of his poetry is religious like the hymns of the Bible. His religious language such as "Lo" which appears in his "Mad Song" and in "Marriage of Heaven and Hell] again displays that not only had he stolen the form of the bible but also the very language of it. Additionally his proverbs of hell, and his "There is no Natural Religion" is also in a argument form, almost like commandments, illustrating his structure once more is Biblically inspired.


You can tell all this to your teacher and compare him to North-American literature, because seems closer to them than the english guys... who knows. your teacher may think you are crazy, you can say you dream a dream and have no idea of what is means, Angel :)

Ah, if it was only a question of telling my teacher that would be fine! it is writing a essay on a exam, on a very unexpected question that scares me.

[JCamilo]

Yes, they should be but they should also possess the fundamentals necessary to actual posses the title of a Romantic and well Blake lacks in these....he is A non-conformist Meaning that he CANNOT conform to ANY movement in literature.....so he CANNOT be a romantic through by definition of a non conformist he cannot conform. I suppose it is bad to take this ontological approach in actually defining a poet and then detracting from that his place in the literary time line -- but heh
;)

I mostly think (more seriously), the genres are just for timeline and shelves organization. In the end, it is a matter of sophistry trying to set apart the individual qualities of any poet to a group (Unless it is a really minor writer, which individuality does not exist, except of a inferior version of another great writer) using something general. Romanticism only became interesting, in my opinion, when it is a representation of the "spirit of century" (XIX) or an extension, Theodor Adorno's like, of the enlightment.



Oh Blake is very religious, his work is based around religion....he has wrote bounds on "Angels, God, Heaven Hell, Devil" etc alll these which are religious figures and thus clearly as he wrote about them, he must be religious for you cannot write about things in such detail and knowledge if you do not know them and the fact that he does with such passion implies he was extremely religious.....to great extents...personally i find his extents a little insane... i mean to ask Ezkiel why he "eat dung" is just insane, and to read "the bible of Hell" you his "Particular friend" the devil is verging onto insanity!

oh, sure. That is not what I meant with religious in the sense of religious pratice, but a religious form of approach - Blake always seeking some transformation (either to hell or heaven, devil's picks his own)... Almost, could say, a truth in the infinite. What people would label him as mystic, but this world does not suffice since there is some short of "reason" guiding him (if he had not find the art as a form of expression, he is certainly the kind of guy with the capacity to create his own religion, because he organized the past to allow his future to be more feasible). As religious, he is probally the real last gnostic genius... nobody else after him was able to go as deeper...



Also his structure- well the structure of his "Songs" is very hymn like, displaying that he even the structure of his poetry is religious like the hymns of the Bible. His religious language such as "Lo" which appears in his "Mad Song" and in "Marriage of Heaven and Hell] again displays that not only had he stolen the form of the bible but also the very language of it. Additionally his proverbs of hell, and his "There is no Natural Religion" is also in a argument form, almost like commandments, illustrating his structure once more is Biblically inspired.

Yeah, if Blake had written in traditional prose, we could be talking of the first fantasy writer (as moderm fantasy goes) inspired in some classical text.



Ah, if it was only a question of telling my teacher that would be fine! it is writing a essay on a exam, on a very unexpected question that scares me.[/QUOTE]

[whiteangel]

The Thel.....it's by Blake have you read it?
and what did you make of it, iv just re-read it and am wondering if there is anything political or social about it....
gah help if you can

[JCamilo]

Heh, I read it (here Marriage and The Thel are often published together). The edition I read had no illustrations ,sadly. I will check a spanish copy I own to see it again, because I read it 3 years ago. Anything I would say would be very speculative, since those two are the first whole production I read of Blake (before it only individual poems and I think the interpretation of them change while read alone or with the other works). I shall give you a more complete answer later.

[whiteangel]

Ah I have no illustration either...tho I am sure you may find on the internet....

[JCamilo]

Yes, I found and I think it is safe that we can apply almost anything we said about his other works to this one. I think Blake is more inovative and his language more complicated, and there is always some critic in pure idealism that you can see as a social critics to the writers of his time (and philosophy)... typical Blake dark side.

[whiteangel]

hmm so you think through his creation of the imaginative world he is implying that he dislikes the real one? deducing that his use of imagination is in itself a critic of soiciety? though you see evidence is lacking here no?

good deduction tho!

[JCamilo]

I would not say he dislikes the real world, not in the sense of "fantasy is a way to escape from reality" (even because I do not agree with that at all)... I would say he is very critical (which is normal, Shelley is critical, Voltaire is, etc) and that is why he is allegorical (or appears to be, since the whole old testament thing is very allegorical as a source) because there is references to his philosophy.
I suppose if we conclude he wanted changes, something was making his unhappy.

[whiteangel]

yes, i mean change is exactly what he seeks in his poetry, it is the fundamental message i think of his songs, of M of H+H, but here in Thel....i cannot see what change he is going for....all i see is a girl asking why things "fade" and asking clouds, lilies, worm and a clay who then takes her into the underground were she hears a the "voice of sorrow" in the "hollow pit" and her question is not answred but more are given to her.....she is left confused..... what change does Blake then want in this poem? What is his social vision here? very confusing.

