Poetry Analysis

The Lion and the Lamb by Elinor Wylie

1.I saw a Tiger's golden flank,
2.I saw what food he ate,
3.By a desert spring he drank;
4.The Tiger's name was Hate.

5.Then I saw a placid Lamb
6.Lying fast asleep;
7.Like a river from its dam
8.Flashed the Tiger's leap.

9.I saw a lion tawny-red,
10.Terrible and brave;
11.The Tiger's leap overhead
12.Broke like a wave.

13.In sand below or sun above
14.He faded like a flame.
15.The Lamb said, "I am Love;
16.Lion, tell your name."

17.The Lion's voice thundering
18.Shook his vaulted breast,
19."I am Love. By this spring,
20.Brother, let us rest."

The poem "The Lion and the Lamb" by Elinor Wylie exemplifies the fact that love always triumphs over hatred. I personally like this poem because (this is going to sound dumb) I like lions and tigers (and bears. Oh my!) and I think that the comparison of them to love and hate is interesting. You can tell right away that this poem is going to be a happier one because of the diction used by Ms. Wylie. The tiger is said to have a "golden flank" (1) which instantly gives the poem a regal, sort of boisterous air (sort of like how one feels when walking into an ostentatious house).

After such an air is put on it is shown that the Lion, representing love (19), easily triumphs over the tiger, hatred. Wylie shows readers this through the lines,
I saw a lion tawny-red,
Terrible and brave;
The Tiger's leap overhead
Broke like a wave (9-12).
I think that the poem is beautifully written (it is the same author as Sea Lullaby) and it's message is very much that of a Jane Austen novel or a fairy tail. Wylie's diction and metaphors comparing Love and Hatred to Lions and Tigers helps prove her point that love will always triumph over haterd.

Outside Reading

The Once and Future King, Part 1: The Sword in the Stone by T.H. White

The characters in my book, thus far, are the Wart, Kay, Merlyn.
The Wart is actually (soon to be king) Arthur, although he is called such because, "The Wart was called the Wart because it more or less rhymed with Art, which was short for his real name. Kay had given him the nickname" (White 3). The Wart is an adventuresome boy who blindly admires Kay. He is being raised by Sir Ector, Kay's father and is much like a brother to Kay. (You can easily tell this by their squabbles.) The Wart is constantly asking Merlyn to turn him into different animals and has been turned into a pike, a merlin, an ant, an owl, a goose, and a badger. The Wart looks up to Kay and seems to be envious of him, partially because he is older and will be knighted before him.

Kay is the son of Sir Ector. He is incredibly short tempered and is envious of Wart because Merlyn will not turn him (Kay) into animals. Kay knows that he will be knighted before the Wart, and uses this to provoke the Wart and make Kay, himself, feel superior. Kay acts very brotherly towards Wart.

Merlyn is the tutor to both Kay and Wart. Merlyn teaches Kay normal schooling while Wart gets to learn about magic and animals and such. Merlyn seems to be teaching Wart about different governments and ways of treating situations by turning him into animals and I'm pretty sure this plays into how Wart acts and how Wart will rule when he becomes King.

This first part of the book has very little conflict in it and is used to set up the characters of Wart and Merlyn for later on in the novel. Don't get me wrong, though, the novel is fascinating and at times hilarious. Thus far, there are also few/no similarities, but it is a long book, so it should have some similarities later on.

Question Number One!

Is Richard a "bad" boy?

When should behavior be blamed on the person and when should it be blamed on the environment?

Richard is young when the book starts, leading him to do rash things and not understand the danger of his actions. When Richard is trying to entertain himself at the beginning of the book, he naturally is attracted to the fire (4). He was not trying to be destructive, he merely was curious, and his curiosity lead him to see if things other than the straw from the broom would burn. I can say that In this case he's really just acting like any other four year old who has not been taught the dangers of fire. The phrase "curiosity killed the cat" is not quite true when it comes to Black Boy. When Richard's father tells him to kill the kitten, one can be sure he did not mean it literally. Though Richard, being young and wanting to spite his father, takes his father's words seriously and uses a piece of rope to strangle the kitten (11). Again, Richard grew up being taught that his father's word was law, so blame cannot really be pushed upon him. Overall, I just think Richard is a product of his environment and he really takes little blame for his actions.

Wow, I wrote a lot... :) Do we have to cite the book?