bautista’s Blog

One of the motifs used in “Howl” is drugs, which Ginsberg seems to use as an emphasis the theme of pleasure.

This motif is mentioned throughout the poem. In the beginning it is mentioned several times: “who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats…”; “who got busted in their public beards returning through Laredo with a belt of marijuana for New York, who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in Paradise Alley..”; “with dreams, with drugs, with waking nightmares, alcohol and cock and endless balls”; “Peyote solidities…wine drunkenness”; “who lit cigarettes in boxcars boxcars boxcars racketing through snow towards lonesome farms in grandfather night”; “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism,”; “who bit detectives in the neck and shrieked with delight in policecars for committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty intoxication,”; and “who copulated ecstatic and insatiate with a bottle of beer a sweetheart a package of cigarettes a candle and fell off the bed, and continued along the floor down the hall and ended fainting on the wall with a vision of ultimate cunt and come eluding the last gyzym of consciousness.”

It seems that these people use drugs for 1. An escape mentally. For example, in the first instance it is mentioned, these people may be smoking to rid themselves (mentally) of their poverty-stricken condition. Even later, it seems that when they smoked, they did it to rid the lonesome feel of the night (5^th time mentioned). It may be used to enlighten the mind, to become hallucinated as an escape from a bad life. The drug-users can connect with both their own conscious and the outside world on a different, higher level– in a way that seems surreal. It may also be used as an intoxication in order to feel pleasure, such as when they are described as biting detectives on the neck. Being wild and committing crimes may be a source of pleasure in order to go against societal norms. Lastly, such as in the final instance mentioned, I think it may be a way to achieve another form of consciousness, that again may go along with pleasure, in both body and mind.

2. An escape physically. For example, drugs seem to be associated with hurting the body and suicide, such as in the second instance mentioned. Fire and turpentine are not drugs, but they can be used in a way that is similar to drugs, for these elements are not natural for the body to consume and I suppose can be addicting if used in such a manner. These things can kill someone if used in the wrong way, and I think that these people are purposely using them as a means of pleasure, again to escape, but this time physically. Even though it is painful, it is a means of pleasure, for they are riding themselves of mental pain by committing suicide. We can tell this is a means of pleasure, because Ginsberg says they drank turpentine and ate fire in “Paradise Alley.” Moreover, the literal object, the cigarette, is used against their bodies, burning holes in their arms. While this is painful, it is also a means of protest.

However, later on in the poem, the meaning of drugs seems to change. It is again mentioned in the line “who were given instead the concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong & amnesia.” Here, it seems that drugs are now being used against these people described in the poem, as a means to tame them and provide a form of therapy. Instead of these people choosing to escape, society is escaping from them by giving them the drugs.

Lastly, although drugs are not literally mentioned, it seems that Ginsberg alludes to them in the line “Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!” because hallucinations and ecstasies are some of the affects drugs produce. Here it seems that America has gotten rid of their escapes, implying that America’s notions of freedoms and dreams are false and only hurts people instead of pleasuring them.

It is hard to pinpoint exactly what Ginsberg is trying to say by repeating this motif. By looking at the meanings I have described, I felt that drugs were first used as an escape from a terrible life, both mentally– to get to another state of consciousness and receive pleasure by escaping mentally– and physically– to be pleasured in a painful way by using the drugs to take their lives away. Then I felt that these drugs were being used against those who took them, in a way that “tames” them and tries to make them acceptable for society. Lastly, I felt that Ginsberg was showing that society has ultimately taken the pleasures of escape away from these people, eliminating the drugs and their affects.

Loyalty seems to be so important to the blue-collar, ethnic community that Miller portrays in the play, because it is a significant component to who these people are as individuals and members of the area.  For example, Eddie Carbone is encouraged to keep working hard, because of his family and family name.  His family, Beatrice and Catherine, are the two women that he supports economically.  They support him emotionally, and when he comes home from hard day’s work they are there to make him feel good and loved.  If either one of these women, who have taken Eddie’s name, were to do something disloyal to him, he would fall (socially) and be looked down upon as a community member.  And since Eddie is the man of the household, his masculinity would be taken away as well.  Essentially, Eddie has given his life for Beatrice and, especially Catherine, working hard to earn money for food, clothes, and shelter, and making great efforts to create a loving home.  Loyalty is important to Eddie, because has worked hard to earn it.  He feels he deserves to be able to trust his family and moreover, for them to be loyal and devoted to him.  Moreover, loyalty is important to have within a family, because it keeps them together.  It allows him to be a part of the community and trusted by others as well.  We see in the beginning of the play that a kid named Vinny snitched on his own uncle, his own family.  Eddie does not say much about this event, but we come to understand that this was a great act of disloyalty.  Vinny hurt the other members in the community even though they were his not a part family, for if Vinny was disloyal to his family, there is a greater chance he will be all the more to those outside his home.  Importantly, this event is something the community can never forget.

