Your piece got me thinking of all the times Thomas More has been portrayed in literature, and how his "silence" over King Henry's reformist legislation was actually very loud.
To be clear, I don't think a writer should pay lip service to every outrage or political event that comes in daily. I think, though, that it is incorrect to believe our writing can be free of politics: even when we stay away from politics that is political. The best piece I've read about it is George Orwell's complaint of Charles Dickens (in an essay titled the same name), in which the crux of the matter boils down to "all art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art".
I think it's good to be aware of these forces that drive us, to make sure they are well patted down if we wish to write something "free of politics". The irony is we've made another politic by doing so.
Silence from a public figure in a position of power and responsibility is one thing. Silence from a private citizen is another.
I agree with Orwell when he says "But every writer, especially every novelist, has a ‘message’, whether he admits it or not, and the minutest details of his work are influenced by it." (Whether this 'message' is intentional or not, whether or not the true message intended by the author can even be divined, whether the 'message' is a product of the author himself or his authorial persona, are other questions entirely.)
But I certainly hope that the 'message' of any piece of writing is not necessarily political. (Much of this hinges on the meaning of 'political' but I assume we are both talking about governance, policy, laws, culture wars relating to these, etc. rather than using 'political' just as a synonym for 'public' in that we're all part of a societal whole that ends up being political in the first sense of governance, etc.)
I think it makes for a very poor and flat world if all writing is to be taken as such, and by extension, all art. Is nothing personal, private, produced just to be enjoyed and appreciated for its aesthetic value, even if publicized (e.g. shared with friends or posted on the internet)?
And really, it's a matter of reader reception and an exercise in interpretation to see all writing as inherently political. It's a kind of condescending mind reading to insist that one knows what an author actually means no matter how vigorously he says otherwise. If you can't ask him, well then there's nothing to be done and interpretation is all you have. However, sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar.
That’s a different question than the one addressed at the outset of your piece. You hope that what is public might not always be political. I would insist that it is not. I would say it is an action that will invoke a reaction out of the control of the author. Not to say the author means any of it, but once it is “out there” it is for the public and therefore for the politics. If it wishes to be private then it must stay private.
As “governance, policy, laws” is the bureaucratic hand of politics, and as culture wars are the popular fist of politics, to write outside of any reaction may be safe ground, it is nevertheless a ground of the body politic.
I’m not sure why this would seem boring for writing. I think maybe you mistake my meaning that we write into a political agenda. I don’t mean that. I just mean to say that being aware of the politics of our writing presents the mirror we may need to understand it.
However, your piece has given me better insight into how your poetry attempts to transcend contemporary art, mainly by looking backward. It lives in a past and by living there, it hopes not to offend. I can see the sincerity there, and I can trust its purpose.
Since by "political" you mean "public" and "out there" and "of the body politic" rather than "inherently having a political agenda," we would seem to be in agreement. However, in terms of writing as political meaning 'public' and 'of the body politic' I think that is boring because I don't much care what people think of my work, good or bad. Creation should be a one way street, although it isn't always (Arthur Conan Doyle bringing Sherlock Holmes back to life after the public outcry is a famous counter-example).
Once it's out there, anyone can do read and interpret it however they want. However, I think I would advocate for appreciating art or writing on its own terms as much as possible and for its own sake rather than succumbing to the instinct to analyze and interpret. Interesting insights emerge from analysis and it's often a worthy endeavor but it can have the effect of missing the forest for the trees.
I generally resist holding a mirror up to my own fiction and poetry because I write them for self-expression, not self-examination. However, since you presented an interpretation of my poetry (that it "attempts to transcend contemporary art, mainly by looking backward. It lives in a past and by living there, it hopes not to offend.") let me, as the author, offer a rejoinder. I do not hope not to offend. I can't possibly. Everything offends someone somewhere and I could easily see someone being offended that I don't write everything "for the cause" because in their eyes the only worthy goal is a political agenda, a political goal and everything should be geared towards that.
I avoid anything that can be construed as a political agenda because it bores me and we are far too inundated with political nonsense already. If writing for feeling and sentiment and aesthetics is "looking backward" then I'll take that. It is, as you say, sincere. Ultimately, I hope simply to entertain.
