Hey all. As indicated in the title, I'd like to hear from all of you on this one.
Toward the end of the film, James Franco as Allen Ginsberg says, "The poem [Howl] is misinterpreted as a promotion of homosexuality. Actually, it's more of a promotion of frankness about any subject. . . . When a few people are frank about homosexuality in public, it breaks the ice, and then people are free to be frank about anything." How does this statement sound in the context of your recent readings—Emerson and Thoreau? And is this statement consistent with other aspects of American culture, as you understand it?
This statement is consistent with other aspects of American culture, but isn't consistent with Emerson and Thoreau. Even on a personal level I have noticed that when one person stands up for someone or does something different than the norm a group of other people will either stand up for the same thing or something else. When one person does something different it generally creates a ripple effect. Emerson and Thoreau would not agree with this because they think every individual should not be afraid to express their true feelings and therefor do not need an initial push or motivation to do so.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the poem and the movie I noticed a large theme of loneliness and guidance. In the poem some lines were challenging to understand because certain adjectives allowed room for interpretation, but this also made the piece more interesting. The poem is dedicated to Carl Soloman and his name is mentioned in the poem, I was wondering to what extent the poem is about Carl?
-Daisy
There are some key differences between Allen Ginsburg and the Transcendentalists. I see Ginsberg’s Howl, his “promotion of frankness”, as a very assertive statement. He writes and publishes the poem as a “here I am!” that no one can deny. The Transcendentalists, while they definitely publish their work in the hope that people understand their philosophy, don’t get in your face as much, so to speak. Part of their philosophy is that one must make his own philosophy, a complex concept we have discussed extensively in class. It seems like they leave the option more than open to completely ignore their work. At the opposite of this passivity is Ginsberg, who forces the reader of the day to pay attention with his shocking, “frank” language. He is similar to the Transcendentalists in that he is not forcing his philosophy or lifestyle (homosexuality) on anyone, but he goes further than they do in forcing the public to accept that his lifestyle does exist.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, he seems to be affected by the prevalence of advertising in the 50s American culture. We saw in the movie that we worked for a while as a copywriter, and in the animated sequences at least a couple of classic billboards were shown. The word “promotion” is really fitting in this area. The reaction Howl caused shows that he learned a few things on Madison Avenue, because nothing knows how to dig its way into the conscious and subconscious better than advertising. The statement itself is consistent with this American culture, at least after you legally battle the legion of opposition for the right to this “frankness”...
-Linnea
This statement is in harmony with our previous readings. The frankness that Allen Ginsberg is conveying mirrors Thoreau’s idea of “liv[ing] deliberately, to front the only essential facts of life,”(100). Confronting such a taboo of Allen Ginsberg’s age, homosexuality, he also reflects Emerson’s idea of “speak[ing] your latent conviction…for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,”(94). By speaking about something so personal and controversial, Allen expressed himself to crowds, just like both of the previous readings support. By using such frankness in his writing, Ginsberg allows his writing to be very similar to reality. By using adjectives with double, triple, or even quadruple meanings, he directly conveys the confusion and abstractness present in his life and one that he believes is relatable—maybe not by all, but not just by homosexual men. He, and the transcendentalists write in similar styles, ignoring the formats (pros and poetry). They all express their own senses of reality, and, through their conveyance, they explore more truths and possibilities than obviously presented to them.
ReplyDeleteGinsberg’s statement is consistent with American culture in social settings. If a couple of people express their “inmost” personal values, it lets other people feel like they are in a safe atmosphere and then, prompted by the present honesty, they feel “free to be frank about anything.” I respect Ginsberg’s courage. He published an extremely personal work that I believe also partly expressed a demographic in a whole generation. This demographic is encompassed by all of the statements Ginsberg makes in the beginning of howl, starting with “who…”. His work also prompted many others in self-introspection and self-expression, another key concept articulated by Emerson and Thoreau.
-Chase Porter
Ginsberg is rather different from Emerson and Thoreau in the sense that in “Howl” he addresses taboo subjects. He is most definitely quite frank and forthcoming in a very obvious way. Emerson and Thoreau were both more subtle, but still unaligned with the accepted norms of society. Emerson and Thoreau were more inclined to observe and give advice, whereas Ginsberg seemed to be painting a picture of his life without suggestions. Thoreau notes, in the second person that if you lack resources, “you are but confined to the most significant and vital experiences; you are compelled to deal with the material which yields the most sugar ad the most starch” (Thoreau 108). He is telling the reader what to do, whereas Ginsberg’s remarks on the poor are much more passive. He says, “who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,” (Ginsberg 62). This quote gives an image, but does not seem to have direct implications upon the reader.
