----------
[Anonymous]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." Christian Spiritualist (1856): [unknown]
I clicked on this review because I saw it was from a publication called the Christian Spiritualist. I expected the reviewer to say something like what the writer from The Saturday Review suggested, and tell us to throw Leaves of Grass "behind the fire"... But that didn't happen. With the Christian label, I expected the writer, in 1856, to write from the perspective of a conservative church leader as a representative of whatever Christian values the publication stood for. Instead, the reviewer was very open to the poetry, and pretty much in love with Walt Whitman. He starts off quoting someone who is dissing the modern state of poetry, then disses modern poetry a bit himself, before saying that Whitman is possibly ushering in renaissance in poetry. He catches how Whitman aims to capture a sense of unity and brotherly love between all peoples in his words. He mentions that for Whitman, "his sympathy is with man." The reviewer keeps mentioning that Whitman is a bit foul-mouthed, censoring quoted passages and warning readers that along with his strong recommendation also comes a strong warning that Whitman paints some "graphic pictures."
My favorite description of his towards Whitman is that he is a "drunken Hercules" among "dainty dancers," both giving Whitman props for his powerful words, while also saying he has a reckless tongue. It gives me the sense that the reviewer really didn't give a damn about Whitman using his 'foul' language. He thought the art Whitman made was great. It kinda made me feel like the way the media will hype something up in the news, even though no one gives a shit about it. It's like he was warning the public about Whitman's 'foul' just because he had to, not because he felt the majority of readers would really care or be offended. Maybe that's how the open-minded the American public was at that time, or maybe the Christian Spiritualist just had a very open-minded readership.
----------
[Anonymous]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The Critic 15 (1 April 1856): 170-1.
Dayyym. Haters gonna hate. This dude straight up hates Walt Whitman. Like, HATES him.
"We do not, then, fear this Walt Whitman, who gives us slang in the place of melody, and rowdyism in the place of regularity. The depth of his indecencies will be the grave of his fame, or ought to be if all proper feeling is not extinct."
What I get from the above quote is that this reviewer feels Whitman's slang and rowdiness are attempts at Whitman trying to make a name for himself.
I'll be the first one to tell you that I hate when "artists" use pure sensationalism just to get the attention and devotion of some stupid would-be fans (and you can ask anyone who knows me, I don't mind dishing out hate to things I consider fake, or people I consider to be straight-up suckas, for I stay sucka-free). But when an artist has sensational aspects in the art with a message that still runs deep, I don't mind (not that I found LoG sensational, just in thinking about artists from today who might be considered controversial). This reviewer however doesn't seem to find sincerity in Whitman's poetry and message. The idea of Whitman using 'vulgar' language, including a 'vulgar' photo of himself, and Whitman's overall hippy-ness seem to have made an impression on the reviewer that no amount of meaning, sincerity, or poetic virtue could override. The reviewer seems to want to hate Whitman's work for those things, and won't let it go. He even says Whitman writes so poorly, that he must have been just learning how to write. That's hate.
This guy is the dude who represents the prudishness of the nation. This guy is the one who is a xenophobe. A neophobe. He reminds me of some dudes on Fox News that talk shit about things they already wanted to hate. The criticism of Leaves of Grass is so one-dimensional, talking about how "unoriginal" Whitman is for writing about unity in humanity (simply because he wasn't the first one ever to write about it), or just talking about his vulgarity. It seems to be a simple-minded review from a simple individual. I usually don't like it when people disregard negative criticism, because a lot of critics can have something good to say... but this reviewer is just a hater for hate's sake.
----------
[Norton, Charles Eliot]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." Putnam's Monthly: A Magazine of Literature, Science, and Art 6 (September 1855): 321-3.Norton doesn't say a WHOLE lot about the poem... He includes a lot of quotes from the poem. What he does say about the poem though, I found interesting. He finds that some of the language is laughable or comical, probably as it must have been abnormal to see such language in poetry at that time, but he recognizes the power in Whitman's writing nonetheless. This pretty much sums up how the reviewer feels about LoG:
It's "not to be read aloud to a mixed audience, but the introduction of terms, never before heard or seen, and of slang expressions, often renders an otherwise striking passage altogether laughable."
Again, language is a factor here, and though the writer finds Whitman is talented at using words, he finds his word choices to be somewhat poor.
The reviewer tries to be fair in including an excerpt from Whitman's own intro, highlighting that Whitman strives for simplicity, and wants to give a direct reflection of his poetry as it appears in his mind when first conceived. The reviewer ends the article with a kind of jab at Whitman's reference to himself as a "Kosmos," basically saying "yo... I don't know what this fool talking about saying he's a Kosmos, but I'm pretty sure this foo crazy."
This pretty much sums up how Norton feels about Whitman:
No comments:
Post a Comment