Howl: Why?
by Nicholas Wilcox
In the December 1989 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, an interview titled “The Puritan and the Profligate” was published. John Lofton, the conservative “Puritan,” opens by asking Allen Ginsberg, the “profligate,” whether or not the opening line of Ginsberg’s “Howl”, in which he sees “the best young minds of [his] generation destroyed by madness,” (1) applies to himself as well. Ginsberg replies by clarifying the context of the quote, also correcting that he only wrote “the best minds.” The two go back and forth for a bit and end the interview with a short discussion of poet Walt Whitman, an influence of Ginsberg’s, and the line in an unnamed poem of Whitman’s that reads:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) (Whitman, 51, 6-8)
This line, which Lofton claims is gibberish, Ginsberg explains to be akin to the concept of negative capability, a phrase thought to have been first introduced by poet John Keats which, as explained by Ginsberg, is the “ability to contain opposite ideas in the mind without reaching out after fact and reason.” Ginsberg also remarks at the closing of the interview that “[t]he larger mind observes the contradiction, and contains [it].”
Though not stated in the interview, Ginsberg does employ the concept of negative capability as a literary device in “Howl”, or rather, he does so in conjunction with another poem titled “Footnote to Howl”, which although technically a separate poem, functions exactly as its name suggests. In the “Footnote,” Ginsberg takes the opportunity to commemorate or celebrate all things around him as “holy.” And one of the most peculiar of these lines is the one that claims “holy the Angel in Moloch” (12) This description of Moloch, in its paradoxical relationship with the description and tone of Moloch in Part II of “Howl”, is justifiably comparable to the celebration and acceptance of conflicting thoughts as stated by negative capability. And, in the context of the contrast of Moloch’s holiness, this negative capability used by Ginsberg conveys the idea that the conflict and ambiguity, between man and Moloch and the holiness in each are what are being celebrated.
As Ginsberg states in the aforementioned interview, the “best minds…destroyed by madness” in Part I of “Howl” refer both to those who made it “in a basically aggressive, warlike society,” as well as the ones who “couldn’t make it.” “Howl” may strongly disapprove of the society America was trending towards (and may be today), but it is important to remember that Ginsberg has explicitly said even those who are at the top of such a society are also victims. The antagonist, as well as the culprit of the atrocities of Part I, is depicted in Part II as the character Moloch. Moloch is illustrated as the idol of the epitome of industrialized society, being first introduced as the “sphinx of cement and aluminum” (79) and later described as one “whose mind is pure machinery,” “whose blood is running money,” (83) and “whose soul is electricity and banks.” However, Ginsberg makes an incredible statement in the second half of Part II in the line, “Moloch whose name is the Mind” (85) and the poetry that immediately follows, in which Ginsberg recognizes the Moloch within him. Here, Ginsberg reveals that the same destructive force that drives our nation to madness is in himself and, as an implication, also in everyone, more or less. Moloch is no longer simply an idol, but also a poison that is a part of the human nature.
Moloch, in this way that Ginsberg has clarified, is similar to the Christian doctrine of the deadly sin of greed. Moloch, in the same way as greed, is a force manifested by the actions inspired by that force, but truly exists both outside of man, as an essence, and inside, as some corruption. Thomas Aquinas said that greed takes place when “man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.” To correlate, the result of Moloch’s corruption of the people is depicted at the ending of Part II of “Howl.” Ginsberg illustrates the population “[breaking] their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven,” which, “Howl” itself tells us, “exists and is everywhere about us,” (89) while simultaneously throwing away what could be equated to Aquinas’ ‘eternal things,’ “miracles, adorations, breakthroughs,” (90-92) etc., down the “American River.” While there is little evidence to believe the Moloch is then the “temporal” thing, as “Howl” seems to treat all its subjects with equal temporal value, the comparison stands that the general populace places Moloch over other things. It is also explicitly stated that this choice is representative of the madness caused by Moloch and is thus a regrettable choice from “Howl’s” perspective.
