What gives this poem its power is its ambiguity. It has a hallucinatory, nightmarish quality, created through a blurring of physical, psychological and sensory phenomena.
Examples of what I mean:
1/
The "marks of weakness, marks of woe" suggest physical signs, but "weakness" and "woe" can be seen psychologically. Is it physical weakness, mental weakness or both?
2/
"The mind-forg'd manacles I hear"
Again Blake is blurring a psychological aspect with a sensory one: the poet can "hear" others' state of mind. And the message here is ambiguous too: is it internalised weakness that causes imagined enslavement, or external factors?
3/
"Chimney sweepers" are a great image because they are typical of an exploited underclass, but because cleaning chimneys suggests cleaning away the byproduct of modernity and industrialisation. Pollution in the poem is both literal and moral.
4/
The "cry" of the sweepers seems to becomes the sooty pollution that "blackens" the churches. The sensory and the moral blur into one. The
church blackens in colour and in cruelty. "Appals" is ambivalent: do the churches pity the children or despise them?
5/
And in "appals" I heat the echo of a "pall" of smoke -- the cry of children is what pollutes and blackens the church.
More transformation: "The hapless soldiers sigh runs in blood down palace walls."
6/
From the psychological -- the soldiers' fear -- to the sensory -- the sound of their cry -- to the physical -- their blood running down the wall.
Blood pollutes the walls of the palace just as the church was "blackened". Walls are important here as a symbol of division.
7/
And there's one more sound to hear in Blake's London: "the youthful harlot's curse". This becomes physical too -- a "blight" of disease infecting families.
8/
I admire this poem for the nightmarish urban world it creates in just 16 short lines, and I love how Blake achieves this by transforming sights and sounds into something greater.
9/9
That should be sigh* for the soldiers, obvs, not cry.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some quick, late thoughts about YA books on the curriculum.
@DavidDidau blogged on this today, and it got me thinking. This isn't meant as a point-by-point response or anything -- read this, then read his blog, and decide for yourself.
1/
I think YA books can happily co-exist on the KS3 curriculum with older and more canonical books. That's not to say they're the same, or there are no qualitative differences. I just think our subject can encompass both.
2/
While the concept of the "Canon" is problematic, most teachers would agree that there IS an academic discipline called "English" and at its core is a canon of agreed-upon "great works". And many would say those works should be at the centre of English in schools.
3/
I made the decision this year not to teach OMAM any more. The book still flourishes in other schools at KS3, no doubt because book cupboards are still full of copies after its heyday of GCSE dominance.
Let me explain my reasons.
1/
Disclaimer: if this seems all terribly woke, or you love OMAM and you think it's right for your students, more power to you. You do what's good for your school.
2/
There are elements in OMAM that work brilliantly 84 years after its publication. Its attack on "American dream" capitalism, on the myth of success through hard work, it still potent. And some of the language is divine: I wouldn't expect any less from Steinbeck.
3/
The best value quote in A Christmas Carol is from Stave One:
Scrooge: "I can't afford to make idle people merry."
Let me break it down:
1/
"I can't afford"
Scrooge CAN, of course, afford to give a donation to charity. He learns later in the book that just a small amount of money can bring a huge amount of happiness.
But as someone who pursues the gain of money for its own sake...
2/
he never feels comfortable with the amount he has, and has lost a sense of what the value of his money is.
3/
Everybody had something to say about it, but nobody said or thought it was at all a small pudding for a large family. It would have been flat heresy to do so.
I love the word HERESY here.
1/
It's not just that complaining about the scant food would be ungrateful or upsetting for the Cratchits.
It would be HERETICAL: it would go against a shared belief, an ethical code that they share implicitly, that what they have is enough.
2/
Their poverty is the elephant in the room, but their moral code dictates that family, humility and gratitude are how one lives, not jealousy or anger.
3/
I’ve been thinking about Sybil a lot in the last week or so, about her treatment of Eva, and how it resonates with current questions about our treatment of the poor in times of need.
1/
It’s significant that JBP introduces Sybil as an almost comical character. Remember: Sybil’s generation would have all but died out by 1945, and those in the audience in their 50s or 60s would recognise themselves in Sheila and Eric, and their parents’ gen. in Mr and Mrs B.
2/
So Sybil sits on stage at curtain up, presumably dressed to stand out as her “husband’s social superior”, a relic of the Victorian upper class.
And her first contributions make her seem deliberately out of date:
3/