Loyalty is such a difficult value for Eddie, because as previously stated it is an important component for him as an individual, family member, and member of the community.  And importantly, he feels that what he has worked for, in himself and in his family, has been taken away when Marco and Rodolpho arrive and begin to change his family’s functioning.  Significantly, the loyalty he has for Catherine and the loyalty she has for him has been dismantled.  Although he is a father figure to Catherine, he loves he her in a way that a father should not love a daughter, how an uncle should not love a niece.  And because they seem to have a special relationship, Catherine’s loyalty means all the more to Eddie.  When Catherine falls in love with Rodolpho Eddie feels betrayed and as if the loyalty Catherine has for him is being taken away.  Catherine is changing, but not in a way that is right for Eddie.  Eddie does not want their relationship and the loyalty they have for one another to go away, so he comes up with excuses to break Catherine and Rodolpho apart- for example, by insinuating Rodolpho is gay because he is blonde, cooks, sings, and sews, as well as telling Catherine that his love for her is not real, but a way to become an American citizen.  Additionally, Eddie feels that others should be loyal to him, because he feels that all good comes from him.  Not only has he been good to his family, but he let others stay in his house.  He is the authority figure in the apartment and he should be respected.  He wants those who he has helped to be devoted to him.  (For example, Marco and Rodolpho)  Loyalty seems to be such a difficult value for Eddie, because he asks for too much of it and wants all to be loyal to him and only him.

Furthermore, this seems to make loyalty so tragic in the play.  Eddie’s character is based upon his values of family and masculinity/authority.  Even though we, as readers, know what will become of him and understand what his mistakes are, something that he does not know and cannot see, we ultimately come away from the play feeling pity for Eddie, because he is a common man, a man who is common like us.  Ultimately, we have pathos for Eddie because he tried to stand up for what he believed in and as Alfieri states, Eddie was just being himself.  We have all probably been in a situation where we feel that our arguments and ideas are correct despite opposing forces.  We have also witnessed many people standing up for what they believe.  This commonality seems to make the play and concept of loyalty so tragic for both the characters and the audience.  

My notion of loyalty has not been necessarily tested like Eddie’s, but I understand what he is feeling.  I have values when it comes to family and friends, and if one of my family members were to do something that was disloyal to me, I would feel terrible.  I think by simply growing up, we all experience our notions of loyalty being tested as we meet new people and friends.  We all have conceptions of what friendship is supposed to be and when one goes against our value system we can feel betrayed or hurt.  My experiences are not as serious and as strong as Eddie’s, but they do give me a better understanding of what Eddie feels.  Sometimes we cannot truly understand what someone feels or is trying to convey unless we are in their shoes.  However, the fact that Eddie can relate to us, in values and in his commonness, aids the tragic nature of the play.

In Hemingway’s “Indian Camp” he seems to depict Native Americans as primitive in that 1. They need Nick’s father and Uncle George (who we can infer to be Americans, or at least of a different culture-significantly one of a different racial and class line) to assist an Indian woman giving birth; and 2. They do not seem to fully understand what Nick, his father, and Uncle George, truly feel about them– how they view Indian class and race. I am not sure whether these Indians are presented authentically, because not much is said about them and their feelings. As was stated in class, the actions evolve around the Native Americans, but the feelings, thoughts, and perspectives are centered around Nick and his father. When I first read “Indian Camp,” I felt that the father was quite unfeeling towards the Indian woman. For example, when Nick, recognizing the Indian woman’s pain, asks his father if he can give her any medicine to stop her screaming, the father states “No. I haven’t any anaesthetic…But her screams are not important. I don’t hear them, because they are not important.” (92) Here, I felt that the father was purposely ignoring her screams, because she was an Indian. American Indian history proves that Indians were considered uncivilized, and whites tried to assimilate them in their society. Due to their different race and culture, whites thought they were superior to Natives. When reading this passage of the story I felt as if Nick’s father was trying to help her, but not in the same way he would help someone of his own race or class. It seemed as if he considered the Indian woman to not have the same feelings as a woman of his own race may have, and I furthermore, felt he was trying to teach Nick to think of Indians in this manner. After listening to class lecture, however, I understood that Nick’s father was viewing her as a doctor would. But I still feel that there was some kind of tension in this scene. A doctor should be unfeeling in the sense that he cannot overreact to patients’ emotions when he is trying to help them. Nick’s father knows that screaming comes with labor. However, I think this may be a symbol that Hemingway is using to convey the ignorance of non-natives towards Indians–that non-natives view Indians as primitive and present them in such a way make them look inferior to them. Significantly, they do not view them as human beings, but only in the condition of being “Indian.”

