Talk:Walt Whitman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[[Category:]]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core	This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 This article needs help in a serious way 2 Whitman and Sexuality 3 Being gay 4 Jesse Jackson reference 5 Whitman, Emerson, and the Trancendentalists 6 Captain 7 Oral Tradition 8 Harold Bloom 9 UC Davis Professor's Comments 10 Cultural depictions of Walt Whitman 11 Founder of Long Islander Newspaper 12 Walt Whitman and Walmart? 13 Neutrality 14 Onanism subheading 15 "Amative" and "Adhesive" Love 16 Onanism extrapolation

[edit] This article needs help in a serious way

To put it briefly, this is the stupidest page on Wikipedia. Whitman a "Romantic" poet? Well, sure, in the sense that he was utterly different from all the other Romantic poets.

There is no serious attempt to deal with Whitman's personal revolution in poetry. There is no attempt at all to deal with his attempted role as a gay revolutionary in 19th-century America.

There is an apparently concerted attempt to overlook the scholarship of Gary Schmidgall, and his meticulous documentation of the names of Whitman's male lovers -- and of the times and dates when they met.

There is an attempt to salvage him as "The Good Gray Poet of Democracy" -- an image which Whitman crafted in his old age. JaafarAbuTarab 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Romantics are a pretty broad group and while I'd be inclined to differentiate Whitman from, say, Shelley amongst others, his place in time and history has unfortunately linked him with that particular classification of poetic movements. Lumping anyone into a group that includes both Blake and Byron is problematic.... That aside, how specifically do you think your concerns should be addressed? Aside from noting that his work has been described as "the most audacious and debatable contribution yet made to American literature" how should his personal revolution in poetry be described? Gary Smidgall is only mentioned in this article, but what meticulous documentation of Whitman's sex life do you think would improve this article? Geeman 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The meticulous documentation I was thinking of would include Schmidgall's book "Walt Whitman: A Gay Life," which I found absolutely convincing, plus his edition of the "Leaves" which revives all the 1860 Calamus poems (Selected Poems 1855-1892: A New Edition), plus a book called "Whitman's Manuscripts," ed. Fredson Bowers, 1955. If you have these books you can follow the same pattern over and over again: in the manuscripts for the 1860 Calamus poems, the language is much bolder, more passionate, more overtly homoerotic---but as these manuscripts move towards publication they get toned down and made "safer." Then, once the 1860 edition had been printed, the whole work began going through a process of more "toning down."

I also think some real mention should be made of the relations between Oscar Wilde and WW, on the one hand, and J.A. Symonds and WW, on the other.

However, putting all this to one side for the moment, the article really has a tremendously tiny discussion of the poetry itself, and a good discussion of the poetry and its themes is essential.

By the way, one of the many excellent things to be found in the Schmidgall edition of the poems is an extensive collection of the original contemporary reviews. Many of those reviewers found the book hateful, a stinking mess cooked up by a man devoted to that sin not to be named among Christians. So--Whitman's reputation certainly did not begin with the Gay Rights Movement.

Would that be interesting -- a short section on the original critical reaction to the poems? JaafarAbuTarab 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think that the linkage is unfortunate, and problematic, let's just delete the word "Romantic" and call him an American poet. He is one-of-a-kind, after all, a true original. So I'll delete that one word and see what happens. :-) JaafarAbuTarab 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deletion survived for 29 minutes! JaafarAbuTarab 13:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think classifying Whitman is problematic, but apparently not so much as you. I would not, for instance, consider deleting the term as a descriptor from his biography. It's such a broadly used term that I don't think it necessarily excludes Whitman, and it does put him in a particular period of poetry, so it has its uses. The problems with using the term to describe Whitman might, honestly, be more appropriate to a general subsection in the article on Romaticism rather than addressed (or not) here. Geeman 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But why must we classify him as a Romantic? Or, to put it another way, do we learn more from calling Whitman a "Romantic" poet than we do from calling him a "19th-century poet?" Or, perhaps better, "an innovative poet of the 19th century?" Calling him a "Transcendental" poet would probably be closer to the mark.

And, by the way, I don't think the major anthologies of English literature classify Whitman as a "Romantic" poet. That's why I added the note "citation needed."JaafarAbuTarab 14:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also tempted to remove the references to Pessoa. So what if Pessoa thought Whitman was gay? If Pessoa was a Whitman scholar, it's news to me! But...just so I'm not misunderstood...I'm pretty convinced Whitman was gay. But better sources than Pessoa and Jean Genet are needed.

I also think that the attempt to demonstrate Whitman's homoeroticism through "Song of Myself" may be slightly misguided. The Calamus poems are the place to look, especially the Calamus poems as revised and printed in 1860.

Any objections to removing the references to Pessoa? I'm in no hurry at all. The important thing is to do things right, not to do them quickly!  :-) JaafarAbuTarab 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the article mentioning Pessoa, but I don't think it needs to do so twice.... Doesn't the reference to Saudação belong in the Literature subsection of the Walt_Whitman_in_popular_culture article? Geeman 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One further note: the section on Whitman's poetry is much, much shorter than the section on his sexuality!

I've lived through the period which held that the Real Life Of The Artist was absolutely irrelevant. That was pretty silly. In my view, the only job of the critic is to establish the biography of the artist, describe the epoch he wrote in, try to determine what his artistic goals were, and then offer some sort of judgement as to whether his works succeeded in reaching his goals.

But it now seems that we are in a new era, where the Real Sex Life of the Artist is much more interesting than any poems he may have scribbled.

This, too, must be remedied. Who else wants to remove all that Bloom-stuff about masturbation? JaafarAbuTarab 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think Bloom is well-read, articulate and passionate about his subject, but wrong more than he's right, and the more signficance there is to the issue he discusses the more likely he is to be dead wrong about it almost as if through some strange, subconscious calculus. He's the kind of guy you specifically DON'T want to have over to babysit your kids because when you get home you'll find one in the oven and two dismembered in the bathroom. He could probably keep a houseplant alive for a few days though.... That said, I think his opinion is worthy of noting if for no other reason than it provides a nice platform for refutation, so I don't think that material should necessarily be deleted from this article except, perhaps, if it were moved into Bloom's biography. Geeman 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you about Bloom. The two Bloomisms that stick in my memory are one to the effect that Shakespeare was the most obvious bisexual in human history (not proved of course) and his casual shifting of Sigmund Freud from the camp of medicine to the camp of literature. (Didn't you know that Freud was a literary figure? You thought he was a doctor?!) Oh, and leaving Ancient Greece out of the canon entirely -- that was another notable Bloomism. JaafarAbuTarab 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitman and Sexuality

The section on Whitman's sexuality is really terrible as of 6/18/06, but I don't have time to fix it. Writing a good entry on Whitman and sexuality would take a great deal of time. On this subject, all I can do is refer you to my book LOVE STORIES: SEX BETWEEN MEN BEFORE HOMOSEXUALITY (University of Chicago Press, 2001). Jonathan Ned Katz

Yeah, just looking over the sexuality section i can see that theres only really two citations at the end for a large amount of information. This of course makes a very weak case as far as trying to prove that Whitman was a homosexual. --D-Gen 07:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, thanks, Jonathan. I think we can do it without you. Of course, we're probably busy too. It is seriously a mess, though. The basics shouldn't be that difficult. Whitman - almost or entirely - was oriented toward romantic attachments and sexual excitement with other men, generally working class and rough, though Oscar Wilde claimed to have given WW a blowjob when he visited him in Camden. He liked to cruise the waterfront in Manhattan, and his notebooks contain lists of assignations with young men found there. We would call that homosexual now, but the word really wasn't available (and the idea of what that might refer) until just about the time of Whitman's death. As David Reynolds describes in his biography, the 19th C wasn't quite as hung up on what people might be doing with their genitalia as we are now. Of course, homosexuality, when people were forced to confront it, was much more of a scandal then as it is now. Michael Moon's book describes LOG's successive editions as a series of responses to the gradual shift to the emergence of a more regimented sexuality and a hyper-sensitivity to queerness. In any case, yes, British Writer John Symonds [[1]] wrote a famous letter asking WW if LOG was written in part to tell the tale of these homosexuals, and WW replied with a blatant and humongous fib that he was married and had sired many children on this non-existent wife.

He had a long-time companion and lover in Peter Doyle, a Washington, DC trolley driver, and there were a couple other close male companions who were particularly favored over a course of several years. We don't precisely know whether or not they had sex, or what orifice they used, or if and where they ejaculated, but these were relationships characterized by intense emotional affection and, in the case of Doyle, concern with discovery, and anxiety and confusion over gender roles [the notebooks have pronoun references to Peter in the feminine].

Some contemporaries seemed aware of the implicit references in Leaves of Grass to same-sex attraction, and some, British writers Symonds and Edward Carpenter [[2]] in particular, were positive about it, others, such as the literary critic Rufus Griswold, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Griswold, a little shaken and angry about it. Check the review of the first edition: Griswold recommends having Whitman whipped like a donkey or some such shit.

