Giving it much consideration....

I think that the project that I will elaborate on will be the the comparison of critical reviews concerning the first edition LoG to reviews relevant to the current edition.

Something that fascinated me was the vehemence and disgust critics felt towards the book and the misconceptions they carried towards obsenity and poetry. I want to look at the most brutal reviews and compare them to more secular reviews that not only grasp the material fairly, but genuinely appreciate the piece for what it is, the masterwork of America's greatest poet.

Some of the issues I will encounter would be procuring these reviews and the reviews of current time as well which editon of LoG to consider when pulling said review. I also don't have a great idea of how I will approach the project in general.

Mr. Doyle.

They met on a fateful winter night. He was a horse carriage driver, cabbie, whatever you would call them in those days and Whitman was his only passenger. He claims that they were very familiar with one another at once and knew the type of friendship they would have when he placed his hand on his knee.

Now this all seems very tame, but this statement was rather brave considering the times in which it was confessed.

Now, Mr. Doyle, though marginally literate, proved to be a man quite different than Whitman. He was not a politically versed person, nor an artist or a writer, but in this he was the very man that Whitman sought for in a companion. He was the everyone man, the uneducated who was worthy of friendship, without adversity.

Most interestingly, he served on the confederate army opposing the north which Whitman so admired.

A companion for nearly thirty years, his frequent visits became less and less so as Whitman's health waned. There was an obvious conversation between the two where his concerns were brought up and whitman immediately understood. I imagine that he might have started a family or perhaps whitmans caretakers had become a nuisance, whatever reasons there maybe doyle loved the man and allowed a trusted friend to edit and publish personal letters.

Calamus is not based upon doyle and were written years prior to their relationship. Interestingly enough, certain sexually implicit lines were dropped during their relationship in later editions. (Will investigate.)

I personally believe that though peter doyle did not have a direct influence on LoG, he made Whitman happy which allowed him to open up considerably about his sexuallity and personal life.

Tupper

A composer of didactic moralisings. Martijn Tuppers writing was first recognized as a failure within both his home of great brittain, and our US. However, thirty years after their release in 1837, they quickly gathered steam and sold nearly forty various editons at home and a million copy in the states.

His style was one of prose and verse, disected and presented in snippets like proverbs to teach a lesson or a present a moral issue in poetic fashion. He would later fall into obscurity

In relation to whitman, his writings though didactic in nature provided an example of legacy and the fall and rise of a poet. It can also be said that they would share similar careers, difference being whitman would remain and iconic poet of our nation.

Whitman was not appreciated until the early 20th century and even then, his writings were considered either complete rubbish or the crazed profanities of a loafer.

Specimen Day.

Provided a snapshot of his family homestead and the history behind them, what stands out is the imagery presented within the text: the slaves huddles on the floor, the men drinking cider and the solitary almanac read during harsh winters. Most importantly the work that both men and women contributed to the household.

There is an emphasis on the strong women on both sides of the family, women that were capable riders and able to run their household when widowed. Spoke to me about his perspective on women since he never frowned upon them or used typical description to atone tomboyism of any sort.

The sound of the ocean was another thing that stood out and let me visualize a house/barn which was not to far from the ocean. Not close to hear the crashing of the waves against the beach, just close enough to hear the faint whispers of the sea.

No Whitman in Walking Dead. :(

Im sure that Whitman and various excerpts of his work appear in their various forms either in their entirety or in bits. Youtube is an awful tool when it comes to searching for the Whitman in mass media. However, when you know what youre looking for, you might strike gold.

Northern Exposure, a sitcom series from the nineties was among the various collections that belonged to my girlfriend. I say collections because she has a tendency to love sitcoms and television series that have been cancelled. In this episode, the radio dj of the aforementioned little town recites a little whitman, but comments on his questionable sexuality. This offends the town mayor as he taken Whitman as a representation of the everyman. In capable of hearing his hero's sexuality bashed on the air waves, he not only kicks the radio dj off the air of his show, which the mayor owns, but the kicks his ass as well.

In Breaking Bad, Walter White has cancer, and he himself is considered the everyman that struggles to survive while doing good. Having to break bad, he sells drugs to amass a trust fund of sorts for his family the moment he passes away. In this episode, their is an attempt to establish a personal connection between Gale and Walt. Walt is impressed by Gale's recitation of the learn'd astronomer, most importantly because it represents the scientists wonder in creating or achieving scientific wonder.

Last but not least, Leaves of Grass. Actually last is least. At first i brushed this film aside because it looked like another movie about pot. But it turns out the director and edward norton attempted to make a film not only about weed, but in a way that represents whitman's free style verse. The movie was absolute shit raking in a paltry 100,000 in month.

Van Helsor Hole in the Ground.

What is it like to go to a place so personal and familiar and finding just a hole in the ground, which marked the least important place of a landmark? The house's asshole?

He traveled home and found his mothers legacy ploughed over and demolished and replaced with bland exterior decoration.

Whitman most likely drew the comparison as the destruction of material legacy and the claims humans have on what is left when they perish into the earth. Do we ever leave anything behind? What he attempted to do was leave something worth noting and saving. A real heir and legacy that was not only astonishing but a representation of his personal self. And he succeeded.

What they thought.

[Anonymous]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The Critic 15 (1 April 1856): 170-1.
 This gentlemen read it and didn't get it. He scrutinized the form and not the substance, but then again, what could be expected of someone who could refer to an american as a yankee? He throws some mighty hooks at Whitman, claiming that he is not only a miserable spinner of words but going as far as claiming that he barely learning to write. Emmerson's judgement of the narrative is cast aside as commentary out of pity.

 [Bagshawe, Henry Ridgard]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The Dublin Review 41 (September 1856): 267-8.

Disgust, profane and completely belligerent and not worthy. They found the book not worthy of any commentary which is evident in their pathetic review.

 [Anonymous]. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The Washington Daily National Intelligencer  (18 February 1856): 2.

Analyzing the character of Whitman they percieved the writing as an introduction to the man and drew comparisons to great thinkers though he probably had no knowledge. It was cutting edge to them though a little rough (paradox) however they said that no one could get away without be struck by how fantastical the writing could be.

In general the reviews are different in what they state, claiming either he is illiterate or a rising poet. Their reaction is different. Pertaining to the time, they are conservative in their observation, noticing the profane verses and implifications and often times assassinating his character as someone trying to write poetry in the worst way possible.

After decades of analysis and review, we know the better that perfection and the fantastic come in different forms, ranging from the visual to the audio to the written in mass forms of medium that even when recognized as amazing, will be noticed by a few.

How many of us have read the catcher in the rye as a child and stated this was bullshit and boring?

This is the comparison i am trying to draw between people in our time against those in that era. They are knowledgeable of their own era of writing but blind to the future and this is a cycle that we will most likely repeat, rejecting the new for the old and familiar. What i found most interesting are the different ways in which they claim the different is uncomfortable and awful.