Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Dickinson Analysis
For my analysis of an Emily Dickinson poem, I chose "Poor Little Heart!", which is found under Part Two: Love in her book of complete works. The first time I read through the poem, it was pretty obvious to me what was going on, although I had to draw some of my own conclusions about the events. In the first stanza the speaker, who I am assuming is Dickinson herself because of her use of first person, is talking to a friend who has just had their heart broken. She is feeling pity for her friend, and basically asking her what happened, what went wrong, and if this person had been forgotten by their love. Dickinson then says that they must not have cared about her friend and his or her heart to do such a thing and break it to pieces (Dickinson). The second stanza follows a very similar direction as Dickinson and her friend continue to talk. Dickinson tells her friend to be proud and brave, and to be carefree as well, at least for a little while (Dickinson). Her friend's heart has been forsaken, so Dickinson is trying to give him or her some encouragement to still be active and to be a go-getter. I find this a little ironic because Dickinson was not the most outgoing lady around and was not much of a go-getter herself. But Dickinson could obviously be making up a cute little story for her poem or something logical like that. The third stanza continues in a fashion very similar to the first and second, and Dickinson tells her friend that she would do nothing to hurt him or her. She also asks her friend to believe her and trust her (Dickinson). In the last stanza, Dickinson is basically telling her friend that broken hearts are a way of life, and it is going to happen no matter what. She tells her friend to be happy and strong like a beautiful morning glory flower. All together, I think that this poem has a good message. It's about people believing in love and giving love more chances even after having their hearts broken, as well as showing how important and meaningful being comforted by a friend is. The speaker is very strong in this poem, giving the friend a lot of encouragement. Dickinson believed that women could take care of themselves, and this shows in the poem (Snodgrass). Although the friend is encouraged to give love another chance even if it means getting hurt all over again, it seems like the speaker is also saying that her friend does not need love to be happy with his or her life. Because Dickinson is a feminist (Snodgrass), she has very strong opinions about love. I am assuming that the person is a woman, and Dickinson is pretty much telling her that she does not need that man that broke her heart, and to get over it and move on. All in all, I quite enjoyed this poem and thought the meaning behind it is easy to relate to in any time period or circumstance, and I also enjoyed the straight forward simplicity. Works Cited: Dickinson, Emily. "Poor little heart!" Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -- Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. . Snodgrass, Mary Ellen. "Dickinson, Emily." Encyclopedia of Feminist Literature. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= EFL136&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 22, 2011).
Monday, March 21, 2011
Journal #41: Dickinson Poem
The poem "My Country Need Not Change her Gown" by Emily Dickinson is very simple and to the point.
The literal interpretation of this poem does not make a lot of sense, because countries do not wear gowns. But the more symbolic interpretation makes much more sense and seems to convey a message with more depth and meaning behind it. Dickinson is saying that the ways of the country should not change too much, because ever since the colonies began winning the war against British oppression, things had been working out fairly well. She also says that Great Britain does not approve of this, and that they are a little bitter about the thirteen colonies breaking away from the British empire and becoming the United States of America. The success and patriotic feel of America taunted the British, showing them that they could prosper and become a great country on their own.
Basically, the poem says that America has become a great country by its own means and that should not change for any reason. The British were defeated at Lexington and that was when America first started to show how strong they were. This poem does not have a lot of connections to religion or to nature, but was more about patriotism. Because of the patriotic tones of the poem, it can also relate to some of Walt Whitman's works as well. He was very devoted to President Lincoln and to the United States of America, and Dickinson seems very loyal to the country as well when she says that the United States is great and she doesn't want it to change.
The literal interpretation of this poem does not make a lot of sense, because countries do not wear gowns. But the more symbolic interpretation makes much more sense and seems to convey a message with more depth and meaning behind it. Dickinson is saying that the ways of the country should not change too much, because ever since the colonies began winning the war against British oppression, things had been working out fairly well. She also says that Great Britain does not approve of this, and that they are a little bitter about the thirteen colonies breaking away from the British empire and becoming the United States of America. The success and patriotic feel of America taunted the British, showing them that they could prosper and become a great country on their own.
