Reading Response to "The context of Blakean contraries in 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.'

After finishing reading "The context of Blakean contraries in 'The marriage of Heaven and Hell'", by David Stewart, a 5699 word article, I have so much of a better understanding of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" than I did before! In this article, Stewart talks mainly of what the word "marriage" is supposed to mean in this poem, and how it should be interpreted when we read it. The first couple sentences of Stewart's article pretty much summarize what a majority of the article is about: "One of the most problematical aspects of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is the term "marriage." How are we to interpret it? In the biblical context of two becoming one flesh, or in the more modern context of two joined in equal harmony?" Throughout the article, Stewart talks about how the entire meaning of sections of the text changes if you interpret marriage to mean the biblical definition or the modern definition. Also, Stewart points out that there are many points in the poem where it looks as if Blake is using it in the modern context ("Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence."), but there are also points in the poem where it looks as if he is using more of the biblical context (The Angel is dominated by the Devil and consumed and becomes a Devil). In order to read the poem effectively, you have to have the understanding of what marriage means, and this article prepares you to read the poem very well.

When I first read the poem, before I read the article, I was very confused. To be honest, I did not like it at all and I dreaded doing this project. Before I had even started it, I found myself shooting it down and making myself believe that it was horrible. Then, when I found this article in class, I said to myself, "10 pages! Heck no!" But then I showed it to my teacher, Mr. Turner, and he gave me a whole new view on the project and a whole new view on the article! I got into reading it and annotating it and found that a ton of different people have a ton of different views on what marriage means in the poem! When I read it before, I didn't even think twice about the meaning or think anything special of the poem at all. I just thought, "Oh boy, another poem." When I started reading the article, everything started falling into place. Sentences that before made no sense, were all of a sudden clicking in my head and I was beginning to get more and more intrigued by the article. A couple of sentences on the second page really stood out to me as they responded, "If one sees marriage in the biblical context of one partner dominating the other then Blake has not really retrieved evil from the exclusionary position to which orthodoxy has condemned it. On the other hand, if marriage is seen as a joining of equality then we have to agree with Wittreich and argue that the work is, artistically, unsuccessful, as we do not witness a marriage of equality." This really seemed weird to me because of the way it takes down, what seems to be, the only two options for marriage. It tells how if Blake meant it in the biblical way, it wouldn't have quite worked, but if he meant it in the modern way, it would have been pretty much a failure as well. Throughout Stewart's article, he quotes scholars left and right and pretty much hits on every contradiction in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". Although the right interpretation of Blake's poem is not known, David Stewart's article helps you understand it a whole lot more in depth. It goes through the two different interpretations (biblical and modern) for most, if not all, of Blake's contradictions In "Heaven and Hell", gives the ideas of how many different scholars have interpreted it, and also references contraries to where it happens in the poem. David Stewart's "The context of Blakean contraries in 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell'" is a great article for anyone looking to get more out of William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell".

Review of "Wordsworthians"

I recently had the opportunity to go on over to a classmates blog and check it out. My friends Sam, Schaffer, and Alex decided to create and maintain a blog called Wordsworthians. As the title suggests, their blog is all about William Wordsworth, the romantic poet.

I really liked their page set up! I think that the background image and the see through navigation bars really looks cool and professional. I also really liked how they added a picture of Wordsworth onto the home page. After looking over the blog, i found that they really did their job. I didn't know much about Wordsworth, but after reading their blog, I was much more educated. They have many different kinds of posts such as videos, poem reviews, biographies and many more, which I think is a good thing. By having such a wide range of topics, their page may help more than just one person. People might come upon their page just wanting to know a little more about the life of Wordsworth and some of his writing, and with their page, they would find it!

 One of the posts that interested me the most was Alex's prose poem. i really related to it because it has a topic that I enjoy and i too was dreaming about: winter break. He did a great job of using the senses and making it as if I was in the same spot he as and that i could smell exactly what he was describing. Also, when he describes the cookie going into his mouth and the taste of them, i almost felt like they were going into my mouth! When he talked about school and it getting over but then starting up again, I thought he presented it very well. Once he described that school was over for break, I got lost in the smells, sounds, images, and tastes of break, and then at the end, when he described going back to school, it was like I had completely forgot about school.

