Whitman and the reader.  Whitman aims to make his work assessable to the reader,

and in his want to speak directly to the reader, he speaks in a close-third person

context that is almost more indicative of a hypertext “Web 2.0” mentality than of a

“poet sharing with the masses” mentality.

There are many authors who deliberately quote and share Whitman’s words, but there are some that do not deliberately do this, and yet we can still see Whitman’s influence. One modern-day novelist that we see this link in Douglas Coupland and his novel Generation X.

In the novel Generation X, the character Andy talks about a notion presented by the poet Rilke:

“…and the words of Rilke, the poet, entered my brain—

his notion that we are all born with a letter inside us, and that

only if we are true to ourselves, may we be allowed to read it

before we die……I needed less in life. Less past. So I came down here to     look at a rock or a cactus and know that I am the first person to see that cactus and that rock. And to try to read the letter inside me.”

(Page 58-59)

The idea of a “letter inside”, while it seems almost contradictory to the idea of the modern generation and especially the hypertext-influenced writing that is being presented from within it, is actually an idea that resonates within the “hypertext generation.” The idea of a novel in hypertext is not only a new idea, but allows the reader to explore the work in ways that they had never been able to before, as well as find a deeper meaning of the work and the connections that the work can make to them personally—enabling the modern reader to find the “letter inside.”

This idea can be seen in Whitman, and especially in Song of Myself. First, in the title, the idea of a “song” of Whitman resonates with the idea of a “letter” inside Andy. Both are looking for something inside of themselves, but in the case of Whitman, it has become more concrete, and unlike Andy, Whitman has seem to found it. Whitman says:

“I celebrate myself, and sing myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”

(Section 1, Lines 1-3)

This opening phrase is concrete, a definite. Whitman is not looking for anything; he has found it, and is making a declaration to all. This opening is also very indicative of a hypertext medium, specifically a blog, with the line “what I assume you shall assume.” The idea of hypertext writing, especially on a blog, allows for ideas to be co-opted, shared, and to evolve in an entirely different way than in print format. What belongs to one person—lets say, Whitman—can belong to everyone who accepts that idea.

However, there is a difference between sharing and co-opting, especially in the modern generation, and this can be a hard distinction. In an age where material is distributed freely (in the most literal sense of the word,) the author controlling their words exclusively is an elusive concept. Take the latest string of Levi’s Jeans commercials, where they use Whitman’s America as a selling point for jeans. In this sense, Whitman’s words have been co-opted to sell mass-produced jeans, in making one think they are an individual by wearing them. However, if we go back to Song Of Myself where Whitman  proclaims, “For every atom belonging to me as good as belongs to you,” we have to stop and wonder if he’d mind his words being co-opted.

What is interesting is that no matter what we get the idea of “myself,” which is what the co-opters of Whitman are looking for. A Song Of Myself, a “letter inside” oneself—all ideas that appealed and still appeal to the masses. And like the poetry of Whitman, the reader gets these ideas in the work of Coupland as well. Everything can belong to everyone, but there is still something that originates inside of a person, something uniquely theirs—but with idea of writing with hypertext, it can be shared with the entire world. Click on a link and you’re transported to another page which transports you to another page—the possibilities are endless.

This brings up the question of What is hypertext? Hypertext traditionally means something that is web-based, enabled so the reader (or, in this case, browser might be a more appropriate term) can click and interact with the text. It can bring you to another chapter, a photo, a page, a link to something unrelated, or even a way of contacting the author themselves. This is a very interesting idea in itself, because of the age that we live in.

We’re in an age of contradictions right now, where celebrities are “off limits” but Twitter and have the average person as their Facebook friend. It’s an age of contradictions, where privacy is craved but we make ourselves openly public on purpose, but what are we making so public about ourselves, and is it the right thing?

Without having to publish books and writing traditionally, you have a new medium that is open for interpretation, as well as opened for anyone to join in. There is less consideration given to the words on the page if it is a webpage than if it is a printed page, and yet this is increasingly the way that people prefer to interact. Newspapers are being shut down because people want to get their news from blogs or from Google, and one has to wonder how we placed so much value on the webpage so soon. That isn’t to say that the web isn’t an valuable tool—but like any tool, it has to be used in the proper ways.

