revisiting an old post

I would like take a deeper look at Walt in pop culture- specifically what I had written about for the corresponding blog post. I am interested in the folk aesthetic and how Whitman has been digested by society and reused/utilized (in relation to Guthrie). My focus will probably be music and how each generation shifts their sound and understanding of Whitman. How does music help bring a new perspective to Whitman? How effective is it as a medium?

peter doyle

Whitman and Doyle seem to embody Whitman's writings, specifically in terms of teaching. The poet and the reader, both necessary components, can teach each other. Although Doyle was not considered an intellectual, Whitman nurtured his mind however. Doyle was just a working class man on the trains (a symbol for modernity/change among others) while whitman was the poet of the loafer, Doyle was the working class, although i like to imagine walt as a sugar daddy- in knowledge,finances and literally age relation. They would take evening strolls together- leisure, and were close with each other's families.
The parallel between the reader and Doyle is obvious when we think about how Whitman assumes us, the reader, as his lover, that he loves all of us. How then, is his love for Doyle separate? Whitman teaches Doyle, takes him on a learning journey, just like the reader. Whitman melts for his readers while he has a stroke and later dies for Doyle. These frames have a broad mirrored sense.

specimen days

"the real war will never get told in books"

    Whitman discusses how he does not believe that the truth of the Civil War will ever be told. The more distance placed between the war and society, the softer the memories are. It’s like having a baby; most women say it hurts like crazy, but oh whoops, pregnant again- worth the pain or worth forgetting the pain? I don’ think Whitman is necessarily talking about this though, I think he is getting at a larger idea being the truth won’t be told because it cant be told. With every soldier buried, pieces of the real war get buried too. How do you tell the story of horror? How does a country cope? The master narrative will condense the bloodshed into a chapter for students to read, when

     Whitman even discusses that all he can write about it will still not do enough. I would like to note that Whitman worked in the hospital wing, so even he can’t tell the true story of the war, only retell it. He was not experiencing it first hand like all the soldiers buried he was just a witness. 

Walt in pop cultcha

    So there are only two I know off my head:

Many people may post this one, but the record Mermaid Avenue by Billy Bragg and Wilco has a song on it called Walt Whitman’s Neice. First of all, this is relevant to my groups discussion on Guthrie so I won’t go into too much detail. After Guthrie died, he had a tone of songs he never recorded and his daughter was saving them for a band to write music for Guthrie’s lyrics that would not be a mirror the style of her father, rather a contemporary take. Bob Dylan had wanted access to the songs but he was of the same folk music scene as Guthrie and would not be what was envisioned for the songs. Think of the folk aesthetic and the process of taking material that has lost an author and through each handling, the song and content change. Walt Whitman’s Niece starts off with a kind of boisterous feel, which may not have been what Guthrie imagined.  The view of Whitman was more sexualized than spiritual during the making of this record and is reflected in the song. When Guthrie was writing, Whitman was understood to represent a spiritual truth which changed throughout the years.There is a documentary of the making of this record entitled "Man in the Sand" but I don't think this song is on it.

But this one is!

        This song is also mentioned in the book Paper Towns by John Green (and inspired me to read the book back in high school). It was only a clue for the neighbor of this enigmatic girl when he was trying to find her (in the end you find out that she doesn’t want to be found.) It’s interesting to think about the layers of reference in this song.

 First off, I am a huge fan of Fleetwood Mac, Lindsey Buckingham and the like. He had an album in ‘92 called “Out of the Cradle” which was his third solo album (Law and Order/Go Insane ) but his first since his departure from Fleetwood Mac. This album asserts his independence as an artist and his ability to make music that  (although I do think it is a testament to how Fleetwood Mac is a super band- Buckingham, Nicks and McVie can all stand on their own extremely well, but together they kick ass) was a departure from Fleetwood Mac. Fleetwood Mac needed each other to make their songs a “Fleetwood Mac song” (something beyond human in my opinion…)- In one of the documentaries I have, Nicks was speaking about how she would come in with an idea and Lindsey would add to it and vice versa. They also were connected personally in so many ways. My dad and I would always joke about how all Buckingham and Nick’s songs were about each other in Rumors  (and other records as well—same goes for Christine McVie and John McVie.) These things fueled the band and that was a break Buckingham wanted to make.

First seen in the 1860 version of Leaves of Grass, “Out of the Cradle endlessly rocking” the poem highlights themes of departure from a unit and into the realm of independence and self sufficiency. Buckingham was making a statement that he was not dependent on Fleetwood Mac; like the mockingbird in the poem, he left the nest of love and safety.

