Baudelaire on Poe

Mr.Poe, Where Is America?

In a class on Gothic literature in America it is inevitable that you will read Edgar Poe. Although the class I am currently in only takes a cursory glance at Mr.Poe, it was enough to embroil my imagination. Reading many of Poe's stories led me to ask the question "where is America?" Poe sets his locations in Europe. His most enchanting and prolific protagonist, Dupin, is a Frenchman and the "Pit and the Pendulum" is set in Spain. Yet it was reading Poe's ""The Man of the Crowd" coupled with a wonderful essay by Robert Byer, that made me search for more about Poe and specifically led me to Baudelaire.

Baudelaire translated much of Poe's work into French and was an ardent defender of Poe's work. In his essay "Further Notes on Edgar Poe" he touches on many subjects. Most exquisite is his reading of America and why it was, at the time, not a fertile ground for the Imagination. Much of the rhetoric has to do with Baudelaire's own stance against "progress" but much of what Baudelaire says makes sense in the culture created in the industrial revolution and the culture expressed in "The Man of The Crowd". Industrial capitalism coupled with democratic identity simply does not leave room for the realm of the imagination to flourish. This needs to be unpacked and perhaps defended more than I am willing to do in an informal forum such as my own blog. Sufficed to say, what is meant is that Poe sought alien scenery for his tales because America was a hostile ground for his exact tales.

Baudelaire states that in America "it will always be difficult to pursue at once nobly and fruitfully the profession of man of letters without laying oneself open to the slander and calumny of the impotent" and that "what is difficult enough in a benevolent monarchy or a regular republic becomes well-nigh impossible  in a kind of nightmare chaos in which everyone is a police-constable of opinion and keeps order one behalf of his own vices--or of his virtues" (101). He then goes on to list the problems with the American state including pious hypocrisy, slave owning scandal, and bohemianism. These issues shied Poe away from engaging his tales on American soil. Nathaniel Hawthorne even confined most of his stories to New England--and in many of them subjects such as the crushing of the Native American, or the brutality of the slave trade--are virtually invisible. So Poe, who wanted to engage in ideas of the mind and radical ideas of modernity, was put upon to use another climate: Europe.

In tales that take place in Europe, Poe could explore the creation of the uncanny. Europe has a dense and long history. Thus Poe could explore the idea of progress, of the old and the new clashing, of replacement, in a climate that had been experiencing it for years.However there could be even more reason, or no reason at all, why Poe would refuse many of his stories the setting that was his birthplace. Yet, noticing at least that Poe had chosen against America, can lead one to ask the question of why.

In my own project over the next few months, I intend to tackle this question and have been led to some insightful materials on the subject. Stay tuned, whoever it is that reads this blog!


Baudelaire, Charles. Trans. Mayne, Jonathan. The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays by Charles Baudelaire. London, England: Phaidon Publishers Inc. 1964. Print.

Project: Whitman's Speech

I suppose since i posted about it twice already i would like to more thoroughly investigate Whitman's sentiments on speech. I think i will do this by going through specimen days and his poetry. A poets relationship with speech or at least communication is paramount. Everyone is afraid they will be misunderstood or misread. In "Song of Myself" Walt has a few parts where he talks about speech and how it affects him.

What is the relation of communication and speech to a poem. How does Whitman try to close the gap between reader and author? Does Whitman invite us to try to go deeper?

On the surface some of these answers may seem easy and plain enough but it is more complex. Walt revising the Leaves as much as he did is important, perhaps focusing on segments that talk about speech or authors and readers through the revisions will also shed some light.

Occupations en Regalia

Whitman/Zappa


Whitman and Zappa? Whitman AND Zappa. But why? Wasn't the point to see how there were changes in "A Song For Occupations"? Well sure, and believe you me we will get to that because, well, that's the whole point. Revisions. Zappa, like Whitman, was a master of revision. Both spent their lives revising. Poetry and Music are alive with these two masters of their craft, and who could deny them that?

