[jmduke]

The only through-line for the author's definition of "bogus" (AI generated content; identity performance; rejection of canon) appears to me "cannot be situated in the culture of a few decades ago."

To pick on one example: he writes of the linked NYT essay:

> Is greatness overrated? What’s next—Is disease the new health? Is losing the new winning? Is stupid the new smart?

At risk of sounding uncharitable, this is the kind of reaction one might have to the essay if they read the title and skipped the content. The author is specfically talking about the idea of the Nobel canon and its orthogonality to other reasons you might want to read an author. (I don't think it's a particularly good essay, but it's certainly not saying "bad stuff is good, actually"!)

[jlund-molfese]

I agree with you, and the author is being a little lazy by referencing the NYT article. At the same time, if they didn’t use a clickbait headline, they’d force their critics to make slightly better arguments, so it’s the NYT’s fault too.