Abstract
William Blake’s poem “The Tyger” is analyzed in this essay, primarily focusing on his use of metaphor. The stanzas are discussed chronologically, and the individual words and questions that Blake uses are explained in a way that shows their relation to the overall metaphor. The entire poem is a single metaphor that likens the tiger to a blacksmith’s creation in order to reveal the awe-inspiring qualities of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, and glorious Creator God.
God, the Immortal Blacksmith
“The Tyger” by William Blake is a metaphor that likens the tiger to a blacksmith’s creation in order to reveal the awe-inspiring qualities of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, and glorious Creator God. Even Blake’s choice of trochaic tetrameter, with the use of catalexis at the end of each line, puts in mind the rhythm of a hammer beating upon an anvil. This six quatrain lyric poem indeed sings of experience; it is a song that praises the Creator, in order that others would encounter the marvelous grandeur of God. The questions that are raised do not focus on the tiger, but kindle curiosity within the reader to learn more about the one who made this fearsome creature.
The metaphor begins as the Blacksmith designs the tiger. He, the Blacksmith, is described as “immortal,” a description which points to God as the Creator (3). His “hand” and his “eye” reveal his artistry, and the “symmetry” of the tiger shows forth the aesthetic balance of his creation (3-4). The tiger is portrayed as ‘fearful’ (4), and Fur says, in his article, “An Overview of ‘The Tyger,’” “‘fearful’ can mean ‘scary’—the meaning to which we're accustomed—or awe-inspiring. The speaker is in awe of whomever made the tyger and of the tyger as well. Perhaps the point of Blake's poem is to inspire us with awe of the tyger and its maker (Furr, n.d.).” With his line, “What immortal hand or eye | Could frame thy fearful symmetry (3-4)?” Blake queries, “Who could even dream to make something as visually pleasing and awe-inspiring as this tiger?”
And indeed, who could imagine planning such an awesome project, let alone putting his plan into action? This Blacksmith, in his omniscience, searched all of creation to find the substance to form the tiger’s eyes which, “burning bright” (1), are able to see in the darkest night of the forest. He not only finds this obscure material, but in his omnipotence, he is able to retrieve it. He shapes the tiger with his great strength and artistic skill, and when the tiger comes to life, he stands his ground and continues his work. He is fearless.
Certainly, this could only be God standing behind the anvil; the tools he uses are beyond the tools of mortal comprehension. Blake asks, “What kind of tool, and in what sort of furnace, could the brain of such a cunning beast have been formed?” Only with supernatural tools could this task have been accomplished – tools that work on the soul and spirit. These tools include tongs that are able to “grasp” hold of ethereal intelligence (14-16).
As the starlight illuminates the Blacksmith’s nocturnal masterpiece, and as dew settles upon the landscape, he displays his pleasure in the tiger and in the diversity of his creation – he who made the lamb has also now made the tiger. “Both the Lamb and the Tyger are parts of Creation. The question at the end of ‘The Tyger’ is not meant for discussion and answer, but as a challenge to awareness. ‘Did he who made the Lamb make thee (Stevenson, 1999)?’” says Stevenson in his essay, “Blake’s Progress.” From the meek and mild lamb to the mighty and ferocious tiger, God glories in the works of his hands.
In the final stanza, Blake repeats the opening lines of this poem with one noticeable difference: “What immortal hand or eye | Dare frame thy fearful symmetry (23-24)?” The switch of the questioning word “could” (4) to the more assertive word “dare” (24) portrays clearly the glory of the Blacksmith. Who dares to dream of making so magnificent a creation? With this question, Blake effectively answers all of the other questions he has posed, for only one Blacksmith possibly could – the immortal God.
It would be quite an injustice for any reader of “The Tyger” to walk away from this poem having only seen the fierceness of the orange and black striped tiger with brightly glowing eyes within the imagery of Blake’s poem. This metaphoric poem absolutely does lift up the tiger to be appreciated for its beauty, but it is the skillful craftsman, the Blacksmith, who is lifted up as the one who is truly worthy of all the praise and adoration. Where would the tiger be without the master Blacksmith? It is he who envisaged this mighty beast. It is he who fashioned him. And thus, by way of the Blacksmith and the tiger, Blake declares to us the incomparable glory of Creator God.
