------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Author: Michele (user-38o11ld.dialup.mindspring.com)
Date: 04-25-05 10:42

i need help for english comp2. my professor wants me to figure out the meaning to the poem "The Tyger" by William Blake. I have no idea what it means. Can you please help me.

Michele, there is much useful information here:

[virtual.park.uga.edu]


Les

Yes, lots there, but perhaps a trifle overpowering. How about "Blake was wondering how the same God could create both the Lamb and the Tyger."

>Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

The Lamb is then a symbol of Good and the Tyger one of Evil. You will notice that Blake poses a lot of questions in this work, but answers not a single one of them. Significant?

The poem is definitely symbolic. You might ask yourself: "Why would Blake use the Tiger as a symbol of evil?" Since most of us think of snakes, or bats, or other creatures of the night as "scary", why the Tiger?


Les

Don't get mad at me for writing something out of the ordinary but I feel it's the truth. Of course it will never please your professor because he's looking for meaning inside the poem and not what Blake is really saying. As far as I see, I don't understand clearly what Blake is trying to say. That means that Blake must have been confused in his mind too when he wrote the poem. Then why would I waste my time analyzing something that even the writer is confused about. Obviously, any conclusion I reach would be wrong, it has to be. Now where some lines seem clear, others are very unclear, like in the para below, the first two I don't understand but the lower two are clear and yet it is difficult to find a connection between the two -

"When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?"

The whole poem is clear and unclear at places. Therefore, it is very hard to say what Blake really wants to convey. The truth is always simple, believe it or not. Now that's another matter that it will not satisfy your professor. But to satisfy your professor, I would not analyze a poem when the meaning is definately not clear or anywhere in sight.

Never mind I know what Blake is trying to say.

"The Tiger"

"TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry? 1

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire? 2

And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet? 3

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp? 4

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee? 5

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?" 6

Here's the enunciation, it just came in my mind, I never understood this poem before though -

1st means - What kind of a God would make a beast like the tiger.
2nd means - what emotions and imagination did God go through to find the mold.
3rd - What kind of heart made God make the tiger and then dread it.
4 - What kind of mold did God use, where did He find it and what emotions controlled Him to create a beast like him.
5 - And when His wrath was over, he threw down his utensils by which he shaped the tiger and cried at what He had made. Blake is skeptical that God might have been pleased, suggesting that he must have regretted it.
6 - Blake is saying that even God would refrain from making a beast like the tiger, therefore the question, "Did He who made the lamb make thee?" He's questioning because he can't believe that a good God could make a beast like the tiger together with a beauty like the lamb.

Guys, all my sins are forgiven! I don't even know why. Or maybe I do. Hehehe! :)

There is some info. here:

[www.cs.rice.edu]


Les

Let me get this clear- if I don't understand something, it's automatically the writer's fault? Let me try that on my accounting professor!

pam

I previously had to analyze "The Tyger" in an English class as part of the unit test and found that it was a poem of great depth, allowing for much diverse interpretation. Therefore there is no one true path to take when analyzing this poem (as with almost any poem). Be sure to choose a path and explain your footing. Do not worry so much as to Blake's exact mindset, for this is something you can never know. Pretend it is like forensics and all you have to work with is the physical evidence you are given: the poem. As long as you can support your interpretation with the poem you are all set. I believe that it is important to note that "The Tyger" has a complementary poem entitled "The Lamb."
One of the first things that crosses the mind when reading Blake's poem is the obvious symbolism of good and evil. Lamb is an allusion to the son of God. The Tyger is a beast, perhaps the devil himself. There is question of whether He who made the Lamb also made the Tyger. This brings to mind that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil was also believed to have been a son of God, earlier called "the Son of the Morning," but then after the War in Heaven became "the son of Perdition." The symmetry spoken of may refer to the balance between good and evil. Possibly the need for there to be one in order for the other to exist. The imagery can also support a symbolism of the War in Heaven.
Another way to go is the way of nature. You could look at the tyger as a fire that started by a lightning bolt, during a lightning/thunder/rainstorm. This can create symbolic meaning for the tears and the beating, etc. The lamb could then be symbolic of the clouds or something like this.
There is also just the thought that God created such diverse creatures. Something as gentle as the lamb, and something as fierce as the tyger. Also, note that tyger is just an obselete form of the word tiger.
This poem provokes many paths of interpretation. Just start labelling what things could mean and you should be off to a good start. Good luck.

