Tina Bass wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have just had a booklet drop through my door advertising activities at the Hay Festival. I note that on Saturday 27th May
>
> 'in her annual poetry masterclass, (Professor) Greer explores the idea that literature is a masculinist invention; poetry in particular is a spectacular form of male display. Women have to adapt a language which objectifies them absolutely to become the speakers, the verbal aggressors'
> My own feelings are that this is a sterile and unhelpful approach to the study of poetry.
Would this be Germaine Greer? I just checked--yes it is/was.
I really hate to come in late on this but I decided I'd rather take a
shower first. I wish I'd thought of the mistressclass thing but oh well.
How can anyone argue against something that may be unprovable and that
appears (though it may be otherwise) to have been written in a private
language of hate-speech intended for a coterie? I cannot think of an
area outside gender roles and Iraq war American politics (right or left)
where no rational argument is possible. You or I or anyone may say
whatever we wish and expect no contradiction as long as we are (1)
intimidating and (2) use a language so meaningless that the listen can
give it whatever meaning he or she wishes.
If a man says that Professor Greer is saying preposterous things, he can
expect to be treated to an "I told you so" by Professor Greer or her
adherents. If a woman debunks the statements, I don't know how she
would be treated. Condescension? amusement? the way Dante portrayed
Judas Iscariot?
To be perfectly honest I have no idea what Greer is talking about except
at some broadly emotional level. She drips a hatred that goes
unchallenged. She makes it sound as though women wouldn't have needed
to have create literature because they were doing other stuff to express
their creativity--somehow men invented it and goaded them into it. Were
women who adopted literature as a joy and a profession somehow fitting
themselves to ape male styles and expectations? No, I am not saying
this well. Sappho. Behn. The Brontes. Austen. Rossetti. No, I'm
not going on with this to reach Ann Lauterbach and Kim Addonizio (how's
that for a violent pairing of opposites?). Greer's comments remind me
of Baraka's "If Bessie Smith had killed a few white people she wouldn't
have needed to sing those songs." Stupidly sexist or violently racist.
Same difference.
"Verbal aggressor"? Who is the aggressor here? About 30 years ago
Professor Greer disassembled Norman Mailer in public debate. Mailer is
good on his feet but Greer is better. They are both intellectual
bullies and I would not wish to argue with either of them. Then again,
I would not wish to interrupt the constant code language that has been
her occupation since about 1970.
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> My own feelings are that this is a sterile and unhelpful approach to the study of poetry.
>
> And could someone explain what a 'poetry masterclass' is please?
>
I think you get to prove first that you are a master, then you're
invited to sit at the feet of another master. Or mistress. Or
whatever. I got to do this 10 years ago--sit at the feet of Stephen
Dunn for a week. I learned stuff. Then I unlearned it. BFD.
Ken
---------------------
Kenneth Wolman www.kenwolman.com rainermaria.typepad.com
I wouldn't want to have lived without having offended someone.--Anon.
|