Overall their blog is really great. They have great information on their site and everything they say is clear and to the point. The design works perfect for what they are trying to accomplish and i hope people can take advantage of their great blog!

Sin, By: Andy Abelein

Hit, punch, smack! It strikes again, yes, that is it right, sin. Always there, always tempting, always strong, forever - it does not stop, it will not stop, even if you ask politely - sin does not care - for it is sin, you cannot win. Or so you think - so it wants you to think. It has you down - pinned like a tie, it follows you, always there, like it is stuck somehow - with glue - onto you. Do you want to? I think not - maybe i am wrong - you say "I want this to stop". Change, transform, be made brand new! Don't follow the trends, don't give in that easy - do you want to be engulfed, taken away, conformed? - hold fast onto this truth that you know! He is not sin - not a drop, not a sprinkle is in him - yet ignored He is! I am I AM!, He says, but you close your ears - you do not see His greatness, you miss out and don't hear. You can pick every string, hit every note, strum every chord, know every line - all these you do very well - But wait, your ears. For they are still closed, shut off from He who made you from dust, who makes you alive from sunrise to dusk. For great and glorious sounds come from your strings, but hear them - you cannot - for you reject the only King of Kings. Have you been enflamed? Taken over by it - that is what is evil. Have you fallen too far? Have you messed up too much? Yes, you might say, but you are still in touch - find Him, seek Him, thirst for Him in everything - He does not forget, yet he always forgives - Sin does not. It wants to take advantage of you, manipulate you, then take you down - make you one of its minions to bring others in. This world is sin, full of mound after mound - but He can take it all off your shoulders, pound after pound. Forgiveness or fire, the Good Shepherd or a devil, angels or demons, Heaven or Hell - the choice is yours.

The Meaning of "Marriage" In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" the word "marriage" is a very important, yet very controversial word. If one takes it to mean one thing, and another takes it to mean another, a whole different story is told. I think of it like that old game everyone used to play called telephone. One person thinks of a saying and whispers it to the person next to him. That person whispers it to the person next to him, and so on, until the saying reaches the last person. When the first person stands up and says the saying how he heard it, it is usually messed up or distorted in some way. Everyone gets frustrated with the other people because everyone thinks they whispered it exactly right. This relates to the meaning of marriage quite a bit. The only reason the word is so controversial is because there are so many different definitions people think it to mean, and everyone thinks that they are right. Really, there are only two main types of marriage: the biblical meaning and the modern meaning. The biblical meaning is two becoming one flesh. The more modern meaning is two joined in equal harmony.

Most of my information on this subject comes from the article I just read by David Stewart. He talks long and hard about all the different views on marriage and how certain parts of the text seem more inclined towards the modern meaning and some more inclined towards the biblical meaning. One point that Stewart brings up is the in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", we are told that the angel is consumed and becomes a devil. This consumption of the angel seems to give me the feeling that Blake was thinking of marriage in more biblical terms (two becoming one flesh).

The article also quotes David Erdman saying "Blake was half in jest when he spoke of the 'marriage' of Heaven and Hell." This quote is very strange. In order to believe this, you would have to completely take the biblical context of marriage out of the picture. Erdman is taking marriage in the modern context, but what is even more baffling is that he is calling the transformation of the angel a huge flaw in the poem!

As Stewart says in his article, "If one sees marriage in the biblical context of on partner dominating the other then Blake has not really retrieved evil form the exclusionary position to which orthodoxy has condemned it. On the other hand, if marriage is seen as a joining of equality then we have to agree with Wittreich and argue that the work is, artistically, unsuccessful as we do not witness a marriage of equality.

