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.
The author reflects on the enduring appeal of physical media, specifically CDs and books, in a digital age. While acknowledging the convenience and accessibility of digital formats, they argue that physical objects offer a tangible connection to art, fostering a deeper appreciation through the rituals of ownership, handling, and display. The tactile experience and the sense of permanence associated with physical media contribute to a richer, more intentional engagement with the content, contrasting with the ephemeral nature of digital files. This tangibility also enhances the feeling of building a personal collection and shaping one's identity through curated possessions.
Hacker News users discuss the tangible and emotional benefits of physical media. Several commenters appreciate the sense of ownership and permanence it offers, contrasting it with the ephemeral nature of digital licenses and streaming services. The tactile experience, ritual of use, and aesthetic appeal are also highlighted as key advantages. Some users mention the superior audio/visual quality of certain physical formats. Others see physical media as a form of offline backup and a way to resist the increasing subscription-based economy. The difficulty of integrating physical media into modern, minimalist lifestyles is also acknowledged, as is the impracticality of owning large physical collections. A few commenters point out the nostalgic element attached to physical media, associating it with specific periods of their lives.
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.