Zappa revised many of his songs and played many repeating themes and melodies throughout his career. Likewise Whitman was constantly revising Leaves Of Grass which became a massive collection in the 1891 edition. But we were asked to narrow our searches of revision down to "A Song for Occupations" and so i narrow my search down to one of my favorite Zappa tunes as well:"Peaches En Regalia". There are only three editions of "Peaches" that were released on non-posthumous, non-bootleg albums, and those three are what i will explore, along with the six editions of "Occupations". Bare with me. This works out, trust me. It will be fun.

1855-56 Edition and Hot Rats

A hundred and fourteen years after the release of Leaves of Grass came Frank Zappa's album Hot Rats. While featuring such alluring song titles such as "Willie the Pimp" and "Son of Mr. Green Genes" this album was mostly instrumental except for the near excruciating, buckets of gravel, screeching Captain Beefheart. But it is here that we get our first rendition of "Peaches". Likewise for Walt we get our first rendition of "Occupations" in 1855. For a frame of reference you can listen to "Peaches En Regalia" here, while you read. Now, while you are hopefully listening, is the analysis of Walt's changes to "Occupation"

From 1855-1856 we see a large change in "Occupations". Firstly the name is changed to "Poem of the Daily Work of the Workmen and Workwomen of These States". Mouthful. It is also bumped from second place, as it was right after "Song of Myself" in 1855, to a fourth place spot. There are many grammatical changes as well as additions or deletions. To narrow our search let's look at the (roughly) eighth stanza and the twenty first. These stanzas, for those following along, start with "If you are a workman of workwoman..." and "Old institutions....these arts libraries legends" respectively (pages 45 and 48 in the 1855).

First in stanza eight he changes high to nigh in the line "If you are a workman or workwoman, i stand as high as the highest that works in the same shop". High to Nigh. Standing as high as the highest in the same shop could be a pretty arrogant standing. Bosses, Owners, all could be cruel. This line paints a picture of superiority of the poet over the worker. So understandably Walt changed it. Nigh means close so now the poet is standing as close as the closest. He is relating to the workers instead of alienating them. This changes makes sense thematically for the poem. Further down in the stanza a line reads "If you remember your foolish and outlawed deeds, do you think i cannot remember my foolish and outlawed deeds?". Yet in 1856 Walt amends this by adding "plenty of them?" at the end of the line. Walt is just as foolish, just as much an outlaw as our worker, our reader, and thus he speaks from a point of understanding. The line prior gives us a similar intimation however one could ask themselves how foolish or how outlaw a "poet" could be. Thus the addition is one that seeks to bring the poet closer to the worker.

In the second stanza commented on we see a line change from "Will we rate our prudence and business so high?....i have no objection," to "Will we rate our cash and business high? I have no objection,". Few changes here of note. First "prudence" to "cash". The ability to be reasonable with resources and ones affairs changes to a word meaning ready money. Prudence is seemingly a valuable merit that Walt would rate high. Cash is almost derogatory. Also with the following line stating "but a child born of a woman and a man i rate beyond all rate" it shows us that, though America's economy, its business, is all well and fine to Walt, it is people he cares about. It is the workman, not the work that is valued. Also the removal of ellipses shows us that Walt is not objecting to American values, as the ellipses might suggest, but instead is showing us he doesn't care much at all about the subject one way or another. To him it is the children and men and women who are important.

Did you listen to "Peaches En Regalia"? Good! Smooth sounds, a very melodious undercurrent of piano, softer drums, and guitars and horns coming in for effect. A very neat and concise package. But the name, humorous right? "Peaches in Regalia". Royal peaches. Peaches wearing crowns and holding scepters. I know that last sentence is mired in double entendre and perhaps that is what is meant by Zappa's name for his song, but think about it. This studio version is so clean cut, so precise, does it match its name? Perhaps not. We shall see what happens.