ReplyDeleteAside from the differences, Ginsberg’s statement does resound with aspects of American culture. Honesty creates a snowball effect, and when one subject escapes from the label of being taboo it opens up the conversation. In society if one knows it is acceptable to talk about subjects like sex and homosexuality, they know the society is more open and is more likely to be accepting of other taboo topics. Although things like race and class are also openly discussed, this mostly applies to discussion between peers, and not situations involving a hierarchy of power.
-Callan C
Allen Ginsburg relies heavily on a perspective not easily understood by the general public. In other words, Ginsburg does not use neutral concepts like Thoreau or Emerson, but relies on very specific experiences. To me, Ginsburg is serving as an example of Emerson's desire for astute championing of one's own thoughts, but Ginsburg does not evaluate himself to discuss the broader ideas behind his topics. I do not agree that Howl is a "promotion of frankness of any topic," because he only talked of his life the way he say it; he involved no other perspectives. Whereas, Emerson explicates other perspectives and goes about proving them wrong, but he gave his thoughts context with others. The film, more so than the text itself, relied heavily on the shock value of homosexuality and anything else taboo instead of getting to the deeper concepts. For example, in the cartoon rendition of the poem where there is a shot of a "forest" of erect penises and above fireworks going off, simulating ejaculation. That is not helpful to the viewer of the film when they should be focusing on the text of the poem that is being orated. Also it has no direct correlation to the text itself.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in a broader context, Ginsburg is achieving his goal of "breaking the ice." Albeit only in terms of homosexuality, he does force the reader/viewer to to question the emotional response they feel and in American history that is how social tolerance has been furthered.
Ginsburg's claim that his poem has a universal application makes no sense to me. It is narrow, and spends so much verbiage relating to carnal aspects that detract from some truly important points. In a larger scope I do not see Howl as a classic either. It is a piece highly illustrative and informative to his time, but it is not a tome of human thought like Milton, Homer, or Shakespeare.
I think that what James Franco as Allen Ginsberg says resounds with what Emerson and Thoreau say. All three of them stood up for their beliefs, no matter how controversial they were. Although today what Emerson and Thoreau said are in no way shocking or controversial, we must first understand that Transcendentalism was indeed a risk in Emerson’s and Thoreau’s day. These writers are already an example of what they preach; that is, nonconformity. Emerson writes, “Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong is what is against it” (96). Like Emerson, Ginsberg talked about what was considered typically “bad,” homosexuality. In confronting this literally “closeted” topic, Ginsberg set an example of “frank[ness]” for a repressed generation. The key difference between Ginsberg and the Transcendentalists, however, is that while both topics were very controversial, what Ginsberg wrote about was entirely illegal, and in this way was much more of a risk, to not only go against the norm but also the law. The Beat Generation in general, practiced a different type of nonconformity, a public kind. Ginsberg writes, “Who bit detectives in the neck and shrieked with delight in policecars for committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication, who howled on their knees in the subway and were dragged off the roof waving genitals and manuscripts” (63). In contrast, Emerson writes, “My life is for itself and not for a spectacle” (97). Ginsberg’s generation was one that would be heard, that would protest and scream, as opposed to Emerson’s and Thoreau’s silent nonconformity.
ReplyDeleteI think that Allen Ginsberg is very different to Emerson and Thoreau. The goal of Ginsberg is to challenge the population to accept his way of life and to speak out about the differences that they practice. He wants to start the conversation about personal practices that are not accepted. Ginsberg uses crude language to express subtle and poetic ideas. Emerson and Thoreau encourage readers to not be affected by the works and ideas of others, and encourage their readers to think entirely on their own. They express their sentiment through metaphoric prose. Ginsberg is saying that the primary purpose of his works is for people to see them and realize that they too can do the same and speak out about their own experiences which is directly opposed to Emerson and Thoreau. Ginsberg is forming a group, a movement. Emerson and Thoreau are trying to separate and divide a generation into individuals.
ReplyDeleteGinsberg's statement does stay true to American values. He is leading by example and encouraging people to come forth and be inspired by his openness. The idea of community is something America was founded on. Coming together as a group to rebel against something is an deeply American ideal and value.
