I thought Marissa brought up some really good points about Melville's intention with "The Victor of Antietam" and I hope I didn't rub anyone the wrong way when I brought up the point about people who serve in war. Marissa, if I understood you correctly (and I apologize in advance if I didn't), you seemed to think that Melville was more on the side of McClellan than he was sarcastic towards his accomplishments. The historical references that you used to support your point of view were great. I definitely learned things that legitimately swayed my opinion.
That said, I don't think it swayed it enough for me to get over what, in my opinion, are blatant instances of sarcasm in the poem. It does seem a bit out of place when, at one point, Melville seems to be commending McClellan for a job well done, but the point I was trying to make with my war reference wound up being a weak attempt to defend my reading of the poem, which I'll try to supplement here. We could have a semester-long discussion on the pros and cons of war, I'm sure, but I'll do my best to stay out of any grey areas.
I think that the excerpt where it appears that Melville may be commending McClellan is nothing more than an admission (perhaps declaration is a better word) that sure, there were people who supported McClellan, but given the context of the situation, that's not all that implausible. Throughout history, there have been great examples of people who followed a leader or fought for a cause that, in hindsight, they probably wouldn't have had they able to see the big picture. Nazis are the best example that come to mind. I think drug dealers and kooks from some of these religious cults serve as good examples as well. Surely there are others that came before the Civil War.
Anyway, I don't want to wander off of the point, but I think that the rather lengthy passage that most of us took to be some sort of credit to McClellan, could be read as nothing more than a break in the sarcasm for what Melville perceived as literal rationale in opposition of anyone who thought McClellan a competent general.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brandon, I do see where you are coming from. After our discussion, I could also see how the poem could have been taken as sarcasm.It is hard to disagree with the language used to describe the situation with humor. However, Melville could have still supported McClellan along with making fun of the victory. This is hard for people to see and almost a paradox, but let me give you an example. My sister and I love tv shows and caroons, yet we make fun of the shows we love. We call them stupid when they are or even see that the characters whom are our favorites have obvious flaws that no one should have. We laugh and later joke about how it makes no sense and the character should realize how stupid he looks. Even though it is extremely luaghable we continue to watch it and support it for what it is. I am not saying that this could be Melville's intention, in fact, I could be completely wrong with my thinking. I'm just saying this could be a way to describe why both praise and belittling can be in the same poem.
ReplyDeleteBrandon, I agree with your analysis. To me, Melville was using satire - parody as we know it now - which is similar in some respects to sarcasm as he used it in the poem. I especially thought it was satirical to use the one-armed men raising a toast to McClellan without giving those men their due respect, or to emphasize and then deemphasize his name as either a rallying cry or a profanity. After all, Melville didn't see the war firsthand, he commented on it afterwards and McClellan didn't start the war, he did what he thought was right as everyone on either side did.
ReplyDeleteSince it was written after the Civil War had ended, he had the liberty to know the outcome and make the commentary by condemming and praising McClellan as he did in "The Victor of Antietam."
I got the feeling when you were commenting on the sarcasm that you were on the verge of labeling Melville as a "Monday Morning Quarterback." Hindsight is always 20/20 as in Melville's poem, so you would have been right on the mark.
Michael