Possible+flaws

Today, we read and discussed the poem "The Tyger." After two read-thru's, we noticed that the words "symmetry" and "eye" do not rhyme. Well, this isn't that dramatic for most poems, but for this particular piece, the majority of the lines are technically couplets. After thinking about whether the pronunciation was switched, Br. Tom brought up the idea that it might just be a flaw, intentional or not intentional. The thought that a poet would purposefully add two lines at the end of his/her stanza with the intention of not rhyming is somewhat bizarre, because the rest of the lines match. It was kind of bugging me during class. Not to mention that William Blake repeated it, making them book-ends of the poem. I was just wondering what the purpose of placing this different trait twice throughout the poem. Change in pronunciation aside, do you think he was just trying to personalize it, or was it possible a mistake? 1205282387

I definitely don't think that it could have been a mistake. I don't think poets just spit out their work and send them to the publishers, like we often do our homework. ha They take their time with their poetry, editing, revising and making it exactly how they want the public to read it. I do not think poetry could be a mistake, unless it was a purposeful mistake, but then it is not a mistake. I think that Blake must have wanted the word symmetry to stand out, and by not rhyming it, I believe that he succeeded. Symmetry is harmony and perfection. In art, in order for something to be great, it must be symmetrical--aligned and in perfect harmony. I think is why Blake uses symmetry in that manner. The repeated line reads, "Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" A tyger, is not pefect, but unatainable. A tyger can not be framed into perfect harmony, it is alive and chaotic. A tyger is fearful--unlike the harmony of symmetry. 1205287247

I find it extremely difficult to think that that could have been a mistake on his part. I'm sure he did it on purpose because that lack of rhyme sticks out like a sore thumb, and he would have caught it in his revisions. Another possible reason, which is probably wrong, is that he just pronounced "symmetry" differently than the rest of the world, so when he read it, it did rhyme to him because he read it like symmet-"try," but again, that's a longshot. But what I find most interesting is that in nature, a tiger's stripes are not necessarily symmetrical, just like our fingerprints. So by making those 2 stanzas not rhyme, he is making those stanzas asymmetrical, just like the tiger's stripes. He could be trying to represent the tyger through his form. 1205291323

That's an interesting thought kkr. I didn't even think to look at the poem as symmetrical. It's funny how you brought up the symme-"try," considering one of the readers in our class pronounced it that way because he thought that it was supposed to rhyme with eye. In my head i pronounced it the same way as the reader because I know that in some older poems you have to change the way you say a word so you can complete the rhyme. I agree with both cdu and kkr, these two lines were not meant to rhyme. I find it intriguing that he begins and ends the poem with this awkward rhyme. It is almost as if he is stressing it to the max. kkr mentioned that stripes on a tiger are not symmetricl, but when you do look at a tiger, the do seem to match up, even though they are not all the same. I was having trouble with the "fearful" symmetry. Is it fearful just because a tiger is fearful? 1205291954

I think that this ;ine was, without a doubt, intentional. We talked today in class about the difference between what the words on the page say and what they sound like when read aloud. This line was obviously one that was opposite. I think there was good reason for this. These two lines are the only ones that use the word "symmetry", yet the two stanzas that contain them are the only ones without symmetry. I think that this draws more attention to the rest of the lines that do have symmetry. Also, that fact that they are in the first and last stanzas really drives the point that the rest of the stanzas are symmetric. I think he had to make "book-ends" of these stanzas (putting them at the beginning and end) becasue it created more symmetry - while the stanzas rhyme, the poem starts and ends the same way, keeping it even on both ends. 1205293798

I think Blake was just intentionally messing around with rhyme schemes. We talked in class about how the tiger is not actually a symmetrical creature and so I think Blake used and re-used the word symmetry to subliminally get the point across that neither this poem nor the tiger are actually entirely symmetrical, and he probably thought it was fun to mess with the symmetry of the poem by using the word symmetry in a form contrary to the poem's rhyme scheme. I will say that I agree with the statement that Blake forms at least this part of the poem around the form of the tiger in that the tiger is a seemingly symmetrical creature. I just found it interesting how the word symmetry was used to throw off the symmetry of the poem.1205363071

I think using the word "symmetry" and "eye" was absolutely brilliant because they don't rhyme. He created a contraction by having asymmetry with the word symmetry. The rest of the poem has symmetrical rhyming couplets until he uses the word symmetry. The word "symmetry" actually creates asymmetry. In my mind it is an incredible contradiction. But then to add to the contradiction, he creates symmetry with his asymmetrical rhymes by putting the "wrong" rhyme at both ends of the play. It's genius. Not only did he create symmetrical, asymmetry with the word "symmetry" (I'm not quite sure if that made sense...) within the poem but it can also reference the tigers asymmetrical stripes as other people mentioned. I don't think this was a flaw, I think it is a brilliant contradiction. 1205382753

I don't know if it was brilliant because symmetry and eye do not rhyme. I thought the words eye and symmetry were perfect words for what Blake was trying to describe; unfortunately, these words just did not rhyme. It was neither a mistake or a brilliant effort on the part of Blake; rather it was just the effect of the English language not rhyming enough. I guess that the only way it could have been a mistake is if you, as a reader, thought Blake was wrong in choosing diction over rhyme. But Blake was justified in choosing diction over rhyme because it is more important to articulate your thoughts than make them rhyme. People can write nonsense that rhymes or they can choose to write effectively and through out the rhyming, once in a while, which is what Blake did.1205389021

Okay, if it's poetry published in a book like this, I think it's safe to say that it was no accident that it got in there. Poetry doesn't need to match perfectly, remember? The masters are always using their forms as just a sort of base, and working from there by expanding the form, and making all sorts of exceptions for each poem. It's really only the core that ties quite a few poems of these styles together. As for there being only one line off in this poem, well, I think he just ran out of ideas. Took some creative license and just wrote the next best thing, two words with similar spelling. After all, we have a limited English vocabulary, with a certain number of words available, and if none of those have appropriate synonyms, and you can't rewrite a line without screwing up the flow or meaning, then you might just need to keep it the way it is without filling out the form perfectly. Cut him some slack, he just was out of ideas probably. 1205449019

Throughout __The Making of a Poem__ we have read the introductions to chapters that give the basic outline of the category of poem we are talking about. Then we start to read and study the poems in that chapter. As a class we always seem to find the ones that are slightly off in the definition and we just tear them apart. I think that we need to let authors have some flexibility. They are trying to be creative and maybe that mismatching "symetry" and "eye" was a part of it. If we focus on the flaws of poems, I think were all going to miss the big picture. We need to decide it were going to look at the work of art for what it is saying or how it fits the definition of what it should be. If we're going to both, I think we need to be a little more open to minor details. But hey if someone thinks that those two mismatching words threw the entire poem then that works too. I think it all depends on how people read poems. But honestly I don't think we have the authority to say that the author was wrong in doing something or made a mistake because we really don't know; we can only discuss.1205463816