Whitman's poem neither supports nor rejects the view of Neely that the poet saw the war primarily as a necessary conflict for preserving the union, not as a war of emancipation. The poem is obviously upbeat in tone and supportive of the war effort. He is so passionately committed to the righteousness of the war that he is not very open for skepticism: "[m]ake no parley--stop for no expostulation" This is a voice of man who is willing to suspend doubt and disregard criticism for the sake of accomplishing what he believes in firmly. Whitman's attitude is at the opposite of the antiwar sentiment of Horton who saw the war as the cause of despicable human misery, and the upbeat tone of Whitman marks a stark contrast with the somewhat melancholic, defeated tone of Timrod, which also seemed to believe in the righteousness of the war from the southern perspective. What is so clearly manifest is his ruthless commitment to the war effort: “no happiness must he have now with his bride, [n]or the peaceful farmer any peace, ploughing his field or gathering his grain” but in no part of the poem is seen any ideological outcry. Whitman’s motivation, therefore, is somewhat ambiguous. Nowhere in the poem is antislavery propaganda.
I don’t know what else to say. I’m sorry that this post is short of 300 words minimum and so terribly late.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
1 comentario:
Sosei, I can understand that it is hard to determine whether or not Neely’s claim could be supported by Whitman’s poem because sometimes I feel there are other factors that should be presented in making such judgments. For example, if we would have a thorough understanding of Whitman’s background and his beliefs it could be possible to imply any underlying meanings in his poem. Yet, without those elements we must make our own judgments based on the little knowledge we have. I don’t know if I would make the assumption that Whitman is in full support of the war just because of the “upbeat tone” of the poem because I feel that his focus is directed not on the war as a good thing, but as an event that inevitably is going to occur. I also feel that his attention is directed to the war’s impact on all of society from the farmer in the countryside to the merchants in the city. He emphasizes the urgency of the war, almost giving the war a characteristic element in the effect that the war is portrayed as a force, not just an event. His technique in giving the war a human-like persona does make the reading of the poem ambiguous. Again, it is hard without background information to tell whether the ideas presented in the poem directly reflect Whitman’s idea. Yet, I interpreted it to convey the character of the war, not Whitman’s character. He describes the war, as you quotes in your response, as making “stop for no expostulation.” I see that we had different interpretations of the text, but that’s why we share our opinions. I do believe you’ve presented an interesting interpretation of the text; one that I did not look into. Thank you!
Publicar un comentario