Investigation: Reviews of Leaves of Grass

Dana, Charles A. --The New York Daily Tribune's [Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]

In regards to "Leaves of Grass", this critic seems to focus on the language and how it reflects Whitman, "the natural poet." Dana remarks that the poems "are certainly original in their external form, have been shaped on no pre-existent model out of the author's own brain". After reading this review a second time, I caught notice of the overall elevated language of the critique itself -- something linked to the traditional and respected view of poets in this time. I would figure, too, that "The New York Daily Tribune" also carries some prestige, and that would also explain the style and diction. It's almost like an older tree-parent (if such things existed) was giving its perspective on the young saplings that are growing from their traditional views; by saying that his nature may be "coarse and defiant" while his language may come from a "naive unconsciousness", it gives the impression that the traditional old fogeys -- the elitist, aristocratic scholars and writers -- view Whitman sort of like their own teenage son whose thoughts, ideas, and style is something they feel is caused by inexperience or lack of proper "literary grooming", if you will. It's bluntly stated, thus, in this way: "His words might have passed between Adam and Even in Paradise, before the want of fig-leaves brought no shame; but they are quite out of place amid the decorum of modern society, and will justly prevent his volume from free circulation in scrupulous circles". Until Whitman "cultivates" himself into the "decorum", then he may be left out of the "prestigious tree circles, and possibly forests of the literature world". Nevertheless, there is recognition of the idea that Whitman aspires to share enlightening to the reader from every core of his being and that, throughout the poem, there is this "genuine intimacy with Nature and a keen appreciation of beauty" -- that sensuality that brings everyone beyond knowledge, but that seems to have been missed by this critic at least partially if not the other acknowledgment of "bold, stirring thoughts".

Anonymous -- Life Illustrated's [A curious title]

This curious reader took the leap into the "unconnected, curious, and original" "Leaves of Grass" and seems to have found "striking truth and beauty". Here, it is noted that, though Whitman may be a loafer, he is "thoughtful", "amiable", and "able", someone who is not limited by his "occupation" as a loafer but who transcends into respectable thought. Perhaps this reader is one of the "free-souled persons" mentioned who "read and chuckle[d] over with real delight as the expression of their own best feelings", noticing, probably, the beauty of nature, of the equal, yet different divine qualities of each and every person, the sensuality of experience through the senses -- something that struck the reader that isn't specifically mentioned besides the "independent sentences" and "rhythmical prose". By giving the alternative title, American Life, from a Poetical Loafer's Point of View, the critic, maybe, saw "Leaves of Grass" as the fresh, newly surfacing perspective (after being denied due to the presence of the respected traditional aristocratic view) that brought to light the democratic pride that needs to be addressed and embraced.

Somehow, the comparison between the book, "Leaves of Grass" and a small atlas stood out to me, especially so when, at the end of the critique, there's the remarks that it "was printed by the author's own hands, and that he is philosophically indifferent to its sale. It pleased him to write so, and the public may take it or let it alone, just as they prefer". To me, it almost seemed like the critic is saying Whitman made this sort of map to the world around us, but this map is almost like that of a treasure map in that it's something he left behind for those curious to search and explore its "new and peculiar" contents. However, is Whitman completely indifferent? After all, he puts himself out to the world by setting himself apart from the aristocratic literary contemporaries of the time by taking on the image of "a perfect loafer", and thus wants that attention to be on him and his messages.

However, just as curious as this claim is, so is this curious critic, indeed -- why be anonymous? Perhaps this person fears backlash from those who do not share his/her sentiments about the "unconnected, curious, and original" Whitman? Maybe it is because this person pretty much divides the "respectable people" from those who would find beauty in "Leaves of Grass" and thus, including the first suggestion, brings to light the inevitable social pressures and norms with some question and criticism -- that the elite can only see nonsense in such an original collection?

Anonymous -- Punch Magazine's [A Strange Blade]

This critic refers to Fanny Fern who also has her own critique featured  in The New York Ledger; it can be assumed that Punch's critic couples her with Whitman because of their similarities in literary style, representations of middle-class, and perhaps for their lack of conformity with the norm -- basically, different equals bad, says the anonymous speaker, who also so happens to have not much to say besides calling "Leaves of Grass" a "mad book". Perhaps, by referring to Whitman's claim of being the "Kosmos," this reader saw Whitman as an arrogant loafer who thinks himself bigger than he really is, for what kind of "American Rough" would dare express such defiance toward the norm? But, if that's the case, did the person completely miss out on the message that all are equally different and powerful? What is it about "Leaves of Grass" that has this person compare it to a weed that needs to be removed from "the fields of American Literature"? Was it the colloquial language that seemed to be unclassy? Was it the fact that the image of Whitman just became this stereotyped image in the Anon's head that rendered him from taking the text seriously or under the same light as well-respected contemporaries? Why be anonymous in the first place if it's okay to consider Whitman's work something bad? Going back to Fern's work and the label of "green stuff", this critic must have kept traditional styles too close to heart, for anything "new" seems to be inferior -- these new blades need to be cut before they ruin the fields of well-respected writers. Overall, it just feels like this reader had nothing constructive to say and just expressed his/her initial reaction to the radical book, leaving no room for acceptance of the new form or new poet, even though, with time and new experiences, that there will come new perspectives and takes on not just poetry and literature, but everything as well.