1860-1872 Edition and the Filmore East

Okay, so now you know introductory things so here is the Filmore East Edition of "Peaches". Listen and read. Whitman looks different no? Hrmm. Anyhow he did make some very distinct changes to our beloved "Occupations" changing the title to the third segment of "Chants Democratic" in 1860 and "Carol of Occupations" in 1872. There are quite a few changes in both of the texts. including additions and deletions. Our stanzas have a few of these changes. For instance the line " If you are a workman or workwoman, I stand as nigh as the nighest that works in the same shop," changes to " If you stand at work in a shop, I stand as nigh as the nighest in the same shop," (1856-1860). It stays this way for the rest of the editions. This new line is more encompassing, and reaches out to more workers despite of where they work or who they may be. Also it shortens the line and becomes less of a labor to read. It is not flashy, and is more concise. He deletes the "?" from the "...foolish and outlaw deeds? plenty of them." in 1860 and then deletes the "plenty of them" all together in 1872. The first deletion, of the question mark, shows he does not question his own deeds but is aware of all of his foolish and outlaw deeds. The deletion of "plenty of them" is the poet showing maturity; he does not wish to remember, or state perhaps, that he had performed many foolish and outlaw deeds. The poet is coming now from a higher place (1872 is also an edition where we see "ed" change to " 'd"). The last line of this stanza "If you see a good deal remarkable in me, I see just as much in you."(1855) to " If you see a good deal remarkable in me, I see just as much, perhaps more, in you."(1856-1860) gets deleted entirely in 1872. The 1855 version is nice, but almost placating. It's as if the poet is saying "if you think i am so wonderful i think you are!" which almost talks down to the worker. The addition of "perhaps more" is just adding arrogance to the mix and so, the 1872 deletion, i affirm, makes the whole of the stanza better.
The changes in the 1972 version show us a more refined poet. The arrogance is toned down and the scope broadened. Although some would say the addition of the " 'd" is, in itself, arrogantly stating the importance of these lines as poetry, the argument could also be made that the poet was trying to be less radical, and daresay, conform more to standards.

Filmore East has a totally different feel doesn't it? The song, similar right? But not. More raw. Yes it's live. But doesn't account for everything. The pace, a bit slower, more lingering, more jammy. Ansley Dunbar's falsetto is just a nice addition to the guitar. The piano turns to an organ, and the guitar is given more freedom and is a bit crunchier. All in all this rendition is more playful, more fun, and it shows how Zappa was getting comfortable with making his music, not just music. He has more power and wants the band around him to make his song as playful as the title. Awesome, yes?


1881-2 -1891-2 to the Tinsel Town Rebellion of 1981.

Here we are at last, the 80's and 90's. Here listen to this edition of "Peaches in Regalia". Wait, what? Oh my sweet lord. Zappa changed the name to "Peaches III". He changed the name, just like Walt had changed the name of his "Occupations". A peculiar, but interesting twist to our analysis no?

Except, where Walt had changed his poem's name many times, he, in these two versions, finally changes it back to "A Song For Occupations". And it is, sadly in these editions that our stanza has the least amount of change. Most of the change comes before hand, with the deletion of some stanzas to make ours, instead of the eighth, the fifth. There are minor grammatical adjustments but it does come to bear that the whole first stanza of "Come closer to me, push closer my lovers" is deleted. This is strange. Why would Whitman not want this in his poem anymore? Why would he not want them to come close to him and "take the best [he] possess[es]" and give "the best [they] possess"? I can only imagine that it is because he has said it before and better "For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you" (to note "Song of Myself" is also returned its title from it's first incarnation in these editions ). Surely the grammatical changes are worth note, they change the entire cadence of the poem and even meaning, but they are numerous and they flip flop; what was changed in one was returned to in an another. Whitman has settled and found, perhaps, the best that these poems could be, and settled with them.

