Clashing of Swords

A critical clashing of swords. A writer criticised for what he/she has or hasn't written. They give in their works no direct mention of monumental events – events they're lived or are living through: war, epidemics, economic depressions; whereas other writers define themselves by doing just that – write into their fiction the changing politics and social conditions; use their pen or literary reputation to protest, to voice what they've observed or have identified as truth. Their truth; the people's truth.

Is that what literature should do? Speak for (and to) the marginalised? Reference history in the making or history made? I'm not sure it's a writer's – unless a journalist – responsibility. I don't agree there should be rules or standards. A writer should be free to write what he/she wants, and that includes mentioning or omitting what he/she feels like. Perhaps they want to be loose with time. Perhaps they see – in their present moment – no point in flinging more words, more mud, more truth, (even in novel form) at a subject. Perhaps the event itself was or is still too fluid. Perhaps writers should be let alone to do their work. Perhaps their works should be let alone during their lifetime and after their death.

Picture credit: Sword Rack, 2003, Dana Schutz (source: WikiArt).

From journal, March 2023.