I wasn’t planning to get into Derek Walcott’s Big Adventure with the gossip brigade, which was so loudly trumpeted in this country by Seth Abramson on his blog—see here and here. Seth got his panties so much in a wad over the fact that blog readers disagreed with his position that he finally disabled comments on the latter entry. But here I am, bringing it all up—reluctantly….
I do so because the controversy is worth our continued attention in light of this commentary by Michael Deacon and this surprising, astute assessment by Nicole Kelby, the person who sued Boston University over Walcott’s behavior nearly three decades ago. Kelby says she is “appalled and saddened by the anonymous smear campaign against” Walcott. Will Abramson, who claimed that the campaign against Walcott was not a “smear,” now answer Kelby? We’ll see. It’s one thing to work up a froth over an issue, but quite another to acknowledge the complexities even those who were actually involved see in the situation.
Both Kelby and Deacon take the issue to a higher level—the one that centers on the educational value of giving students access to the person Kelby calls “the greatest living poet in our time.” I wonder if Abramson and the gossip brigade, who seem to have achieved their goal, ever bothered to give a minute’s thought to those students.
Thank you for this.
J.H., I forgot to mention that I agree with you about Walcott as a poet. Which leads me to add that I don’t hold his blowhardiness against him. He says everything that really matters in his poetry; the rest is just chit chat….
I am sure you’re right about Walcott’s motivations. But I wonder—answer for what? To whom? In my very first post on Seth’s blog I suggested that these victims need to come forward—to force Walcott to answer for his conduct. But as long as it’s all anonymous, or 27 year old news, I don’t see what can be done. Seth and the anonymous letter writers want to treat gossip as evidence, which I found "
the way i see it, walcott stepped down BECAUSE he didn’t want to answer for his conduct. he wasn’t taken out of consideration. so, if he was embarrassed and harassed, that’s just medicine. if he couldn’t stand it, or if he didn’t really want this lectureship, that was his call.<br /><br />btw, he teaches up the street from me, at BU, which doesn’t upset me much. his conduct, even if it has
I clearly did not defend sexual misconduct. Nor did I claim to know if it’s happened once, twice, or a thousand times; if all the victims came forward we might know something more than gossip about Walcott’s behavior. I also do not defend, as you do, giving credence to anonymous claims of harassment.<br /><br />And on the subject of being disingenuous, let’s see: you did not urge Walcott to
Joseph,<br /><br />Gently, I’ll say–you’re a little full of it, here.<br /><br />I disabled comments on my blog for those threads about Walcott once they became threatening. You didn’t see all the posts, because (natch) I removed them. To say "when people disagreed" is disingenuous at best.<br /><br />I’ve already responded to Kelby at Harriet; I have absolutely zero fear of doing so. She
This comment has been removed by the author.