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.
I honestly thought the other way around! I was surprised by Griswold’s strong language, it felt pretty unprofessional to me to say stuff like “Bloated with self-conceit, they strut abroad unabashed in the daylight, and expose to the world the festering sores that overlay them like a garment.” Although I suppose the way I define unprofessional may be different than how the 19th century did.
I thought both reviews were a very interesting dichotomy as well! I think they were the two reactions reflecting common feelings expressed in the time. The knee-jerk reaction to the overt mention of certain taboo areas was certainly reflected, met with a strong brashness in itself. I was though, struck by the kind of refreshed feelings expressed by the positive review. Fern is thankful for the breakthrough social norm, and I think it reflected maybe some feelings of those who weren’t quite to the point of publicly expressing their enjoyment of the style just yet. Just a thought, I could be wrong.