For this week’s extending the conversation presentation, I chose a poem by Larry Rottmann entitled, “A Porter on the Trail.” Initially, when I was searching for a ‘beyond’ poem to fit the theme of war and patriotism, I expected to choose a poem celebrating Whitman’s love for America. However, when I came across Rottmann’s poem, I was really struck by his message and decided to go in a different direction. The poem is narrated from the point of view of a Vietnamese man during the Vietnam War in 1966. The narrator describes how he constantly carries Whitman’s book of poems, and has learned “Kim Van Kieu” and “Song of Myself” by heart. He explains the personal power and connection he feels with Whitman: “Still I drew strength from Whitman’s poetry/and optimism too” However, the narrator then begins to consider Whitman in the context of America and wonders how this country gave the world such a beautiful poet, but is also capable of mass destruction through the creation of weapons such as “napalm and agent orange” (napalm: used for bombs and flamethrowers; agent orange: a defoliant chemical). Rottmann’s poem ends with his Vietnamese narrator coming into contact with an American GI, who unfortunately for the narrator, cannot discuss “Song of Myself” because “he’d never heard of Walt Whitman.”
I thought that this poem would be an interesting addition to our discussion this week because it deals with both war and patriotism, but in very unexpected ways. I find that Rottmann on one hand is definitely a Whitmanian, as seen through his narrator’s true admiration for the poet and his beliefs. But on the other hand, Rottmann challenges Whitman as an America symbol by highlighting the lack of knowledge of the American GI has of the poet. If Whitman is the real icon for America, then why does the GI not know who he is? Does this mean that Whitman’s dream for America is somehow lost? Furthermore, Rottmann also challenges America directly by bringing up the incredibly horrific use of weaponry used during the Vietnam war. The contrast between Whitman’s beautiful vision for America’s future and the image of chemicals and bombs is a depressing truth Rottmann reveals in “Porter on the Trail.”
I think it’s interesting how Rottmann states that, as a less “learned” man, he knows two poems by heart: “Whitman’s “Song,” and Nguyen Du’s “Kim Van Kieu;” the latter of these involves a Vietnamese tale in which a young woman who sacrifices herself for family. Although Rottmann draws “strength” and “optimism” from Whitman’s poetry, his poems prove less relevant in the face of war (Rottmann 168). One can discern how a poem which deals with selflessness might prove more poignant in the midst of warfare, and as lives are lost, than one which seeks to involve soldiers who approach their demise. Thus, Rottmann pinpoints how the memorable nature of a poem depends on the context itself.
On an initial basis, Rottmann seems to uphold the notion that Whitman’s poems provide inclusive as he states that Whitman provides him with hope. However, he juxtaposes warfare imagery (e.g., “napalm” and “Agent Orange”), alongside his praise of Whitman’s poems, which subverts one’s expectations (Rottmann 168). In effect, he highlights an interesting concept: that a less “learned” man might not have gain access to Whitman’s poems or the ability to summon Whitman’s lines to mind. Also, because the GI he encounters possesses even less knowledge than himself, and knows nothing of Walt Whitman, Whitman’s transcendent nature becomes dampened. This demonstrates how, despite Whitman’s attempts to “encompass the globe,” warfare alters the scene and proves words sometimes fall short.
It proves particularly striking that this man who does not know of Whitman is an American in the war himself. The GI resides within the same sphere as Whitman and would seems like someone who would find his poems most relatable. However, Whitman’s inclusion of common men cannot account for educational differences, which indicates how some amount of privilege might come into play.
Thus, Rottmann highlights how differential access lessens Whitman’s all-inclusiveness, as well as how his vision proves improbable on the battle field itself; this leads to destruction of the transcendent American vision, and a decrease, not on the grounds of his poems’ strength, which prevails, but on the grounds of contextual relevance.
http://www.losangelesmystery.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/kimvan.jpg
“It deals with both war and patriotism, but in very unexpected ways.” That’s just what I was thinking; it seems at first this is a personal meditation on Walt’s poetry to this speaker, but scope zooms out wider when he introduces America’s use of napalm and Agent Orange. What are the implications here? For one thing, the role of the American poet is represented as rebellious, resisting the rhetoric espoused by its militaristic leaders, a rhetorical form that probably carries heavier weight in our speaker’s home country. This form of rebellion might come as a misunderstanding to how we have come to read Whitman in our class, however.
We are constantly contemplating Whitman’s multifarious nature, asking ourselves “which Whitman are we seeing here?” as we often find Whitman in several contradictory places at once. This feature is most prominent in Whitman the American Nationalist; he exults the essence of Americanism while championing the factions our government and culture most oppress. So welcome to our world, speaker of “A Porter on the Trail.”
To the speaker’s credit, though, his final stanza does offer a dynamic that enhances the intrigue of the contradiction with which he grapples. What is at stake for our captured GI? How does it change our interpretation if he does know Whitman’s work? My best guess would be that we are to assume our militaristic minds don’t read Whitman, whose work would lead them to think differently about their foreign campaigns. As much as I would like to align myself with this sentiment, I can’t help but to skeptically remain neutral on the matter. Just as our Vietnamese speaker identifies with his Whitman, our military leaders could very well do the same and justify their actions. O Pioneers Against Communism etc.
This poem definitely makes an interesting reversal when considering Whitman as the champion of American democracy. The implications of the nationalist fervor that Whitman seems to inspire in many of his war poems takes a darker turn in the context of the Vietnam War and American imperialism. Specifically mentioning “Song of Myself” alongside “Kim Van Kieu” (the footnote tells us this is a poem of selflessness), the poem provokes questions about the nature of modern American democracy as a selfless or selfish ideological view. Interestingly, the speaker in the poem does not directly address Whitman’s political war poems, but rather contemplates the more ecstatic and meditative of Whitman’s poems. The speaker “drew strength from Whitman’s poetry,/ and optimism too.” and wonders how the contemporary spirit of American warfare could have arisen from an environment that also gave rise to “Song of Myself.” Like you said, Kristen, I think “A Porter on the Trail” offers an unexpected treatment of war and patriotism that itself fits neatly into Whitman’s multivocal, oftentimes contradictory, and sometimes unexpected poetic tradition.
Great conversation here! I was really struck by this poem–from the funny contrast between the epic poem of selflessness and Song of Myself, to the resonant reality that this captured GI doesn’t know Whitman. I agree that this seems a statement that “America” is somehow blind to Whitman and his values, but I also agree with Nick that this gesture overlooks the degree to which this soldier could easily deploy a Whitman for military ends. Great tension there!