But in truth, most people - not being particularly curious in that direction, I guess - didn't take notice. This seems to be the case even in his close friends and staunch defenders, John Burroughs [[3]]and Richard Maurice Bucke [[4]], who were apt to write glowing praise of Whitman's manliness and sexuality purity in their books on him. Oddly enough - or perhaps not, Whitman thought himself blameless enough to condemn Burrough's dalliances with farm girls, co-eds, and secretaries that were likely carried out as a consequence of Burrough's wife's apparent complete distaste for heterosexual intercourse.

What did scandalize Whitman's contemporaries were more apt to be his frank descriptions of the body and his references to female sexuality. C.f. "I Sing the Body Electric" and "A Woman Waits for Me." But Whitman's pose as a pan-sexual was also likely to excite some panic: e.g., "A City of Orgies" (real Whitman title!).

[edit] Being gay

Was Whitman gay?

I am not a Whitman scholar per se and might have limited knowledge of his precise curriculum vitae, but I find the homosexuality alleged here unsubstantiated and somewhat superficially made; it smacks a little of political programming. I am not claiming that Whitman could not possibly have been homosexual (supposing the topic is of interest at all), but I claim that the text in the relevant section [as per the April 2006 version] is not making a convincing case. There's no conflict between "admiring male friendships" and "erotic descriptions of the male body" with normal full-scale full-blooded male sexuality (i.e. attraction to the fairer sex). Of course Song of Myself is filled with poetic descriptions of the glorious male body -- the text is brimming with poetic descriptions of the glory of nearly everything under and inside the sun (for God's sake), including the equally glorious beauty of the female body. I sharpen my claim, and my criticism of a certain style of reading and interpretation, by saying that readers who consume Song of Myself and conclude `Aha, so he is gay' have not understood the poem. -- Slavatrudu, April 2006.

I have started to expand the article to include more than just the text of one poem and a discussion of his homosexuality. Though these are both important, it seems an oversight that such an important poet has such a brief entry. -- Jessica S.JKillah 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention on the current page of Peter Doyle. This seems an extraordinary omission! -- James P

To James P: That's not the only strange thing about this account of Whitman's life! However, the matter of Peter Doyle seems to have been corrected. oldcitycat oldcitycat 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph on Whitman's homosexuality to reflect the uncertain nature of the sources involved. Both are second or third hand accounts, and Gavin Arthur wrote two moderately inconsistant accounts of his affair with Carpenter. It seemed best to note that in brief. At the same time, it also seems to me that there's a growing critical consensus on Whitman's homosexuality. -- Steve Marsden

Who deleted all the information about Walt Whitman being gay? I want it put back up and added to, it is an important aspect of his life and work. (Anonymous Users) May 22, 2006

The section "Whitman and Homosexuality" was deleted by a vandal (User:70.251.179.71) on May 18. Someone else then reverted the vandalizing remarks without restoring what had been deleted. InvisibleSun 07:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The section has been restored. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

The sectio still seems to be far from being neutral, and speculative in many cases. Sources 5 & 6 do not appear to be the most impartial or reliable sources. The references in Song of Myself as well as well seem to be more of the article editor's own poetry explication rather than verified information. This needs a far more neutral viewpoint. Lines such as "The name of the poems alone would have sufficed to convey..." seem to be the editor's own explication. Also, "Whitman's romantic and sexual attraction towards other men is not disputed." seems to step away from neutrality. There is bound to be dispute among scholars, especially considering Whitman's appreciation for all aspects of life without a specific focus on men. It is also interesting that Whitman's sorrow over the death caused by the civil war is given little attention in this article. This does need some cleaning up and less bias.

This discussion is ridiculous. First, homosexuality was an invention of the medical establishment in the 19th century and is somewhat anachronistic, since the development of Whitman's sexuality probably prefigured the invention of the term. Second, if any of the people here would go to his works, in numerous instances Whitman expresses strong physical, emotional, spiritual, and political affection for males, females, and the human species in its collective neuter, so he was almost certainly neither homosexual nor heterosexual (neither of which is normal or abnormal, despite what other commentators in this discussion section assert). Third, the idea of a well-defined sexual conviction that excluded any variety of love for one's fellow human seems anathema to his character and pluralistic convictions. Jstenar 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty argument which unfortunately doesn't hold water. Why? Firstly because there was already a well developed and self-identified homosexual subculture in America at the time (hell, there was a self-identified homosexual subculture in Elizabethan england), and secondly, because if you compare the successive editions of Leaves Of Grass you can see how he very consciously de-gayed (for want of a better word) the early text and made it more universal. See http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/whitman.htm for some further interesting points. Engleham 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

