laurenegr1′s Blog

The last of the Falling Acts begin with two gravediggers digging a grave for Ophelia. Hamlet and Horatio hear singing and look to see who it is – one of the gravediggers, singing while he digs. Hamlet is in disbelief that the gravedigger could be so nonchalant about his job, completely unaffected by the grim reality of what he’s actually doing, so much so that he could actually sing about it. When Hamlet sees how he is treating the skulls, like toys, he butts in and eventually picks one up. This is where Hamlet comes to the stark realization that everyone ends up the same…just a rotted corpse in the ground, a decomposed skull, some dirt used to patch a wall.

When Ophelia’s funeral procession then shows up, I suddenly realized that Hamlet has no idea who has died. I was hoping that when he found out it was Ophelia, he would return to his normal self and express his true love for her…if it even existed anymore. As soon as he exclaimed “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum” Act V, scene i, lines 248-50, I just knew he was still himself and not totally insane. That entire time he was acting so oddly towards Ophelia, it really was just for revenge’s sake and it really did tear him up inside to be that way. I know, I know, then we get into all the “well, if he really loved her, he never would have done that,” etc. etc., but I think that he felt obligated to avenge his father’s death because he loved him, too; plus, he was from his own flesh and blood. It doesn’t completely excuse his behavior by any means, but this is a play, and I still think he loved her.

The funny thing about all of this is, my impression when he proclaimed his love for Ophelia in front of her entire funeral procession was the complete polar opposite to all of the characters’. Literally right after he said he loved her, just as I was relieved and thinking he was never truly insane and was capable of returning to his real self, they all declared that he was ”mad”. It actually took me off guard because I was thinking something so different.

I’ve been standing up a lot for Hamlet, but there’s something that’s bothering me about this whole situation, other than the way he had treated Ophelia – he never spoke of Polonious’ death or really took any of the blame for it…and it was what caused Ophelia’s death. That, to me, is odd. It also points out that maybe he didn’t go insane or anything, but he lacked a lot of stability and is also not very responsible with his own actions; he never even had too much of a problem feeling bad about killing Polonious. However, it’s hard to rail on a character as troubled as Hamlet too much, considering what he’s been through and how Claudius acts even after what he has committed.

But then all of the sudden, Hamlet’s off talking about how he switched the letter that asked for his execution to killing whoever delivers the letter, and before they can even confess to a priest (I mean, I would change the letter, too…but to kill your friends? Seriously?) What the heck, Hamlet? He even said he wouldn’t feel bad about it, that they deserved it! (“Why, man, they did make love to this employment. They are not near my conscience. Their defeat does by their own insinuation grow.” Act V, scene ii, lines 61-63) Not cool.

But, when everyone starts dying, it doesn’t even seem to matter much more; those deaths almost just fade into the background. What with Gertrude’s unintentional death by Claudius’ poisined cup intended for Hamlet, Laertes’ death by his own poisoned sword by Hamlet, Hamlet’s death by Laertes’ poisoned sword, Claudius’ death (especially dramatic in the Kenneth Branagh film…) by Hamlet, and even poor Osric’s death, I was so overwhelmed by the magnitude in the number of murders occuring that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern became less important. What I thought was most important from this scene, really, was Horatio; he is the last standing main character, and I think Shakespeare intended this. It emphasized his loyalty and is knowledge and how important of traits they are to have.

The fact that the play ended with Fortinbras ultimately taking over the throne of Denmark, I think, provides a full circle ending; It was known from the beginning that this specific position was sort of “challenged” or threatened by Fortinbras. However I was more content with it ending like that because Fortinbras didn’t take the position in a greedy or disrespectful way – even he, a complete outsider to all that had been going on with the dysfunctional family in this play, recognized the grief, agony, and chaos that had occurred. I think he felt bad and also felt it was his duty to take the place as King.

In the 1st of the “Falling Acts”, a lot is going on. With Polonious’ very recent death, people are reacting in a variety of ways. Ophelia, who had once been concerned with Hamlet’s sanity, has gone mad herself. Laertes is in a perpetual rage, calmed only by Claudius’ ensurance that he’ll recieve his chance for revenge against Hamlet. Gertrude seems confused on who or what to believe, and with whom her loyalties should lie. King Claudius remains a static character in that his evil works, which have been easily distinguishable since the first Act, continue with his plan to kill his own “son”.

