Spring Fever

Peter Doyle was Whitman’s most intimate companion, and undoubtedly his most influential personal muse.  I fear I do not even know where to begin when exploring the complexities of Walt’s love life, but it is certainly important (to say the least) to attempt to understand as best we can the ever-changing state of Walt’s more romantic disposition.

Not to say that Whitman has no ‘romantic voice‘ in  “Song of Myself” but the romance he expresses is one of an intimate self-connection, or a connection regarding the universal ‘you’ rather than any particular individual.  Yet when he begins to embrace the relationship between himself and Peter Doyle, the renditions of his poems such as “Calamus” take a more positive and personal turn.  Although some critics would argue against this notion and would attribute Walt’s less pessimistic outlook to that of his immediate group of friends, I personally would have to disagree.  It seems quite obvious that Whitman (although 45 or so when meeting 21 year old Pete) fell “smitten” for the first time which drastically altered his outlook on life.  I noticed that in the beginning of “Calamus” Whitman spoke insistently of love and death, and the ramifications of knowing neither on an intimate level.  However, the introduction of Doyle into his life must have impacted him beyond artificial means, for it seems as though he finds an acceptance with death, life, and longing in knowing that he has experienced something that supersedes the superficial world in which we reside.

It is true that Walt and Doyle connected on a multitude of levels, despite their significantly contrasting political views (Doyle serving for the Confederates and what not) but most importantly I believe Doyle gave Whitman a kind of hope he never believed to exist before.  I hate to sound cliche and I really hate to sound overly sentimental, but Whitman’s blossoming relationship with this young man seemed to rejuvenate his often downtrodden spirits, and provided him with the means necessary to continue to expand along with his work as an integral artist of the spoken word.

The Walt Whitman Experience

To truly know Whitman is to delve into the depths of his very being in a feeble attempt to  understand things that cannot be taught, but rather felt.  When I think of Walt and the essence of his works (and thus the essence of his very being) I am often reminded of the Jimi Hendrix song “Are You Experienced?” in which Jimi seems to ask for the listener to grab hold of him in this ruthless journey called life as they sink into a realm deeper than that of the material world, a realm no doubt filled with touch, understanding, and most of all, experience...


If you can just get your mind together
Then come on across to me
We'll hold hands and then we'll watch the sunrise
From the bottom of the sea

But first, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

I know, I know you probably scream and cry
That your little world won't let you go
But who in your measly little world
Are you trying to prove that
You're made out of gold and, eh, can't be sold

So, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

Let me prove you...

Trumpets and violins I can hear in distance
I think they're calling our names
Maybe now you can't hear them, but you will
If you just take hold of my hand

Oh, but are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful...

Anyway to get to the point of this tangent, I feel as though analyzing Specimen Days is crucial when it comes to understanding Walt.  However, instead of blogging about a different one each week or so, I would enjoy focusing specifically on one that I have already chosen so I can tear it apart and analyze it to the nth degree.

I may never be able to fully comprehend the complicated maze that is Walt Whitman, but I shall nonetheless strive to take the journey with Jimi and him into the enlightened world of the experienced.

Nature’s Quorum

Nature, democracy, and morality.  Three seemingly disconnected meanings, yet in the eyes of Walt one cannot exist in harmony without the other.  In his Specimen Days entry titled “Nature, Democracy -- Morality” he seems to be making somewhat of a closing statement in an attempt to conclude his stream of meandering thoughts.  I believe Whitman is connecting the idea of democracy as a form of equality, that presents itself in the original hierarchy and structure of nature.  In part he is saying that nature is the underlying factor of all things harmonious and beautiful (for lack of a better word) and without its solid foundation, the trials of everyday American life would border on the boundary of supreme insignificance.  It may very well be that we all amount to nothing in our current state of being, but is it not then death that gives meaning to our existence?  Whitman then goes one step further and brings in the element of morality as the adhesive factor in the ultimate conflict that is life itself.  Nature and natural elements may be driving factors in regards to how we regulate a democratic existence, but morality and the concept of “virtue” is what gives purpose in general to man kinds otherwise pointless existence.  He says it possesses the ability to “bring people back from their persistent strayings and sickly abstractions” or in other words, morality is the force that allows nature and the concept of democracy to exist without consuming the unbeknownst.

It reminds me vaguely of a particular poem I came across:

Mother Nature

Jane heads to the field

where the river runs deep

and hearts get lost 

in Bradbury’s dandelion delights.

