No Place for a Poet at a Banquet of Shame

[rollhead]

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/olds

No Place for a Poet at a Banquet of Shame
by SHARON OLDS

[from the October 10, 2005 issue of The Nation]

For reasons spelled out below, the poet Sharon Olds has declined to attend the National Book Festival in Washington, which, coincidentally or not, takes place September 24, the day of an antiwar mobilization in the capital. Olds, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at New York University, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. Three years ago artist Jules Feiffer declined to attend the festival's White House breakfast as a protest against the Iraq War ("Mr. Feiffer Regrets," November 11, 2002). We suggest that invitees to this year's event consider following their example. --The Editors

Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House

Dear Mrs. Bush,

I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.

In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.

And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.

When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's unique story and song.

So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.

I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war.

But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.

What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.

So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.

Sincerely,

SHARON OLDS

[Doc Martin]

Rolly,
Is Sharon still at NYU?
For those unfamiliar with Sharon:

Primitive

I have heard about the civilized,
the marriages run on talk, elegant and honest, rational. But you and I are
savages. You come in with a bag,
hold it out to me in silence.
I know Moo Shu Pork when I smell it
and understand the message: I have
pleased you greatly last night. We sit
quietly, side by side, to eat,
the long pancakes dangling and spilling,
fragrant sauce dripping out,
and glance at each other askance, wordless,
the corners of our eyes clear as spear points
laid along the sill to show
a friend sits with a friend here.

Sharon Olds

[rollhead]

Doc,

Yes, she is.

[clinthopson]

I didn't know she was married to Pete.

[crawjo]

I think it would be more effective for these anti-war writers to go to the festival. By not going, they are guaranteeing that the 85,000 attendees or whatever will not have to be confronted by their views.

My advice to Sharon would be to read, or write if she doesn't have one already, an anti-war poem and deliver that at the Festival. If she doesn't have time to write one herself, read a great anti-war poem by another American poet, of which there are many examples. That would be a more effective form of protest, IMO.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think it would be more effective for these anti-war writers to go to the festival. By not going, they are guaranteeing that the 85,000 attendees or whatever will not have to be confronted by their views.

My advice to Sharon would be to read, or write if she doesn't have one already, an anti-war poem and deliver that at the Festival. If she doesn't have time to write one herself, read a great anti-war poem by another American poet, of which there are many examples. That would be a more effective form of protest, IMO.

Do you think that, when the intent of your suggested poem is realized, that Sharon will be permitted to finish reading it, or that Ms. Bush will stand up and leave?
I agree with you though. People who wouldn't normally pay any attention to poetry, any poetry, might be interested in a poem that prompted the First Lady to leave it's reading.
Is the material being presented pre-viewed by Ms Bush's people?

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

I didn't know she was married to Pete.

Hahahahaha. The rest of you, put down your keyboards. This thread has officially been...

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think it would be more effective for these anti-war writers to go to the festival. By not going, they are guaranteeing that the 85,000 attendees or whatever will not have to be confronted by their views.

By not going her story was covered in The New York Times, giving her more than 100 times the audience than she would have had at the affair -- and this isn't counting the other media who will pick up the story.

She did the honorable and most effective thing she could do.

[Pete C]

I think she should have gone and used the platform to make her point--or else, refuse and leave it at that. The letter seems like a cop out--too safe.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I think she should have gone and used the platform to make her point--or else, refuse and leave it at that. The letter seems like a cop out--too safe.

Yea, nothing is more honorable than accepting an invitation from your host and then insulting her.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I think she should have gone and used the platform to make her point--or else, refuse and leave it at that. The letter seems like a cop out--too safe.

But, nobody has answered my question.
Are all speakers' materials pre-viewed by some committee, before they are presented? If so, is it possible that Olds' submission would be dis-allowed?
It seems to me that last year that happened to someone's proposed work.
Does anyone know??

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by patricia

But, nobody has answered my question.
Are all speakers' materials pre-viewed by some committee, before they are presented? If so, is it possible that Olds' submission would be dis-allowed?
It seems to me that last year that happened to someone's proposed work.
Does anyone know??

If that is the case, then she should have submitted to piece to the screeners, and then made her case elsewhere if censored. I don't consider using the platform to speak one's conscience an insult to the host (as rollhead suggests) in a supposedly free country. If anything, some of the verbiage in the letter could be construed as a personal insult.

[Doc Martin]

What’s to stop her from submitting one thing, and reading something entirely different? That's what I would do.

[patricia]

The reason I asked was that there seems to be so much screening going on at public gatherings, particularly those at which President or Ms Bush appear, that I wondered if this would be screened, similarly, for any signs of dissention.

And Doc, should Olds follow your bait and switch approach, what are the chances that she would be carried off the stage by burley security people??
I'd pay a dollar to see that.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by patricia

And Doc, should Olds follow your bait and switch approach, what are the chances that she would be carried off the stage by burley security people??
I'd pay a dollar to see that.

