Morality always seems to be a question in writings,
especially in earlier times. In most of the readings that we’ve had so far,
there was a tension of what was right and what was wrong. The Scarlet Letter actively invited readers to compare the strict
Puritan to their own ideals. Melville cleverly had “Benito Cereno” reflect the
morals of the reader. But they all had lines that rarely moved. Even in The Scarlet Letter, readers are led to
feel sympathetic to Hector because she repents and isn’t as bad as the
community around her.
But Whitman is a very different writer. In the first lines
of Song of Myself the speaker (who
Whitman identifies as “himself” in the 24th poem of the long work) claims that
he is everyone and everyone is him. What
is important about this statement and which Whitman himself expands upon later
is that it includes the good and the
wicked.
Now in Poe, we knew that if the narrator was morally
questionable, he was wicked or insane (it’s hard to tell the difference between
the two with Poe). In The Scarlet Letter,
the sinners redeem themselves in some fashion. But for Whitman, we discover a
speaker that is filled with both good and wicked and no clear cut answer for
it. Sure, it seems like he is just saying such things in his work. In the 24th
poem, he claims he is the voice of “prisoners and slaves” and “diseas’d and
despairing and of thieves and dwarves” (lines 509-510). But (and spoiler alert
for those who haven’t read the second half of Song of Myself) the speaker talks about throwing a newlywed groom
out of the bed and having sex with the wife in poem 33. In a time where
standings about sex and marriage are more stringent than our standards, this
was probably worthy of some cringes in public.
Yet Whitman doesn’t apologize. Instead he just continues his
work in the same vein. There are some other moments in Song of Myself that probably left the same kind of impact, but this
was the one that stuck out to me.
Society may or may not be radically changing at this point in time. But at the very least, some writers are trying to instigate something.
Interesting, Lauren. Yes, Whitman is certainly challenging orthodox notions of wickedness, especially when it comes to sex and sexuality. I wonder if this is one of the connections that the writers of "Breaking Bad" are trying to make between Walter White the meth-dealer, and Walt Whitman?
ReplyDeleteI also found this post interesting. Perhaps Whitman is revealing the true nature of morality-- that there is no clear distinction between right and wrong or that morality is subjective and defined by the individual self. In Whitman's exploration of self, he is not only advocating an exploration of sexuality; he also appears to challenge the heteronormative standard that existed in the nineteenth century. Interestingly, as Onno mentioned in class, the meaning of "gay" as we understand it today did not yet exist when Whitman was writing.
ReplyDeleteLauren,
ReplyDeleteWhat a great observation and analysis- I appreciate this point you explore in your post because I myself tend to view Whitman as very optimistic, aware, and "good" in the way that he speaks of unity, acceptance, and the like. Yet you do provide some concrete examples of lines that may speak contrary to this notion I have about his character...!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts; I always enjoy reading your posts, especially because of how I can hear your authentic and individual voice shining through your words! Nice job.