http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00013.html
this review looks at Whitman in a positive light- almost more than human (just like the kosmos.) BECAUSE Whitman wrote it. This piece starts out by saying that in order to understand a poem we must understand the author, so what better to do so than by reading what the author wants you to think? He touches on some major themes in : He does not celebrate what is conventional, a man of American breed, the everyday rather than the elite, etc. but these are all things that are relative to the writer. Unlike the proper civilized "english"poet, whitman judges himself on his qualities that are the opposite of the proper. We distinguish language through differences; we distinguish whitman for being different than his contemporaries. “This poet celebrates himself: and that is the way he celebrates all. He comes to no conclusions, and does not satisfy the reader. He certainly leaves him what the serpent left the woman and the man, the taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, never to be erased again.” He spends some time on the image of Whitman- the face- the calm and unrefined. This review focuses on the new aspects that Whitman utilizes, that are different from his contemporaries and views it as a good thing. The first review, although appreciated the writing to a degree, could not look past it in order to see th positive. This response looks only at the positives, only at what Whitman wants the readers to see. It is as if he is trying to sensor what is said about the book-by writing his own reviews and sending positive reviews to critics. These three writings deal with the way in which Whitman attempted to flood the literary world with his own words of critique. This is not a bad thing- we are all our own worst critic- it would be fitting for Whitman to critique himself in order to improve, but it seems like he is only giving positive feedback (perhps because it is a public community rather than revisions he can make when he is honest with himself.
this review starts out with the means in which they received
Whitman’s book, “bound in green.” Whitman, apparently, sent the book along with
review clippings- all good reviews. More than good really, they established
Whitman as a true American - "Not the refined life of the
drawing-room—not dancing, and polish, and gentility, but some powerful
uneducated person, and some harsh identity of sound, and all wild free forms,
are grateful to him."It is
a sort of meta-criticism while using the provoded reviews as a way to help
evaluate their review. Although this review chooses to burn Leaves of Grass due
to its obscenity, it shows us a way to critically look at these reviews. Now,
we all knew Whitman made reviews of his own book, but knowing that he also
provided critics with a collection of his personal favorite reviews of his work
distorts the review. By even sending these pieces of writing along with the
book implies that the critic is not reviewing Whitman’s work, rather the
opinion of others, disconnecting the critic with the work. I always live by the
standard “don’t read any criticism/reviews until one day after having seen/read
etc.” This helps give you time to marinate your own ideas rather than the
thoughts of someone else. Once you read a critique of a book, you can’t get the
thoughts of the critic out of your head- you are no longer free of external influence
(to the possible extent.)On the other side, this review casts off
glowing reviews by highly respected people under the complaint of obscenity. If
it weren’t for the obscenity the poem would be good by their accounts ( I
assume.) In this case, obscenity is never good or redeemable. I would assume
that this review came from some religiously informed person, or at least someone influenced by the British proper. They notice the
lines put together, but don’t notice anything past the obscenity. The matter of obscenity is questionable- what did they find obscene? By adding the obscenities, would they be at the same level as the disdained Whitman? Is his slang obscene? Is his content obscene? Do they all work together to make it so? By reading the poem as obscene, they read whitman as obscene rather than proper- american vs english.
Plesant quiz marked an awareness of what Whitman was trying to do, showing that it was not a valid
Plesant quiz marked an awareness of what Whitman was trying to do, showing that it was not a valid
Referring how Whitman reviewed his own work -
that such a review was not worth anything
if the endorsed is the endorser. Why
should Whitman conform to not reviewing his own work? He proved to rub the
grain a different direction, so was this expected?
Whitman was not as highly regarded by his
contemporaries as he is today, but he was not completely loved or hated.
Sidenote: It was mentioned in class that the volume of reviews proved something about literature in Whitman's period, and yes it does, but I think we missed some important points. Reviews for literature are relevant today and perhaps even more of them exist. The internet has allowed for everyone to be a critic, democratizing (not completely, one would need access to a computer still) the reviewing system. You can type in the name of one book and find reviews on blogs, bookselling sites, twitter even. Now essentially anyone can make a review and anyone can read a review. This also ties in with Fanny Fern's review of Whitman and how she was interested in his D.I.Y approach. This approach has become even more powerful in our time due to the rise of the internet. For example, Cassava Press found some of their authors through their blog writing. Plenty of bands have been found through internet music sites, and are apart of the DIY music scene- uninfluenced by the label or management- the bands (usually one person) makes the music themselves, in their room and on their computer. The internet allows anyone to be a published (in a sense) author/musician/artist etc.
Yes - - the "obscenity" thing is all over the reviews . . ."not to be read in the drawing room" - - but where is the obscenity in the poem? e.g. what is it exactly in the poem that so many of the reviewers find "trashy" or obscene?
ReplyDelete