Whence arises the question above? If you have
spent time in mainstream literature classes, alas, you will know. While the
bias against mixing art (or what elite folk think of as “real art”) with the
political has greatly diminished over the past fifty years, especially in the
world of activism, it has not disappeared. Again and again literature students are
taught that being political obstructs the production of good fiction. This
notwithstanding, the truth of the matter is we have incredibly good fiction
that is overtly political. Take, for
example, such powerful and richly imaginative feminist and anti-racist novels
as Madge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of
Time (https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Edge-Time-Marge-Piercy/dp/044900094X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518974855&sr=8-1&keywords=woman+on+the+edge+of+time+by+marge+piercy)
Take Toni Morrison’s Beloved (https://www.amazon.com/Beloved-Toni-Morrison/dp/1400033411/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518974973&sr=1-1&keywords=belove)
Do we really want a bias which militates against penning such masterpieces?
To probe further into the error being made,
the assumption that there can be such a thing as a piece of writing that is
non-political is gravely mistaken. The seemingly non-political is rather the
internalization of a hegemonic politics. Additionally, an illegitimate
conflation is being made between being overtly political and being “polemical”—(i.e.,
simplistic, rhetorical, heavy-handed)—something that great writers like Piercy
never are.
So what is my advice to other writers of
fiction? Paint with a full palette of
colours. In no way feel that you need to avoid the political. Fiction gives us lessons about life, provides
insights into human existence—and "the political" is an intrinsic aspect
of this. At the same time, ensure that you are not falling into being polemical,
for at that point, art, as is were, “goes out the window”.
Is there a possibility of our endangering
the quality of our art precisely by being overtly political? There can be. What
follows, accordingly, are guidelines that might help you safely navigate the
terrain: Do not let the overtly political overwhelm your work. Make it rather one
among many strands. As always, prioritize making the imagined world come alive.
Weave together a variety of themes and plot lines. Make sure that in some way
or other, you are shedding light on the basic dilemmas of human existence. Eschew
“good guys” and “bad guys” scenarios, avoid characters that are personified abstractions,
and in the process, give birth to multidimensional and nuanced characters.
A recent novel of mine is one among many
examples of how this can be done. It is called “The Other Mrs. Smith" (https://www.amazon.com/Other-Mrs-Smith-Bonnie-Burstow/dp/1771334215/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518975248&sr=1-1&keywords=the+other+mrs.+smith)
and the story which emerges is told from the perspective of Naomi, a shock
survivor who struggles to recover what she can of her life after being
subjected to and severely damaged by ECT
(electroshock). Yes, without question,
there is a political intent behind the novel—to awaken the reader to the
horrific reality of electroshock. At same time, the novel is hardly single
dimensional. Examples of other themes which
crisscross throughout this novel are the mystical connection between identical
twins, north-end Winnipeg Jewry, and how as human beings, we can make something
meaningful of what has been made of us. The
writing often reaches the dimensions of the lyrical, and a spirituality
inhabits this work. Moreover, the characters are at once varied and multi-faceted,
with even the husband who signs for his wife to be shocked depicted in his full
humanity.
In this regard,
Tom Sandborn—one of the journalists who has reviewed the novel, writes:
This could, at first blush, seem like unpromising
material for a novel. Whatever their position on the public debates about ECT,
the average reader might be forgiven if she thought an anti-ECT polemic told
from the perspective of someone whose memory has been followed out by the
controversial procedure would not work as fiction. Such a reader would be wrong.
He goes on to wax
eloquent over what he calls on the book's “richly imagined cast of characters,”
and he ends by pronouncing the novel “a literary tour de force.” (see http://vancouversun.com/entertainment/books/the-other-mrs-smith-will-shock-and-move-you)
In short, write
a solid work of fiction and readers will recognize it as such.
Will some who
are allergic to the political generally or your particular politics critique
your work as if it were inferior fiction regardless? This can indeed happen, especially if you are
a well-known political figure, and especially if it touches on “controversial
issues”. However, such an outcome hardly
spells disaster. Here once against The
Other Mrs. Smith sheds light.
While most
reviewers have lavished generous praise on this novel, by contrast, one
reviewer largely dismissed it as a simplistic polemical work. Whereupon commentators
on the review—and, within short order, an abundance of them popped up—to a
person, made it clear that they saw the reviewer—not
the author—as a problem, in the
process, rising to the defence of the novel.
In short, the average reader can be trusted to recognize quality art
when s/he comes across it and s/he knows deep in her bones who is and who is
not being polemical.
Speaking more generally, the aesthetic and
the ethical are far from antithetical. While they spring from different branches
of philosophy, they complement each other exquisitely. What goes along with this,
while those of us literary artists who consciously incorporate the political are
generally more closely allied to current disenfranchised communities—the
Indigenous, the poor, the refugee, the trans community, the mad—we also stand is
a long and honourable tradition of writers who leverage their art to comment on
the practices and events of the day. No less a notable than Shakespeare himself
did precisely this, hence Queen Elizabeth I rising in indignation upon
attending a production of his play Richard II and exclaiming, “I am Richard II,
know ye not that?" (see https://www.mhpbooks.com/i-am-richard-ii-know-ye-not-that-or-when-shakespeare-was-actually-politically-controversial/).
In short, the political is not the enemy of
art. And together, they allow us to take in on the deepest possible level that
what happens in the world matters.
Correspondingly, if approached skillfully, cannot
the political itself be made to dance?
No comments:
Post a Comment