The Transcendentalists and Allen Ginsburg have some evident differences between their styles of writing. All three of the writers have a strong sense of what is accepted within their society and how they differ from the norm. They have all accepted who they are and how they differ from their society, though their actions with that knowledge is what separates the writers. Emerson and Thoreau have explained in their writing, who they are and what others can do to help find themselves. They are not suggesting others to be like them, they are encouraging their readers to find themselves. Emerson says, "trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string," (95), meaning that we are all individuals and we must trust ourselves. Ginsburg knows the society that he lives in, and is trying to change it. He says, "When a few people are frank about homosexuality in public, it breaks the ice, and then people are free to be frank about anything," his frankness in Howl and Other Poems is a call for change. He doesn't like how rigid his society is and with his poem, he began to tear down that rigidness. I don't think that homosexuality is the only thing that breaks the ice, there are many taboo subjects which could have done the same. I do believe that his closeness to the subject as well as his use of language is what makes his poems so enticing. He used adjectives that had multiple meanings which leads to a different interpretation of each reader. I believe that he wanted to publish his homosexuality (in a way), but to also use homosexuality as a symbol for something taboo that we all have within us that we can speak out about. The Transcendentalists were seeking for a societal reform, though they were silent in their pursuit only suggesting ways for people to change unlike Ginsburg who was much more forceful and commanded a change.
ReplyDelete-- Alexi
I think that Emerson would have mixed feelings about Ginsberg’s poem. I think Emerson’s originality obsession is also about being a leader and speaking about things that really matter to you. On the surface, I think he would be happy with Ginsberg because he was leading the way by writing so openly and directly about a suppressed topic. However, Emerson might also think that Ginsberg should use his poetic talent to describe things that hadn’t been thought of yet, and might not even want him to break the ice for other topics, because that would be the cause of a large amount of dwelling on the known.
ReplyDeleteAs for being consistent with American culture, I think it is. It feels like whenever a problem arises, the first step is drawing attention to it, so it can be discussed, understood, and judged. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a piece of news just once, whether it be repeated on the news station or by a classmate. Whether it’s the news of the week or the latest piece of gossip, I think I hear everything multiple times because American culture involves knowing what’s going on around you, which Ginsberg’s poem definitely advocates by throwing the topic in the reader’s face.
-Adam
I feel that Allen Ginsberg's motive behind writing "Howl" was very different from Emerson's and Thoreau's motives when writing their pieces that we discussed. Allen Ginsberg was advocating stepping up and coming forth to express inner thoughts and opinions. "Howl" was his way of promoting "frankness about any subject" while at the same time writing something that he needed to write for himself. Emerson and Thoreau had different motives behind their writings entirely. They were both urging their readers to step away from the ideas of others and to live life by one's own ideals, without being affected by the way others choose to live their lives. Additionally, Emerson and Thoreau were telling their readers to observe as they had and to follow their advice. Allen Ginsberg was expressing his thoughts on any and all subjects freely, and merely hoping that this led others to do the same, instead of directly telling them to do so.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ginsberg’s support of frankness on all subjects is very in-line with American principles. He believed that openness was a way to clear the way for others to, in turn, be open. This idea of speaking out about inner beliefs is one that is deeply American. The sharing of one’s values creates a safe environment in which others can express themselves more freely, and free expression is perhaps one of the largest values America upholds. Therefore, the “frankness” that Ginsberg so readily advocates is an ideal that is profoundly American.
-Keli
Emerson, Thoreau and Ginsburg all share a similar notion in that it is important to express yourself, to think and contemplate freely and openly, in order to share and understand of ideas of others. In attempting to describe what he believes as the ideal transcendentalist, Emerson says “He believes in miracle, in the perpetual openness of the human mind to new influx of light and power; he believes in inspiration and ecstasy” (89). Allen Ginsburg would probably agree with this idealism in man. However where they differ is in their names and in their methods of attempting to achieve an openess of the human mind. Emerson and Thoreau both strongly believe in the idea that nature is what connects man to ‘ecstasy’ and is what allows and encourages a persons mind to be open to new, maybe even contradicting, ideas. Although the transcendentalist movement and their writing style was a fairly shocking at the time, it seems that Allen Ginsburg attempts to use extreme language and unconventional writing style to attempt to pry open the minds and hearts of Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn what I have seen of American culture is that often times American are afraid of what is shocking or what they perceive to be offensive to their uptight morals. It seems that some of the writers that we most admire and respect in today society were once authors who had received terrible reviews and criticism of their peers at the time. For expample Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass was highly critiqued as being offecive publication at the time. However, almost a hundred years later the man who was a witness attempting to prove Ginsburg’s book Howl offensive called it a great work of literature. Americans have an innate quality to distrust almost all that is new and unique, only to realize generations later that the idea or book that they feared and was offened by has merit and meaning.
