From Broadway to Bowery

            Bowery culture was a contradiction of actuality and desire. In reality, these people were of the lower working class, yet they took pride in a vibrant "arts" community. They were tough dandies. They remind me of the Sapeurs of the Congo in Central Africa. They dress beyond their means (usually to portray an image of how they want to live) juxtaposed with poverty. Both have distinct representations of the self that contradict their actual positions in life (perhaps detracting the importance of dressing nicely for the higher classes-if the working class can do it, how different are we?)    
         Thomas Higginson criticized Whitman by stating that he would fit in with the effeminate Bowery as opposed to a masculine community. The Bowery, once a vibrant community of the lower working class(masculine and effeminate), at the time Higginson wrote, was more known for the “fairies” of the community. Higginson specifically noted how offended he was that Whitman chose service in the hospital rather than on the field – the communal grounds of death. From reading Song of Myself, he believed Whitman would have been the manly hero, saving the nation, but Whitman was a nurse. What Whitman portrayed through his writing and what he actually did were not seamlessly connected. Sometimes, Walt was a contradiction, sometimes he wasn’t. The major point to understand about this set of criticism, is that Whitman claimed himself as masculine, and an outsider’s perception did not match Whitman’s projection of himself.

         At one point, Whitman said that he could fit in on Broadway to Bowery implying how versatile he was – how he could transcend class boundaries - Broadway being highbrow theater while the Bowery was a lowbrow version of something the upper classes enjoyed. Higginson is calling the affirmations made in Song of myself to question. Is Whitman really what he preaches? Was Whitman once a reflection of his writing and through his many revisions, has changed? Like the Bowery, once maintaining a manly aura and shifting to an effeminate one, has Whitman also shifted?

blew book

            I have been looking at the progression of lines from “This is the grass that grows wherever the land is, and the water is; This is the common air that bathes the globe” and onward. In the blue book version, W.W. has marked the area to death. He crossed out whole stanzas with possible new stanzas or revisions of what was already there. On page 56, he crosses many lines out and revises certain sentences, yet none of this appears in the 1867 version. What takes place of these half a dozen lines, is a line or two that has no evidence in his notes. He extracts lines that catalogue all type of people, while preserving the line “I play not marches for accepted victors only—I play great marches for conquer'd and slain persons.” Further down the page, Whitman rewrites “I beat triumphant drums for the dead” which is noted for revision and actually revised just as he marked- “I beat AND POUND drums for the dead.” It is such a minute change, yet it was made, like many of his notes prove.

            He altered lines, deleted, added – gave his poem a facelift- all to mirror how he felt about what he had written. It is interesting to compare these versions because it provides insight to the spirit of Whitman. Whitman (like all) was changing as a person, so why couldn’t his creations? The capricious nature of creation is not to be preserved, but observed - allowed time to grow. 

wishy washy walty?

          The first edition of Leaves of Grass did not burst onto the market and into the homes of folks. It was not in high demand, but Whitman wanted it to be- he wanted it to be carried around with all- physical or mentally. Like anything (ex. Movies) with potential, it is revised and redistributed as something familiar and also something new and different. I actually don’t have the 1855 version of the book (I ordered the wrong copy) and it’s been difficult for me to find it online in a way where I could accurately note the differences. From what I understand, his poems were originally title-less and the copy was much slimmer. Since then, he added more poems stretching the size of the book while altering what was already in the book. I have noticed that Song of Myself is altered in ambiguous locations (from what I’ve gone over) and the thought is there but my copy has a few more words here or there. It’s interesting that these differences DO create a new text, a modification. Some of the differences may be slight, but they alter the context and interpretation. He had more creative control with Thayer and Eldridge (1860) designing a more involved cover etc. He used this control to draw upon the idea of being one with nature, using a butterfly, sunrises and more ethereal subjects from nature.

            Whitman begs me to wonder: is there a true edition? Nabokov did a similar process with his novel Despair. He had his original edition, his English translation and then a revised edition later on. What does it mean for an author to alter what he/she writes, why can’t they? I asked my friend (an extremely talented art professor in my opinion) if he finished a painting I had seen him working on. He simply told me that no painting was ever really done, that they are all a work in progress forever. He worked with oil paints which take several days to dry, allowing for the artist to come back the next day and continue manipulating the painting as if there was no lapse in time. This ability to alter also distinguishes the painting as delicate- the paint can literally be wiped off the canvas, erasing all the work. As I took up painting for fun, I realized he was right. I literally leave certain parts of my paintings unfinished in order to keep that window open. (There is a small area here that is always left undone- it is reassuring to know that I can still change something.)

