In ‘London,’ Blake walks through London, commenting on all the negative aspects of the city, which create negative imagery. He talks about all the unnatural ugliness within the city, which he implies is caused by laws and boundaries, whereas in Wordsworth’s ‘Westminster Bridge,’ the feelings and atmosphere seem to be opposite. Wordsworth is describing the true beauty of the city, the buildings, the river and he looks at the streets of London at dawn. He talks in a positive manner and he sees London as a beautiful place to be.
Blake seems to hate quite a lot about London, although he takes good and bad things and mixes them; uses an oxymoron which makes readers see there are mixed emotions. He sees everything as controlled, or ‘chartered,’ so we kind of see London from his point of view; as it being all locked up and no natural things.
Wordsworth, however, is very positive about Westminster, seeing the real beauty of natural (‘the beauty of the morning’) and industrialized things. A phrase in the poem; ‘Dull would he be of soul who could pass by,’ emphasises haw the atmosphere of the city can affect peoples soul. He’s saying that if you could just walk past the city, without stopping or seeing beauty, you must be a very dull person. I think this phrase is quite effective as it’s quite personal, which gets my interest to see that he is emphasising his beliefs that the city is more beautiful than the people in it. Unlike Blake, Wordsworth sees the city as released, peaceful and free.
In ‘London,’ Blake thinks everyone is innocent, and it’s the governments’ fault that everything is bound to the city. The innocent people seem to be troubled; ‘in every cry of every man,’ about the situation, because their innocence appears to be corrupted from the governments ‘wrong decisions,’ and making people feel like they are just another item, belonging to the city.
Again, Wordsworth has the opposite opinion. He gives a very positive impression about the city, using ‘touching’ adverbs to create positive imagery.
Authority is the main point in Blake’s ‘London,’ whereas Wordsworth doesn’t seem to mention it, but doesn’t say anything bad. Blake talks quite aggressively about royals, and he seems to be blaming them for “hapless soldier’s sigh.” “Runs in blood down palace walls” proves Blake’s point further. By this, he could mean that the palace is forcing the soldiers to fight and protect them, even if it means them dying, showing the royals are selfish and need to have more respect for their country. He doesn’t just blame the royals for this though; he mentions the “blackening church” too. He seems to believe that the church should be doing something to help the things that are tied down by “mind-forged manacles,” but they aren’t. He shows that the only people helping are the innocent people, the ones who are tied down.
Wordsworth uses a lot of strong metaphors to express his positive feelings about Westminster. “The beauty of the morning, silent, bare…ships, towers…all bright and glittering in the smokeless air.” He takes beauty from things that are quite relaxed, but still stand out. This expresses beauty from a natural way, reflecting onto industrialized things, making them seem more beautiful than they are.
Blake uses quite negative metaphors to express his views though, making you see London from a different perspective, helping to amalgamate opinions. “I wander through each chartered street, near where the chartered Thames does flow” provides quite a negative observation about the same place as Wordsworth provides a positive view about.
In ‘London,’ Blake doesn’t really talk about positive things; conflicting Wordsworth’s perspective, who doesn’t really talk about negative things within the city. They both use very powerful metaphors; making certain things which you could not notice, stand out more than the rest. I think Wordsworth has got his point across very well as he has used more effective metaphors and I get more imagery from ‘Upon Westminster Bridge’ than in ‘London.’