Her dress plays softly on her hips

and the cool of the morning  

hangs on her shoulders 

like a gentle reminder

of nature’s quorum.

Mama always told Jane

that rivers are like restless men;

quick to lure in soothing tones

while you drift far, far away

from the quiet haven 

of home.

Mama always told Jane 

that if she listened hard enough

she could hear the soft coos 

of a woman’s heart

echoing in the belly 

of a beast that rests at noon.

She said that down by the river

babies are left

to be raised by wolves

and die in the arms of Mowgli

because curiosity killed the cat,

but when it didn’t

the cat had nothing 

left to live for.

She said that nature was conceived

by Lucifer and Beezlebub

to swallow up the hopes of man 

when he loses himself 

in the jungles of greed

and desolation.

So Jane lost herself

in the bottom of the river.

In other words, one can easily get swallowed up in the everyday trials and tribulations that man must endure, but Whitman has discovered a recipe that blends nature, freedom and virtue, as a way of creating order among human entropy and our inevitable end.

Keep Your Enemies Close

To write an adequately formed argumentative work of literature, one must incorporate the complexities of both addressing and obliterating the opposing argument.  It may be precarious to propose that “Leaves of Grass” subliminally embodies the essence of an argumentative poem, but when comparing it to the work of Martin F. Tupper one should perceive the subtle contrasting elements it denotes in regards to “Proverbial Philosophy.”  One article I found that highlights multiple similarities within the works, also points out how in “Leaves of Grass” the similarities exist in an attempt to combat (though not entirely) the Tory/Evangelical Protestant view that Tupper presents.

Take a look at this passage:

“Whitman's consideration of Tupper on the whole, though, cannot be reduced to simple ideological rejection. As Kenneth Price points out, Whitman employed the tactics and themes of many poets whose work he considered unacceptable on the whole. Whitman once commented that "all kinds of light reading, novels, newspapers, gossip etc., serve as manure for the few great productions, and are indispensable or perhaps are premises to something better." Price notes that "this observation is telling, for it accurately describes Whitman's ability to use what he does not necessarily accept."ll Tupper's Proverbial Philosophy and some of his other poems may well have served as premises (Tupper's critics would have preferred "manure") for Whitman's Leaves of Grass.”

Martin Tupper, Walt Whitman, and the Early Reviews of Leaves of Grass
-Matt Cohen

I couldn’t have said it better myself, and if I tried I most likely would have been bordering on the delicate line of plagiarism.  But getting back to analyzing the two mens work, I must point out that “Whitman employed the tactics and themes of many poets whose work he considered unacceptable on the whole” which mimics the concept of strengthening one’s work through adding a concessional statement of sorts.  Whitman understands that in order to appropriately address an opposing opinion he must not simply disregard it, but rather he must immerse himself in its convoluted waters and embrace its inadequacies (to a certain extent of course).

An example (also from Cohen):

“Whitman directly attacks the commonplace poetic evocation of the "dumb, driven cattle," overturning popular pith in extremely conversational terms. In Section 13 of "Song of Myself," Whitman parries Tupper's ox with:

Oxen that rattle the yoke and chain or halt in the leafy shade, what is that you express in your eyes?
It seems to me more than all the print I have read in my life.”

Fascinating how even Whitman’s self-liberating poem incorporates a direct oppositional inquiry to Tupper’s “dull grazing ox” perhaps indicating his beef with Tupper’s opinion of the literary status quo.  Whitman seemed to know even before he published his work that it would not be widely accepted in the literary world (and perhaps even among the commoners as well) yet he, in his rebel like ways, arguably presents “Leaves of Grass” as being an overall argumentative poem against a politically driven world of literary Milton-esk braggarts.

The Ultimate Extra

So it seems to be that Whitman makes multiple appearances in twenty-first century media, whether it be in a romanticized movie or dramatic television show, he manages to get cast in small yet influential digressions.

Purposeful Digression #1:  Breaking Bad

Now I know this isn't from "Song of Myself" but it is an influential poem of Whitman's that helps drive home the point Gale (the man reciting) is attempting to make.  For those of you who don't watch Breaking Bad (which is blasphemy you're missing out) Gale is reciting "The Learned Astronomer" in order to explain that he needs to be physically enveloped in what he is interested in, and is not satisfied with being a simple bystander.  Although this is not part of Song of Myself as I said earlier, it directly relates to Whitman's need to touch everything and take everything in in order to truly understand and be a part of it.


