Imagine, instead of Logan "reviewing" O'Hara, that O'Hara is "reviewing" his critic. The poetry itself is passing judgment on the inadequacy of the response to it. In other words, if we already know how good O'Hara's poetry is, the only question is how generous and insightful the response is.

So take Logan's first move, suggesting that O'Hara's death was a good "career move." What does O'Hara's poetry have to say about this response? What in Frank's work is so crass and careerist as that? In comparison with any insights O'Hara's poetry has about death and creativity and the value of life, Logan's one-liner is worthless. And so on... I actually haven't got past this first line yet. I'll let you do this yourself at home. Whatever contumely means, I feel it describes William Logan.

This came just as I was about to defend Logan, because I admire the fact that he is irritated by so much poetry. I share the idea that poetry must earn its admiration, and that the most productive relationship with any given poet might be irritation.