2. Jewels Of A Tyger And A Lamb

There's a definite distinction from poetry and prose. I picture that differance being like the cost of a word. When you lay down each word in prose, the shear amount of words makes each less and less valuable; they are like little stones in the larger mosaic.

A poet composes more precisely. The breadth of a poem gives added weight and value to each word. Instead of counting nouns and verbs like rocks a poet pieces each word as a jewel, each one making an important contribution to the make-up of a necklace. They are carefully chosen and placed amongst others so that they can shine the brightest.

In two differing works of the poet William Blake you can see what I'm talking about. Firstly, in his poem, The Lamb, Blake carefully chooses his words and orders them to give his thoughts a tone and a specific meaning. Blake speaks to this lamb very gently. He uses words like "bright", "tender", "woolly" which give the poem a soft and easy effect; almost as if you were there running your hands across the soft lambs wool. The sweet innocence is clear from Blakes word choice.

In contrast his poem The Tyger sets a different mood all together due to Blake's word choice. The different spelling of Tiger in the title gives you a disoriented feeling just as your entering into the poem. In describing the beast Blake chooses disconcerting verbs like "burnt", "twist" and "seize". The overall effect is an unsettled awe and wonder which points to the question:
"What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?"

As Blake has shown, words are certainly one of the sharpest arrows in a poets quiver.

1. Conflicting Views On Enjoying Literature

My response to the first readings in my Literary Interpretation class was similar to what I felt my first day in the mission field: I felt like I'd entered a new world; one in which I was both excited and intimidated by my new surroundings. The concept of dissecting literature is not new to me but, much like missionary work, the skills and principles involved feel like a new language.

Helen Vendler in her inaugural address titled, "What We Have Loved, Others Will Love" she speaks very passionately about the virtue of literature. She speaks often about a certain place within our psyche in which literature alone can take us. She than makes the point that teaching the mechanics of English and the principles of interpreting literature is a separate entity all together and one in which harms the first. She speaks of a need to expose students to good literature at a very primary stage of their development so that they may be acquainted with the spiritual experience literature can bring thus giving context to the importance of the mechanics of language. I understand her point and agree mostly. The idea of exposing youth to "great literature" involves an interpretation of what designates "great literature" which interpretation is arbitrary and defeats Vendler's purpose in the first place.

I felt I could better relate to Gerald Graff's essay, "Disliking Books at an Early Age". Graff relates how in his early exposure to any type of literature he found reading teduous and unenjoyable. It wasn't until college when he was exposed to critical arguements about Mark Twain's Hucklberry Finn that Graff "[caught] the literary bug" (44). From his own personal experience, Graff asserts the point that without knowledge of the skills of interpritation he was unable to enjoy literature as he ought: "...being alone with the texts only left me feeling bored and helpless, since I had no language with to make them mine" (45). I believe the author hits on the very important principle that understanding literature is not second nature to us as humans and unless we learn some basics we cannot expect ourselves to understand the meaning or purpose of the work.

While both the views held by Graff and Vendler are conflicting, I believe there is merit in both arguments. Surely children need to be exposed to literature at an early age so that when they reach the age when they will be reading much they will not have already harbored a resentment toward literature because of their forced learning of English mechanics. Also, we cannot expect children to fall in love with Huckleberry Finn when they have not learned the mechanics of interpretation. I believe the balance comes in exposing readers to both aspects and allowing them to respond to what it is that they respond to.