You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
My Hell would be spending an eternity in an empty room with nothing to do but read this. It is nothing but an overlong blathering of self-important, pretentious twaddle. If anyone ever tells me they love this book I will assume they’ve never actually read it and are trying to pass themselves off as some pseudo intellectual. And if you do tell me you love this book I will just call you a liar, because no. It’s garbage and does not deserve the praise it receives, nor it’s distinction as a “classic”.
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
i enjoyed it somewhat. the style is good, that's for sure. the poems that focus more on humanity, human relationships and desires and such were good. but then the parts about america and being an american didn't speak to me at all and i found them quite boring. mixed opinions here
How do you review a poem? You can go for the academic angle: the composition, historical context, stylistic importance, Or you can write about your subjective reaction, and a bunch of bullshit theory as to what Whitman was actually on about, which is exactly what I'm going to do because I never bothered attending that literary criticism lecture.
There are a few things about Whitman:
1) He was gay
2) He was American
3) His parents were Quakers.
These are important because (in corresponding order):
1) Trivia of the day: Oscar Wilde visited him specifically and they shared a lovely dinner, with Whitman being in the bathtub presumably naked. This is probably not important, I just thought it's funny. Oh, and there's quite a bit of homosexual eroticism, nothing compared to what GQ publishes but notable none the less.
2) It becomes increasingly clear why Australians laugh at American patriotism (well, I can't speak for all, but that is certainly the case with the bunch of university anarchists I know). Leaves of Grass can be compared to La Liberté guidant le peuple, a painting by French Romantic artist Delacroix, more well known as Coldplay's surprisingly tasteful choice of cover art for Viva la Vida.
If you never took art or listen to the radio:
http://endtimepilgrim.org/liberty.jpg
3) Quakers are funny people. Before you get offended I was involved in Quakerism after a drop out with the Anglican church, so my understanding is probably obscured by teenage angst. The deal with Quakers is that its principles are broad you can almost fit atheism under it. Whitman was a Humanist, and it's interesting because the core of Quakerism is that God is inside you, and that we are all intrinsically spiritual.
If you add the three facts together, you're beginning to see a glimpse of the rigour and resplendence of this epic poem. It's about ideals, expressions, freedom, the right to write really obscure things but still justifiably quotable. It makes you feel alive, not the Indie, quiet type of epiphany by a jump up and down CAPS LOCK kind of way. Nobody can lecture like Whitman. I can see his ghost yelling at the TV because of a crap presidential speech, or a Modern Warfare game. What a pity he never met Hemingway, or Sylvester Stallone.
'There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now;
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now.' - Leaves of Grass
There are a few things about Whitman:
1) He was gay
2) He was American
3) His parents were Quakers.
These are important because (in corresponding order):
1) Trivia of the day: Oscar Wilde visited him specifically and they shared a lovely dinner, with Whitman being in the bathtub presumably naked. This is probably not important, I just thought it's funny. Oh, and there's quite a bit of homosexual eroticism, nothing compared to what GQ publishes but notable none the less.
2) It becomes increasingly clear why Australians laugh at American patriotism (well, I can't speak for all, but that is certainly the case with the bunch of university anarchists I know). Leaves of Grass can be compared to La Liberté guidant le peuple, a painting by French Romantic artist Delacroix, more well known as Coldplay's surprisingly tasteful choice of cover art for Viva la Vida.
If you never took art or listen to the radio:
http://endtimepilgrim.org/liberty.jpg
3) Quakers are funny people. Before you get offended I was involved in Quakerism after a drop out with the Anglican church, so my understanding is probably obscured by teenage angst. The deal with Quakers is that its principles are broad you can almost fit atheism under it. Whitman was a Humanist, and it's interesting because the core of Quakerism is that God is inside you, and that we are all intrinsically spiritual.
If you add the three facts together, you're beginning to see a glimpse of the rigour and resplendence of this epic poem. It's about ideals, expressions, freedom, the right to write really obscure things but still justifiably quotable. It makes you feel alive, not the Indie, quiet type of epiphany by a jump up and down CAPS LOCK kind of way. Nobody can lecture like Whitman. I can see his ghost yelling at the TV because of a crap presidential speech, or a Modern Warfare game. What a pity he never met Hemingway, or Sylvester Stallone.
'There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now;
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now.' - Leaves of Grass
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
I have never really gotten into poetry, for lack of simply reading the medium. I already knew the importance of Walt Whitman's work, Leaves of Grass, and after reading it, it is clearly a work of art.
Even now, Whitman's purity in expression, his love of all things and fundamental appreciation of a democratic, unified America is still relevant. Like Tocqueville's Democracy in America, Whitman writes at a time when America was indeed great, the adage of making America great "again" should point to Whitman's eloquent free verse of a unified nation, with equality for man and woman, black and white, and all migrants. This is a timeless work, and surprisingly very readable, even though it was written in 1855 and in the style of free verse.
Overall, Whitman is a panglossian, and yet he is still realistic and logical, and painfully wholesome. I will be reading this again and again for many years to come.
Even now, Whitman's purity in expression, his love of all things and fundamental appreciation of a democratic, unified America is still relevant. Like Tocqueville's Democracy in America, Whitman writes at a time when America was indeed great, the adage of making America great "again" should point to Whitman's eloquent free verse of a unified nation, with equality for man and woman, black and white, and all migrants. This is a timeless work, and surprisingly very readable, even though it was written in 1855 and in the style of free verse.
Overall, Whitman is a panglossian, and yet he is still realistic and logical, and painfully wholesome. I will be reading this again and again for many years to come.
I am not that big on poetry, so it was quite the challenge to get through this. Some very beautiful sections, but overall too repetitive and not that interesting for me personally.