God knows poet squabbles don’t get much coverage in our celebrity-obssessed age, but over at Oxford a storm is brewing that is worthy of any US Weekly cover. The position of Professor of Poetry at Oxford is something of a laureateship – highly prestigious and ultimately the only kind of steady paying job any poet can rightfully expect. The current holder of the position, Christopher Ricks, is coming to the end of a five-year tenure, and the election of his replacement is scheduled for Saturday.
Three names quickly emerged as the shortlist: Derek Walcott, Ruth Padel and Arvind Mehrotra. Now, if you’ve heard of any of these three figures, it’s likely the St. Lucia-born Walcott, who won a Nobel prize a few years back and who I would say is the most-anthologized of the three, and indeed, he was the favoured candidate – that is, until he dropped out of the race yesterday.
So why did he drop out? Well, he was the target of what the literary press, who can be a bit pearl-clutching at times, calls a “smear campaign.” A hundred or so professors were anonymously sent photocopied pages from a biography of Walcott. The pages detailed some sexual harassment allegations from awhile back which occurred while Walcott was teaching at Harvard in the early eighties.
The student alleged that Walcott asked her to, “Imagine me making love to you. What would I do? … Would you make love with me if I asked you?”, and claimed that after she turned him down, she was given a C grade in his class.
(via.) Now, another former student – who actually went on to sue Walcott and settled, I think, though I can’t seem to find the record on the web so feel free to correct me – has actually also come forward and said that she doesn’t think he ought to step down, despite what seems to be something of a sexual harassment habit. Those in the know of this kind of academic gossip think Padel is behind the whole thing, which gives the whole affair just the kind of air of seventh-grade lunchroom antics that are usually the staple of the Real Housewives of New York City. Then again, I learned long ago in a brief career in student politics that academics are just as ridiculous as anyone else, given enough rope to hang themselves.
The question that all of this raises for me is an old one but it comes up frequently because I love books, theatre and movies. Moreover, there remains in my battered, crusty and embittered heart a soft spot for a romantic view of the creative soul, and when Walcott and others like him turn out to be toeing some of the same old misogynist lines, it’s difficult to avoid crushing disappointment. Because let’s make one thing clear; in all the articles I have read on this subject, Walcott does not seem to apologize for having been a frequent sexual harasser. His outrage, rather, is limited to this campaign of “character assassination,” as he calls it, and from my vantage point, he appears unable to understand that the person who assassinated his reputation here is he himself.
Oh, I know, colleges are sexually charged places and I too as an undergrad knew more than one young lady who had no issues with innuendo-ing around with the professor in order to get a better grade. It’s not that I don’t understand him setting himself up as the professor in Oleanna; harssers and misogynists are experts in denial.
But what’s confusing to me generally about artists who have this sort of background problem (say, like Arthur Miller and his Downs’ Syndrome son) is how one becomes the kind of person who can see and depict the world in such a nuanced way and still have such an abhorrent attitude to those in your immediate circle. I’m not talking about the kind of hatred I have for Updike, or Mailer, for the record, because in those cases it is plain to me that their personal mores seeped into their work in very direct ways. It curtailed their imaginative scope. But look at this passage from Walcott’s “The Sea is History,” which I’ve always admired:
Then came the white sisters clapping
to the waves’ progress,
and that was Emancipation -jubilation, O jubilation -
vanishing swiftly
as the sea’s lace dries in the sun,but that was not History,
that was only faith,
and then each rock broke into its own nation;then came the synod of flies,
then came the secretarial heron,
then came the bullfrog bellowing for a vote,fireflies with bright ideas
and bats like jetting ambassadors
and the mantis, like khaki police,and the furred caterpillars of judges
examining each case closely,
and then in the dark ears of fernsand in the salt chuckle of rocks
with their sea pools, there was the sound
like a rumour without any echoof History, really beginning.
And you have to wonder. What in that leads to smarmy pick up lines like “Imagine me making love to you?”
Oh man. I didn’t know that about Walcott. That is SO disappointing.
Also, just cause I’m curious what was everyone’s opinion of Oleanna? I thought it was pretty vile.
I don’t know about Walcott, i have very conflicted views. I do however know a great, albeit libelous story about Andrew Motion involving a pick-up line which was 100 per cent worse than that.
As to Oleanna, I didn’t hate it, I was honestly a bit meh about it, which generally is my response to almost everything Mamet has ever done. I do think that it can be played more than one way however and that the staging can affect how you see the play. I have seen it played where the professor is very clearly guilty for example.
