The second way of thinking about the poems structure sees it (again following Culler) as an aletheic reversal: first a false or inadequate vision, then its true or adequate counterpart (69). Where, in your opinion, might the shift from a false vision to a true one occur? How would you describe these two visions? (Hint: Where does the poem shift from universal statementsevery, everyto more specific ones?) 2. How does the idea of mind-forgd manacles contribute to the structure of the poem? (Your answer to this question may overlap with previous answers.) Is it a particular or a general, a member of a class, or a class? 3. How many examples are offered in the last two verses? What are they examples of? How are they parallel? (You might think in terms of victimactioninstitution.) Is there any problem with their parallelism? No critic, Culler says, takes the statement that the chimney sweeps cry appalls the church at face value (Signs 70). How does the structure of the other two examples affect the way we think about the chimney sweep? Again, think in parallel terms. Why would critics find it necessary to explain the example of the chimney sweep? 4. What sense can you make of the last verse? What are the difficulties in understanding it? 5. The speaker of the poem marks (or hears) the sweep cry, the soldier sigh, and the harlot curse. This structural parallelism encourages us to assume a parallelism of meaning. What are the problems with determining such a unity? That is, can you argue that, in fact, the poem does not make senseat least not any one sense, but rather that it goes in conflicting directions? 6. Are the mind-forgd manacles the product of the Church, the Palace, and Marriage? (Most readers seem to assume so.) Can you turn this inference around and argue otherwise? Could the sweep, the soldier, and the harlot create their own manacles?