V.

Throughout the poem Howl, Allen Ginsberg illustrates a multitude of themes that can be seen throughout all three sections of his work. One of the biggest themes in the poem is corruption which can be seen most notably in section II, where Ginsberg first introduces the fictitious character of Moloch.  Ginsberg explores this theme in an interesting way by personifying society’s corruption in the form of Moloch who, in many ways, represents all that is wrong with society (including war, unjust government, poverty, etc). It is interesting in the way that Ginsberg does not blame any individuals for this heavy corruption (that seemingly covers all aspects of life), but instead blames Moloch, a nonhuman “heavy judger of men” (Howl, Ginsberg). Ginsberg credits Moloch as being the “sphinx of cement and aluminum [that] bashed open [society’s] skulls and ate up their brains and imagination”; the one who “frightened [Ginsberg] out of [his] natural ecstasy” (Howl, Ginsberg). Here, he makes the bold claim that Moloch is the cause for his loss of innocence and naivety – that the corruption of society  has resulted in a lack of imagination and happiness (something he also alludes to in the opening statement of this poem, where he claims “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness…” (Howl, Ginsberg)). Ginsberg goes on further to discuss how this corruption of government (“skeletal treasuries! blind capitals!”) and society as a whole (“spectral nations! invincible mad houses!”) has caused all hope for the American people and future to be lost, explaining “Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!” (Howl, Ginsberg).

Throughout his poem, though most notably in section II, Ginsberg uses the literary technique of sentimentalism, in which he excessively expresses feelings of sadness in order to evoke emotion from the reader. When introducing Moloch – the one who is to blame for the corruption of society – Ginsberg attempts to provoke a feeling of sympathy from the reader by demonstrating the results of this corruption: “Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!”(Howl, Ginsberg). Even more apparent is Ginsberg’s use of heavy personification and dense metaphorical language to emphasize the beast that Moloch is. In Section II, he describes him as “Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb!” (Howl, Ginsberg). This section is riddled with both metaphorical language that aids in the personification of Moloch and with sentimentalism that aids in building a level of sympathy from the reader.

4 thoughts on “V.”

  1. I found your blog post so interesting to read, and thought you did a wonderful job solidifying your points with valid examples.
    I liked that you addressed corruption as a major theme, especially through the example of Moloch and what it represents-society, government, etc. Lastly, I felt the literary technique you choose ( sentimentalism) was really great! I hadn’t considered that before! I agree with you that he tried to evoke emotion throughout this piece.

  2. I absolutely agree with the literary technique you thought Ginsburg used. Sentimentalism through expressing emotion in order to gain sympathy.

  3. I also had not considered the sentimentalism as a literary technique for this piece, but it does make sense and I completely agree!

  4. I’d love to hear more about this astute observation that “Ginsberg does not blame any individuals for this heavy corruption (that seemingly covers all aspects of life), but instead blames Moloch, a nonhuman “heavy judger of men.” Does this direct attention away from human culpability for the situation? Or does using this character of an ancient god help him focus his critique in some way?

    You are spot on about Ginsberg’s interest in emotions and sympathy, though “sentimentalism” isn’t quite the right word for it. Generally, that term is used to describe a literary emotionalism that is schmalzy, saccharine, and a little ridiculous. Ginsberg’s aiming for the opposite effect here: over-the-top, to be sure, but in a serious and shocking, rather than overly sweet, way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *