|
In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine |
|
Notes on RISK and Writing —Heinrich Böll
Speaking the truth in America often carries with it a certain degree of RISK. Writers should be aware of other possibilities and sources for creativity, including RISK. The editor's various and purposeful contacts with 100s of professors of Writing sadly, however, confirm that almost everyone of them would prefer not exposing their students to the RISK option. Most would never consider inviting me to one of their classes to discuss the concept with their students, and I have offered my time to many of them. To date only one instructor has invited me, Dr. Dan Sklar (Endicott College) and has continued to do so over the past several years. Evidently, Dr. Sklar is a rare individual, far more concerned with student education, than with self. When at the Festival International de la Poésie a Trois-Rivieres in 2001 as one of 150 well-remunerated invited poets, a young man congratulated me after one of my readings, then asked if I'd read several of his poems to see what I thought. From that, I ended up writing the following French poem. Its English translation follows.
What then I argue in the poem is not that a poem of RISK is necessarily better but that it is different and should at least be included as a creative- writing possibility. What I did prior to attending the Festival was consciously think, then write, what in my heart I knew I shouldn't read at the Festival. After all, the bridges that we do not burn represent, in essence, the very truths we stifle. It has become my belief that a poet should be, above all else, a parrhesiastes. "Je suis certain que chaque cinéaste, intellectuel, écrivain, sait très bien de quoi ne pas parler s'il veut survivre," wrote Pierre Falardeau, Quebec film director and hardcore polemicist. Allow me to translate: "I am certain that every director, intellectual, writer, knows very well what he should not talk about if he wants to survive." And indeed, perhaps we all ought to contemplate those taboos and even more important break them now and then. Should not that be the true metier of a poet? One might be surprised by the flow of creative juice that such rupture might provoke. In any case, at the Festival I read poems highly critical of the organizers and invited poets in front of them and became, as one poet told me, "la découverte du Festival." Out of 150 invited poets, paid $800 plus a free motel room for 10 days, I was the only one who dared criticize the hand that fed. Call me a fool, if you like. But what I really was was a poet... and that felt really good. Of course, I was eventually ostracized, the local press wouldn't cover my story, and I was never to be again invited to Trois-Rivieres, and not one of those 150 invited poets would protest with that regard. What I ended up creating in 1998, as a direct result of my experience at a highly corrupt academic institution (Fitchburg State College) was The American Dissident, a journal devoted to literature, democracy, and dissidence, which encourages submissions that RISK something on the part of the submitting poet or writer. In essence, the journal, which seeks engaged writing, stands at direct antipodes to most literary journals, which tend to seek writing of an "art for artsaking" nature, as Orwell termed it. "In cultured circles art for artsaking extended practically to a worship of the meaningless. Literature was to consist solely of the manipulation of words." Sadly, almost never do I receive such submissions. Now and then, I receive work from academics critical of anything but what is close to home and risky. I respond, requesting they send something critical about their own institution and almost never do I receive a response. Thus, as mentioned, rarely do I ever as publisher receive poetry and essays that RISK anything at all on the part of the writer. Few famous writers ever dared RISK in their writing. Those who did suffered the consequences for it. The following are certainly worth noting. Others likely exist.
Finally, many degrees exist regarding RISK. As editor, I am not asking writers to RISK their lives or even job by speaking truth, but rather the ire of the literary milieu, for example, or momentary ostracizing by their colleagues, loss of reading invitations, loss of grant prospects, loss of sabbaticals, or loss of publication possibilities. Orwell stated "Even a single taboo can have an all-round crippling effect upon the mind, because there is always the danger that any thought which is freely followed up may lead to the forbidden thought." Imagine all the academic writers who dare not RISK offending anyone or anything. Imagine what crippling effect that must have upon their minds! The following is a list of just a few of the many examples of RISK (see link or below for those examples) I've taken over the years. My career as a college professor has definitely suffered. Indeed, I've reached the point where I can no longer provide the three letters of recommendation necessary for employment. I am unemployed today. I've burned many bridges in the literary milieu. But my writing is authentic and my sense of integrity remains ever intact. Those who choose to be blind to the concept of RISK will unoriginally denigrate the following examples.
