Comments on: Meghan for November 10

By: meghanedwards

meghanedwards — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:45:21 +0000

Dr. Scanlon,

Never ever look at some of the Spanish translations. I’m reading about them for my final project, and one of the very first edition, translated by Vasseur omitted 750 lines of “Song of Myself”–because he didn’t -like- them. He also refused to include several poem, translated only selections of poems that he “deemed worthy” and changed Whitman’s metaphors to those that he thought were better fit. I died a little bit inside when I read that.

By: mscanlon

mscanlon — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:32:25 +0000

Once for my long poem seminar I ordered a copy of “Song of Myself” that was published without the rest of LoG to save the students money. Only after I got it, right before the semester, did I realize that the publishers had taken parts of 1855 and parts of Deathbed and combined them, giving what they felt was the best Song possible. I have been mad about it ever since, because to me it violated the sanctity of OMW’s text. But I am in complete agreement with you three who have posted here that it’s okay for each of us to connect to and love the intact version we find most compelling, regardless of Whitman’s directive which may have been as much about cutting out publishing confusions as anything, or to love different things about different versions (example: I like 1855 a lot, but boy I wish it had “and sing myself” in line 1; Dr. E likes line 1 better without it).

What is not to love about this post? A live link, an engagement with our affiliated schools, and close reading. You’ve made TBJG, Dr. E AND me happy.

By: bcbottle

bcbottle — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:30:07 +0000

First of all…Wound Dressers for life!

Reading your post I was reminded about a comment I made a few weeks ago about whether Whitman would want us to read all his versions or whether he would prefer we just read the deathbed edition. I have now come tot he conclusion that I don’t care what Whitman would have wanted. I think the way we studied Whitman allowed me to connect with him in a way I would never have been able to if I’d just read one edition. I feel like i grew with Whitman and learned from his changing experiences rather than just getting them listed off to me.

I’d really be interested to know how the other schools feel about this since they spent more tiem on the 1855 and 1892 version then we did.

By: chelseanewnam

chelseanewnam — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:17:58 +0000

Meghan, I think your thoughts about the structure of this course reflecting the idea that Leaves of Grass can have no definitive version are interesting and true in a lot of ways. Whitman wanted to reach all types of people; that is a large part of the reason why he wrote the way he did. He wanted his “multitudes” to touch multitudes. I see brilliance in all of these Whitman identities and while you grasp tight your tender nurse Whitman (as I admit I am drawn to myself) others might love nationalist Whitman or prophet Whitman. There is a piece of him for all of us, man and woman, thrill-seeker and homebody, introvert and extrovert. Therefore, attempting to pinpoint one edition of the life’s work of this Renaissance man as “the” text is simply unfair to Whitman and to his readers. In class, as you say, we are split on which edition each of us prefers personally which only goes to show how the small nuances in these texts mold our own Whitmans to be quite different despite them being one man. I am so interested in the way Whitman accomplished this and the genius behind LoG because of it that to decide the authority of one of these editions would be to discount a lot of the reason I love Whitman.