do better
There is much discussion in the po-biz world over politically reactionary poets being rewarded in po-bizzy ways and whether that sort of work should be acknowledged, let alone given support. Sometimes I read articles and am pretty sure the claims of "censorship" flying around are not exactly using the concept correctly. Inevitably those same defenses jump to Godwinning all over the place and just sort of being embarassing to watch. I'm pretty sure censorship would not exactly be removing your work from a publication (which an editor has every right to do) but more like imprisoning you and taking away your pen. Or forcing you to cross out every objectional thing in black marker wherever you post it. Even if it's your own blog.
Regardless, sometimes the garbage people start to collect into tiny gross constellations-the reactionaries, the racists, the neo-nazis. That dude (white)who wrote in a problematic way about Michael Brown's death and the woman (also white) who doing was something racist with Gone With the Wind quotes. That guy who pretended to be an Asian woman. Add in the creepers, the rampant abusers, the assholes of the po-biz world and you have a movement against what they consider the "mob" of poets who dare question or call them out. Also, pretty much the people who defend them and their work, of course, who seems to do so out of similarly aligned thought patterns of their own (usually disguised in, of course, 1st Amendment garb, but I see you for what you are....) They call their adversaries "social justice " poets, but I'm not so sure it's about social justice at all and more just not being a trash person. They also like to bring up struggles to silence work in the past--usually of a progressive or daring nature. But aren't quite self aware enough to realize yes, writers historically fight against the silencing of work that is moving forward, but why would you want to reward work that is regressive.? Is this not antithetical to the purpose of artists in the first place--to make us better humans?
I like to operate under the assumptions that artists, if anyone in this whole world, are the sane ones. The good ones. The better ones. Fighting the good fight. We're not always perfect, and the ability to say, "hey, I made a mistake when I wrote that, and I apologize and will do better." goes a long way. Why in the world, as an editor, as a reader, would I want to publish or support the work a horrible person. So much is said about the "quality" being the only thing that matters. Bullshit. It matters if you are a quality person, because if you aren't, no matter how good you're work is, I'm not going to read it, publish it, or support it. There is no disconnect between the artist and the work--it's the same reason I won't watch Woody Allen films or support Louis CK's comedy. I cannot divorce the work from the artist themselves. In anything. If my Uber driver is a mysogynist prick but still managed to get me home in one piece, yes he's good driver, but I'm not exactly keen to ride with him again.
If the lit community can't work toward being being better people, who will?
Comments