Whitman

this, im a retard who makes bad bait for a living

Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Missing me one place search another,
I stop somewhere waiting for you.

Shit example, OP. You can't just take two random lines from any poet and say 'whats the big deal.' Take something like this:

"The smoke of my own breath,
Echoes, ripples, buzz'd whispers, love-root, silk-thread, crotch and vine,
My respiration and inspiration, the beating of my heart, the passing of blood and air through my lungs,
The sniff of green leaves and dry leaves, and of the shore and dark-color'd sea-rocks, and of hay in the barn,

The sound of the belch'd words of my voice loos'd to the eddies of the wind,
A few light kisses, a few embraces, a reaching around of arms,
The play of shine and shade on the trees as the supple boughs wag,
The delight alone or in the rush of the streets, or along the fields and hill-sides,
The feeling of health, the full-noon trill, the song of me rising from bed and meeting the sun.

Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the earth much?
Have you practis'd so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?

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."

That's easy. Nothing was offered by way of an opinion EXCEPT what I addressed ditectly. Can (you) not even read a post?

One does. Or one laxly adopts an ignorant opinion.

Holy shit what a pretentious person

i hate whitman too
he indirectly gave us ginsberg though so i guess that’s a good thing

What. For liking a poet few on this board have the time for? I suggest (you) look up the word then re-read ALL the posts. Or gtfo this board.

Ginsberg fucking sucks and so does everyone that tried to emulate Whitman. Literally only Whitman did it right.

Not for liking him but for writing like a faggot

This

>i hate whitman too
why, what about?

Whitman needs to be read out loud while walking through the woods, preferably coming across a stream, and then coming into an open field, so that your voice may echo louder, and then back into the woods to finish the reading

>Whitman needs to be read out loud while walking through the woods, preferably coming across a stream, and then coming into an open field, so that your voice may echo louder, and then back into the woods to finish the reading
Did you type that with a straight face?

Who are some poets you do like, OP? What's a moment in a book that really struck you?

Free verse is just prose with line breaks. It isn't poetry.

>bcuz I said so

>reading Whitman without having read Emerson
>not reading the preface to Leaves of Grass
Ultra plebeian.

Take out the line breaks and, voila, it's prose. The same cannot be said of a metered or rhymed poem as its limitations will still be apparent.

>implying that line breaks in free verse are arbitrary
>implying that the visual component of the poem is irrelevant

Those things are done purposefully, sure, but they don't cause a piece of prose to become a poem.

>What's so great about Whitman?
>What's so great about Shakespeare?
>What's so great about Keats?
>What so great about Melville?

It's just not a productive question to ask, especially on a shithole like Veeky Forums. Maybe try a different approach to reading Whitman: for example, don't worry about "understanding" spaces or line breaks. Focus on word choice, images, how he evokes the senses, the rhythm of the lines when spoken aloud. If you still dont' like him, fine--maybe he's just not your cup of tea. But to compare his work to Rupi Kaur just suggests that you're not reading very carefully.

They do, though.

They don't.

it has been some time since i read whitman. thanks user.

I'm not the person you're replying to but I don't think you're actually thinking about things.

Obviously a poem is going to be a fuzzy concept, a term that takes on meaning from how people use it as part of a culture of reading and writing, not a scientific definition.

Is your argument seriously that the line breaks don't change the way one reads a text? Focus attention on the different parts of Whitman's writing? Change the rhythm of how you think about connections between images in unexpected ways? Or are you just saying *you* don't respond to it in that way?

Then perhaps we can use the already existing term "spaced prose."

>Did you type that with a straight face?
did you type this with the roasty pussy lips dangling out from your ass?

No I typed it with a beaming glee you dingbag

So you're arguing that the entirety of what the term 'poetry' has meant to writers and readers can be exhausted by the idea of metricality and rhyme? Is that what people mean when they call something 'poetic'? Is that what you expect when you open a book of poems? What's your personal theory for why basically nobody uses 'spaced prose'?

It's another one of these threads
>Can't understand canon'd writer
>cherrypick worst 2 lines you can find
>I'm not missing anything haha right guys back me up on this
Whitman is so life affirming and isn't even inaccessible in the slightest, quit being so insecure just keep trying

you are such a disgusting idiot. your negligent worthless retardation is hideously disturbing, your putrid pedantic pointlessness. You terrible critter. You skunk taint hack. You eating a mound of donkey dung, and breathing it out with a rancid smile. You horrible, horrible child.

Youre a fucking idiot.
>that better?

Is this post a poem? You never can tell.

