I saw a critic say yesterday that what we value about poets is not what they say but how they say it. As if their ‘value’ is achieved by their techniques and not their insights. I think the word ‘value’ here should be interrogated, as well as the seeming cynicism regarding the possibility of what can be said. But most importantly, it may be best to consider this statement in concrete terms: would you only pay money to eat food that is presented beautifully, and surprisingly, but has little to no flavor or nutrition? I know there are those who are impressed with such food. But only because they have never had food with much flavor.