1. Created The American Dissident and this website. RISK = future employment in higher education. 2. Sent an essay critical of the NEA to the NEA. RISK = thousands of dollars in future grant money. 3. Sent a poem critical of Pedestal editor to that editor. RISK = publication in Pedestal and money Pedestal pays for publication. 4. Published essays, poems, and cartoons in the student newspaper of Grambling State University when employed at that university. RISK = job, future jobs, letters of recommendation. 5. Published essays, poems, and cartoons in the student newspaper of Bennett College when employed at that college. RISK = job, future jobs, letters of recommendation. 6. Distributed a broadside at the Concord Poetry Center. RISK = ostracizing by poets and elimination of the possibility to teach a workshop at CPC. 7. Distributed broadsides at the public library. RISK = subscription (the library is a subscriber). 8. Published a critical watercolor as front cover of issue #17 on the Concord Cultural Council, which was also displayed in a Concord Free Public Library exhibit. RISK = public grant monies. 9. Displayed a critical watercolor on the Shop at Walden boutique as part of my Concord Free Public Library exhibit. RISK = stocking of The AD at the Shop. 10. Displayed a critical watercolor of the Town Manager and president of the Concord Chamber of Commerce. RISK = cancellation of the exhibit.
The following are a few examples from the many I've created that contain an element of RISK.
Poem #2 for the Edification of Lit Cogs An editor wrote that my “general frustration with some of the ‘norms’ and ‘protocols’ of the literary world were well-founded and needed to be expressed”* and that he was “really drawn” to my writing. “I must say. I actually agree with a lot of what you say.” Three months later I wrote him a reminder, asking if he were still drawn to what I had to say and would consider publishing something of what I had to say. But in an unsurprising about face, he responded “I'm not wanting to out and out burn bridges because, well we’re a writer-friendly publication.”
Yet how, I wondered, had the prime concern of literary publishers, apart from excellence— oh, but of course!— become apprehension of burning bridges, while “writer friendly” equated with truth avoidance? Had the Janus-faced politician turned role model?
“But I do want to take on (more) controversial issues, and I do want to give voice to ‘unpopular’ views,” he proudly declared, as if fence straddling had been elevated to one of the fine arts. “Some degree of prudence is needed, but not to the point of sacrificing authenticity and fairness.”
Would he, I wondered, be presenting himself one day as candidate for the Congress or Senate?
………………………………………………………… *John Amen, Chief Editor of Pedestal Magazine
Welcome to the Poetry Center of Concord(On the Specious Nature of the Successfully-Adapted Species of the Bourgeois Poet) Let your life be a counterfriction to stop the machine—Henry David Thoreau Go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways—Ralph Waldo Emerson
The poets we invite to our center are famous indeed, of “average thoughts and manners,—not originality, not even absolute excellence.”1 They don’t make waves, they just make money. They’ve adjusted their sense of social outrage inversely to the size of their cachet.2 They never go against the grain, they are the grain. They’d certainly never rock the boat either, for to do so would perturb their vision of retirement and pension.
Oh, “how easily we
capitulate to badges and names!”3 We are poets of the established order, award-winning, never questioning and challenging those lovely, officious hands throwing crumbs our way. We are gregarious and contented, courtesans of the Chamber of Commerce, bowing and curtseying before pillars of the community.
While we value freedom of expression, it mustn’t ever perturb the comfort and sanctity of our circle of poetry. We praise freedom of speech too, but will readily censor those uttering statements offensive to our fragile sense of civility.
Enfin, we believe in vigorous debate but only as long as it’s not about us. While we expect certain topics may lead to contention, we will certainly not prevent users from expressing their opinion, as long as articulated—as we see it—in a rational, calm, and informed manner… oh, but of course!
