"The Panther" by Rainer Maria Rilke

"As he paces in cramped circles, over and over,

the movement of his powerful soft strides

is like a ritual dance around a center

in which a mighty will stands pararlyzed,"

("The Panther," Rilke)

This oxymoron used by Rilke really answers the first question posed on the handout.  Rilke uses the image of an entrapped panther because of the connotation of a panther versus the connotation of a lion.  This oxymoron alone gives the opinion that panthers are creatures to be respected, while the normal opinion of lions is that they should be feared.  Also, this stanza (was that the right word?) seems to juxtapose the natural power of a panther with the paralysis of an imprisoned panther.  I had thought that this was at a zoo when Rilke described the bars that the panther lived in, but the other images of people and, maybe more importantly, the ritual dance make me feel like this panther is a part of a circus attraction, but I do not know if panthers are actually circus animals.

In the last stanza, an "image enters in" the heart of the panther, which I take as being when the panther is released from its cage and finally gets to experience the world, but this goes away when the show is over.  I got this conclusion from the possible double meaning to the word "curtain of the pupils."  It makes it sound like the panther is simply waking up and opening its eye lids, but it could actually mean opening the circus curtains for the viewers, which can be described as pupils as well.  So I guess an image does not actually enter into the panther's heart, but rather the viewers at the circus who get to the dark silhouette of the panther doing a ritual dance.

Through an oxymoron and juxtaposition, Rilke seems to portray the immense pressure of a circus panther undertakes as a result of being taken in by a circus and treated as an attraction instead of an actual beast.

I wanted to put a picture of a panther in the circus to show how silly they look, but there are none on Google Image so I guess maybe it really was just a panther in the zoo.  Most of my analysis seems to still work though, so I am pleased with this poem!  Seriously, why do I feel like I have seen panthers in the circus?

"London" by William Blake

"In every cry of every man
in every Infant's cry of fear,
in every voice, in every ban,
the mind-forged manacles I hear" ("London," Blake).

This quatrain in "London" by William Blake seemed to portray an image of London when France attacked them in 1794 through imagery.  Blake repeated the word "every" as a way of really showing how huge of an effect the invasion had throughout London in every aspect of human life.  "Mind-forged manacles" seems like a very strong way of Blake depicting the feelings of entrapment within the citizens of London.  France did not shackle the citizens, but every citizen was scared to the point that they would not actually do anything.  The feelings of imprisonment were so strong in the mind's of all the people that it was even noticeable in their voices it would feel.

I am very confused by two things throughout this entire poem, each deriving in the context of words that I do not think kept the same meanings throughout history.  When Blake said, "And mark in every face I meet," I am very confused by what he means by "mark."  I suppose he may mean that every face appears as though someone had branded it with fear or woe since it was blatantly expressed on their faces.  The other phrase which is alluding me is, "in every ban," which is used in the above quote.  I suppose dictionary.com's definition of...

a malediction; curse.

is closes to the use in "London," but I really have no clue at all.

Lastly, the handout says that lines 11 and 12 cannot be read literally.

"And the hapless Soldier's sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls."

I absolutely cannot figure out any symbolism that this could mean.  Is it maybe still further portraying the helplessness in the citizens, but maybe transferring this hopelessness to the monarchy as well?

P.S.  I love Firefox's auto-save.  Firefox randomly crashed twice as I typed this.

Perrine's predicament on pondering poetry

 

Before I start this blog, I feel like I should point out that I am definitely guilty of having wondered how some personal interpretations of blogs are considered "wrong" by my teachers.  Having read Perrine's theory on judging the credibility of interpretation has really struck me by its truth.  The example by Huxley about a thief really struck me the most because of how simple it was to relate with.  I had never actually realized that when I interpret a poem that I might be making a really farfetched assumption about the setting of the poem that was either lacking for a specific reason or possibly even contradictory of the details already present in the poem.  When I read him say that the correct interpretation relies on the fewest assumptions, I had to question the validity of my previous interpretations.  Looking back on the three poems you had us read earlier this week, I can see how my interpretations were similar to having a monkey steal my silver ware just to have a "hobo" peak in my window.  I still really do not agree with his idea of these interpretations being lacking though, they just may be a little more creative - yes, that was just a round about way of saying that they are wrong, but I really do not believe there can be a wrong interpretation of a poem!  I almost feel like Perrine is not completely opposed to seeing validity in more obscure opinions since he did compare them to Rorschach tests in the first paragraph which indicates that he understands the need for diversity in answers.  However, I do fully agree that if too many assumptions are made about the meaning behind a poem, then it does definitely need some serious reconsideration.

Reading Perrine's interpretations make me feel very confused, not because I do not understand the logic, but because two of the three interpretations were actually jokingly suggested by me during small group discussions.  For the Emily Dickinson poem, I too at first saw the flowery field, but then the next morning when I reacquainted myself with the poems, I did faintly see the sunset - I was just trying to think of purple and yellow things, but that was as far as I got since I did not figure out the clouds.  I feel like him completely discrediting the vision that so many people got is unfair for them.  Poetry for me has always been open for interpretation, and while I understand that not every interpretation is correct, I feel like the most common one is probably the one which the author was going for and one that seems more correct is just crazy coincidence.  For the Whitman vs Melville debate, I do see where he is coming from and will have to agree with Perrine, though I was not even remotely close to that.  I suppose when I study the poems, I should pay more attention to the adjectives relations to the nouns.  Lastly, his observations on symbols, seem very close to my beliefs.  In addition, I find it very odd that the Blake poem could be just a literal meaning, though I did actually suggest that to my group, it was in a completely sarcastic tone.

Never Let Me Go - Twenty

"'I keep thinking about this river somewhere, with the water moving really fast.  And these two people in the water, trying to hold onto each other, holding on as hard as they can, but in the end it's just too much.  The currents too strong.  They've got to let go, drift apart.  That's how I think it is with us.  It's a shame, Kath, because we've loved each other ll our lives.  But in the end, we can't stay together forever'" (pg 282).

Why must every book end with the main characters parting ways, dying or both?  This metaphor used by Tommy to explain Kathy and his departure really brought the friendship to a nice conclusion.  It really reminded me of the clown and balloon metaphor from when Ruth was ill.  I hate how the entire book had had such an upbeat mood, but in order to truly show the themes, Ishiguro decided to end the book with such a powerful statement.  The entire novel, I was dead set that the major theme was that wisdom comes with time and experience, but now I almost think that it could be more within the power of knowledge.

When Kathy and Tommy actually learned about their pasts, instead of being appreciatory about all that had been done for them, they seemed to just let it roll off their sleeves and almost seemed offended.  I really see this novel as a warning sign for the present way that the scientific community seems to be progressing.

I just read the questions at the end of the novel and one of them talked about the power of the group that was stressed at Hailsham.  I just realized how that differs from what I had previously thought.  It seems that throughout the novel, people were stronger when others were with them.  This seems to be a different take on Huxley's Brave New World where they wanted solitude by the end.

Now that I am done with my blogs, I feel like summer is over.  So sad.