Under the Shadow of Whitman's America

(Ginsberg, a Whitmanian poet to be sure, as Uncle Sam: He too understood something about America "I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked")

Whitman's America is not our America, or maybe, maybe she is ours too. Whitman has in "A Song For Occupations" these lines, that perhaps show us what he believes of his America:

The President is up there in the White House for you....it is not you who are here for him
The Secretaries act in their bureaus for you....not you here for them
The Congress convenes every December for you,
Laws, courts, the forming of states, the charters of cities, the going and coming of commerce and mails are all for you.(48)

In short, i cannot, and do not believe in Whitman's America, and that makes me sad. I can no longer believe that the President is up there in the White House for me, or that any mechanism of our confounded bureaucracy meets for my benefit.

Before i get on a soap box too much i have to say that, i think, in some ways, Whitman stopped believing in his America too. Three entries from Specimen Days show light onto Whitman's thoughts on politics. First is the Inauguration Ball. In this entry Whitman compares the opposite scenes of the setting for the Ball and the wounded brought in from the second Bull Run. He gives us only a brief look at the ball, talking about pretty women and perfumes, but goes into detail on the sights and smells and sounds of those wounded in battle. This brief passage certainly shows us that Whitman is an ardent observer and has ease at description. But there is not much opinion in this section. However the juxtaposition of the images of leisure with the gruesome realities of war give enough of a statement. Whitman's connection that there is so much for surgeon and nurse to do that while they are busy helping people that some mother's sons pass away unintended, give us a thought of liesure with disgust. How can people be waltzing and drinking while men are dying and screaming, marred by a war for thier respective countries? Perhaps this is a first look at Whitman's realizing of the truth about America.

Second comes the entry "President Hayes's Speeches" . It is actually a line from about the middle of this passage that gets me thinking about how Whitman may feel:

"I hear [the speeches] criticised as wanting in dignity, but to me they are just what they should be, considering all the circumstances, who they come from, and who they are address'd to. Underneath, his objects are to compact and fraternize the States, encourage their materialistic and industrial development, soothe and expand their self-poise, and tie all and each with resistless double ties not only of inter-trade barter, but human comradeship."

Whitman also states that the speeches are "on easy topics not too deep" and that some would call the speeches "ephemeral". So it comes to me that, if they are very surface level speeches that some would say lack dignity and the ability to last what is the point? Why would Walt think they were exactly what they should be? What is the import of thier style and substance. Clearly Walt wants these speeches to connect America again. to soothe an America that had just gone through a civil war. But thinking that these, perhaps superficial, speeches are what America needs? It seems to me that that is not the same Whitman who seemed to have unlimited faith in people, in the American people. Certainly the Civil War would have changed anyone's ideas, but there is an echo of a loss of faith in the average American. It also seems that Whitman doesn't care much for Hayes, but with his emotion toward Lincoln well known, it is no wonder he would not care for Hayes.

For me the last nail in the coffin is one of the last entries of Specimen Days: "Nature and Democracy - Morality". Walt talks about how Democracy needs nature, or as Marcus Aurelius put it, the morality of nature. Walt states that he "conceive[s] of no flourishing and heroic elements of Democracy in the United States, or of Democracy maintaining itself at all, without the Nature-element forming a main part". Though this is very abstract it seems to me that Walt is calling for Democracy to maintain elements of nature that are beautiful and elegant. Peace, compassion and perhaps humanity. Nature can be violent and brutal but Walt's nature, as expressed through much of his poetry, is always one of beauty, always a nature of the loafer and leaner, the grass connects us all; connects every person. Walt does not see that Democracy will be successful unless it understands these concepts, and embraces them, and he is right.

Most of me wants to delete this post and start over. But this is an informal space to make these posts right? We can understand that Whitman knows of all the ugly aspects of America as well as the good. But he also seemed to know the difference in what was good about America and what wasn't. He did not drastically change the lines from "A Song for Occupations" which goes to show how much faith Whitman had in this land, even after the loss of Lincoln, even after the Civil War. These lines show faith in politicians before "politician" became a bad word. It shows faith that we as a country were building towards something.

