Sandra Beasley responded to my criticism of Mary Karr’s appearance. It made me wonder if I had been too harsh. Specifically, whether my own take down of Karr was any different from her take down of Armantrout?
Perhaps it was. Part of my response was purely literary. I found her poetry to be quotidian and uninspiring (though isn’t saying that a repeat of the same behavior by her that angered me and the same behavior by me that has caused me to question my judgment?).
I think a lot of my frustration was caused by how much I enjoyed listening to Van Clief-Stefanon’s poetry and her remarks and how much a very little of Karr goes a long way – and there was a lot of Karr relative to Van Clief-Stefanon.
So, in short, my attempt to re-evaluate whether I was fair or not to Karr has resulted in me basically repeating all my complaints. Not really a successful effort after all.
In an effort to make up for that failure, let me end by suggesting that, at the very least, many (or most or all) of my criticisms of Mary Karr could quite fairly be directed at me.
the coffee philosopher 
Oh, I don’t think your criticisms were unfair. If it makes you feel any better–I received outside confirmation, from FOUR other people who attended, of the tone and content of Mary Karr’s comments before I mentioned your post on my blog. Your sense that her comments were especially unfair in light of Lyrae Van Clief-Stefanon’s presence–and (comparably) underserved voice–are, to me, utterly relevant. Having intro-ed/moderated a Folger Poetry event. I can say that creating a connection and balance between the two poets, no matter how disparate, is one of the goals of the evening. Sounds like Karr ignored that.
You spoke up! Never regret speaking up.
Cheers,
Sandra
Thanks, Sandra. I spent a lot of years as an opposition researcher on (Democratic) political campaigns and studied history before that. One of the major lessons is that there are very statements that can’t be qualified (it annoys my friends that I never say “yes” or “no,” but instead “I think X, but here’s why Y might actually be correct.”).
But I am glad to hear that others had the same impression and that it wasn’t just my lack of appreciation of Karr’s writing that led me to judge her appearance so harshly.