This is further brought out in the suicide of the husband. Unlike Nick’s father, the husband of the Indian woman understands what she is feeling. He seems to look at her emotionally, while the father looks at her mechanically. Significantly, the husband cannot ignore the screams of his wife. And I think it goes further in meaning, for he is said to have “rolled over against the wall” when Nick’s father came in the room and began the procedure. (92) In continuing with the argument about non-native superiority, and by the fact that the whole operation seemed tacky and dangerous, I feel as if the husband knew that the Indian woman was not going to be helped. Her baby may have been born, but the overall conditions of the procedure were unsafe and Nick’s father seems to overlook her personal health. I think that the husband knew this, and in turn committed suicide because of the way she was treated and because he felt emotion of being thought of as inferior to them. I think that this shows how Nick’s father and the husband are opposites. Indians, who are looked down upon, thought of as primitive, are conveyed as having feelings–they understand they are being treated unjustly. But non-natives, like Nick’s father and Uncle George, those who look down upon Indians, do not seem to feel, because of their superiority as a non-native race and higher class. I did not mention Nick, because he seems to be in the middle of the two cultures. He is of non-native culture, but he has emotions. He wants his father to make the Indian woman better, to stop the screaming. I think he could be asking his father this because he is young and feels a pathos towards her. I also think he could be asking his father this, because he is scared and does not want to have to hear screaming. It seems that Hemingway is making Nick, Nick’s father, and Uncle George take away from the authenticity of these natives. The non-natives seem to say and do certain things in such a way as to convey Indians to be different from them, less than them, taking away from their authenticity and portraying them as more primitive than they really are.

In the end of the story, Nick does not want to look or really help his father, but he fails to understand the concept of what it means to be a human being. Hemingway states Nick “felt quite sure that he would never die.” (95) First, I think that this shows how although he feels emotion towards what has happened to the Indian man and woman, he does not understand that they are human beings. They are simply people of a different class and a different race. His thoughts are influenced by his father, who during the story asks him what it feels like to be an intern and says her screams are not important. Secondly, I think this also shows that, due to his father’s influence, he feels that he can never die, because of the different racial and class lines between him and his family and the Indians. His race will always be dominant, and these people will continue struggling. I feel he thinks that this is normal, and I think this is a way of Hemingway showing Indian oppression.

To viewers today, the pieces in the Armory Show may be thought of simply as art. However, these particular pieces are different from early works by classical Greeks and Romans and the artists of the Renaissance. Instead of giving us an image or object that represents reality/nature, is straightforward and has an obvious meaning, they demfamiliarize our understandings of what is being conveyed. The artists seem to purposely change the forms of the everyday images that were once depicted by earlier artists, confusing and intriguing viewers. Significantly, they force us to interpret the pieces ourselves, not giving us any context, such as a religious piece of art or statue showing the perfection of the human body would. And this is what makes these artworks modern and different from classical art–the meaning that we take away from the work is personal, unstated, and ambiguous.