What is interesting about hypertext is that it is now beginning to come off of the page and make an appearance in book form. This idea is one that was shared by Whitman in his idea of revision and how he presented his books.  Whitman was very involved in the revision process, even moving around the type and presenting his books in a way that would reflect him personally—a very hypertext idea. Within this we can see the need for Whitman to make that personal connection to his audience, to strive to connect with them in a way that others hadn’t before.

Coupland’s Generation X is presented in a way that simulates reading hypertext—sidebar definitions, colorful covers (there’s a set of them), short blurbs and slogans, much like you would see while browsing any number of hypertext items. Presenting work in the online world allows for a customization that reflects the author—whether it is the color of the page, the images that are paired with it, or the layout of the blog. Coupland is taking Whitman’s idea of connecting with the audience to the extreme: if the online world is what the reader likes so much, then instead of making the online world like a book, make a book like the online world. Coupland shows this in the variety of the colors of the cover of the book—if the reader wants to customize their experience, then they can chose the color that expresses them, just like they would online.

With both Coupland and Whitman, there is a want and need to customize their work to show an individual side that isn’t gathered through the words on the page. This isn’t just for the readers sake; it’s for their own as well. If Whitman was writing and publishing now, he would be like Coupland, striving for new ways to present his work, never content with the same format as everyone else.

In Shelly Jackson’s essay Stitch Bitch, she makes a very simple declaration in regards to hypertext, and that is “We don’t think what we think we think” (Page 5.) In hypertext writing, we see this idea folded into the pages—literally. Each page morphs and transforms, depending on the reader and the author. The author sets up the writing in such a way as to interact with the reader, but it is up to the reader whether to follow through on this, therefore making the text much more reader influenced than a published text.

However, this is taken to a new form when hypertext and hypertext like novels are published in print form. This solves the problem of the reader having too much control over the text, taking it away from the author. Even so, the reader always has ultimate control over the text—the reader can simply choose to stop reading. It is the author’s job to make the reader want to keep reading, and to show the idea that Shelly Jackson brings up—“We don’t think what we think we think” (Page 5.) And, along with this idea, Whitman points out that there are some things that still are more capturing than books:

“That I walk up my stoop, I pause to consider if it really be,

A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the

Metaphysics of books.”

(Song of Myself, Page 212)

Here, Whitman is making the argument that there are things that will always be more capturing than a simple printed page, and thus is the authors dilemma. In this modern age, books are seen as luxuries of time for some, and this is where the internet comes in. Writers who write in hypertext allow for their work to be shown in many different forms. The reader can read it on the go, they can bookmark it for later. Hypertext writing accepts and embraces that concept, and you can see the mark of this in some printed work, such as Coupland’s Generation X. With the short sidebars and definitions, it feels as if it is a work that could be online, with ‘Click here!’ for definitions and different pages with different themes for the chapters. Although Whitman’s work is not set up in the same way, there is the same sense of adaptation for the reader that is presented in it. The fact that he wanted to have a conversation of sorts with the reader within his work is a very hypertext idea.

With the fact that Whitman is now commercialized (in such examples as the Walt Whitman mall on Long Island and the Walt Whitman rest area in New Jersey) it is an easy jump to imagine Whitman as an internet star. His work is daring, he has no problem with attention, and the most important thing is that he strives to have a conversation with his reader, whomever they are. It doesn’t matter to Whitman who they are; it matters that they are reading his work, and therefore, they are now engaged in it.

Some would also say that this is why Generation X is so accessible. The first response to why it is set up in the way it is, and a often used one is that it reflects the generation, complete with short attention spans, graphics, and sidebars to keep attention. This is a good point; it is quite possible that that is what Coupland was striving for in X. In this striving, however, he made an excellent point, and that is to engage the reader, and the way to engage the reader is to engage them in the way they know how to be engaged. Coupland designed a novel around the generation he was intending it for so they would become engaged in it. He used what he knew about them to design the material for them. This is much like Whitman designing his books for his readers, to make it on a personal level. Both authors are doing the same thing, but in a different way, and this relates right back to hypertext.

