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

Well, to be fair he's not good.

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.

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

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

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

(you)

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. "

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.

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

Whitman doesn't need or deserve a pasta but thanks

*stands on desk*
PICKLE WALT

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

Barbaric YAWP!

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.

>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.

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.

This board is full of brainlets

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not even a Liberal, Whitman was a Quaker Progressive

>not liberal! he was a quaker liberal!

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

>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.

>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?

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.

*yawns defiantly*

The ramblings of an impotent freak...

*crosses arms, stares you down with steely eyes*

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.

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

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

>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?

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

nice try mr. skeltal

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

>*
>>>/reddit/

i laffed

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

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

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

>Wallace Stevens
stopped reading here

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