Most of my information on this subjects comes from the article I just read by David Stewart. He talks long and hard about all the different views on marriage and how certain parts of the text seem more inclined towards the modern meaning and some more inclined towards the biblical meaning. on point that Stewart brings up is the in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", we are told that the angel is consumed and becomes a devil. This consumption of the angel seems to give me the feeling that Blake was thinking of marriage in more biblical terms (two becoming one flesh).

The article also quotes David Erdman saying "Blake was half in jest when he spoke of the 'marriage' of Heaven and Hell." This quote is very strange. in order to believe this, you would have to completely take the biblical context of marriage out of the picture. Erdman is taking marriage in the modern context, but what is even more baffling is that he is calling the transformation of the angel a huge flaw in the poem!

As Stewart says in his article, "If one sees marriage in the biblical context of on partner dominating the other then Blake has not really retrieved evil form the exclusionary position to which orthodoxy has condemned it. On the other hand, if marriage is seen as a joining of equality then we have to agree with Wittreich and argue that the work is, artistically, unsuccessful as we do not witness a marriage of equality.

"The Argument" - First Impressions

I just read "The Argument", part of William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Now, I know a little bit of background on this, but this is my thoughts, views, and how I personally interpret this poem. When I read it for the first time, I seriously had no clue what was going on, but now that I have read it multiple times, I see that the entire piece is full of contradiction after contradiction. In the first stanza alone, there are quite a few illogicalities. "Once meek, and in a perilous path, The just man kept his course along The vale of death" (line 3-5). In this, meek (humble) contradicts the "perilous path" and "The vale of death." Why in the world would a meek man be in a perilous path in the first place, let alone keep the path on his way to death?!

There are actually two different contradictions in the next three lines. "Roses are planted where thorns grow, And on the barren heath Sing honey bees" (lines 6-8). The first is when Blake says "Roses are planted where thorns grow..." Roses and thorns contradict each other because normally, roses are thought of a nice, lovely plant, and thorns a dark, ugly plant. Hardly ever would they mix or be grown in the same place. The second is when Blake states "And on barren heath Sing the honey bees." Any bee in its right mind would NEVER go to a "barren heath" (a bare bush or plant), because they need the nectar that good, healthy plants give them.

Throughout the rest of the poem there are more contradictions such as: "And a river and a spring On every cliff and tomb", "on bleached bones red clay brought forth", and many more at that. Overall, I thought that the poem was very good and very well written. It kept me wondering the whole time and thinking about the words and context. All the contradictions seemed kind of funny to me, but after reading the poem, I can see that Blake was making a point. From the background that i already have, I know that the contradictions in this poem were to show that in order to have good, good must first turn into evil, and influence it to become good. If any of you have not read this poem yet, I would strongly recommend it to anyone!

Awesome Video on William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

I was looking around on youtube for videos that would help me and others understand William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" a little better, when I came across this video. I really like it because it stays away from the deep, deep context, while still presenting the main point in a way that is easy to understand. It is proven that seeing images helps a large amount of people to understand writing better, and this video shows why. Blake was the first Romantic to be well known for both his poetry and his paintings. The main reason for this was because he created them to go together with each other, almost as if they were one piece of work. Throughout the entire video, the screen switches from parts of the poem or Blake's quotes, to pictures/paintings that Blake created to go with the certain part of the text. The creator of this video did a great job deciding which quotes and which lines to put in this video, in order for the viewer to get the greatest, simple understanding of the poem.

When I was first looking for videos that explained this poem well enough to post, I saw this one, watched 20 seconds, and skipped over it like it was just another stupid one. After searching for a few minutes I thought to myself, "Oh boy. This is going to be impossible to find a good, informative video."  I'm not quite sure what provoked me to click on this video again, maybe it was just by chance, but I did. But this time I watched the whole thing and saw that it was much more informative than I originally thought. Before, I thought that it wasn't as in depth as I wanted, and that I didn't want a slideshow type video. But after watching it, I realized that it was a good option to post on this blog, and that it would be good for others to see before going more in depth with the poem, and analyzing the deeper aspects and meanings of it as well.

Video By: Blakeanators