Sex and Drugs and Poetry

The main catalyst for this blog is the news story of Derek Walcott withdrawing from the shortlisted candidates for the appointment of the Oxford Professor of Poetry after anonymous allegations of his sexual harassment of students.

I am undecided about this story – especially since no one knows what actually went on except the people involved, and one of the facets of modern society that I abhor is Trial By Media.


On one hand, I have a very strong feeling that a professional must act professionally or take the consequences, especially if s/he is in a position of trust and / or care over younger, more vulnerable people. So if it is true that Mr Walcott used his power over students to lower grades as a 'punishment' for them refusing his advances, then he has done the right thing in withdrawing.

However, if he has been forced to take this action through unfounded allegations, that is sad and unfair. Who knows?

The one thing I do know is that poetry and scandal seem to have co-existed for centuries. It may be that the creative spark that engenders the poetry also engenders a disrespect - healthy or otherwise - for social convention.

If you want sexual scandals, they abound, from the Earl of Rochester's nose dropping off from syphilis, through Shakespeare's aleged relationship with the Earl of Southampton (as well as at least one 'godson' whose birth resulted from something other than an act of God), past Byron and on to Dylan Thomas and Philip Larkin - who would believe the man often portrayed as a dried up librarian had three mistresses simultaneously (that he admitted to...)?

Then - and a recent conversation with a friend about Thomas de Quincey reminded me of this - there are the drug addicts who wrote their best poems whilst under the influence of something more tangible than Calliope or Euterpe: I love the image of Coleridge penning 'Kubla Khan' whilst self-medicating on laudanum, only to be disturbed and find his muse had deserted him along with the hallucinogens.

It must be said there is a very clear differential between behaviour that defies - or more probably just ignores - social mores, and using blackmail - emotional, sexual or financial. If - and it is an 'if' - Mr Walcott is guilty as charged, the above does nothing to excuse such behaviour.

But if we only give out plaudits to creative talents belonging to those whose personal lives are squeaky clean according to the morals of the day, then I fear we have a small pool from which to draw . I enjoy a range of creative output - from the Romantic poets to Freddie Mercury - of people whose private behaviour some parts of society disapprove - but then I don't have to live with them, so it's not my business - I can just admire the poetry, music, for what it is - sheer genius.