I wonder why Ruth Padel is blamed, and not Arvind Mehrotra? (Hint: I don’t really wonder.)
If Walcott has used professorships for sleazy aims in the past, then it seems like a perfectly legitimate reason not to appoint him to this position. And who cares what his accuser thinks? Her forgiveness doesn’t make his past actions ok.
@emilyanne: I only ever saw the movie with William H. Macy, I could be remembering wrong, and I was a lot younger when I saw it but I remember the girl being portrayed as a (heh. pardon the expression) horrible harpy from hell.
Mamet plays to me are kind of bloodless, because they speak to a sensibility and a male code of honour generally that is wholly foreign to me.
Spark, the accusations have been kind of quiet, but it’s Hermione Lee pointing the finger at Padel so it’s not as clear cut as what you’re thinking, I think. There’s some piece of gossip missing from these news accounts that must clinch the thing. I don’t see Padel out in front denying it.
What in that leads to smarmy pick up lines like “Imagine me making love to you?”
The beautiful poem came from the big head and the dumb line came from the little head?
oh no she often is, although the recent staging with Aaron Eckhart and Julia Stiles was considerably more nuanced and sort of invited you to decided who was lying about what. It could just be that Eckhart has an inherent creepiness about him whereas Macy is always lovely (to me anyway) which made it more complex however.
Agreed, Macy always comes off like sort of an underdog you want to root for, even when he’s doing sort of despicable shit (Fargo).
PS: well if there was a serious enough previous claim that he settled…
When I was in high school (~10 years ago), I went to a poetry workshop where Walcott was the featured speaker. My English teacher/mentor made it totally clear that Walcott was pretty sleazy and not someone a young woman should be alone with.
What in that leads to smarmy pick up lines like “Imagine me making love to you?”
Walcott has a really smooth, lilting voice (it kinda puts me to sleep). It might not sound so bad when he says it out loud.
Pilgrim Soul, that’s exactly it they’re bloodless, I can’t get invested in them at all. Also interesting that it’s Hermoine Lee, who is someone who I personally have a great deal of time for, accusing Padel.
FashionablyEvil, interesting, i was inclined to think there had to be something behind the allegations. I think I rather object to the idea of annoymous letters etc and it is arguable that if one case was settled than this is pretty open knowledge, although admittedly knowledge that people might have chosen to ignore.
Writers, especially much-fawned-over great male writers, are the foremost practitioners of Dudely Privilege. I’m sorry it turns out that Walcott has a sexual harrassment problem, but it’s not particularly surprising to me. Eliot was a dick to women, Yeats was a dick to women, Dylan Thomas was a dick to women, Hemingway was a dick to women, Fitzgerald was a dick to women…it would probably be shorter and easier to draw up a list of great literary men who were NOT total dicks to women.
As for the lameness of his pick-up line…Bluebears hits the nail right on the head, IMO. Just because a man is a good writer doesn’t mean he’s a whiz with a come-on.
@Pilgrim: You’re right that I guessed Padel’s being targeted with absolutely no info, but when I googled her name I found this denial in the Telegraph. Another guy poet is complaining she hurt his feelings by allegedly including him as an anonymous subject in an article. I read the article–it’s pretty innocuous. As you said, male artists can get away with all kinds of nonsense. She can’t even get away with maybe-mocking someone.
bluebears, I meant the accusations against Padel. my guess is from everything I’ve read that nobody was particularly shocked to hear this about Walcott, which is why were I him rather than petulantly dropping out of the race I would simply say “yup I’ve behaved badly and I apologize and let’s move on.” But then I never did understand this particular variant of male stubbornness.
Spark, that article is interesting. Who knew poets were so bullish! What’s that old saying about small stakes and rough politics…
@Becky: Yeats?? But what of his tragically unrequited love for Maude Gonne? And wasn’t his late-in-life marriage a happy one? Ok, lesson learned: great male artists are guilty until proven innocent.
PS: ohhhh. I see. Yes ok, I think you’re right, clearly there’s some missing piece out there because why would everyone assume she’s behind this “smear”?
Yeats was a fascist, so whatever his view of women, which was… inconsistent IIRC, probably not the best example of a pretty personal life.
