Comments on: Rainbow Whitman!

By: mscanlon

mscanlon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:08:15 +0000

Pieruccm, I have to disagree with you. His relationship to Lincoln, a respectful, intellectual love, is not really the issue, as much as his well-documented relationship with Peter Doyle (including their letters and their choice to have a photo taken together in the traditional marriage pose), his involvement in NYC groups that were actively discussing love between men, the obvious homoeroticism of his poems, etc. Will we ever have proof that Whitman had a consummated relationship with a man? Unlikely. But you really have to discount the evidence to overlook his love and desire for men.

By: pieruccm

pieruccm — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:58:21 +0000

I find it interesting that he was viewed as such, when no one even knows for sure that he was or he wasn’t…so what that he had incredible, obsessive-like attachments to other men, like Lincoln…should that all of a sudden mean that he’s homosexual?! I’m not sure and there is not a person that will ever know the truth. Whitman’s orientation will forever be a question…

By: mscanlon

mscanlon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:47:19 +0000

Good post, Mrs. Whitman. In fact, when gay British writer, theorist of “sexual inversion,” and WW biographer John Addington Symonds tried to get Whitman to talk about his sexuality in order to establish him as such an icon, he declined to be open about it. He told Symonds he had fathered six children, which sent biographers scrambling for clues for some time. I like your idea that it is the love and intimacy, regardless of sex/gender, that is essential for W.

By: chelseanewnam

chelseanewnam — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:22:41 +0000

Brendon, first of all, I think this is a lovely post (and clever title!) and aligns with the way I have been considering Whitman throughout the semester. I have not viewed Whitman as a gay icon (though I completely agree with the fact that his intimate relationships with men are undeniable) mostly because I find that to be limiting for him. Many scholars get hung up on the idea of his work, particularly Calamus, as revolutionarily homoerotic. Though this may be true, Whitman critics spend too much of their days debating over how much of that he intended, what level of sexual intimacy he had with young soldiers, how many lovers he had, and so on and so forth. Despite the evidence of Whitman’s homosexuality, I agree that his intent was rather to assimilate love into all of the nation, the nation built of men and women. What you say about love for Whitman being a union of body and spirit is exactly right and speaks to the way he went about addressing America. Calling him a gay icon is limiting because it would almost make him a cause-man, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, though I think that, as you said, he viewed love in so much of a different way that it is impossible to think of him as such.