/lit/ - Literature

>>11474491
His best what? Personally I think he is too highly regarded. The major theme of his writing is humble vanity, I suppose. A man who sung to the eternal self but knew no matter how hard you tried you would never be able to expose or attain the true self. It was an unending conquest, but LoG was rather phenomenal and extensive. It is an unreplicable work of art that stands as a testiment to the evasive soul. I was reluctant to take him on at first, he seemed contrived and hoity toity on the surface. But it does grow on you. Takes you for a trip as you are him, and that really is something special.


>There was never any more inception than there isnow,
>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.

>>11474539
>eternal self
>true self
>falling victim to far eastern categories
rip

>>11474491
his work is an honest exposition of a narcissistic hedonist

>>11474562
That concept of "Self" exists elsewhere too, check the Gnostic poem Thunder Perfect Mind:

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html

>>11474579
>check out gnostic
been there, done that, it's a dead end.

>>11474592
Next they'll get into hermeticism then alchemy and after they can't get the philosophers stone they'll finally give up and go Christian.

>>11474599
And how does Christianity end the search?

Just give up babby jesus will gib u eternal lyfe?

>>11474657
when you're seeking becomes authentic, instead of self-referential, you will begin to understand...

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

"“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."

>>11474711
your*
oops

>>11474491
>people ITT think his work is vain and hedonist because he was a homo

>>11474491
/lit/ never talks about him which is strange because he's pretty much Papa Bloom's favorite poet.

I imagine it's because his work is so life affirming and overwhelming sincere to the point of nauseating tweeness, which is a worldview that most here don't really share. If they did they'd be outside enjoying themselves rather than rolling around in this shithole. His overt narcissism spits in the face of our covert narcissism

>>11474733
his work was vain because it revolves so strongly around himself, he makes an idol of himself; his work is hedonistic because his intention was to glorify earthly vanity, the flesh, the carnal appetites, etc, and he achieved his aim.

>being gay protects against critiques
No.
But it sure is not surprising to see the direction he chose.

>>11474746
/lit/ doesn't like Bloom anymore.
Whitman is a degenerate dandy.

If you want poetry read Dante and Pound
If you want prose read Tolkien and Dostoevsky

>>11474754
>Pound
>Prose.....Tolkien

>>11474747
No, his work is not vain because it isn't glorifying himself in any way. He speaks towards the transcendental self, a spiritual cleansing that is accessible or indeed inherent in all people. Read the Song of Myself:
"I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you."
This isn't vanity, it is rather spiritual revelry in existence itself. Nor is it hedonism. I can tell you are not american because it seems you have no understanding of the transcendental movement.

>>11474766
>No, his work is not vain because it isn't glorifying himself in any way
He literally has a part called "Song of Myself" in which he says he will "sing himself and celebrate himself" and he takes that declaration very literally and goes on to glorify himself with banalities, and this theme is throughout his work. It's no secret his work is vain.

>This isn't vanity, it is rather spiritual revelry in existence itself.
That's not spiritual. That's the opposite.
Spirituality is how one relates to God. He makes himself God, he becomes his own idol, and the rest of the poem is him talking about how much enjoyment he can extract from various experiences and objects and people.

>>11474754
>if you want prose read genre hack and not even the fifth best russian

>>11474797
If you are wrapped up in your own ego, and think he does the same, you miss the point of his poetry entirely, and the point of the philosophic/literary movement entirely.
To glorify himself would mean to place himself over others. He does not do that. In Song of Myself, each thing that he grants himself he grants to mankind. "For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you". He speaks towards a spiritual rebirth in which you find glory in creation. Since you seem to be inclined to the christian religion, see Psalm 19:1. Whitman's poetry also channels currents, I would say, from eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.
"Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems,
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self."
Tell me how this is vanity, if he places the reader the same as him.
>Spirituality is how one relates to God.
This isn't right, as spirituality can describe any range of processes seeking an inner or greater truth. But still, he most certainly does this, even in that very poem.
Why should I wish to see God better than this day?
"I see something of God each hour of the twenty-four, and each moment then,
In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass,
I find letters from God dropt in the street, and every one is sign’d by God’s name,
And I leave them where they are, for I know that wheresoe’er I go,
Others will punctually come for ever and ever."
>He makes himself God, he becomes his own idol
Nowhere does he do this, as I said before he glories the act of being. Perhaps you are confused because he sees himself as part of God's creation.
> and the rest of the poem is him talking about how much enjoyment he can extract from various experiences and objects and people
It isn't bane enjoyment like a junkie talking about a hit. It is an altered state of purity. I doubt you would understand this.

>>11474754
>If you want poetry read Pound
>If you want prose read Tolkien and Dostoevsky

“No”

>>11474844
when he says God he means nothing more than himself.

In the first two lines he creates an equivalence between the soul and the body, and vice versa: “I have said that the soul is not more than the body, / And I have said that the body is not more than the soul”. He then dethrones God: “And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one’s self is”.

Then he makes “I hear and behold God in every object, yet understand God not in the least, / Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself"

"God is not greater than one's self"
"There is no one more wonderful than myself."

You've been hoodwinked by a vain hedonist who basically worships himself and uses the term God only to squash it with narcissism.

>>11474913
That's a misinterpretation there.
Is Whitman an author only americans can understand?

>>11475039
This discussion has been derailed by quasi Philoshills who only know the words narcissistic and hedonistic. It's tiring at this point. The whole theme of Whitmans perceived egocentric logos is that of a shared self, which is of course intrinsicly personal and singular. It is a contract we observe and eventually acquiesce to because it is a contract that allows a funneling of the divine spirit of the soul. It is secular, it is wholly dramatized, it is a magnificent triumph. Though, and still, I believe there are works by other poets whose general structure is far superior to Whitmans.any conception of God displayed is merely an abstract shortcut for describing the ephermeral moment, and the divine metaphor that is chiefly inexplicable in nature and functionality. Stop shilling. Trolls need not apply.

>>11474491
first edition of leaves of grass is the best. the current emphasis on his homosexuality is BS though. whitman is expressly for everyone & about everyone

>>11474491
>Was it doubted that those who corrupt their own bodies conceal themselves?
And if those who defile the living are as bad as they who defile the dead?
And if the body does not do fully as much as the soul?
And if the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
i wish pro-transgender types would have a long hard think about this

>>11475039
unambiguously yes