right on the money

whitty reviews

The three reviews I looked at all work together in a way despite their differences.


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.

http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00022.html

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 

http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00272.html

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.

Franny and Walty

           Francis Wright, an immigrant from Scotland, was a progressive thinker who spoke powerfully on the rights of women, abolishing capital punishment and more. She was well received in New York and found it to be a haven for her way of thinking.

            Whitman was entranced by Francis Wright’s oratory style. She was an amazing speaker and Whitman recognized how the performance of one’s ideas could be just as important as the idea itself or at lest a necessary part for the execution of the idea. Not only was Whitman a fan of her style, but also of her ideas. Wright wanted to preserve the union just as Whitman did. They both seemed to understand that change was going to come in terms of slavery, so rather than create a stark division she advocated a gradual one. She established the Nashoba community, which was her utopian idea of how to abolish slavery. Her idea promoted the white southerners as teachers of the black ex slaves, teaching them about freedom (…).

             Whitman believed that she was always working to help better the community with ideas that aligned more with a progressive agenda. Just as Whitman transgressed the boundaries between high brow poetry/poets with (certain editions specifically) leaves of grass, Wright transgressed the socially acceptable topics for a young woman. She was also involved in Robert Dale Owen’s socialist settlement in Indiana where she spoke strongly against organized religion and advocating a greater gap between church and state.

a song or occupations

          He writes the poem in a way that hovers on the lines of accusatory. He states one thing the reader may assume as a truth for themselves, balanced with a line stating that Whitman also takes part in the same activities and whatnot as if expecting the reader to maintain a dialogue with walt arguing this claim. Between the 1855 version and the 1856 version, he replaces the ellipses with dashes: what is not said, the unknown and impossible vs. the abrupt connection of thoughts. The dashes are more harsh, but also more assertive. The ellipses, although they leave room for thought (more democratic – more input from the reader?) they also are less grounded and are subject to change. What is not being said and why is it not being said? The dashes allow Whitman to push the thoughts of the reader along a certain path and also enhance the accusatory “vibe.”

              By the 1860 edition (titled chants democratic), he begins to emphasize specific groups of people “men and women” “American Masses” etc. Similar to Song of Myself, Whitman continues to catalogue and connect certain stanzas with certain types of people. He adds new lines in the second part of the poem, providing more about his solidarity with the working class. “If you remember your foolish and outlawed deeds, do you think I cannot remember my own foolish and outlawed deeds? plenty of them; “ He adds “plenty of them;” with a semi colon. This implies that the following statements have a closer connection to his foolish outlawed deeds, but I don’t understand what the significance of this is. Is he implying that his loving of strangers is foolish? That everything he speaks of in the poem is foolish, or perhaps outlawed – too progressive?

               The 1867 edition carries a shortened title that just says “To Workingmen” as though it is not a poem in a book being sold for profit, rather a letter (of wisdom?) to the disenfranchised laborers. The earlier title, “Poem of The Daily Work of The Workmen and Workwomen of These States” implies that the poem is about something, an observation with a varying, higher class, audience. By entitling it “To Workingmen,” he is taking the authority away form the upper classes and bestowing it upon the lower working classes. It is addressed to a group rather than being about that group.

He adds  “This is the poem of occupations; In the labor of engines and trades, and the labor of fields, I find the developments, And find the eternal meanings.” He takes the original name, uses it in a stanza to create a more concise purpose for the poem.

              Whitman’s persona shifts from intellectually thought provoking prose to reading that requires less work from the reader. Not that it doesn’t require any, it just requires less – like it is no longer a poem a tool but as a pamphlet (similar to the alterations in punctuation in Song of Myself change the way we can interpret the poem – consciously or subconsciously.) Perhaps this aligns with the self confidence of Whitman; his writing didn’t have to be open ended – he could be more firm with opinions. 