Side note: I think Whitman would have totally dug the romantic entanglements Fleetwood Mac entertained; the fleshy sexy time as inspiration for hit singles…pure walt.

Here is an instance of Whitman becoming "twitterfied" wwwd? tweet!

O captain my captain     

Most people are probably familiar with the reference to Whitman in the film "Dead Poets Society." Robin Williams quotes Walt Whitman to bring to light Whitman's ideas of free and democratic thinking. Whitman is a teacher, in a different sort than Williams, but both are teachers that alter the student's core. Williams proved to be a life changing teacher, just as Whitman is. Fighting conformity (just as Whitman originally did in comparison with his contemporaries) Williams teaches his students to be leaders, not followers.Williams has taught them all he can, he needed to leave, because what he did was plant a seed that will change how they approach everything. Whitman must also leave his readers because part of the process is us (as students) flying out of the cradle. 

right on the money

whitty reviews

The three reviews I looked at all work together in a way despite their differences.


http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00013.html
this review looks at Whitman in a positive light- almost more than human (just like the kosmos.) BECAUSE Whitman wrote it. This piece starts out by saying that in order to understand a poem we must understand the author, so what better to do so than by reading what the author wants you to think? He touches on some major themes in : He does not celebrate what is conventional, a man of American breed, the everyday rather than the elite, etc. but these are all things that are relative to the writer. Unlike the proper civilized "english"poet, whitman judges himself on his qualities that are the opposite of the proper. We distinguish language through differences; we distinguish whitman for being different than his contemporaries. “This poet celebrates himself: and that is the way he celebrates all. He comes to no conclusions, and does not satisfy the reader. He certainly leaves him what the serpent left the woman and the man, the taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, never to be erased again.” He spends some time on the image of Whitman- the face- the calm and unrefined. This review focuses on the new aspects that Whitman utilizes, that are different from his contemporaries and views it as a good thing. The first review, although appreciated the writing to a degree, could not look past it in order to see th positive. This response looks only at the positives, only at what Whitman wants the readers to see. It is  as if he is trying to sensor what is said about the book-by writing his own reviews and sending positive reviews to critics. These three writings deal with the way in which Whitman attempted to flood the literary world with his own words of critique. This is not a bad thing- we are all our own worst critic- it would be fitting for Whitman to critique himself in order to improve, but it seems like he is only giving positive feedback (perhps because it is a public community rather than revisions he can make when he is honest with himself.

http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00022.html

this review starts out with the means in which they received Whitman’s book, “bound in green.” Whitman, apparently, sent the book along with review clippings- all good reviews. More than good really, they established Whitman as a true American -  "Not the refined life of the drawing-room—not dancing, and polish, and gentility, but some powerful uneducated person, and some harsh identity of sound, and all wild free forms, are grateful to him."It  is a sort of meta-criticism while using the provoded reviews as a way to help evaluate their review. Although this review chooses to burn Leaves of Grass due to its obscenity, it shows us a way to critically look at these reviews. Now, we all knew Whitman made reviews of his own book, but knowing that he also provided critics with a collection of his personal favorite reviews of his work distorts the review. By even sending these pieces of writing along with the book implies that the critic is not reviewing Whitman’s work, rather the opinion of others, disconnecting the critic with the work. I always live by the standard “don’t read any criticism/reviews until one day after having seen/read etc.” This helps give you time to marinate your own ideas rather than the thoughts of someone else. Once you read a critique of a book, you can’t get the thoughts of the critic out of your head- you are no longer free of external influence (to the possible extent.)On the other side, this review casts off glowing reviews by highly respected people under the complaint of obscenity. If it weren’t for the obscenity the poem would be good by their accounts ( I assume.) In this case, obscenity is never good or redeemable. I would assume that this review came from some religiously informed person, or at least someone influenced by the British proper.  They notice the lines put together, but don’t notice anything past the obscenity. The matter of obscenity is questionable- what did they find obscene? By adding the obscenities, would they be at the same level as the disdained Whitman? Is his slang obscene? Is his content obscene? Do they all work together to make it so? By reading the poem as obscene, they read whitman as obscene rather than proper- american vs english. 


Plesant quiz marked an awareness of what Whitman was trying to do, showing that it was not a valid 

http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00272.html

Referring how Whitman reviewed his own work -  that such a review was not worth anything if the endorsed is the endorser.  Why should Whitman conform to not reviewing his own work? He proved to rub the grain a different direction, so was this expected?

Whitman was not as highly regarded by his contemporaries as he is today, but he was not completely loved or hated. 

