User:Gerkat15
From 1850s
Contents |
[edit] Katie Gerfin's Page
[edit] My Paper
The body of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, as well as Whitman himself, evolved and matured over time. Paralleling this were many critic’s views of the work. When it was first released in 1855, Leaves of Grass was generally seen in a negative light. There were some critics who, in the midst of writing Whitman off, acknowledged the qualities of the book that redeemed it. An anonymous reviewer from The Brooklyn Daily Eagle wrote how the book, “…is a work that will satisfy few upon a first perusal; it must be read again and again, and then it will be to many unaccountable. All who read it will agree that it is an extraordinary book, full of beauties and blemishes…” and a few months earlier Charles A. Dana of The New York Daily Tribune clamed that Whitman’s poems were, “…full of bold, stirring thoughts-with occasional passages of effective description, betraying a genuine intimacy with Nature and a keen appreciation of beauty-often presenting a rare felicity of diction, but so disfigured with eccentric fancies as to prevent a consecutive perusal without offense, though no impartial reader can fail to be impressed with the vigor and quaint beauty of isolated portions.” There were also reviewers who seemed merely confused as to who Whitman was and why he chose to write in such a manner. “In glancing rapidly over the ‘Leaves of Grass’ you are puzzled whether to set the author down as a madman or an opium eater; when you have studied them you recognize a poet of extraordinary vigor, nay even beauty of thought, beneath the most fantastic possible garments of diction,” wrote an anonymous reviewer for The New York Daily News. Yes, this reviewer seems to poke a bit of fun at Whitman, but he (or she) like so many other critics, acknowledges the redeeming qualities of Whitman’s work. The beauty mixed in among the vulgarity. The quaint scenes of Nature mixed in among the rude language. But not all critics of Leaves of Grass saw the positive side of the book. Many, in fact, saw it as a complete catastrophe; an abomination to the world of decent literature. Rufus Griswold of The Criterion absolutely hated Leaves of Grass and made sure that that opinion was perfectly clear in his review: “As to the volume itself…it is impossible to imagine how any man’s fancy could have conceived such a mass of stupid filth, unless he were possessed of the soul of a sentimental donkey that had died of disappointed love. The poet (?) without wit, but with a certain vagrant wildness, just serves to show the energy which natural imbecility is occasionally capable of under strong excitement.” Whitman’s entrance into the world of literature was a rather rocky one. Although there were some who saw his work at its first publication, the way that 153 years later we would see his work, he still had many years of rocky road before him. It wasn’t until nearly 30 years after its original publication date that the public, accompanied by the critics, opened their eyes to Whitman. In between the first and last publications of Leaves of Grass were many more painful critiques. When the second edition was published just a year after the first, an anonymous reviewer for The Christian Examiner viciously attacked not only Whitman’s work, but Whitman, the man. At the beginning of his review, the critic is annoyed that, “these rank Leaves have sprouted afresh, and in still greater abundance.” The reviewer proclaims that since Whitman refuses to cease publishing the book that the reviewer must speak bluntly since it “is not a question of literary opinion principally, but of the very essence of religion and morality.” He goes on to refer to the book as “an impertinence towards the English language; and in point of sentiment, an affront upon the recognized morality of respectable people.” At the end of the review, the critic insults Whitman for publishing Emerson’s name on the back of his book, thereby associating the great Emerson with the awful Whitman. During the 1860’s the critics’ view of Leaves of Grass began to progress. Even so, the start of the decade saw negative and positive reviews side by side. Juliette H. Beach (The New York Saturday Press) writes of her disgust: “Whitman’s poems are not amorous; they are only beastly. They express far more truthfully the feelings of brute nature than the sentiments of human love…I doubt if, when Judgment-Day comes, Walt Whitman’s name will be called. He certainly has not enough soul to be saved. I hardly think he has enough to be damned.” Then Beach goes on to describe exactly how Mr. Whitman should commit suicide so as to prevent any future “suiciders” the shame of the leaving the world the same way as Whitman did. Another critic, who like so many others, sees the good within the bad of Whitman’s poems comments that “occasionally, a gleam of the true poetic fire shines out of the mass of his rubbish, and there are tender and beautiful touches in the midst of his most objectionable and disagreeable