I don’t know, I think I would be pretty annoyed if someone anonymously sent out records of my bad behavior when I was up for an important honor. I can understand his attitude (if not his harassing). I’m sure it came as no surprise to the selection team that he was a harasser (like bluebears, I have heard it and hardly move in literary circles); if anyone thought the role was inappropriate for him because of it they should have come forward as the second victim did, or at least in private made my feelings known.
I would also like to take this time to register my fairly strong irritation with anything Mamet.
I think these are all valid points – he is a great poet and kind of an ass. But I wish the whole thing went down another way. If he had been made to answer for this or even if Oxford had just kinda humiliated him by publically investigating/starting a dialogue on whether or not they had viable reporting systems it would have been better. Because I know he is not the only professor there who harasses and now he looks like a martyr, people have lost the chance to study with him in a safe environment and there hasn’t been a real conversation about how to make universities safer from this kind of thing.
As for the artist thing, it’s tough to reconcile beauty and pretty tremendous flaws. I just like to pretend the author is dead and critique the work or the public persona (if they have one) as two different things. Its not perfect but otherwise there is much less to read.
Perhaps I shall do a post on Mamet, or make PhDork do one. You may not have gathered this but she is a theatre-type.
YES Pilgrim Soul a post on Mamet would be awesome. I would love more posts on theatre/literature (like your Updike post)
If you do you should be sure to make reference to his article last year in the VV about his late-blooming realization that he is –surprise! A libertarian! Oh voicepiece of the male psyche I am SHOCKED. So edgy!
Yeats was a nationalist, but not to the point of being a fascist, was he? (Maybe my Yeats knowledge is lacking.)
I second bluebears–more literature posts would be great.
Spark: He was into eugenics et al. Most Yeats scholars would go so far as “fascist,” if I recall correctly from my early days as a budding literary historian.
Ah, yes: here.
@Spark: Yeats’s relationships with women were deeply fucked up. I always thought his obsession with Maud Gonne was downright creepy. He and Maud did eventually get it on, and the evidence–from their letters and his poetry–would indicate it was an EPIC FAIL. He had repeated affairs during his marriage to his wife Georgie, and spent a lot of time trying to resolve recurring impotence, including trips to a doctor in London for hormone injections.
Dude could write his ass off, though.
emilyanne, it seemed like one of those common knowledge rumors–everyone’s heard it, but doesn’t really have firsthand knowledge of the truth. That said, I find those don’t usually persist that long unless there’s some truth to them.
Thanks, Pilgrim. Eugenics: it tripped up the best of them. (I’m looking at you, Margaret Sanger.)
Becky, infidelity and impotence (not at the same time?) aren’t the worst dudely offenses, but all the same, I’ll hop off the Yeats-defense train now.
@JD: oh you are kidding me. what a douche.
@Spark: Yeah, I don’t think the impotence or infidelity ipso facto makes him a bad guy, but there’s no doubt that he put his women through a lot of grief because of those things. But he’s one of the many writers who is best admired on the page only.
I’ll leave a Mamet post to you, P.Soul, as mine would look more-or-less like this:
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
One of my profs told me that Derek Walcott came to our college (Baylor University in Waco, Texas) for a poetry festival and his wife or girlfriend or somebody like that came with him and kept constantly having to, like, snap him back into line when he went off and randomly hit on students. Ew! Apparently he’s quite a smarm.
That is all I have to offer to this conversation, haha.
I’m firmly with the death of the author camp. Whether or not a writer is a dick is only important to me insofar as one might have to deal with the writer person to person. Of course, I tend to like “masculine” writing. Roth, Mailer, and Hemmingway are/were most certainly dicks, but there is value in their work, and the gossip doesn’t affect the work for me.
RMH: I’m not sure I disagree, but I would argue with you about Mailer and Roth where, as I say, I think the limits their demographic imposed on them have seriously bled into their work.
I’m not totally New Criticism-oriented, though, largely because I believe that all artistic works are not only constructed but received in webs of meaning imposed by culture and history. So I can’t totally divorce author from work.
I’m not a hard and fast New Critic by any means either, and I hear you on how works are constructed within a certain time and place. I think there are absolutely limits in Mailer and Roth’s work, but I think you can read them within the work without going to biographical criticism. That said, I think it’s interesting to consider those limits, how they affect the worldview of the particular novel or piece of “journalism.” Also, I can see the limits of a work in one area, at the same time being fascinated by other things it is able to do very well. For instance, while I acknowledge Roth’s limited female characters, I love his exploration of the failing industrial city in American Pastoral.