Most of the time, using new forms is fought against, and with good reason. For instance, take Amazon’s Kindle. A small, electronic device that can hold thousands of books, eliminating the link between the printed page and the reader. Authors like Whitman and Coupland, who design print books as aesthetic forms, would have something lost in the medium. While this seems the perfect step for hypertext, it is actually lacking the essential component of hypertext writing, and that is the interactive link with the reader. The Kindle is designed to be a passive experience, mimicking the relationship that the reader has with the written book, but it lacks the connection and does not provide the necessary context for hypertext either. Work such as Whitman’s is caught in between technologies, and thus is seen as only being an “old-fashioned” print book, rather than having the potential to be an early idea of hypertext.

Whitman says:

“Trippers and askers surround me,

People I meet, the effect upon me of my early life or the ward and

city I live in, or the nation,

The latest dates, discoveries, inventions, societies, authors old and new.”

(Section 4, lines 1-5)

With both Generation X and Song of Myself we see these ideas of wanting to present an “honest” replica of the authors self, as well as presenting the writing of the authors in way that interacts with the reader. These ideas are in conflict with hypertext, although the argument could be that the way writing is presented in hypertext is the “honest” replica, because it is the only way that the author has full control over it.

Going back to Shelly Jackson’s essay Stitch Bitch and her declaration that  “We don’t think what we think we think” (Page 5), we can make a connection between her statement and the state of the written word. If we don’t indeed think what we think we think, then an ever changing medium that the author doesn’t necessarily have complete control over might be the “honest” way of looking at things. Hypertext is the perfect medium for not knowing what we think we know.

Perhaps, however, authors who are stretching in hypertextual directions, such as Coupland, think this and realize it. Being unsure of one’s self isn’t necessarily a good thing, especially in writing if you want to make a point and have the reader follow it. However, perhaps the perfect complement to hypertext is the print hypertext novel, and remembering the connection that the reader has with the novel, without letting them have complete control. This is important because what the author is striving to say is just as important as what the reader gleams from it. One cannot exist without the other,  and it is important to realize this fact.

Whitman was a pioneer in his time, as Coupland is in his. Both stretched (and in Coupland’s case, stretch) the boundaries of traditional work, and how they interact with the reader. They are developing a personalized relationship with the reader, something that the idea of hypertext writing can aid and encourage.

As hypertext continues to grow, we will see more and more writers and readers embracing this idea, and learning to use it to their advantage, and being as careful with the written words on the screen as they are on the page. In time, more writers will become hypertext writers, writing for the printed page but in a hypertext style, interacting with their readers and beginning personalized relationships.

Bibliography

Coupland, Douglas. Generation X. St. Martins Griffin, 1991.

Jackson, Shirley. Stitch Bitch. MIT. http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/jackson.html

Whitman, Walt. Whitman, Poetry and Prose. New York, Penguin Books. 1996.

In the writings of Walt Whitman, there is a sense of a hypertext quality in his work. Whitman speaks directly to the reader, in a close-third person context that is almost more indicative of a hypertext “Web 2.0” mentality, such as with modern-day novelist Douglas Coupland and his novel Generation X. In the novel Generation X, the character Andy talks about a notion presented by the poet Rilke:

“…and the words of Rilke, the poet, entered my brain—

his notion that we are all born with a letter inside us, and that

only if we are true to ourselves, may we be allowed to read it

before we die……I needed less in life. Less past. So I came down here to

look at a rock or a cactus and know that I am the first person to see that cactus and that rock.

And to try to read the letter inside me.”

(Page 58-59)

The idea of a “letter inside”, while it seems almost contradictory to the idea of the modern generation and especially the hypertext-influenced writing that is being presented from within it, is actually an idea that resonates within the “hypertext generation.” The idea of a novel in hypertext is not only a new idea, but allows the reader to explore the work in ways that they had never been able to before, as well as find a deeper meaning of the work and the connections that the work can make to them personally—enabling the modern reader to find the “letter inside.”

