Agreed, Jim. This is too loaded with aesthetic prejudice for me to take it seriously. For example, here is a statement from Mr. Walther's social media:


Matthew Walther
@matthewwalther
·
Dec 29
"New Formalism" seems to me a blind alley as well, a misunderstanding of the importance of form.



Okay. New Formalism (and what's with the scare quotes?) is a safe, bankable-enough shot, formalists being a minority. How about if we took this blanket dismissal and put it into any other context?

(Insert random racial or religious minority) seem to me blind, failing to understand...

Buddhists just don't get it, right? Mormons? Don't even start... religion is dead.


What would we say about a person who looks at things this way? This is me, though. You do you.


J

Are you suggesting we should be suspicious of any writing we have to pay for? The consequences of that--particlarly, though not only, as it relates to journalism--would be dire. (I don't claim, of course, that the sketchy opinion piece under discussion is journalism, but we're talking about The New York Times.)

Since many of us here are teachers, I'll add that many of us can read it without paying.

https://nytimesineducation.com/access-nyt/

That is awesome, Max, and I am truly happy for you. Clearly, it pays to be a teacher. Also I'm impressed by the crack, capitalist marketing move NYT is making with this publicity tactic.

Where can one find the free subscriptions to the widows, orphans, homeless, and the incarcerated? :o

Happy New Year to James and everyone (although it isn't quite New Year here yet).

And James, no apology necessary for the frankness. Tt's a fair point, well taken, and fwiw I respect you much more for sticking by it than trying to backtrack.

In terms of the article, yes, I think that the NYT are now rubbing their hands together having achieved precisely what they wanted to do. It makes me wonder why they are targeting poets as a potential audience, though. But I also know people who wouldn't normally read the NYT are now reading it...so maybe it's a carefully thought out marketing ploy based on statistics around articles about poetry that potential new markets have read in the last year, or something.

Sarah-Jane

Do you mean we should be suspicious of writing we have to pay for?

Max, I think it's always a good idea to consider motives might not always be pure and uncorrupted, once money enters the picture.

Sarah-Jane -- LOL.

"We mean it. We really, really, REALLY mean it this time, people. Poetry is dead. So much so, that just to prove it, here is a poem we are publishing, selected for its excellence by the eminent and important Victoria Chang...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/29/m...-01-05-16.html

Did we mention that we are serious as death here?"

Poets selling their books = good, healthy capitalism that supports the arts

The New York Times selling its content = outrageous money-grubbing that interferes with the free exchange of ideas

Got it.

Happy New Year, Julie!

P.S. The only other option in response to this utter idiocy, Julie, is that NYT is being run by fools.

Which explanation do you prefer?


Cheers,
J

If poetry's dead then I am guilty of obsessive necrophilia.

I have been trying to follow this thread but it has now teetered beyond the reach of my limited comprehension. Why does somebody who sees evil in a paywall (post#39) seek to substantiate their argument by linking to an example (post #46) that is behind the same paywall?

Nobody need feel obliged to humour me with a response; I am quite happy in my ignorance - I have poems to play with and a corpse to lick.