For example, in Gallery A, we begin with a piece by Andrew Dasburg, Lucifer, a plaster sculpture of a man’s head. What makes this piece modern is that it goes away from classical Greek and Roman statues of the human body. Instead of depicting the man realistically, in nature, trying to copy every detail, we are given a head that is ultimately contorted. Instead of the plaster being smoothed and clean, this head is composed in chunks and sections. His eyes are uneven, his nose crooked. He is bulky. We know who the man is, but Dasburg sculpts him in such a way that his form gives meaning to his character and personality. Instead of showing him in perfect form, Dasburg makes him imperfect, ugly by nature, but beautiful by art. And it is up to viewers to make note of why Dasburg decided to sculpt him in the way he did and figure out his importance. Another example of such distortion is depicted by Chester Beach in The Unveiling of Dawn (Gallery B). Beach is said to have been inspired by Rodin, who while also has moved somewhat away from the classical structure of statue (by making the media used obvious and present in his work, i.e. visible chunks and details), he continues to show great detail and perfection of the body in the majority of his pieces. Beach continues to show great detail, such as muscles, and makes his piece smooth like the classical Greek and Roman statues, however, he distorts it as well. The legs of his figure fade into a giant block, defamiliarizing the human body. He also fades the head and arms into a great arch. This is an example of modern art, because it not only defamilarizes the human body, but confuses viewers and asks them to think hard about what is being presented. We must analyze the form of the statue and come up with our own interpretations as to why Beach decided to depict him in this manner and what this form means to us personally. Viewers are asked to fill in the meaning of what this piece could possibly mean to society.

Furthermore, in Gallery K, we again see a further movement away from the depiction of the human body realistically. Henry Matisse greatly simplifies his female nudes, giving no specific details, but only the outline of these women’s bodies. Moreover, these figures are not perfect in shape. Instead of understanding the body in its natural form or in reality, such as when we look at ourselves in the mirror, we are made to think about these figures as basic shapes and lines. Another very modern piece is presented in Gallery N, by Morton L. Schamberg in Study of a Girl. This piece is modern by the fact that she is also played down to simplest form, and even then, not realistically. Her arms seem to have no joints; she has falling shoulders. And what is more, painted in blues, purples, and bright whites! This is quite unrealistic, for skin is not painted the colors of the rainbow. And although this is unnatural, is very hypnotizing, causing viewers to think about the meaning of the colors in relation the figure. What is the figure feeling? Where is she? Pablo Picasso also does this in Madame Soler. Her skin is quite out of the ordinary, but her figure is not distorted. Instead, viewers become engaged in the painting by the pull of her watchful eye. The figure is looking straight at us, which although we have seen before, is quite different here. Instead of made to feel a certain way, such as in a religious manner, happy, sad, etc., as in earlier art, viewers are made to feel uncomfortable by this woman’s stare and the colors she is depicted in. What is modern about this piece is that the emotion of the piece is not defined and viewers are made uneasy instead of awed.

While human figures have mainly been discussed, we also find other paintings in the show that prove to be extremely modern in that they are totally distorted and ambiguous. Works by Marcel Duchamp force viewers for their own interpretations and meanings. Although we are given a title of the work, it is totally up to viewers to decide how to look and think about the pieces. Not only is Duchamp’s artwork different and modern in that he goes completely away from natural form, giving us only shapes, lines, and sections, but that he creates movement and action instead of the earlier still life. Furthermore, we also get a view of the natural world depicted in basic shapes, such as Roger de la Fresnaye’s Landscape. In Gallery Q we are given figures by Paul Cezanne that are depicted in terms of light. Light is emphasized everywhere, instead of one particular light source. Moreover, we are given the impression and expression of daily life by impressionists like Monet and post-impressionists such as Van Gogh. Colors, light, short chunky brushstrokes, and impression, rather than detail are presented here instead of the smooth, fully detailed and realistic depictions of previous art eras.

1. This excerpt occurs at the beginning of Chapter 23 in the narrative. Before, Hurstwood and Carrie went out together and spoke about their relationship. They are planning to go away with each other on Saturday to be together. Carrie believed herself to be in love. Mrs. Hurstwood confronts Hurstwood about lying to her and kicks him out of the house.

In the excerpt Carrie is just coming home. She feels doubt in her decision to go away with Hurstwood, for it was not well thought out. She does not know if she can keep her promise to go away with him and marry him, since she is supposedly married to Drouet. She feels wrong in leaving Drouet when he has done so much for and is considered her husband. She hears a voice telling her what she should do–ultimately to stick with what she has, so she will not go back to being the old Carrie she used to be. Furthermore, the narrator describes how Hurstwood has not come to an understanding of what she thinks their relationship is. He loves her, but is not fully interested in marriage as she is. He lacks power and a greatness of passion. Although his passion is described as powerful enough to attract Carrie and keep her with him. Significantly, the narrator tells us that Carrie may only think she is in love. He importantly goes on to say that this is a common characteristic of women, ultimately trying to justify Carrie’s feelings and make us, the readers, believe this about women in general. After this excerpt occurs, Drouet will also find out about Carrie sneaking off with Hurstwood.