Ha! Pam, you're too good! Sorry, I...... it's just that I can't explain it. I never really understood this poem The Tyger and then as soon as I mentioned it, it just kinda came to me.

I also wanted to say to all that where it's possible that the reader may not understand what the poet says, it is also true that the reader who reads too much into the poem is also at fault as he changes the original poem as it becomes now his own interpretation and not what the poet wrote. So, when enunciating, just write what seems to be coming from it. Although I can understand that if you bring great depth to any poem, the professor will give you more marks for it, I as a prof wouldn't do that as it wouldn't be the truth but I know most professors do that. And since the student cares most about the marks as they should, being students, therefore, this wrong continues.

My class just had to read these two poems about three weeks ago. What I got out of it is that the Lamb is a symbol of God's forgiving, gentle, and loving side, and the tyger is a symbol of God's redemptive powers, rather than good and evil.
But that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Anon.

If the lamb is a symbol of God's forgiving then why is the Tiger more mighty? The lamb should have more power, unless forgiveness means that you lose all power.

Maybe forgiveness doesn't come with claws? ;-)

Remember that Jesus was described as the Lamb of God. John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, KJV). In the end the Lamb does have more power: "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne . . . Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever" (Revelation 5:11-13, KJV).

I don't think that readers can bring 'too much' to poems- sometimes you can see something that the writer didn't purposely put there, or find something that's only there because of other experiences in your life.

It is possible to spend too much time looking for hidden meanings rather than just assuming that the poet meant what she or he said.

pam

tandy dear, if, "John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, KJV)." Then, as I read on some website before, 'how come the sins of the world didn't get taken away? How come the people still suffered and suffer?' Can you please answer that? And then you say that, "In the end the Lamb does have more power: "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne . . . Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever" (Revelation 5:11-13, KJV)." Do you mean power in Heaven? But then, if you don't know about that power, how can YOU say that? How would you know about the power He has in Heaven?

Like which world does the world live in? You think that God would enact an injustice to someone as good as Christ just to make the world better? What kind of bettering would that be I wonder and for THAT kind of corrupt world. A bettering that sets an example that it's ok to abuse one to save many. God's justice doesn't work like that, He will NOT make someone die an inhumane death at the hands of the very people whom He wants to make humane. That's outrageous, how can you even think of something like that? What kind of image of God would you have in mind? My dear, please don't try to excuse the corrupt and what they did by laying the blame on God. It doesn't go like that. In fact, I think that God punished all of us after that by not revealing the truth which Christ would have revealed had He not been crucified, which is precisely why the world seems to have gone worse after that. And, it doesn't seem like Blake is talking about Christ in this poem. Where did that come from?

Anon, you mean to say that the Tiger is the symbol of God's wrath? And the lamb is the symbol of God's gentler side? But that's not possible because God is just, so even if He was to lose His temper, I'd say that He'd be just and so would be unable to create something like the tiger. And even if we assume that the tiger was Devil's creation, God being just and having both faces, that of God and the Devil to exact justice, God would not create the tiger unless he created it to punish those who deserved it to exact justice. In which case it would be the just thing to do. So you cannot claim that the tiger is the symbol of God's wrath but instead say that's God's justice on earth. That cannot be true, where is my brain today. Anyway, I'll be back.

Beena, ma chere,

First of all, I'm not christian, so I'm just describing christian ideology, not promoting it. If you want to understand poetry and a lot of artwork and culture, I suggest that you soon read up on it. The roots of western culture are christian, after all.

"'how come the sins of the world didn't get taken away? How come the people still suffered and suffer?'"

Read up on some christian ideology. Basically, it says that Jesus died for our sins, and that therefore we can all be forgiven for our sins, not that the sins were taken away. Think you can only remove the sins of this world by removing free will, and I don't think people would be cheering for that one.

"Do you mean power in Heaven? But then, if you don't know about that power, how can YOU say that?"
Its called "faith". Very common in all, well, faiths.

"How would you know about the power He has in Heaven?"
Its called a revalation. According to the bible, Jesus told us so, and I believe some angels dropped some hints here and there too.

"He will NOT make someone die an inhumane death at the hands of the very people whom He wants to make humane. That's outrageous, how can you even think of something like that? "

Again, read up on christian ideology. This is exactly what Christianity says. Its the ultimate sacrifice. Tandy has it from good sources.