By "homosexuality was an invention of the medical establishment in the 19th century" I assume you mean the term "homosexuality" rather than its practice....  :D In any case, I think you make a valid point in that describing someone like Whitman's sexuality using contemporary terms often results in a pathological categorization process using an overly-simplistic understanding of the Kinsey Scale to the reality of individual variation. Or, more simply, a labelling process that isn't very accurate. "Homosexuality" is a very clinical term, "gay" is political, "queer" even more so. The perjoratives also have their purposes and implications that all detract from their utility when applied to an individual. As the saying goes, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails" (no innuendo intended... maybe) so we wind up applying terms to a person for whom we have a lot of material that expresses a range from his overt sexuality to a generalized, idealistic love of humanity, and it's difficult for such terms to describe the complexity of the reality very well without ourselves dropping into free verse. That said, what's the solution to the problem? There is a lot of information that supports the use of the common understanding of the term "homosexuality" in describing Whitman and his work. I'm sure some effort could be made to use more prudent language in the article (though, after reviewing it just now with an eye towards this issue, I'm not sure where) but I don't think we can really address all the problems of contemporary nomenclature and social mores in an encyclopedic biography and remain truthful to the man without delving into something outside the scope of a biography. A more inclusive description of Whitman's sexuality in reference to the inadequacy of modern terms is a worthy agenda. (Let's recognize that there's an agenda in place, shall we? No need to be coy.) Whitman is as good a place as any to do so, but what specifically would you change about the present article to address the issue? Geeman 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, silly people, by no means did I attempt to argue that homosexual affection or behavior, to wit, sexual attraction or physical sexual contact with a person of similar gender, to be absent prior to the nineteenth century (heck, we can go through Catullus poety in Rome to pedarastic Greek love, if we so wished, but that's not the point). The point is, well-defined monosexual (to coin another term) relationships was a product of, shall I say, narrow-minded pseudoscience of that century. The first usage of the term homosexual did not occur until four years prior to the death of the poet in question: "1892 C. G. CHADDOCK tr. Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis III. 255 He had been free from homo-sexual inclinations. Ibid. 256 The homo-sexual woman offers the same manifestations, mutatis mutandis." (cited OED, 2nd edition). My primary point is that Whitman loved humanity with an expansive and inclusive infatuation that encompassed the erotic and the friendly and was without regard to gender. To grab this big-hearted man and place him in a small-minded prison is not just antihistorical and countertextual but sorry. As for the alleged "degaying"? Pshaw. He had an authorized version published just after his death that included some randy man-on-man love. The point his arguable, and if you wish to argue, we can have a citation battle.Jstenar 06:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Whitman's efforts to mute and suppress the evidence of his homosexuality have provided an endless field for academic papers for the last two decades. Do a Muse search. Believing the public published persona of anyone is the same as their private persona is the first sin of biography. Engleham 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though it is necessary. First, you contradict yourself. You assert above "if you compare the successive editions of Leaves Of Grass you can see how he very consciously de-gayed" and cite a an article in which the authority you cite says the following “But it also resulted in Whitman's realization of the true meaning of his prophecy, and produced the Calamus cluster of poems in the 1860 edition. It was a severe crisis, and Whitman in effect came out” and proceeds to quote from Calamus. So do you believe yourself and the authority you cited that reading poems by an author provides insight into the author, or do you believe what you just wrote and now reject your words above?

Second, I feel comfortable with the sin of imputing fact into the poetry of Walt Whitman for the twofold reason that poetry is a more personal form of literary expression than any other and Walt Whitman was a more personal poet than many others. I wonder how you would explain his poem entitled ‘Walt Whitman.’ Eh? And what are we to make of the subject of “Song of Myself”? It could be possible that Whitman was talking about a hypothetical Whitman, but that is a bit obtuse and the first reading seems to most likely.

Third, how can you say Whitman’s poems are not biographical when Whitman said the following of his own poems: “I found myself remaining possess’d, at the age of thiry-one to thirty-three, with a special desire and conviction…This was a feeling or ambition to articulate and faithfully express in literary or poetic form, and uncompromisingly, my own physical[,] emotional, moral, interllectual, and aesthtic Personality…and to exploit that Personality, identified with place and date, in a far more candid and comprehensive sense than any hitherto poem or book.” (from “A Backward Glance O’er Travel’d Roads” LOG, McKay edition, published 1900, pg 546-547) I am pretty sure that is the most explicit statement of intentional autobiography he could make and the exact opposite of what you say.