References
Blake, W. (1794). The tyger. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from Liberty University Online: Course
Content English 101
Furr, D. (n.d.). An Overview of "The Tyger." Poetry for Students . Detroit: Gale. Literature
Resource Center. Web. 12 June 2010.
Stevenson, W. (1999). Blake's Progress. Essays In Criticism , 49 (3/4), 197. Retrieved 12 June
2010 from http://eic.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/cgi/reprint/XLIX/3/195
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Most Dangerous Essay
Abstract
This essay examines the villains from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Green. By comparison and contrast, it is found that Trevor and General Zaroff possess different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
The Most Dangerous Essay
Many parallels can be drawn from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Greene, especially between Trevor and General Zaroff. Both of them are flat characters and both are the villains of the stories in which they reside. Trevor is the protagonist of “The Destructors” and General Zaroff is the antagonist of “The Most Dangerous Game.” Trevor and General Zaroff posses different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
General Zaroff is an older, white-haired gentleman who is affable, hospitable, and good natured, while Trevor is a young gang member who is brooding and silent. General Zaroff is a hunter, and as such is a man of action – he enjoys the chase, the hunt. The boy prefers to sit quietly while planning and scheming. Trevor does not show even “the smallest flicker of glee” (Greene, 1954), while Zaroff openly shows his amusement with the game by smiling when he finds Rainsford in a tree, and by verbally stating his pleasure (Connell, n.d.). When the unexpected happens and Mr. Thomas returns early, Trevor panics and begins to repeatedly say, “I’ll fix it” (Greene, 1954), which almost costs him his position of leadership with the gang. General Zaroff is nonchalant, albeit disappointed, when Rainsford escapes; he sits down, smokes, drinks some wine, and hums a tune from Madame Butterfly (Connell, n.d.). Despite these obvious differences in personality, these characters both pursue a dark path in life.
Both villains come from a well-to-do background, and despite their affluent upbringing, both have a false sense of morality. In the midst of destroying Mr. Thomas’ home, Trevor says, “We aren’t thieves” (Greene, 1954), and likewise the hunter reassures Rainsford that his word is trustworthy (Connell, n.d.) all the while preparing to hunt him down. Zaroff even attributes his hunting prowess to being a gift from God. Both of these characters feed their captives, as if that somehow justifies the heinous crimes that they are committing. Zaroff shows concern for Rainsford’s health just moments before announcing his intent to hunt him. While leading Mr. Thomas into a trap, Trevor aids him in climbing over the wall and even supports him when he stumbles. The lives of others mean little to either of these characters – to Trevor, Mr. Thomas’ home and personal effects are “just things” (Greene, 1954), and to General Zaroff, the people he hunts and murders are simply the “scum of the earth” (Connell, n.d.); General Zaroff truly believes he is doing the world a favor by killing them.
Trevor and Zaroff both have accomplices for their evil tasks; the first has his gang, and the latter has his pack of dogs and Ivan. While Trevor keeps the details of his plans secret from his victim, and tells his gang only on a need-to-know basis, General Zaroff gives his entire scheme in great detail to Rainsford. Likewise, both of them hide what they are doing from the authorities. When Trevor was asked about the police he replied, “They’d never know. We’d do it from the inside” (Greene, 1954). The General cleverly hides away on an island in order to maintain his murderous lifestyle, and even warns Rainsford against telling the outside world of his existence.
As the destruction of Mr. Thomas’ home commences, Trevor says that he is ‘looking for something special” (Greene, 1954), something out of the ordinary. This activity is already far from the normal for the gang, but for Trevor this thrill is not enough. He not only burns Mr. Thomas’ money just for fun, but also pulls down the walls of the home in what is called “the most dangerous task of all” (Greene, 1954). Zaroff, too, is looking for something different, more challenging. Having already invented his sport of hunting humans, his “most dangerous game,” he is once again bored, and finds that Rainsford offers a newer, more thrilling form of entertainment. Both villains are also striving for superiority; Trevor is seeking to be the leader of his gang, and General Zaroff wants to be the greatest hunter.
Even though these characters are found in separate stories written by different authors, the similarities between General Zaroff and Trevor are striking. And, despite the superficial variation in their dispositions, analysis of their stories shows that the common drive behind their reprobate actions is a mixture of boredom and a need for superiority.
