Monday, June 11, 2007

William Blake

"If the doors of perception were cleansed
every thing would appear to man as it is: In-
-finite." -Blake pg 102 (from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell)

When reading Blake, I think that perception is certainly of the utmost importance. The good can seem bad and the bad, good. It is certainly difficult to determine his meanings and get a feel for his underlying senses. He seems to have been very contradictive by nature. I think he considered himself a genius at levels beyond just poetry. Genius in itself is contradictive, so this would explain a lot. His work is fascinating, but required repeated reading for me. I think this was his goal as it sometimes takes repetition to break free from perception. In the world, I often consider perception to be everything. I think that Blake wanted his readers to believe the opposite at the same time. Perception can be everything and nothing all at once. In A Poison Tree, Blake seems to be talking about perception again. I think the two men had differing perceptions about the tree, but it was obviously the same tree in the end. In Songs, he writes with differing perceptions between child and adult, but I think he intended further implications than that simplicity. He is challenging his readers to overcome their own perceptions, but I had difficulty full understanding him. I am intrigued to learn much more about Blake's work.

Blake was certainly of a very spiritual nature, but I would not sell him short by saying he believed in any religious limitations. He wrote with words that any Bible reader could relate to, but I think he was speaking from a very critical mind. The romantics were about imagination, and I think that his impressive imagination is the reasoning for slapping him with this undesired title. I personally do not believe he would have appreciated it. Although untrained, I think he found himself in a separate genre, one without definition.

I love the way that he has caused to me to twist my own mind as the reader. At first it is confusing, but you have to open your mind. That is, after all, what Blake is after. After reading Innocence and Experience, I noted some things that almost bother me. The Chimney Sweeper, I knew immediately was not to be pleasant. I can easily picture the exploitation of these little children. But the way that Blake changes your perception between the two entries is disturbing.

And the Angel told Tom if he's be a good boy,
He'd have God for his father & never want joy
-Blake pg 81 (from Innocence, The Chimney Sweeper)

And are gone to praise God & his Priest & King
Who make up a heaven of our misery.
-Blake pg 89 (from Experience, The Chimney Sweeper)

This is a less than subtle stab at the complexity of human nature. Over and over again, Blake revisits this dueling theme in his writing. I am constantly questioning myself. Is good, evil? Is evil, good? The truth is that he captured the consistent duality of nature and of religion, but it's just difficult to interpret. After reading the Proverbs of Hell and The Voice of the Devil, I found myself questioning my own beliefs briefly. Everything he wrote in these sections found a way to unsettle me, but the smallest thing in particular. On page 98, Blake writes, "Shame is Prides cloke." I have always been taught to be humble for pride was the downfall of Satan. With shame being humility, Blake has again twisted the fibers of religion and morality. Towards the end, I think I finally get his point. There is an argument between dark and light, and it is to remain. It is not something that can be settled. Blake explains the Prolific and the Devourer:

These two classes of men are always upon
earth. & they should be enemies: whoever tries
to reconcile them seeks to destroy existence.
Religion is an endeavour to reconcile the two.
-Blake pg 103 (from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell)

And then at the very end it all comes together when Blake states that "One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression." Throughout the reading, I thought that he considered God the oppressor, but I am now leaning towards religion, which really is just another form of perception. If Blake intended to open my eyes, he has succeeded.








4 comments:

Jonathan.Glance said...

Valerie,

Excellent discussion of a very challenging author. I am glad to see how much you got out of reading Blake. Also, you do a very nice job of framing and supporting your analysis so your reader can share your journey of discovery in reading him. This is what I had hoped the blogs might lead to!

kyle mcnease said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kyle mcnease said...

"I am constantly questioning myself. Is good, evil? Is evil, good? The truth is that he captured the consistent duality of nature and of religion, but it's just difficult to interpret."
What do the terms good and evil mean? How do we come about attatching meaning to these words? Those questions haunt me even more! I think that sometimes good can seem evil, if not looked upon in a specific manner and the same could be said of evil seeming good.

"If Blake intended to open my eyes, he has succeeded." Now the question concerning Blake would be...if he has succeeded at opening your eyes, would he be proud of himself or ashamed of himself or proud of his shame-wearing his shame like a cloak to conceal his pride?

-kyle

Rharper said...

I enjoyed reading your blog about Blake. I also found "The Chimney Sweeper" very interesting. I like how it seemed to expose the speaker a later age when things were put in perspective.