A hard chair

And there was I thinking it was going to be nem con.

There are ten remaining candidates for the Oxford Poetry Professorship. Paula Claire withdrew on 7 June, in protest over "serious flaws" in the election process, and favouritism shown to Hill.

We are used to arguments about what does or does not constitute poetry, but Roger Lewis doesn't draw a distinction between the patterned words and the metaphor. Like Geoffrey Hill (for whom Professor Dame Averil Cameron, Warden of Keble, has posted an encomium), Lewis hasn't written a manifesto. His case is extravagantly pleaded by Rebecca Nicolson (St Hugh's 1985). Tantalisingly,

If elected to the Chair of Poetry, Lewis' subjects may well include - Ezra Pound: Poetry and / or Politics; The Ramification of Richard Ellmann's 1,500 Factual Errors in his Biography of Oscar Wilde; The Nineteenth Century View of Shakespeare and Jesus and Great Cryptograms; Sullivan Without Gilbert; Philip Larkin and Ted Hughes: Sex, Violence and Difficulties with Girls; Poets of the Appetites: M.F.K. Fisher and Elizabeth David; The End of England: Eric Ravilious, Barbara Jones and Edward Bawden; and Dick & Liz at Oxford: The Burtons and Doctor Faustus.

But he won't be.

Michael Horovitz stands much more of a chance. It doesn't signify, but his facebook group has more supporters than Hill's. I just don't get his allegation that his religion is against him because it seems irrelevant to me - but maybe it's true that Christians are voting for Hill because he's a Christian... Have literature, and Oxford, come to this? I applaud Horovitz's manifesto:

Let the Oxford professorship's authority be revived as a platform for authentic poetry ticket-bookings, scheduling ever newer departures and in-depth arrivals way beyond mere careerist arrivism. Anyone voting for me is assured that I will continue striving to emulate Chaucer's Clerk of Oxenford: "Sownynge in moral vertu was his speche, / And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche."

Ruth Padel supports both Hill (with a damning qualification about his stamina) and Horovitz. (Snarky article in Camden New Journal at the link.)

Other candidates include poetry fundamentalist traditionalist Michael George Gibson

The literary and verbal things now presented and published as 'poems' are so varied that a fresh and fundamental examination of what was and is 'poetry' is well worth making.

[Edit: amended following a complaint from Mr Gibson's agent - see comments]

Seán Haldane if elected wants

to talk about the neuropsychology of poetry, poetry and verse, poetry and 'more-than-coincidence', poetry in different languages, and what Hardy called its 'sustaining power'.

Chris Mann, a former Newdigate prizewinner, offers samples of his work, including

Dragonfly

Rafting the Zambezi River,
I saw your filigree shimmer
on a boulder's bulky sphinx…

Maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

Stephen Moss is the Monster Raving Looney whose candidacy has been well documented in the Guardian.

So why I am standing? It's a good question. The idea came to me over a curry at the Hay Literary Festival last year.... What will I do if I win? Well, I will give the stipend away to needy poets and writers, and to good literary causes. I will set up an annual two-week poetry festival in Oxford. I will fight against the marginalisation of poetry, literature's perennial poor relation. I will buy anyone who votes for me a drink. I will, if necessary, go into coalition with Geoffrey Hill. I will back proportional representation in future elections. I will lecture on the role of poetry in society, starting with the Greeks and ending about a week last Tuesday. And I faithfully promise not to publish too many of my execrable poems. Can we win it? YES WE SCAN!

Sanskrit scholar Vaughan Pilikian's ambitions are as wide ranging as Lewis's, if harder to visualise.

I intend a lecture series to range across some, if not all, of the following topics: the poetics of science in the atrocity exhibition; antiaesthetics, esoterrorism and metempsychosis; the rhythm of the dig in the Negro spiritual; Japanese death poetry; rhymed trajectories to heaven in the Iliad and the Mahabharata. My aim in this august office will be to pull poetry from the drawing rooms and the garrets and the palaces, and send it forth. For poetry is a weapon, bloodsoaked and glinting. It is a gnostic heresy, a counterattack on all that holds us captive, a challenge to the cruel symmetries and stifled laughter of the Demiurge. It is only through poetry that we might revenge ourselves on time.

