If I were a critic working for the NYT, I could see how even in his most degenerate form, Bukowski lived more deeply and experienced life more profoundly than someone with middling preoccupations could, and also, how desperately necessary it would be to fold him into some critical framework that neutered him, if only to mitigate the shame that lesser writers and the readers of criticism must live with as the price of their successes. All worth it, surely. Those seedy grapes are most certainly sour.
He was the man in the arena. Writers for newspapers, well, they write about men like him.
Yeah, the envy in that article is cringe worthy. I've been increasingly disappointed by the NY Times as the years go by but maybe they are just as "good" as they used to be and I've just developed higher standards.
You know, I've been wondering the same thing. They are a somewhat old business; they did do a great job with their digital property and the content seems good. But if you start reading other media properties (Vox is my current favorite), NYT seems less like actual journalism, or seems to portray a misleading picture of events.
Washington Post has been somewhat better, focusing on news more than opinions. I used to subscribe to both NYT and WaPo but then terminated my NYT subscription. Haven't missed it since.
He was the man in the arena. Writers for newspapers, well, they write about men like him.