There's a long article in the new issue of The New Yorker by Dana Goodyear about Poetry magazine and the influence its $200 million endowment is having on it.
One effect we know for sure the money has had on the publication: It's caused The New Yorker to write about it.
Goodyear seems very "Tsk, tsk," about the entrance of Wall Street and its attitudes into the world of poetry. Yet how is The New Yorker any better when its attitude toward literature is invariably "tops down"-- the Goodyear article strong evidence of this?
Are they covering grassroots American poets who give great readings across the landscape? (An exciting event here in Philly on the 25th.) Of course not! Neither are they exposing the presence of Wall Street elsewhere in the literary world, as in the Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, or the board of The Paris Review, which is loaded with billionaires and investment types.
Hypocrisy runs all through the Goodyear article, with no acknowledgement that the upper-class attitudes of The New Yorker, Conde-Nast, and writers like Goodyear are themselves also part of the problem.