It is only through poetry that we might revenge ourselves on time. I could almost be persuaded of that.

Full Candidate statements here

I haven't voted yet.

What's a heaven for?

In last week's TLS, Peter McDonald has a column urging the case for Geoffrey Hill as candidate for the recently vacated Poetry Chair. Hill's learning and wit would make him a splendid academic choice.

McDonald insists that the holders of the Poetry Chair

are not there to proselytize (sic) for poetry, or indeed for themselves as poets, but to try to say things that matter about the art itself.

"Reaching out" is not required; but reaching within certainly is.

Nice turn of phrase there. Reaching within: a leading poet telling us how poems are made, where they come from in the tradition, how they make new myths, how they form neural networks of the imagination. Paul Muldoon's The End of the Poem was a tour de force. That's the sort of energy and erudition we require from our professors.

The duties of the Professor are to give one public lecture each term; to give the Creweian Oration at Encaenia every other year (since 1972 in English); each year to be one of the judges for the Newdigate Prize, the Lord Alfred Douglas Prize and the Chancellor's English Essay Prize; every third year to help judge the Prize for the English Poem on a Sacred Subject, and generally to encourage the art of poetry in the University.

Generally to encourage the art of poetry in the University. That seems pretty wide open to interpretation. It could mean encouraging the best to write better, or encouraging neophytes to start reading and writing.

Let's say it was the Chair of Tennis. There would be those saying the job would be to encourage the future Wimbledon champions. Others might suggest it could entail encouraging those who'd never done so much as pick up a racquet to start enjoying the challenge and exercise, the company of like-minded people. Isn't it possible to do both? He is quite right to dismiss self-promotion as a role of the Chair, but in rejecting proselytising for poetry itself Mcdonald assumes that the audience for poetry is rightly self-selecting. I'd like to hear more from him about how he sees that sensibility developing in young people.

Eh, forget all that and read Christopher Reid's review of Ian Hamilton's Collected Poems.

Chair

Martin Ejector seat

Useful.

But look, it's a museum piece. It's bolted to the floor.

Walcott Lectures

Walcott's Nobel lecture. Text and audio.

Michigan State University Audio.

Whitman College Lecture Audio.

University of Alberta (Scroll down to the bottom of the page.) Audio.

OxPo redux

Admittedly I was angry when I wrote that last somewhat incoherent post. I've calmed down a bit now.

There are several issues here, which need untangling.

1. The archaic post of Professor of Poetry. The job needs reform.

The duties of the Professor are to give one public lecture each term; to give the Creweian Oration at Encaenia every other year (since 1972 in English); each year to be one of the judges for the Newdigate Prize, the Lord Alfred Douglas Prize and the Chancellor's English Essay Prize; every third year to help judge the prize for the English poem on a sacred subject, and generally to encourage the art of poetry in the University.

For this s/he will receive a stipend of £6,901 pa (pay award pending) and a princely £40 per Creweian Oration. A mercy they don't still have to give it in Latin.

2. The method of election. This needs reform too. While the overwhelming number of beneficiaries of the lectures are undergraduates, they have no vote. The candidate is chosen by secret ballot of senior members of the University. Not just the dons, but any old geezer, who may have no interest in poetry whatsoever, who sports an MA (Oxon). (Not suggesting that votes can be bought, of course.) There are no postal votes or electronic votes. Voting is in person, and the wearing of gowns optional. Well, of course you can't let young people choose their own professor; they are too young to know anything, let alone what's good for them. It has always been this way, and therefore it must continue. It is a tradition, and that's the sort of thing England, and above all Oxford, does exceedingly well.

3. The candidates. One would think that a poetry professor whose job consists light duties consist mainly of giving lectures on poetry should be chosen on the basis of their skills in lecturing on poetry. They don't have to be poets; indeed, the present Professor, Christopher Ricks, is not known for his poetry but was elected because he is an inspiring critic.

4. The campaign. One would think that candidates would campaign on their ability to deliver the lectures, and if they have any, their skill as poets. As far as I can tell, they have. No-one but an idiot would engage in negative campaigning, let alone by anonymous proxy. I'm frankly amazed that anyone could have such a low opinion of any of the candidates that they should think differently.