 I haven’t sprayed any sort of fixing agent on my paintings – they are not fixed. I think Whitman and company enjoy the freedom to change their mind, to change a word – add and subtract. Perhaps Whitman pioneered the idea of art as a process never to be finished. There can be no one true version because every version is true; they all represent an aspect of the complexities within the human who created it.

Lionel, is it Walt you're looking for?

I think Whitman would have totally been into this video. He stresses the importance of getting down with it all; to feel, smell, hear, taste and see everything. The girl in this video however, cannot see. Rather than flop, she uses her other senses to help her see. She gets messy and builds a chia pet- like Lionel Richie (well a bust or statue, whatever, it looks like a chia pet.) Through a filter, they manage to fall in love- despite possible barriers (sight and quite possibly the illegality of teacher student relationships..)

Lionel R. is teaching acting in this video- a good actor is entertaining to watch because of their skills at immersing the audience with character. It is the process of watching – cathartically acting along with the actor- that is enjoyable to us as an audience. Why do we listen to the song “Hello?” – because we enjoy the process of the song, just as we are to enjoy and learn from the process of reading song of myself.

specimen days:hospital perplexity

            Whitman has many posts regarding his experiences at the war hospital. He deals with the concept of the unknown masses and the lack of identity they may feel. Feet to the isles, heads to the wall, the only way they communicate is through moaning, grunting – almost animalistic. They are swept of humanity; they have no language and no control of their bodies. Of course not all patients were this broken, but a layer of them were. Whitman describes the confusing situation when a loved one of a patient cannot find said patient because they do not have the correct categorical information. The dehumanization of labeling people as numbers etc. defines them as a thing to be located, not a person to be helped. Granted, some soldiers experienced traumatic face disfiguration, which would make recognition on a facial level nearly impossible. I read absurdity in the lines about a man looking for his brother, having to return home after a weeks search, returning to a letter from his brother providing the correct address. This system doesn’t seem too far off from how difficult it is to accomplish things through a bureaucracy. What is the humane way to do this with little resources?          

            Even today we have films come out about fearing being put into a system to be mislabeled as another, losing the identity you know for something you don’t. I find his posts on the masses interesting in relation to identity and perhaps a collective lack of identity. If song of myself asserts one to learn about oneself, what good is undone through real experiences like loss of identity through a bureaucratic system?

barnum's

               For one, this museum was extremely popular during part of Whitman’s life leading up to the civil war. It was a museum that exhibited the interests of society during a specific time; it is a cultural representation of an epoch. The museum was supposed to be affordable and entertaining for all ages, similar to the democratic notions of Whitman, but only under a certain light. The museum displayed many “unequal,” “deformed” humans as freak shows.

              Both Whitman and Barnum were amazing advertisers. They focused on their target markets and intrigued them. As a writer, Whitman creates an alternate reality for readers who suspend their belief while engaged. Whitman wanted his readers to ignore truth as a singular idea and accept the plurality of it. Barnum also did this by giving customers the spectacle of deciphering what had legitimacy and what did not (rather than believing in one truth). The people enjoyed being conned- there is a pleasure in the game- its not the final product- it’s the process of the illusion. 

Salty Walty

                                       "MY NATIVE SAND AND SALT ONCE MORE"

        Here we find Whitman talking about being naked; this is no surprise anymore. He is blending with the nature of the sea and sand along with the nature of himself. He needs to get down to the essence of himself in order to understand the essence of nature – the ocean. He lives through the sensory – through the physical responses to what is out there. The sound of the crashing waves, the white frothy trim folding back into retreating waves, the salty smell- all permeates his being. The strongest and most filling reactions for Whitman are through the senses. While Whitman lolls about the gray sands, he shouts at his companions who are in “deeper water.” This is reminiscent of the 28 bathers in Song of Myself – how natural it is to roam naked. I found it interesting that the steamer he was on was named after “Plymouth Rock,” a historic location of Americana, but also an idealized (false) interpretation of history. Whitman, a man who cared about preserving the union, has an air that is very “American,” (whatever one understands that to mean.) A mode of mechanic transportation has the name of something that is essentially a natural object – a rock. Boat names can get pretty weird: http://www.namethatboat.com/popular-boat-names.htm and usually represent a person or a “trait” of the boat. To be named “Plymouth Rock” assumes that this steamer takes the riders to uncharted territory- to land that they must go discover for themselves (hopefully not as negatively as the Mayfield).

