How does the theme of death in "Song of Myself" compare with the theme of death in "Calalmus"
Does Whitman contradict himself in writing about the idea of death?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
I really enjoyed mapping the motif of speech in "Song of Myself"and I think would like to explore other motifs in Whitman's work. Death is a big motif featured in his poems and he has a unique viewpoint on the matter. Death isn't presented as dark, finite and horrible like we generally view it. He has a much more zen approach to the subject that I find interesting, refreshing and hopeful.
Peter Doyle
Peter Doyle was Whitman's longtime lover and
some historians would say he was his muse as well. He certainly
influenced some of Whitman's work, however it was Fred Vaughn
(another of Whitman's lovers) that inspired “Calamus” and not
Doyle. Doyle was born in Ireland and came to the United States as a
small child. He served in the Confederate Army which was a surprising
discovery since Whitman was obviously very pro Union. He was working
class and supported his mother and younger siblings which, for some
reason, made it impossible to live with Whitman, which Whitman
wanted. Who knows if thats the reason, but that's what is cited in
many articles. They were “out” to their families and friends as
it seems that everyone knew the nature of their relationship. Very
progressive for the time!
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
THE WHITE HOUSE BY MOONLIGHT
I am starting to think that Whitman might be a little bit of a stalker. After reading the Abraham Lincoln journal entry in Specimen Days I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now reading "The White House by Moonlight" it's becoming clear that he is a little obsessed. He ends the entry with a line that made me laugh out loud, "sentries at the gates, and by the portico, silent, pacing there in blue overcoats -- stopping you not at all, but eyeing you with sharp eyes, whichever way you move." Of course they're eyeing you Walt. They think you are stalking Honest Abe!
On a completely different note, I also liked reading this because it infuses the journal with the imagery of purity and potential, none of which I can see when looking at the White House and what it symbolizes, not for over a decade now. Whitman is very poetic in this journal entry, it is once again, not just a jotting down of thought. For example, he writes, "...the White House of future poems, and of dreams and dramas, there in the soft and copious moon..." Beautiful. I envy his outlook on the White House and the Presidency, of America and what it stands for.
On a completely different note, I also liked reading this because it infuses the journal with the imagery of purity and potential, none of which I can see when looking at the White House and what it symbolizes, not for over a decade now. Whitman is very poetic in this journal entry, it is once again, not just a jotting down of thought. For example, he writes, "...the White House of future poems, and of dreams and dramas, there in the soft and copious moon..." Beautiful. I envy his outlook on the White House and the Presidency, of America and what it stands for.
Whitman in Pop Culture
I focused on Whitman in Television. I found it interesting that two shows from the 90's, Northern Exposure and Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman (I know, painful, I apologize in advance) focused on his Whitman's sexual orientation in a decade where gay rights and issues became more highlighted in the media and pop culture.
In the third selection from the Twilight Zone the show questions love and being human as a robot is cast in the role of a grandmother. This one is titled, "I Sing the Body Electric" obviously pulled directly from the poem of the same name. The Dr. Quinn episode is titled, "The Body Electric" We see how motifs from Walt's actual life and his work (so closely tied) can be spun in different directions while deriving them from the same poem title.
Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70X50ttKA0
Twilight Zone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaH31jgqRl0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Whitman's Critics
To start with I could barely stomach the narcissism spewing from Walt himself in his own reviews. I know this was for publicity, but have a little self-respect. Aren't you basically undermining yourself and your, albeit, brilliant work with this shameless self-promotion? With that said I decided to focus on two of the reviews that were the most balanced in their treatment of Leaves of Grass and the one that reiterated my own views as to Whitman's ego parade. It is so succinct that it makes its point very well and I thought I would just paste it onto this post. It basically gives him no credibility due to his self-promotion:
Under the title "Walt Whitman and his Poems," the United States Review recently published the following article. We take it to be a smart satire upon the present tendency of authors to run into rhapsody and transcendentalism; and therefore its main fault in a literary point of view—that it suggests the notice of a man reviewing his own work—is not of much importance. 1
My god, even in the most fundamental poetry classes we are instructed not to explain our work. Let the words/the work speak for itself, never mind a complete stroking of the ego that Whitman does in "Walt Whitman and his Poems" and even worse in "Brooklyn Boy"where he spends countless lines just talking about his physical appearance. I know that his dress and healthfulness is imperative to the poem, but this going on and on is excessive and I would have stopped reading had it not been an an assignment for class. I believe that the review of Whitman's review printed above from United States Review was warranted and actually restrained. They could have really put him through the wringer for his excessive narcissism.
I want to know how many "anonymous" reviews were Whitman himself writing. After all one of the anonymous reviews was even in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. One such anonymous review, "A Curious Title" I enjoyed reading, whoever happened to write it, because it made allowances for people to either like or dislike it claiming that "respectable people would pronounce perfect nonsense, but which free-souled persons, here and there, will read and chuckle over with real delight, as the expression of their own best feelings." This is the most down to earth statement I encountered among the high literary prosody of the rest of the reviews.
I also enjoyed George Eliot's (is this the Eliot of Middlemarch? because it says "or George Henry Lewes." I'm confused, but if it is, how wonderful to hear from such a prominent author!) because it also took an intellectual, balanced approach. Rather than claiming him a genius or declaring the work as rubbish it very, very eloquently puts praise where praise is due stating that Whitman
passionately identifies himself with all forms of being, sentient or inanimate; sympathizes deeply with humanity; riots with a kind of Bacchanal fury in the force and fervour of his own sensations; will not have the most vicious or abandoned shut out from final comfort and reconciliation; is delighted with Broadway, New York, and equally in love with the desolate backwoods, and the long stretch of the uninhabited prairie, where the wild beasts wallow in the reeds, and the wilder birds start upwards from their nests among the grass; perceives a divine mystery wherever his feet conduct or his thoughts transport him; and beholds all beings tending towards the central and sovereign Me.
