Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Whitman Reviews III

"A Strange Blade." Punch Magazine  (26 April 1856)"

I found this article particularly interesting, because it revealed a trend which I have noticed in many contemporary magazines to have a larger tradition than i would have thought. I refer to persistent supercilious bitchiness which seems to be mistaken for a critically engaging denouncement of art and artifice. The author writes "We can only say that these Leaves of Grass are fully worthy to be put on a level with that heap of rubbish called Fern Leaves, by FANNY FERN, and similarly "green stuff." The fields of American literature want weeding dreadfully." Aside from the substandard punnery, the article does not engage with the poem in the slightest. It therefore comes across as very egotistical, that the author castigates the poem with no recourse to the poem itself. He says it is bad, not why it is bad, and therefore assumes the authority of his opinion. We have all encountered writing of this kind, normally in the pages of sensationalist tabloid magazines, so it is interesting to see it being applied to a canonical work of literature. Of course the author is entitled to his opinion, but it seems ill-informed, ill-thought out, ill-considered. 
Whitman Review II.

"Leaves of Grass." The Saturday Review 1 (15 March 1856)"

It is no exaggeration to reveal that this reviewer was not a fan of Leaves of Grass. Skip to the damning paragraph at the article's closure, and we gain a sense of how Whitman's poetry dwells in a much more hostile and conservative environment than ours today, "But the truth is, that after every five or six pages of matter such as we have quoted, Mr. Whitman suddenly becomes exceedingly intelligible, but exceedingly obscene. If the Leaves of Grass should come into anybodies possession, our advice is to throw them instantly behind the fire." If the article is to be considered a polemic, the writer has a strange way of advancing his argument. He includes a spectrum of other reviews from a number of established sources and literary figures, all of which express nothing but veneration for the poem. His conclusion is not befitting of the article's erstwhile praise of Whitman, and indeed the final paragraph seems hastily penned in obstinate disregard to these reviews.
We may glean from this that Whitman writes in an America going through transition. There is a tension between conservatism and incipient liberalism, in which Whitman creates a fence too sharp to sit on. This is to his credit. Art is perhaps the most important agent of transgression, and the breaking of boundaries remains to be one of its most important attributes.
Reviews of Whitman.

"'Leaves of Grass'—An Extraordinary Book." The Brooklyn Daily Eagle 15 (15 September 1855)

The writer of this short piece on Leaves of Grass lends us a sense of the artistic context Whitman resides in, and by extension the innovation that the poem exhibits. He writes, "It is one of the strangest compounds," continuing, "it is not an epic nor an ode, nor a lyric; nor does its verses move with the measured pace of poetical feet—of Iambic, Trochaic or Anapaestic, nor seek the aid of Amphibrach, of dactyl or Spondee, nor of final or cesural pause, except by accident." Ironically, in expressing how pioneering the poem is, the author adopts Whitman's cataloguing technique, suggesting perhaps a level of subconscious influence by the poem. The author's cataloguing also serves to establish how different the poem is; he defines it by what it is not, and in doing so further emphasises the poems individuality. The reviewer is reluctant to reveal whether he actually likes the poem. He seems to fluctuate between approval and disapproval at Walt's pioneering technique, thereby giving the impression that he is somewhat speechless.
What we the contemporary reader can take out of this review is a degree of insight into the context Whitman writes in, and therefore establish both his innovation and influence.