Hopefully kicking and screaming!

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by patricia

And Doc, should Olds follow your bait and switch approach, what are the chances that she would be carried off the stage by burley security people??
I'd pay a dollar to see that.

If that were the case it would be more than she could have hoped for.

[patricia]

I agree with you, Doc and Pete. A poetry reading with the First Lady in attendance isn't usually all that interesting. So, Olds being carried off, kicking and screaming, having dared to speak her mind, via poetry, would certainly make the news.

[rollhead]

Your really think she -- or anyone else in this country, in this environment -- would have the Moxie to pull something like that off -- someone who is in a professional position someplace? With something to lose?

Homeland Security would have her ass on the first thing smokin' headed to Git'mo. Then I guess she could write her own version of Kafka's "The Trial."

The only guy I know, personally, who would do something like that is Dan Berrigan and he is in his 80s.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Your really think she -- or anyone else in this country, in this environment -- would have the Moxie to pull something like that off -- someone who is in a professional position someplace? With something to lose?

Homeland Security would have her ass on the first thing smokin' headed to Git'mo. Then I guess she could write her own version of Kafka's "The Trial."

The only guy I know, personally, who would do something like that is Dan Berrigan and he is in his 80s.

Then maybe somebody should give Father Mr Berrigan a call. His country needs him.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Your really think she -- or anyone else in this country, in this environment -- would have the Moxie to pull something like that off -- someone who is in a professional position someplace? With something to lose?

Something to lose? She's at NYU, dammit.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by patricia

Then maybe somebody should give Mr Berrigan a call. His country needs him.

That's Father Berrigan. He is a Jesuit priest.

From Wikipedia --

Daniel Berrigan, his brother Philip Berrigan, and the famed Trappist monk Thomas Merton founded an interfaith coalition against the Vietnam War, and wrote letters to major newspapers arguing for an end to the war.

In 1969, Philip Berrigan was arrested for non-violent protest actions and sentenced to six years in prison. Afterwards, Daniel Berrigan seriously considered taking more direct action against the war. Howard Zinn, professor emeritus at Boston University, invited Berrigan to accompany him on a trip to Hanoi to negotiate the release of three [U.S.] pilots held prisoner by the North Vietnamese. Although the mission had a high chance of success, it was opposed by the FBI on the grounds that it violated their policy of non-negotiation with North Vietnam. J. Edgar Hoover went so far as to publicly call Zinn and Berrigan "traitors". U.S. planes even bombed locations where they were scheduled to be. Despite the opposition, three pilots were returned home. They were the first American POWs released unharmed by the North Vietnamese. The lack of acknowledgement and appreciation by the U.S. government helped to radicalize Berrigan.

In 1969, Berrigan decided to participate in a more radical non-violent protest. A local high-school physics teacher helped to concoct homemade napalm. Nine activists, who later became known as the Catonsville Nine, walked into the draft board of Catonsville, Maryland, and removed 378 draft files, which they brought outside and burned. The Catonsville Nine, who were all Catholic, issued a statement:

"We confront the Catholic Church, other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country's crimes. We are convinced that the religious bureaucracy in this country is racist, is an accomplice in this war, and is hostile to the poor."
Berrigan was arrested and was sentenced to three years in prison, but he refused to serve his time. Instead, he went underground, living discreetly among like-minded individuals. The FBI, to its great embarrassment, was not immediately able to apprehend Berrigan, although he frequently showed up briefly at public events, made impromptu speeches, and went back into hiding.

Eventually, the FBI managed to find and arrest Berrigan. He was released from prison in 1972.

[The Plowshares Movement
On September 9, 1980, Berrigan, his brother Philip, and six others (the "Plowshares Eight") began the Plowshares Movement when they entered the General Electric Nuclear Missile Re-entry Division in King of Prussia, PA where nose cones for the Mark 12A warheads were made. They hammered on two nose cones, poured blood on documents and offered prayers for peace. They were arrested and initially charged with over ten different felony and misdemeanor counts. On April 10, 1990, after nearly ten years of trials and appeals, the Plowshares Eight were re-sentenced and paroled for up to 23 and 1/2 months in consideration of time already served in prison.

Since this action over seventy Ploughshares actions have taken place around the world against weapons of war, several involving Berrigan himself.

Other activism
Berrigan has spoken out on many issues since then, and has been involved in many protests. He has led protests against American destabilization of Central America, the 1991 Gulf War, the Kosovo War of 1999, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He is also a prominent anti-abortion activist.

My friend and hero: Dan Berrigan

[Mike Schwartz]

***My advice to Sharon would be to read, or write if she doesn't have one already, an anti-war poem and deliver that at the Festival. If she doesn't have time to write one herself, read a great anti-war poem by another American poet, of which there are many examples. That would be a more effective form of protest, IMO.***


I rather like crawjo's advise here.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by rollhead

That's Father Berrigan. He is a Jesuit priest.



