The tone of that "oposition research" piece is astonishingly snobbish, but he makes an interesting point, namely that we don't need popular poets because that role is occupied these days by pop music and movies.

Yes, people (okay, let's be honest -- it's mostly men) do remember movie lines and quote them. But to what extent is it true that "pop musicians (in particular, rap artists--whose lyrics are memorized as lovingly as any prior poets' texts) outdo it in providing the simple fun of doggerel, sentimentality and plain stupidity"? (See what I said about snobbery?)

How many people really quote music lyrics at any length -- as opposed to a line or two that has stuck in the mind accidently? And rap music? Not my crowd, nor even their kids.

Hey, I know this crowd believes in the value of low entertainment. Still, to analogize pop music and movies as the new Longfellow seems very imperfect. And really, how can anyone compare this to Excelsior? (Warning -- that link is radioactive.)

Maybe Longfellow is not edgy enough for undergraduates. (I later admitted to my ambivalence regarding Longfellow.) But why not grade schoolers? Even by my time, we memorized almost no poems in school. Why not bring Longfellow back for the ten-year-olds?

Mr. Opposition Research is clearly convinced of the superiority of today's high-brow. He also seems to despair that it will ever be anything but a minority taste -- a very small minority. Does he care? Would he approve of any program to change this situation? It doesn't look like it (in the small sample we have before us). Why not? The whole thing bugs me.

Oh, and once again, thank you, Michael, for your generous linking. You da mensch!

Posted by: Fredösphere on November 5, 2005 6:21 PM