I haven’t read anything that covers this topic, so I’d be interested in being pointed to other articles that discuss it and hearing the thoughts of anyone who cares to comment.
Writers and other creatives (artists, actors, musicians in particular) have historically used their talents to sway opinions on the important issues of their times. This is not something limited to Western culture. In Soviet Russia, for example, science fiction and fantasy writings of the past have concealed lessons about the tyranny of Soviet government. Post-colonial writers from around the world have and continue to contribute to social discourse, raising awareness of imposed cultures and biased histories.Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird brought forward the racial biases of the legal system and the book had a tremendous impact. These are only a couple of examples from a vast number of contributions made by writers throughout history to shaping society and ending injustice.
Non-fiction writers are supplanting the media with blogs and on the spot reportage. The access granted by the interweb allows independent journalists to be more open than those paid by big media companies. So in the new age, what is the fiction writer’s role on the front of social activism? What does the self-published writer owe in this vein? Is social commentary a luxury granted only to those published in the main stream, or to the contrary, do the self-published have more leeway on this issue?
Musicians in the new world are taking an active stance. Amanda Palmer is a good example. Her activism is focused around the oppressive system by which traditional record labels made money off of recording artists disproportionately. The artist saw very little of the monetary rewards from the production of their music and gave up a lot of freedom. She’s making a case for crowd funding of music in order to allow the artist to create and survive/thrive.
Visual artist Molly Crabapple is making a similar case for art. She addresses issues like the difficulty of taking work on spec (meaning, doing work first in hopes that it will raise money or sell) and how this system makes it harder for an artist to earn a living.
These are all issues to do with raising awareness about how hard it is to make a living in the arts, but both Palmer and Crabapple are involved in/support the Occupy Wall Street movement and other progressive issues. They are set apart only by the visibility of their efforts. Many independent musicians and artists do similar work on a smaller, less visible scale.
But what about writers? Where are the independent writers leading the activism charge? Of course, some writers published by the big publishers still shout into the void from time to time. And a whole host of writers who work for small presses are addressing social issues. But how are indie writers doing it? As we seem to be moving more in the direction of self-publishing, is it going to be all about how to hit it big and not at all about what we can do with these voices we’re trying so hard to make heard?
Okay, so everybody’s got to make a living. Do we only get to make a statement after we’re insanely successful? (See this article by Stephen King.) Or in the case of indie writers, never at all because we risk alienating readers? I suppose I shouldn’t refer to myself as an indie writer. I’m still marginally in favor of the traditional system (as broken as it appears to be). But the tide is turning. Eventually there will be a way that good writers can get their work into the public eye without going through traditional channels.
How do we make a difference and still make a living? How do we help shape the New Publishing Paradigm to be less oppressive to writers and at the same time use our writing skills to be the voices of the voiceless? What do we owe the world on this front? Those of who don’t have a lot of money, but whose strong suit is our talent, our knowledge, our creativity, our compassion? How do we make a stand?
It’s a tricky conundrum. By taking a stance, you very likely alienate some audience simply by them disagreeing with you and passing on the respective work. History tends to be kinder to idealistic writers by way of being to evaluate their opinions with hindsight.
We’d all like to hope that good writers get rewarded, regardless of their ideology, but owing to the reality of subjective quality and Michael Bay-type works being more universally appealing than, say, a critical analysis of education in rural America (which won’t appeal much to somene outside of the US, in most cases) or stuggles of independent writers, which won’t appeal much to those with no inerest in the industry, it’s always going to be a battle. I won’t say there’s an absolute necessity for social criticism in everything writers or singers or artists create, but it would be nice if there was a general push towards evaluating works more on a socialogical, moral, and political level. It doesn’t have to take the fun out of everything, it just helps put knowledge into anything.
I would suggest if anyone wants to take a stand, do so. Regret will only show you what you missed, not what you gained. And there’s always room for more idealism. If you’re not honest to yourself about your writing, how will you expect anyone to ultimately take you seriously?
Apologies for using “you” so much, I mean it generically in this case and not as a specific reference to you, Salome.
I wonder, though, whether given the ‘social artists’ era, it isn’t almost expected now that writers say what side they’re on in important struggles. I’m always going to take the progressive route. Should I shut up about that? It feels wrong to me, like being complicit in injustice by not speaking up. But I know some don’t feel that way and think it’s none of anyone’s business. And that’s definitely their right.It’s weird, but I think given all this new freedom of access, we’re suddenly less open to discussion. And that seems wrong. If I need something to champion, maybe it only has to be standing up, having a voice, making speaking the truth more important than trying to be rich and famous. I mean, speaking the truth is something you can do. Being rich and famous is a crap shoot. And if you leave your principles behind in the process, it almost seems there’s no point. )Also, not you personally but you as a general pronoun for anyone.
) Thankss for your comment.
Right after I finished writing this, I saw this blog post by Harry Connolly. http://www.harryjconnolly.com/blog/?p=6436 He also refers to Amanda Palmer. So is this what all this social stuff is about now? People want to own the stuff they support?
I sympathize with Mr. Connolly’s viewpoint. Many (most?) writers seem to be introverts and maybe don’t want to go out in the world talking to people all the time. Is that really part of the requirement? I don’t think that’s what I’m referring to in this post. What I think I mean is something that writers have always done, even before the internet. Because in a way they are more out there than other people. And they define themselves with words so it seems natural to put those words into the service of causes. Now finally, they are putting the words into the service of their own causes, their work, this passionate creative stuff that people dream of doing for a living. But it’s really hard to do well and even harder to make a living at.