Hamlet is even reacting to this entire situation oddly, vowing only to think “bloody thoughts” from now on. He decides this after he learns that Fortinbras’ army and the Poles are fighting over some indistinct patch of land simply for it’s “name”. At this point, Hamlet comes to the realization that these men are warring over something almost completely insignificant, yet he, with a true reason to fight, is doing almost nothing.

Setting us up for the final and, likely to be the most devastating Act, are Ophelia’s death and Claudius and Laertes’ plan to kill Hamlet. I wonder how Hamlet will react when he hears about Ophelia…and if she even meant anything to him anymore; I want so badly to believe that he still loved her. More than I want that, though, I want Claudius to be killed. He has absolutely no position as King with his behavior; obviously hasn’t learned anything from his bad deeds because his ruthless and disgusting actions don’t cease to exist. I am, admittedly, worried about the imminent duel between Laertes and Hamlet.

Everything begins to fall apart in this Act; deaths both occur and are foreshadowed, true madness is revealed, revenge is wanted by more than one person, and the real “tragedy” of this tragedy is looming ahead. Horatio’s memorable exclamation from the first Act, that the ghost “bodes some strange eruption to our estate” doesn’t seem so hard to believe now.

In Act III, we witness several of the play’s most pivotal moments; after all, it is the Act that contains the climax. In the first scene of this Act, the audience will probably recognize one of the most famous lines known to mankind; “To be, or not to be? that is the question” Hamlet sure kicks off the show for Claudius and Polonious, who are, not surprisingly, spying on Hamlet and getting ready to set up an encounter between him and Ophelia. So, while Hamlet stands there, pondering whether or not he should even go on living, the decietful little “spies” are still thinking that it’s because of his ‘lovesickness over Ophelia”…but only the audience and Hamlet really know the truth behind his despair.

His battle within himself is suddenly disturbed by Ophelia, who strategically enters the room, based on the orders of her father and the King (also not surprising…she does just about anything a man tells her to; one really couldn’t be more docile). She wants to “return his tokens of love” – obviously that would be kind of demoralizing, and not to mention embarassing, so, naturally, Hamlet denies ever having given them to her. But he also goes on to deny his love for her, state his discontented feelings on women and how the use their beauty to manipulate people, and his overall hate for the general public and the state of the world…now the audience is just being thrown into a frenzy of confusion.

So supposedly Hamlet is just “acting” crazy…right? But then, why is he practicing such self-destructive behavior if he really does love Ophelia?…has Hamlet actually gone mad? If so, then at what point did his “pretending” turn into actual madness? The audience aren’t the only ones with questions burning in their minds. After Claudius witnesses this scene, he concludes that Hamlet’s issues aren’t strictly stemming from Ophelia, and that something else other than insanity is causing him to act this way. He is obviously worried about it and declares that he will send him to England to help him get over his troubles. At this point, I got the impression that perhaps, in a deep dark corner of Claudius’ cold heart, he has somewhat of a feeling that Hamlet may in fact be onto him…but he dismisses that feeling for the time being and instead just decides to send him away. But first, the play must take place and then Polonious wants to spy on Hamlet when he speaks with his mother afterwards.

So, the play starts and Hamlet is being incredibly rude to his mother and Ophelia (both are women…coincidence? I think not..) It is almost exactly like the ghost’s story, and, like clockwork, Claudius can’t handle it and the play is stopped – right before the murderer was about to pour the poisin into the Player King’s ear. At this point, Hamlet is pretty sure of himself. He now has more evidence and feels more secure in taking his plan for revenge further. He is then summoned to his mother’s chamber by Polonious afterwards, who will end up hiding behind a curtain, because he’s annoying and all he wants to do is spy.

Before he visits his mother, though, we watch Claudius seek forgiveness for his sins. Even though I kind of hate him, I guess it’s good that he has some remorse for killing his brother. But then my hatred returns when he asks if his “hands cannot be washed of this sin”…sooo you killed your bro and married his wife and took his throne…but you want to know why you can’t sit there and be forgiven for your dirty deed and continue to reap the “benefits” of your wrongdoing? Seriously? Well, like the awful person he is, he decides he can’t confess to everyone because then he’d have to give up his Queen and his throne. Typical. Hamlet witnesses Claudius’ inner turmoil, and almost takes it upon himself to kill him right then and there, but since it looks like Claudius is confessing (he is in a confessional…), Hamlet doesn’t want to kill him in the middle of an act that would send him to heaven instead of to hell. His father didn’t get to leave things properly in order before he died, so why should this incredibly sinner who was responsible for that death? No, Hamlet want to wait until Claudius is engaging in a sinful act; then he’ll kill him.

Hamlet then follows swift to his mother’s chamber, where she and Polonious wait. He decides that he’ll speak daggers to her, but not actually use one on her. So, when Hamlet arrives and begins rages at his mother for her iexcusable conduct, she calls out for help. Then, Polonious does, too…for some reason or another. His serious misstep costs him his life, as Hamlet jabs through the curtain, slaying him. Upon his mere reaction of mild disappointment when he discovers that it wasn’t the King, Gertude calls him out on how “rash and bloody” what he had just done was. Hamlet fires right back at her, though, saying the same about her marriage to Claudius. He continues to just rail on Claudius as his mother weeps and pleads for him to stop, when all of the sudden his father’s ghost appears. His mother cannot see it, so it seems as though Hamlet is talking to no one. The ghost simply reminds Hamlet what his ultimate goal is, so Hamlet calms down a bit and descibes to his mother how he has been feigning madness all along (whether or not this is completely true, I haven’t decided). He asks her not to tell Claudius his secret, and also not to sleep with him that night. She agrees.

After this Act, I’m still pretty convinced that Hamlet is in his right mind…for the most part. He has a completely rational and coherent talk with Horatio right before the play and then “turned on” his “madness” once he was in front of the King, proving that it was just an act. But the way with which he dealt with Ophelia was unsettling for me. Even though she readily obeys almost any male around her (which I, for the record, do not respect), she doesn’t deserve to be treated so horribly. I began to question whether or not Hamlet has any remaining sentiments for Ophelia…I admittedly hope he does. But, alas, this is a tragedy, so I’m not holding out much hope for the two of them to work out in the end.

In Act II, we see a scary side of Hamlet – it is difficult to decipher whether or not he is actually insane. I’d like to hope not, but, judging by some of his actions, he is definitely unstable at this point in his life. How can you blame him, though? Sure, he may be reacting in a rather big way, but what measures a father’s death? How can you gauge what is classified as “out of proportion” in this extremely unlikely and distressing situation? Even though I’m a fan of Hamlet and I totally feel for him while he’s dealing with such a wacked out mother and uncle, I know I have to consider both sides of the argument.

So, Act II - After it starts out with Polonious asking Reynaldo to go to France and inquire about Laertes, Ophelia runs in telling her father, about her “scare” with Hamlet’s strange visit to her room. The latter’s disheveled appearance and odd behavior (he sighs loudly and embraces her, but does not speak) causes Polonious to conclude that Hamlet is “mad” with his love for her and that it is the reason for his sudden change in behavior. Naturally, he runs off to tell the King, who is in a good mood because he has just made an agreement with Fortinbras, who agreed not to attack the Danes. He and his Queen had also just met with two of Hamlet’s friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, whom they called upon to help them figure out what is “wrong” with their son (little do they know that, in actuality, they themselves are the true problem…dramatic irony, much?)

When Polonious informs Claudius and Gertrude of his speculations on their son’s actions, they immediately decide that they want to spy on him and observe his interactions with Ophelia…how considerate of them. Anyways, Polonious and Hamlet run into eachother and talk. Hamlet is no doubt at his crudest we’ve ever seen him, making remarks about Polonious’ age, etc. Polonious then “coins” the famous term, “Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t”. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz then appear, and Hamlet already knows that they’re here not just to see him because they’re good friends, but because his mother and uncle-father (ew) sent for them to help figure out what is bothering Hamlet so; to figure out why he feels like Denmark is “the worst prison of them all”, why “this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire – why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors”. The beautiful sky now only seems like disease-filled air to him…obviously something is wrong. But at this point, there is dramatic irony in the fact that the audience and Hamlet alone know that he is acting this way because of the murder that has taken place, and not because of lovesickness.

Hamlet’s pals then let him know that there are “players” coming in and Polonious announces their arrival when they get there. Hamlet asks a player to do a speech, and impressed with it, asks them to learn “The Murder of Gonzago” (a play depicting a situation almost identical with Claudius’ murder of his brother, Hamlet’s father) which would be performed later that night in front of the King and Queen.

