While Neely does seem to be correct about the lack of emancipation in Whitman’s poems, at least in this one in particular, I do not believe it reveals any romantic notions of a war for union either. The whole poem seems to be a mockery of the war and the attitude of the people who so blithely encourage it. For example, he says in the first stanza “… burst like a ruthless force, / Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation” (lines 2-3). Here the sound of war drums and bugles separates rather than unites the people. The whole poem is filled with instances of the force of war separating people from one another. The young men separate themselves from the rest of society to go to war despite “the old man beseeching the young man” (line 18) or “the mother’s entreaties” (line 19). Men are even separated from their happiness, as the case with the newlywed groom in the first stanza, and from their ideals of peace, as the farmer in the first stanza. Despite all this, the drums “rattle quicker” and the “bugles wilder blow” (line 14). This is a poem which depicts the agony of war and the disruption of daily life that it brings. It strips men of their lives and makes them into soldiers – whether they want to be or not. Whitman doesn’t mention anything about the motives behind the war or whether or not he thinks it is justified. He simply outlines the effects of it on the people. If anything he depicts the war in a negative light. In the last line, for instance, he says “So strong you thump O terrible drums – so loud you bugles blow” (line 22). After all the problems the war has caused for people, this lines shows that the force of war has no mercy on them and cares not for their personal lives. It is a terrible force that needs to be fed no matter the cost to society.
I think the attitude in this poem about the war is very similar to that in Horton’s “The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont.” In Horton’s poem, he also describes the destruction of war and how graphic the scene of the battle is. This is where the two poems differ. Horton describes a bloody battle scene as the terrible effects of war while Whitman describes the effects through instances that occur off the battle field. The young men in Whitman’s poem are torn from their lives and ideals and chances for happiness by the call of the drums and the bugles. They have not yet seen the carnage of battle, although the dead bodies in line 20 give testament to its power. The soldiers in Horton’s poem are seeing the carnage first hand in the battle and have since lost all ideals of the war and what it stands for. This sentiment is evident when Horton says “The fugitives fly to the cave on the mountain, / Betray’d by the vestige of blood in their gore” (lines 11-12). These lines show that the soldiers weren’t expecting such blood when they went into battle. Both poems show the negative consequences of war. Horton shows the carnage and loss of life as the main sacrifice while Whitman cites the loss of ideals and societal division as the negative effects. What is interesting is that in both poems there are characters who are immune to these negative effects. In Horton’s poem, the spectators “the pain of the conflict explore” (line 10), viewing the carnage as something to be studied instead of the horrific scene that it is. In Whitman’s poem, the drums and the bugles represent the call for war that sounds stronger and faster despite the pain it causes. Horton’s spectators are ignorant of the pain while Whitman’s war mongers are merely ruthless.
1 comment:
Jen,
Matthew posted his response to your blog on his blog. Here's what he said:
"Although Whitman never directly calls his readers to a war for union, this whole poem seems to be indirectly attempting to unite the American people against division and war. Some might say that this, in and of itself, is a call toward open opposition of the war—which may include active resistance. I feel as if Whitman, at this point, is trying to spur his readers on toward action by making them resent the war that is being fought upon their lands. Jen sees this as a complete disdain for war in general, but I see it as a method of reverse psychology to inadvertently push the American people into fighting against that which divides their nation—which, at this point, is war itself.
I do, however, agree with the fact that there is no reference to emancipation in this poem. Where Whitman is very adamant against the civil war, he provides no other alternatives or means of escape. Because this poem facilitated civil unrest about the ongoing war without providing any solutions, it was probably, in the end, more antagonistic towards Whitman’s cause than it was progressive. He does not address the source of the war and nor does he provide his readers with a way to find their way out of the curse of war.
I also agree with Jen’s description of the authors’ attitudes. They seem to view the blood and suffering as something to be observed and studied rather than soaking in the true inhumanity of it all. Both Horton and Whitman seem to be simply taking note of what is happening, and although they do expose the horrors of war, it seems to be on a journalistic level rather than on a personal level. Jen made some very good points and I do stand beside most of them."
Post a Comment