Your piece got me thinking of all the times Thomas More has been portrayed in literature, and how his "silence" over King Henry's reformist legislation was actually very loud.
To be clear, I don't think a writer should pay lip service to every outrage or political event that comes in daily. I think, though, that it is incorrect to believe our writing can be free of politics: even when we stay away from politics that is political. The best piece I've read about it is George Orwell's complaint of Charles Dickens (in an essay titled the same name), in which the crux of the matter boils down to "all art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art".
I think it's good to be aware of these forces that drive us, to make sure they are well patted down if we wish to write something "free of politics". The irony is we've made another politic by doing so.
Silence from a public figure in a position of power and responsibility is one thing. Silence from a private citizen is another.
I agree with Orwell when he says "But every writer, especially every novelist, has a ‘message’, whether he admits it or not, and the minutest details of his work are influenced by it." (Whether this 'message' is intentional or not, whether or not the true message intended by the author can even be divined, whether the 'message' is a product of the author himself or his authorial persona, are other questions entirely.)
But I certainly hope that the 'message' of any piece of writing is not necessarily political. (Much of this hinges on the meaning of 'political' but I assume we are both talking about governance, policy, laws, culture wars relating to these, etc. rather than using 'political' just as a synonym for 'public' in that we're all part of a societal whole that ends up being political in the first sense of governance, etc.)
I think it makes for a very poor and flat world if all writing is to be taken as such, and by extension, all art. Is nothing personal, private, produced just to be enjoyed and appreciated for its aesthetic value, even if publicized (e.g. shared with friends or posted on the internet)?
And really, it's a matter of reader reception and an exercise in interpretation to see all writing as inherently political. It's a kind of condescending mind reading to insist that one knows what an author actually means no matter how vigorously he says otherwise. If you can't ask him, well then there's nothing to be done and interpretation is all you have. However, sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar.
That’s a different question than the one addressed at the outset of your piece. You hope that what is public might not always be political. I would insist that it is not. I would say it is an action that will invoke a reaction out of the control of the author. Not to say the author means any of it, but once it is “out there” it is for the public and therefore for the politics. If it wishes to be private then it must stay private.
As “governance, policy, laws” is the bureaucratic hand of politics, and as culture wars are the popular fist of politics, to write outside of any reaction may be safe ground, it is nevertheless a ground of the body politic.
I’m not sure why this would seem boring for writing. I think maybe you mistake my meaning that we write into a political agenda. I don’t mean that. I just mean to say that being aware of the politics of our writing presents the mirror we may need to understand it.
However, your piece has given me better insight into how your poetry attempts to transcend contemporary art, mainly by looking backward. It lives in a past and by living there, it hopes not to offend. I can see the sincerity there, and I can trust its purpose.
Since by "political" you mean "public" and "out there" and "of the body politic" rather than "inherently having a political agenda," we would seem to be in agreement. However, in terms of writing as political meaning 'public' and 'of the body politic' I think that is boring because I don't much care what people think of my work, good or bad. Creation should be a one way street, although it isn't always (Arthur Conan Doyle bringing Sherlock Holmes back to life after the public outcry is a famous counter-example).
Once it's out there, anyone can do read and interpret it however they want. However, I think I would advocate for appreciating art or writing on its own terms as much as possible and for its own sake rather than succumbing to the instinct to analyze and interpret. Interesting insights emerge from analysis and it's often a worthy endeavor but it can have the effect of missing the forest for the trees.
I generally resist holding a mirror up to my own fiction and poetry because I write them for self-expression, not self-examination. However, since you presented an interpretation of my poetry (that it "attempts to transcend contemporary art, mainly by looking backward. It lives in a past and by living there, it hopes not to offend.") let me, as the author, offer a rejoinder. I do not hope not to offend. I can't possibly. Everything offends someone somewhere and I could easily see someone being offended that I don't write everything "for the cause" because in their eyes the only worthy goal is a political agenda, a political goal and everything should be geared towards that.
I avoid anything that can be construed as a political agenda because it bores me and we are far too inundated with political nonsense already. If writing for feeling and sentiment and aesthetics is "looking backward" then I'll take that. It is, as you say, sincere. Ultimately, I hope simply to entertain.