writings.” This anonymous reviewer for The New York Times also writes that, “it would be unjust to deny the evidences of remarkable power which are presented in this work.” Closer to the end of the decade we see much better reviews, such as the following: “Walt Whitman has at last justified himself. All his ‘hairy Pelasgic strength,’ all his vast abysmal power, have at last blossomed into a benevolence such as was never before the inspiration of poems,” written by John Burroughs for the Boston Commonwealth. In the early 1880s, everyone finally started to come around and enjoy Leaves of Grass instead of constantly criticizing it. The book was picked up by a publishing house (Whitman had been publishing it on his own prior to the book being issued by James R. Osgood & Co.) and the reviews that came out began more and more to praise Whitman for his genius. These reviews began stating things like “Whitman will take a permanent place in history as the father and founder or a distinctly American literature” (The First American Poet), “…much of the criticism [of Whitman’s work] is due to failure to understand…the beauty of the thoughts expressed cannot be denied…” (Walt Whitman. The Man and His Book-Some New Gems for Hs Admirers), and that “it would be easy to pick a thousand lines…that fairly breathe and bristle with power, that sparkle and flash with beauty, that are…unique in modern poetry” (Review of Leaves of Grass (1881-82)). So at the end of his life, having been hated by the public for most of his career, they finally come around to respecting Whitman for the true genius and legend that he is and always deserved to be. But never without one more jest at his unflinching determination to continue publishing Leaves of Grass: “But there is nothing in all Walt Whitman’s works, new or old, half so marvelous, or half so great a ‘curiosity of literature’ as the steady persistence of the author amid the nearly unanimous opposition (in this country at least) of orthodox criticism” (Walt Whitman’s Works, 1876 Edition).
[edit] My Works Cited
Beach, Juliette H. "Leaves of Grass." The New York Saturday Press (2 June 1860): 2.
Burroughs, John. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1867)]." Boston Commonwealth (10 November 1866): 1-2.
Dana, Charles A. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The New York Daily Tribune (23 July 1855): 3.
[Anonymous]. "The First American Poet." The Worthington Advance (22 December 1881): 2.
Griswold, Rufus W. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The Criterion (10 November 1855): [unknown].
[Anonymous]. "'Leaves of Grass'-An Extraordinary Book." The Brooklyn Daily Eagle 15 (15 September 1855): 2.
[Anonymous]. "A New Edition." The New York Daily News (27 February 1856): 1.
[Anonymous]. "The New Poets." The New York Times (19 May 1860): [1].
[Anonymous]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1881-82)]." The Philadelphia Times (3 December 1881): 6.
[Anonymous]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855) and (1856)]." The Christian Examiner 60 (November 1856): 471-3.
[Anonymous]. "Walt Whitman. The Man and His Book-Some New Gems for His Admirers." The Boston Post (2 November 1881): 2.
[Anonymous]. "Walt Whitman's Works, 1876 Edition." The New Republic (11 March 1876): 2.
[edit] Main Link Source
This website has a section labeled Criticism, and there is a LOT to go through, so I'll really have to spend some time just digging though this site to get some good reviews. I think I'm just going to get the general feel for "Leaves of Grass" from all the different reviews/critiques and maybe just use a few quotes directly from them when I find really good ones. When I've picked out the ones I'm going to use quotes from I'll list them here.
[edit] Some More Links to Critiques
I'll continue to add links as I find them.
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2005-07/whitman.html
http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/whitman-walt
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/18/edo267.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/Leaves-Grass-Original-1855-Thrift/dp/0486456765 (I just thought it might be interesting to see what actual average people, nowadays, are saying about the book to each other.)
http://www.bookrags.com/criticisms/Leaves_of_Grass
http://library.chattanoogastate.edu/temple/wwpc.htm
http://www.infography.com/content/395042202153.html (not critiques but links to sites of critiques and books with critiques)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4728828 (an NPR broadcast for the 150th anniversary of its publication)
http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-02-15/strickland-waltwhitman
Also, my Modern Library Classics edition of Leaves of Grass, which is the 'Death-Bed Edition,' contains 16 pieces of commentary about the book by other authors. One of them is from a review Whitman wrote of himself (anonymously), and there's a letter that Emerson wrote to Whitman after he received a copy of the first edition of Leave of Grass.
