The tyger

[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 . 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 . 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

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!
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!
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

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

[whiteangel]

[QUOTE=JCamilo;653752]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 [QUOTE]

he really isn't your traditional Romantic.

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

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=whiteangel;653767]

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

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]

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

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.