What happens next is, in my opinion, the most important part of the second Act. After he meets the players, he goes into a room by himself and recites this soliloquy that allows the audience to really know how he’s feeling. In it, he curses himself for being a coward and a low-life, a “rogue and peasant slave”, because he had just witnessed one of the players recite part of a play with so much passion that it made Hamlet feel ashamed. He felt this way because even though Hamlet himself has a cause to be extremely passionate and emotional for, he cannot show it in public for fear of revealing his father’s ghost’s secret. He beats himself up about being “pigeon-livered”, or in modern terms, a pansy, for not having killed the current King, his uncle Claudius, right when he found out about the murder. But, he comes up with the plan to act out the play, “The Murder of Gonzago” with a plot oddly similar to the murder that has just taken place; he wants to see the King’s reaction so he can tell if he is in fact, guilty. Hamlet declares that he needs better evidence than just the ghost to work with, because he realizes that it could be the devil in disguise, taking advantage of his sad state.

“The play’s the thing

Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King”

(this statement also proves, in my opinion, that Hamlet, at least up to this point in the play, is still sane).

As of Act I, I really like Hamlet a lot. I think it’s a better read than some of Shakespeare’s other plays, like a Midsummernight’s Dream and Merchant of Venice. I’m already finding myself getting totally into the plot – there are so many questions burning in my mind, and only after 42 pages. There’s the question of Hamlet’s safety; if his deceitful uncle Claudius would so swiftly murder his own brother, the king and Hamlet’s father, would he kill Hamlet who now poses the greatest threat to his power? Then there’s Gertrude, Hamlet’s disloyal, brother-in-law-marrying mother who seems oddly unaffected by her husband’s extremely recent death.  I can’t help but feel disgusted by her…honestly, who gets over something like that so quickly without having a hand in the dirty work? Ophelia is another character Shakespeare allows us to get to know. We know that she is linked to Hamlet as of right now, but will she continue to be pushed around by the men in her life by obeying Polonious, her hypocritical father, and his orders of ceasing all ties with the Prince? The romantic in me hopes not. Last but most definitely not least, we’re also introduced to Hamlet himself, who, somewhat like myself, is distraught over his mother’s questionable behavior and his father’s unexpected death. But is his sanity faltering? Only time (and reading!) will tell.

Gathering

Come all my people

Come now and see

That all of us people

We are meant to be

Here on this same planet

With others, and you

Here on this same planet

We belong here, too

I tried to write this poem in a similar style to the legendary Langston Hughes, who frequently wrote poems regarding his background and his pride in it. I tried to convey pride in “my people” in this poem, reiterating that we have a place here on Earth just as much as anyone else, no matter what ethnicity. Hughes constantly reminded the reader of his confidence, strength and unwavering faith in his race, which is what I attempted to do in only 8 lines. Many of Hughes’ poems were extremely short – some adding up to only 3 or 4 lines – so I decided to tried to mimick that here. He also made his rhyming blatantly apparent in a lot of his poems, so I decided to take that into consideration as well, and put my own rhyming skills to use. All in all, Langston Hughes poems are usually uplifting and inspiring, and that was what I was hoping to convey here. I hope that this poem does some justice to the great work of Langston Hughes, poet extraordinaire and someone I have extreme respect and admirability for.

I think that the idea of blogging really spiced up the usual “read a book, write a paper” format we’ve been following for the majority of our English careers. Switching things up always sparks my interest more, and therefore leads me to do a better job overall since I’m more interested. The only hard parts were dealing with the issues that come along with working on the internet and computers in general; the maintenance did get in the way of some of my posting and I had trouble making websites into links, but other than that, I liked this way of learning. The only suggestions I have for improvement are possibly working on the first real post during classtime because I feel like there would be less confusion and questions if done that way. I’ll definitely take more away from this project than if I had written a research paper because I was engaged the entire time we were working on this, and I felt like I was finding out information I was actually interested in. I think that the blogging project should without a doubt be continued in years to come because (not going to lie) it was more fun than writing a paper and I feel as if I got more out of it.

