A child said, What is the Grass?

The poem ‘A child said what is the grass?’ was written by Walt Whitman, one of the pioneers of modern American literature. In it, he attempts to respond to a child’s innocent question of what the grass is.  If you haven’t read the poem yet, check it out here:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-child-said-what-is-the-grass/

Okay, let’s start.

Before I delve into a full-fledged analysis of the poem, I would like to point out a couple of key points about this poem. If a child were to come and ask you what the grass is, what would you say? You’d probably tell him it’s a plant, that it naturally grows, or, if you’re exceptionally lazy, might tell him ‘it’s complicated’. But look at what Whitman does; he sets aside what he thinks he knows and digs deeper and deeper in an attempt to come to the root of the answer. In a manner akin to how children persistently ask question after question, Whitman questions his stance again and again throughout the poem until he finally reaches a desirable answer. By doing so, he attempts to answer the child’s question by thinking like a child.

Another interesting point worth mentioning is how the poem follows no clear-cut rhythmic scheme. Rather, it stumbles forward in a non-linear and haphazard way. It almost seems to follow the poet’s stream of consciousness.  All the answers and subsequent questions in his mind are laid out before us on the paper. By this approach, the poet takes us along with him on his journey for an answer.

The theme of death dominates the piece. This is unsurprising as Whitman was a war nurse in the civil war and had seen much suffering and brutality. Through the course of this poem he seeks to philosophically ascertain that life is no different from death.

Now; let’s begin with the poem.

Upon being asked what the grass is by the child, the speaker muses that it’s impossible for him to answer as he doesn’t know what the grass is any more than the child does. He begins to examine the possibilities of what exactly the grass could be. Mind you, it is important at this point of time to note that many of the lines or stanzas in the poem begin with the phrases ‘I guess’, ‘Or’, etc. By using such phrases his uncertainty and subsequent humility is brought to the forefront. This can be linked back to the aforementioned concept of attempting to analyse this problem from a child’s point of view.

I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven.

Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropped,
Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see and remark, and say Whose?

Or I guess the grass is itself a child. . . .the produced babe of the vegetation.

                He examines different possibilities; the first of which is particularly profound as it links to the themes that will emerge later on in the poem. The word disposition is used to refer to one’s attitude, beliefs, or feelings on an issue. Thus, by calling the grass the flag of his disposition, he is quite literally saying that the grass perfectly represents his thoughts on life and death ( his belief that  life is one continuous ciricle; death does not conquer, it just feeds the circle of life ).

The reference to grass being the handkerchief of the Lord appears to be used for its imagery. Take a handkerchief and drop it on a table tennis ball; it’ll cover the ball completely, adhering to its shape. Similarly, grass covers the earth like a blanket, like a divine handkerchief dropped.

The poet now attempts to think of the grass as a product of the vegetation, the result of seeds, fertile soil and favourable weather.

What is important about all of these is not so much the significance each one holds, but the manner in which they have been displayed. It seems as if each of these are points in Whitman’s mind and as he philosophizes on, he is attempting to connect the dots and gain a better view of the overall picture.

The following stanza is particularly important:

Or I guess it is a uniform hieroglyphic,
And it means, Sprouting alike in broad zones and narrow
zones,
Growing among black folks as among white,
Kanuck, Tuckahoe, Congressman, Cuff, I give them the 
same, I receive them the same.

                In this section, Whitman begins to ponder on the indiscriminatory nature of the grass. The usage of the word hieroglyphic is somewhat deep as a hieroglyphic is a word written as a drawing. Information encoded in visual imagery. By referring to the grass as a hieroglyphic, Whitman hints that the grass is not merely there for aesthetic beauty, but that it contains some piece of vital information that we must seek out.

                The grass grows everywhere. Broad zones, narrow zones. Near black people, near white people. The grass doesn’t care. In the last line, the subject suddenly changes from the grass to the poet ( I give them the same, I receive them the same). By doing this the poet is attempting to tell us that we should be more like the grass. Also, in case you were wondering, a Kanuck is an offensive term for a Canadian, a Tuckahoe for a Native American, a Congressman for the rich white majority, and Cuff for the enslaved black. These were vital notions for Whitman, who had lived through the Civil War, and seen so much violence, death and suffering over the question of slavery.

                The fact that the grass grows everywhere, and doesn’t care about our differences, makes our prejudices seem shallow, foolish and petty. Whitman embraces this and incorporates himself into the stream of thought to show his support ( the usage of I).

//Please ignore the colours, theres no significance, I just don't know how to blog

And now it seems to me the beautiful uncut hair of graves.

Tenderly will I use you curling grass,
It may be you transpire from the breasts of young men,
It may be if I had known them I would have loved them,
It may be you are from old people, or from offspring taken
Soon out of their mothers' laps,
And here you are the mothers' laps.