5. Sexual harassment. Look, I loathe sexual harassment. It has no place in the university. It's not flattering. It's not a joke. It is corrupting and demeaning, and sometimes frightening. A tutor who offers or withholds good grades on the basis of the giving or withholding of sexual favours is no better than one who would do the same for money. In fact, probably worse.

There were two anti-Walcott campaigns. One was started by a woman using her own name (there's a bit of a muddle even there) asking a group of her contacts whether someone with a reputation for harassment should be appointed to the post. This email was forwarded on, as can be the way of emails, and became a campaign. It would be a legitimate question where the appointee is to come into personal contact with students. But this job doesn't. Perhaps they were afraid that it might involve such contact under the rubric "and generally to encourage the art of poetry in the University." In that case, perhaps it can be excused as legitimate debate. Or it could be, if there were evidence that any of this were true, apart from the allegations by the alleged victims themselves. At any rate, were the appointee to be in a position to sexually harass students here, then the allegations should have been put to him properly, and he should have been required to answer them before his candidacy could proceed. He shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion. (We are pig sick of that forum.)

There was a second, and utterly disgraceful, campaign conducted anonymously in which pages from a book accusing Walcott of harassment were mailed to prominent female academics. That is smear. There is no excuse for the anonymity and it's not possible to debate with or counter anonymous allegations.

5. The suggestion that appointing someone with sexual harassment allegations hanging over him would bring the Professorship, and Oxford itself, into disrepute. Has it brought the Nobel laureateship into disrepute? Well, has it?

6. If you are against X you must be in favour of Y. Wrong. Walcott's supporters ask themselves cui bono? and conclude that Padel's supporters must be behind the smears. While one of her supporters hasn't been above repeating them publicly, it doesn't follow that this is the reason for either of the campaigns. It is quite possible that feminist anti-harasser animus is sufficient motive. My god, haven't these people ever met an angry feminist?


The election is on Saturday. It had promised to be exciting: poetry giant vs poetry populist vs poetry heavyweight largely unknown in Oxford. There were real issues involved. As it is, the whole business feels sullied. I feel sullied. I don't want to go and vote. I want to protest at the world for being different from how I'd like it to be.

OxPo Foes

Sickening. Vandals.

I am disappointed that such low tactics have been used in this election and I do not want to get into a race for a post where it causes embarrassment to those who have chosen to support me for the role, or to myself.

I already have a great many work commitments and, while I was happy to be put forward for the post, if it has degenerated into a low and degrading attempt at character assassination, I do not want to be part of it.

Derek Walcott has withdrawn from the race for Oxford Professor of Poetry - not for any poetic reasons, but because certain idiots have sent over 100 anonymous letters to voters repeating personal allegations at least 20 years old. (It's only from the Oxford Mail that I learn the recipients were all female.) Who could have sent them, and why? And why anonymous? Are they seeking to smear Walcott, or is it some Machiavellian swipe against Padel? There was nothing particularly secret about these allegations: as someone who is hardly at the centre of poetry gossip I first heard of them years ago. They were published and ignored. Even if they were true, they have nothing to do with his ability to deliver the lectures. They didn't stop him getting tenure at Boston.

Ah, but.

I don't really understand why he didn't face them down as he's always done in the past. He might have been elected; he might not. Either way, he would have come out of it looking as if he didn't give a stuff about the person who made the allegations. Whoever is elected now won't have the satisfaction of knowing they won in a fair fight.

Hermione Lee has called on Padel to dissociate herself from it, which she has done. She has just been on PM saying it's absolutely terrible. She deplores that it's been all over the press this way. She feels tainted. She has no idea who sent the letters or why. She's wondered whether to withdraw, but supporters have persuaded her she shouldn't be deflected.

Other dons are claiming that there would certainly have been other candidates if Walcott hadn't been standing. That's true, and the animosity against Padel is palpable and suggests that even if elected she would have to endure continual sniping from some quarters. Perhaps she should withdraw after all, leaving Mehrotra as a shoo-in.

