[Michael Cantor]

Originally Posted by Mary Meriam

I agree with Andrew S. This long self-pity party is primarily calling attention to one Bob H. He could have said what he had to say in one short paragraph, then spent his time reviewing books from the new diversity.

Precisely said, and correctly said. A single small paragraph would have been more than enough space for Hicok's kvetch. And it kills me to see so many people spending so much time commenting on it. You could be focusing on your own poetry instead.

[Mark McDonnell]

Hello Erik,

You misunderstand. I didn't say it disturbed me to 'see' more overweight and ethnic minority models in advertising. Again, what kind of monster would that make me? I was making the point that when commercial entities use advertising to make a show of their 'progressiveness' and diversity, it inevitably comes from a very shallow, tokenistic, profit-driven and cynical place. It's to make the product look better. I also hate it when they try to be 'artistic', especially when poetry is used in advertising. I was comparing it to James' point which was (I think) that much of mainstream Hollywood's idea of feminism is to have more women in loud, empty superhero movies. It's like 'here, you can play an equal part in the debasing of the culture. Happy now?'

Michael - Of course you're right. I think I'll cut and paste your comment and turn it into a sticky note for myself. If everyone were as wise as Mary, I don't think there would be half as many problems in the world.

[Erik Olson]

Mark, to be sure, I did not take you for a monster; but, for instance, where you say there is no complaint involved in this matter, I heard some complaint, as even in "I also hate it when..." in your last message. But all along, it is the semantics that I took issue with and that did not go down well with me, surely. So, while I knew that there must be some explanation, I did not know what that was. Mea culpa! May this rabbit hole end.

All the best,
Erik

[Mark McDonnell]

Hey Erik,

No problem. I probably don't express myself particularly well sometimes. I'm a lot of sound and fury and we all know what that signifies. To make my point clear through exaggeration, it's like complaining that the Nazis were sexist because they didn't have enough high-ranking women.

There. And having gone full Godwin, I am obliged to graciously leave the discussion.

[James Brancheau]

Yes, Mark, better said than how I put it. I think perspective is important here too. It's annoying, and the superficial treatment might very well be destructive (being so tasteless that it may even have political ramifications). But as just a sign of good, long overdue social change (and Hollywood, as usual, being out of step), it's worth being a little annoyed. (But it is still god damned annoying.)

[Matt Q]

There's an article by Timothy Yu on Hicok's essay up at the "The New Republic".

[John Isbell]

Yes, that seems largely à propos. Thanks for the link, Matt.

Cheers,
John

[Andrew Szilvasy]

Thanks for sharing this, Matt. It's a good essay and captures exactly my qualms, just put a lot more eloquently and a lot more charitably.

[Jim Moonan]

x
The notion by Hicok that his poetry is being nudged off the stage and replaced with poetry of a diverse point of view is incorrect. He is only being asked to stand away from center stage. Director’s decision. The audience has swayed away from the status quo.
But he should stay on stage, take his queues, read the new script written for him, and turn his poetry toward the new audience. His poetic voice has long proven to belong on the stage. He should not sell himself short. Unless he feels his well of inspiration has evaporated.
x
x