I can only hope that one day i can see America as it was through Whitman's eyes. With hope and understanding.

P.S.

If your wondering why i am disillusioned here are some links: Our 1st Amendment rights down the drain, Legislation relying on the denial of basic human rights, and Homeland Security spying on peaceful protesters. But you are probably not wondering. Whitman tried to change this country with his poetry, and, as we will see, he did make change in places. But this needs to happen more often. We, as students of the word, are not powerless.
It is our solemn duty to ensure that the future of this country will not be brutal, unfair, and destructive of her people. We should turn our skills of analysis upon those who govern us, and our skills of rhetoric and compassion to battle their brutalities. A quote of Edward Said inspires me constantly. When people ask me what my B.A. in English Lit will be worth i think of this. When people underestimate the importance of what we do i think of this. And when i wonder what is neccesary for us to change this world we live in i think of this:

"Very well: if what i have been saying has any validity, then the politics of interpretation demands a dialectical response from a critical consciousness worthy of its name. Instead of noninterference and specialization, there must be interference, a crossing of borders and obstacles, a determined attempt to generalize exactly at those points where generalizations seem impossible to make. One of the first interferences to be ventured, then, is a crossing from literature, which is supposed to be subjective and powerless, into those realms, now covered by journalism and the production of information, that employ representation but are supposed to be objective and powerful." -Edward Said

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.

The Slangs of New York

Although I have posted here a picture of what seems to be a very affluent San Francisco hipster, would you believe that it is a Bowery B'hoy from a antebellum New York City. This group of people from Manhattan's lower east side inspired this image with the way they dressed. However the Bowery b'hoys and g'hals were also responsible for slang and a cultural atmosphere that made the Bowery a place of cultural revolution. Though many gangs were a part of the Bowery, and many of the b'hoys were street thugs, they helped shape a part of the colloquial American speech.

The flop-houses, cheap theaters, and dance halls made the Bowery a place where the working man could go to have a good time. Of course, wherever there is culture there is bound to be slang, and it was this slang that caught Walt Whitman's eye. We even still use some of this speech today. Every time you say "so long", or "chum", call someone your "pal", or say that the party was a "blow-out" you have to thank the bowery b'hoys and g'hals. Whitman, a clear lover of language, was a fan of the language of the Bowery. Whitman even used parts of their slang in his poetry.

Although I can't see Whitman agreeing with the thuggish elements of the Bowery i can see that he might be interested in them and thier language. A language of the working class man, of the dancehalls, flophouses, and theaters is the language fo the people. Although the high academic institutions of America always hold a sway on what language is proper or literary, it is always the people who come up with the new additions to language. Language is a sign of the times and even certain periods are demarkated by words. If i say "groovy" an image of the late sixties and early seventies comes to mind. "Radical" and "dude" remind us of the eighties. So we can see how powerful the language of the people, and how even some of this slang still sticks around with us today!

I can imagine Walt Whitman seeing this new slang, new words, words of the people, and i can imagine him saying "Why the hell not!" Whitman was all about the language of the people, the lull of the voices he loved, and as an autodidact, how could he not love the new slang coming from the lower east side.

But speaking of the atmosphere that was made by the Bowery? How about a little place called CBGB's? How about The Talking Heads, or The Ramones?


Though the Bowery was a spot of ill repute, much like San Francisco's Tenderloin, sometimes it's these places of low rents and residents that stay up all night that allow this kind of art to flourish. New styles, new art, new slang, all form in these cultural epicenters and that is perhaps what Whitman saw, and why he enjoyed the slang of the Bowery.

So, that picture of that hipster with the tall hat, weird pants and red shirt wasn't too far off. Surely there may have been more violence and less av-ante-garde snobbery, but the spirit may be the same. New people, trying new things, trying to live their life in new ways, and creating a microcosm of culture that may be immortalized through language.

Well in the words of the Bowery, so long.


