Walt's First Reading!

My First Reading-Lafayette

Whitman recalls a few moments of his childhood, meeting General Lafayette of the American Revolutionary War at the opening of a library in Brooklyn, one that Whitman frequented with reading many books and poetry, the first reading he heard by Elias Hicks, one of the better known preachers of the Quakers that in fact had a lot impact on Whitman, as well as working in an office, learning how to read and write.

The way Whitman speaks of these events doesn't give them any importance. The only judgments we get are on his "nice desk" and the books and poetry in which he read: Arabian nights being an 'amazing treat' and how he ''continue(s) to enjoy novels and poetry to this day.) What is the point of this style? I know that Elias Hicks had a large impact on his beliefs and preaching styles, why not mention his influence? We know that Whitman was chosen out of very few by Lafayette to be picked up and hugged. Why do we have to find this out from John Burroughs? Normally Whitman is very long winded in his descriptions... in Song of Occupations he goes on for 2 pages describing occupations of average Americans. Why not do this for himself? 


I think this shows Whitman's commitment to the modern culture, leaving his individual history out of the picture so he can focus on whats good for the country and public as a whole. This even is reflected on the certain memories he recalls, meeting a famous American General, hearing a reading by a man that advocates equality, learning the medium in which he later uses to convey the importance represented by these two men. It's interesting that he does in fact only comment on books for they are creations by other people. In fact, Arabian Nights tells 1,000 stories representing common moral among humanity, what Whitman tries to address throughout the entirety of his body of work.

Whitman For America!

Born On a Sunday, On Thursday I Had Me a Job

The poem initially carries on the same format of SOM as addressing the reader in a way that the poem is written for them. This mirrors the content of the poem in that it gives ultimate credit to all things, culturally existing, to "you."

The sum of all known value and respect I add up in you whoever you are.

I believe this to be an exploration of the ideas presented in SOM but a in a more specific way, addressing the actual constructions of society such as the Constitution, Congress etc. It also more explicitly states the value Whitman places in the nature of the self over the culture. While in SOM Whitman may express the joy of the nature of one's self such as sex: 

"Thruster holding me tight and that I hold tight!

We hurt each other as the bridegroom and the bride hurt each other."

In SFO, specifically states the same natural act's value over culture: 

"Will we rate our prudence and business so high?....I have no objection,

I rate them as high as the highest....but a child born of a woman and man I rate beyond all rate."

Now on to the revisions...

OH MAN. 

As the poem is revised, I believe Whitman tries to be even more explicit and direct with his message. This reminds me of our discussion in class maybe last week, that with each revision, Whitman's audience grew larger, so he had less control over their interpretations of the meaning. While poetry is meant, at least I feel, to be open ended and allow for multiple interpretations, Whitman seemed to want more control as seen in his revisions. 

Even from 1855-1856, we see more line breaks and punctuation changes, creating less ambiguity in the breath of the poem. And from 1856-1860, adding phrases that address the reader as ' Male and Female!’ and ‘American masses!’ and ‘Workmen and Workwoman!" On top of this he adds more occupations to the list [although later cuts a lot of them out but for the same reasoning I am about to give I believe] as well as more colloquial terms or terms emulating common dialect such as 'outlawed' to 'outlaw'd' or 'reckoned' to 'reckon'd them for, camerado?' With this, Whitman is really trying to rial up the American! Represent the common man! In their speech, in their identifications with their careers, etc. He wants to really make sure he is getting his point across that the average American really is accountable for the great state of the country. I believe this is his reasoning behind the admittance of certain political stanza's such as "The näive, the simple and hardy, he going to the 

         polls to vote, he who has a good time, and he 
         has who a bad time" 
and other stanzas that mention slavery, the mexican, the indian, etc. In a way, he is being less controversial in order to cause less strife amongst readers... in a way hiding the negatives, mistakes, problems of the country in order to create almost a false sense of unity for the reader. 

