Do you agree with the poet’s way of describing all the wild animals mentioned in the poem? Why / why not? Write your views.
Answers
Answer:
No, I don't agree with poets' idea of describing the wild animals.
The poet has always written a philosophical description which doesn't resonant with others. Actually, they land up using jargon words which creates a imaginary animal with unseen quality. For example, the articulation about lion as blazing king with almighty power - is certainly wrong!
Answer: Yes, I agree with the poet's way of describing wild animals.
In this poem, the poet describes the wildlife vividly in a lively manner. The poet talks about how we can identify those dangerous beasts in a dark humour.
In this poem, the poet describes the Asiatic lion as a large and tawny (yellow brown colour) beast. As per the poet, we can identify the lion only when we die out of hearing his roar.
In the second stanza, the poet describes the Bengal tiger as a noble wild beast with black stripes on a yellow skin. We can only identify the tiger after he eats us. Actually the tiger does not have a'noble' mind.
In the next stanzas, the poet describes the Leopard. As soon as he sees us, he will jump towards us. There is no use for crying if he sees us.
Next the poet describes a Bear, who hugs us very hard. The poet uses the word 'caress' which means gentle. But actually a bear will hug so tight till we die.
In the next stanzas, the poet says that someone new to the forest would be confused by seeing the laughing Hyena and crying Crocodile eating their prey. It is natural that a smile like appearance comes to the face of Hyena and tears wept out from the crocodiles eyes while eating their prey.
At last he talks about the Chameleon, which is small and looks like lizard. We can identify the Chameleon if there's nothing on the tree after some time.