Dickinson Vs Walt Whitman

In the poems “I heard the learned astronomer” and “324” by Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson respectively, Whitman and Dickinson both approach the same subject from different views. Whitman contrasts nature in reality, versus nature in scientific study; Dickenson compares nature to a religion, and finds holiness in the natural world. While Whitman and Dickinson approach the subject of nature from different perspectives, they both arrive at the same conclusion of the higher position of nature. One of the differences in the perspective of Dickinson and Whitman is the structure. Whitman uses rambling lines with the whole poem being about one sentence, containing multiple commas. Dickinson however, uses dashes at the end of her lines, makes use of stanzas, and uses line spacing as a neat way of organizing her ideas. Another difference in Whitman’s approach and Dickinson’s, is how long each writer spends on the subject. Whitman’s poem “I heard the learned astronomer” reserves most of it’s content for …show more content…
Both Dickinson, and Whitman regard nature in the same high indescribable regard. The speakers in both poems feel better for being in nature, whereas they could be somewhere most others regard as having higher value. This regarding nature as better than some human institutions, is found in lines 6-7 in Whitman’s “I heard the learned astronomer”, Where it states: “Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself, / In the mystical most night-air, and from time to time (…)”. This feeling can also be found in the first lines Dickinson’s “342” “Some keep the Sabbath going to Church — / I keep it, staying at Home — / With a Bobolink for a Chorister — / And an Orchard, for a Dome —“ (lines 1-4). So while though Whitman regards stargazing as better that astronomy, and Dickinson regards walking in an orchard as better than attending church, they both mean the same thing, and feel the same