- Cora
The people who "break the ice" are trendsetters, who aren't afraid to make their own path in life. These individuals act independently, while others follow them. This statement is consistent with Emerson because he supports these types of ideas and preaches them in the writings we have read. Emerson would appreciate Ginsberg's openness and originality, since it was rare that anybody during his time wrote with as much fearlessness and frankness. Ginsberg was truly a pioneer in his time and greatly influenced others. According to Emerson’s philosophy, Ginsberg would be a great man, since Emerson defines a great man as "he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude," (98). But Emerson would disagree with Ginsberg’s aggressiveness, since he seems to force the reader into following only his views. Emerson’s approach was gentler.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is consistent with aspects of American culture because in our culture, it’s hard to be the first person who does something different from the majority. It’s easier to be a follower and do something that has already been done. It takes courage to be a trendsetter, and most individuals do not have this courage.
In reflecting on the questions posed above, I immediately thought of the confusion that Howl conveys to its readers. In reading a few blog entries, I realize I align myself very much with Chase's entry. Then I saw Callan's, which I, too, agree with. And those two seem contradictory, so I'm still trying to synthesize them because I think they can both be true….
ReplyDeleteIn Howl, Ginsberg does a superb job of expressing the utter chaos of his present state (compounded by his struggle with his sexuality). In the beginning, the repetition of "who…" is to convey the experiences of the common man, and it seems to try to string together seemingly-unrelated topics--but perhaps that's his point. This clutter, often referred to as the "soup of time" or "Chinatown soup alleyways…", is Ginsberg telling how much useless activity and disorder is present among the people, and that ordinary people have no way of coping with it (64). Ginsberg's string of non-sequiturs might just be an analogy for the internal bedlam of thought and emotion of every person; this includes graphic obscenities and fantasies of the human's wandering mind.
Ginsberg had a different goal than did the Transcendentalists (I gather in my limited understanding). He wanted to tell people his story, what was on his mind, so that they felt comfortable expressing theirs. Frankness, and having no shame for it, is key in his message. Emerson and Thoreau, however, sought to urge people to un-clutter their lives and explain why this was "truer". Thoreau says, "…as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex" (104). But that's just it--complicated lives make the universe seem complex. And people--those in Ginsberg's time, a hundred+ years later--lead very complicated and jumbled existences. For Ginsberg, this "soup" is impossible to escape, as Thoreau suggests, so he is taking a step to accepting it by publishing his jumble for others to see.
The o
Allen Ginsberg and the Transcedentalists have different motives in their writings and express different concepts. Allen Ginsberg in “Howl” expresses the inner homosexuality and also in the sense of having open-minded thoughts and opinions. This “frankness about any subject” is Allen Ginsberg’s philosophy of standing out from the crowd and that being different may disgust others who are following a norm, but it is not unusual for one. In relation to Emerson and Thoreau, “Howl” has few connections to the Transcedentalists, that every individual should stand up for their beliefs and not partake in the bubble in which society created. Although, the Transcedentalists were telling their readers to live based on one’s own morals regardless of the ways others choose to live their lifestyle, Allen Ginsberg did not advise his readers but expressed himself freely.
ReplyDeleteIn the ‘50’s, this frankness was not consistent with the American culture as there was a struggle in expressing homosexuality and as seen in the video during class, a precaution that homosexuality was a “mental” sickness. In our current culture, his expression of thoughts ties in with the America’s values; one is the freedom of expression. America is now more accepting therefore, Allen Ginsberg frankness is consistent with today’s culture.
-Mario
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is an overarching theme that is prevalent with all three authors, but Emerson and Thoreau have similar ideas which lead down a different path than Ginsberg's ideas. All three have somewhat of an agreement when it comes to human nature and the importance of getting people to express their true ideas and opinions, but specifically they all have different theories when it comes to it. Ginsberg seems not to care how people come to the state of being frank and honest about themselves, and he applauds the first person who is willing to come forward, because that often creates others to follow. Thoreau and Emerson resonate with the belief that everyone should be able to express their true opinions on their own, and it shouldn't have to do with one influencing another to speak up. They find it important to be different and move away from the norm. To them, individuality is crucial and the opinions of others are irrelevant. Although Emerson and Thoreau's beliefs are very specific, the way they are written could be described as more of a delicate language. Ginsberg blatantly states his ideas without a whole lot of analysis and explanation, because it is not needed. Emerson and Thoreau include a plentiful amount of detail and reasoning, and even after reading pages there still lies some confusion.
