What is Inspiration?

 

A Writer Should be Invisible – Agree/Disagree

I have never agreed with Barthes' principle of ‘killing the author’, most predominantly because I find the concept ‘killing’ anybody, even if it is only metaphorically, to be somewhat crass. After all, to kill the author you are not only disregarding their life, but also denying them the chance to dictate the meaning of their own text.
Of course, Barthes' theory wasn’t about denying the author so much as enabling freedom in creative and critical interpretation. However, I feel that knowing the intention of the author can in no way impede how a text is reviewed critically. And I feel this because a text is an extension of its writer; the author lives in any work they produce. Emily Dickinson herself, who strongly disagreed with the idea of publication, felt that many of her poems were so much a part of her that they had no place in being priced, critiqued or shared with anyone outside of her immediate circles.
By stating that the author has no right to the text, you are cutting away the heart of the text itself, and replacing it with a heart of your own imagining. In this sense, you are becoming a metaphorical author, a phantom filling an empty space and taking ownership. At which point Barthes dictates you, as the author, are no longer relevant. Meaning that no theories are relevant, because by becoming a part of the text you are no longer welcome to it.

In conclusion, I feel that if you have the imagination and ability to fill the empty spot of an author, who has been forced out their own work, then perhaps rather than a hostile take-over, you should be focusing your energies on writing your own work instead.

Is it necessary for a writer to write about the social/political issues of their time?

Our fear of atrophy has always had a crippling, or perhaps enlightening effect on what we write. A happy ending, for instance, is pleasing because we ultimately know that life is brief and wish to limit the amount of stress within it. We want to wish that this eventuality might be real, even though realistically the concept that a person may remain consistently happy at infinitum is naïve at best.  

However in parallel to our fear of atrophy and the unknown beyond, comes a morbid fascination with death, and pain, and violence. They turn our stomachs, and yet we return to them, we identify with them, we are gleefully fulfilled by these horrors.

Is it surprising then that a writer might reflect these things from the society around them? I do not believe that a person can write and not bring in elements of the world they were raised in - grievances of the time, such as money, battle, and social change. Writers like Tennyson, who reflected the Industrial era through his Arthurian sagas, and Cheever who delved and explored the depths of the miserable, unfeeling money-machine that modern society had become. Even Emily Dickinson found herself caught between the violence of her era and the hypocritical religious aspects of her society which counterbalanced and contradicted one another.

The idea that you can witness horrors, that you can exist within a society and be unaffected by it in your work is ludicrous. Wether you support it or not, it will affect the way you write. An era’s ideologies are born from the societal and political climate after all, and these will shape the morals we are raised on, which ultimately shape us. In this way, it is not necessary for a writer to consciously write about the social/political issues of the time, because regardless, they will always reflect them.