The contrast evoked between ‘beautiful uncut hair’ and ‘graves’ instantly catches the reader’s attention. The sheer polarity, that tug, induced by having beautiful uncut hair and graves so close together in the sentence evokes a sense of energy. The imagery evoked is that of the earth slowly growing hair (untrimmed grass) from the bodies buried within it (graves). This link exists because, like hair, grass grows from roots. Hair can still grow on a human head after he or she dies, so the mentioning of hair goes back to the theme of life sprouting from death. 

Throughout the rest of the above stanza, Whitman continues to build on the idea of grass/death being an equalizer of sorts. Everyone is equal in death. The grass will grow form them nevertheless, regardless of who they were when they were alive. The final line twists the concepts of life and death in a macabre fashion by speaking on the death of a child. The children who have passed have been “adopted” by Mother Nature. The ground holds them like a mother would.

This grass is very dark to be from the white heads of old Mothers,
Darker than the colourless beards of old men,
Dark to come from under the faint red roofs of mouths.

O I perceive after all so many uttering tongues,
And I perceive they do not come from the roofs of mouths
For nothing.

I wish I could translate the hints about the dead young men
And women,
And the hints about old men and mothers, and the offspring
Taken soon out of their laps.

The first stanza implies that the grass is pulling its colour from the bodies beneath it. The dark green grass contrasts greatly with the pale white hair on dead elderly people.

The usage of the word ‘tongues’ can be read as talking about the language of the grass. ‘Tongues’, in a biblical context, is a language that the angels of heaven speak and that no mortal can understand. Thus by saying that ‘they do not come from the roofs of mouths for nothing’, implies that the grass means something, and is not merely there. This links back and emphasizes the point made earlier by referring to the grass as a ‘hieroglyphic’. In short, Whitman is saying that the grass has a meaning, that it has a deep philosophical secret it is attempting to diverge to us.

The sage of ‘I wish’ in the third stanza, implies that he is unable to translate the hints. He wishes he could explain and justify the tragic deaths of people taken long before their time; but he cannot. The fact that death is inevitable and a requiem for life to continue conflicts with the undeniable tragedy of a premature death. The poet deeply wishes that he could explain or philosophize on this front but is unable to do so.

What do you think has become of the young and old men?
And what do you think has become of the women and Children?

The poet now asks another question, delving deeper and deeper in his search for the answer.  He ponders on the fate of those who have died and who now lie buried under the earth. Off this question, Whitman leaps into the enlightening conclusion of the poem.

They are alive and well somewhere,
The smallest sprout shows there is really no death,
And if ever there was it led forward life, and does not wait at
The end to arrest it,
And ceas'd the moment life appear'd.

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

This paragraph is not only Whitman’s answer as to where the dead have gone, but is also his answer to the child’s question. The fact that the dead are alive and well somewhere is odd to say the least, but as we read on we see how the poet has effectively bypassed our traditional views of life and death (life is the beginning, death is the end) and provided us with a much grander scheme of things. The death of a person allows for life, in some form or another, be it the life of the sprouts or the life of creatures. Life begets life. 

In the last 3 lines of the second last stanza, the poet implies that death is not to be mourned as life is nothing but a by-product of death. We are alive and life exists around us because of the death that preceded us. Through this stanza, Whitman paints a verbal picture of our world and its fascinating equilibrium; though constantly changing, everything obeys the law of conservation of energy, even life.

Finally, the image of an expanding circle is evoked to visualize the recycling of life energy. We don’t really die when our hearts stop beating as we are fed back to the earth that birthed us. The life cycle keeps on going and going and going and both the living and the dead are a part of that cycle, interacting freely with each other. By removing our fear of death and our desire to keep it at bay, Whitman, looking at the problem from the perspective of a child, has taken us with him on an amazing journey, at the end of which we’ve seen life and death for the inseparable friends they really are.

So, what is the grass?

          The grass is both life and death. It lives, but it lives because of death. The grass is the embodiment of the paradox that is existence.

The Snake / A Narrow Fellow in the Grass

The Snake is a poem written by Emily Dickinson in the 19^th century. In it, the poet describes what begins as encountering a snake in a field. I will be analysing this poem line by line so get ready :

A narrow Fellow in the Grass
Occasionally rides –

                By reading the above two lines, it is relatively easy to tell that the ‘Fellow’ being described is a snake in the grass. So why didn’t the poet just come out directly and tell us ? By not specifying the creature and by using words normally associated with humans (ie: Fellow, rides) the poet aptly personifies the snake.

You may have met him? Did you not
His notice instant is –

                Now look closely at the last line of the above stanza. This jumbled up manner of speaking may not be present merely for the heck of it. The twisted statement results in a vagueness in its meaning – is instant being used to describe us noticing the snake or the snake noticing us. Both are frightened in that one terrifying moment when they come face to face.

This twisted device links to the personification employed in the above two lines; it helps us think of the snake as being on our level.

