Jonathan picks up on Janet's analysis of Billy Collins. Franklin (he of the dormant Konvolut M) writes in to name that demographic: bourgeois.

It's apt enough, and it brings me to another conversation of the day before: What is it with poets and terms of 19th century sociology? What vets books and poems titled with terms from Marx, Althusser-chic? If you're going to rep those terms, that analysis, please please please act like you've heard of securitized debt or convertible arb strategies or any of the thousand ways those robots of capital are melting all that's solid. (Bill Fuller is exempt from this gripe, obvs.) I mean, yes there's something mournful autumnal and righteous about the terms, but without the (ahem) currency to back it up, sounds from here like just another kitschy kitschy coup.

UPDATE: To respond to this yes or no question -- isn't there or is there a risk. There is a logical risk, and there is an affective risk -- the affective risk is that a righteous display will drive out all other currencies. Isn't that basically the critique of say Fox News?