Third, you have yet to cite an example of degaying. I have several instances of his assertive gayification of his text. Two easy examples (1) In 1856, in the eighth paragraph of ‘I Sing the Body Electric’ Whitman adds “Have you ever loved the Body of a man?” a year after original publication (1855). Why would he add the question if he was trying to hide his sexual appreciation of men? (2) In 1856, at the tenth line of ‘A Woman Waits for Me’ Whitman writes “Without shame the man I like knows and avows the deliciousness of his sex, / Without shame the woman I like knows and avows hers.” . He revised the poem in 1860 by removing the line “O I will fetch bullly breeds of children yet!” – in effect, equalizing his affection for both men and women rather than emphasizing the procreative functions of intercourse. Interestingly, Whitman changed the name of the poem from “Poem of Procreation” to a more pleasure focused title, de-emphasizing the heterosexual exclusivity of procreation. Given these two revisions, if Whitman were trying to hide degay anything, why didn’t he remove the quite candid assertion that the man “I like” is one who “avows his sex”? And he does not mean just nonerotic maleness, as he specifies near the beginning of the poem that “Sex contains all [including] seminal milk”

In sum, I would continue to assert that Whitman had a much more expansive and complex notion of love than simple homo- or heterosexual desire and that either is a reductive account of his love or, more broadly, his poetry and life. As corollary I would say that he did not try to hide it -- it was his project. Even if he changed the gender in some poems, it would be absurd, given the overwhelming evidence of his broad conception of sex and love, that he was either strictly gay or strictly closeted. Jstenar 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put the question a bit more directly just to see if we can cut to the chase a bit: What do you propose be done with the article to reflect your view? What exactly is it you think should be changed or articulated more fully, and how do you think it should be done? --Geeman 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I have read every poem in "Leaves of Grass" I feel so inferior to your intellectual discussion; Was Whitman Gay? The only thing I can add, is that wandering the hospitals (oh Civil War) that it would allow him time alone with dying soldiers. With that, he could give each, young or older, soldier a last dying hug and possibly a kiss on the cheek, or other places. While each dying male needed to know that love was there for them in the end, he could conveniently be there at the right time. Hey ya know, you could conclude that he even had preditory motives for men. I mean, after all, he did not ever once (that I know of) write about the female nurses. Well, in any type of driving sexual admiration. Oh, let's don't forget he slept with his retarded brother as a grown man. That makes the argument so more convincing and absolutely true.

Walt writes an entire life on Nature, Animals, Health, Politics, Religion, Capitalism, Racism, Women, Blacks (at the time), Indians, Family, and of course Love and Sex. I apologize most sincerely, that I did not ever piok up on "today I am jetting the the stuff of far more arrogant republics" was referring to seminal milk. Seminal Milk? Are you serious?

Do your parents know you are staying up late, and participating in this type of uh, uh, intelectual review? Gee, sure hope the grown-up sites don't pick up on Walt Whitman, as being a search word for those big people sites.

This discussion is the same 1st level analyzing that was happening when Congress wanted to ban his books for being unacceptable. Really, thought I would read some intellectual insight of his wonderful control with his (where does it come from) gift of metaphor.

Walt Whitman's writing is beautiful, and read with deliberate emotion it will "bouey you up with tremendous breath" and strength along with a great feel that sex can not ever do.

My intellectual contribution to this discussion is, well uh, nothing. I can just say, for me, that his writing is damn great. Can, or will there ever be someone with a poetic voice, that can change poetic structure and rythym to touch our emotions with such powerful artistic genius?

My apologies for no contribution, and just my frustration of your "Being Gay" discussion of Walt Whitman.

Whitman has been discovered by queer scholars to be bisexual and one of the first queer writers/poets.

Whitman was bisexual, and some would argue that he was more attracted to men than to women, though he constantly praised the beauty of both and expressed desires to make love to both. This ability to find both sexes erotically stimulating aided him in writing many of his most beautiful poems, such as "I Sing the Body Electric". In the 1950 Random House edition of 'Leaves of Grass', John A. Kouwenhoven's introduction states: "This anomalous sexuality of Whitman's is too central to his personality, too profoundly interwoven in the 'Leaves', to be ignored." I agree, and I sometimes wonder how many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are comfortable with Whitman's vision of sexual freedom.

"The love of the body of man or woman balks account, the body

   itself balks account,

That of the male is perfect, and that of the woman is perfect."

How many people are secure enough in themselves to make such a statement? How wonderful it would be if more people, no matter what their sexuality, could internalize such an attitude.

And in a culture that mindlessly worships youth and degrades it, that elevates young flesh above all else, these lines from his short poem, "Beautiful Women" are also a relief to read, such a relief that they bring tears to my eyes:

"Women sit or move to and fro, some old, some young, The young are beautiful--but the old are more beautiful than the

   young."

