In his article, “Beyond the Myth of Narcissus: The Role of the Reader in Walt Whitman’s ‘Song of Myself,’” Santiago Juan Navarro discusses the position of the reader as described in “Song of Myself.” Navarro begins by introducing the claim that “the reader has been systematically neglected in the literary analysis,” especially when discussing Whitman’s work (109). Navarro says that this could be the reason that “Song of Myself” has been received as narcissistic and possibly one-sided. Navarro uses other critically acclaimed experts, in-text citations and reflection of “Song of Myself” to really illuminate the relationship between the reader and the text.
Navarro uses G. V. Trail’s analysis, which considers Whitman’s “explanation of himself” to be “an explanation of his audience” (109). He adds in a statement from J. Mason, who says that “Song of Myself” is a “dialogue between speaker and reader which leads to vitalization and at last to comradeship” (109). These ideas of intertwinement between Whitman and his audience are interesting, as many critics have considered “Song of Myself” to be narcissistic rather than inclusive and interconnected. Navarro considers W. Iser’s The Act of Reading, which suggests that the meaning of the work can not just come from the work itself. Iser claims that we must consider the activity of the reader and their interpretations to fully understand a piece of work.
In order to understand reader activity, Navarro uses pieces of the text to try and bridge the gap between the reader and the work. He starts with the first three lines of the poem, claiming that there is “development of these three stages: the assertion of the poets self as expressed in the text, the series of commons and cues offered in the text to allow and provoke reader response, and the final merging of the self and the other as a consequence of the text-reader interaction” (111). Navarro continues to state, “By the end of the poem, and especially from section forty six, the calls for the readers participation reach their height” (114). Navarro is referring to lines 64 and 65, in which Whitman writes, “I tramp a perpetual journey…/ Not I, not anyone else can travel that road for you,/ You must travel it for yourself,” giving the reader the opportunity to figure out their own interpretation of the words he has offered.
Navarro concludes that, “The reader is “Song of Myself” is not the passive recipient of the traditional poetry, more is he a voyeur who contemplates with pleasure the narcissistic display of egotist” (114). This revelation changes the way I interpret the poem as well. I completely see where Navarro is coming from, suggesting that throughout “Song of Myself,” Whitman is merely trying to make communion with the reader and let them interpret for themselves. But, I do think it is a bit difficult to get past the tone of self-gratification and holiness that Whitman possesses throughout this poem. Regardless, I always think that is is abundantly important to take into consideration the role of readers in order to fully understand the magnitude of a text. What Navarro is suggesting for us to focus on is something that I fear is already overshadowed by the egotistical tone of the piece; however, it would be interesting to go back through “Song of Myself” and read it from the perspective of solely finding out the role of the reader. Possibly, where we thought Whitman was telling us exactly what to think, he was actually inviting us to solely see his perspective and then use it as we please. Overall, there are always juxtaposing ways to interpret works of poetry – and that is the main beauty of the act of reading and studying poetry in my opinion.
Citation: Navarro, Santiago Juan. “Beyond the Myth of Narcissus: The Role of the Reader in Walt Whitman’s ‘Song of Myself.’” Atlantis: Revista de La Asociacion Espanola de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, vol. 12, no. 1, June 1990, pp. 109–14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=1993065236&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
I think you did a great job contextualizing the article and I think the role of the reader in “Song of Myself” and what Whitman expected of his reader are two interesting points to consider. I found through the article I researched that Whitman “hoped for a reader that could match his vision, a reader who would collude with the poet in the creation of the material” (Mullins, Maire). I feel as if this is where his egotism got in the way of his writing because I find it hard to fathom how one of his readers could be on the same wavelength as him. There needs to be more of an ebb and flow between the author and reader, a relationship that needs to be more connected than one sided. However, I don’t believe this to mean that Whitman did not care for his reader, quite the contrary in fact.
Great discussion here. I agree that Abrie’s post offers a very sensible overview of Navarro’s article, which is itself informed by reader-response theory. Whitman is in many ways the perfect subject for such an approach because he calls out so unabashedly to his reader so many times over. The question that Dan wrestles with is whether we are called to our vision, or simply called to share his vision. He opens the road for us to decide for ourselves, but one senses that Whitman has a pretty strong sense of where this vision is headed. In any case, the robust response to Whitman over the past decade and more makes clear that Whitman opened the door for responses, and they continue to flood in.
While we can read even Whitman’s call to the other as egotistical, it also suggests loneliness and crisis: Whitman’s call to interpersonal connection and union anticipates a country teetering on Civil War that could be felt as early as 1855 when he published his poem in the first edition of Leaves. It also suggests a certain loneliness of character: Whitman, as we will learn this week, is also often cast a a solitary singer, washed up on the shores. In this sense, he needs us as much as he might want us to believe that we need him.