With the last three versions, well really two since there aren't any changes between the '82 and '92 versions, we see even more directness with the cutting out of the first 4 stanzas. With the opening of "a song for the occupations..." the reader receives the point right away, this poem is about me, is about my role and its importance, is about unity, blah blah blah. While this may be affective for Whitman's intentions of the poem, I feel as if it is not affective for the poem as a whole... In fact, I almost wouldn't call it a poem anymore, but a persuasive journalistic essay. Straight and to the point, with the most important information in the beginning and becoming less important the further one reads on. I want to see  beautiful imagery, the art of language and metaphor etc. But I suppose the benefit of all these revisions is that I have the option to relate or prefer one over the other. 

Whitman: Half B'hoy Half Man

The term Bowery B'hoy originated from a popular gang in mid 19th Century New York called the Bowery Boys. They presided in the area of Bowery, New York; promoting ideas of nativism, hanging out in saloons and brothels, and generally just kicking some ass. As popular writers began to explore the gang within their literature or plays, a B'hoy became a certain character archetype in the modern culture of the times. A 'rough and tough' person of the lower, working class that looked something like this:

When considering his voice for 'Song of Myself,' it is said that Whitman considered the B'hoy in contrast to the business, broadway type of man. I read a segment of Donald D. Kummings' book, A Companion to Walt Whitman, and he talks about the B'hoy representing "the great middle class of free life under a republic of which they are the types and representatives," despising the upper class of  business owners etc. As we talked about in class, Whitman's poem juxtaposes the modern culture of America, idealizing the business man and strong work ethic, with a narrator that does the opposite: loafs in the nude, connects with nature and surroundings etc. It doesn't seem as if the B'hoy would get naked and run through the forest, but these two personas represent an alternative to the average, a clash to the main stream ideals of the upper class. 

To stem from that idea, I read in a wikipedia article addressing the "B'hoy and G'hal" that as the archetype became popular to use in modern day plays, there was a transfer of upper class citizens to lower, working class roughs in the theater. 

“

the boxes no longer shone with the elite of the city; the character of the audience was entirely changed, and Mose, instead of appearing on the stage, was in the pit, the boxes, and the gallery. It was all Mose, and the respectability of the house mosed too. -A complaint by William Northall at the Olympic Theater

This reminded me of Whitman for he was all about the modern pop culture as opposed to the elitist interests of the times. He must have been pleased if/and when he found out this information. In fact, he could have even been sitting along side those 'Mose's' in the theater!

Revision Confusion

I must admit, that I could not find 'Song of Myself' within the 1860 version for about 30 minutes. I looked up and down everywhere, except for the tag 'Walt Whitman' of course, searching for words within song of myself through the computer. I guess I either looked over 'Walt Whitman' or just assumed it wouldn't be in there. So to turn this confusion into feedback on Whitman's revision... it is interesting that he changed the title from 'Song of Myself' to 'Walt Whitman'. I feel that it takes away from the universality of the poem, combing you and i with everything in existence. It puts a specificity and individuality into it that I don't think Whitman was going for in the original piece. To comment on the actual structural changes, what I noticed most was that he played around with the syntax... of everything, not only 'Song of Myself' but throughout the whole Leaves of Grass. Changing elipses to dashes and using parentheticals when he hadn't before, capitalizing and uncapitalizing things that weren't so before. I believe this could have something to do with the idea that Ed Folsom and Kent Price brought to our attention: how 'Song of Myself' maybe wasn't such an audio/speech based narrative, but an experiment with print. Elipses look almost unprofessional... sort of mash everything together into one idea or statement, where as dashes and parentheticals are very precise, they get the point across very easily. While Walt's content surrounds ideas of oneness and concepts mashed together, maybe he wanted his message to come across more clear. For example, in 'Song of Myself,' he capitalizes the word Soul in the 1860's version, where it was never capitalized before. Maybe Whitman really wanted to drive the idea of one's Soul into the reader in a way that he felt wasn't showing importance in the 1855 one.