My friend and hero: Dan Berrigan

My mistake. I thought I recognized the name, but wasn't sure. And I'm a sixties kid. I'll edit.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

Do you think that, when the intent of your suggested poem is realized, that Sharon will be permitted to finish reading it, or that Ms. Bush will stand up and leave?
I agree with you though. People who wouldn't normally pay any attention to poetry, any poetry, might be interested in a poem that prompted the First Lady to leave it's reading.
Is the material being presented pre-viewed by Ms Bush's people?

It could very well be, but then what would they do if she started reading a different poem? Turn off her mic? Get up angrily and leave? THAT would be a bigger story than merely declining the invitation (done before).

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Your really think she -- or anyone else in this country, in this environment -- would have the Moxie to pull something like that off -- someone who is in a professional position someplace? With something to lose?

Homeland Security would have her ass on the first thing smokin' headed to Git'mo. Then I guess she could write her own version of Kafka's "The Trial."

The only guy I know, personally, who would do something like that is Dan Berrigan and he is in his 80s.

Give me a break. Homeland Security couldn't touch her and you know it. And if an NYU professor thumbed her nose publicly at the Bush administration, she'd be celebrated across campus. She would never be at risk of losing her position. For God's sake, we have tenured professors in this country who have said all sorts of outrageous things, like the guy who wished "a million Mogadishus" on the United States, or whatever it was, and no one could touch them.

This reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where the family is forced to host Mr. Burns when he was running for governor on the night before the election. In that episode, Mr. Burns's campaign was sunk when Marge served him a three-eyed fish for dinner. Same principle applies here. It's a much more effective form of protest to get up in front of a microphone and read something that is deliberately inflammatory, rhetorical, anti-war, with the First Lady and other Republican dignitaries in attendance, than it is to write a letter declining the invitation. Sure, the latter act is principled, but it dies in the headlines pretty quickly. Compared to other forms of political protest, it's hardly a blip on the radar screen. I mean, think about it: Here you are, against the war, and because of your poetry the administration is offering you a microphone in front of 85,000 people! The war is already unpopular, you're a well-respected poet with a tenured position at one of the best universities in the country....if you're serious about your principles then pick the poem and let loose. What's the negative consequence? The Bush administration doesn't like you? So what! The Bush administration doesn't like a lot of people: Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, the list goes on and on. And none of these people are packing their bags for Gitmo.

[Felix]

Originally Posted by Mike Schwartz

***My advice to Sharon would be to read, or write if she doesn't have one already, an anti-war poem and deliver that at the Festival. If she doesn't have time to write one herself, read a great anti-war poem by another American poet, of which there are many examples. That would be a more effective form of protest, IMO.***


I rather like crawjo's advise here.

They'll probably do what they did to Michael Moore at the Oscars: start the band playing as loud as they can so that no one hears anything... Ah, democracy and freedom of speech!

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Felix

They'll probably do what they did to Michael Moore at the Oscars: start the band playing as loud as they can so that no one hears anything... Ah, democracy and freedom of speech!

That was a very different situation. Michael Moore's protest came at the Oscars. Sure, it was to a worldwide audience but at the Oscars, a Hollywood event, people expect actors and directors to get up and say liberal things. And it's not uncommon for a band to cut someone off when they go off-topic or on too long.

At a poetry reading, however, the poet has been invited specifically for the purpose of reading her work. In that instance, attempts to censor her speaking would be interpreted very differently, I think.

[clinthopson]

I really like Berrigan's "I Can't Get Started."

[Felix]

Originally Posted by crawjo

at the Oscars, a Hollywood event, people expect actors and directors to get up and say liberal things. And it's not uncommon for a band to cut someone off when they go off-topic or on too long.

I guess people would also expect poets and writers to say liberal things. But then is condemning a war considered a liberal thing? And I'm sure they didn't cut him because his speech was too long...

At a poetry reading, however, the poet has been invited specifically for the purpose of reading her work. In that instance, attempts to censor her speaking would be interpreted very differently, I think.

For me, there is no difference. It should be the duty of public figures and intellectuals to voice their opinions, to speak for those who can't. I view any attempt to censor them on the same level, even if I'm in disagreement with with they're saying. That is supposed to be democracy. But then, I know the media will have no problem using controversy around violence, sex and profanity for publicity reasons, but when it comes to politics, they just pull the plug. Talk about independance!

clint, I'm sure you mean Bunny...

[Dr Dave]

I would like to float the idea that Professor Olds is simply being polite. An odd concept, I acknowledge. It would not be polite to attend an event to which you were invited with the foreknowledge that something you said would quite possibly cause you to be forcibly removed from the gathering.

I salute Professor Olds for her civility.

By the same token, I grieve for Laura Bush, who probably cannot conceive of the brutishness of her husband's keepers.