List of Comments:

http://ariegr1.edublogs.org/2009/03/11/philip-levine-biography-2/#comment-4

http://adunn246.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/the-negro-speaks-of-rivers-langston-hughes-2/

http://briegr5.edublogs.org/2009/03/29/intertextuality-2-duke-ellington-and-langston-hughes/#comment-13

http://dougcooperspencer.blogspot.com/2009/02/langston-hughes-poet-legend.html

Langston Hughes and Arna Bontemps wrote letters to eachother for forty years, from the mid-20s all the way to deep into 60s when Hughes passed away. Both were Harlem Renaissance Poets going through similar problems with racial discrimination. They were legendary figures of the Afro-American literary world; both wrote during the Harlem Renaissance when America started to discover and embrace black culture for what it was, when excitement finally surrounded black musicians, artists, and poets like never before. The two were both such influential writers from their time period that a compilation of the letters they had exchanged over the decades was requested. A book was produced and this is a pleased reader’s comment/summary on it:

“This is one of the most touching, endearing books I have ever been blessed to read. Think of it! For forty-two years Arna Bontemps and Langston Hughes wrote letters to each other—literally thousands of letters. From 1925 to 1967, when Mr. Hughes passed away—a period of astounding historical events, during which they wrote. Both men were born in 1902, and met in Harlem in 1924 when attending a poetry reading of Countee Cullen’s. They became friends immediately, soon collaborating on their first of several successful books written together. Within the pages of these letters is a treasure trove. The wealth of information is incredibile. We begin during the Harlem Renaissance…then the south and New York City during the Depression…from this, World War II, followed by the many events of the fifties and sixties. Throughout it all, the men are struggling both as writers, and as African Americans during a time of horrendous Jim Crow and lynching. But the horrors of such discriminations do not defeat them…with untold courage and dignity both writers plunge onward. By the time both men reached retirement age, they each had become so famous that universities were diligently seeking to obtain their letters!  Charles Nichols who selected and edited their letters here, writes a wonderful introduction about the lives of both men. Aside from a really neat chronology following the letters, the whole of the book is dedicated to the letters. There is so much here, folks. This is one, very awesome book, and I highly recommend it to anyone.”

Since they were born the same year, both faced the challenges posed by the time period they were growing up in, and both were involved in the world of literature, it was inevitable that they would collaborate. They became great friends and ended up compiling two anthologies of their entire collected works produced from their collaborations.

In one of Arna Bontemps’ biographies, his influential beliefs and his collaborations with Langston are noted and described. 

“It is worth noting that the vast and unique body of extant correspondence with his friend Langston Hughes is housed in this archive. Bontemps’s most distinctive works are ringing affirmations of the human passion for freedom and the desire for social justice inherent in us all. Arnold Rampersad called him the conscience of his era and it could be fairly added that his tendency to fuse history and imagination represents his personal legacy to a collective memory.” http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/a_f/bontemps/life.htm

Bontemps, like Hughes, was also an avid believer in his race. Similar to Langston, he made his confidence apparent in his writing, as well, according to the quote that states that Bontemps’ “most distinctive works are ringing affirmations of the human passion for freedom and the desire for social justice inherent in us all.” Obviously, if his works are “ringing affirmations” of his desires for freedom and social justice, he wanted equality in a time where segregation and discrimination dominated. Identical to Hughes, Bontemps stood up for his beliefs during this extremely challenging and unfair time period, even though controversy surrounded both of their actions.

Out of all the “masters” we’ve studied, I see the influence of Walt Whitman most on Langston Hughes. Almost all of Hughes’ poems have to do with nature or the idea of “finding” yourself and being true to your self, or even both. This is extremely similar to Whitman, who covered these subjects in the majority of his own poems and is known best for doing. Whitman’s characteristic style is probably even one of the reasons Langston’s signature style is the way it is; apparently Langston got his influence from the esteemed poet when he was still just in junior high.

“Langston Hughes was particularly inspired by Walt Whitman so much so that he took Whitman’s book, Leaves of Grass, with him when he traveled to Africa in the early 1920s , and edited a collection of Whitman’s work in 1946. Hughes was first introduced to Walt Whitman’s work in his 8th grade English Class.”  http://www.termpaperslab.com/term-papers/75648.html

The fact that Hughes took Whitman’s book “Leaves of Grass” with him on that journey signifies a lot; it tells us how important not only poetry was to him, but especially Whitman’s. This was during the beginning stages of Hughes’ writing career as well, showing that he probably based some of his poetic style off of other poets he was intrigued by at that point in his life, Whitman obviously being one.

It is easy to see Whitman’s elaborate language and descriptions of nature around him as an influence on Hughes’ work, because the latter often wrote about the same types of things. In Whitman’s “A Clear Midnight” and Hughes’ “April Rain Song”, we can notice these similarities.

