[Mark McDonnell]

What a silly article. Though really, I find it hard to care much about these "is poetry alive or dead?" debates. I know that one day I'll be dead and in the meantime I'll continue to read poems and whether those poems were written last month or 600 years ago doesn't really matter. Life is short. And poetry is alive to anyone who needs to write it or who reads it and loves it.

[James Brancheau]

A child wrote it. Quite, literally. I knew there was a reason I didn't read it. Why he gets to do this is a mystery to me. Not exactly a mystery, but I'll say that.

[W T Clark]

Jim,
Yes, I love metre and rhyme as well.
But I think New Formalism, and really the word "formalism" may well have done the most to destroy metrical verse's standing in the poetic consciousness. "New Formalism's" poetic conservatism, its short-sightedness, its utterly unfounded arrogance, all these are its traits. If metre and rhyme will thrive it is not thanks to "New Formalism". Eratosphere, in my opinion, is one of the few good outgrowths of New Formalism.

[Nick McRae]

I subscribed to the NYT a number of years ago, but after a while realized that almost all of it's op-eds are written to be divisive and generate clicks.

If you're looking for substantive writing on poetry, you'd have to look elsewhere.

[Jennifer Reeser]

On an aside, Walther's piece apparently has succeeded in raising Harold Bloom from the dead for a comment, and actually has "Harold Bloom" trending on Twitter. The end is near.

I am not making this up. Check Jamie O'Halloran at the platform.

@JamieOHallo108


J

[Max Goodman]

Thanks, Rose. The only Williams on my shelf is a Selected I've never spent much time with. A copy of Spring and All is on its way to me. I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by Quincy Lehr

Walther ... essence HERE.

Blech.

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

I don't see sleeping on a mattress or having a roof over your head as a disconnect from nature.

Common ground. But if you feel the same about computers, say, or cars, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[James Brancheau]

Yes, I agree, Cameron. I should have been more precise. I really did laugh out loud when I read that. You have a talent for being blunt and making it resonate.

Speaking of which, my apologies to Sarah-Jane. While I stand by the gist of my post, it was mean-spirited and you didn't deserve that. I have deleted it. And I like your work, btw.

Happy New Year everyone (I'll get there first *)

*(Except for maybe Cally?)

[Jennifer Reeser]

Originally Posted by James Brancheau

Happy New Year everyone

Happy New Year, James! To you and to all.

[Jennifer Reeser]

You can't read this article without paying The New York Times.

Let that be your first clue

[Jim Moonan]

.
Given the avalanche of responses (here and elsewhere on social media and in the reader responses in the NYT), it now feels like the article is intentionally trolling. Whatever trolling is…. Though no, it was not. It is just so outlandish a proposition put forth so lamely, pathetically, tepidly, that it could be. Are we? (Yes. Everyday, most of us. At least some of us, anyway)


.