And how about this, from "I Sing the Body Electric", in which Whitman praises the beauty and vigor of an eighty-year-old grandfather:

"You would wish long and long to be with him, you would wish to

   sit by him in the boat that you and he might touch each other."

[edit] Jesse Jackson reference

It seems perverse to link Jesse Jackson to Walt Whitman in these terms (traces). Jesse is working entirely out of the rhetorical tradition of Black Protestantism. James Weldon Johnson, on the other hand, may well (I might even go so far as 'probably does') represent a merging of Whitman and that tradition. --MichaelTinkler

It was an intuitive leap on my part to carry the link to Jackson. It may be wrong but I do not think it is perverse. The kind of almost hypnotic repetition used by Whitman and so favored by black preachers evolved, I think, into an art form in the 1870's and 80's (JWJ took inspiration from the published sermons of those days), and it may be that Whitman picked up some of his cadence from the preachers and they from him.--Red Bowen

To Red Bowen: Hypnotic repetition is a technique much entrenched in the Bible..and many other religious books. oldcitycat 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have retracted the use of Jackson as too much of a stretch.--Red

Black Protestantism is not a far reaching relative of Whitman's verse, as he alluded to the Bible and Jesus in his works and repeatedly invoked Black Protestant traditions, including the spiritual, and the abolitionist movement.

[edit] Whitman, Emerson, and the Trancendentalists

It'd be good to have some discussion of Whitman's relationship to Emerson and the transcendentalists. Atorpen

To Atorpen: Certainly the case. I really find the article itself to be very deficient. I have corrected the 'stroke sentence'..Whitman did not have a stroke while visiting his mother. He had it while working and living in Washington, D.C.. (Anyone can check this against the usual biographies, e.g. Justin Kaplan's "Walt Whitman, A Life". ) And certainly Emerson was singularly important to Whitman in many ways.

I'm new here too. I used to look up Wiki entries for dates or general information using google. Now that I look at Wikipedia closely, I'm really puzzled by some of the procedures and some of the entries. oldcitycat 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Me Imperturbe

Emerson wrote Whitman a letter praising him and without premission, Whitman published the letter in one of his books. That's Walt for you. He and Emerson were friends and met at least once in Boston, in Boston Common.

What's this.."That's Walt for you." ? Who put this comment in here?oldcitycat 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

":Emerson wrote Whitman a letter praising him and without premission, Whitman published the letter in one of his books. That's Walt for you. He and Emerson were friends and met at least once in Boston, in Boston Common." I reckon Emerson would not have liked Wikipedia. BTW Walt and Waldo (he hated being called Ralph) had an interesting friendship worth a few books that haven't yet been written. oldcitycat 19:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the Viereck/Carpenter claim? --Dph 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Waldo Emerson was not a 'naturalist'. He was a philosopher and essayist.He also wrote poems. (whether you think of him as a poet..would depend a lot on your taste in poetry) Check e.g. Walt Whitman, a Life by Justin Kaplan..and some books on Emerson .(correction made) 24.49.97.95 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity..would someone (who worked on the Walt Whitman wikification) explain what this means: "(Walt)inherited his liberal intellectual and political attitudes largely from his father",... who allegedly introduced Walt to various writers.. How do you inherit intellectual and political attitutes? Walt was mostly self-taught after he escaped the horrors of the Lancaster Monitorial school he attended until he was twelve. oldcitycat 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain

Is the entire "O Captain, My Captain" poem really necessary in Whitman's biography? 134.53.166.124 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oral Tradition

A distinguished cartoonist, Creig Flessel, who was born about 1910 (give or take a few years), grew up in Whitman's old neighborhood (south of Huntington, LI), and his grandmother had grown up there before him. What Creig told me he had heard about Walt (through three or four generations of the local grapevine) was that any kids of either sex who still had their virginity were the few that could outrun Walt. I believe this was a reference to WW's high school days - as a student, not when he was a teacher, but I could be wrong. I have no reason to believe this tidbit is anything less than authentic - although of course it could have evolved a bit before it reached me. - Chelydra

[edit] Harold Bloom

Someone added this paragraph: "Harold Bloom in "The Western Canon" considers that although Whitman was primarily attracted to his own sex, it is possible that Whitman never had physical relations with another person, and considers it certain that his primary expressions of sexuality throughout his life were onanistic."