The negative capability concerning Moloch as a character and essence is revealed to the reader in the “Footnote to Howl”, at the line “holy the Angel in Moloch.” This line is indisputably a positive description of Moloch as an entity, not necessarily implying that Moloch is in whole or in part a morally good thing, but rather that Moloch is holy in the sense that Moloch is sacred, in the sense that Moloch is something that should or is supposed to exist. At the very least, Moloch is holy in exactly the same regards that everything else mentioned in the “Footnote” is holy, including Ginsberg himself. Ginsberg, with this line, adds a game-changing context to the true nature of Moloch. Rather than a malignant corruption or madness to the psyche of man, Moloch is now a yin to a complex and ambiguous yin-yang (as Ginsberg never implies a yang other than the mention of the yin). This newly established sanctity of the madness of Moloch adds a similar holiness to all the implications and effects of Moloch on the society so woefully described in “Howl”. In fact, even before claiming Moloch holy, “Footnote to Howl” reads “Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements!” (9) And even before that, there is a resounding, “Everything is holy.” (3) The contradiction that plagues the mind after exposure to such a concept is a question of how something so decidedly detrimental and chaotic such as Moloch can also be something so decidedly holy, or even necessary to some greater order. That is the negative capability of Moloch that is being celebrated for its holiness.
Consequently, the struggle Ginsberg has with the Moloch that is inside him is also holy and important and is to be celebrated in the same manner. However, Ginsberg does not need to celebrate his conflict in some conscious masochistic sacrifice. He can instead simply give it meaning by choosing to hate it, or at least by addressing it in such a way as Part II. In this way, Ginsberg acknowledges himself in a much larger system that has an important, established intention for Moloch regardless of Ginsberg’s wishes. Here, he draws on an idea similar to the notion of “beauty in the eye of the beholder” in order to deconstruct it in a way that instead says, ‘Our perception of holiness is an inaccurate description of true holiness, something we as limited humanity can never truly know or emulate.’ What Ginsberg does is implement the unknown essence of true holiness as a descriptor for a character to illustrate a similar impossibility to truly know that character’s holiness. We can never know actual pain, but there is some order to the way we react to it, however ignorant.
In the interview with Lofton, Ginsberg had to justify and explain a few of his liberal definitions and themes of insanity, as Lofton was applying only certain interpretations of the concept, and, in Ginsberg’s implication, “be[ing] a prig” by not admitting the offense. Ginsberg is not upset that his works are interpreted with some presuppositions, but rather that the people that do fail to understand that they are employing those presuppositions. A similar structure is seen in “Howl” with the experience and true essence of pain: People are supposed to react negatively to pain even though the reasons for their reactions disagree with the other widely accepted notion that it is the natural order for them to feel so. The negative capability is that natural reaction disagrees and often affects the logic we believe we should apply instead. We are supposed to ‘howl’ because that is what we do.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) (Whitman, 51, 6-8)
This line, which Lofton claims is gibberish, Ginsberg explains to be akin to the concept of negative capability, a phrase thought to have been first introduced by poet John Keats which, as explained by Ginsberg, is the “ability to contain opposite ideas in the mind without reaching out after fact and reason.” Ginsberg also remarks at the closing of the interview that “[t]he larger mind observes the contradiction, and contains [it].”
Though not stated in the interview, Ginsberg does employ the concept of negative capability as a literary device in “Howl”, or rather, he does so in conjunction with another poem titled “Footnote to Howl”, which although technically a separate poem, functions exactly as its name suggests. In the “Footnote,” Ginsberg takes the opportunity to commemorate or celebrate all things around him as “holy.” And one of the most peculiar of these lines is the one that claims “holy the Angel in Moloch” (12) This description of Moloch, in its paradoxical relationship with the description and tone of Moloch in Part II of “Howl”, is justifiably comparable to the celebration and acceptance of conflicting thoughts as stated by negative capability. And, in the context of the contrast of Moloch’s holiness, this negative capability used by Ginsberg conveys the idea that the conflict and ambiguity, between man and Moloch and the holiness in each are what are being celebrated.
As Ginsberg states in the aforementioned interview, the “best minds…destroyed by madness” in Part I of “Howl” refer both to those who made it “in a basically aggressive, warlike society,” as well as the ones who “couldn’t make it.” “Howl” may strongly disapprove of the society America was trending towards (and may be today), but it is important to remember that Ginsberg has explicitly said even those who are at the top of such a society are also victims. The antagonist, as well as the culprit of the atrocities of Part I, is depicted in Part II as the character Moloch. Moloch is illustrated as the idol of the epitome of industrialized society, being first introduced as the “sphinx of cement and aluminum” (79) and later described as one “whose mind is pure machinery,” “whose blood is running money,” (83) and “whose soul is electricity and banks.” However, Ginsberg makes an incredible statement in the second half of Part II in the line, “Moloch whose name is the Mind” (85) and the poetry that immediately follows, in which Ginsberg recognizes the Moloch within him. Here, Ginsberg reveals that the same destructive force that drives our nation to madness is in himself and, as an implication, also in everyone, more or less. Moloch is no longer simply an idol, but also a poison that is a part of the human nature.
