All in all, I do not think that deformation is a helpful tool, but I can see where others may think that it helps to better understand the original poem. When switching out words, we are able to see exactly how the meaning of the poem is altered and how the author had originally intended it to be. I think this is most helpful when we decide which words to switch out ourselves. When the words are predetermined, we lose that sense of examining the original. By having to look deeply at the poem and pick out key words, we are able to distinguish the poem’s meaning better. However, I personally do not think that deformation does anything. I think that maybe if instead of random words replacing the original they were instead replaced with synonyms or antonyms to see how the poem would function then. By simply replacing key words with gibberish, nothing is gained. Sure there is a funny poem here or there but nothing of actual importance. In the future i’d like to see more of a controlled deformation that the deformer has planned to some extent, just as random antonyms/synonyms rather that random parts of speech. However, I realize that having any control in deformation defeats the purpose, so I will respectfully walk away from the whole thing.

In William Blake’s “Introduction,” he sets the tone for the rest of the Songs of Innocence. Just as the rest of the Songs of Innocence, “Introduction” has a sing-song nursery rhyme kind of tone; due to its iambic pentameter. In this poem, it is easy to see inspiration from Paradise Lost. In the beginning of Paradise Lost, Milton calls upon the muse to help him tell his story. Similarly, Blake sees a “child in a cloud,” presumably a holy figure because of its innocence and celestial position, that calls on him to write poems. After this, the child begins to cry with joy at Blake’s poems, and Blake goes on to create a “rural pen” as if he is the God of writer and “stain’d the water clear,” representing a blank canvas that he is the first to write upon. Just as we discussed Blake’s “The Lamb” as himself being the creator of the lamb because he wrote the poem, Blake is claiming himself to be a great creator that is doing a service to all of the children by writing happy songs for them, causing such beauty that they physically weep.

As for the engraving for the poem, it matches the poem pretty well. Just as a nursery rhyme is typically older and more nature oriented, Blake’s engraving features a tree with little images on the sides of what appears to be of the poems or people. Most of the engravings are typically brighter, so the tone is not altered by the engravings. I think the archive makes research on Blake incredibly easier than it had been in the past. I could not imagine having such easy access to all of the engravings without the archive.

It is a strange idea to think of people being openly queer in the 1800’s; not that there is anything strange about being queer, but typically these individuals are blotted out of history lessons. Even with Shakespeare’s sonnets, I was completely unaware that the majority were dedicated to a man. It is interesting to think that there have always been around the same amount of queer individuals, but they were too afraid to admit it to any one, and if they did, it was typically met with scrutiny and much worse. When I picked Robinson’s poem, I was excited to see just how the poem would be classified as queer and did a general search for it: nothing came up. In fact, the only place I could find the poem was by the link provided to a picture of an old book. After reading the poem, I can see clear queer markers, but without knowing the poet was a woman, I would not have bated an eye. However, knowing that this is a lesbian relationship that is being written about, I can better evaluate it. Starting off, the poem is dark, the narrator is calling to the night and death to come to her. She comments on the dreams that fill her “large with promise” of something lost and for death that “hope for every thrall.” She is resenting the dreams that give her hope but also longing for the death that promises everyone, even her who is a slave to love, freedom. The first time I realized she was talking about a woman was at line 5, “…to her for whom I wake and call.” Here it is clear that the lost love is in fact another woman. She then goes on to write about their “vanished love”  and how, in death, she hopes her love remembers her. For me, I assumed that the poem would be more of a lament of forbidden love rather than lost. There is a sort of stigma in the media we are fed that only features queer love when it is being torn apart of hesitantly flustering. This poem speaks about it in a real manner that makes the reader relate it to every other type of relationship. After all, Lin-Manuel Miranda did tell us that “Love is love is love,” and Robinson proves this centuries before by writing about it so realistically and nonchalantly.

Upon first reading this poem, it is written as if a declaration. The use of exclamation marks throughout the poem makes the reader assume that is should be read with gust and energy. However, when hearing the poem spoken aloud it becomes evident why the author named it “Footnote to Howl.” The speaker does emphasize the words that have exclamation marks, but in a much different way. He almost sounds like he is moaning or howling when he repeats the phrase “Holy!” (line 1).  This could be the meaning behind the title- the author is keying people in on how to read the poem. Whenever the narrator isn’t moaning holy, he voice seems thick as if he were crying. Throughout the poem he has a dragged out tone, not too fast but never pausing, the speed remains fairly consistent throughout. In fact, he sounds like a preacher giving a sermon. However, his tone does change, by line 12 when he writes “Holy the fifth international!” it almost is as if the emotion was drained from him and he begins mindlessly reciting lines until he reaches the dramatic climax of “suffering! magnanimity!” in line 14. This could be due to the fact that the fifth international is a revolutionary communism group and “magnanimity” being such as mercy or forgiveness. By placing the emphasis on the beginning of the line, which almost always start with “Holy”( lines 1, 6-15), he brings attention to the irony of the poem. Starting a sentence with Holy often implies that the preceding object would be good or praisable, but the author says things such as “Holy my mother in the insane asylum!” (line 7) and “holy the hideous human angels!” (line 6).  Overall, the performance takes an already dark poem and pushes it even further with the moaning and thick sorrowful voice of the narrator.

Although “F*** You” does not sound to be so, it is a political song. Lily Allen wrote the song in 2008 to show her disapproval of then president George W. Bush. The lyrics themselves are pretty straightforward, Allen straight-out calls him “racist,” “small minded” and even “evil.” The whole pretense of the song is that Allen is furious over how Bush is running his presidency and the anti-humanitarian ideals he holds. She becomes furious to the point that she too becomes full of hatred. The lyrics are nasty and to the point, with the majority of the chorus having the repetition of “F*** You.”

However, upon hearing the song, listeners have a very different take on it. The melody is upbeat and cheery and Lily Allen sings as though she has a smile on her face. The whole song is very ironic, she is denouncing the president but almost laughing at him as well. This is refreshing because as she sings about his life of hatred, the singer herself seems happy and unaffected by it. It is the same way parents tell their children to deal with bullies (which Allen calls Bush), just ignore them and make them think you’re happy. On a different level, the upbeat tone could also be a seen as passing the point of frustration to where all Allen can do is laugh and say “F*** You.” It sounds as if she is so astonished at the “hatred” and “evil” within him that she has passed the point of anger.

Lily Allen has successfully created a song that has two very different levels. On one hand, it is spiteful and revealing, talking about the evil that George W. Bush has brought into the world; but on the other hand it is catchy and fun to sing along to. Without the performance, this piece would be a completely different work.