The Olds Says No:
So Laura Bush invites poet Sharon Olds to present at the National Book Festival in DC. Olds (winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at New York University), thinks about and declines citing that “it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.” The Nation runs her letter under the rather bombastic headline “No Place for a Poet at a Banquet of Shame.”
I’m a few minds about this. First, good for Olds for sticking up for her convictions. Book festivals of that size mean mucho exposure particularly for poets whose work is not featured at festivals to nearly the same extent as novelists. By saying no, she’s turning down at the very least some good bookselling opportunities. Second, while I don’t think the First Lady nor the book festival represents the administration itself, nothing wrong with making your statement in the way you can, long as it doesn’t step on innocent bystanders in the process.
Third, and this bothers me some, did she have to go ahead and publish it in The Nation? Nothing wrong with saying no but if it’s such a personal decision, which it sounds like it was, did it need to be published in a national magazine?
What do you think?
Reader interactions
10 Replies to “The Olds Says No:”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t know why she did it, and I have no problem with her publishing it. What makes me sad is that she, and many of us, have become so jaded by politics that everything appears to have political overtones, everything is a plot, everything is a plot. And you know what? I’m not sure we’re wrong. They’ve politicized so much, why should we expect this to be any different?
I don’t know why she did it, and I have no problem with her publishing it. What makes me sad is that she, and many of us, have become so jaded by politics that everything appears to have political overtones, everything is a plot, everything is a plot. And you know what? I’m not sure we’re wrong. They’ve politicized so much, why should we expect this to be any different?
I think Sharon should exercise her prerogative (sp?) and change her mind, but also ask if she can bring a taster with her.
I think Sharon should exercise her prerogative (sp?) and change her mind, but also ask if she can bring a taster with her.
So let me get this straight…she’s not going to a prestigious, non-partisan event sponsored by the Library of Congress because she has a political difference with the honorary hostess’s husband? And if she had attended, she would have used it as a platform to make a political statement? As someone who plans on attending part of the Festival this weekend, my reaction to reading her article was “good riddance”.
There is a proper forum for all things, and Olds has picked a bad one for her political opinion. The pages of The Nation is a perfectly proper one for criticism of the war; a non-partisan literary festival, sponsored by a non-partisan government office, and hosted by a First Lady who has spent most of her life dedicated to literacy and teaching, is not. Using a literary festival to express one’s politics is about as appropriate as refusing to vote for a candidate because he doesn’t like Shelley’s poetry.
Olds seems to suffer from the delusion that “federal government” and “Washington” are synonymous with “The Bush Administration.” If she’d taken 10 minutes to look up the information, she’d see that the festival (though begun at Mrs. Bush’s instigation) has, from its beginning, steered cleer of any partisan leanings – while there are usually a few writers present with obvious political connections (I count 3 this year out of 81), neither side of the aisle is favored.
Not everything is about politics, even when political figures are present, and someone who is incapable of any interaction with those whose views differ from her own is going to have difficulty finding any place, in Washington or elsewhere, in which she would be welcome.
So let me get this straight…she’s not going to a prestigious, non-partisan event sponsored by the Library of Congress because she has a political difference with the honorary hostess’s husband? And if she had attended, she would have used it as a platform to make a political statement? As someone who plans on attending part of the Festival this weekend, my reaction to reading her article was “good riddance”.
There is a proper forum for all things, and Olds has picked a bad one for her political opinion. The pages of The Nation is a perfectly proper one for criticism of the war; a non-partisan literary festival, sponsored by a non-partisan government office, and hosted by a First Lady who has spent most of her life dedicated to literacy and teaching, is not. Using a literary festival to express one’s politics is about as appropriate as refusing to vote for a candidate because he doesn’t like Shelley’s poetry.
Olds seems to suffer from the delusion that “federal government” and “Washington” are synonymous with “The Bush Administration.” If she’d taken 10 minutes to look up the information, she’d see that the festival (though begun at Mrs. Bush’s instigation) has, from its beginning, steered cleer of any partisan leanings – while there are usually a few writers present with obvious political connections (I count 3 this year out of 81), neither side of the aisle is favored.
Not everything is about politics, even when political figures are present, and someone who is incapable of any interaction with those whose views differ from her own is going to have difficulty finding any place, in Washington or elsewhere, in which she would be welcome.
It is clear to me that “saying that not everything is about politics” you have never read an Olds poem. This not the first time she has declined an event in our nations capital because of the people sitting at her table. I think boiling a stance down to differing views is flipped. I am happy to see someone in my country stand up for their views.
It is clear to me that “saying that not everything is about politics” you have never read an Olds poem. This not the first time she has declined an event in our nations capital because of the people sitting at her table. I think boiling a stance down to differing views is flipped. I am happy to see someone in my country stand up for their views.
I’ll admit I’ve never read her work, but what does that have to do with this situation? She’s using a non-political event to make a political statement. If she doesn’t want to dine with Mrs. Bush, that’s a personal decision and I can respect that. But by publishing an article in a liberal magazine about her reason for not attending she’s implying that the event is a political one, specifically a conservative one. That taints the Library and the writers who do participate with a label that bears no basis in reality.
I’ll admit I’ve never read her work, but what does that have to do with this situation? She’s using a non-political event to make a political statement. If she doesn’t want to dine with Mrs. Bush, that’s a personal decision and I can respect that. But by publishing an article in a liberal magazine about her reason for not attending she’s implying that the event is a political one, specifically a conservative one. That taints the Library and the writers who do participate with a label that bears no basis in reality.