[JCamilo]

I suppose he is saying first that all ideal have a dark side. (or showing it because as we stabilished, he had a dark side himself). Also, that those who want to learn must seek it out, and not trust everything to happens just nicely. He may be pointing also to the ""Masters" that they are far from perfect as they think...
I do not think he is saying something like a motto, but ideas of what he believe that as whole we could identify as his belief...
Allegories are nast, the more they seem as something simple, more you need to seek out of the text for possible meanings. Maybe you should contrast this poem with songs of innocence...

[whiteangel]

yes, I might just do that :)

[whiteangel]

with Blake i have realised, there is never an answer

[JCamilo]

with Blake? With Keats, Kafka, Borges, Dante, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Milton, Byron, Browning, Goethe, Joyce, Tolstoi...
the validity of the answer depends on how good it is.

[whiteangel]

ah, Keats can at times be depressing....his letters on love are some what annoying, I cant believe he thought we would one day want to read them.
Shakespeare is amazing- love him
Milton is just amusing, Paradise lost is quite comical - "Devils - side" he is amazing to be writing it in the times religion was at the forefront of all things.
Byron- well he is hardly excellent....and god his personal life is quite sordid, makes one dislike his works.
Voltaire - I was reading his essay on Hamlet the other day, quite good, I haven't read much by him.
Joyce - he is brilliant. simple yet amazing....a little like Blake
T - is that the "Brothers of ....." he wrote? God i didn't enjoy it if he did
No idea who KafKa or Borges even are.

[whiteangel]

Darn not long till my Blake assessment! I have a Feeling I will fail

[JCamilo]

ah, Keats can at times be depressing....his letters on love are some what annoying, I cant believe he thought we would one day want to read them.

Heh, he must be depressing, it is a guy who discover he is dying at sametime that he notices he would be the greatest poet of his time. Notheless, his poetry is amazing and his critical sense also. A bit like Blake, he is an outsider of the rich group, but his style is completely different...


Shakespeare is amazing- love him
Milton is just amusing, Paradise lost is quite comical - "Devils - side" he is amazing to be writing it in the times religion was at the forefront of all things.

Altough, it was guys like Blake, Byron, etc who turned Milton to the God-sides to devil side. Ok, Lucifer in Paradise lost steals the show and is amazing, but he was not exactly what Milton wanted to build as hero. He was also rebelious in many senses - no wonder he became the reference to all those XVIII - XIX poets.


Byron- well he is hardly excellent....and god his personal life is quite sordid, makes one dislike his works.

There is good stuff coming from, of course, many times his fame and life dampers his balance, but check out Dom Juan. His life, well, he was a egoistical bastard, but even so, he was poetry walking by. Give the guy a chace :D


Voltaire - I was reading his essay on Hamlet the other day, quite good, I haven't read much by him.

Voltaire is a matter of style, however I would hardly get near him while talking about Shakespeare or Dante. The french philosopher once said Shakespeare was good but too insular to be eternal and have sucess outside europe and listed some french and italian autors that were better. Netheless to say, none went. However, he is a wonderful, his short stories mostly.


Joyce - he is brilliant. simple yet amazing....a little like Blake

Yup, brilliant indeed.

T - is that the "Brothers of ....." he wrote? God i didn't enjoy it if he did[/quote]

No, that one is Dostoievisky. I like both, as romancists. Tolstoi was a the author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina.


No idea who KafKa or Borges even are.

Kafka is a enigma. Short stories-novels writer of XX century. His stories had touch of grotesque and unusual. At some momment he is brillant. Borges is from Argetina, wrote about everything, his capacity of literary criticism is amazing. Lots of points with Blake and huge fan of him. When Borges teached english literature in the Buenos Aires University, Blake was one chapter of the story.

[whiteangel]

Heh, I have been inspired to read some Voltaire short stories and Kafka! and OMG Borges is a Blakian critic? god I MUST read him......is there anything he write on Blake you would recommend or any short synopsis of what he has said? would be a great help

And yes i should give Byron a chance....I did like his poem Prometheus.....

Do you also study /studied literature? obviously you are a fan...

[JCamilo]

I work mostly with Oral Literatura and had a specialization on oral-writing evolution of literature.
Borges was fascinated with english literature and gnostic/kaballah/metaphysics, so you see how he liked Blake (he also liked to read swenderborg, because to borges philosophical and religious texts and systems are also meant to be studies like fiction). He was quite good at that (and he was fascinated with tigers). If you can get the chapter of his classes where he talks about Blake it is a great step. There is a chapter on Swederborg that can be useful also. The thing is what language do you read?

[whiteangel]

Blake is a Metaphysic? hmmm....is that not Donne like poetry?
what time period was Borges?

I read English.

[JCamilo]

yeah, he is, altough you may turn this in a either or not he is romantic discussion.
Borges is a XX century writer.
Ok, shall I contact you outside here, I think this chat between you and me went beyond blake...

[whiteangel]

yes. Heh.