While our mission is to make the community love our verse, “We welcome dissidents! All the best poets were dissidents.”4 Just the same, we’d never invite a poet from our town to read protest poetry if, in fact, he’d have the audacity, at our center, to protest poetry.5
………………………………………………………………………… 1 Thoreau. “After lecturing twice I feel that I am in danger of cheapening myself by trying to become a successful lecturer, i.e. to interest my audiences… I feel that the public demand an average man,—average thoughts and manners,—not originality, not even absolute excellence. You cannot interest them except as you are like them and sympathize with them. 2Pierre Falardeau, Quebec film director, wrote « Putes de bas étage, poules de luxe, putes à la petite semaine, putes d’occasion, putes de grand chemin. Ils ont ajusté leur morale à l’épaisseur de leur portefeuille. Ce sont des artisses. Ils passent du statut de quêteux à celui de pute. » [Low-class whores, high-class whores, part-time whores, second-hand whores, professional whores. They’ve adjusted their ethics in accord with the thickness of their wallets. These are the artists. They’ve graduated from the stature of beggar to that of whore.] 3 Emerson 4 Joan Houlihan, founder and leader of the Concord Poetry Center 5 Joan Houlihan wrote “The idea of your teaching a workshop or delivering a lecture on the art of literary protest or poetry protest, or simply protest (Concord is where it all started!) occurred to me even before you mentioned it […] However, I must say I don’t favor having you teach at the center if you protest the reading.”
#7 Laurels for the Liberal Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. —American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights”
When they reach a certain point—those poets and professors —a point of established-order approval with accolades and literary prizes, honorary titles, illustrious publications, and emeritus positions, rise they do to the rank of revered cogs of the “machine,” the one Thoreau so detested and eschewed for its intrinsic corruption —rather “let your life be a counterfriction to stop the machine”! —when they reach that point, they no longer really give a damn about democracy, free speech, and the importance of questioning and challenging all institutions and icons.
“Poetry,” had said the self-professed anti-authority poet,* “should be passionate and outrageous and political and most of all revolutionary.”
Yet he’d been chosen State Laureate by politicians and sycophant literati; he’d been designated safe entity by the corporate-friendly poet community proclaiming him distinguished poet in residence, while ordaining him Chancellor of the established-order Academy!
“I am a radical,” he’d blathered, “although as I get older sometimes, I get too soft and am just a liberal.”
But greed for posterity, thirst for high-brow respect requisitely Faustian pacted —a blind eye in exchange for renown— sucks, no matter what the piteous excuse. Revolutions will always prove hollow when citizens of that ilk publicly proclaim them!
So, no wonder I thought, the Friends of the Concord Free Public Library had paid him to read verse, for his would likely not perturb, provoke, or otherwise offend any of the comfy souls seated before him, basking in “liberal” stupor. ……………………………………………………….. *Gerald Stern is a Chancellor of the Academy of American Poets, which censored my ideas from its literary agora in July 2007. Rather than vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, it and its members prefer highly-subjective, free-speech-limiting rules of participation, enabling it and them to censor at will ideas they choose to deem “inflammatory, hateful, and insulting” or not sufficiently “rational, calm, and informed.” Indeed, this very poem would likely be deemed thusly, for anything questioning and challenging the Academy or any of its poet icons and chancellors would likely be banned in accord with those nebulous terms. Libraries across the country support the Academy’s National Poetry Month… and also its censorship of valid criticism. That’s why I stand out here tonight in the cold darkness, distributing this broadside. Do you too believe that “good taste” and subjectively-determined “manners” should always take precedence over truth, vigorous debate, and free speech? Do you think librarians should “challenge censorship” in accord with the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights,” or simply be agents of censorship, as many seem to have become today? If you are not a partisan of censorship, why not send a protest to the Academy and Friends of the Concord Free Public Library?
ALL MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHT ©G. Tod Slone, 2010, The American Dissident www.theamericandissident.org, a 501c3 nonprofit. |