This idea can be seen in Whitman, and especially in Song of Myself. First, in the title, the idea of a “song” of Whitman resonates with the idea of a “letter” inside Andy. Both are looking for something inside of themselves, but in the case of Whitman, it has become more concrete, and unlike Andy, Whitman has seem to found it. Whitman says:

“I celebrate myself, and sing myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”

(Section 1, Lines 1-3)

This opening phrase is concrete, a definite. Whitman is not looking for anything; he has found it, and is making a declaration to all. This opening is also very indicative of a hypertext medium, specifically a blog, with the line “what I assume you shall assume.” The idea of hypertext writing, especially on a blog, allows for ideas to be co-opted, shared, and to evolve in an entirely different way than in print format. What belongs to one person—lets say, Whitman—can belong to everyone who accepts that idea.

What is interesting, however, that even in that format we still get the idea of “myself.” A Song Of Myself, a “letter inside” oneself. And like the poetry of Whitman, the reader gets these ideas in the work of Coupland as well. Everything can belong to everyone, but there is still something that originates inside of a person, something uniquely theirs—but with idea of writing with hypertext, it can be shared with the entire world.

An idea that is shared within the idea of hypertext is one that was shared by Whitman in his idea of revision and how he presented his books.  Whitman was very involved in the revision process, even moving around the type and presenting his books in a way that would reflect him personally—a very hypertext idea. Coupland’s Generation X is presented in a way that simulates reading hypertext—sidebar definitions, colorful covers (there’s a set of them), short blurbs and slogans, much like you would see while browsing any number of hypertext items. Presenting work in the online world allows for a customization that reflects the author—whether it is the color of the page, the images that are paired with it, or the layout of the blog. With both Coupland and Whitman, there is a want and need to customize their work to show an individual side that isn’t gathered through the words on the page.

If Whitman was writing and publishing now, he would be like Coupland, striving for new ways to present his work, never content with the same format as everyone else.

Whitman says later in Song of Myself:

“Trippers and askers surround me,

People I meet, the effect upon me of my early life or the ward and

city I live in, or the nation,

The latest dates, discoveries, inventions, societies, authors old and new.”

(Section 4, lines 1-5)

These lines are indicative of the idea of hypertext, where you have lots of outside ideas that are available at the touch of a button. Things that are in real time can influence the work of someone without having to go through the process of being published, or even being revised. With both Generation X and Song of Myself we see these ideas of  wanting to present an “honest” replica of the authors self, as well as presenting the writing of the authors in way that interacts with the reader.

In Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, we see a prime example of how Whitman is an Emersonian poet. Whitman’s setting is at once a completely Emersonian one—nature—and on the other hand, not at all. Whitman is not alone in nature, as Emerson is: he is on a ferry, in a crowded city, surrounded by people. It’s a far cry from Concord and the settings of Emerson’s work.  Also important is not just the fact that Whitman is writing surrounded by people, it’s the location of the Ferry. There are ferries up and down the New England coast, and we could see Emerson perhaps taking a solitary journey in the fog and writing about his reverence of it, but Whitman chose one of, if not the most crowded city at that time in existence to place his poem.

In Re-Scripting Walt Whitman: An Introduction to His Life and Work, we see the point made:

“Poets from his time to our own, in the United States

and around the world, have talked back to Whitman,

carrying on the conversation that he initiated over

150 years ago–”

(1)

Poets have talked back to Whitman, but Whitman, in Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, is talking back to Emerson. He is taking what Emerson started—this reverence of nature—and is adding onto it, changing it, morphing it into an entirely different animal. We see this talking back in the way Whitman addresses nature:

Flood-Tide below me! I see you face to face!

Clouds of the west- sun there half and hour high-

I see you also face to face.”