Basically, the poem says that America has become a great country by its own means and that should not change for any reason. The British were defeated at Lexington and that was when America first started to show how strong they were. This poem does not have a lot of connections to religion or to nature, but was more about patriotism. Because of the patriotic tones of the poem, it can also relate to some of Walt Whitman's works as well. He was very devoted to President Lincoln and to the United States of America, and Dickinson seems very loyal to the country as well when she says that the United States is great and she doesn't want it to change.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Journal #40: Interpretation of "Self"
Because I still not totally sure what Walt Whitman's idea of "Self" really is, I think it is a little difficult to give my own interpretation of it. I am not a fan of Walt Whitman, and because of this I find his ideas a little ridiculous and pretty self-centered. Basically, Whitman is trying to tie religion, sexuality, and a whole bunch of other ideas into his poems by fitting them into his philosophy of true self. He takes the phrase "God is everything and everything is God" a bit too literally and thinks that because of this, he is God in a way. And I do not agree with this. Walt Whitman is not God. No one else is God, except for God himself. That's just the way it goes; at least that's how I see it. I also do not understand how Whitman can try and relate all of these poems back to God, especially the sexual ones. Although I personally do not have a problem with Walt Whitman's sexual orientation, homosexuality is not exactly accepted in the Bible and in a lot of religions.
Basically, I think that "Self" is something that started out as a simple idea and then became way too complicated and egotistical. It is about seeing yourself as who you really are, not just the perception of yourself that other people see. You cannot be totally sure which side of you is the real one, and which side is the one that you have adapted or changed to meet other people's standards or even your own standards. In my opinion, it is also about making realizations about your own religion and beliefs regarding God and applying those beliefs and ideas to your life in
every way that you realistically can.
I think that to understand "Self", it has to be interpreted in a way that you can understand. I do not think that you can understand the idea if you are trying to go through someone else's interpretation, and you really do have to see it in your own way to have any idea what is going on. Therefore, I do not think that there is really any correct definition of "Self", because it can change for every person.
Basically, I think that "Self" is something that started out as a simple idea and then became way too complicated and egotistical. It is about seeing yourself as who you really are, not just the perception of yourself that other people see. You cannot be totally sure which side of you is the real one, and which side is the one that you have adapted or changed to meet other people's standards or even your own standards. In my opinion, it is also about making realizations about your own religion and beliefs regarding God and applying those beliefs and ideas to your life in
every way that you realistically can.
I think that to understand "Self", it has to be interpreted in a way that you can understand. I do not think that you can understand the idea if you are trying to go through someone else's interpretation, and you really do have to see it in your own way to have any idea what is going on. Therefore, I do not think that there is really any correct definition of "Self", because it can change for every person.
Journal #39: Bardic Symbols
"Bardic Symbols" by Walt Whitman is another poem that exhibits Whitman's idea of "Self" and ties this philosophy into other things. America, Spirituality and Religion, and the Everyman are all a part of this idea of "Self". Spirituality seems to be a big part of this particular poem, because Whitman is talking about the ocean and currents and how they inspire him. He holds the power of the ocean in very high regard, like it is God or some other higher power. It influences Whitman and shapes his actions and ideas. He is paying homage to the ocean for this, and talks of the great inspiration he has been given.
For the most part, the poem is mostly a spiritual one, and is especially a spiritual experience for Whitman as well. This sense of self discovery that Whitman writes about is very inspirational as well. He speaks of the shoreline and seeks eternal self, thinking about the seaside as both an escape and as a prison at the same time. One one hand, the ocean is beautiful and Whitman loves to use it is an escape and a source for great and beautiful inspiration. But on the other hand, Whitman also sees the ocean as something that is keeping him prisoner by pulling him back in again and again, never letting him go because Whitman wants to continue to return; he loves the ocean. Whitman is also searching for himself while looking out at the ocean, and thinks the ocean is keeping things elusive and mysterious to continue to draw him in.
This is not really a traditional poem, and because of this I find it a little difficult to enjoy, especially because I do not like poetry very much in general. But the lack of a rhyme scheme in his poems is not something that I can really get through when trying to read through the poems, and I find some of the pauses in the poem hard to understand as well because they do not seem very well placed to me. However, Whitman is the poetry genius so I think I will have to trust his judgement with the placement of comma's and hyphens.
For the most part, the poem is mostly a spiritual one, and is especially a spiritual experience for Whitman as well. This sense of self discovery that Whitman writes about is very inspirational as well. He speaks of the shoreline and seeks eternal self, thinking about the seaside as both an escape and as a prison at the same time. One one hand, the ocean is beautiful and Whitman loves to use it is an escape and a source for great and beautiful inspiration. But on the other hand, Whitman also sees the ocean as something that is keeping him prisoner by pulling him back in again and again, never letting him go because Whitman wants to continue to return; he loves the ocean. Whitman is also searching for himself while looking out at the ocean, and thinks the ocean is keeping things elusive and mysterious to continue to draw him in.