A Clear Midnight

This is thy hour O Soul, thy free flight into the wordless,
Away from books, away from art, the day erased, the lesson done,
Thee fully forth emerging, silent, gazing, pondering the themes thou
lovest best.
Night, sleep, and the stars.

The speaker in this poem is saying how the nature is freeing him, how it is helping his true soul (or true self, and by extension, true identity) ”emerge”. In “April Rain Song”, nature and how the speaker feels about it are the main subjects, as well.

April Rain Song

Let the rain kiss you

Let the rain beat upon your head with silver liquid drops

Let the rain sing you a lullably

The rain makes still pools on the sidewalk

The rain makes running pools in the gutter

The rain plays a little sleep song on our roof at night

And I love the rain.

Here, the idea of nature is obviously present, just like in “A Clear Midnight” and tons of Whitman’s other poems. But so is identity; in sync with “A Clear Midnight”, the speaker of “April Rain Song” also enjoys nature, in this case, rain. The speakers of both poems seem fully intrigued by the outdoors and the natural phenomenon they are encountering, the speakers presumably being Whitman and Hughes themselves. Because of this assumption and the lyrics of their poems, we can easily come to the conclusion that the similarities in so many of their poems are due to influence (Whitman on Hughes).

However, nature and the idea of self is not where the similarities end.

“Hughes’ poems often have a musical rhythm to them, as his lyrics typically rhyme in the ABAB CDCD ABAB CDCD scheme.  The music of Harlem, the spirituals of Negro slaves, and other influences like Walt Whitman and W. E. B. Dubois are evident in these works.  In addition to these influences on his poems, Hughes’ own love of music imbues his works with a rhythmical flow that could just as easily be sung as spoken.  We see this in Dream Variations among countless others of Hughes’ works, ‘Rest at pale evening… / A tall slim tree… / Night coming tenderly / Black like me’ (Langston 1).  We can see the song-like nature of the rhyming stanza, but we also see the use of metaphor since the “night” is “black” like the speaker.  The connection between nature and the individual is routinely expressed in Hughes’ poems, perhaps a sign of Walt Whitman’s influence on him.  Poems like the one above align the speaker with nature and celebrate the discovery of self and one’s place in nature as much as Whitman’s Songs of Myself.” http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=13552

Then there are also the gay themes in their writing that these two poets have in common.

“While his poetry frequently included hints at gay themes like Walt Whitman, early accounts of Hughes’ life and accomplishments overlooked that Hughes was gay. However, Hughes has been reclaimed as a black gay icon in the past couple decades, including a portrayal in Brother to Brother, which focused on the life of another influential gay writer of the Harlem Renaissance, Richard Bruce Nugnet. Archival footage of Hughes was used in the groundbreaking 1988 short film Looking for Langston, an experimental meditation on the poet’s sexuality.” http://www.afterelton.com/blog/lylemasaki/happy-birthday-langston-hughes 

One last connection between these two is the fact that they are both “poets of the people”; writers writing because they have a message that they want to get across to the general public and anyone who reads or studies their work.

 He has been, unlike most nonblack poets other than Walt Whitman, Vachel Lindsay, and Carl Sandburg, a poet of the people. . . . Until the time of his death, he spread his message humorously—though always seriously—to audiences throughout the country, having read his poetry to more people (possibly) than any other American poet.” http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:fupJ6z46BacJ:www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poet.html%3Fid%3D3340+examples+of+gay+themes+in+langston+hughes+poetry+walt+whitman&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I think this just means that both of them are secure in themselves and their beliefs, even though they may be different from a lot of other peoples’, especially during the time periods in which they were expressing themselves. Langston had confidence in his race despite the racial discrimination and segregation he was contantly faced with, and he made that a huge point in his works. Whitman loved nature and felt that it was totally okay to express himself and even his sexual beliefs through his writing, even though there was a lot of controversy over his ability to freely talk about things like the human body.

Both were, and continue to be, inspirational to say the least. I think that Langston Hughes ultimately got some of his confidence from influential poets like Whitman, who showed him that it was okay to be himself and talk about the things he wanted to talk about. The fact that they talked about similar things like nature and true identity just showed even more how they were alike and how Langston Hughes was influenced by Walt Whitman.

Negro Speaks of Rivers

I’ve known rivers:
I’ve known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human rivers
My soul has grown deep like the rivers.I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I’ve seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunsetI’ve known rivers:
Ancient, dusky rivers.