The Times a few days ago ran a story on the profusion of poets laureate across the U.S., singling out the new and suddenly former poet laureate of North Carolina. According to the article, former NCPLs objected not just to the selection process, but its result: " . . . Gov. Pat McCrory’s choice of Ms. [Valerie] Macon — a state disability examiner with two self-published books to her credit — was an outrageous end run around the selection process, if not a cynical prelude to abolishing the position altogether."
And today, a letter to the Times's editors by the South Carolina PL says, of Ms Macon, "Lots of people 'dabble' in poetry, and that’s great, but it’s not the same as becoming a literary artist. Poetry is an art form that requires enormous effort and craft. Anyone considered for poet laureate should have achieved some level of literary accomplishment and have a record of working in the community and/or organizing literary events."
I do love the snarky jab the Times article and, now, Ms Wentworth take at Ms Macon for being an employee of the state. As if the disqualifier has been discovered! While I am decidedly NOT a political supporter of NC Gov. Pat McCrory and his heavy-handed tactics, I am also not kindred to PLs like Ms Wentworth of South Carolina (or Ms Macon's outraged predecessors here in the Old North State). Statements like the above are why. I dislike the elitism on display and absolutely despise it when so-called "professionals" (Ms Wentworth's "literary accomplishment") practice it.
If poetry, from a public standpoint, is for the people, then the State should not consider professionalism as the sole criterion for selectiing its PL. In fact, if the State is really interested in promoting poetry among its citizens--a very noble undertaking, in my book--it might select PLs based on a demonstrated respect for the art, a willingness to be a voice and to serve, the energy to do the job, an ability to connect with citizens on the topic in all its forms, and, generally, to be a proponent of the art.
The Ms Wentworths in the dustup mis-think in two regards: 1) the belief that only published writers and critics of poetry truly understand the art, and 2) the assumption that laureate positions are rewards for a lifetime of practice and publication (decidedly NOT self-publication, either, Ezra Pound's and Walt Whitman's early years be damned).
PL jobs, however, are exactly that, jobs, and state PL positions are state jobs. A good and passionate though otherwise "lay" reader of poetry, for example, might be as fit for this type of administrative/promotional role as any writer or professional critic. But as long as the Ms Wentworths of poetry dominate the selection process for PLs, you can be sure that only these practitioners will advance.
We will never know what kind of poet laureate Ms Macon would have made--good, bad or indifferent--in spite of her "self-publication" and status as an "employee of the state" (read: crony). What we will get to see, though, is the next carbon copy of all the former PLs.
And today, a letter to the Times's editors by the South Carolina PL says, of Ms Macon, "Lots of people 'dabble' in poetry, and that’s great, but it’s not the same as becoming a literary artist. Poetry is an art form that requires enormous effort and craft. Anyone considered for poet laureate should have achieved some level of literary accomplishment and have a record of working in the community and/or organizing literary events."
I do love the snarky jab the Times article and, now, Ms Wentworth take at Ms Macon for being an employee of the state. As if the disqualifier has been discovered! While I am decidedly NOT a political supporter of NC Gov. Pat McCrory and his heavy-handed tactics, I am also not kindred to PLs like Ms Wentworth of South Carolina (or Ms Macon's outraged predecessors here in the Old North State). Statements like the above are why. I dislike the elitism on display and absolutely despise it when so-called "professionals" (Ms Wentworth's "literary accomplishment") practice it.
If poetry, from a public standpoint, is for the people, then the State should not consider professionalism as the sole criterion for selectiing its PL. In fact, if the State is really interested in promoting poetry among its citizens--a very noble undertaking, in my book--it might select PLs based on a demonstrated respect for the art, a willingness to be a voice and to serve, the energy to do the job, an ability to connect with citizens on the topic in all its forms, and, generally, to be a proponent of the art.
The Ms Wentworths in the dustup mis-think in two regards: 1) the belief that only published writers and critics of poetry truly understand the art, and 2) the assumption that laureate positions are rewards for a lifetime of practice and publication (decidedly NOT self-publication, either, Ezra Pound's and Walt Whitman's early years be damned).
PL jobs, however, are exactly that, jobs, and state PL positions are state jobs. A good and passionate though otherwise "lay" reader of poetry, for example, might be as fit for this type of administrative/promotional role as any writer or professional critic. But as long as the Ms Wentworths of poetry dominate the selection process for PLs, you can be sure that only these practitioners will advance.
We will never know what kind of poet laureate Ms Macon would have made--good, bad or indifferent--in spite of her "self-publication" and status as an "employee of the state" (read: crony). What we will get to see, though, is the next carbon copy of all the former PLs.
