One of the most important elements to a poem is the speaker, and who the speaker is speaking to. This may be found in a variety of ways, either through direct evocation (such as a speaker stating "you"), or through implicit undertones (for example, addressing readers as a group rather than an individual). Whitman's narration technique is somewhat complicated, as he addresses both a personified "you," "O ever-returning spring! trinity sure to me you bring" and then his lover directly "Where amid these you journey, With the tolling, tolling bells’ perpetual clang." Here, Whitman utilizes "you" in two extremely divergent ways. The first, directed toward "Spring," appears to be the poems muse-like evocation, as discussed more in depth in my last post. The second, directly addressed toward his lover, which allows the reader to temporarily remain in his lovers shoes, with the poet speaking directly toward them.
Rukeyser, to contrast, does two things Whitman almost never, ever does. First, she creates group differences. "These roads will take you into your own country." Where "your own country" obviously separates the audience into two separate groups, those of her country, and those of another. Whitman does not do this, not even in Leaves of Grass, instead, Whitman tries to unify. Both are effective for their own purposes, of course, Whitman provides a type of bond with his reader, whereas Rukeyser's provides two lenses through which to understand the poem, seemingly, an outsider and an insider.
These two show the significance of not only a poet's speaker, but a speaker's target audience, and also the ways in which that audience is characterized. Obviously, each technique will evoke a varying response from the onlooker, it becomes an authorial decision. Either you try to unify an outsider (this being an audience member from outside of ones own country), or you try to celebrate these differences. Granted, there are those who might wish to attack such differences, however, such negativity hardly deserves mention. Regardless, although I dislike comparing the effectiveness of two poets, I believe Whitman's evokes a more powerful and positive response (though not necessarily due to their evocation of "you"), mostly because Whitman isn't speaking about warring with another.
The two come to fairly similar conclusions regarding the speakers understanding and acceptance of death. Whitman finds a way to celebrate it, deciding through it all, his lover will live always, forever reborn inside of his own heart. Rukeyser, too, places the dead into a category of "unending love." Also, the two compare death to a plant, a useful vehicle for a metaphor in this case because, they, like a feeling, go through several rebirth cycles.
Interesting take on the 'you's and 'i's. I agree that Rukeyser initially addresses the 'you' as an outsider, but I don't think it's as a means of separating herself from them. Eventually, she even combines the 'you' and 'i' into 'we'. What do you think about that? Why do you think she might want to break that boundary? And how does that relate back to Whitman?
ReplyDeleteI think when she says "we," she means her and her American audience. My guess is she probably didn't expect her writing was going to become international, nor translated, so her target audience was limited to Americans. For example, she states "...this land was planted home-land that we know./ Ridge of discovery,/ until we walk to windows, seeing America/ lie in a photograph of power." She seems to create a "we" here which is purely localized. To contrast this, she also creates a "they," which appears to be anyone disconnected from her specific time period or home country. In this respect, I think she creates a type of "outsider." However, I may be way off base...(quite stubbornly)... reading the poem underneath the framework I originally put forth.
ReplyDeleteIn opposition, I believe Whitman knew his central audience would be American, but was also aware that his poems would reach an international audience. For this reason, he writes more about a universal "we." Also, Whitman utilizes a very narrow "we," a "we" limited to two- limited to him and his lover. The two may agree on philosophical views, particularly coping with death, but they most definitely have a different audience in mind.
Your response made me think; I appreciate your perspective. We may gain some helpful insight figuring out who the "we" is to become through the lenses of future audiences.