Liam Hilbers

Dr. Lori Newcomb

ENG 362 American Literature 2

4 April 2024

Howl at Mythology in Allen Ginsberg’s Howl

“Howl” was written by Allen Ginsberg in 1954 but published in a book of poems

published in 1956. I will be looking at mythological references in “Howl” specifically “Howl”

has a heroic journey. I am taking this idea from a paper titled “Classical myth in Allen

Ginsberg’s Howl. A parodic reading of mythical structure and theme as socio-cultural

commentary in 1950s America”. I am only using a small part of this paper. I am using part five

of an eight-part paper. This paper was written in May 2014 by Julie Aelbrecht supervised by Dr.

Debora Van Durme.

The first paragraph of section five starts with the type of myth: heroic journey into the

underworld and back. Aelbrecht sites a bunch of articles detailing a “night-sea journey.” She

cites an article as “Lemming (98)” who describes the night-sea journey as a “archetypal myth, a

form of nekyia or katabasis, which is a descent of some typed, such as a literal moving downhill,

the sinking of the sun, a military retreat, but most notably, a trip to underworld.” (Aelbrecht 39).

Aelbrecht cites Jung Picasso in her paper where he describes katabasis, defined as going or

marching down or back, however he believes that katabasis is a descent into the depths of one’s

unconscious, and not physically going to the underworld. The paper's author argues for the

descent into the underworld and while also going into the unconsciousness of Allen Ginsberg.
Diving in Aelbrecht cites another article on Ginsberg. This article summed up suggests that the

first part of the poem is Ginsberg’s descent into darkness and will rise back up away from

darkness when he declares holy in “Footnote.” Aelbrecht disagrees with the article she argues

that Ginsberg is not the one descending but it’s “the best mind of my generation” mentioned in

the poem are the people who undergo the fall. I would agree with her about the first part has

nothing to do with Ginsberg and has everything to do with his generation that was tortured by

war. When looking at the line “who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from

Battery to holy Bronx on Benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down

shuddering mouth-wrecked and battered bleak of brain all drained from brilliance in the drear

light of Zoo” (Ginsberg 10). According to Aelbrecht and an author she frequently cites in her

paper Gregory Stephenson “When one takes a closer look at the description of these adventures,

the drug fueled dream quickly assumes the air of a nightmare, as Stephenson argued (Stephenson

53). The poem pertains to the “best minds” of Ginsberg’s generation, but these minds are already

in the first lines of the poem are destroyed by madness.” (Aelbrecht 40), (Stephenson 53). Right

after Aelbrecht sites Gregory she contrasts his idea of the “drug fueled dream” and cites John

Tytell who says that this poem has “orphic ordeals.” Essentially comparing the same line to the

journey Orpheus took when going to the underworld. This goes into detail about how in the first

part the protagonist does “heroic, takes a subway ride (which literally takes them underground),

their high on drugs, get to the Bronx (considered the holy place here), are brought down by their

children, and are literally at the zoo suffering. Aelbrecht also says that “Alternatively, one could

interpret the arrival in the Zoo as deterioration of the protagonists; they ae reduced from the “best

minds” to mere animals” (Albrecht 41).

first, I did want to mention that Aelbrecht briefly mentions how in Part 1 the death that the

protagonists suffer a death by religious sacrifice like Christ’s. However, at the end of the

paragraph where she mentions this, she states that in her opinion the “downward spiral reaches a

first low point at the end of part 1, where a messianic redemptive figure is introduced, but merely

dies and is not resurrected, in contrast to the biblical story” (Aelbrecht 41). I agree with her

opinion on this. I do not believe that there is enough evidence of a “death by religious sacrifice.”