From Broadway to Bowery

            Bowery culture was a contradiction of actuality and desire. In reality, these people were of the lower working class, yet they took pride in a vibrant "arts" community. They were tough dandies. They remind me of the Sapeurs of the Congo in Central Africa. They dress beyond their means (usually to portray an image of how they want to live) juxtaposed with poverty. Both have distinct representations of the self that contradict their actual positions in life (perhaps detracting the importance of dressing nicely for the higher classes-if the working class can do it, how different are we?)    
         Thomas Higginson criticized Whitman by stating that he would fit in with the effeminate Bowery as opposed to a masculine community. The Bowery, once a vibrant community of the lower working class(masculine and effeminate), at the time Higginson wrote, was more known for the “fairies” of the community. Higginson specifically noted how offended he was that Whitman chose service in the hospital rather than on the field – the communal grounds of death. From reading Song of Myself, he believed Whitman would have been the manly hero, saving the nation, but Whitman was a nurse. What Whitman portrayed through his writing and what he actually did were not seamlessly connected. Sometimes, Walt was a contradiction, sometimes he wasn’t. The major point to understand about this set of criticism, is that Whitman claimed himself as masculine, and an outsider’s perception did not match Whitman’s projection of himself.

         At one point, Whitman said that he could fit in on Broadway to Bowery implying how versatile he was – how he could transcend class boundaries - Broadway being highbrow theater while the Bowery was a lowbrow version of something the upper classes enjoyed. Higginson is calling the affirmations made in Song of myself to question. Is Whitman really what he preaches? Was Whitman once a reflection of his writing and through his many revisions, has changed? Like the Bowery, once maintaining a manly aura and shifting to an effeminate one, has Whitman also shifted?

blew book

            I have been looking at the progression of lines from “This is the grass that grows wherever the land is, and the water is; This is the common air that bathes the globe” and onward. In the blue book version, W.W. has marked the area to death. He crossed out whole stanzas with possible new stanzas or revisions of what was already there. On page 56, he crosses many lines out and revises certain sentences, yet none of this appears in the 1867 version. What takes place of these half a dozen lines, is a line or two that has no evidence in his notes. He extracts lines that catalogue all type of people, while preserving the line “I play not marches for accepted victors only—I play great marches for conquer'd and slain persons.” Further down the page, Whitman rewrites “I beat triumphant drums for the dead” which is noted for revision and actually revised just as he marked- “I beat AND POUND drums for the dead.” It is such a minute change, yet it was made, like many of his notes prove.

            He altered lines, deleted, added – gave his poem a facelift- all to mirror how he felt about what he had written. It is interesting to compare these versions because it provides insight to the spirit of Whitman. Whitman (like all) was changing as a person, so why couldn’t his creations? The capricious nature of creation is not to be preserved, but observed - allowed time to grow. 

wishy washy walty?

          The first edition of Leaves of Grass did not burst onto the market and into the homes of folks. It was not in high demand, but Whitman wanted it to be- he wanted it to be carried around with all- physical or mentally. Like anything (ex. Movies) with potential, it is revised and redistributed as something familiar and also something new and different. I actually don’t have the 1855 version of the book (I ordered the wrong copy) and it’s been difficult for me to find it online in a way where I could accurately note the differences. From what I understand, his poems were originally title-less and the copy was much slimmer. Since then, he added more poems stretching the size of the book while altering what was already in the book. I have noticed that Song of Myself is altered in ambiguous locations (from what I’ve gone over) and the thought is there but my copy has a few more words here or there. It’s interesting that these differences DO create a new text, a modification. Some of the differences may be slight, but they alter the context and interpretation. He had more creative control with Thayer and Eldridge (1860) designing a more involved cover etc. He used this control to draw upon the idea of being one with nature, using a butterfly, sunrises and more ethereal subjects from nature.

            Whitman begs me to wonder: is there a true edition? Nabokov did a similar process with his novel Despair. He had his original edition, his English translation and then a revised edition later on. What does it mean for an author to alter what he/she writes, why can’t they? I asked my friend (an extremely talented art professor in my opinion) if he finished a painting I had seen him working on. He simply told me that no painting was ever really done, that they are all a work in progress forever. He worked with oil paints which take several days to dry, allowing for the artist to come back the next day and continue manipulating the painting as if there was no lapse in time. This ability to alter also distinguishes the painting as delicate- the paint can literally be wiped off the canvas, erasing all the work. As I took up painting for fun, I realized he was right. I literally leave certain parts of my paintings unfinished in order to keep that window open. (There is a small area here that is always left undone- it is reassuring to know that I can still change something.)

 I haven’t sprayed any sort of fixing agent on my paintings – they are not fixed. I think Whitman and company enjoy the freedom to change their mind, to change a word – add and subtract. Perhaps Whitman pioneered the idea of art as a process never to be finished. There can be no one true version because every version is true; they all represent an aspect of the complexities within the human who created it.