Moloch, in this way that Ginsberg has clarified, is similar to the Christian doctrine of the deadly sin of greed. Moloch, in the same way as greed, is a force manifested by the actions inspired by that force, but truly exists both outside of man, as an essence, and inside, as some corruption. Thomas Aquinas said that greed takes place when “man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.” To correlate, the result of Moloch’s corruption of the people is depicted at the ending of Part II of “Howl.” Ginsberg illustrates the population “[breaking] their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven,” which, “Howl” itself tells us, “exists and is everywhere about us,” (89) while simultaneously throwing away what could be equated to Aquinas’ ‘eternal things,’ “miracles, adorations, breakthroughs,” (90-92) etc., down the “American River.” While there is little evidence to believe the Moloch is then the “temporal” thing, as “Howl” seems to treat all its subjects with equal temporal value, the comparison stands that the general populace places Moloch over other things. It is also explicitly stated that this choice is representative of the madness caused by Moloch and is thus a regrettable choice from “Howl’s” perspective.
The negative capability concerning Moloch as a character and essence is revealed to the reader in the “Footnote to Howl”, at the line “holy the Angel in Moloch.” This line is indisputably a positive description of Moloch as an entity, not necessarily implying that Moloch is in whole or in part a morally good thing, but rather that Moloch is holy in the sense that Moloch is sacred, in the sense that Moloch is something that should or is supposed to exist. At the very least, Moloch is holy in exactly the same regards that everything else mentioned in the “Footnote” is holy, including Ginsberg himself. Ginsberg, with this line, adds a game-changing context to the true nature of Moloch. Rather than a malignant corruption or madness to the psyche of man, Moloch is now a yin to a complex and ambiguous yin-yang (as Ginsberg never implies a yang other than the mention of the yin). This newly established sanctity of the madness of Moloch adds a similar holiness to all the implications and effects of Moloch on the society so woefully described in “Howl”. In fact, even before claiming Moloch holy, “Footnote to Howl” reads “Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements!” (9) And even before that, there is a resounding, “Everything is holy.” (3) The contradiction that plagues the mind after exposure to such a concept is a question of how something so decidedly detrimental and chaotic such as Moloch can also be something so decidedly holy, or even necessary to some greater order. That is the negative capability of Moloch that is being celebrated for its holiness.
Consequently, the struggle Ginsberg has with the Moloch that is inside him is also holy and important and is to be celebrated in the same manner. However, Ginsberg does not need to celebrate his conflict in some conscious masochistic sacrifice. He can instead simply give it meaning by choosing to hate it, or at least by addressing it in such a way as Part II. In this way, Ginsberg acknowledges himself in a much larger system that has an important, established intention for Moloch regardless of Ginsberg’s wishes. Here, he draws on an idea similar to the notion of “beauty in the eye of the beholder” in order to deconstruct it in a way that instead says, ‘Our perception of holiness is an inaccurate description of true holiness, something we as limited humanity can never truly know or emulate.’ What Ginsberg does is implement the unknown essence of true holiness as a descriptor for a character to illustrate a similar impossibility to truly know that character’s holiness. We can never know actual pain, but there is some order to the way we react to it, however ignorant.
In the interview with Lofton, Ginsberg had to justify and explain a few of his liberal definitions and themes of insanity, as Lofton was applying only certain interpretations of the concept, and, in Ginsberg’s implication, “be[ing] a prig” by not admitting the offense. Ginsberg is not upset that his works are interpreted with some presuppositions, but rather that the people that do fail to understand that they are employing those presuppositions. A similar structure is seen in “Howl” with the experience and true essence of pain: People are supposed to react negatively to pain even though the reasons for their reactions disagree with the other widely accepted notion that it is the natural order for them to feel so. The negative capability is that natural reaction disagrees and often affects the logic we believe we should apply instead. We are supposed to ‘howl’ because that is what we do.
Works Cited
Ginsberg, Allen. "Footnote to Howl by Allen Ginsberg : The Poetry Foundation." Poetry Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/ 240700>.
Ginsberg, Allen. "Howl by Allen Ginsberg : The Poetry Foundation." Poetry Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/179381>. Ginsberg, Allen. "The Puritan and the Profligate." Interview by John Lofton. Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture Dec. 1989: n. pag. Print. "Song of Myself." Walt Whitman:. Ed. Timothy Bovee. The DayPoems Poetry Collection, n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.daypoems.net/plainpoems/1900.html>. |