References
Connell, R. (n.d.). The most dangerous game. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24,
2010 from Course Content English 102.
Greene, G. (1954). The destructors. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24, 2010 from
Course Content English 102.
This essay examines the villains from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Green. By comparison and contrast, it is found that Trevor and General Zaroff possess different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
The Most Dangerous Essay
Many parallels can be drawn from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Greene, especially between Trevor and General Zaroff. Both of them are flat characters and both are the villains of the stories in which they reside. Trevor is the protagonist of “The Destructors” and General Zaroff is the antagonist of “The Most Dangerous Game.” Trevor and General Zaroff posses different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
General Zaroff is an older, white-haired gentleman who is affable, hospitable, and good natured, while Trevor is a young gang member who is brooding and silent. General Zaroff is a hunter, and as such is a man of action – he enjoys the chase, the hunt. The boy prefers to sit quietly while planning and scheming. Trevor does not show even “the smallest flicker of glee” (Greene, 1954), while Zaroff openly shows his amusement with the game by smiling when he finds Rainsford in a tree, and by verbally stating his pleasure (Connell, n.d.). When the unexpected happens and Mr. Thomas returns early, Trevor panics and begins to repeatedly say, “I’ll fix it” (Greene, 1954), which almost costs him his position of leadership with the gang. General Zaroff is nonchalant, albeit disappointed, when Rainsford escapes; he sits down, smokes, drinks some wine, and hums a tune from Madame Butterfly (Connell, n.d.). Despite these obvious differences in personality, these characters both pursue a dark path in life.
Both villains come from a well-to-do background, and despite their affluent upbringing, both have a false sense of morality. In the midst of destroying Mr. Thomas’ home, Trevor says, “We aren’t thieves” (Greene, 1954), and likewise the hunter reassures Rainsford that his word is trustworthy (Connell, n.d.) all the while preparing to hunt him down. Zaroff even attributes his hunting prowess to being a gift from God. Both of these characters feed their captives, as if that somehow justifies the heinous crimes that they are committing. Zaroff shows concern for Rainsford’s health just moments before announcing his intent to hunt him. While leading Mr. Thomas into a trap, Trevor aids him in climbing over the wall and even supports him when he stumbles. The lives of others mean little to either of these characters – to Trevor, Mr. Thomas’ home and personal effects are “just things” (Greene, 1954), and to General Zaroff, the people he hunts and murders are simply the “scum of the earth” (Connell, n.d.); General Zaroff truly believes he is doing the world a favor by killing them.
Trevor and Zaroff both have accomplices for their evil tasks; the first has his gang, and the latter has his pack of dogs and Ivan. While Trevor keeps the details of his plans secret from his victim, and tells his gang only on a need-to-know basis, General Zaroff gives his entire scheme in great detail to Rainsford. Likewise, both of them hide what they are doing from the authorities. When Trevor was asked about the police he replied, “They’d never know. We’d do it from the inside” (Greene, 1954). The General cleverly hides away on an island in order to maintain his murderous lifestyle, and even warns Rainsford against telling the outside world of his existence.
As the destruction of Mr. Thomas’ home commences, Trevor says that he is ‘looking for something special” (Greene, 1954), something out of the ordinary. This activity is already far from the normal for the gang, but for Trevor this thrill is not enough. He not only burns Mr. Thomas’ money just for fun, but also pulls down the walls of the home in what is called “the most dangerous task of all” (Greene, 1954). Zaroff, too, is looking for something different, more challenging. Having already invented his sport of hunting humans, his “most dangerous game,” he is once again bored, and finds that Rainsford offers a newer, more thrilling form of entertainment. Both villains are also striving for superiority; Trevor is seeking to be the leader of his gang, and General Zaroff wants to be the greatest hunter.
Even though these characters are found in separate stories written by different authors, the similarities between General Zaroff and Trevor are striking. And, despite the superficial variation in their dispositions, analysis of their stories shows that the common drive behind their reprobate actions is a mixture of boredom and a need for superiority.
References
Connell, R. (n.d.). The most dangerous game. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24,
2010 from Course Content English 102.
Greene, G. (1954). The destructors. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24, 2010 from
Course Content English 102.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
