Shame at The New Yorker

The latest issue of The New Yorker magazine features a poem by Marie Howe entitled "The Star Market". In the poem the omniscient narrator sees numerous disabled people in a supermarket. The poem’s narrator is disgusted by these deformed shoppers and goes on to speculate about the forbearance that Jesus must have owned to live among such people.

You can check out the poem yourself.

I am not an advocate of censorship, and in general I tend to believe that the world isn’t harmed by bad poetry. Howe’s poem is trite, rendered without wit, and though it tries to offer a speculative nod to the trials of Christian compassion, in point of fact the poet misses the mark even with this slow pitch Judeo-Christian theme. In short: the poem is just plain bad.

I don’t know Marie Howe. I do know a good deal about poetry though. Therefore I understand implicitly that the narrator of the poem is not precisely the poet herself.

I "get it". The narrator is a cultural figure just as the lame and the deformed are culturally suggestive figures within the proscenium arch of the poem.

But it’s a stupid poem. There’s an easy decadence about it. Contemporary American poetry is rife with this kind of thing these days. Wallace Stevens once wrote, famously, that "the world is ugly and the people are sad"—but he didn’t mean to suggest that he should earn "Brownie points" because he could see it.

And that’s the problem with Howe’s poem. The narrator thinks she’s smart. The reader is left to interpret that narrator’s degree of discernment and empathy.

At the end of the poem we’re told that Jesus, turning around to see one of these terrible unfortunates from the supermarket would likely have a problem himself.

And so the poem is execrable and it uses disability in all the clichéd ways that bad writing has always employed: these are the stigmatized and ostracized children, these cripples, who haunt the roads outside of Thebes.

Spare us.

I don’t read The New Yorker very often, and I seldom read the poetry there when I do pick it up. The magazine has never been famous for its capacities where poetry is concerned.

But now I will not read it at all.

Shame on them.


Author: skuusisto

Poet, Essayist, Blogger, Journalist, Memoirist, Disability Rights Advocate, Public Speaker, Professor, Syracuse University

0 thoughts on “Shame at The New Yorker”

  1. Jan ask why The New Yorker published the poem. Well, to get folks thinking about it/talking about it/upset/jazzed/excited/interested/mad/sad, etc. And it works – here we all are discussing the poetry, the writing, the content, the message, etc.
    Whether you like or dislike the poem – ask yourself, if the narrator is clearly among the disabled and all the able-bodied have taken the day off, as she writes, then what exactly is the narrator, if not one of them?


  2. Huh? What are you guys SMOKIN’??? Read the poem again, WITHOUT your “NPR” blinders on.
    As another “hack poet” once wrote, “My mind hath been as big as one of yours, / My heart as great, my reason haply more,”


  3. I think most would agree the poem is particularly bad regardless of the content. At issue to me is why did the New Yorker choose to publish it?


  4. This poem comes from the same sort of thoughtless hurtful mentality that results in such things as my university building a new 300 million dollar football stadium without wheelchair access. Why is it that we don’t call this racism?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: