Here are extracts from reviews of "Alastor, or The Spirit of Solitude":
<p>
1) From <i>Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine,</i> November, 1819: 
<p>
    Reiman tells us that this magazine "throve on yellow journalism", 
although the reviewer here, John Gibson Lockhart, defended and praised 
Shelley's work. Lockhart wrote that Shelley is "a man of genius...Mr. 
Shelley is a poet, almost in the very highest sense of that mysterious 
word." He repeats his assertion that Shelley is a genius numerous times 
in the review.<p>
    This review seems to be not so much an analysis as a step by step 
account of the work, quoting large passages of the poem in between 
brief comments on it. <p>
    Although Lockhart in general praises "Alastor", he writes, "A great 
genius like [Shelley] should scorn...to adopt a species of poetry in 
which the difficulties of the art may be so conveniently blinked, and 
weakness find so easy a refuge in obscurity." It seems to me, however, 
somewhat strange [weak?] that the reviewer would praise Shelley's work as 
he does, without fully understanding the work himself. <p>   
    Another point is that Lockwood here understands the main 
character/hero of the poem to be Alastor. This  in contrast to the 
review of Evan Gibson (1947; see pp. 545-569 of the Norton Edition), who 
strongly asserts that Alastor is not the poet hero, but rather the spirit 
of solitude itself.
<p>
2)<i>The British Critic,</i> May, 1816:
<p>
     This magazine harshly criticizes Shelley's work. The reviewer here 
sarcastically ridicules Shelley; he writes of "the madness of a poetic 
mind"." He continues: "In the course of our critical labours, we have 
often been condemned to pore over much profound and prosing stupidity; we 
are therefore not a little delighted with the nonsense which mounts, 
which rises, which spurns the earth, and all its dull realities; we love 
to fly with our author to a silent nook.<pre>
            'One silent nook
             Was there...
             Hither the poet came. His eyes beheld
             Their own wan light through the reflected lines
             Of his thin hair, distinct in the dark depths
             Of that still fountain.'</pre>
Vastly intelligible.  Perhaps, if his poet had worn a wig, the case might 
have been clearer: for then it might have thrown some light on the 
passage from the ancient legend:<pre>
            'By the side of a soft flowing stream
             An elderly gentleman sat;
             On the top of his head was his wig,
             On the top of his wig was his hat.</pre>
But this aforesaid hair is endowed with strange qualities.
<pre>            'His scattered hair 
             Sered by the autumn of strange suffering,
             Sung dirges in the wind.'</pre>
This can only be interpreted by supposing, that the poet's hair was 
entwined in a fiddle stick....But, soft - a little philosophy, for our 
poet is indubitably a vast philosopher!<p.
......But we entreat the pardon of our readers for dwelling so long upon 
this ne plus ultra [highest point of perfection] of poetical sublimity."
<p>
[I know I quoted a lot from this review; but I thought that, apart from 
the scathing condescension of the reviewer, or perhaps because of it, 
this is a very funny and worthwhile review to read!]
<p>
3)<i>Eclectic Review,</i> October, 1816:
<p>
     Here the reviewer, Josiah Condor, also criticizes Shelley's work, 
but at least admits that this is in part because he has little clue what 
Shelley is writing about! He writes: <p>
     " We fear that not even this commentary [i.e. Shelley's Preface], 
will enable ordinary readers to decipher the import of the greater part 
of Mr. Shelley's allegory. All is wild and specious, untangible and 
incoherent as a dream. We should be utterly at a loss to convey any 
distinct idea of the plan or purpose of the poem."<p>
     The reviewer, however, does write that there are some good aspects 
to Shelley's work: "It cannot be denied that very considerable talent for 
descriptive poetry is displayed in several parts." <p>
     He continues, nevertheless,: "The Author has genius which might be 
turned to much better account; but such heartless fiction as Alastor, 
fails in accomplishing the legitimate purposes of poetry."

<p>
4)<i>The Monthly Review,</i> April 1816:
<p>
     Like the reviewer of The Eclectic Review, the reviewer of this 
magazine also candidly admits his confusion in understanding Shelley's 
meaning: 
<p>     "We must candidly own that these poems are beyond our comprehension; 
and we did not obtain a clue to their sublime obscurity, till an address 
to Mr. Wordsworth explaimed in what school the author had formed his 
taste. We perceive, through the "darkness visible" in which Mr. Shelley 
veils his subject, some beautiful imagery and poetical expressions; but 
he appears to be a poet "whose eye, in a fine phrenzy rolling," seeks 
only such objects as are "above this visible diurnal sphere"; and 
therefore we entreat him, for the sake of his reviewers as well of his 
other readers (if he has any), to subjoin to his next publication an 
ordo, a glossary, and copious notes, illustrative of his allusions and 
explanatory of his meaning."
<p>
I think those four reviews pretty well sum it all up.
<p> --Leora Aster.