Matthew, this would have happened with any first poem you got your hands on: repeating lines mantralike. Any good poem could have been that for you. That’s how poems work and how we move through what Hazard Adams calls the offense of poetry.

Matthew, all poems have an incantatory power.

Matthew, Eliot had some issues. Big ones. Pound, who you also mention, too. Maybe you address that in your essay. I’m just responding as I read the piece. Let’s see if you factor those issues into why there might not be great fanfare right now for great work.

Matthew, we don’t even know if there will be a one-hundred years from now let alone what poetry will or will not be celebrated at that time. Do you have tea leaves we can’t see? A divining rod? A hat with a rock in it?

Matthew, you’re etherizing your own essay on the table now. I can barely read this. I have a bad heart. Your words are making it clomp and stomp.

We stopped writing good poetry because we are now incapable of doing so. Matthew, I’m going to have to ask you to vacate your essay now. Please. There’s still time for you to not complete it, to not publish it, to save … oh, wait, you’ve already published it.

The culprit is not bad pedagogy or formal experimentation but rather the very conditions of modern life, which have demystified and alienated us from the natural world. Matthew, this is deranged. There are so many rural places. I live in one and am surrounded by them. Travel.

Permit me, by way of argument, a medium-size quotation. Matthew, this is your freaking article, in The New York Times. You know you don’t need our permission to include your little medium-sized quotation in your essay. And it is sized, not size. At least for us Gen X editors.

Matthew, my eyes are glazing over at your essay, not poetry. It’s not your fault I have POTS, but your words are literally inducing presyncope. And I use literally the way any good Gen Xer would: to emphasize something literal while expressing my annoyance at having to do so.

Matthew, I do like Milton.

Matthew, does science disenchant? Does technology deaden? That’s not been my experience of either. Did the stove and the kitchen sink wreck the blues? Or were they folded into lyric and life alike?

Matthew, why do you think poets of all people can’t see the world as anything other than an undifferentiated mass of resources to be either exploited or preserved? Make your case, or do you think you’re doing so in this essay?

Matthew, yes. Poets can draw from everything. Everything! That’s not bad. What do you … why … what’s really bothering you, Matthew?

Matthew, I like some of these paragraphs you wrote about Eliot and LSJAP.

Matthew, I don’t know that Eliot is an end-of-tracks poet. I just don’t buy that.

Matthew, I see that you’re about to reference Slavoj Žižek. Please don’t. I beg you.

Matthew, Žižek also plagiarized ideas. You know that, right? And frankly, others have also said that thing you say he said. It’s also not a very interesting thing to say. I prefer Fritjof Capra on similar matters.

Matthew, I feel like you’re upset at the internet, not poetry. Am I getting close? Can we go then?

Matthew, I need to do some shit now like ignoring men like you. One of you, your ilk, tried to destroy me years ago. By one I mean many. It didn’t work. I’m here on behalf of muses, of mystery, of wonder, and of words you might not know. Time for me to mutter, retreat.

One more thing, Matthew. The problem is content. The shift to content. That happens on the internet but is not of the internet. It’s just shit that’s happening, mostly on social media and driven by forces you didn’t even manage to allude to. Unless you did and I nodded off.

Hey, what’s your last name again, Matthew?