2. We see the action and characters of this excerpt through both Carrie and the narrator. Although the narrator is telling the story, the first paragraph is from Carrie’s perspective. We know this perspective belongs to her, because it is describing her experiences and emotions. The narrator does not give us every detail, but he does not take away, change, or emphasize what has happened to her or what she is feeling. The second and third paragraphs are told from the narrator’s perspective. We know that this perspective belongs to the narrator, because he adds his own comments and opinions that are not the characters. He also adds in actions and emotions that we do not know if the character is truly feeling or doing consciously. Although the narrator is referring to Carrie and Hurstwood, he talks about them from his own view. Significantly, the narrator speaks to the reader, as if to persuade them to feel certain emotions about what is happening in the story.

3. The narrator’s voice describes the characters.

4. We can tell that the narrator is very opinionated and persuasive. He is often caught describing the characters and then uses his own commentary to try to make readers think certain thoughts. He tries to avoid readers from making their own interpretations. We know that the narrator is very knowledgeable about society and he often stereotypes the characters. The narrator uses strong diction and his words are fancy and sophisticated. His sentences are long, occasionally short. The overall syntax is complex, but the message he is trying to convey is deep and clear. He seems to be very educated. Overall he appears to be wise, but also manipulating in his speech. He seems to be all knowing, yet only shares what he wants.

5. In this excerpt the narrator is describing Carrie’s feelings when she gets back from her meeting with Hurstwood. He talks about how both she and Hurstwood only think what their relationship and what they feel is real. He comments on women, and tries to justify Carrie’s actions. Yet, he also seems to stereotype women in a way that makes us sympathize with Carrie

6. The narrator is trying to tell us that Carrie only thinks she is in love, because Hurstwood shows affection and love towards her. Drouet does not show her that he truly loves her and wants to be with her, but Hurstwood does. It is from this lack of affection and the gain of something that seems to be real and pleasurable that makes Carrie care for Hurstwood in return. However, it is only the act of being loved that Carrie really is in love with; it does not necessarily mean she loves Hurstwood in return. The narrator blames Carrie’s feelings on her sex. It is typical for women to act like this and feel these emotions. As he talks about Carrie’s persuasion of being in love, he tries to persuade us to see Carrie as he does, so we do not think badly of her decisions and misjudge her as the fallen woman. The narrator’s depiction and message makes sense to me. However, it does conflict with my own opinions about Carrie. It betters my understanding of the actions she takes.

7. The narrator’s relationship with the character seems to be like that of a hidden insider, one who not necessarily present physically, but knows a lot about you. Here, the narrator seems to justify, defend, and describe Carrie and her situation.

The scene ending “The Yellow Wallpaper” represents both a victory and a defeat for the narrator.  First, as the narrator is able to creep around in the nursery and step over her husband, we see a victory, because she has not only figured out the pattern on the wallpaper, but knows how to use that pattern in relation to herself.  The design in the wallpaper represents the confinement of women to the home, or more specifically in the narrator’s case, the confinement to the nursery because of the inability of her husband to see into her sick mind.  In the wallpaper the narrator saw a woman behind bars, trying to get out of the design that was strangling her.  This woman represents all women, their place within captivity, and control of men.  The woman calls out to the narrator, because she is a symbol of herself.  Because the narrator was able to understand the pattern, she is victorious in taking the wallpaper down and learning that she can move about in the ways that she wants to.  Even though John had control over her, she is free from captivity.  The narrator is now able to “creep” around in the nursery as she wants.  She is not confined to the nursery as she was before.  Significantly, she is not confined to the orders of her husband, John. 

Secondly, despite the narrator’svictory, we also see defeat, because although she is able to creep around in the nursery as she pleases, she is still within the nursery.  She does not seem to want to go outside and be out of her home.  She does not want to go out of the nursery.  Even though she says in the beginning of the story that she thinks doing something new and being able to write would be good for her, she does not really act on participating in these activities, and when she does write, she becomes tired.  The narrator doesn’t seem to get out of that “what can one do?” attitude, even though she steps over John and creeps about the room, since she does not want to go out of the nursery.  Significantly, the narrator is still within captivity even though she knows that she does not have to be.  Her body is still in captivity, regardless of her mind being out.