ReplyDeleteI find that in American culture, we often try to resemble a strong sense of unity and the value of working together. This tactic follows along with Ginsberg's idea, because one person causing others to follow him/her is encouraging, and also a symbol of community. It can be said that if the first person had not broken the ice and made it easier for others to tag along in agreement, then no one would have ended up expressing themselves.
Impresive commentary, all of you! I'm grateful for your thoughtful engagement with these writers and these questions. We'll de-brief further in class. But in the meantime, a few thoughts occur to me. One is that Ginsberg probably couldn't imagine the audience his poem would ultimately have. Remember that he struggled writing it, thinking about what his poet father would say. That self-censorship nearly silenced him. Then at the Six Gallery reading, he was performing it for the first time to about 100 or so friends who were at least somewhat like-minded. As indicated in the film, it was the bust of Ferlinghetti for publishing the poem and the subsequent trial that made the poem "go viral" as we would say today. So when I think about Ginsberg's intentions and his hope for an audience, my guess is he would never have imagined that we'd be talking about Howl in 2011 in a high school English class. What does that say about the way he composed it and the subject matter? I suppose among other things, he allowed himself more private and personal language, maybe more authentic/explicit imagery, because—why not? He was writing mainly for people who he thought would understand. He was writing for Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassady.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I imagine, or wish to imagine, a dinner conversation among Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman and Ginsberg. What would they say to each other? What would Emerson think of Howl? What would Whitman say to Ginsberg?
Well, better late than never, although it seems I’m the only one left at the party. :P
ReplyDeleteIts seems that many regard the Transcenduo’s (Emerson and Thoreau) and Ginsberg’s writing as dissimilar or disconnected. However, I feel that there is a great connection between these two parties’ writings in their objectives. In the Transcenduo’s writing, they emphasize self-reliance especially in opinion and expression. In Self-Reliance, Emerson says, “the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought” (94). Here, Emerson commends these great minds for their independence in thought, their uniqueness in expression, and their ability to ignore even the most engrained “tradition” society told them to uphold. Emerson shows the objective this essay, to express the importance of originality in creation.
In many ways, this is exactly what Ginsberg attempted to do when writing Howl. Howl, much like Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, was a complete departure form the poetic and literary form of the times. This radicalism in Ginsburg’s writing was even noted by the party that sued Ferlinghetti, who attempted to use it in dismissing Howl’s literary significance. In the movie, James Franco as Ginsberg illustrates his originality in his approach to writing:
“The problem when it comes to literature is this: there are many writers that have preconceived ideas about what literature is supposed to be, but their ideas seem to preclude everything that makes them most interesting in casual conversation… They think they’re going to write something that sounds like something else they’ve read before, instead of sounds like them.”
In this, Franco as Ginsburg emphasizes the exact same originality in writing that Emerson did in his. He recognizes the importance of expression through your own medium and style rather than someone else’s. While the subjects of their writings may have been different, The Transcenduo’s objective to tell people to create and express their own ideals and beliefs, and Ginsburg’s objective was to do just that. Therefore, to the subject of “frankness,” I feel that both would want their reader to walk away feeling confident in their own beliefs and be willing to share them with the world.
Sorry this is late Jim, and Matt you're not the only one left at the party…
ReplyDeleteIn response to the original question, I would say that this statement fits in fairly well with the ideas of Emerson and Thoreau. Allen Ginsberg's frankness about homosexuality simply shows that he believes very passionately in his ideas, enough so to share them with the public, a quality that Emerson and Thoreau valued greatly. However, Ginsberg wrote "Howl" with a clear purpose and incentive, which was to "break the ice" surrounding homosexuality, and to encourage more discussion on the subject, whereas it doesn't seem that Emerson and Thoreau had as clear of a purpose and definitely not as clear of an incentive. They simply wrote what they were thinking on that particular day, as Emerson himself even said "Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day" (99) They didn’t really care too much about what the public thought of their writings, as long as they, the authors, believed in what they were writing on that particular day.
In response to your question of the dinner conversation between the four great American writers, I imagine that Ginsberg’s “Howl” would be well received by Emerson and Thoreau for his passion in his own beliefs. Although they may not agree with the subject of “Howl,” they would still praise him for staying true to his own beliefs and not conforming to the norm of that era. I believe that Whitman would have truly loved “Howl,” as it seems to be a modern incarnation of Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass.” Apart from a slight change in structure and vocabulary, both “Leaves of Grass” and “Howl” address taboo subjects during their times, and received the same type of criticism for doing such.