O Captain! My Captain! (dana fucich)

First thing I think of when I read, "Walt Whitman’s presence within American mass (or popular) culture," is:

 

"Oh captain, my captain, you've been drinking, what happened?"

And even if my musical tastes have changed since high school, I still respect Keith Buckley (he would be the "lyricist/vocalist") for referencing literature in his lyrics and being his own kind of poet (he used to be an English teacher and has a BA) and, specifically, for taking one man's creativity and giving it relevance to his own.  

The other times I've seen "O Captain, My Captain," referred to in a contemporary setting is always in a matter that is mocking Dead Poet's Society.  Family Guy and How I Met Your Mother both use the quote in this way, to imitate the DPS scene for humor, kind of separating the purpose of these shows from the author.  Whitman may be detached from the initial understanding of these moments in both shows, but to those of us who get the "joke" it isn't much of one...

The Family Guy clip can be viewed here, I couldn't find the How I Met Your Mother clip.

and shall put into the fire (dana fucich)

re·view/riˈvyo͞o/

Noun:	A formal assessment or examination of something.
Verb:	Examine or assess (something) with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary.

The anonymous review of “Leaves of Grass” printed in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper is deserving of a “lol.”

I’m considerably outraged by the allowance of the attack of transcendentalists due to small-mindedness and an obvious unintelligible nature, this person probably has an affinity for lackluster love poems.  Our reviewer is likely a romantic, Victorian idealist and, in other words, a bore.  Just the fact that the “reviewer” has to assault an author devastates their credibility as far as I’m concerned, assuming Whitman is a “morbid sensualist” (as if there’s anything wrong with that) and suggesting “the author should be sent to a lunatic asylum” only stresses this person’s close-mindedness.  Unfortunately the tendency towards actualizing personal vendettas in a review doesn’t necessarily make someone less reputable.  The fact that this review in no way addresses poetic stylization or Whitman’s use of language or his intent as a poet, it is in no way “a formal assessment or examination of something,” but instead singles out a group of individuals and tires to demoralize them is as hilarious as it is infuriating.  This should never have been printed, but apparently the 19^th century reviewers cared less about observing content and more about singling out an author who has offended them with their “pseudo-philosophy” and progressive thought process.  Then again the Victorian era was one of subdual appropriation to define “morals.”

Whether or not a reviewer likes Whitman is of no concern to me.  “Different strokes…” but this anonymous “reviewer” could have taken a lesson from the anonymous examinations in The Literary Examiner and The Critic, both of which are full-bodied, contextually lush assessments.  Not to mention that they are actual reviews as the word is defined.  The allowance of the publications in Frank Leslie’s… and Punch Magazine are pathetic.