Thread: The Deep End
View Single Post
  #32  
Unread 05-18-2019, 02:55 AM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

Jim, I think you overestimate Alan's tutelage of women poets here. I say that without acrimony. I really do.

For example, I would never dream of characterizing either Rhina P. Espaillat or A.E. Stallings as someone who "flourished under his aegis," and I'm very surprised that you have characterized them as such. Rhina and Alicia were fully-fledged mentors on a par with Alan when they were active here. They were not novices who needed Alan's guidance in order to come into their talent. Alicia published her first book in 1999 (the Richard Wilbur Award-winning Archaic Smile, which I think all will agree is a masterpiece), without Alan's assistance, and Rhina had already published several collections by the time Eratosphere came to be.

I am quite certain that I never saw Alicia workshop a poem in public, ever. And I think Rhina would very, very rarely post a poem to the boards. Like Alan, they generously shared their expert opinions, and gave much more than they took from the boards.

I don't think I'm in any way badmouthing Alan when I say that your memory of his influence on Rhina's and Alicia's poetic development is inaccurate. I don't think you realize that you're unfairly diminishing Rhina and Alicia, in your desire to honor Alan. But that's not necessary. They were all masters of their craft, and peers, and friends, who thought highly of each other's work. All stood on their own merits. None of the three was "flourishing" under anyone else's "aegis." That's just silly.

Again, Alan was a great talent, and he directly helped a lot of poets I admire. But the simple fact of the matter is that he felt far more comfortable tutoring men than tutoring women. There's no crime in that, and he didn't go out of his way to sabotage women. He had plenty of praise for formalist women who found success. But in my view, he didn't often contribute to women's success, in the way that he did for men.

I am grateful for what I picked up from Alan's tutelage of others, and those lessons have had a lasting and beneficial impact on my work. But I'm not going to pretend that Alan offered me direct advice and encouragement that he didn't. And I don't think it's speaking ill of the dead to say honestly that my experience of Alan was far different from yours.

Like a bighorn sheep, Alan delighted in a certain rough-and-tumble form of establishing and re-establishing dominance, and he often butted heads with poets who he thought challenged his authority and needed to be put in their place. I often couldn't see what all that king-of-the-hill stuff had to do with helping people become better poets. He chased a lot of subpar poets with oversized egos off the site whom I was not sorry to see go, but he also chased a lot of really good poets away, too, who simply had enough self-respect not to put up with his abuse. And that was our--and perhaps poetry's--loss.

The beginning of this essay presents the perspective of another woman, whose work attracted Alan's eye more successfully than mine did, on his distinctive approach to critique. Men seem to recall that approach more fondly than women do. (But there were plenty of men, too, who thought Alan's withering critiques crossed the line into gratuitous ego-stomping at times.) Anyway, it's a gorgeous essay, and more impactful for the fact that it is honest, not hagiographic.

Honesty itself honors Alan, doesn't it?

Last edited by Julie Steiner; 05-18-2019 at 03:11 AM.
Reply With Quote