Comments on: You know, I’d say that this entire Derek Walcott thing has left a bad taste in my mouth

By: Damn, Africa. What happened? « Natalia Antonova

Damn, Africa. What happened? « Natalia Antonova — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:15:29 +0000

[...] have more of a right to be bad, to be inconsiderate, indiscriminate, morally suspect, and so on. As I wrote last year, saying that “writers have reckless hearts” is just as silly as saying that [...]

By: Natalia Antonova

Natalia Antonova — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:38:53 +0000

WHOA. That’s incredibly sick.

By: lily

lily — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:06:32 +0000

there was a programme on yesterday about the scientist Carleton Gajdusek, who spent years living in papua new guinea researching a degenerative brain disease among the native people and as a result discovered the cause of mad cow disease, for which he won the Nobel. He also adoped about 50 boys from there, brought them to America, and it turned out, abused some of them. It was a fascinating and sad programme and reminded me a little of Walcott. So many eminent scientists were interviewed falling over thmeselves to defend Gajdusek, talking about how brilliance is always unconventional etc etc – or simply refusing to engage with the human consequences of his behaviour, as if scientific acheivements of genius exist in a seperate world.. also a lot of speculation about what is aceptable in one culture and not in another.
It was on BBC 4 – Storyville: the genius and the boys. Don’t know if you can watch it on i-player

By: Natalia Antonova

Natalia Antonova — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:20:16 +0000

*cue Beethoven’s 5th*

By: lily

lily — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:50:56 +0000

that’s because I AM a master… just slumming down here under an alias, finding out what the weaker and the great unwashed say about us, y’know, before retiring back to my ivory tower..

By: Natalia Antonova

Natalia Antonova — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:30:08 +0000

Thanks for the feedback, beautiful people. Lily, you don’t bow down to the Masters?! You… feminist, you!

By: lily

lily — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:50:23 +0000

Excellent post. But it is sad to read that you’ve been told that if you want to have a literary career you should never criticise great male writers. No one ever told me that, and I seem to have got away with it so far, but Padel’s case seems to indicate that it is true.

Love your comment about plumbers and reckless hearts. It’s part of this weird fetishization of the writer (how do you write? explain your inspiration!where do you write? tell me all about your garden shed so I will understand your literary greatness and maybe even get some of it myself) which everyone seems to buy into these days, not just to excuse bad behaviour but to – actually I don’t know why. To put a value on something that has little or no market value?

By: links for 2009-05-28 « Embololalia

links for 2009-05-28 « Embololalia — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:05:25 +0000

[...] You know, I’d say that this entire Derek Walcott thing has left a bad taste in my mouth « Natalia… As a young female journalist and aspiring novelist, I am routinely warned to never, EVER criticize men like Walcott. If I want to have a writing career, I am told, I need to shut up and smile and allow the Great Men of Letters to bask in their Greatness. Perhaps then they’ll let me sit in their laps, or something. [...]

By: evil_fizz

evil_fizz — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:12:05 +0000

Perhaps because academia is really their only path to renumeration as poets.

Quite possibly, although £6901 (the annual stipend for the Oxford position) is hardly something to write home about.

I actually found the defenses of Walcott far more irksome than the fact that he’d actually behaved inappropriately. There are incredible scholars (like Hermione Lee) whom seem to think that because Walcott is getting old, we shouldn’t forgo any opportunities to genuflect at the altar of his greatness.

In every debate about the art vs. the artist (see also: Roman Polanski), there seems to be a sense that if we are acknowledging art, we cannot simultaneously acknowledge the artist’s flaws without debasing the art, which is nonsense. There are numerous historical figures who have accomplished great things and still been less than stellar human beings in other areas. (To take one example: Thomas Jefferson. Phenomenal politician, writer, and scholar. Also, misogynistic ass who owned slaves.) I think that Walcott is brilliant, even if nauseatingly egotistical and lecherous. Surely, admitting both of these things can be simultaneously true does not mean that we let Walcott be a paragon of aiding and abetting rape culture.

By: Lucas

Lucas — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:02:15 +0000

This is very very well argued. You’ve helped me think about this case in a new, more nuanced way. I do think Walcott’s been hounded because of his race and his success, and I find that intolerable, but I also see now that, in a just world, there would be a lot less of the nasty and (from what we are told) vindictive brand of sexual predation Walcott engaged in. Sigh. He’s *such* a good poet, but I now see that the greater tragedy is the women he’s been aggressive towards.