 |
 |
In this kind of argument, I can't but think of Muriel Rukeyser, surely the epitome of a committed poet. Was she in this anthology? In her case, her sex was not helped by her communism, and her reputation underwent a big decline after she was targeted by McCarthy. Was she more readily erased because she was a woman? Best Alison On Sat, 6 May 2000 [log in to unmask] wrote: > The question I ask was serious, insofar as I was really perplexed, > insofar as I think Silkin is (was, sadly) really a) one of the good > guys, and b) no misogynist. Which is far enough. The suggestion > concerning blocked access to women writers' work is intriguing. Would > this have applied to, say, Adrienne (Cecile) Rich, who I believe was > publishing at the time? > > Silkin's editorial radar can't be expected to have picked up people he > hadn't heard of because the channels (switch from radar to radio > metaphor) he was listening in on didn't broadcast them: without his > being personally unable to take women poets seriously, a more widespread > reluctance to do so might have kept some important writers from his > attention. Take Rich as my example, if you want to be more specific. But > if you don't think Rich is important, please at least attempt to think > of an important female writer who would serve the purposes of my > argument if you were inclined to make it, even if in fact you're not. Or > was Silkin very aware of (insert your own candidate for "important > female writer of period" here) and simply forbidden to publish her? > > - Dom > > p.s. Born yesterday, to Sarah Cavanagh and myself, a baby Oliver. > Hooray! > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%