This is not really a traditional poem, and because of this I find it a little difficult to enjoy, especially because I do not like poetry very much in general. But the lack of a rhyme scheme in his poems is not something that I can really get through when trying to read through the poems, and I find some of the pauses in the poem hard to understand as well because they do not seem very well placed to me. However, Whitman is the poetry genius so I think I will have to trust his judgement with the placement of comma's and hyphens.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Walt Whitman "City of Ships"
I chose to analyze the poem "City of Ships" from the Drum-Taps section of "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman. This poem exhibits many of the traits that are common in Whitman's many poems, including mentions of Abraham Lincoln, loyalty and patriotism towards the United States of America, and other aspects of life back in the time of Walt Whitman. In the beginning of the poem, Whitman says that he loves all of the different ships in the wharf, which is located somewhere in New York. He explains his love for these various ships, and especially appreciates the distinct diversity between all of them. He talks about black ships, fierce ships, and beautiful sharp-bow'd steam ships and sail ships (Whitman). Whitman states physical differences, but none really having to do with the performance or standard of the ships. He also appreciates the diverstiy between the American ships and ships of the other countries- because Whitman is pretty interested in culture. According to Oliver, Whitman really enjoyed the thought of all tese ships from powerful countries around the world being together in one place in America (Oliver).
The poem goes on and Whitman begins to talk about the Civil War, which is pretty typical of Whitman's poems. He is very supportive of the war effort and patriotic- believing that the Union should follow President Lincoln and support the war that needed to be fought (Whitman). Working as a medic during the Civil War, Whitman saw a lot of the gruesome and horrifying aspects of fighting in a war. His good thoughts about the war were crushed by the things that he saw on the battlefield, but he still remained loyal to President Lincoln (Oliver).
In the last stanza of the poem, Whitman says that he wants peace, but still thought that there was an important meaning behind the war. In the terrible times of the Civil War, the ships that Whitman spoke about loving earlier in the poem were damaged and went through the war as well. The effects of the war on the country did not cause Whitman to be any less patriotic, especially towards President Lincoln, and he still loves the country and the President.
The main point of this poem is for Whitman to talk about how much he appreciates hs country and how he will be loyal to it through both hard times and easy times. He is also a big fan of the diversity going on in America, and not just in the city in New York that he is talking about in the beginning of the poem. Whitman uses this poem to describe something that seems very simple and he turns it into something that is much larger, both physically and hypothetically. The turmoil of the civil war was something very important that went on in our country, and Whitman is turning the war into a bigger picture view of his subtle mentions of diversity in the country.
As a whole, this poem seems to be another of Whitman's writing describing of a seemingly simple thing or occurrence truly representing something much more important such as the turmoil of the Civil War on America or the growing diversity of America.
Works Cited
Oliver, Charles M. "'City of Ships'." Critical Companion to Walt Whitman: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, Critical Companion. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= CCWW093&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 7, 2011).
Whitman, Walt. "City of Ships." The Walt Whitman Archive. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.
The poem goes on and Whitman begins to talk about the Civil War, which is pretty typical of Whitman's poems. He is very supportive of the war effort and patriotic- believing that the Union should follow President Lincoln and support the war that needed to be fought (Whitman). Working as a medic during the Civil War, Whitman saw a lot of the gruesome and horrifying aspects of fighting in a war. His good thoughts about the war were crushed by the things that he saw on the battlefield, but he still remained loyal to President Lincoln (Oliver).
In the last stanza of the poem, Whitman says that he wants peace, but still thought that there was an important meaning behind the war. In the terrible times of the Civil War, the ships that Whitman spoke about loving earlier in the poem were damaged and went through the war as well. The effects of the war on the country did not cause Whitman to be any less patriotic, especially towards President Lincoln, and he still loves the country and the President.
The main point of this poem is for Whitman to talk about how much he appreciates hs country and how he will be loyal to it through both hard times and easy times. He is also a big fan of the diversity going on in America, and not just in the city in New York that he is talking about in the beginning of the poem. Whitman uses this poem to describe something that seems very simple and he turns it into something that is much larger, both physically and hypothetically. The turmoil of the civil war was something very important that went on in our country, and Whitman is turning the war into a bigger picture view of his subtle mentions of diversity in the country.
As a whole, this poem seems to be another of Whitman's writing describing of a seemingly simple thing or occurrence truly representing something much more important such as the turmoil of the Civil War on America or the growing diversity of America.
Works Cited
Oliver, Charles M. "'City of Ships'." Critical Companion to Walt Whitman: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, Critical Companion. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= CCWW093&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 7, 2011).
Whitman, Walt. "City of Ships." The Walt Whitman Archive. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.
Monday, March 7, 2011
"I Heard You Solemn-Sweet Pipes of the Organ"
"I Heard You Solemn-Sweet Pipes of the Organ" is yet another poem by Walt Whitman that has more than one meaning- one that is very simple and literal and more that are more submerged and subtle, and harder to see when you first read the poem. The literal meaning, however, can be grasped very quickly and seems simple and easy to understand.
