Print

Print


The horror and the glory of God's creation that includes us.

CR

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:09 AM [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I do agree with Carrol.  The otherness of the tyger supports the poem's
> external questioning as does the change to "Dare frame thy fearful
> symmetry" in the last stanza from "Could frame thy fearful symmetry" in the
> first stanza.
>
>
>
> NB  Carrol:  But I do also think the Songs of Experience are not dependent
> upon the Songs of Innocence.  Didn't you also quote the chimney-sweep's
> poem yesterday?  I hear that independently of the other poems and I suspect
> even the residents of Slough do too.  Et tu?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 1, 2017, at 10:13 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > David Boyd wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On 1 Jan 2017, at 22:19, Chanan Mittal  wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The tiger defines us for what we are.
>
> >
>
> > Nonsense. Before you can say that you first have to say what the tiger
> is? Which features of the tiger define the "essence" of humanity ("we")?
> Blake is very clear that the Tyger is OTHER than "us"; It is that otherness
> that allows the Tyger to provoke a question or series of questions --
> including the question raised by the simultaneous existenmce of Tyger and
> Lamb. (The poems of experience make no sense unless the reader pairs them
> with the poems of innocence.) It is mere mindless flippancy to make such
> empty statements as "X is us."
>
> >
>
> > Carrol
>
>