Review on Reviews of Whitman

It is amazing how people can consume the same product and recognize the product in the same exact ways, but have entirely different judgments of them. This was most apparent within the three reviews I read, Leaves of Grass New York. 1855. London. Horsell., "[We have before us]." The London Weekly Dispatch, and  "Studies Among the Leaves." The Crayon 3. 

All three focused on the topics of Whitman's work as:

-appreciative of Nature's beauty

-lacking of form, rhyme, or any typical features of 'poetry'

-simplistic language

-Whitman as a 'new-comer'

-representative of the modern man

The first review, Leaves of Grass done by Horsell in London, received these topics in an EXTREMELY negative light. One of the questions for this assignment asked if there were any over-reactions and this is most definitely the case. They even went as far as to say 

"Walt Whitman is, as unacquainted with art, as a hog is with mathematics. His poems--we must call them so for conveniance--twelve in number, are innocent of rhythm, and resemble nothing so much as the war-cry of the Red Indians."

Whoa! Since Whitman lacks form and rhythm, Horsell believes his piece of work shouldn't even be considered art or poetry. Horsell goes on further to say that Whitman

"talks like a man unaware that there was ever such a production as a book, or ever such a being as a writer... who gives us slang instead of melody, and rowdyism in the place of regularity... a man who calls his free speech the true utterance of a man: we... call it the expression of a beast...deserv[ing] nothing so richly as the public executioner's whip."

 So, not only is Whitman not an artist, or poet, but he is not even deserving of the title 'writer' but instead punishment via whipping. And this is all due to his simplistic language, use of slang, and addressment of topics outside of the elite scholar. This makes me think that the American Poet was very much assumed to be reflective of the English Poet, one that speaks the finest of languages, addresses only matters of the wealthy, and looks and acts reserved. Horsell mentions that Whitman appreciates nature but in the perspective of an animal... so it seems as though one must not only discuss certain things for a work to be considered poetry but they must only do it through a certain perspective... This makes me think of our discussion about the hierarchy of senses and how sight is reflectant of the privileged while smell as we see in Horsell's words is indecent: "Is it possible that the most prudish nation in the world will adopt a poet whose indecencies stink in the nostrils?"

Horsell's review also makes me think of Barnum and how he would promote negative reviews of himself for it would bring an audience with the intent to see for themselves the reasoning behind the bad reviews. It's like when mother's in the late 80's or early 90's disliked the 'satanic' music their children were listening to, metal, and pushed for a parental advisory sticker on the cd's that had the most outlandish lyrics and threatening instrumentals. This turned, though, into a positive thing for a record's sales for if the album didn't get a parental advisory sticker, it wasn't worth one's time to listen to for it wasn't 'metal enough.' Maybe Whitman wanted to be, in fact I'm pretty sure he did, rebellious and representative of what was considered 'un-civilized.' He wanted to redefine what was poetry, and probably appreciated these negative views for it got more people interested in what he was doing and opened their minds in the realm of literature.

The other two reviews by the London Weekly Dispatch and The Crayon 3 don't have as drastic views as Horsell, and both illude to Whitman's work as having potential, but needing work in order to become the great poet they knew Whitman could be. The London Weekly mentions also mentions that Whitman's lack of standard poetic-ness may be seen as a negative, his

"strength of expression...fervor, hearty wholesomeness...originality, mannerism, and freshness...appropriate to themselves alone... and his poems in time will become a pregnant text-book..."

The Crayon 3 also says that

"...the rude, vigorous, and grand if chaotic thought of Whitman...[is] imperfect only from want of development...not yet having attained its parts."

While these two reviews recognize the standards of poetry, they predict the growth not only within Whitman, but the reader of poetry. They know that it's ever changing and should be representative of the times, not stuck in the old English ideas of poetry that it was to serve a particular instead of the whole that Horsell believed in. I think this must reflect the ideology of the American people, they seemed desperate for something new and more relatable that Whitman was about to make happen.

I agree with this idea of poetry representing the times, or just representing anything. People need to get over the idea of poetry or literature as a habit of the elite and just accept it for its intent, content, or just for the words itself.