"And, it doesn't seem like Blake is talking about Christ in this poem. Where did that come from?"
Symbology. Christ is often referred to as the lamb, Blake is talking about a lamb, so it can be defended.

Beena, you seem to have a tendency to impose your own beliefs and ideas on poems. Wherever the christian system is not in line with your thoughts you deny it. This is not very scientific. Analyzing poetry is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the message. It is about understanding it. After that you can decide whether you agree or disagree.

You seem to have some forcefull beliefs of yourself, but believe me, people would take you more seriously if you can base your arguments on facts.

Desi dear, first let me finish my unfinished argument above and then I'll get back to you regarding your view.

Anon, the tiger cannot be a symbol for God's "redemptive powers" because you cannot put your face in the lion's den and be redeamed. You will simply disappear. For redemption, God would use someone who is just, who sees both sides of the coin, weighs all, and gets to the root cause of the problem. So, God would not create someone like the tiger, He would create someone like an elephant, who is wise, good at heart unless you threaten his little ones, and who has enough retentive memory to explore the past. In all, the elephant would be just

If you don't agree with me then become a fly and enter the spider's parlour, you'll be redeamed. Or, go on a safari unarmed and not in a vehicle and walk straight into the lion's den to be redeamed, achieve salvation from of all your sins and to redeam the Truth back from God. Would you do that? If you don't then you can't claim the tiger is a symbol of God's "redemptive powers." My dear the tiger only symbolizes evil, not even God's wrath as He is just, so don't get confused.

Desi, my dear, if Christianity says what you say above, then I can only say that Christianity does not have a brain. I will not argue with someone who refuses to use their brain.

You say, "Christ is often referred to as the lamb, Blake is talking about a lamb, so it can be defended." No, it cannot be defended because Blake is not referring to The Lamb or Christ. But profs will go to any lenghths to bring depth to a poem or any perspective even when it is not required or seems wrong.

I did not impose my beliefs on anyone, but you refuse to use your brain, in which case I have no choice but to not argue with you.

Case in point: The Jews were highly displaced from their origins, abused, tortured, etc., before the advent of Christ. So for them to be corrupt it would be understandable. So, God created Christ to spread good will and justice, but they crucified Him, the innocent. Since there is justice in God's world even if it comes later, so years later, Satan created Hitler to fix those Jews, and innocents [the corrupt actually] perished in the Holocaust. That is because if one is corrupt for a short time after being abused that is understandable but to remain corrupt for a long time is not understandable. Does the logic get to you my dear?

I'm leaving this topic. You guys can sit here and bring depth to William Blake's beautiful poem, The Tyger. I will only bring to it what is necesssary and no more.

Desi, since you've suggested that I don't know much of poetry or Christianity and as such implied that I've little or nothing to bring to the posts and arguments on this forum where you act as THE BRILLIANT MODERATOR, I've decide to leave this forum for good. I will not come back! ;)

Beena, threatening to leave every time someone disagrees with you is not the answer. Stay and defend your position.

Remember that responsible adults disagree from time to time. It's quite normal.


Les

Correction my dear, just 'cause you have used the word threatening does not mean I threatened anyone, it only means that you are accusing me of something that is not the truth. I simply stated my position that as Desi implies implicitly that I have nothing to contribute here, so leaving would be the best course. Don't blame me for a fault you have committed.

God did not creat Christ, God is Christ. And the danger in calling on God's justice is that as we are all sinners, we all deserve punishment. Far better to ask for God's love and mercy.

Correction my dear, Christ is God NOW, after his struggle to bring so much goodness to humanity, the kingdom of God in essence. Whether it came or not is irrelevant, what God sees is that He tried and had good intentions, which is why even though as a human being he was only God ordained and so at times perhaps even likely to err, but after that life, He became God. That's the difference. As a human, no person can become God because God is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresence and no person on earth can have all those qualities until they become God after that life. But in that life since God is obviously speaking to them and they have a relationship, so they can begin to think like God and believe in things like, Christ used to emphasize, "I'm the alpha" "I'm the omega" and stuff, which seems ludicrous. Anyway....

And yes, it's God who made Christ, God, or would you say that when Christ was little there was no God? The way one becomes God ordained is when they have a direct contact with the mind of God which is later. No one can be God ordained from birth because it's your circumstances that take you towards the mind of God, which is why you understand so much.

