I respect your opinion, and George’s, and I will take a fresh look at David Orr the next time one of his columns roll around. But I have to say the examples you cite leave me lukewarm at best. I remember that Elizabeth Bishop article — it was the article that began like this:

“You are living in a world created by Elizabeth Bishop. Granted, our culture owes its shape to plenty of other forces — Hollywood, Microsoft, Rachael Ray — but nothing matches the impact of a great artist, and in the second half of the 20th century, no American artist in any medium was greater than Bishop (1911-79). ”

I think this is a ridiculous statement, and what this means to me is that this critic does not take his own words seriously. It’s a puffy, frilly statement, the words of a person who doesn’t care what he says as long as it sounds impressive (I listed a bunch of American artists with a greater impact here).

I also object to the fact that Orr constantly cracks dumb jokes in his article (example). I have lofty ideas about what a NYTBR chief poetry critic should be. I’m not saying David Orr wouldn’t be a swell guy to hang around with at a backyard barbecue, and I’m sure he knows a lot about poetry. But he has a big role, and I want more from somebody in that role.

Is the editor of The New York Times Book Review a mere child?

And if so, isn’t that a reason to give him some sweets — like a brownie — when there is something he “did do right”?

Positive reinforcement works for dolphins and husbands. It might work with Mr. T!