The trial
of Howl was to determine if the contents of the book were to be
considered obscene or not with the main focus of the trial seemed to be most
directed at the title poem Howl. In the trial the prosecution largest
argument against Howl was it use of coarse language, and trying to prove that
the poem and book had no literary merit. The defense argued that the work has
to be considered as a whole and that the whole contents of the book needs to be
considered as a whole work of literary art and that the singling out of single
words or passages meant taking portions out of context making portions of the
book to be considered obscene. Of the transcripts we read there we witnesses who
were in favor of the book and supported it as a literary work, and those who
did not support it as a literary work. One point that continually came up was
what is the measure of a great literary work of art and the most common was how
well a work of literature would relevant and be referenced in a historical
context. This measure was difficult at the time to measure against Howl
because it was a new book at the time, and it could be argued that without the
trial bringing the poem to public attention the book and the poem itself may
have been just an interesting footnote of modern poetry.
What I
found most interesting in the trial transcripts was testimony of David Kirk. He
did not view Howl in an unfavorable light and saw no merit in the poem
based on its form. He cited that its form used by Ginsburg was a form borrowed
from Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Kirk was equating literary merit of a
work of literature by originality, however, this method for measuring the merit
of literature is not a valid form of measure because it could easily be said
that all authors barrow or pull inspiration from other literary works. This was
easily pointed out in the closing arguments by comparing Shakespeare's The
Merchant of Venice to Christopher’s Marlowe’s Drama Jew of Malta, (page
193).
Do you think that we would be discussing Howl
today had it not been for this trial? Explain why or why not.
What do you think was the strongest argument
made by the prosecution against Howl, and explain why they were
unsuccessful in winning a guilty verdict with that argument?
If you had been the prosecution and putting Howl, on trial for obscenity would you have used another argument against this poem that the prosecution failed to notice that would have helped bolster its case against the book?
Perhaps this trial did boost Howl's "fame" in the literary world; however, I believe that there is a strong reason that people would still discuss its contents. For one, it is still highly controversial, and that in itself can lead to conflicts and heated (although rather interesting) debates. Several books have been banned due people deeming them unfit for the public, and Howl, the poem, is no different in that regard.
ReplyDeleteIt is compelling, raw, and highly unusual for a work of its time period. There is no doubt in my mind that it would still be a subject of conversation.
I think that the strongest argument was the general consensus from the witnesses, March Schroer, Luther Nicholas etc, that the "vulgar" language in Howl was validated in that it established the culture that Ginsberg came from. This slang and harsh language was meant to be an expression of his extreme distress in the face of an oppressive society. The "four letter word" as Mr. McIntosh describes it, is the most blunt and forceful that Ginsberg can get, and therefore has merit in the overall theme of the poem. As Luther Nicholas states: "Mr. Ginsberg is trying to say as powerfully as he can or trying to express as powerfully as he can his indignation at certain things he sees taking place in the world today...He doesn't want to temper it by saying it any less softly."(Howl on Trail 153)
ReplyDeleteBy the fact that the poem got any attention at all is a testiment to its relevance. I dont think there would be any concern for this poem if not for the trial. That beig said i dont think that it would slip thru the cracks so easy. Interactions with one another is so rare and Important that just because we sacrifice one interaction doesn't mean we wouldn't get one in the near future. Just with different results . A sorta butterfly effect
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kai, i think the trial itself isn't what makes it still a subject of debate on obscenity but the content of the book itself. Even without the trial it most likely still would have been discussed throughout the years up until the present on it's contents.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the trial itself did push it further into the spotlight, much like what the publisher discussed when on trial, but I agree with Kai in the fact that its contents and criticisms of society are relevant. The fact that they are still relevant today lends me to believe that Howl might have still been a known piece in the public eye. Most pieces that have been considered "classics" often are the book that were the most extreme thought processed writers of their time. I thought about "The Scarlet Letter" and how that book was so controversial because a woman had a baby out of wedlock. Not only out of wedlock, but with a tortured preacher. Those were things that happened that people thought were so obscene, but they were happening. People put certain situations: marriage, work, women, preachers, on such a high pedestal, that we forget that we are all human and we all have our tests but that is kinda what Howl is about. TO me Howl is pointing out that we all have our own tastes and to insinuate anything other than would be enforcing ignorance onto others.
ReplyDelete