Hey guys.
What great, intelligent, nuanced responses. Thanks so much for indulging me. What comes across is that none of you think the Dickman poem should have been apologised for and removed, which is the main point I was making. Along with the implicit point that if this sort of thing becomes normalised it will have an inevitable effect on what poets feel they can write about and on what editors feel willing to publish. The straw man/slippery slope argument against this is that "free-speech advocates" just want some kind of license to be racist (or sexist or homophobic etc) but I think the examples of some of the things that have caused these problems show how simplistic this argument can be. One would hope that most editors, even without the threat of a Twitter onslaught, would still exercise good judgement about what they chose to publish.
Matt, I remember that discussion about the Hoagland poem, you showed it to me once before. It's a fascinating discussion, which is the point. Of course poetry, and art, and language use in general, should be up for debate, including strong criticism. Your point about mental health issues, and how we are acutely aware of art that stereotypes a group to which we belong but not so much aware of other groups, is an interesting one. On one level I agree with the need for caution, but on another I would worry about a world where, for example, Hitchcock's
Psycho might be retrospectively shamed, cancelled, and rendered taboo in the way that, say,
Gone With The Wind has been. Maybe I'm wrong to think this and there is some culturally sensitive utopia possible that I'm stubbornly resisting. It's true, I suppose, as has been pointed out in the past, that I don't belong to any identifiable protected group, so who am I to talk about this stuff. But of course, like everyone, I have my individual experiences. I wouldn't want a world where art had to be overly cautious about representing white working class Catholic families, or early parental death, or alcoholism. And if these things were suddenly deemed protected issues, I wouldn't want some self-appointed spokesperson on social media being offended on my behalf and calling for the removal of said art. I'd like to decide for myself. Yes, of course, would I feel the same if working class Catholics or people whose mothers had died when they were children had been historically persecuted and marginalised? Hmm. That's the thing I can never answer. I do know that there are a huge silent majority of people, including people of colour, who think that many of these examples of cultural sensitivity are over the top. And ironically, worryingly, these are the people whose votes are needed by the left, and yet, rightly or not, many of them associate the left at the moment with exactly this attitude of censorious scolding. I suppose I'm suspicious of the sterility of a cultural landscape where art is continually scrutinised and judged, and then potentially censored, with regard to how fair it is to various groups. I think one of the silliest retroactive criticisms Share wrote about Dickman's poem in his apology was how "It also centers completely on white voices, leaving room for no other presences". If an entire artistic culture were to do this it would be a problem, but to use this criticism as one of the reasons for withdrawing an individual poem seems ludicrous. Just as it would be to criticise a poem that only centred on black, or Chinese, or any other voices.
I agree with you on this.
Quote:
|
I still wouldn't like to posit any absolute rules around when it's appropriate for who to say what about whom. For me (again) my response is going to come down to my perception of intent and consequences. Though that perception is going to be mine, and my knowledge of context and consequences may be limited.
|
I do think there is a trend towards a knee jerk capitulation to people who almost make a sport of viewing art, and speech in general, on a superficial level, with little regard to context, who see bad intent when it isn't there, and who posit a sometimes exaggerated idea of its potential for harm and possible consequences. This isn't to say that art and literature and words can't cause harm, but that the bar has been set very low recently in many cases.
John, they are fascinating reminiscences. The contradiction you noticed when you were eight is similar to the right wing trope that on the one hand immigrants are lazy, and on the other that they are stealing 'our' jobs.
Reading the controversy over Dickman's poem I thought of one of my own childhood memories. I remember a phrase that was used regularly when I was very young, whenever I would ask an adult where my mum was (I mean before she died; she would be at the shops or something). My dad, and my grandma I remember too, would answer, "She's run away with a black fella". This would be said flippantly, dismissively, in the sense of 'stop bothering me'. It was a common expression.
Now, I write a lot about my childhood, non-judgementally, impressionistically. I've never included this line in a poem, though it happened often and it's stuck with me. And it seems a fascinating and disturbing thing for an adult to say to a child, for many reasons, and ripe for poetry. Of course I also recognise it as an undoubtedly racist expression that plays on harmful stereotypes. I'm glad expressions like it have become unacceptable. But it somehow wouldn't feel right if I could only include it in a poem on the proviso that I "explicitly condemn" it, whatever that entails. Because I don't condemn the people who said it, and I don't really condemn them for saying it. Do I condemn anything? The world, I suppose. The course of history. Retrospectively condemning the spoken expression, those seven words from my childhood that I haven't heard for 40 years, would feel almost pointless and insulting to a reader. There would be a good poem to write about this, a way to do it well, but would it be worth it? Probably not. I suppose this is internalised censorship.
About Dickman's poem you say, "It was a teachable moment and he caved". My worry is that the culture at the moment makes it more difficult for people not to cave. I wish they wouldn't quite so often.
James - The "So far" line in Dove's poem is probably the most problematic for some people, I suppose, as it's the moment that seems to imply that these girls she's getting irritated by will inevitably become racist when they get older. Similarly, in Dickman's poem, I stopped short momentarily where he used the word
negress for the second time, without the speech-marks. My issue with Dove's phrase wasn't so much its existence as its dramatic placement as a single sentence right at the end, which seemed a little on-the-nose to me poetically, a bit too much like a bad movie twist. Which is why I thought it might be better, not removed, but shifted slightly. The ending has grown on me, actually, started to feel more natural. I really like the poem. The point is that it's available for people to think what they like about. I agree that sensitivity about Dove's poem is pretty ridiculous given history, but that seems the general consensus anyway. Any calls for Dove's poem to be taken out of circulation on the grounds of 'reverse racism' would be, quite rightly, laughed out of the room, and there don't seem to be many. Instead we are having an interesting discussion about it. I just think this principle of reading something sympathetically, with nuance and context, should have been applied to Dickman's poem too, and others like it.
Cameron - interesting. I suppose the grandma's attitude just wasn't seen as a big deal, so it wasn't given much focus. And the poem is written sort of "in the moment", in memory flashes.
I just realise I'm replying to you all individually like I've posted a poem. I don't feel quite so gaslighted now haha. Thanks. Sorry for rambling. Here and in general. I feel like I'm done now. Basically, let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Bye!
Derek: we cross posted. Nothing wrong with Les Murray. I'll read your poems.