In reading the title, it is clear that The Tyger in Songs of Experience is the counterpart of The Lamb in Songs of Innocence. The two animals could not be any more different from one another: the lamb is gentle, kind, soft, and fragile, while a tiger is powerful, built, intimidating, and beastly. The two "songs" (classifications of) could not be any more different from one another, too: innocence is pure and unknowing, while experience is transformed and informed.With this in mind, Burke's beauty versus the sublime was clear. The Lamb is an object of beauty while The Tyger is undoubtedly sublime (when strictly comparing the two).
My focus here is on the tyger. He is placed in a dark environment (the forests of the night), which gives the reader an eerie, obscured feeling. Yet, he is shining bright (I assume a shine that comes from the bright orange of his stripes). Thus, it is evident that the tyger is an object of both beauty and destruction. His beauty poses awe, yet his placement in the forest hints at his destructive nature. this beauty and destruction make up his "fearful symmetry." I think it is important that we note the use of adjective "fearful" makes the tyger a sublime being, even while it is beautiful. It is therefore envisioned that this creature is, simply stated, a beautiful beast.
Yet, who could and would make a creature like this? The narrator questions this in the third stanza: "And what shoulder, & what art / Could twist the sinews of thy heart?" Sinews by definition means "source of power, strength, and vigor," or "tendons." I think both definitions could work here. The reader gets this sense of an evil, perhaps unintended, creation of a creature who encompassed both beauty and destruction...
And, more importantly, "Did he smile to see his work?" (line 19). I especially loved this line, and for some reason envisioned Victor Frankenstein creating The Wretch and smiling upon first completing the construction but then being paralyzed by fear and regret. What have I done, he thought. Even though Frankenstein was by no means beautiful on the outside, like the lamb he was innocent, gentle, and kind internally. Perhaps the tyger has these characteristics on the inside, too, although it is more perceived as a beast, like Frankenstein, for its physical powers. I think an important distinction has been made here: internal versus external beauty and sublimity.
If God had indeed created the tyger, like he did the lamb, I believe he would smile upon its creation. the tyger is truly an awe-inspiring creature with both subliminal and beautiful features. It seems a gentle, beautiful, destructive, beast. The reader is led into believing that God creates and within the universe exists unexplainable things, and that evil and power are ever-present and undeniable forces. And, why does God "dare" create the creature? What is a world without beauty and sublimity? The reader cannot simply have this innocent faith in the existence of a benevolent universe, as seen in the lamb's creation. A world like that just doesn't...exist.
There is only one problem in reading this poem now: the reader knows what a tyger looks like. I think this takes away from Burke's assertion that the sublime is obscure and imagined entirely by us, in using words and not images. The original copy of this poem had an image of a tiger on the bottom, so even then the reader was presented with the visual of what a tyger was. I think that took away from the subliminal aspect of both the creature and the poem for limiting the way in which we could imagine a creature both beautiful and destructive.
And, it's really "tiger," not tyger. I suppose in knowing how to spell "tiger" now the reader is at a somewhat disconnect with the eeriness and obscurity surrounding the intentional use of the word "tyger."
I, too, thought of Burke reading Blake's contrast between "The Lamb" and "The Tyger" Thinking about them in juxtaposition with each other, I feel that we're supposed to make that transition on our understanding of the world. We inevitably move from innocence to experience without ever really having a say in the matter, thus we also move from seeing and being exposed to simple beauty to being exposed to something far greater and far more frightening, like the sublime. I think we're taken aback, like the speaker is, that two such things can exist in the same world, and what God would create such a balance? Burke would say it was necessary and I suppose Blake is saying that it is the way of the universe...We grow up to know things that frighten us and in that experience learn that there is a such a balance.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the other analyses of this poem, I too was reminded of Burke and the discussion of the “sublime” versus beauty. In the course of reading this poem, the “tyger” is described as being a sublime creature in that it is certainly awe-inspiring. A “tyger” or tiger, as it may be read, is a strong, threatening, and yet beautiful animal. In the poem the tyger is placed in the setting of the night, particularly in deep forests. This environment alone evokes fear, a factor often associated with the sublime. At the same time, the reader is reminded of the creature’s beauty as he is “burning bright”. This idea of brightness makes one think of all that is light, and therefore calming in a sense.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the comparison Gabriella made to Victor Frankenstein and his creation of The Wrench as related to the line, “Did he smile to see his work?” In such creation, one really must question what he has done-what he has made. In the case of the tyger, I’d like to think that despite some of the negativities and “fear” connected with the animal, that there is still a sense of majesty as well.