Sites Cited:

http://www.boweryboogie.com/2010/11/bowery-slang/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowery
http://ahistoryofnewyork.com/tag/bowery-bhoys/

Specimen Days: Feburary Days

Well Walt certainly liked to loaf didn't he? And certainly the month of February should be the month of loafing. The bizarre mix of days that beckon you outdoors to enjoy the sun at its right temperatures, or keep you inside with the rain rapping its cold fingers upon your windows. Either way it is a month of beauty and transition and Whitman's entry shows us that this is so.

The power of his poetry comes from his loafing. Like the yellow sun to superman, the more loafing Whitman does, the more powerful his verse becomes. He is the king narrator of nature's splendor and not outdone by even Emerson or Thoreau. Leaves of Grass, the title itself even, is rife with metaphor and symbolism. Whether it be the plurality of the grass as it relates to humanity or the pages of the book representing the glory of Whitman's nature, it is charged with meaning. However perhaps a cigar is just a cigar and the title is simply to illustrated what inspired Whitman. We know he loafs and leans and observes spears of summer grass but in this specimen days we see how much he actually takes in nature and its beauty.

The hay from the barn has a perfume about it, the tendencies of humanity inspired by nature are vigorous and sweet, and Whitmans strength grows.

Whitman is a verse minded, peace loving Antaeus. He would invite you to wrestle, but only so that you could tug at his feet and beard. You often don't see many people appreciate nature the way Whitman does. He enjoys the weather regardless and even brings to his mind a letter by Robert Burns. We see Whitman even state that "I, too, like the rest, feel these modern tendencies (from all the prevailing intellections, literature and poems,) to turn everything to pathos, ennui, morbidity, dissatisfaction, death" but he does not allow this to stop him from enjoying what is around him and turning it into happiness.

The perfumes that crowd the houses and rooms may not be the odors that cover up the truth of nature but perhaps the intellectuality that keeps one from nature by using sight and ratiocination instead of touch, taste, smell, and feeling.

I think everyone probably needs to break out there inner Whitman now and again. When the summer comes iI know that Tamalpias will be calling my name.

Barnum's American Museum & Whitman

Barnum's American Museum was a spectacle full of all the odds and ends and oddities that could be found by Barnum. He stocked his museum with everything from mermaids to siamese twins to bearded ladies to a rifle range ect. ect. Many americans went to this museum and some sources boast even 15,000 visitors a day. With a large group of American's piling in every day, and the museums location in NYC what could be more American?

However Barnum's museum was full of oddities and fake artifacts and was just a spectacle in itself. Whitman certainly understands spectacle but as a poet who tries to get to the deeper aspect of life and constantly is in a struggle with what "truth" may be, i can't see this museum appealing to him. We do know however that, at the same time as Barnum's museum was going on there was another museum of Egyptian artifacts that did appeal to Whitman. Dr. Henry Abbot's collection of artifacts was frequented by Whitman. In fact Whitman's name appears on the ledger to sign in to the museum.

I can see how both would appeal to him. Barnum's museum appealing to to the masses and being a lively spectacle if mostly a fictitious one, and Abbot's as a real showing of Egyptian artifacts. Whitman would appreciate both i believe for the different aspects of culture they display.

Sources:

Wikipedia. Barnum's American Museum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum%27s_American_Museum. Accessed 2/8/2012

Maurita. "Egypt on Broadway" New York Historical Society. http://blog.nyhistory.org/egypt-on-broadway/. Accessed 2/8/2012

Specimen Days: Abraham Lincoln

It is interesting to see the connection to the president that is felt by Whitman. He takes cursory glances and makes monuments out of them. Whitman seems to be dripping with admiration for the man. Yet he mentions many times during this entry about how plain Lincoln is in dress and action. Whitman associates Lincoln with the common man and this is perhaps a reason his admiration is so deep. To state that one needs a master of portrait painting from the Renaissance to paint an accurate picture of Lincoln shows great reverence indeed.

This shows us how reverent people were to Whitman. I suppose Lincoln is special because he was the president but because Whitman is relating him to the common man so often it seems that this is the aspect most appreciated by Whitman. Whitman was a poet of the people, and Lincoln had the value of the president for the people. Whitman praises the common people of the world in "Song of Myself". Likewise if such a great figure as Lincoln can seem to be, or represent, the common man then we can see why Whitman had such adoration for him.

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.