Purposeful Digression #2:  Leaves of Grass (the movie)

Now obviously this movie is going to reference Whitman seeing as they stole the title from him, but what's interesting is how they tie in the themes of the movie to the poem "To You" which is being recited by the lovely Keri Russell in this scene.  In this part of the poem Whitman seems to be saying one must toss all preconceived notions of what they think they know to the wind, and embrace the beauty and freedom of decisive irrationalism.  However, in the movie Norton's character takes issue with this concept, and essentially says that he does not buy into the whole free verse thing Whitman stood for because poetry has rules, and if everyone goes around making their own, how do you know what’s true?  Yet this notion is the catalyst that drives the unbridled passion in Whitman's verses!  The fact that this kind of thinking makes it so there is no solid ground to rely on, opens up countless possibilities in the realm of untouched thought.  Whitman is the aboriginal advocate of equality by means of unrestricted mental expansion and expression, because he understood that once one believes they have it all figured out, in actuality there is nothing left.


Purposeful Digression #3:  The Notebook

Now unfortunately I must step into the realm of ultimate popular culture by referencing The Notebook.  I'm sure you all know that this movie is undeniably a love story in every cliche sense of the term "love story" but what's interesting is the fact that it takes place in a southern rural setting, and even more intriguing is the fact that the father finds it pertinent to mention that he is a fan of Tennyson more so than Whitman.  Tennyson and Whitman were in fact contemporaries with completely different stylistic tendencies.  Whitman incorporated the careless free flowing savage style (compatible with that of Goslin's character) whereas Tennyson took on a much more reformed approach to literature (much like that of the other dude she dates, whose name I cannot remember).  Anyway, in the end McAdams chooses the free-flowing savage over the man in the suit thus embracing, to the best of her ability, the rugged path that Whitman would have paved.

Anonymous Assholes

After reading multiple criticisms I found myself sufficiently stunned by the audacity of certain “critically acclaimed critics” and what they had to say about Whitman’s work.  Some, (actually many) critics chose to simply let the work speak for itself by inserting lengthy parts of the text with little to no analysis.  Not only do they provide microscopic insight, but in two out of the three criticisms I analyzed, the critic felt it necessary to throw in before the text “Of course we do not select those which are the most transcendental or the most bold” as if that somehow throws them into the pile of innocent bystanders.  First of all, if you’re going to be a literary critic then learn how to take an adequately established stance, rather than bandwagoning off of your contemporary critics’ chauvinistic opinions (Mr. Anonymous in the Saturday Review 1856), or better yet providing none at all (George Eliot, April 1856).  Now of course I’m being hypocritical by slandering the qualifications of anonymous criticism and being entirely biased myself, but I find it difficult to respect any critic who denounces a work of art because it differs from Tennyson or is potentially “irreligious” (Mr. Anonymous working for The Crayon 3).

If you ask me, the critics whom disregard Leaves of Grass as being “haughty” or “unromantic” pseudo-superior, or “obscene” are not delving deep enough into the depths of Whitman’s prophetic womb.  How is it possible that they were allowed to provide such surface level reviews?  Sure Whitman calls himself the “Kosmos” and may metaphorically imply that he encompasses all, but this in itself is a humbling act.  How naive is the critic whom professes Whitman “never knew what it was to feel that he stood in the presence of a superior” (Mr Anonymous, Saturday Review) when chapter after obsequious chapter, Walt proclaims he shall never be superior because he will join in an unbreakable bond with those that are both high AND low on the American totem pole, no matter how low that low may be.

However, some critics do view Whitman’s work in the prestigious light in which it radiates, and understand the multifaceted structure of it’s meandering relativity, but unfortunately these critics are not the majority.  So if studying these so called “contemporary critics” of Whitman is supposed to show one anything, it only shows that in 1855 the American literary critics were pompous assholes.  They were too blinded by Shakespeare, too enraptured with Milton, to see the complexity, insight, and beauty of Whitman’s “spiritual structure.”  It seems as though Whitman was just too ahead of the poetic batch of his time, and was therefore tossed aside in the literary spectrum, left to be ridiculed not only by the content of his work, but also by the picture on the cover page.  So to conclude this angry rant of sorts, I must say that I probably did not adequately analyze the criticism of the critics, but in a sense I am doing to them what they did to Whitman by simply not giving their opinions a meager chance.