(Lines 1-3)

Emerson “looks up” to nature, in reverence, but the reader always gets the sense that he is below, looking up at the canopy of trees, talking of their beauty, but never is on the same level as nature. The reader even gets a sense of this in Nature, when Emerson says:

Standing on the bare ground,–my head bathed by

the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space…

I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all…

The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and

accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintances…is then

a trifle and a disturbance.

(Paragraph 12)

This is how Emerson and Whitman differ: Emerson doesn’t want to be surrounded by people when he’s in nature; he’d find it a “disturbance.” Emerson considers nature to be a solitary, lonesome venture, and here we get the sense that his idea of nature is confined to the New England woods from the idea of the “bare ground” and “blithe air.” We also see him standing on the ground talking about space, above him; this shows also that the position that Emerson and Whitman take within nature is vastly different.

Whitman takes this idea and instead of being someone who just admires from a lower position, he is “face to face” with nature. Whitman is fully absorbed, a part of nature that is participatory rather than observatory.

However, Whitman is not just “talking back” to Emerson by taking Emerson’s views and changing them; he is also embracing them.  Whitman says:

“Others will watch the run of the flood-tide

…. Others will see the islands large and small;

Fifty years hence, others will see them as they cross,

the sun half an hour high,

A hundred years hence, or ever so many hundred years

hence, others will see them,

Will enjoy the sunset, the pouring-in of the flood-tide, the

falling-back to the sea of the ebb-tide.”

(Lines 24-33)

This then reminds us, and is a complement to Emerson’s Nature, where he says: “We are taught by great actions that the universe is the property of everyone in it” (Paragraph 29.) Whitman is pointing out how nature, and especially what he is personally seeing, will be seen in fifty, a hundred, or even hundreds of years past when he is seeing it.  He may not be there, but nature still will be, an ever-flowing, changing thing. “[They] Will enjoy the sunset,” Whitman says, just like he is. The nature that he is experiencing belongs not only to him, not only to Emerson, but to everyone who is a witness, and even those who aren’t.

This is an interesting point of view, on both Emerson and Whitman’s part. If everyone experiences the same universe, then even both Emerson and Whitman are sharing the same experiences, the same universe, the same nature, even though they look at it vastly differently.  The idea of this by the reader accomplishes both Whitman and Emerson’s aims, and that is a consideration of nature and the universe.

At the end of Ferry, Whitman starts to talk about eternity, and I can’t help but to think back to the idea of Nature, with Emerson. Nature is an eternal idea, and both Whitman and Emerson speak about Nature in this way. Whitman says that “fifty” or “a hundred years hence” people will still be enjoying the same things that he is, which connects not only The first thing I notice while reading Crossing Brooklin Ferry was the connection between Whitman and Nature. Whitman directly addresses Nature in the first lines when saying “I see you face to face.” This instantly reminds me of Emerson, and how in his work he strived for a direct connection with nature. Whitman is looking face to face with nature while on a vehicle that only works, and is designed for, nature.

At the end of Ferry, Whitman starts to talk about eternity, and I can’t help but to think back to the idea of Nature, with Emerson. Nature is an eternal idea, and both Whitman and Emerson speak about Nature in this way. Whitman says that “fifty” or “a hundred years hence” people will still be enjoying the same things that he is, which connects not only into this idea of being eternal but being face-to-face with nature.

Even with all of the above factors, I had still never read Emerson. I must say, I’m sorry I didn’t read him sooner, but glad I read him now. There’s something in his writing that speaks to me, to the adventurious spirit that is never quite satisfied with the “norm”. I grew up, for the most part, going to alternative schools that specialized in the arts, that looking back taught with Emersonian ideals–yet, never was taught Emerson.

Reading Emerson has been a pleasant and enlightling expierence, and much different from what I thought it would be. I enjoyed my time immersed in Emerson, and don’t have any plans to stop thinking in that Emersonian way. I will take away the idea of creative reading, not only in my scholarship and personal life, but in my life pursuing my chosen career of writing. I’ve learned from Emerson that while my work in technicality may belong to me, in the words of Nature, “We are taught by great actions that the Universe is the property of everyone in it.” There will be people who will read it creatively, and for that I will laud them. My scholarship, at my senior year of college and looking forward to furthering my academic career, has been changed, and I am okay with that. I will continue reading Emerson, and quoting him, and all the while remembering what he teaches.

To read Emerson is a personal revolution, as it requires a bit of juggling of ideas. How can one be an individual yet be constantly quoting other people, and how can one be a scholar and engage in “Creative reading” if every idea has been come to already? This is where the need for a “personal revolution” comes in. We typically think of a “revolution” as a large group of people, banning together to fight for a common interest. But a personal revolution is the same—just on a personal level.  Emerson wants the reader to have these conflicts, to recognize them, and to have to come to terms and figure them out themselves, whether that is through “creative reading” or being “self-reliant” on one’s intellect.

In Emerson’s essay “American Scholar,” Emerson says:  “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst.” (59) This is a strange and interesting way for him to start his argument against books. First, the obviously interesting thing is that Emerson, a scholar and writer, is campaigning against the books that one would think he would embrace. Emerson is quick to point out the lack of equality between the student and the so-called scholar:

“Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their

duty to accept the views, which Cicero, which Locke,

which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and

Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote

these books.”  (59)

The students who are reading these works aren’t seen on the same level as theirauthors. They are seen as people who need to learn and memorize these works—in the same vein as the phrase “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

However, these ideas are not doomed to be repeated; they are meant to be studied, to see their flaws, but to also see the potential that lives within them. The idea of “self-reliance” doesn’t just need to be one’s outer life—it can be the inner life as well. Each idea can be a germ of something that speaks to the individual, that causes the individual to look at their life or the world around them in a different way. Emerson, in his writing, encourages this by the contradictions that he makes within the scope of his essays (for example, “Self-Reliance” and “Quotation and Originality”.)

Emerson states in “Quotation And Originality” that “next to the originator of a good sentence is the first quoter of it” (325.)  Now, at first glance, this seems like Emerson is saying that one just needs to be able to recognize wisdom (or words) better than their own, and be the first to point it out. But this is not the case. One has to be a “Creative reader,” someone who can recognize these ideas, and even quote them and draw from them—but someone who does not blindly accept them. One can quote, but needs to be self-reliant in intellect enough that they do not quote blindly.

Going back to Emerson’s opinion in “American Scholar” that “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst,” (59), we can once again see the need for “creative reading,” and enlightened thinking. Books can be used as a weapon, and it is up to the “educated” scholar to recognize the difference. Those who follow books without thinking and meditating on the content prove that books can be dangerous tools.  Today we see this idea that Emerson was fearful of, the idea of plain mimicry in quotation. As Emerson says in “Quotation and Originality”:

In hours of high mental activity we sometimes do the book

too much honor, reading out of it better things than the author

wrote,—reading, as we say, between the lines” (327.)

One has to be careful to consider what one reads, rather than just mimicking it.  I myself have been witness and an unwilling part of the mimicry school of scholarly thought. My freshman year of college, I went to a small school in New Hampshire where they studied the classics—but, as I found out, only the classics.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with the classics. We read Livy and Cicero and Plotinus, studied ancient Rome, and wrote lots of papers. But our papers weren’t our own thoughts; we were simply restating what we were told. “Modern” writers didn’t figure into the equation; neither did our own thoughts. Every junior did a project where they picked a figure and memorized their work, whether it be Dunne, Keats, or Yeats. But it was mimicry. It was memorization. It was exactly what Emerson was warning against—the acceptance of the views of those who have come before us and put them on paper, but with no thought of one’s own. If Emerson were studied at my former school, it would be an irony.

As Whitman said, “the best part of Emersonianism, is that it breeds the giant that destroys itself.” To read Emerson properly, and to understand Emerson, is to understand that Emerson doesn’t want you to read an essay, take his thoughts, and walk away. Emerson wants the reader to have to do mental “gymnastics”, to have to read and re-read and ponder and consider. Emerson wants you to quote him—in an argument against him.

Emerson says in “Nature” that “We are taught by great actions that the  universe is the property of every individual in it.”. If the universe is the property of everyone, then everyone can be on an equal footing.  This also relates back to the idea of Quotation; if the universe is built this way, then quotation is a natural phenomenon.