Of all the critical attempts to anomalize Whitman's sexuality, this would have to be one of the most obtuse. I've deleted the paragraph because unless a separate section is added to the article on the analysis of Whitman by critics, allowing the speculation of just one is an imbalance. In addition, the article already includes the words: "However, whether or not Whitman had sexual relationships with men has been the subject of some critical disagreement." (Admittedly, for some people there can never be enough denial.) The history of Whitman criticism is a minefield of stupidity and evasion, and Bloom has fierce critics himself. The article should stick to verifiable facts. And finally, I think the way the article is constructed at the moment it ends rather brilliantly, with a superb quote that lets individuals draw their own conclusions.Engleham

I'd disagree. The previous paragraph already contains speculation: that is the nature of the subject. What IS needed is to show the range of bona-fide conclusions people have come to so the reader can get a sense of the present state of knowledge (or ignorance). Cute endings I can take them or leave them. RuthieK 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wish your redundant Bloom reference to survive, you will need to balance it (if not its gobsmacking idiocy) by referencing at least one scholar with an opposing point of view on Whitman's sexuality, such as Schmidgall. Until such time the paragraph will be removed.

Engleham

Sorry luv, the concept of balance seems staggeringly novel for you and difficult to grasp, but we'll press on. Pretend this is being said very slowly: you still haven't provided an opposing argument referencing another scholar. In short: you've listed two for "wanking but celibate" (Celibate? The bloke who wrote "Give me now libidinous joys only"? Oh, whatever.) So now come up with two for sucking or fucking. See how it goes? Messy. The article was far more elegant previously.

Engleham

You say it's not a school debate: neither is it a bullying session. You can stamp your hoof and write ""There is no other side" all you like, but if you wish to push this homophobic crap into the article you're going have to name and provide equal ground to those scholars who argue Whitman was actively sexual. Shively, Schmidgall, whoever. You could even include Katz, given his comment at the top this page. It's your choice. Schmidgall is on the record as finding Bloom's thesis "hilarious". To take a phrase from Song Of Myself: "Dash me with amorous wet. I can repay you!" Ditto.

Engleham

Curious. You seem to be the one who is bullying, saying what can and cannot be said. And in no way was the paragraph homophobic. I have changed it to remove an speculation about how active he was with others. If you wish to provide evidence to contradict the sources cited, please do. That rather than peremptory censorship is the rational and civilized way to proceed. Your prose and your overheated manner are the opposite of 'elegant'. RuthieK 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Your prose and your overheated manner are the opposite of 'elegant'." Guess what: I don't do elegant for your type. "And in no way was the paragraph homophobic." Denying America's most sexual poet a sex life is implicitly homophobic. Not to mention pig dumb. To address your latest attempt: "Whitman is perhaps the first western write to speak in praise of masturbation". WTF is that supposed to mean? Do you mean 'writer'? So: having denied Whitman a sex life, you now deny the existence of auto-erotic hymnists like De Sade or Rochester? Christ! And still more: "it is certain that his primary expressions of sexuality throughout his life were onanistic". It's not CERTAIN at all: it's mere speculation. I can pick out a dozen phrases from Whitman that suggest he was an active sexual cruiser...and that's without touching on his extraordinary relationships with Civil War soldiers. Once again I've deleted your sad little paragraph. No, I'm not rewriting it for you. It's not up to me to fix your sloppy writing or your thinking. But it's a bloody education in the closing of the American mind to read it.

Engleham

you seem determined to show yourself off as the Ernst Rohm of WikipediaRuthieK 10:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, cunMiss Coulter.

Engleham

there should be more on whitman's visions of america. the american literature page has a decent summary.

[edit] UC Davis Professor's Comments

The following text has been added twice to the introduction for this article, once by anonymous user 75.30.65.110 and again by 71.137.195.47:

 Professor [[Steven Suttles Stone]] of [[U C Davis]],
 University of California Davis, states that although Whitman's
 poems show good meaning and spirituality, his sexual feelings
 are shown in some of his poems, such as "Leaves of Grass", or
 "Song of Myself". He says that the sexuality is connected to
 Democracy, in which he states in his articles.

This kind of information is more appropriate to the section on Whitman's sexuality not the introduction. It's also not particularly well written or scholarly. Professor Stone of UC Davis makes no particular points by pointing out that Whitman's poems "show good meaning and spirituality" nor that his "sexual feelings" are shown in his work. None of those things are unique enough insights to warrent attributing them to the good professor (especially without actual article titles in a Work Cited list.) --Geeman 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Walt Whitman

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Founder of Long Islander Newspaper

I'm not sure where to put this - hopefully someone else will. Whitman founded the Long Islander newspaper in his native Huntington, New York in 1838. Source: http://www.longislandernews.com/webtools/readers/aboutus.html

How about focusing on his work? How many words are dedicated to the verbal tennis match over his sex-life on this page? Too many.