There is a man walking, and he passes by a church. Hearing the choir singing and organ/music playing, the man begins to think about love and other similar emotions that go along with it. The pulse of the music stayed in the man's ear as he walked away, just as the reminder of his love stayed with him always as well, no matter how subtle or hidden. Many parts of the music going on in the church reminds the man of this romance of his, and he is caught up in remembering everything and reflecting on his love.
There is also a very obvious theme of religion in the poem, like in most of Whitman's other poems, because the man is walking past a church and hears religious songs, as well as because the man could be thinking of his life for Christ and God instead of his love for a man or for a woman. Love is another obvious theme; the man is thinking about love when he hears the music from the church and this causes him to think of more things that remind him of love. Nature plays a small part in one line of the poem, which kind of describes a little bit of the scene but it's necessarily very important. The poem holds some good imagery, but not in excessive amount, and there is a nice amount of detail as well. Because this is a short poem, I am glad that it was more overpowered with emotions than with a lot of detail that does not have as much meaning. I did not notice that much about "self" or the "everyman" in this poem, but it kind of fits in. Anybody could be walking by a church on a Sunday morning and be reminded of love by hearing a song, and anybody can be in love. However, I do not see any other evidence of those two things anywhere else in the poem. "Self", especially, is not really touched upon in the poem. The reflection done by the man in the poem exhibits some qualities of self, but Whitman does not go into deeper into the subject and seems to just leave it at that. In this poem, Whitman is basically tying love and music together and saying that you can find memories or thoughts of love in anything if you look hard enough and really have those feelings for someone or even something.
The analysis I found about this poem was by Charles Oliver. Oliver addresses Whitman's sexuality, wondering if the love mentioned by the man in the poem is a man or a woman (Oliver). He also alludes that other people knew about Whitman's homosexuality, and I did not realize that people knew about Whitman's sexuality back around the time that his poems were being published. I did not think this would be common knowledge because Whitman's poems have a lot to do with religion and Christianity, which generally goes against homosexuality. Also, people were not very accepting at all of homosexuality back when Whitman was alive so I did not realize it was a known fact.
Oliver, Charles M. "'I Heard You Solemn-Sweet Pipes of the Organ'." Critical Companion to Walt Whitman: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, Critical Companion. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= CCWW198&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 6, 2011).
Whitman, Walt. "I HEARD YOU SOLEMN-SWEET PIPES OF THE ORGAN. (Leaves of Grass [1891-1892])." The Walt Whitman Archive. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. .
There is a man walking, and he passes by a church. Hearing the choir singing and organ/music playing, the man begins to think about love and other similar emotions that go along with it. The pulse of the music stayed in the man's ear as he walked away, just as the reminder of his love stayed with him always as well, no matter how subtle or hidden. Many parts of the music going on in the church reminds the man of this romance of his, and he is caught up in remembering everything and reflecting on his love.
There is also a very obvious theme of religion in the poem, like in most of Whitman's other poems, because the man is walking past a church and hears religious songs, as well as because the man could be thinking of his life for Christ and God instead of his love for a man or for a woman. Love is another obvious theme; the man is thinking about love when he hears the music from the church and this causes him to think of more things that remind him of love. Nature plays a small part in one line of the poem, which kind of describes a little bit of the scene but it's necessarily very important. The poem holds some good imagery, but not in excessive amount, and there is a nice amount of detail as well. Because this is a short poem, I am glad that it was more overpowered with emotions than with a lot of detail that does not have as much meaning. I did not notice that much about "self" or the "everyman" in this poem, but it kind of fits in. Anybody could be walking by a church on a Sunday morning and be reminded of love by hearing a song, and anybody can be in love. However, I do not see any other evidence of those two things anywhere else in the poem. "Self", especially, is not really touched upon in the poem. The reflection done by the man in the poem exhibits some qualities of self, but Whitman does not go into deeper into the subject and seems to just leave it at that. In this poem, Whitman is basically tying love and music together and saying that you can find memories or thoughts of love in anything if you look hard enough and really have those feelings for someone or even something.
The analysis I found about this poem was by Charles Oliver. Oliver addresses Whitman's sexuality, wondering if the love mentioned by the man in the poem is a man or a woman (Oliver). He also alludes that other people knew about Whitman's homosexuality, and I did not realize that people knew about Whitman's sexuality back around the time that his poems were being published. I did not think this would be common knowledge because Whitman's poems have a lot to do with religion and Christianity, which generally goes against homosexuality. Also, people were not very accepting at all of homosexuality back when Whitman was alive so I did not realize it was a known fact.
