Stephanie Yue Duhem's essay argues that the virality of Rupi Kaur's poetry stems from its easily digestible, relatable, and emotionally charged content, rather than its literary merit. Duhem suggests that Kaur's work resonates with a broad audience precisely because it avoids complex language and challenging themes, opting instead for simple, declarative statements about common experiences like heartbreak and trauma. This accessibility, combined with visually appealing formatting on social media, contributes to its widespread appeal. Essentially, Duhem posits that Kaur’s work, and other similar viral poetry, thrives not on its artistic depth, but on its capacity to be readily consumed and shared as easily digestible emotional content.
In an expansive essay entitled "Stephanie Yue Duhem: Only Bad Poems Go Viral," published on the Do Not Research Substack, the author delves into the intriguing phenomenon of widespread poetic appreciation, or rather, the perceived lack thereof in the contemporary digital landscape. The piece opens with a framing anecdote concerning the poet Stephanie Yue Duhem, whose work, despite accruing what some might consider significant engagement on social media platforms, is posited by the author to be demonstrably lacking in artistic merit. This specific case serves as a springboard for a broader discussion on the nature of viral poetry and its purported disconnect from established literary standards.
The author elaborates on this disconnect, meticulously dissecting what they perceive to be the formulaic and shallow characteristics of poems that achieve virality. They suggest that these poems often rely on easily digestible emotional tropes, simplistic language devoid of nuance, and a readily accessible, almost predictable structure. This, they argue, caters to a broad audience seeking immediate gratification and affirmation, rather than genuine engagement with complex themes or artistic expression. The essay further explores the potential reasons behind this trend, speculating on the influence of social media algorithms that prioritize readily shareable content and the general decline of sustained attention spans in the digital age.
Furthermore, the author posits a correlation between the virality of a poem and its perceived lack of depth. They argue that the very qualities that propel a poem to widespread recognition – its simplicity, its emotional transparency, its lack of ambiguity – are often the very qualities that prevent it from achieving true artistic significance. The author implies that the accessibility of these poems, while seemingly democratizing the art form, ultimately contributes to a devaluation of poetry as a whole, creating a landscape in which genuine artistry is overshadowed by superficial sentimentality. The essay concludes with a somewhat melancholic reflection on the state of poetry in the digital age, expressing a concern for the future of the art form in a world increasingly driven by metrics and algorithms. While acknowledging that the accessibility of poetry through social media has its merits, the author ultimately laments the dominance of what they deem to be inferior work, suggesting that the pursuit of virality has become a detrimental force in shaping contemporary poetic expression.
Summary of Comments ( 3 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121134
Hacker News users generally agreed with the article's premise, finding the discussed poem simplistic and lacking depth. Several commenters dissected the poem's flaws, citing its predictable rhyming scheme, cliché imagery, and unoriginal message. Some suggested the virality stems from relatable, easily digestible content that resonates with a broad audience rather than poetic merit. Others discussed the nature of virality itself, suggesting algorithms amplify mediocrity and that the poem's success doesn't necessarily reflect its quality. A few commenters defended the poem, arguing that its simplicity and emotional resonance are valuable, even if it lacks sophisticated poetic techniques. The discussion also touched on the democratization of poetry through social media and the subjective nature of art appreciation.
The Hacker News post "Stephanie Yue Duhem: Only Bad Poems Go Viral" sparked a discussion with several interesting comments. Many commenters engaged with the core premise of the linked Substack article, which argues that virality often comes at the cost of artistic merit.
One commenter pointed out the irony of the situation, noting that the Substack article itself was aiming for virality by presenting a provocative thesis. This commenter highlighted the tension between desiring a wide audience and maintaining artistic integrity, suggesting that the author might be playing the same game they critique.
Another commenter drew a parallel to the music industry, observing that "earworms" – catchy but often simplistic songs – tend to be more commercially successful than complex musical pieces. They suggested that this phenomenon extends beyond poetry and music, impacting various forms of art and content creation. This commenter also questioned the value judgment inherent in labeling viral content as "bad," arguing that popularity might indicate a different kind of value, such as accessibility or emotional resonance.
Several commenters discussed the role of algorithms in amplifying certain types of content. One commenter argued that algorithms are trained on engagement metrics, which favor content that evokes strong emotional responses, even if those responses are negative. This, they suggested, creates a feedback loop that rewards sensationalism and simplicity over nuance and depth. Another commenter added to this by mentioning the "lowest common denominator" effect, where content designed to appeal to the widest possible audience often sacrifices complexity and originality.
Some commenters offered alternative perspectives on the nature of virality. One suggested that viral content often taps into a collective unconscious, expressing shared anxieties or desires that resonate with a large group of people. Another commenter pointed out that the internet has democratized access to art, allowing a wider range of voices to be heard, and that virality, while not necessarily a marker of quality, can be an indicator of cultural relevance.
Finally, several commenters discussed specific examples of viral poems, debating their merits and demerits. These discussions highlighted the subjective nature of artistic taste and the difficulty of defining "good" and "bad" poetry.
Overall, the comment section explored the complex relationship between virality, artistic merit, and audience engagement, touching upon themes of algorithmic bias, the democratization of art, and the subjective nature of taste.