And don't bet on it that we should not invite the justice of God. If we are just ourselves, it is exactly what we will seek, and so considering we all sin, if we don't ask to be forgiven, is precisely why we stand the most to be forgiven. If you ask for mercy or love of God, I doubt you'll be granted that. By the way, God is just and so will not forgive anyone or who will exact justice on the victim's behalf? So, if the victim forgives you, you're forgiven. Those who make a show of forgiving, for those, God will still exact justice as He can read your innermost thoughts.

In essence, be just to yourself and others and don't try to run away from punishment if that's what you deserve. That way one has the highest chance of being forgiven. Amen! I couldn't resist that ;)

[www.landoverbaptist.org]

Beena Jain,

First of all, the way you have conducted yourself is very immature. You refuse to see another's opinion on something and get angry if someone argues your opinion. Not everyone thinks in the same way that you do. If you are an adult, then, ironically, you still have some growing up to do. I am a high school student, and if I can conduct myself in a better manner than you, then you should be ashamed.

Secondly, I never said that the tiger was representing God's redemptive powers on EARTH. He is a forgiving God. But I think His redemptive powers are used mostly for the final judgement (heaven or hell). I believe that if a person is sincerely sorry for his/her sins, and he/she asks God for forgiveness, then he/she will be forgiven. Now, I don't want to offend anyone or start a huge dispute on religion. I was just stating my personal beliefs. Also, why do you think the word "Lamb" is capitalized in the poem? It is common courtesy and procedure to capitalize a word or symbol referring to God. So, yes, Blake most likely is referring to Christ, that is if you believe that God (Father), Christ (Son), and the Holy Ghost are one: the "Trinity."

I would like to say a couple of other things to you. You must remember that everyone who writes on this website is human. We make mistakes, and, yes, there are holes in our evidence and arguments sometimes. We are only doing the best we can. You don't have to jump down our throats everytime we make a tiny mistake. Hey, I'll be the first to admit that most of the time, the things being discussed are over my head. I try not to write unless I know what I am talking about. I think that you are reading too much into this poem and making it more complicated than it is. I don't mean anything rude by this. I'm just standing up for myself and anyone else you have unnecessarily started an angry argument with. Before you say anything, I know that last sentence ended with a preposition. JK!

Some advice: Just chill!

Sincerely, Anon.

BTW, many of your statements and viewpoints contradict each other.

One of the great things about poetry is that it can be viewed on many different levels. Some ways that you can look at Tyger are

1) Evil animals vs. nice animals
2) Evil vs. good in humanity
3) A discussion about religion
4) Any combination of the above

pam

I'm pulling out of theological arguments with you, Beena, you are obviously not a Christian as mainstream Christians recognise it, so I doubt that we will ever find common ground.

You all are Christian by the book, I'm Christian by heart! Saw my listing at Yahoo search and couldn't resist saying that even though I've left this forum. Amen! :)

The poem is a simple narrative of a situation as it exists.
You, with greater cognitive functions wonder at the deeper meaning.
I have not seen a post reminding the readers that this was a companion piece, �The Lamp� was supposed to appear on the opposite page.
Go watch National Geographical episode, one of several such documentaries, where the Wildebeest migrate, having to cross a river where the crocodiles lay in wait.
Neither of the species engages in theological discussions
during their encounters.
It is hard on the eyes, but does not stop me from eating my
beef, pork or Wildebeest, if available.

I have traits of the tyger and the lamb, but I don�t want to deal with my tyger.
It is a simple read, straightforward in content and meaning.
Ah, but when you �study� the poem you encounter
lines that bring questions.
In order to complete university during Blake�s era, all graduates have to have a degree in theology (I can�t recall a university were a degree in theology was not a perquisite; same in America.) Theologically, Blake was a loose cannon, which makes him interesting.
I wonder if his education influenced his poems?

Once we have eaten all the beef and pork, we will raise tigers, and wonder why we didn�t do this before.
If you want to encounter a really dangerous predator, look in the mirror-Blake did.
(Yes, I danced off further than Blank intended-that too is one of the attractions of poetry.)
All Blake was saying is there is a script, you will never understand the script, you didn�t write it, and you may not care for it; however, you may wish to think about it.
If you don�t like it the script, write your own.
That would involve creating your own universe, a far reach for most of us.
Yada, Yada, Yada�us is strange critters full of good, bad and indifference.