Agree wholeheartedly. Writing, well, creativity in general is self-expression. Period. If any of us mute who we are and what we stand for, who is the self being expressed?
Agree 100%. Use what we have to resist fascism. Also, not demanding perfection from those whom we might enlist against T's fascist takeover is crucial.
I agree with all you say here; it reminds me of many things I've been thinking and writing either in my journal or in poems. The first lesson in Tim Snyder's On Tyranny is don't obey in advance. So, the idea of advising writers to not discuss their political views openly is not only anathema to me personally, it's counter to how to resist authoritarianism advised by any historian or thinker on the subject. Of course, putting oneself out there is frightening, especially as the stakes get higher for openly expressing oneself. My next book is my first to openly discuss issues of gun violence and racism, some of the topics the Trump regime is attacking as "woke" and actively trying to suppress in various ways. It makes me nervous, but I can't but be honest as a writer. Writers must be emotionally honest otherwise their writing becomes meretricious. Of course, we are at the beginning of this authoritarian rollercoaster; they are now attacking the institutions and big fish first. Small press poets are not in their crosshairs yet. But as the regime gathers steam, it is nearly certain they will be.
Thanks for this, Michael. I appreciate the nod to 'On Tyranny' which is an excellent book that, perhaps, folks should keep in their passport wallet. (Kidding not kidding.)
Notably, being "emotionally honest" or speaking to "poetic truth" was a subject discussed during the Q&A / Community Time after yesterday's ONE ART reading. In these times, it's a front of mind concern. The right to write as well as the need to speak and questions of self-censorship are all intertwined and important to reflect on.
As you noted, small press poets can fly under the radar... at least for now. It will all depend how this takes shape over the months and years to come. I like to believe that there are simply too many of us (writers/artists) and too many, also, who are unwilling to be silenced in spite of potential repercussions. It would help if Higher Ed institutions refuse to kowtow to the Regime's demands... they are a line of protection and, of course, a pillar that fascist governments need to keep in check if they want to consolidate power and control systems of communication/education in the usual manner.
So, it's complicated for me. I will always share my opinion in the appropriate forum and my poems often evince my biases (although many will reveal to me beliefs I did not understand until a poem exposed them to me!). And, I am sure my poems responding to Israel's war on Gaza cause me great alienation with about 1/2 my Jewish friends.
BUT, my neighbor who is Trumpian (as are ALL my neighbors), reads my poetry eagerly. He knows my stance on Fascism and knows I think his Trumpianism is benighted. But we do meet on the ground of poetry (ever since I wrote a poem about his son who committed suicide with an AR15).
Not sure where my rambling is going except I agree completely with you AND take exception to who I can be in community with.
Yeah, it is super complicated, for sure. My sense is we're on the same team at least insofar as the notion that we can be in community with those who share [fairly] wildly different opinions from our own. That being said, sigh, this is on the basis of decency and tolerance. Part of the sigh there is that I learned a strange lesson in college that stuck with me about tolerance.
Here's the story. Circa 2004-05.
Because I was one of the few students with Jewish heritage at Albright College, students in Hillel convinced me to join... they had very few members. Humorously, they made me Treasurer for a number of years... it definitely felt like they assumed I might be good with money since I was actually Jewish... Anyhow, the Tolerance story is that Hillel decided it would be nice to make t-shirts with the the other religious orgs that showed some kind of solidarity between those with theistic beliefs. I believe it was going to be a "Coexist" shirt. Anyhow, an example of the shirt was given to the Christian org and they can back and said "No". They explained that the shirt implied "tolerance" and that they believed their faith was the one correct faith, so, in turn, they could not be involved. I know some form of shirt was made... I forget what Hillel ended up going with... My takeaway was basically shock... keep in mind this was the early 2000s... It struck me as very strange that "tolerance" was too much to ask. Especially strange that we clearly had a civil discussion about "tolerance" being somehow unacceptable for this t-shirt design... Just thinking about it feels kind of Pynchonesque. But tell me how it sounds in today's context.