Posted by Reverend Gisher

whos stolen Walt ???

[edit] Walt Whitman and Walmart?

It appears that someone is editing without thinking. This of course is a completely unfounded statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.229.89.160 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Neutrality

Even after reading some of the above discussion, I don't quite grasp why there is a neutrality warning in the sexuality section. Even the article states that "Whitman's romantic and sexual attraction towards other men is not disputed.", and as a scholar of American literature I can assure you that this point is beyond debate. Put me in the picture, please. --Janneman 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think the problem really is with the controversial nature of the subject rather than its neutrality. I think the warning first came about as a result of unanswered comments by Harold Bloom, but now that those comments are at least "balanced" by some response the tag should probably go away. In general, though, I'm thinking that that whole section should be rewritten as it is kind of a jumble.... Geeman 12:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious where the assertion that "amative" and "adhesive" love is equated with "heterosexual" and "homosexual" love comes from, along with the assertion that Whitman had ideas about "the convergence of homosexuality and democracy." In all my reading of and about Whitman, I understood that "amative" love was meant as amorous, and "adhesive" love was love among friends and community. I don't disagree with anything else in this section, but associating amativeness and adhesiveness strictly with sexuality doesn't seem to have any basis, and calls the neutrality of the second paragraph into question, in my opinion.jeff.lopez-stuit 03:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onanism subheading

Could we give the rationale for removing the Onanism subheading at a little more length here? The sentence in the subject/heading line of the edit strikes me as being insufficient. What I'm specifically looking for is some substantial reasoning behind removing that subheading. As the original version stands (and stood for some time) onanism is given its own little section under Whitman's sexuality. Which, it seems to me, is appropriate as masturbation is a subsection of sexuality [if I recall correctly--it's been a while since I read Kinsey. :)] Whitman's views and poetry on this subject are, really, not in question are they? We have plenty of material to refer to on the subject. Perhaps the solution is to break that section up into at least two or three subsections with an introduction? "Homosexuality", "Onanism" and "Art and Political Interpretation" or something like that? Would that satisfy the subheading issue? Geeman 12:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Whitman really both denounce and praise masturbation, as the current text claims?--Per Abrahamsen 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is the only place I've heard of those comments.... Geeman 13:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's plain ridiculous and a fantastic example of why no one in academia will ever take Wikipedia seriously. Have fun though. Yours truly, --Janneman 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sei mutig!" und änder' es.. <eg> --80.136.188.44 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole onanism nonsense was demanded by the querelous Harold Bloom fangurl, RuthieK. She has since departed Wikipedia (the pressing demands of tending mangy cats?), but not before deleting many of her more hysteric contributions. Pity she didn't delete this wankery as well. Engleham 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Amative" and "Adhesive" Love

There is ample evidence that the terms "amative" and "adhesive" when describing types of love and attraction, trace their origins to the Nineteenth Century pseudo-science of Phrenology. It has been suggested that these terms loosely describe heterosexual and homosexual attraction in the years before Karoly Maia Kertbeny coined the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual." The controversy about Whitman's sexuality persists because of the supposed absense of a "smoking gun." That Whitman was gay can be extrapolated by the exhaustive research into his life. The poems themselves provide clues and even clear evidence of homosexual attractions, desires and tendencies. More importantly, we know that Walt's life was full of the pursuit of male affection. Read not only Charles Shively, Jonathan Ned Katz, et al but even the earlier biographers like Gay Wilson Allen. Whitman's tender embraces and kisses with Civil War soldiers, cruising the streets of Washington and describing how handsome one was or effeminate another fellow cruiser was, receiving a letter from one soldier asking how he can pursue a career as a gay hustler or find a male house of prostitution, etc, etc ad infinitum -- all point to a conclusion that Walt Whitman was not a heterosexual guy. I am wondering aloud if this tiresome debate which should have been put to rest decades ago has at it's core a homophobic attempt to deny the gay community a right to claim Whitman as one of their own? Buddmar 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Buddmar

[edit] Onanism extrapolation

I've removed the following text from the article as it is pretty speculative and "out there." If anyone has some sort of substantial support for this kind of thing, though, I'd be happy to hear it....

Some actually postulate that Whitman's oninism refers to the occult art of Sigil magic, in which a powerful chaos magician utilizes the gnosis induced by his orgasm to send forth his will into the universe.

Geeman 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so Whitman was gay. Nothing wrong with that. But what was wrong was that somebody deleted all the info about that!