Oliver, Charles M. "'I Heard You Solemn-Sweet Pipes of the Organ'." Critical Companion to Walt Whitman: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, Critical Companion. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= CCWW198&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 6, 2011).
Whitman, Walt. "I HEARD YOU SOLEMN-SWEET PIPES OF THE ORGAN. (Leaves of Grass [1891-1892])." The Walt Whitman Archive. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. .
Thursday, March 3, 2011
"To You."
This poem, "To You", is another one of Walt Whitman's poems that is extremely short.
"If you passing meet me, and desire to speak to me, why
should you not speak to me?
And why should I not speak to you?"
The meaning of the poem is very simple. Whitman is questioning the way that people treat each other, especially strangers. He is wondering why people do not address others when they see each other unexpectedly, and why they prefer to stick to themselves and not interact with each other. People still do this today in our society, so it is not just a thing of the past. In current times, most people still do not say hello to strangers (probably mostly because we live in a pretty scary, messed up world) and even if we see someone that we actually know, there is a good chance they will not really interact with each other very much. It is a lot easier to just say hello and then walk away and sometimes it's not convenient to say nothing at all.
In "Review of 'Leaves of Grass", Observer says that the poems in Whitman's book are highly critiqued but still remarkable (Observer). The author also makes remarks on Whitman's idea of "Self", something that Whitman brings up a lot in his poems and ties a lot of things back to (Observer). In "To You", there was no real mention of "Self", but I think that was only because the poem is so short and so simple. There was no focus on God or anything like that because it is a little poem that is just about the nature of humans and they way that they interact with each other, or more specifically, the way that they do not interact with each other. The author also notes how "Self" seems to be missing from just a few of the poems, and I am assuming that "To You" is one of those peoms he is referring to. This critic seemed to be a big fan of Whitman, which is a pleasant change. Although I am not very fond of his writing, I also think that some people were too harsh with their opinions of him and his works, mostly because he addresses topics that are pretty touchy, like homosexuality and sex. Observer focused more on Whitman's style than the issues that were addressed, and I think that was needed. Although I do not like Whitman's style at all, I think that it is important for critics to focus on style of writing instead of just the contact.
Observer. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1867)]." Massachusetts Weekly Spy (2 November 1866): 1.
Whitman, Walt. "TO YOU. (Leaves of Grass [1891-1892])." The Walt Whitman Archive. Web. 01 Mar. 2011..
"If you passing meet me, and desire to speak to me, why
should you not speak to me?
And why should I not speak to you?"
The meaning of the poem is very simple. Whitman is questioning the way that people treat each other, especially strangers. He is wondering why people do not address others when they see each other unexpectedly, and why they prefer to stick to themselves and not interact with each other. People still do this today in our society, so it is not just a thing of the past. In current times, most people still do not say hello to strangers (probably mostly because we live in a pretty scary, messed up world) and even if we see someone that we actually know, there is a good chance they will not really interact with each other very much. It is a lot easier to just say hello and then walk away and sometimes it's not convenient to say nothing at all.
In "Review of 'Leaves of Grass", Observer says that the poems in Whitman's book are highly critiqued but still remarkable (Observer). The author also makes remarks on Whitman's idea of "Self", something that Whitman brings up a lot in his poems and ties a lot of things back to (Observer). In "To You", there was no real mention of "Self", but I think that was only because the poem is so short and so simple. There was no focus on God or anything like that because it is a little poem that is just about the nature of humans and they way that they interact with each other, or more specifically, the way that they do not interact with each other. The author also notes how "Self" seems to be missing from just a few of the poems, and I am assuming that "To You" is one of those peoms he is referring to. This critic seemed to be a big fan of Whitman, which is a pleasant change. Although I am not very fond of his writing, I also think that some people were too harsh with their opinions of him and his works, mostly because he addresses topics that are pretty touchy, like homosexuality and sex. Observer focused more on Whitman's style than the issues that were addressed, and I think that was needed. Although I do not like Whitman's style at all, I think that it is important for critics to focus on style of writing instead of just the contact.
Observer. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1867)]." Massachusetts Weekly Spy (2 November 1866): 1.
Whitman, Walt. "TO YOU. (Leaves of Grass [1891-1892])." The Walt Whitman Archive. Web. 01 Mar. 2011.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
"Self"
I am not very sure of what Whitman is trying to convey in his idea of “Self”. At first, it comes off as a totally egotistical and vain. Even when you look further into and see the Christianity that is brought into and weaved into the rest of the Self philosophy, it still feels like Whitman is a little too centered on himself. It seems like he takes the phrase “God is everywhere and everything” and applied that a little too literally to his own life. He thinks that is God is everything, and everything is God. This interpretation of the idea itself seems much too literal to be applied to literature, especially Whitman’s poems, which go against social protocol and were seem as unacceptable by many readers and critics of the time.
