/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10338559]

is whitman really as bad as he's made out to be or is this just reactionary memeing?

[Anonymous No.10338563]

memes

[Anonymous No.10338566]

he has a thin layer of nature admiration and transcendentalism, which is nice, I guess. but the meat of his work boils down to narcissistic homosexuality, wow democracy is so great! hooray for the dumb mob! and then just him patting himself on the back for being such a great artist and visionary and cock sucker.

[Anonymous No.10338571]

http://flavorwire.com/459904/walt-whitmans-song-of-myself-just-the-gay-parts

[Anonymous No.10338586]

>>10338559
Do people really make him out to be bad? I've only ever seen him made out to be overrated.

[Anonymous No.10338596]

He is the voice of the 18th century American.

[Anonymous No.10338601]

He's the American Tennyson in that respect

[Anonymous No.10338607]

>>10338596
>voice of the 18th century
>born in 1819
Something aint adding up here mate.

[Anonymous No.10338645]

>>10338607
Woops... 19th***

[Anonymous No.10338651]

Do people really think he's bad? Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.10338655]

>>10338651
Well, to be fair he's not good.

[Anonymous No.10338658]

>>10338651
if all you look at is the superficial, he can 'seem' good. If you look at content and substance there's much to be desired. He's not good overall.

[Anonymous No.10338659]

>>10338566
wow, you could've just said "no I have never read him"

[Anonymous No.10338668]

>>10338651
>>10338655
People on this board seem to have a revoltion to anything, other than Shakespeare, that they were forced to read in High-School

[Anonymous No.10338671]

>>10338668
Shakespeare is fucking garbage, or at least whoever actually wrote his shit.

[Anonymous No.10338673]

>>10338671
(you)

[Anonymous No.10338681]

>>10338559
He's phenomenal.

"I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars,
And the pismire is equally perfect, and a grain of sand, and the egg of the wren,
And the tree-toad is a chef-d’œuvre for the highest,
And the running blackberry would adorn the parlors of heaven,
And the narrowest hinge in my hand puts to scorn all machinery,
And the cow crunching with depress’d head surpasses any statue,
And a mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels. "

[Anonymous No.10338687]

>>10338566
This might be the most "I'm a teenager" post I've read in such a long time, nice going. Honestly, the fact that you think Whitman was transcendental and wrote about admiring nature just tells me you remember reading a poem or two from high school and then thought since he was with Thoreau and Emerson in the Transcendentalist section of your American Lit textbook you can assume that's what he is.

Also, Whitman isn't very explicitly homosexual, he's more polysexual in that he sings of the sensuality of life, be it man woman child or plant. But of course you wouldn't know that, because you're posting out of your ass. Try reading some Song of Myself and you'll see for yourself every time he speaks sensually. Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10338700]

lol always baffles me how salty euros on lit will worship harold bloom yet deny Whitman his credit despite bloom ranking him among the greatest

[Anonymous No.10338703]

>>10338687
Whitman doesn't need or deserve a pasta but thanks

[Anonymous No.10338719]

*stands on desk*
PICKLE WALT

[Anonymous No.10338781]

>>10338700
It is fine to have to like Bloom and still have problems with some of his opinions. For example, I like Blooms but find his opinions on Pound and Eliot to be horseshit and obviously
(and, to Blooms credit, admittedly) politically motivated

[Anonymous No.10338792]

>>10338719
Barbaric YAWP!

[Anonymous No.10338800]

>>10338781
I was a bit flustered while writing this post because my keyboard died in the middle of typing and I had to go get a used one from the basement.
Sorry, for the errors.

[Anonymous No.10338805]

>>10338687
>Also, Whitman isn't very explicitly homosexual, he's more polysexual in that he sings of the sensuality of life,
you assume I respect the differences between LGBTQQAIPX genders and orientations, I don't.
You're either Gay or Straight. Male or Female.
He doesn't have to be explicitly homosexual to be crude and vulgar.

>This might be the most "I'm a teenager" post I've read in such a long time, nice going. Honestly, the fact that you think Whitman was transcendental and

I actually like Whitman insofar as he was a transcendentalist, but it seems as he aged he became a lowbrow, pleb epicurean, not even a highbrow or lofty epicurean. Disgusting.

>>10338700
Harold Bloom is right to critique the degeneracy of modern Libshit Universities in promoting low-quality writing for the sake of LGBTQ/FEminist/Minority appreciation, aka politics over substance.
But he's guilty of being a snooty libshit himself, who, despite reading so much literature and philosophy, cant put 2+2 together and understand what is actually necessary, timeless and important in the world and thus in literature as well. So he masturbates over Wallace Stevens and Whitman because they represent modern american egomania and aesthetics taken to very high levels, so he can pretend that he's in good company and thus declare अहं ब्रह्मास्मिति to himself as he bloats himself MSG food and gropes his dimwitted, underread, affirmative action, female yale students.