The best solution would be to postpone the election, but that's been ruled out. Why in the name of all that's rational can't someone rush through an amending statute? This election should be about poetry. If art were judged only on the moral virtue of artists, there wouldn't be a lot left. And it's hardly as if the Professor of Poetry does one-to-one tutes, or exercises any power over grades.

Oxford has been deprived of a fair choice of candidates. It's a moot point whether the smear campaign did this, or whether it was Walcott himself in choosing to stand down. It is a huge shame he's removed himself from the race.

I bet John Walsh is feeling pretty sick too. (I wish I'd never mentioned his wretched article.) A snarky leader in today's Independent (the paper Walsh writes for) is almost actionable in its innuendo.

I don't really know Padel, I've never even had a drink with her - but I cannot for one moment credit that she would have had anything to do with this crapfest. I'd guess she was pretty embarrassed even by the Indy's totally un-anonymous Walshing. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

We are all tainted. We are humans, appetitive and fallible. Without those qualities, no-one could write poetry. And we are all the poorer for this sort of non-poetic battle about poetry jobs.

The row on Harriet continues here.

A Grand Day Out

Now that the Poet Laureate's been named, attention might turn to the next Oxford Professor of Poetry. Will another male bastion fall? The election is on 16 May.

It's an archaic institution, requiring the holder to give three lectures a year, and little else. Andrew Motion rejected the idea of applying, declaring that the whole thing has been overtaken by creative writing courses, and needs radical overhaul.

For some time, poetry evangelist Ruth Padel and Nobel laureate Derek Walcott were the only candidates. Roughly speaking, their declared supporters can be characterised as poetry readers and poetry writers respectively. Arvind Krishna Mehrotra is a latecomer to the fray, and brings endorsement from Tariq Ali, Amit Chaudhuri, Toby Litt, Tom Paulin. He sounds impressive too.

I'm almost sorry that Michael George Gibson didn't garner enough support. He would have ensured some frantic media coverage. He's the man who allegedly asked for his money back at Ledbury because he didn't like the poems, and attempted to report The Poetry Society to Trading Standards because they weren't dealing in what he calls poetry. But they are arguments we've heard before.

Fascinating to see who's nominated whom. Walcott is getting the poets and critics: Al Alvarez, Alan Brownjohn, Carmen Bugan, David Constantine, the sadly late UA Fanthorpe, Alan Hollinghurst, PJ Kavanagh, Grevel Lindop, Patrick McGuinness, Lucy Newlyn, Bernard & Heather O'Donoghue, Michael Schmidt, Jon Stallworthy, Oliver Taplin, DM Thomas, Anthony Thwaite, Geza Vermes, Marina Warner...

Padel appeals to everyone else, astronomers, broadcasters, classicists, journalists, musicians, philosophers: Melvyn Bragg, Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Valentine Cunningham, Victoria Glendinning, AC Grayling, Jeremy Isaacs, Emma Kirkby, Libby Purves, George Steiner, John Walsh, Geoffrey Wheatcroft - and at least one real poet: Alice Oswald. (Probably others I should have recognised.)

I incline slightly to Padel: sparky, generous, less conservative, and I like her. I understand some people don't, but not their reasons. I applaud what she does with her proselytising. It's not aimed at poets but at non-poet readers who are wary of the stuff. I don't see what's such a sell-out, or so patronising, about that. She did a fantastic job sorting out the Poetry Society a few years back - not a reason for her to have this post, but it speaks of character. It was impressive how she was prepared to listen, learn, and get up to speed overnight. She never seemed to begrudge the time spent.

Her old pal John Walsh did a hatchet job the other day on Walcott's reputation. Though it touched on professorship, it had nothing to do with poetry. I haven't read any of Walcott's criticism. Maybe it's not surfaced on my radar simply because I've been asleep.

Last time I voted for Carson. She didn't get it, but it was a grand day out.


Updated to account for more names.

Update and correction
Mr Michael George Gibson's agent has contacted me:

...we were very amused to read your comment about him in Squared. Where did you get your information from? Michael never asked for his money back at Ledbury and he has never attempted to report The Poetry Society to Trading Standards. We suggest you have a look at www.michaelgeorgegibson.org to find out what he is really saying.

My apologies to Mr Gibson.
25 August 2009