The Grass divides as with a Comb -
A spotted Shaft is seen,

                The poet now returns to describing the sight of a snake slithering away in the grass. A simile comparing the parting of the grass in the snake’s wake to the way a comb parts hair is employed.  The usage of the passive voice tense in the second of the above lines ( ie: “is seen”, not I saw or he saw) appears to be used in order to make the experience being recounted more relatable and immersive to the readers.

And then it closes at your Feet
And opens further on –

                The grass closes in wake of the snake and a division of grass is seen further on as the snake slithers away from you. The snake is leaving. So who was more afraid? The snake or you?

The sudden switch in the object’s tense should be noted.  The snake closes at your feet. You are involved in the poem, caught deeper in its splendour. This is the poem pulling the reader in.

He likes a Boggy Acre -
A Floor to cool for Corn –

But when a child and Barefoot
I more than once at morn,

The first two lines in this segment don’t contain much relevance apart from the usage of the humanized pronoun ‘He’ to describe the snake; this is possible further personification.

The next two lines in the segment begin in an obviously nostalgic manner. It becomes apparent that these lines are the introduction to a moment in the narrator’s childhood.

Have passed I thought a Whip-Lash
Unbraiding in the Sun

On a surface level, the poet, whilst barefoot in a field thought she saw a whip (or a lash), that had been left in the sun so long ago it had begun to fall apart and unbraid.

These two lines are particularly poignant as the poet has employed some stunning wordplay and imagery. The ‘-‘ separating the whip-lash shows that it is not a whiplash(the motion of a whip) but is something of a whip and a lash. For those of you who don’t know, a whip or a lash was a long thin leather strip which, laying in a field would indeed look like a snake. The  whip-lash is used to describe the appearance of the snake. The whiplash that comes to mind however as one lightly reads the line, refers to the startled and sudden jumping back of a frightened snake.

The verb unbraiding has been brilliantly used to evoke vivid realistic imagery of the braid-like patterns on the snake skin. The present continuous tense in which the verb is used adds a sense of motion to the events, as if the snakes body itself is churning and contorting around itself.

When stooping to secure it
It wrinkled And was gone –

                The poet reaches down to pick up the whip when all of a sudden it disappears. It is at this point that we realize that, although we thought the poet was talking about a snake, she was genuinely talking about a whip. The fact that we assume that it was a snake goes to show the extent of the vividness of the imagery evoked.

Several of Nature’s People
I know and they know me

I feel for them a transport
Of Cordiality

                This paragraph is where things get a little complicated. The usage of the term Nature’s People can be interpreted to be talking about other creatures of nature such as insects, birds, etc. The fact that the poet makes a conscious effort to emphasize that they know her, shows that the nature of the bond between the narrator and nature is a two-way-street. The last two lines essentially display a feeling of gratitude at having the honour of ‘hosting’ nature. The author’s basically appreciating nature in this stanza.

But never met this fellow,

Attended or alone,

Without a tighter breathing,

And zero at the bone.

The fear that is evoked in the poet by the snake is aptly shown in this stanza by the usage of the phrase ‘tighter breathing’. The imagery is once more aptly shown here through the shortness of breath being described as tighter breathing. 

So what does the poem mean? What is it talking about? Well, like all art, there’s no right or wrong interpretation to the poem. Any interpretation is a good one. But seeing as how you are most likely reading this because you have your English exam on Monday, I’ll try to sum up the predominant schools of interpretation that exist with respect to the poem.

1)      The poem is actually about a snake and other animals. The poet speaks on the fear evoked in her by the terrifying sight of the snake. However, she is quick to juxtaposition this with the love and affection (cordiality) that she feels for other animals. By generating this contrast she induces the thought in the reader’s mind; why are we so afraid of the snake? Isn’t the snake just as afraid as us?

2)      The poem hints at the author’s distrust of people. In this context, which is a widely accepted take on the poem, the phrase Nature’s people, refers to the poet’s fellow human beings. She says that she feels glad to know them and happy to have them around. However, she knows the capability for deception, cunning and evil that all of us innately possess. Thus, she is curious as to why she is at ease with such deceptive and possibly evil creatures but frightened by something as innocent as a snake.

3)      The poem’s conclusion hints at sexual undertones. A large number of people, particularly expert critics of American Literature seem to believe that the snake in the poem is used as a ornately wrought metaphor for a dick. The phallus shape of the snake, coupled with the usage of words like whip and lash to describe it adds to this argument. In this context, the ‘tighter breathing’ referenced in the final stanza could be speaking of the skipped heartbeat we experience when we see a really hot chick or dude. The shortness of breath and the tighter breathing are positive in this scenario. Finally, the zero at the bone can be seen as symbolic of sexual intercourse, significantly the act of penetration.

      Personally, I feel that this is one of the least accurate interpretations of the poem. By likening the snake to a dick we force the poem into a very small, limited, and perverse scope. The other two interpretations are accurate and well established, but I felt I should mention this one as there appear to be a great deal of people who feel that this is a valid way of looking at the poem.

So, that’s it.

Good luck.

----  ----

______