A recent argument stating that the poems in the “freedom for animal” are arguing more for humans than animals has been brought to my attention. I can see why this argument has been brought up, because they use many metaphors about that certain animal to describe a human rather than to give that animal the extra recognition. There are three poems in this section the only ones i really see that they're arguing more for humans are “The tyger” and “The Snake”. “The fish” on the other hand is talking more about the fish and its imperfections. "The Tyger" is a poem made of questions.This poem is often interpreted to deal with issues of inspiration, poetry, mystical knowledge, God, and the sublime, In all stanzas there are a series of questions
…show more content…
So this poetry piece can be said to be arguing more for the humans rather than the animal, it's sort of like they're just bashing the snake or talking less of it. In stanza six, line twenty three the author is quoted on saying ‘ he must be killed” which is pretty self explanatory that they are focusing more on the humans side instead of what the snake is thinking. Then they focus more on the humans side some more, telling us how he felt about the snake and that he kind of “ liked him” so he didn't want to kill him. So in the end a person can say that they focus more on how the human felt about the snake and how he was towards the serpent. On the other hand in the poem “The Fish”, it focus more on the fish and how it acted throughout the piece. The fisherman starts by giving us brief details on the fish and what it looked like. The speaker almost sounds like he feels bad for the fish, because of what the fish has gone through. In other words he basically gives us the fishes imperfections. Lines fifteen through twenty really focus on the fish by telling us how bad of a shape the fish was in like very critical condition. From telling us how bad the fishes gills were to his bloody gills that were in horrible shape. So in the end a person can say that the fisherman really felt passionate about the fish and focused more on the fish than rather to focus on
So this poetry piece can be said to be arguing more for the humans rather than the animal, it's sort of like they're just bashing the snake or talking less of it. In stanza six, line twenty three the author is quoted on saying ‘ he must be killed” which is pretty self explanatory that they are focusing more on the humans side instead of what the snake is thinking. Then they focus more on the humans side some more, telling us how he felt about the snake and that he kind of “ liked him” so he didn't want to kill him. So in the end a person can say that they focus more on how the human felt about the snake and how he was towards the serpent. On the other hand in the poem “The Fish”, it focus more on the fish and how it acted throughout the piece. The fisherman starts by giving us brief details on the fish and what it looked like. The speaker almost sounds like he feels bad for the fish, because of what the fish has gone through. In other words he basically gives us the fishes imperfections. Lines fifteen through twenty really focus on the fish by telling us how bad of a shape the fish was in like very critical condition. From telling us how bad the fishes gills were to his bloody gills that were in horrible shape. So in the end a person can say that the fisherman really felt passionate about the fish and focused more on the fish than rather to focus on