Tuesday, January 31, 2012

To Page 19

Page nineteen seems to be, by far, my favorite. It seems that the narrator in this passage is talking to an intellectual skeptic. The narrators defiance of this skeptic, speech, are what make these words so powerful. We can see that Whitman is setting up a dialogue between himself and speech. "Speech is the twin of my vision....it is unequal to measure itself" and "It says sarcastically, Walt, you understand enough....why don't you let it out then?" In a strange fashion Whitman is arguing with himself about the nature of language to encompass his vision. Walt comes to the conclusion that speech cannot encompass his vision at all. My three favorite lines from this page are his refusal of speech.

"My final merit I refuse you....I refuse putting from me the best that I am.

Encompass worlds but never try to encompass me,
I crowd your noisiest talk by looking toward you."

Walt refuses trying to use speech in order to express himself. Speech would somehow put the best that Walt is away from himself. Speech would make Walt lose something of himself. Walt tells speech that it can encompass worlds but that it should never encompass him. Speech could never encompass Walt because he is beyond speech. Walt's world of words is poetry, not speech. His world is one that is tactile and visceral; a world of his senses. Walt's vision is paramount over his speech. He can crowd out the noisiest talk by simply looking at speech. He can stifle the skeptic or the academic or the lecturer or politician by simply turning his vision towards them. No amount of speech could ever encompass or overtake Walt or his vision.

These lines are very powerful indeed and it says something about the nature of poetry and how different poetry is from prose. That Walt's vision can take the form of poetry but refuses prose as unequal is a strong concept in understanding the difference between the two.

1 comment:

  1. You're onto something here. W. both suspects and embraces speech - - embraces its power but suspects its power. And, he's a poet!? Do you think he has some ideal in mind where speech = things . . . where world and word are somehow co-equal and co-constitutive?

    ReplyDelete