Likewise, no other "Peaches en Regalia" editions surpass the Tinsel Town Rebellion version created in 1981. Other versions were released later but they were all recorded prior to '81 and some released posthumously. This "Peaches" is so different to say the least. A faster pace at some parts. Added synthesizers. The xylophone takes lead. Weird operatic voices, and Zappa's calling out of Italians in the end. Zappa definitely doesn't play guitar in this one. This is a product of the 80's certainly, but also a product of how far Zappa could push the envelope of music. "Peaches" finally lives up to it's name with bizarre sounds and strange interludes of weird music. That's why Zappa stopped it here. No more recorded "Peaches" it became what it was supposed to, much like Whitman's last edition of Leaves (though if Whitman had lived to today, he would have revised until today). "Peaches en Regalia" had it's final incarnation as "Peaches III" and Zappa left it alone, knowing that he had accomplished what he wanted with the freedom he had gained by becoming a master in his field, much like Whitman.

Final Note

Whitman created a living poetry and Zappa changed the face of modern music. Two geniuses realized that their work was never done, their intent never fully realized, and so they sang the same songs they had been singing in different ways until the echoes came back in ways they wanted. They knew that what is beautiful changes, what is ironic changes, and time changes all. Whitman's "A Song for Occupations" had been a "Carol" and a "Chant" but it was always something sung. Likewise, as ridiculous as this sounds, Zappa's "Peaches en Regalia" was always "Peaches" of some sort. Always abstract, always strange and beautiful, succulent and deceiving. They both were artists, and they both revised their art because they needed to perfect it every time for the age it was in.

Revisions and Speech

When people i have known have said that sometimes authors just put words on a page without thinking about it I point them to Walt Whitman. Like Professor Hanley at SFSU has pointed out, Whitman's leaves of grass wasn't so much of a final edition, but instead was a constant work in progress with new editions coming out nearly annually. There is not a single word in Leaves of Grass that Whitman didn't intend to belong there. It's true as hell!!! Look at the revisions in the blue book. Look at them! Witness someone who, despite speaking words that cut to the core of me, revised those words constantly to find the perfect meaning.

"Speech is the twin of my vision....it is unequal to measure itself" (pg.19 1855)

Speech for Whitman was always unequal to his vision, and thus his revisions. Who could blame him? I'm not saying that the 1855 version of Leaves of Grass isn't beautiful and literary by itself, but i am understanding that Whitman revised his work to try to make it closer to his intent, to his vision.

For me, page 19 of the 1855 version of Leaves speaks to me. I have already written about it multiple times but when a certain part of a poem speaks to you, you have to respond. I will look at the revisions of this page, or rather this section of the poem.

Walt turns understand to contain in the line " Walt you understand enough....why don't you let it out then?"

Walt also changes it into italics. But first we must discuss the word change. Contain versus understand. Contain supposes that Walt had been filled with understanding, he had been filled with experience. Understand implies that Whitman may not have experienced the parts of life that speech contains, but instead realizes them conceptually. So we can see how contain takes a different position in the poem.

Another large change is the addition of "O Speech" in the line "Do you not know, O Speech, how the buds beneath you are folded". The issue with this is that, in the 1855 version, this part was not directly talking to speech, or rather, the act of speech. But with the updated version we understand more thoroughly that Whitman is specifically talking about the inadequacy of speech. By adding "O speech" we understand that Whitman is directing all of his verse upon the topic of speech.

There are more changes that occur even within his page. There are too many changes for us to track them down on just one blog post. But the reality of it is this. That Whitman was always looking to make his intent more concise. Whitman does not even condone a single word in Leaves of Grass without his complete acceptance of that word belonging in the poem. Perhaps Whitman's poetry is one of the texts that we, as literary critics, can pull out the most authorial intent from.