Sidenote: It was mentioned in class that the volume of reviews proved something about literature in Whitman's period, and yes it does, but I think we missed some important points. Reviews for literature are relevant today and perhaps even more of them exist. The internet has allowed for everyone to be a critic, democratizing (not completely, one would need access to a computer still) the reviewing system. You can type in the name of one book and find reviews on blogs, bookselling sites, twitter even. Now essentially anyone can make a review and anyone can read a review. This also ties in with Fanny Fern's review of Whitman and how she was interested in his D.I.Y approach. This approach has become even more powerful in our time due to the rise of the internet. For example, Cassava Press found some of their authors through their blog writing. Plenty of bands have been found through internet music sites, and are apart of the DIY music scene- uninfluenced by the label or management- the bands (usually one person) makes the music themselves, in their room and on their computer. The internet allows anyone to be a published (in a sense) author/musician/artist etc.

Franny and Walty

           Francis Wright, an immigrant from Scotland, was a progressive thinker who spoke powerfully on the rights of women, abolishing capital punishment and more. She was well received in New York and found it to be a haven for her way of thinking.

            Whitman was entranced by Francis Wright’s oratory style. She was an amazing speaker and Whitman recognized how the performance of one’s ideas could be just as important as the idea itself or at lest a necessary part for the execution of the idea. Not only was Whitman a fan of her style, but also of her ideas. Wright wanted to preserve the union just as Whitman did. They both seemed to understand that change was going to come in terms of slavery, so rather than create a stark division she advocated a gradual one. She established the Nashoba community, which was her utopian idea of how to abolish slavery. Her idea promoted the white southerners as teachers of the black ex slaves, teaching them about freedom (…).

             Whitman believed that she was always working to help better the community with ideas that aligned more with a progressive agenda. Just as Whitman transgressed the boundaries between high brow poetry/poets with (certain editions specifically) leaves of grass, Wright transgressed the socially acceptable topics for a young woman. She was also involved in Robert Dale Owen’s socialist settlement in Indiana where she spoke strongly against organized religion and advocating a greater gap between church and state.

a song or occupations

          He writes the poem in a way that hovers on the lines of accusatory. He states one thing the reader may assume as a truth for themselves, balanced with a line stating that Whitman also takes part in the same activities and whatnot as if expecting the reader to maintain a dialogue with walt arguing this claim. Between the 1855 version and the 1856 version, he replaces the ellipses with dashes: what is not said, the unknown and impossible vs. the abrupt connection of thoughts. The dashes are more harsh, but also more assertive. The ellipses, although they leave room for thought (more democratic – more input from the reader?) they also are less grounded and are subject to change. What is not being said and why is it not being said? The dashes allow Whitman to push the thoughts of the reader along a certain path and also enhance the accusatory “vibe.”

              By the 1860 edition (titled chants democratic), he begins to emphasize specific groups of people “men and women” “American Masses” etc. Similar to Song of Myself, Whitman continues to catalogue and connect certain stanzas with certain types of people. He adds new lines in the second part of the poem, providing more about his solidarity with the working class. “If you remember your foolish and outlawed deeds, do you think I cannot remember my own foolish and outlawed deeds? plenty of them; “ He adds “plenty of them;” with a semi colon. This implies that the following statements have a closer connection to his foolish outlawed deeds, but I don’t understand what the significance of this is. Is he implying that his loving of strangers is foolish? That everything he speaks of in the poem is foolish, or perhaps outlawed – too progressive?

               The 1867 edition carries a shortened title that just says “To Workingmen” as though it is not a poem in a book being sold for profit, rather a letter (of wisdom?) to the disenfranchised laborers. The earlier title, “Poem of The Daily Work of The Workmen and Workwomen of These States” implies that the poem is about something, an observation with a varying, higher class, audience. By entitling it “To Workingmen,” he is taking the authority away form the upper classes and bestowing it upon the lower working classes. It is addressed to a group rather than being about that group.

He adds  “This is the poem of occupations; In the labor of engines and trades, and the labor of fields, I find the developments, And find the eternal meanings.” He takes the original name, uses it in a stanza to create a more concise purpose for the poem.

              Whitman’s persona shifts from intellectually thought provoking prose to reading that requires less work from the reader. Not that it doesn’t require any, it just requires less – like it is no longer a poem a tool but as a pamphlet (similar to the alterations in punctuation in Song of Myself change the way we can interpret the poem – consciously or subconsciously.) Perhaps this aligns with the self confidence of Whitman; his writing didn’t have to be open ended – he could be more firm with opinions.