This philosophy of Self seems way to complicated, and is a little hard to understand. There are a lot of different ideas behind it, and therefore it is kind of hard to apply to things, even Whitman’s own writings. It’s pretty obvious that Self exists in his own work, mostly because he ties so many things back to religion in very obscure ways that the reader can only truly understand if they are knowledgeable in the philosophy of Whitman’s self. But it kind of seems too time consuming to learn everything you can about Whitman and Self just to analyze a poem and see what is behind it. That doesn’t mean that this analyzing and interpreting is pointless, but just that Self seems too complicated for what it is. Everyone has a different interpretation of things, and the nice thing about poetry and literature in general is that everyone can look at it in a different way and apply their own ideas to it. Everyone can see so many things differently, so Self is complicated in that sense as well.
Because Whitman wrote about pretty controversial topics, it’s weird to see how often he relates back to religion and Christianity. Whitman’s presumed homosexuality and other aspects of his life go against some the teachings of the Bible, even though this is much more acceptable in society today. Self was unusual for the time period, but also a little odd for this time period. People are still pretty focused around themselves, although I don’t think there are that many people who have such a God complex these days even though there are probably some that do.
There are a lot of parts of life that tie back into Whitman’s idea of Self- personalities, characteristics, ego, and religion. All the emotions and feelings of life are entangled in the idea, which contributes the complicated part of the philosophy as well. Self is about finding the “real person” behind people and not the person that is just on display to the world.
Works Cited
Bauerlein, Mark. "Whitman's Language of the Self." American Imago 44, no. 2 (Summer 1987). Quoted as "Whitman's Language of the Self" in Bloom, Harold, ed. Song of Myself, Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 2002. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts on File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=MCISOM004&SingleRecord=True (accessed January 20, 2010).
This philosophy of Self seems way to complicated, and is a little hard to understand. There are a lot of different ideas behind it, and therefore it is kind of hard to apply to things, even Whitman’s own writings. It’s pretty obvious that Self exists in his own work, mostly because he ties so many things back to religion in very obscure ways that the reader can only truly understand if they are knowledgeable in the philosophy of Whitman’s self. But it kind of seems too time consuming to learn everything you can about Whitman and Self just to analyze a poem and see what is behind it. That doesn’t mean that this analyzing and interpreting is pointless, but just that Self seems too complicated for what it is. Everyone has a different interpretation of things, and the nice thing about poetry and literature in general is that everyone can look at it in a different way and apply their own ideas to it. Everyone can see so many things differently, so Self is complicated in that sense as well.
Because Whitman wrote about pretty controversial topics, it’s weird to see how often he relates back to religion and Christianity. Whitman’s presumed homosexuality and other aspects of his life go against some the teachings of the Bible, even though this is much more acceptable in society today. Self was unusual for the time period, but also a little odd for this time period. People are still pretty focused around themselves, although I don’t think there are that many people who have such a God complex these days even though there are probably some that do.
There are a lot of parts of life that tie back into Whitman’s idea of Self- personalities, characteristics, ego, and religion. All the emotions and feelings of life are entangled in the idea, which contributes the complicated part of the philosophy as well. Self is about finding the “real person” behind people and not the person that is just on display to the world.
Works Cited
Bauerlein, Mark. "Whitman's Language of the Self." American Imago 44, no. 2 (Summer 1987). Quoted as "Whitman's Language of the Self" in Bloom, Harold, ed. Song of Myself, Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 2002. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts on File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=MCISOM004&SingleRecord=True (accessed January 20, 2010).
Journal #38: "As I Watch'd the Ploughman Ploughing"
This poem by Walt Whitman is an extremely short one. Seriously, it's only four lines long.
"As I Watch'd the Ploughman Ploughing,
or the sower sowing in the fields- or the harvester harvesting
I saw there too, O life and death, your analogies:
(Life, life is the tillage, and Death is the harvest according.)"
At first glance, it seems like Whitman is simply alluding to the circle of life, because of his mention of Death being the harvester and the analogies of life and death. Whitman sees life as tillage, meaning that life is overturned and broken up, and does not always go smoothly. This poem seems fairly simple at first, because it just seems like Whitman is describing the way he sees the circle of life and is relating it to common aspects of the every day life of the time period.
When you go deeper into the poem to analyze it, more things come forward and sort of change the meaning and the purpose of the poem. Christianity can be brought into it when you think of the ploughman, sower, and harvester as the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The way I see it, Jesus could be the ploughman, getting people ready to receive the word of God. And then God could be the sower, giving people His word. The Holy Spirit would then be the harvester, because most Christians believe that after you die, your soul is taken up to heaven by the Holy Spirit (unless you're going in the other direction, of course- but that's really your problem if that's so).