[Anonymous No.10338808]

This board is full of brainlets

[Anonymous No.10338822]

>>10338559
He's fine. He wrote a few masterpieces (the Lincoln elegy, Song of Myself, some others), some really good stuff, and, like late Wordsworth, some dreck.

[Anonymous No.10338875]

>>10338808
>I parrot buzzwords on anime imageboards to prove my superiority
>wait till I retort that 'buzzword' is a buzzword lololol

[Anonymous No.10338976]

>>10338805
>you're either gay or straight
How does it feel being so wrong?

[Anonymous No.10338983]

>>10338658
>he still believes in the distinction between form and "content"
pic related is (you)

[Anonymous No.10339003]

>>10338976
>How does it feel being so wrong?
Where's the proof tho?
Bisexuals are faggots btw.
So good luck arguing against me.

>>10338983
why can't you distinguish between form (how something is expressed) and content (what is being expressed) ?

[Anonymous No.10339045]

>>10338559
>Reactionary
He was literally the antithesis of Thomas Carlyle who was reactionary in the fucking 1840s. Fair to say he was a liberal

[Anonymous No.10339090]

>>10339045
Not even a Liberal, Whitman was a Quaker Progressive

[Anonymous No.10339134]

>>10339090
>not liberal! he was a quaker liberal!

[Anonymous No.10339160]

>>10339134
lol. Americans think liberal = "democrat" or is a euphemism for hippie

[Anonymous No.10339168]

>>10339134
>He doesn't know the difference between a Progressive and a Liberal
After you graduate from High-School, you should really look into taking intro to poli-sci. It would help you to not look retarded on the internet.

[Anonymous No.10339176]

>>10338805
>someone who knows ancient Sanskrit expressions hasn't read anything about human sexuality written since 1965

Must have spent all your time in the ashram, eh?

[Anonymous No.10339223]

>>10339003
Because language is metaphorical. You cannot separate the "poem of the words" from the "poem of the ideas." Try doing it--try changing the words without changing the idea--it is impossible. There are no two writers who express the same "what" using different "hows," and if you disagree then you are reading very clumsily and out of tune. But anyway, try it--show me two writers who say the same "thing" in different words.

I get annoyed at freshmen like you who try to make that distinction and think they can distill a writer like whitman down to a thesis sentence or two. The "content" you search for is really a way of grasping onto an oeuvre that is beyond you, that defies you, that in its magnitude resists fumbling, third-rate attempts at "capturing" the essential "meat" of a writer with easy-to-digest tripe.

[Anonymous No.10339233]

>>10339223
*yawns defiantly*

The ramblings of an impotent freak...

*crosses arms, stares you down with steely eyes*

[Anonymous No.10339262]

>>10338875
don't worry friend, while the guy you tried to converse with has no interest in responding to ya, I'm offering up right here and right now a steamy, juicy (you) so y'all can have a good night.

[Anonymous No.10339367]

>>10339262
If this text could manifest as a person it would be a smarmy, balding 22-year-old boy

[Anonymous No.10339397]

>>10338559
^daily reminder that this is what burgers call poetry (he's mediocore for english standards - abysmal in international comparison)

[Anonymous No.10339412]

>>10339397
>abysmal in international comparison

Sure, that's why he has influenced basically all poets who have read him afterwards from many countries and traditions, right? Ever heard of Lorca, León Felipe, Pessoa, Darío, Wilde, Hopkins?

[Anonymous No.10339418]

>>10339412
influencial != good, there are many influencial literary figueres that noone reads anymore, because they didn't stand the test of time, but unfortunatly burger just cant let go of Whitty because they have notihng to compensate

[Anonymous No.10339513]

>>10339233
>>10339262
>>10339367
>>10339397
nice try mr. skeltal

[Anonymous No.10339517]

>>10339418
>many influential literary figueres that noone reads anymore
name one from 19c in the next 2 minutes

[Anonymous No.10339522]

>>10339233
>*
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.10339549]

>>10338719
i laffed

[Anonymous No.10339553]

>>10338805
don't you dare throw stevens in with whitman you fucking nigger

[Anonymous No.10339555]

>>10338559
Since when is he made out to be bad? Is that the opinion of the nu-/lit/? If so /pol/ really has ruined this board.

[Anonymous No.10339557]

>>10339045
i think op is referring to his detractors as potentially reactionary not the man himself

[Anonymous No.10339573]

>>10338805
>Wallace Stevens
stopped reading here

[Anonymous No.10339616]

>>10339555
fuck /pol/, but Whitman is still pretty bad, tho