Skip to main content

Without A Padel

The news that Ruth Padel has resigned from the position of Oxford's Professor of Poetry - after only holding this most-honoured post for a week or so - is sad enough. But seeing how the media has - as if this was a replay of Frost/Nixon - hounded a serious poet out of a serious house - makes it bad, too. Eyewear believes Padel, once appointed, should have been allowed to remain. While I think it was low to send out anonymous packages smearing Walcott, it is also clear Padel herself did not do this; and, it is also clear that Walcott's academic misconduct was documented and real. Why shouldn't a man or woman worried about harassment be able to mention this openly? There is something loathsome about the way a bunch of eminent older male establishment figures from broadcasting and academia began to pile on the abuse - against Padel, the brilliant poet, not against the allegedly-predatory older poet.

The media fuelled this crisis. It escalated because - almost uniquely for poetry in the UK - it was on the front pages for the last few days. Eyewear believes that, should journalists cover poetry more closely, they'd realise a lot of its doings are sub-Nixonian in terms of deals and secret agreements and other carrying on (a lot of backs get mutually scratched, a lot of people get blackballed) - but it seems a bit rich to start now, and act as if Padel was the first, or worst. Perhaps her crime was hubris. The literary types who run the show in London don't like people climbing above their station. Padel knocked out Faber's big boy, and that must have made a few people wince. Now, where are we? Oxford has lost out on two superb candidates - okay, perhaps flawed as humans, but not as poets - and what started so well has become a second-rate Greek tragedy.

Comments

Harold Rhenisch said…
The NY Times reports that she has admitted to participating in the smear. The bad behaviour of the poetry community in general does not mitigate Oxford's exposure here, nor does it excuse her behaviour. We would all be well served by intelligent critical discourse, which is, I believe, exactly the point of the Oxford Chair of Poetry. I think you do your own cause an injustice, Todd, by defending her on this. Her poetry is one thing. Her critical methods are another. The Chair is a critical position.
Harold Rhenisch said…
Hey, Todd,

the NY Times reports that she admits to having sent such messages. We would all be well served by excellent public critical discourse about poetry, which is exactly the point of the Oxford Chair. She has shown herself unworthy, although not for her poetry. However, this is not about poetry. It is a critical position.

Harold
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Harold,

I see what you are saying. However, I know Ruth Padel. She has done a lot for British poetry, is very generous, and very smart. Sh would have made a superb professor. I acknowledge she emaild the journalists - one of them is poet Olivia Cole who often covers poetry stories - but that wasn't a smear campaign. Walcott admitted harassing those students, so what Ruth Padel emailed to the journalists was relevant. However, if Padel was behind the posting of the 200 copies of the chapter about Walcott, that would be a different matter - far stranger and more intense a campaign. The question remains, should poets, from Poud to Padel, from Waclott to Eliot, be judged by aesthetic or ethical stanadards, or both?
Alan Baker said…
Scott
I have to take issue with practically your entire post here:

1. You say "Padel should have been allowed to remain". But she wasn't fired. She chose to go. Your claim that she was hounded out by the press won't bear scrutiny. She resigned after it had emerged that she'd emailed journalists with allegations about her competitor. The same claims that were made in the smear campagin against him (unproven allegations from 27 and 13 years ago).
2. You say that "it is also clear" that Padel had nothing to do with the smear campaign. In fact, it's far from clear, and sending emails to journalists alerting them to the smear might cause a disinterested observer to think it quite likely she was involved; at the very least, she was taking advantage of it.
3. You ask "Why shouldn't a man or woman worried about harassment be able to mention this openly?". Of course, they should. But Padel should have left others to do this. Is emailing journalists the right way to raise such concerns?
4. You say "the media fuelled this crisis", when in fact, the whole affair blew up when person(s) unknown tried to exploit the media in favour of Padel and against Walcott. It was those persons who fuelled the crisis.
5. You say "Padel knocked out Faber's big boy, and that must have made a few people wince." Are you seriously suggesting that this caused Padel to be forced out of her position, given the background to the case? Remember, it was Walcott who was the agrieved party.
6. At the end of the first paragraph, you describe Padel as "the brilliant poet", while describing Walcott as the "allegedly predatory older poet". Is he not also "brilliant". And is "older" derogatary here, paired as it is with "allegedly predatory"? As a poet Todd, you must be aware of how you're using language here.

In her speech at Hay announcing her resignation, Padel claimed she'd acted "in complete good faith". So why resign? It reminds me of the corrupt MPS, who, while paying back thousands of pounds in expenses, claim they've done nothing wrong.

Alan Baker
Ian Brinton said…
One of the saddest aspects of this fiasco is that Oxford has lost a person who would have actually taught poetry! What I have admired about Ruth Padel is her ability to recognise that poetry is not something for the elite to quiver at but is a form of language that can convey intense meanings to a wide range of people including those who do not study English as an academic subject. She traces meanings in such a fashion as to act as an invitation.
Anonymous said…
Truth telling is out but sexual harrassment is okay.
Interesting...
Mark Granier said…
"The question remains, should poets, from Pound to Padel, from Walcott to Eliot, be judged by aesthetic or ethical standards, or both?"

"The question remains"? No it doesn't. Anyway, the above isn't so much an actual question (with an actual answer) as a topic for Junior Grad debate, an invitation to corny rhetorical flourishes and polite clapping and booing. There can be no definitive answer because each will depend on the circumstances, and in which arena the judgment is taking place.

The "question" pertaining to the Walcott/Padel fracas is much simpler. If you have a vested interest in a competition (e.g. for an academic post) should you forward negative comments/information on your rival to journalists? Don't tax yourself too much trying to answer (the prize is quite small).
Anonymous said…
Why do you say that it is "clear" that Padel herself did not send the anonymous packages smearing Walcott? Is there any evidence either way?
Alan Baker said…
Todd, I have an unnerving habit of calling you "Scott". Sorry.
Ian Brinton said…
With it surely time now to move on it must be worth remembering those words of Jack Spicer, 'A poet is a time mechanic not an embalmer'. Or, if you prefer a more English tone, those of J.H. Prynne:
'In darkness by day we must press on,
giddy at the tilt of a negative crystal.'
Paul said…
No, I think you're wrong about this Todd. Poets can be judged by their poems alone, certainly; but not professors, especially not in prominent public positions. They must also be judged by their actions and the examples they set.

The smears against Walcott were just that: smears. No allegations against him were proven, and the cases in question were decades ago. I've read the email Padel sent to hacks and it was disgraceful; a clear and deliberate attempt to bring down her opponent. She was right to resign. I only wish she would stop pretending she was 'naive'; she clearly knew exactly what she was doing, and she got caught out doing it.

This isn't about Padel's poetry, or about the 'establishment', or about her gender, as some are also absurdly suggesting; it's about her underhand behaviour. She hasn't done poetry any favours here.
Anonymous said…
Todd,
I appreciate your post. The entire affair stinks, but there clearly is a double-standard.

And Harold, where do we have evidence that Walcott's critical methods are any better? This is a man who has sexually harassed female students. Do you think this behaviour just disappears?

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".