Ulterior Motifs

        In "Song of Myself," I find perception to be one of the most interesting motifs. Of course, this is not a literal motif, but I like the way that it is present throughout the poem, and the poem relies on it (In a symbiotic relationship.) The theme itself is loaded with tangential meaning and Whitman effectively frames his poem through multiple perceptions. Certain verses exhibit a specific type of character who has a specific outlook; all views work together.The four that I found most interesting were through the perception of a child, an outsider, the assumed narrator and the relationship between author and reader.

“A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;

How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more

than he.”

            (I know the grass is hackneyed, but I mean for the child to be of focus, not the grass.)
           A child asks daddy Walt a question that reeks of simplicity, but upon consideration, the question becomes extremely complicated. We can break down our language system in a way that creates more meaning than just the superficial meaning. A child may be asking something as simple as “what is the grass” to an adult, who will begin to think theoretically- “well what IS the grass?” Whitman knows just as much as the child, he only has more experience than the child. He uses this perception as a process- a child is learning constantly- discovering the things that we (as adults) find obvious. This process is breaking through the walls of naivety/ignorance in order to step into the depressing reality of “knowing.” Learning is a process and so is Song of Myself  (the poem will educate you – provide you with tools) The child is the child inside of us- the spirit that reminds us to loaf around with our clothes off and forget (for a moment) our reality (to live in newness).

“Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of

all poems, You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions

of suns left,) You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look

through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,

You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,

You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.”

As a reader, we are bringing our own perception to the poem; we become part of the meaning of the poem. Our life experiences and knowledge becomes the lens for which we interpret the poem. How we understand the poem is just as important as the words on the page. The perception of the reader and author make the poem more than a piece of paper; it becomes a breathing organism. We breathe into the mouth of Walt, like CPR (and it’s hella sexy.) As opposed to the idea that the author is privileged and on a pedestal, Whitman is letting the reader blend with the author; authority is not an issue. Whitman perverts the normal relationship between reader and author – a power relationship that is seen in most writing. Rather than make proclamations, he wants to know the reader’s perspective; he wants the reader to learn from his poem. He doesn’t want the reader to take what Walt says as the sole truth, but use what one has learned to develop one’s own truth. The poem changes with every reader- with all of their experiences influencing their perspective- a perspective of multitudes.

“Dancing and laughing along the beach came the twenty-ninth

bather”

            The woman watching the bathers is an outsider. For one, she is the only woman around a group of men and secondly she is stuck inside watching the men enjoy themselves from a distance. Ironically the outsider is inside the house while the men are “outside” it, yet are “in.” She is watching them through a filter, literally. The windowpane is between her and the outside world, presenting her with a false clarity- allowing her to fall into her daydream. Although the window is clear, it is a thick and impenetrable boundary between her and the bathers. The bathers all look as if they are having a great time, but they are still lonely: “Twenty-eight years of womanly life and all so lonesome.” The woman may understand that they are lonely, but at the moment, they are enjoying the flesh of another - a temporary medication for their loneliness. The woman is a voyeur to their fleshy adventures and imagines herself joining them as the 29^th bather. The voyeur (outsider) represents the voyeuristic reader. We read into pieces of writing without the author knowing (specifically they don’t know who is reading/the writer is probably dead), gazing upon something that is not ours.

“Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”

            As readers, we must never assume that the narrator is the author. The narrator asks “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)” The poem is full of contradictions and is in no way a representation of one truth. A human being is not in complete agreement with all the currents inside him/her; we are full of contradictions and Whitman accepts that – more than accepts it, he embraces it. Contradictions are a part of the human condition, just as “Song of Myself” exhibits. Whitman is everyman and everywoman. As Whitman suggests, we all contain multitudes. So what is the perception of Whitman? I don’t think we need to know – it would defeat the purpose. His poem is not gearing up as a means to an end, the process – the life of the poem is what is important. Meaning is arbitrary; it is the experience that matters. The perception of the narrator is one of contradictions, which would usually result in readers deeming him as an “unreliable narrator.” I don’t see Whitman as an unreliable narrator; I see him as representing the unreliability and complexities in humanity, making him anything but unreliable (actually very reliable in a sense).

By using perception as a motif, Whitman develops different ways to look at the poem. There are many different lenses in this poem, all representing certain themes. A child represents a perception of naivety laced with insight. The outsider – the voyeur – mimics the position of the reader. As readers, we can virtually be a part of the written events, but we are not actually participating, just as a voyeur. The relationship between the author and the reader provides a perception that defies the “norm.” Perception is not limited to what Whitman writes for it also relies on the perception of the reader, adding a layer of meaning that is unique to the individual. The perception of the author represents the persona an author wears which does not make it the author’s reality. By doing this, Whitman is displaying humanity in a broad sense. “Song of Myself” is a vivarium of different perceptions and essentially a depiction of life.