At the end of Nature, we see Emerson address this idea of “revolution”:

Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you

conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that

will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution

in things will attend the influx of the spirit.

(55)

Emerson here is addressing how one can have a revolution personally- “conform your life to the pure idea in your mind,” he says. Once we get an idea that sparks us, that is that germ that inspires us, then we can use that to build our own personal revolution on.And it’s not just us; our world around us will change.

“….so shall the advancing spirit create its ornaments

along its path, and carry with it the beauty it visits, and

the song which enchants it; it shall draw beautiful faces,

warm hearts wise discourse, and heroic acts, around its

way, until evil is no more seen.”

(55)

A personal revolution isn’t just personal, Emerson points out. A personal revolution can change everything, just with that one step. And the more one reads Emerson, the more they can see this. Inherent in Emerson’s work is this idea of personal revolution, and he achieves this through bringing his readers into his thought process, and letting them think and decide for themselves. With this, the hope is to develop the reader into not only becoming a “creative reader” but to inspire them to a personal revolution of their own.

I found this essay to be a complete reversal of what I thought of Emerson. The essay Love was sweet and endearing, and at times, poignant. (Don’t get me wrong; I really like Emerson. But this was a side of him that I hadn’t seen before.)

The passage that showcased this was the passage about falling in love. Emerson describes it as a spark igniting in two hearts at the same time, and this I found beautiful. For all of the essays about being independent, “creative reading” and interpreting things your own way, he describes this act so simply–and so beautifully, with such a light touch.

Emerson and the scholar

In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s works, we see that a large focus of his is education and the education “system.” He makes many different arguments about it, but the most frequent and strongest argument that he makes is the argument against books.
In “American Scholar,” Emerson says:  “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst.” (59)
This is a strange and interesting way for him to start his argument against books. First, the obviously interesting thing is that Emerson, a scholar and writer, is campaigning against the books that one would think he would embrace.
Emerson is quick to point out the lack of equality between the student and the so-called scholar:

“Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their
duty to accept the views, which Cicero, which Locke,
which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and
Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote
these books.”  (59)

The students who are reading these works aren’t seen on the same level as theirauthors. They are seen as people who need to learn and memorize these works—in the same vein as the phrase “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” However, ideas are not doomed to be repeated; they are meant to be studied, to see their flaws, but to also see the potential that lives within then.

This idea of objective scholarship also connects to Emerson’s idea of “Creative Reading.” Emerson argues that just because these men were published doesn’t mean that their ideas should be revered as if they were without flaw. If the modern scholar reads creatively– to remember that these famous authors were once young like them, writing out their ideas for the world– then it is a kind of cooperative scholarship, creating generations of scholars who think for themselves.

Going back to Emerson’s opinion that “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst,” we can see the need for creative reading. Books can be used as a weapon, and it is up to the “educated” scholar to recognize the difference. Those who follow books without thinking and meditating on the content prove that books can be a dangerous tool. They can be the groundwork for civil war, strife, angry upheavals, and revolutions. Books, however, as their best, can be “well used;” they can provide enlightenment and be the groundwork for fantastic ideas.  This idea of creative reading, however, is not encouraged, even in modern society. Schooling relies on the learning and regurgitating of ideas; this is where tests come in. I myself have been witness and an unwilling part of the mimicry school of scholarly thought. My freshman year of college, I went to a small school in New Hampshire where they studied the classics—but, as I found out, only the classics.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with the classics. We read Livy and Cicero and Plotinus, studied ancient Rome, and wrote lots of papers. But our papers weren’t our own thoughts; we were simply restating what we were told. “Modern” writers didn’t figure into the equation; neither did our own thoughts. Every junior did a project where they picked a figure and memorized their work, whether it be Dunne, Keats, or Yeats. But it was mimicry. It was memorization. It was exactly what Emerson was warning against—the acceptance of the views of those who have come before us and put them on paper, but with no thought of one’s own. As Whitman said, “the best part of Emersonianism, is that it breeds the giant that destroys itself.” If Emerson were studied at my former school, it would be an irony.