This is Just to Say

Words and Walt Whitman have a strange relationship in "Song Of Myself". I will list a few instances in which words or speech come up. Yet I know that there is certainly more in the poem. The quotes that will be shown are more directly about speech.

"The sound of the belched words of my voice . . . . words loosed to the eddies of the wind,"(1)

"I have heard what the talkers were talking . . . . the talk of the beginning and the end,
But I do not talk of the beginning or the end." (2)

"Not words, not music or rhyme I want . . . . not custom or lecture, not even the best,
Only the lull I like, the hum of your valved voice." (3)

"What living and buried speech is always vibrating here . . . . what howls restrained by decorum,"(6)

"Endless unfolding of words of ages!
And mine a word of the modern . . . . a word en masse.
A word of the faith that never balks,
One time as good as another time . . . . here or henceforward it is all the same to me.
A word of reality . . . . materialism first and last imbueing."(16)

"My voice goes after what my eyes cannot reach,
With the twirl of my tongue I encompass worlds and volumes of worlds."(19)

"Speech is the twin of my vision . . . . it is unequal to measure itself."(19)

"My final merit I refuse you . . . . I refuse putting from me the best I am.
Encompass worlds but never try to encompass me,
I crowd your noisiest talk by looking toward you." (19)

"Man or woman! I might tell how I like you, but cannot,
And might tell what it is in me and what it is in you, but cannot,
And might tell the pinings I have . . . . the pulse of my nights and days.
Behold I do not give lectures or a little charity,
What I give I give out of myself."(32)

"My words are words of a questioning, and to indicate reality;"(35)

"I too am not a bit tamed . . . . I too am untranslatable,
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world."(43)

Apologies for the long list of quotes. The four I will talk about will be the ones in bold.

Whitman has a lot to say about speech. Set up by Whitman are two modes of speech set in a hierarchy. The narrator's "belched words of [his voice]" and "barbaric yawp" take a priority in the hierarchy of language for the narrator. "I too am untranslatable" is what the narrator tells us right before sounding the yawp. But how is it possible that he be untranslatable? We are reading these words, we are understanding them, right? Yet this is not the same as translation. That is why the narrator sounds his yawp. Because that sound, the yawp, is one without form.
The burden of concise words and symbols is what the narrator is trying to get away from. Our words have direct definitions attached to them and that is precisely the problem.

The narrators "speech is the twin of [his] vision....it is unequal to measure itself". Speech is born of the same origin as his vision but because of this it is unable to accurately measure itself. Speech is unable to differentiate itself from the vision. Speech cannot show the vision because the vision is in the speech. The narrator rejects speech because, since it cannot differentiate from the vision, it is inadequate. His "final merit" is that of refusing speech. The narrator states that speech may "encompass worlds but never try to encompass [him]". Speech may show his vision but it cannot show the narrator himself. Speech cannot show all that is our narrator or his vison.

So What? Well these two modes of speech show us something that Whitman struggles with throughout the whole of "Song of Myself". He cannot, and is aware of it, make his words express what he is actually writing about. Many times throughout the poem he makes statements about all that he encompasses ("I skirt the sierras....my palms cover continents."(23)). This is because Whitman, or the narrator, is coming to terms about showing all that is his vision of the beauty of life. He attempts to be everywhere with his long lists and his all encompassing experiences tinged with a hint of omnipotence. It is because there is something ineffable about the idea Whitman strives to express. His love for words that do not belong to the mind but are "barbaric" or "belched" shows this ineffability. When Whitman does venture into the realm of higher words, words wrought by the brain, he recognizes their contradictory and often failing nature. Whitman's narrator can "crowd your noisiest talk by looking toward you". Whitman's language of the body is more powerful than words. Understanding that, we can look at the poem and search out its most visceral moments about the body and see their importance.

In short, don't read this poem with a lens of cold objectivity. Whitman meant for these words to be felt by your body, felt in your heart, felt subjectively. To deny that is deny the song Whitman is singing.

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.