[Rose Novick]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Rose, I think by the death of poetry, he means the death of poetry as a popular art form, something that the general reader once read and enjoyed, but no longer does -- readers in the "suburban households that once contained popular anthologies". In which case, for him, you pointing to a great work of modernist or post-modern poetry, wouldn't negate his argument, if that work had little appeal among the general public. Obviously, it would be useful if he said what he meant by the death of poetry in his article. It's a big thing to leave undefined.

That's part of what he meant, but his argument for that is so unbelievably stupid and implausible that I just ignored it. I focused on the part of his essay that possessed a grain of truth—though he did not see it clearly himself—and tried to contextualize and draw out that truth.