While there are references to religion and religious figures, the quote pulled from “Howl” is

“with the absolute heart of the poem of life butchered out of their own bodies good to eat a

thousand years.” (Ginsberg 20). This is an interesting quote to attribute religious sacrifice too. I

read this more at as the heart of life dying and not religious in any sense. Onto the other

information presented in the article. Here is the thing, I like the idea of Ginsberg mimicking the

journey of Orpheus with the idea that the best minds did something “heroic and are high on

drugs and go to a “holy place” and are destroyed by everyday things like children and the zoo. It

kind of feels like he is suggesting that having children and literally taking them to zoo is settling

and these people are too destroyed to do anything but have a family and deal with it. I can get

behind that idea and I can get behind what Aelbrecht says about the arrival at the zoo is a

deterioration. I do not know if I fully support the idea that this is like Orpheus's journey. I feel

there was a reach with the subway being underground and comparing it to the underworld and

there is no connection as to why the Bronx is considered the “holy place.” While they do say that

this would be a modern and urban version of hell I don’t get it. It is an extremely negative

outlook to think that these best minds are already destroyed, however, it is very believable. My
opinion is that the “best minds” are in their own versions of hell, and they get are just trying to

get through the trauma of the war with anything they can.

In the second section there is a mention of other deities. Like moloch, a deity in the Middle East

they allegedly sacrificed children. “In Howl, Moloch is used for allegory for capitalism and

industrialized civilization” (Aelbrecht 20). I fully agree with this statement especially when you

pair it with the line where Ginsberg says “Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch

whose blood is running money!” (Ginsberg 21). During the time technology was advancing and

American was very consumerist, not like we aren’t worse now. There is a sort of worshipful

attitude to sense of power like consumerism, the military, and technology. Which I feel like is

the attitude about those things in some political parties. I am no history buff, so I don’t know if

that was the attitude during this time? Aelbrecht attributes this the worshipful nature of how one

would worship God. “However, Ginsberg’s God of technology is not a kind God. Rather, the

technology and progress are embodied by a God that demands sacrifice.” (Aelbrecht 42). I feel

like this hit a key point I don’t know if I attribute this to God, I attribute to the bourgeoisie or the

government? I feel like this has more to with the need to progress as a society and less to do with

God. Near the end of the second part Aelbrecht says that the tone changes. Whilst the Moloch is

no longer mentioned I don’t know if the line she references is a tone change. The line is “Real

holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! The wild eyes! The holy yells! They bade farewell!

They jumped off the roof! Waving! Carrying flowers! Down to the river! Into the street!”

(Ginsberg 23). While he is no longer with the Moloch, I read this line as a suicide. To give

Aelbrecht credit she does say “In this stanza, the “best minds of my generation” flee, they

abandon Moloch and leave behind all that he represents. However, they do not leave behind their

urban hell completely, as they still find themselves in the streets.” (Aelbrecht 43). I do agree with
her on all of this except them abandoning the Moloch because I would argue that some version

Satan is with the person in the third part.

The third section is where Ginsberg introduces the Rockland Psychiatric Center. Rockland.

“Incidentally, the protagonist of this section, Carl Solomon, was a poet himself. Carl Solomon,

who was Ginsberg’s fellow inmate when he resided in Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital in

New Jersey in 1949” (Aelbrecht 43). There is a lot to unpack within this section but keeping the

focus directly on the night-sea journey, I have skipped over some parts of the essay. These parts

go into detail about how this section and the poem itself is for Carl Solomon and how Ginsberg

wrote it in a homosexual manner. Another part I skipped is how Carl Solomon truly did suffer in

this facility and so did Ginsberg. Starting with a line from this part “I’m with you in Rockland/

Where you will split the heavens of Long Island and resurrect your living human Jesus from the

superhuman tomb” (Ginsberg 25). There is a slight mention of how there is a switch of the roles

of patient versus doctor. “Secondly, this verse constitutes a second reference to the figure of the

messiah. Mount Golgotha was where that other Hebrew revolutionary, Jesus Christ, suffered

death by crucifixion.” (Aelbrecht 44). The references of God in the next stanza “I’m with you in

Rockland/ Where you will split the heavens of Long Island and resurrect your living human

Jesus from the superhuman tomb” (Ginsberg 25). While there is a direct reference to God in the

Hebrew sense and then Jesus rising from a superhuman tomb. “This is the poem’s third reference

to the messiah. The first two references deal only with death of the Messiah, his desperate cry

directed towards God, and the second one with the revolutionary nature of his thoughts. This last

reference, however, concerns the resurrection of that messiah.” (Aelbrecht 45). I disagree; I do

not believe this section would reference a resurrection. I also don’t think that this is what

