American Poetry Is Dependent on Walt Whitman\'s

¶ … American poetry is dependent on Walt Whitman's arguments about democracy and the political role of the poet. This is a very interesting proposition, one I had not considered before, and I was excited to read the essay and analyze the arguments made by the author to substantiate the claims that Whitman's views on democracy and the political role of a poet need to be understood in order to comprehend contemporary American poetry.

While I was initially drawn to the subject because I believed it was going to focus on Whitman's definition of democracy and the political role of the poet, I was unsure about what the paper was going to be about because there did not appear to be a clearly defined thesis. I thought perhaps the author was going to explain how creativity is a political act because the author argued that creativity requires that an individual open up to the world around him or her in order to become inspired. However, as I read the essay, I became increasingly confused because there was no clear thesis and thus no clearly established argument.

One of the most jarring things about the paper is its lack of transitions. I was especially confused when the paper started talking about how poetry is transformed into a religious force because I did not think the paper was going to be focused on religion, but rather was going to be focused on democracy and politics. Additionally, I was under the impression that the paper was going to focus on the importance of understanding Whitman's views regarding democracy because, according to the author, it is essential to understand these concepts to better understand contemporary American poetry, which is different from how he influences poetry. Another confusing part of the essay was the analysis of Heather McHugh's "What He Thought" because this poem was not mentioned in the introduction, nor was it previously established that the essay would examine this poem to support the political claims made by the author about Whitman and poetry. There is no background provided on this poem other than it investigates the "martyrdom of a 16th century Dominican friar," which does not really tell the reader if and how this poem addresses issues of democracy, or if it is a contemporary American poem. One of the most frustrating parts of this section is the lack of clarity on the author's behalf. For instance, I was constantly questioning who Giordano Bruno is because he is not introduced anywhere in the paper and the author begins talking about him assuming the reader will know what is being referenced. One of the arguments about Bruno that creates cognitive dissonance, and is somewhat illogical is the sentence: "This is how Bruno strikes us as both a familiar and foreign character, for his ideas are readily assimilated to the inclusive patchwork of the American intellect, while his persecution for such ideas by the state seems totally incongruent with the spirit of the Constitution." I have the most issues with the last part of the sentence, that "his persecution for such ideas by the state seems totally incongruent with the spirit of the Constitution" because there is no explanation given about how Bruno relates to the Constitution.