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.