>... the separate spacing of the phrases in free verse reminds us, gently but inevitably: "This is a phrase! This is a phrase!" In spite of this fact, have we attained to anything that lifts us necessarily out of prose experience? What is achieved, as a rule ... is emotional prose, emphatically phrased, excellent and moving. "Spaced prose," we may call it.
>Patterson, The Rhythm of Prose, 2nd ed., pg. xiii

its about presentation, pacing, rhythm (being able to neglect traditional punctuation) and ease of reading oratorally as is want done classically of poets

So in other words it is prose that is spaced.

Fuck
you faggot
from the depths of hell
and the firest regions
of your mothers dirty cunt
her burdened lips snarl and fray
and weigh down like the sands of time
tilting her zilched go mad go nads
naught unlike a rotten pepper
peckered and petering on a ledge
pushed off with a great hoist
and fallen for the birds of satan to pry at and snicker
like little dandelion chars
of a long forgotten age and era
bygone time of nevermore
evermore
your pansy pants flippantly unfurled
and climbing in the oven of your womanly fathers womb
pissing yourself silly
with the thought of your ballsacks hemmoraging
tantalizing the astonishment of the adonisment of daze
tickling the tacky fancy of your poopied pants
unoccupied by the seat of your soul
a toilet stall
a car stalling
you are a rubber barrel, you are the opposite of a robber barron
you are barren of anything a robber might want to steal
you are a turkish hen
scooping up the fecal wombs of your daughters felched splurge
a decedant decency left over from the ancient times of petty squabbles leading to a curtailing of pretty throes, her lunch meat blewing in the breeze, a dangling treat teetering on the edge of edibility, a brown paper banking smuffed with golden paint, and a silent turd dropped in place to be left on the outerside of her head
and you and I holding hands walking through all this, twirling in the rainbow summer shine wind of tomorrows squaller, laughing, and having a grand old time

No, prose is poetry that is unspaced

Thanks. Now that the lines are spaced out I can tell it's a poem.

Why is it called a mural when they paint on the side of a building...its just a painting...

Why are movies called films...its just a movie

Why are pictures called images... or digital photos... its just a photograph

Why are illustrations called drawing...they are just illustrations..

Why is writing called literature...its just writing..

>this thread
books.google.com/books?id=aJslh4LlEiYC&lpg=PA26&ots=eKKunHKyhB&dq=free verse is never totally free&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false

>The rule is, like, there's no rule, man
Yeah if there were rules it might be a poem

Best thing i ever read on Whitman

> english.upenn.edu/~perelman/classes/english088/rj_somelinesfromwhitman.html

>Tell me what's so great about it.
Absolutely nothing. Leftists always try to retcon shitty old things as "the greats" because they know that normal people have an irrational respect for age.

>You don't appreciate Whitman

Doesn't surprise me. You probably can't. But if you could, it would be divine.

I know it sounds trite, but it's true.

Can I answer? I don't like Whitman either.

It's kitsch. No one ever mentioned inaccesibility.

what makes it kitsch? Any monkey can be taught that word and then fart it out of its mouth at anything in the world, but its a bit harder for it to express why it feels that way

The soteriological virtue of nature as a source of pleasures was already a trite place before Whitman. Leaves of Grass lacks any other idea. Not even the most cliche'd romantics were that lame. This connects Whitman to even the oldest and narrowest definitions of Kitsch, like that of Dorfles: "it is a problem of individuals who believe that art should only produce pleasant, sugary feelings; or even that art should form a kind of 'condiment', a kind of 'background music', a decoration" (ie . This post reminds of movies being seen with a palette of smells in search of a "complete experience". Obviously kitsch stuff). Also, Leaves of Grass is generally praised by its formal transgressions (related to both versification and poet's rethoric), which are read as some extravagant nonchalance or idleness. This suits good to the mentioned monotheme. Maybe it can be somewhat connected to the "appearance of illegibility, obscurity and a facile, deliberately shocking épater les bourgeois element" mentioned by Dorfles before talking about pop art made by "highly trivial consumer products".
Pic related, Dorfles again.

Before I read and maybe respond to your post, I must ask: Have you read the entirety of the final text of Leaves of Grass? If not, there is nothing to discuss. If you have, then there is nothing to discuss.

>or even that art should form a kind of 'condiment', a kind of 'background music', a decoration"
I still have not read your post, but my eyes were attracted to the other post of mine you quoted, and the surrounding context clues of:

>or even that art should form a kind of 'condiment', a kind of 'background music', a decoration" See: (my post about reading it in nature)

So I must ask how does it logically follow that my suggestion to potentially enhance experience and understanding of the text makes it 'condiment', background music, decoration... how? How is Complete experience Kitsch... Is life Kitsch? Life is complete experience and contains decoration, condiment, background music... and Leaves Of Grass text certainly contains much more than just that, if it contains that at all... it contains multitudes

I have not read the entirety of leaves of grass: but recently this summer I found a copy in my grandparents house and flipped through some and read some random lines on random pages and know that whatever you say is pointless wasteful meaningless nonsense that could never be worth a single page of his writing.

I was first introduced to the text maybe 6 or more years ago on a cross country trip with some friends, sitting in San Bernardino by the water on a lush field of many people relaxing and people and children playing and we sat there in the sun and endless blue sky, and the birds singing and it was paradise and he said: 'I think you would really be into this", and started to read from the beginning and maybe read like 30 or so pages, and it made me cower in humility and fear at my own inadequacies and petty worthlessness, and inspired me to start to attempt to be great.

>source of pleasures
>it is a problem of individuals who believe that art should only produce pleasant, sugary feelings
So your entire post pretty much summed up as: Art, real art, is and should be sad! Real art cannot be happy! Real art must deeply reflect and feel, but sadly! I have not read the full leaves of grass text because if I did I would know it contains all possible thoughts and feelings!

>So I must ask how does it logically follow that my suggestion to potentially enhance experience and understanding of the text makes it 'condiment', background music, decoration... how? How is Complete experience Kitsch... Is life Kitsch? Life is complete experience and contains decoration, condiment, background music... and Leaves Of Grass text certainly contains much more than just that, if it contains that at all... it contains multitudes
Not to be rude but that's just horridly kitsch euphonies desu dude.
Art is not about being an imitation of "life".
Literature is not intended to be a complement or annex to different "pleasures" (literature isn't either intended to be a source of pleasure). Opera librettos are not literature.
It contains multitudes of what?

So I nailed it on the head: Your monkey master: Drorpf, who you have been reading gave you a treat, taught you this word, armed you with infinite grenades, with which you now freely feel the joy and power and privilege of tossing at anything you feel like.

respond to all my posts shitdick

What is art supposed to be retard? who says retard? Who says what literature is and is not intended to be retard? Who says Leaves of Grass is an imitation of life? retard? Who cares if a monkey calls opera librettos literature or not, retard?

Nope. Literature has obviously a long lived and fertile epicurean tradition of which Leaves of Grass isn't but an episode of debatable merit, either by its own or by its influence. You're the one who's reducing literature to making you feel sad or happy.
Can't take seriously anyone who argues in favor of a piece of art by saying it "contains all possible thoughts and feelings" tho.

I'll shit all over your dead relatives. You ain't mentioned one single concrete artistic virtue someone can find in Leaves of Grass. Your ardent defense of a mediocre poem is corny and ridiculous. Go masturbating your mentally challenged relatives, dumb yankee.

>If not, there is nothing to discuss. If you have, then there is nothing to discuss.
I'm not even the kitschposter, but this is a phenomenon which never ceases to amaze me: buttmad fanboys of Whitman responding to any sort of criticism of him with this Bloomian, esotericist, pompous, insufferable "aaaah uhhhmm if you'd only know, heh kid, but you don't know, what's that kid, oh i can't tell you, maybe you'll grow up one day" tripe as if they were holding the key to the mystery of the universe? Does gnosticist kike cock taste that good, or what?

It contains like all possible thoughts and feelings bro

>Kitsch: also called cheesiness or tackiness, is art or other objects that appeal to popular rather than high art tastes.
Just to make sure we are at least somewhere on the same ground: Would you agree that just because something, just because a work of art is popular doesnt mean it is Kitsch? That it is possible for......real......art....or high or fine art to be popular, and that occuring does not turn it into kitsch, so that popularity cannot be a definer of kitschness?

Obviously. That's why I didn't quote a Wikipedia definition.

Have you read the entirety of the final version of leaves of grass or not retard, simple question that invalidates or invalidates all your shitticism

Hey, absolute retard, that was one line I said in passing icing on cake jest, you would cherry pick the cherry, fucktard, respond to all my other points shitbrain

you are not talking or careing about art or poetry, you are patting yourself on the back for your quilted vest of opinionated patches which you think makes your existence mean anything more than the absolute nothing it truly is

You are ridiculous and so is your typically american conception of a piece of art getting all of his sense from its ending (SPOILER!!!!!), my dude. I ain't gon say it no mo.