Ginsberg was going for. This could be too literal, but I believe he was genuinely trying to show
the horrors of Rockland and emphasizing that someone he loves/loved also suffered. Sure, there

can be a religious sense there with the reference to God, but it reads more like they were

comparing their suffering to the suffering Jesus went through. I don’t know if he thinks God can

help. The poem concludes with a physical katabasis “I’m with you in Rockland/ In my dreams

you walk dripping from sea-journey on the highway across America in tears to the door of my

cottage in the western night (Ginsberg 26). This refers to a physical journey rather than an

emotional one or one to the underworld. “Here, Ginsberg makes clear his hero does not reach the

shore, but is stuck, for now, bound by the shackles of his mental illness, in Rockland, his

personal, and the Beat Generations' universal hell.” (Aelbrecht 46). During this time people who

were homosexual were stuck in a ward like Rockland because of homosexuality. I do find this

part weird to say they are stuck there because of mental health reasons. I Googled it and Carl

Solomon voluntarily checked himself in but with references to electric shock therapy, which was

often used to “cure” homosexuality it makes me uneasy to just assume that they were only there

because of the mental health issues they had. The line “I’m with you in Rockland / where we hug

and kiss the United States under our bedsheet the United States that coughs all night/ and you

won’t let us sleep” (Ginsberg 24). This line also makes me feel that Ginsburg felt as if he

couldn’t just rest with his partner because America was watching. Aelbrecht brings back

Orpheus’ journey here saying, “Much like Orpheus’ Nekyia, this journey into hell seems to have

been in vain, because nothing physically returns to the land of the living.” (Aelbrecht 46). This

time I agree with her on comparing this journey to Orpheus’ if Ginsberg made the journey to

bring Carl Solomon back to his home from the hospital or he hoped that Solomon would appear

at his and make the journey everyone stayed where they were. Like when Orpheus journeyed to

get Eurydice back and she didn’t come back with him. Aelbrecht says this poem ends positively,
and I do not believe that he felt like he didn’t get what he wanted, which was Carl Solomon with

him, so he must hypothetically be with him in Rockland.

Last but not least, the Footnote. I disagree with this opinion the most. Aelbrecht starts with

“There is a strong sense of catharsis which is conveyed in the holiness of practically everything.

Not only man, the various parts of the body, the poet himself and his friends are declared holy,

but also various elements which constituted “Moloch” in the second part of the poem”

(Aelbrecht 46). I cannot quite see this. There is more evidence from Ginsberg’s life and the poem

itself that this is sarcastic. I think especially with the holiness of male body parts that reads for as

a “piss off” to everyone who has considered gay sex as unholy. Aelbrecht does touch on the

contrast between things that are considered holy and other things that might not be. “In other

words, the hero upon returning from his journey through the underworld, is filled with new

resolve, purpose, and joy for life and all its components, including those that previously

promised destruction. All this suggests a sense of acceptance and communion.” (Aelbrecht 47)

This is hard to see. I don’t see this footnote as “oh all the bad things are gone, and I am holy” it

reads more as I will never be holy in so many people's eyes so screw it, I am because I say so, it

feels so rebellious.

At first, I was on-board with Aelbrecht’s ideas especially with the comparison the

Orephus’s journey to the underworld. As she went on with her theories and ideas though I fell

less out of touch with them. I don’t know about “Howl” perceived as something positive towards

the end. Maybe, I am a negative person, but I truly view “Howl” as something sad and

emotional. Especially, with the queer lines. The end especially truly feels as if he knows that he

will never be holy, so he declares himself as such. The number of comparisons to Jesus lost me
as well “Howl” feels as if he is cursing God for the war, the minds being tortured, for Rockland,

etc. I am convinced that this is a journey, but I think I do view it as a personal struggle.

Debora, Van, et al. Classical Myth in Allen Ginsberg’s Howl a Parodic Reading of Mythical
Structure and Theme as Socio-Cultural Commentary in 1950s America. 2014.

‌Allen Ginsberg. “Howl.” Poetry Foundation, 2019,