Personally, I think that Whitman really was relating the poem back to Christianity and God when he wrote "As I Watch'd the Ploughman Ploughing", because of the way he ties every single thing he writes about back to "Self" and to religion as well. Basically, I think the main point of this poem was for Whitman to show people how God and religion connects back to the mundane aspects of everyday life.
"As I Watch'd the Ploughman Ploughing,
or the sower sowing in the fields- or the harvester harvesting
I saw there too, O life and death, your analogies:
(Life, life is the tillage, and Death is the harvest according.)"
At first glance, it seems like Whitman is simply alluding to the circle of life, because of his mention of Death being the harvester and the analogies of life and death. Whitman sees life as tillage, meaning that life is overturned and broken up, and does not always go smoothly. This poem seems fairly simple at first, because it just seems like Whitman is describing the way he sees the circle of life and is relating it to common aspects of the every day life of the time period.
When you go deeper into the poem to analyze it, more things come forward and sort of change the meaning and the purpose of the poem. Christianity can be brought into it when you think of the ploughman, sower, and harvester as the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The way I see it, Jesus could be the ploughman, getting people ready to receive the word of God. And then God could be the sower, giving people His word. The Holy Spirit would then be the harvester, because most Christians believe that after you die, your soul is taken up to heaven by the Holy Spirit (unless you're going in the other direction, of course- but that's really your problem if that's so).
Personally, I think that Whitman really was relating the poem back to Christianity and God when he wrote "As I Watch'd the Ploughman Ploughing", because of the way he ties every single thing he writes about back to "Self" and to religion as well. Basically, I think the main point of this poem was for Whitman to show people how God and religion connects back to the mundane aspects of everyday life.
Journal #37: Whitman Article
"Whitman's Image of the Self" was pretty interesting. It what nice to see another person's perspective of Whitman's writing style in his poetry, particularly because I am not a very big fan of his writing. Whitman's writing technique's are also explained very well, although I still do not like some of the things Whitman addressed and the manner in which he does so. The author of the article, Bauerlein, says that Whitman is basically egotistical and self-centered, which I agree with for the most part. Some of Whitman's writing serves the purpose to entertain and to teach, but I think the majority of Whitman's writing strays too far away from those purposes because he really does come across self-centered in my eyes.
On one hand, Whitman is very focused on portraying his idea of "self" in an extensive manner, and this accounts for some of the arrogance in Whitman's writing. It was necessary to explain his idea of "self" because it is something that he was very passionate about the idea. However, this still seems very egotistical for some reason. It might just be because I am already not a big fan of Whitman and I like that Bauerlein seems to have some of the same opinions about Whitman and his writing style as I do. Bauerlein also points out the harsher aspects of Whitman's poetry and how it related to the events of Whitman's life. There were a lot of things that I did not know about Walt Whitman (mostly because I never cared to learn anything about him) and I was surprised to learn about some of the things that happened to him. His homosexuality and abusive father were definitely obstacles in his life- his sexual orientation was not really accepted in society at the time and he was harmed by his father, the man who was supposed to take care of him. These harsh events are reflected in Whitman's writing through some of the darker tones that are present.
It is pretty important, I think, to know a little bit about the background of an author's life before you can analyze their poetry, novels, and etc. and fully understand them. This helps with interpreting the message that is meant to be conveyed and Bauerlein provided some of this background on Whitman's life.
On one hand, Whitman is very focused on portraying his idea of "self" in an extensive manner, and this accounts for some of the arrogance in Whitman's writing. It was necessary to explain his idea of "self" because it is something that he was very passionate about the idea. However, this still seems very egotistical for some reason. It might just be because I am already not a big fan of Whitman and I like that Bauerlein seems to have some of the same opinions about Whitman and his writing style as I do. Bauerlein also points out the harsher aspects of Whitman's poetry and how it related to the events of Whitman's life. There were a lot of things that I did not know about Walt Whitman (mostly because I never cared to learn anything about him) and I was surprised to learn about some of the things that happened to him. His homosexuality and abusive father were definitely obstacles in his life- his sexual orientation was not really accepted in society at the time and he was harmed by his father, the man who was supposed to take care of him. These harsh events are reflected in Whitman's writing through some of the darker tones that are present.
It is pretty important, I think, to know a little bit about the background of an author's life before you can analyze their poetry, novels, and etc. and fully understand them. This helps with interpreting the message that is meant to be conveyed and Bauerlein provided some of this background on Whitman's life.
Journal #36: Favorite Meal
My favorite meal is very delicious. Steak, corn, and mashed potatoes.
I prefer to have my steak cooked on the grill, medium, with a light dusting of seasoning and spices for a flavor explosion when you bite into it. My preferred size for a steak is eleven ounces, so that I have just a little bit left over for a snack, and I do not feel so bad about eating an entire steak. Typically, my steak comes from County Market or from Sam's, but there have also been times when my farmer cousin gives us fresh steak from her cow farm- I would prefer not to think about that any further. The steak I like is pretty typical- brownish on the outside with a pinkish inside (because it's cooked medium) and no blood dripping from it. That is very unappealing to me to cut into my delicious steak dinner and see that my meal is still bleeding a light pink, watery substances.
In my favorite meal, I like my corn to come from a can, and my favorite is of the Green Giant variety. I do not like eating corn fresh of the farm, which is what my grandparents always try and get me to eat. The corn is pale and I think it tastes like grass, which is why I enjoy store bought a lot more. The kernels are a beautiful shade of golden yellow and roughly the size of my pinky nail. My favorite way to eat these kernels is to stab the fleshy, light yellow bottom part with a prong of my fork, pick up three or four kernels, and eat them like that. And I also add a little flavoring to my canned corn with a pat of County Crock butter (about a teaspoon), and a sprinkling of salt. I usually eat the corn out of a itty bitty little casserole dish, and then put the leftovers in the fridge so I can have them the next day for breakfast, lunch, or a delicious little snack.
Mashed potatoes are the last element of this wonderful meal. My mom is very good at making them non-lumpy, so sometimes I have to take over. The mashed potatoes I like are fairly simple- you cut up a couple of nicely sized potatoes, after peeling and washing them, and then put them in a mixing bowl with some milk. I usually just splash some Prairie Farms Skim Milk (the kind with the pink label) in there, but I suppose that would amount to about a cup. Probably a little less. And then I turn on my white Pampered Chef mixer and go to town, trying to ensure that there are no lumps left in the potatoes when I am done. But you have to be careful because while lumpy mashed potatoes are not appetizing, neither are mashed potatoes that are practically liquid. I do not like my potatoes too lumpy or too smooth- it's more of a happy medium. After dishing the mashed potatoes onto my plate, I add some Country Crock butter (a little more than a spoonful), and some salt. And then I mix it all up and eat it and it is delicious.
I prefer to have my steak cooked on the grill, medium, with a light dusting of seasoning and spices for a flavor explosion when you bite into it. My preferred size for a steak is eleven ounces, so that I have just a little bit left over for a snack, and I do not feel so bad about eating an entire steak. Typically, my steak comes from County Market or from Sam's, but there have also been times when my farmer cousin gives us fresh steak from her cow farm- I would prefer not to think about that any further. The steak I like is pretty typical- brownish on the outside with a pinkish inside (because it's cooked medium) and no blood dripping from it. That is very unappealing to me to cut into my delicious steak dinner and see that my meal is still bleeding a light pink, watery substances.
In my favorite meal, I like my corn to come from a can, and my favorite is of the Green Giant variety. I do not like eating corn fresh of the farm, which is what my grandparents always try and get me to eat. The corn is pale and I think it tastes like grass, which is why I enjoy store bought a lot more. The kernels are a beautiful shade of golden yellow and roughly the size of my pinky nail. My favorite way to eat these kernels is to stab the fleshy, light yellow bottom part with a prong of my fork, pick up three or four kernels, and eat them like that. And I also add a little flavoring to my canned corn with a pat of County Crock butter (about a teaspoon), and a sprinkling of salt. I usually eat the corn out of a itty bitty little casserole dish, and then put the leftovers in the fridge so I can have them the next day for breakfast, lunch, or a delicious little snack.
Mashed potatoes are the last element of this wonderful meal. My mom is very good at making them non-lumpy, so sometimes I have to take over. The mashed potatoes I like are fairly simple- you cut up a couple of nicely sized potatoes, after peeling and washing them, and then put them in a mixing bowl with some milk. I usually just splash some Prairie Farms Skim Milk (the kind with the pink label) in there, but I suppose that would amount to about a cup. Probably a little less. And then I turn on my white Pampered Chef mixer and go to town, trying to ensure that there are no lumps left in the potatoes when I am done. But you have to be careful because while lumpy mashed potatoes are not appetizing, neither are mashed potatoes that are practically liquid. I do not like my potatoes too lumpy or too smooth- it's more of a happy medium. After dishing the mashed potatoes onto my plate, I add some Country Crock butter (a little more than a spoonful), and some salt. And then I mix it all up and eat it and it is delicious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)