Leaves of... what? Reviewing Whitman.

If there is one thing that Whitman's contemporaries thought, it was that he was a bit crazy. Maybe not crazy in a bad way per say (some would disagree), but still enough to send shockwaves through the literary community. Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" was an unprecedented work for his contemporaries, leaving many stunned for the appropriate words to "explain" the poetry (which is probably why a handful of the reviews simply ended up quoting a large block of text from the preface of the book). More or less, some reviews were rather positive, others negative, but everyone was at least, astonished and a little bit perplexed.

Charles Eliot Norton from Putnam's Monthly: A Magazine of Literature, Science, And Arts defines Whitman's work as a "lawless collection". He reproaches Whitman for his lack of poetic devices and his crude language, writing:

"The writer's scorn for the wonted usages of good writing; extends to the vocabulary he adopts; words usually banished from polite society are here employed without reserve and with perfect indifference to their effect on the reader's mind; and not only is the book one not to be read aloud to a mixed audience, but the introduction of terms, never before heard or seen, and of slang expressions, often renders an otherwise striking passage altogether laughable."'

As shown, Norton's review did not cast Whitman in a positive light. However, he later makes of point of saying that Whitman's mix of "New England transcendentalist and New York rowdy" is profound in its own right. He gives a long list of the "gems" he considered worthy of notice that he found in the poetry. But, being a somewhat bad reviewer, he fails to mention what exactly about those passages that made Whitman at least, worth reviewing. But Norton's analysis of Whitman's poetry shows that that much of the literary world of Whitman's time was not used to free verse and did not know what to make of it. Poetry was supposed to have form. Poetry is high literature not to be bastardized by Whitman's "wonted usages of good writing".

On the other hand there are the reviewers that believe Whitman's poetry was refreshingly unique. An Anonymous reviewer from Life Illustrated (find review here), is one of those readers that are inclined to look favorably upon things that are "new" and "peculiar". The reviewer writes: "It is like no other book that ever was written, and therefore, the language usually employed in notices of new publications is unavailable in describing it." Essentially, Whitman's work is in a category of its own and the standard criteria of "good poetry" could not possibly be applied. The reviewer proclaims that the work is something that "respectable people would pronounce perfect nonsense, but which free-souled persons, here and there, will read and chuckle over with real delight." Now, many of these reviewers of the literary crowd are rather part of the respectable crowd, so it is hard to say what the teeming passes really thought of his poetry, but it is safe to say that, along with the respectable crowd, the "free-souled persons" aren't exactly the majority either. Whitman, in this review, is seen as breaking new ground in poetry and it was quite exciting for many like-minded individuals to see. For this reviewer, poetry is all about the "striking" and "beautiful", but also about a novel way of expressing oneself through words. Unsurprisingly, Whitman was probably quite popular with the more Bohemian crowds and like-minded radicals.

Then there is the third review, which is somewhere in between the first two. Published anonymously in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the review is titled "'Leaves of Grass' - An Extraordinary Book". The review begins by pointing out the ways in which "Leaves of Grass" is nothing like what people who imagine as poetry. In order to explain this phenomenon, the reviewer takes a chunk of text from the preface where Whitman states that his poetry is crafted on behalf and as representative of the common man. The common man is "unrhymed poetry". Poetry with rhyme would not be fitting for the every day working class. Now, the reviewer praises Whitman for this, going on to list several important passages that are essential to the poem such as the moment when the child asks Whitman what grass is and the twenty-ninth bather. The reviewer finds Whitman's praise for not only the winners of life, but also it's losers profound. "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." The reviewer is evidently enamored by Whitman's nondiscriminatory poetry. The poem "defies criticism". Like the previous review, it is poetry that can't be accurately judged or even should be judged. But however much the reviewer does praise Whitman, there is also an understanding that the poetry can be difficult and challenging for many.

The reviewer does not claim that the poem is perfect in any way, but with the message that Whitman is trying to deliver, it might not be necessary for it to be perfect in the first place. After all, the common man is full of these discrepancies of good and bad, of boring and entertaining, of ugly and beautiful. There are mistakes and contradictions, but that's what life is all about. This last review really shows that Whitman was writing "Leaves of Grass" during a time that did not entirely share his views on what poetry is supposed to be, but it also shows that there is a good amount of intrigue for something that defies the literary norm, poetry that breaks through class barriers and distinctions.

So what is poetry supposed to do? If someone were to write a poem for publication, certainly there must be a purpose behind it or we would all just be closet poets scribbling away our dreams for our own satisfaction and review. What is the point of the pain-staking dedication to rhyme and meter? Our lives aren't structured, and as cool as it would be, we don't speak in iambic. Poetry is challenging and many people don't really get it (myself included).

Then why do I read poetry? To be honest, I am not entirely sure. I suppose I like how the words sound in my ears and the images and feelings they evoke. But if that were all, is there really any reason why a poem should be... say in a strict sonnet form? Why not let it be completely in free verse and see where it goes from there? And, why not just listen to music with well written lyrics if it were purely for auditory and emotional pleasure. I suppose there is something private about poetry, a message in a bottle so to speak. Sometimes, not even the poets know what they're going to write until the pen reaches the paper, and they write, as if possessed to solidify some hidden message coming from a very faraway place deep inside.

But that's all just rambling. I don't really know. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself."

Additional Comments (in response to Professor Hanley's Question):

So what is in it for the readers and critics who demand poetic structure and why is it needed for poetry? Well... in every day life there are not JUST words. There are expressions that accompany spoken words that really charge it with meaning and emotion. Similar to that of music, the duple meter is for grooving on the dance floor while the triple meter is for waltzing. Certain rhythms give off certain emotional qualities. The structure of the poem, the aesthetic structure, could be said to be the poem's "face". If regular theater was prose, then the equivalent of poetry would be opera. Maybe occasionally it's not so much a Puccini Opera as much as it's a Rock Opera (or maybe even... Hip-hopera??), but it's a "higher form" nonetheless.