I do not suggest a plurality if religion or morality; I know there are absolute truths in the world. I do, however, suggest a plurality of approaching literature (both reading and writing it). Plurality, for instance, allows for Marxism and Feminism to break down existing places of privilege and trained ways of reading a text so that we may include others who have been marginalized.
Plurality also extends to creative writing and, just like with interpreting texts, it is limited. For example: Ariel and I were just talking about (well, I was talking; Ariel was probably waiting for me to shut up so she could get back to her work!) a certain prof's ideas of how a story should go. I learned a great deal from him, and am indebted to him for igniting my passion for creative writing (which has, at times, been a sort of savior for me). He also encouraged me to read more contemporary fiction, which I'm finding does not often fit into some of his ideas about how a story should go. I did, however, learn about character development and continuity and believability and tone--all from him.
There are certain things that should not change - worshipping only God, loving people, never using the word "ain't", reading an author's homosexuality into a text (*cough*Tennessee Williams) - but allowing for there to be room for movement in other things, like political and social change, the definition of poetry (Yellow Fever, anyone?), and whether or not your story is wrought with dialogue.
When we allow for this room for movement, I think then we can at least move closer to that elusive middle - our ultimate goal - without compromise or killing dissidents.
No comments:
Post a Comment