Hmmm. This raises an interesting conundrum, namely:
Much verse was written during Whitman's lifetime that wasn't written by Whitman. Who decided that Whitman's work was important?
The answer, of course, is 'the generation of poets that followed Whitman and drew on him as an influence.' Hence Whitman's influence is undeniable. All the "canonical" modernists at least knew who Whitman was and had read his work (whether they embraced or rejected his work is another question). But...who decides who the "canonical" modernists are?
The answer to that is unclear, except in the sense that Academia owns the canon. The influence of poetry (and hence the influence of Whitman) is as big as the culture, and clearly not limited to the relatively narrow confines of the academy. The question, then, is this: Does Academia's version of the canon accurately reflect the canonical poets' influence on the culture?
I personally suspect that the answer to this is a resounding no, on the face of it. However, the Academy's position as educators of succeeding generations guarantees that the answer has to be at least partly a yes. Academia teaches what it deems important, and so to the succeeding generation it is important...to a degree. The degree to which it is important depends on the efficiency with which it not only teaches, but inculcates values.
My university was only partly successful, in that I sat through several classes whose doctrinal bases I fundamentally rejected, and still reject. To this day I don't care to pick up a Joan Slonczewski novel...but then again, I had good courses on Chaucer and Shakespeare to fall back on, and I remember my classroom time with Marlene Barr much as John McCain remembers his time in Hanoi.
Still, it remains at least a little bit true that the authors we think are important are the authors our teachers tell us are important. Fore-warned is fore-armed, which is an aphorism to remember when you go to the library.
Today's a good day to read an author I've never read before. Thanks, guys.