Mike Snider has been making the argument that poets should write for a more general audience. When we look at what poetry people actually prefer, though, we find a mixed bag. Septagenarian formalist poet Rhina Espaillet's latest book ranks in the 7 figures in amazon sales; it doesn't look the general public wants her kind of poetry very much! Her other books are in the high 6 figures. Ron Silliman's Tjanting stands at #506,375, outselling any book by Espaillet. Surely something is off-kilter here. I'm sure she's a better poet than Maya Angelou or Mattie Stepanek, who have quite a public following. Maybe if Rhina were a teenage rock diva or a former president she could sell the same sort of poetry to many times the readers. Maybe she should go on Oprah. My point is that the routes that poetry takes to reach its audience are variegated and devious, and that the popularity of various poetic styles won't line up with anyone's scale of poetic values.

That Ron outsells Rhina proves absolutely nothing, and if the reverse were the case it would prove absolutely nothing either. The obvious fact is that a multitude of factors influence the way poetry reaches its audience: it's not some natural, unmediated process. If Bruce Andrews were published in the New Yorker, he would sell more books. If Charles Wright were not published in the New Yorker, he would sell fewer books.

The ordinary reader recognizes quality poetry, except when he or she prefers crap. The ordinary reader prefers new formalism to language poetry, except when the opposite is the case. No neo-formalist poet under 80 is popular by any meaningful standard. Baxter Black, cowboy poet and former large animal vet, is more popular than Dana Gioia, a discovery I find oddly comforting.

Appeals to the general reader are sheer demagoguery.