I think the differences of “I vs. tide” pose a problem for Whitman in that he is trying to be a part of two different aspects of life at once.  There is the tide below him, as well as the sky above, two aspects of nature that surround him.  Yet there is also the crowd, a mixture of men and women “in the usual costumes.”  I think that Whitman may want to be a part of both.  He wants to cross into the “I” that longs to be a part of the flood-tide, be connected spirtually with nature.  He is also curious about the crowd– the people and humanity that he has no choice but to be a part of, but also desires to be a part of.  I think this is a problem, because there seems to be two Whitman identities here.  Maybe he wants to take the aspect of him that is part of the crowd and ”cross” over into the Whitman that is one with nature.  Or, maybe he wants to get away from nature to cross over to being a part of the crowd or humanity.  I feel that this is similar to the theme of commuting that was discussed in class.  Not only are we going from one place to another, but we change mind sets as we are in between the place we started and the place we are going. 

I think the problem is resolved by the end of the poem as Whitman gives us images of the “in between,” something that connects the two points that are to be crossed.  He gives us a phrase in the beginning of the poem – “The others that are to follow me, the ties between me and them,” suggesting a connection with others, yet he emphasizes the “I” many times and makes a distinction between himself and everything else.  He is separate, but he seems to accept that he is part of everything and that all are united by a common environment.  I think that by the end of the poem Whitman has made it clear that he is different, a serparate person from all the rest, yet a part of something common, a part that makes up a whole.  In relation to the two different identities that I mentioned earlier, maybe Whitman has come to see that he can have both, because both of these aspects make up who he is; both contribute parts toward his soul.

I’m not sure if I have interpreted the poem correctly, but when I read it, I got the feeling of not only crossing from one place to another, but the connection we get at the crossing points.  I think that this is important, because at the crossing point we are in the middle, not part of one aspect or the other, but both.  And, if we were crossing a bridge or whatnot, such as during a commute, everyone at the crossing point is part of the same experience and same environment, instead of being in one place or the other.

I liked how the wiki project allowed us to take a certain part of Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” analyze it, and talk about what it meant to us.  It was nice being able to relate it to the contemporary experience, because it made me feel more connected to the text.  I also liked finding an image that went with the part of the poem we chose to talk about, but I didn’t really like the whole process of putting the image into the poem and linking it back to our blog–this is nothing against the assignment, I’m just a person who is familiar with these aspects of computers.

By participating in the wiki, I was able to understand more clearly what Whitman was talking about.  For example, I chose the exerpt from the poem that talked about grass growing outward in relation to death.  I was able to understand what Whitman meant when he said those things, and it allowed me to think about the poem as a whole resembling grass.

I’m not sure what additions or changes I would make to this assignment.  I think I would have rather liked to do this assignment to a poem that I enjoyed more, but all in all I thought it was great.

I chose this image, because it shows roots growing upward and outward from the ground, symbolizing how there is no end to life.  Whitman states:

“All goes onward and outward . . . . and nothing collapses,
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier.”

Here he shows that dying is not what we think it to be.  It is not the end, and burying someone in the ground to never see them again is not how we should perceive death.   Whitman says that just as we are lucky to be born, we are even luckier to die, because we are reborn into the earth.  Life keeps going.  We may not be in the same form after death, but we are not gone from the earth.

I think this picture relates to the contemporary experience in that it is showing us how we should view death–we should have a positive outlook rather than a negative one.  We look at death as something sad, whereas Whitman looks at it as something positive.  We wear black to a funeral, but Whitman would probably wear something green or blue and celebrate a new stage of life instead of the end.  I think the picture resembles the spiritual essence of our outlook of death.  At funerals we always hear “this is not the end, but the beginning,” and that the dead move on to a different (higher) place.  I think Whitman is giving us this message as well, but instead of leaving the earth, the dead become a part of it.  I think that his message has a somewhat better attitude towards dying–that our loved ones (and even ourselves when we die) do not actually leave us or this earth. 

http://english158.wetpaint.com/page/Whitman%2C+%22Song+of+Myself%22