Now to comment on the revisions from 1860-1867, the most penciled in revisions on the 1860 edition had to do with the structure of the lists and recognitions he makes to people of certain professions etc. as well as the dedications he makes the poem is for. Again, I think it has something to do with being more straight-forward in that he wants to cram as much as he can in one small area while making it legible or understandable for the reader. He's playing with the structure really more than the actual content.

Oneida Community

The Oneida Community was a religious commune that believed Jesus' Second Coming had already happened, so they were free to live without sin and delve into the pleasures of the world. They practiced things like 'Free Love' and 'Communalism' [what's mine is yours].

While researching the connection to Whitman, the only physical documents I can find that simultaneously mention both the community or the founder and Whitman are accounts of Whitman and friends of the community, or a reference to the Oneida Circular, their newspaper, that one of Whitman's poems must have been in. So in drawing my own connections, I would have to say that the Oneida Community must have been at the very least a contemplation of Whitman for he was a poet of the modern times, and one cannot ignore something such as the Oneida Community in that it was a popular ideology and practice of Whitman's times. I believe that they had similar beliefs, equality for all, everything 'belonging' or being presentable for everyone. Certainly, Whitman practiced free sex.

I also think of Whitman's religious affiliations. He did not commit to any certain practice, but he had family ties in the Quaker community. Although they weren't as free spirited as what the Oneida Community sounds like, they did practice equality for women and revolve around a sort of utopian environment as well.

THE STUPOR PASSES -- SOMETHING ELSE BEGINS [Specimen Days]

This entry is regarding one out of the two days Whitman remembers the most clearly during the Civil War. This day, following the First Battle of Bull Run, marked the status of the war in that it wasn't a quick fight to be won by the North, and that the entire country was in it for the long haul. One might assume that a resident of the north's recollection of this moment might recounter it in a negative manner, but it seems as though Whitman recalls the memory with much excitement:

"Then the great New York papers at once appear'd...with leaders that rang out over the land with the loudest, most reverberating ring of clearest bugles, full of encouragement, hope, inspiration, unfaltering defiance. Those magnificent editorials!"

I can't help but think back to the Wilmot Proviso and how Whitman was against it, not because he was pro-slavery, but because he was anti-abolitionist - or against the idea of change for the country. If the North had won this battle and the war would have pretty much been over before it started, the Northerners would presume their feelings of hierarchy over the South, creating a divide in the moral amongst the American people. Whitman, above all else, was for equality, so in what seems to be some sort of backwards ideology, he thought positively of the Southerners, the pro-slavery side, winning this battle and putting the Northerners in their humbling place.

For in the humiliation of Bull Run, the popular feeling north, from its extreme of superciliousness, recoil'd to the depth of gloom and apprehension.

I feel as if there must be some other motive behind his reasoning for this... Or maybe his state was a common one for an American of the times.. One that was confused and torn between sides, and the issues with slavery: in theory supporting the abolition of it, but patriotically supporting its continuance because of America's history and commonality of slavery. It is like one who is raised with a certain religion, but grows to question the science of it... do they follow what has been engrained in them by their community/family/authority? or do they follow their reason and individual morality? Whitman seems to have his individual morality, disagreement with slavery, but overall desires to keep the beliefs of his community/family/authority, common moralities of America, in tact.

My Interpretations of Whitman

Audio Interpretation

Visual Interpretation

"

I think I could turn and live awhile with the animals . . . . they are so placid and self-           contained,

I stand and look at them sometimes half the day long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,

They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,

They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,

Not one is dissatisfied . . . . not one is demented with the mania of owning things,

Not one kneels to another nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,

Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

So they show their relations to me and I accept them;

They bring me tokens of myself . . . . they evince them plainly in their possession.

I do not know where they got those tokens,

I must have passed that way untold times ago and negligently dropt them,

Myself moving forward then and now and forever,

Gathering and showing more always and with velocity,

"