One day you will realize how big of a pseud you are, until that day the worthy world hardly holds its breath in anticipation, but would if it could

No because it uses poetic devices in a way that wouldn't make sense if the text wasn't versified
For example: the anaphoras in As I ebb'd with the ocean of Life

ok but you also didnt explain and show in any way how the non sequitur red herring baseless simple few scratchs of nothingness you did quote had anything to do with the text: it was just an extension of the "I know a word and I say the word equals the text", there was no real understanding of a because, because I presume because you still have not come anywhere close to reading 1/563th of the text

Man, I'm the kitschposter and I swear to God I came into this thread to see if any Whitman fan could say why does he like Leaves of Grass. It seems like they all find shit ineffable cuz they're aphasic and mentally handicapped. Cheers, nigga.

reading comprehension, retard? Whitman made many different versions of the text, and my use of the word 'final' refers to the final version of the text, made like 30 or something years after the first. I guess we just toss that further into the massive pile of you invalidating yourself

> I came into this thread to see if any Whitman fan could say why does he like Leaves of Grass. It seems like they all find shit ineffable cuz they're aphasic and mentally handicapped. Cheers, nigga.

Pearls before swine, begone bacon

Lol do you wait for my commented edition of Leaves of Grass? I read it once like a year ago, didn't like it, have read some excerpts here and there and I've formed myself an impression I've already resumed, and which I think is at less comprehensible for anyone who has read Leaves of Grass. I don't have the slightest interest in convincing any Whitman fanboy to change his mind. My judgement has been defined and expressed, even if the causes for it, lying in the text we're talking about, haven't been quoted. But Whitmanbois haven't argued in favor of it with any other than idiotic euphonies (Life, multitudes, you didn't understood but I won't say why cuz it's ineffable, it's canon) and requests of prolix arguments from those that claim they didn't like the text.

>Pearls before swine, begone bacon
oink oink pigga

Old sayings are always lucid and full of feelings and meanings, right? U'se a retawdid psitacist my bro.

what do you like about it? I would hope you can name a few, but start with 1. But serious give like 3 or 4 things

*do = dont

whats the picture represent, that you are arab and so do not associate well with pig? you will have no pearls or swine on your plate? But many other people will believe the reason for your belief is that you do not want to be a cannibal?

whitman is great

>Out of the rolling ocean the crowd came a drop gently to me,
>Whispering I love you, before long I die,
>I have travel'd a long way merely to look on you to touch you,
>For I could not die till I once look'd on you,
>For I fear'd I might afterward lose you...

What are your top 10 favorite books
>inb4 *blushes* "but that has nothing to do with anything!! *hand over mouth* tehehehee"

>Old sayings are always lucid and full of feelings and meanings, right?
this must be in the top 10 embarrassing things youve said in the thread

Leaves of grass appeals to people who live in big cities, who have never seen or experienced nature first hand. An Alaskan would likely find this work a very poor imitation of nature/life, and as such a work that cannot inspire a person who lives out there.

t. I am 17 and have never read the text in question but have an opinion because saying things makes me feel like I am participating and contributing and is like a little kiss from mommy and a pat on my back

Trite theme approached simple and lamely. I think the way I didn't like it is pretty obvious. That's why I qualified it ad kitsch and said which aspects of the generally accepted definition of kitsch I find adequate for Leaves of Grass.
Just wanted to post a soccer playa's pic mayne
I'll say if you say yours! Teehee ;)
Mind to ellaborate on that top 10?

Nigga stop it. This whole thang is autistic.

Actually a few anons have pointed to things they like. You're just illiterate and/or wilfully ignorant.
Try harder at agendaposting

The first post is a guide to read Whitman, not a rundown of its virtues.
Randall Jarrell ain't an user.
The third one argues in favor of it being verse and not prose by the presence of tropes, with the same words that could be applied to literally any poem with those same tropes. It isn't about the poem's quality.

This is like a breath of fresh air. Fucking fantastic.

Look man, make all the excuses you want. If you dont wanna read Whitman then you're not going to and no one will convince you. Ultimately this thread comes down to "validate my opinion!" or "prove me wrong!" It aint our job to educate you. That's what criticism is for. And yes, it may be cool and hip to reject one of the giants in the canon, to say, "i dont know what all the fuss is, he's not very good, so I'm not wasting my time on him." Because what you're really saying is "you all got duped and I'm the only one who sees it." But you know what's cooler and hipper than that shit? Reading everything and forming a real educated opinion.

Oh shut the fuck up, I'm a fan of all those and Whitman doesn't hold a fucking candle, who are you trying to fool. Keats and Whitman could not be more different

Whitman forsaw this dispute. He created LoG so that pretentious people could hide in the ivory tower while he himself is thus forever granted eternal life by continuously turning in the grave. Some say there is still a smile on his face and that he's writing another book.