Reviewing Reviews

"Here we have a book which fairly staggers us. It sets all the ordinary rules of criticism at defiance."

The foundation of the beginning review, entitled "Leaves of Grass- An Extraordinary Book," claims Whitman's text avoids all types of criticism, or to put it differently, by brinking the gap between classical formalaic poetry and his version of modernity, he was able to create something so staggeringly new that even to this day we struggle finding the tools to analyze and criticize it completely. Historically, Whitman's text gains much of its power from the fact that it avoids rhyme schemes, metricality, ordinary juxtaposition, poetic structure- it was the creation of free verse poetry. This free verse, one of the first true steps away from classicality, avoids ordinary rules and limitations for the very purpose of avoiding classical criticism. What this shift away from classical and formal poetry implies, being more a suggestion of Whitman's own individuality, is a general transformation of America's belief structure, a nation striving to find their own voice while resting on relatively new feet. America had no single poetic structure, no concrete form, every poem being a mere reflection on their pre-colonialized roots- Whitman provided an alternative mode to craft poetry while instantaneously promoting the core values of American ideals- a freeness unbound.

"It is a poem; but it conforms to none of the rules by which poetry has ever been judged. It is not an epic nor an ode, nor a lyric; nor does its verses move with the measured pace of poetical feet—of Iambic, Trochaic or Anapaestic, nor seek the aid of Amphibrach, of dactyl or Spondee, nor of final or cesural pause, except by accident."

The review transforms into a microscopic analyzation of minor poetic detail, however, the reviewer finds himelf without the capabilities to explain without utilizing a dialectic argumentative structure. Because Whitman's text is a paragon of newness, there are, for the most part, only new poetic devices; techniques one observes yet is incapable of describing. The reviewer begins to explain how the poem is devised by saying it merely does not make use of this, nor this, nor this. Such a reviewing technique explicates Whitman's enterance into poetic creation which is limitless and infinite.

"He does not pick and choose sentiments and expressions fit for general circulation—he gives a voice to whatever is, whatever we see, and hear, and think, and feel. He descends to grossness, which debars the poem from being read aloud in any mixed circle. We have said that the work defies criticism; we pronounce no judgment upon it..."

The finality of the essays core returns to the original claim- we pronounce no judgement on Whitman, we merely stand in awe at a poem which avoids classical criticism. Rather than focusing on lofty poetic classicalism, he focuses on thematically connecting with his American audience- intertwining themes touching on America's support of the "everyman," his providing a voice to every majority and minority, his celebration of freedom, and his attempts to stretch away from classical and outlandish thought.

________________________________________________________________________________

The second review, titled merely "Leaves of Grass," descends into a new realm of analysis, one which focuses not on poetic technique, but thematic power. The reviews have entirely divergent writing styles, the first a more traditional approach, the second a more Whitmanesque reflection. He begins by stating Whitman's world needed this- to paraphrase, a speaker who avoids genres, nomenclatures, institutionalized colonial remnants, a poet who stands away from socio-economic positions, a world which

"[...]needed a "Native American" of thorough, out and out breed—enamored of women not ladies, men not gentlemen; something beside a mere Catholic-hating Know-Nothing; it needed a man who dared speak out his strong, honest thoughts, in the face of pusillanimous, toadeying, republican aristocracy; dictionary-men, hypocrites, cliques and creeds; it needed a large-hearted, untainted,self-reliant, fearless son of the Stars and Stripes, who disdains to sell his birthright for a mess of pottage; who does

"Not call one greater or one smaller,

That which fills its period and place being equal to

any;"

who will

"Accept nothing which all cannot have their coun-

terpart of on the same terms."

The reviewers language is languid, rich, smooth and flowing like Whitman's own writing. This review also explains and reflects on Whitman's time period, explaining historically what they need. Here, the review takes an almost new historicism approach. Next, the reviewer begins utilizing poetic technique, a point of the review where structural criticism clashes with poetic alignment
.

 "Sensual!—No—the moral assassin looks you not boldly in the eye by broad daylight; but Borgia-like² takes you treacherously by the hand, while from the glittering ring on his finger he distils through your veins the subtle and deadly poison.

Sensual? The artist who would inflame, paints you not nude Nature, but stealing Virtue's veil, with artful artlessness now conceals, now exposes, the ripe and swelling proportions.

Sensual? Let him who would affix this stigma upon Leaves of Grass, write upon his heart, in letters of fire, these noble words of its author..."

This second review is powerful due to its poeticness rather than its criticism. An impressive review, to say the least.

________________________________________________________________________________

The third review criticizes (definitively speaks against) Leaves of Grass. This review, entitled  [Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)], states that his work isn't even worth purchasing, much less, if we have it, we have some sort of a moral obligation to rid ourselves of it, descending the review, at least stylistically, into satire. As an audience, "We shall not aid in extending the sale of this intensely vulgar, nay, absolutely beastly book, by telling our readers where it may be purchased."

The reviewer then (humorously?) states the author ought to be "sent to a lunatic asylum" for "pandering to the prurient tastes of morbid sensualists." The reviewer seems to be claiming Whitman's poem descends into the sexual morbid, such as a lover entering into the chest of a lover, the famous lines where the author begs for his reader to pull on his beard and insert their tongue into his chest, and this bluntness allegedly qualifies a poet to descend across this fine line of genius and sanity, a position which is more frustrating than one may realize; it is, after-all, impossible to prove sanity one way or another for anyone. When put into this frame, one may begin to understand the fundamental critique satirically, at least so far as it is slightly morbid, even vulgar, but to send the author to a "lunatic asylum," is, while almost humorous, a pretty low blow and terrible critique.

The review then criticises Emerson, this time period's acclaimed didactic writer, for supporting Whitman.

"...indorsed by the said Emerson, who swallows down Whitman's vulgarity and beastliness as if they were curds and whey. No wonder the Boston female schools are demoralized when Emerson, the head of the moral and solid people of Boston, indorses Whitman, and thus drags his slimy work into the sanctum of New England firesides."

Instead of a celebration, this is more of an attack: stating a poet should be sent to an insane asylum, referring to his work as "slimy," even reaching to blame the demoralization of Boston's female schools on both Emerson (for supporting Whitman), as well as Whitman himself; it's a "view the cup as always half empty and poisoness" type of perspective.

In my humble opinion, an unhealthy review, although even us optimistic ones must sometimes hear opinions of negative ones to gain perspective.

Links to Reviews:

http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00012.html
http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00026.html
http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1855/anc.00030.html