When doing the readings for today’s class, I was very interested by the completely opposite reactions to Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” expressed in the two reviews of it. While I don’t think the fact that this work was controversial and lead to such different views of the work is surprising, it was very interesting to me to see how differently the reviews were written. I feel like the way that they were written directly reflects the views that the reviewer had on the work.

The negative review, written by Rufus W. Griswold, is what you would expect of a traditional review/comment on a work. It briefly describes the type of things the work talks about (even if it is done so in a very biased way), and then goes into the reviewers opinion of the work. Griswold discusses how the views of Whitman go against social virtues, and therefore should not be read or distributed by anyone. The standard nature of the review reflects want for society to follow a standard socialized order, abiding by certain moral codes and rules.

In contrast, the positive review, written by Fanny Fern, is not written in a traditional way. It is much more confusing and requires more thought to understand what exactly she is saying about Whitman’s work. Fern is directly expressing her appreciation and positive feelings towards Whitman’s work not just through her actual words, but through her going against of the standard order and format of a review.