At the same time this reviewer[s] holds him accountable for the more "uncouth" subjects he tackles, but rather than calling him perverse, he/she again eloquently criticizes (for isn't that what a critic is supposed to do, not simply ignorantly dismiss as does the reviewer who wrote "A Strange Blade") writing:
There are so many evidences of a noble soul in Whitman's pages that we regret these aberrations, which only have the effect of discrediting what is genuine by the show of something false; and especially do we deplore the unnecessary openness with which Walt reveals to us matters which ought rather to remain in a sacred silence. It is good not to be ashamed of Nature; it is good to have an all-inclusive charity; but it is also good, sometimes, to leave the veil across the Temple.
Nicely put!
Maybe that's why the the "Thrusters" were scratched from later editions, hahaha...
Under the title "Walt Whitman and his Poems," the United States Review recently published the following article. We take it to be a smart satire upon the present tendency of authors to run into rhapsody and transcendentalism; and therefore its main fault in a literary point of view—that it suggests the notice of a man reviewing his own work—is not of much importance. 1
My god, even in the most fundamental poetry classes we are instructed not to explain our work. Let the words/the work speak for itself, never mind a complete stroking of the ego that Whitman does in "Walt Whitman and his Poems" and even worse in "Brooklyn Boy"where he spends countless lines just talking about his physical appearance. I know that his dress and healthfulness is imperative to the poem, but this going on and on is excessive and I would have stopped reading had it not been an an assignment for class. I believe that the review of Whitman's review printed above from United States Review was warranted and actually restrained. They could have really put him through the wringer for his excessive narcissism.
I want to know how many "anonymous" reviews were Whitman himself writing. After all one of the anonymous reviews was even in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. One such anonymous review, "A Curious Title" I enjoyed reading, whoever happened to write it, because it made allowances for people to either like or dislike it claiming that "respectable people would pronounce perfect nonsense, but which free-souled persons, here and there, will read and chuckle over with real delight, as the expression of their own best feelings." This is the most down to earth statement I encountered among the high literary prosody of the rest of the reviews.
I also enjoyed George Eliot's (is this the Eliot of Middlemarch? because it says "or George Henry Lewes." I'm confused, but if it is, how wonderful to hear from such a prominent author!) because it also took an intellectual, balanced approach. Rather than claiming him a genius or declaring the work as rubbish it very, very eloquently puts praise where praise is due stating that Whitman
passionately identifies himself with all forms of being, sentient or inanimate; sympathizes deeply with humanity; riots with a kind of Bacchanal fury in the force and fervour of his own sensations; will not have the most vicious or abandoned shut out from final comfort and reconciliation; is delighted with Broadway, New York, and equally in love with the desolate backwoods, and the long stretch of the uninhabited prairie, where the wild beasts wallow in the reeds, and the wilder birds start upwards from their nests among the grass; perceives a divine mystery wherever his feet conduct or his thoughts transport him; and beholds all beings tending towards the central and sovereign Me.
At the same time this reviewer[s] holds him accountable for the more "uncouth" subjects he tackles, but rather than calling him perverse, he/she again eloquently criticizes (for isn't that what a critic is supposed to do, not simply ignorantly dismiss as does the reviewer who wrote "A Strange Blade") writing:
There are so many evidences of a noble soul in Whitman's pages that we regret these aberrations, which only have the effect of discrediting what is genuine by the show of something false; and especially do we deplore the unnecessary openness with which Walt reveals to us matters which ought rather to remain in a sacred silence. It is good not to be ashamed of Nature; it is good to have an all-inclusive charity; but it is also good, sometimes, to leave the veil across the Temple.
Nicely put!
Maybe that's why the the "Thrusters" were scratched from later editions, hahaha...
Thursday, March 1, 2012
UNNAMED REMAINS THE BRAVEST SOLDIER
This entry stood out to me because it seems as if Whitman were to just break the paragraph into lines, he would have a poem. This entry seems to be written in more poetic language and seems more than just a quick jotting down of a journal entry. What bothered me about it was that it glorifies war and dying and this seems strange to me since Whitman saw the war as terrible. How could one look at it any other way? This line in particularly, made me wince : "haply with pain and suffering (yet less, far less, than is supposed,)..." Really? I'd like to ask Whitman if he ever had ever felt what it was like to slowly die of a gunshot wound. On the other hand, I was also delighted by his use of language. For instance this last line of the entry is beautiful: "...the last lethargy winds like a serpent round him -- the eyes glaze in death -- none recks -- perhaps the burial-squads, in truce, a week afterwards, search not the secluded spot -- and there, at last, the Bravest Soldier crumbles in mother earth, unburied and unknown." Reading this again, I wonder if Whitman is using subtle satire here to express his views on the horrors of war as the serpent could indicate evil and the fact that these are our most wonderful men, yet they are "unknown."
Frances Wright
Frances Wright was an Scottish born, free thinker and radical who emigrated to the United States and attempted to set up a utopian society, the Nashoba Commune, for slaves transitioning from slavery to freedom. She advocated feminism and free schooling for all children. She was wrote books and lectured to this effect. There is some evidence that Whitman attended some of her lectures which seems appropriate as he shared all of these views as well. The difference is that she was an abolitionist and he was not though they both believed in equality for slaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)