Emerson is campaigning against books while his works will later be published, being used in schools and scholarly realms.  But one cannot read or study Emerson (effectively, that is) without realizing this seeming irony, and without taking his ideas to heart.  To read Emerson is a personal revolution. Emerson says in “Nature” that “We are taught by great actions that the universe is the property of every individual in it.” This can directly relate to his argumentagainst books. If the universe is the property of everyone, then everyone can be on an equal footing. Being reminded that the “greats” were “only young men in libraries, when they wrote those books,” it reminds us that anyone can write a book.  It is not just about being the person to commit your ideas to paper that makes you more or less a part of the universe, or a scholar.

Those who take action show that the universe belongs to all—the strong, the meek, the scholar, the layperson.  Anyone can be a scholar. You don’t need to be “formally” educated, as the universe, as well as everything in it, belongs to everyone. Emerson’s argument for “creative reading” reminds us that these works are not unmovable, unchangeable relics of the past to be revered. They are living, breathing ideas that get passed from generation to generation, from person to person. To be a creative reader is to apply these ideas to your own and from there, create the groundwork to build upon each idea. A constant questioning about these ideas is required for the Emersonian scholar. A true scholar reads and studies, but thinks on their own while doing so.

I have grown up reading book after book, being a veracious reader as a child, a trait that has followed me into young adulthood.  A thought that is a very popular one in English classes is that we can, without a doubt, know what the author meant, what they were “going for” in their writing, what they were hiding in between the lines. When asked “how” or “why?” that is a stranger thought than presuming that we can know what someone who lived a hundred- or a thousand- years ago was intending us to think with their writing.

In this way, I have found that “creative reading” is typically discouraged, mostly (and especially) for the classics, which have hundreds of years of criticism and thought behind them. In this way, it doesn’t matter that these authors were once “young men in libraries, when they wrote these books.” Because time has elapsed, they are now the sources that we must go to while we are reading in the library. If we stumble on inspiration from them, that’s great—now we can use that information and enthusiasm to write our term paper, to pay more attention in class.  “Creative” is a term to be used on other projects, not these academic endeavors.

There’s a popular line of thought that creativity is left to the arts, and the arts  only. “No one wants a creative accountant,” someone once said. But using that as an example and a starting point, no one wants a creative statistician.  Or a creative biologist.  Emerson is fighting against that way of thinking— yes, no one may want an accountant that is “creative” as to where they put the money you invest, but one who can think and read for themselves is one who you know is well-learned.

A passage that really stood out for me was Emerson’s passage on books. It was the first line of this passage that caught my attention: “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst.”

This line sums up a lot of the thoughts and ideas in American Scholar. Emerson is critiquing the education system, and the use and reverence of books within it. He goes on to ask the crucial question: “What is the right use?”

This is a question that at first glance seems like it is an easy answer. Of course, books should be “well-used”, for learning and advancement of good. But Emerson challenges that view by making us think of what is good? Is reading a book just to absorb knowledge and with no questioning of the ideas posed by that book using them well? Or is being a “creative reader,” as Emerson describes it, the best use of the book itself? Emerson tells us that books are “nothing but to inspire,” and this seems like the best use for them.
Emerson wants the student, the scholar, to read books, and to get inspired by them, rather than just absorb the knowledge from them at face value. He states earlier on:

“Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views, which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have give, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote these books.”

Emerson wants to warn against learning the lessons of the past without dwelling in the present. It is not enough for a scholar to read and absorb the books how they are written. The scholar should use them for ideas, a point to start their own thinking and journey from. He reminds that the authors themselves “were only young men in libraries, when they wrote these books.”
Just because someone has written down their ideas, committed them to paper, and has been published doesn’t mean that their ideas are the end all and be all. The axiom “Don’t believe what you read” could apply here; what Emerson is telling us is to question what we read. It isn’t that we can’t believe it, but it’s more that we should consider it and be free to elaborate on the ideas there rather than accept them at face value.