It's difficult sometimes to not be judgmental about the ones who are staying quiet, but as best I can I keep the focus on myself. I am creating as much as I can, some through writing, posting, engaging, resisting, using happiness and laughter as a tonic, an act of defiance, a sign of freedom. I try to be patient the days I need to retreat and recharge and come back with more verve and gratitude for everything that's happening now. For learning our country's history and that none of this is new. To rejoice that anything I do in my profession is an opportunity to model behavior like kindness, gratitude, community, that remind us of our common humanity not these fabricated designs to divide us. And I take solace too in all those quiet people throughout the ages, away in monastaries and convents, hermitages, retreats, praying for the world's welfare, hidden power and mystery unseen but felt. All of these things are uncancellable. They prosper and grow and accumulate into new and exceptional empowerment. Take joy in protest too. Try it out if you haven't. It is invigorating, it is life giving. And remember, courage is fear that has said its prayers.
Hon, is *Hon OK? (the tyranny of the stupid left-left on rhetoric for so long is a bit of the problem, speaking even from a Me-Too and Indigenous American perspective); I will just say, I so look forward to what you do. We have your back. Maybe we all ask ourselves with this what we are here to do. And that is a totally spiritual statement, that last sentence.
Hey Jessica, I think I'm missing something here. Are you referring to frustrations about Left in-fighting and the purity test problem? I agree, these are major problems. The DNC has been screwing up for a long time now... but the RNC is wayyy worse, let's be clear.
My thought for a while now is that it's beyond clear we need more parties. At least 3 serious parties, probably at least 6 parties.
It will be difficult (and take time) to transition to a different style of government... but I'd prefer to see a parliamentary system (more like what Germany and the UK have) in the U.S.
Sorry my reply was dense and short and confusing all at once. Jotted too fast, I guess. I hear you. I was not thinking about left in-fighting any more than thinking about right in-fighting. I was trying to address the way Dems failed to understand who is out here and what we need and want in what is overall a populist moment, with tech and money outstripping common folks of dignity and offering only online amusements in return. The formal Dems are as craven and lacking spiritual vision overall as the Repubs but yes, the RNC is wayyyyy worse. The RNC has debased itself beyond survival, as far as I can tell, were this a normal year. But they are taking powers that we have not dealt with in opposition in this generation. So what happens remains to be seen. I saw a photo of an elderly lady with a head wound delivered to her just because she stood outside the targeted ICE facility in Portland. Asked myself, would I take a head wound? Figured, Yes. Yes. More parties would indicate health. But in the last election cycle I kept noticing how online U.S. enemies capitalized on the horrible way our political parties are set up. (I do a lot of scrolling and searching and computing sort of like basic forms of deep AI but likely better, because I am human. Any time Jill Stein shows up, you kind of know someone has paid her to spoil something, even if she herself might tell herself she is doing something positive.) Until we get money out of politics or better educate the electorate, it's buyer takes all and the third party is only a spoiler in function. I want candidates telling me they see this, they have decided to come out Dem only because the Repubs have debased themselves too far, or come out as a clean-slate Repub, vowing to fight the enemy within their own party. I am independent. I think most of us are.
A lot to process here. Your thorough response is appreciated! Frankly, more people need to read statements in the vein of what you shared.
I will say that I don't think most folks identify as Independents; however, I *do* think deep down most folks have a nuanced opinions about why they vote the way they do — possibly not entirely at a conscious level.
Agree wholeheartedly. Writing, well, creativity in general is self-expression. Period. If any of us mute who we are and what we stand for, who is the self being expressed?
Agree 100%. Use what we have to resist fascism. Also, not demanding perfection from those whom we might enlist against T's fascist takeover is crucial.
I agree with all you say here; it reminds me of many things I've been thinking and writing either in my journal or in poems. The first lesson in Tim Snyder's On Tyranny is don't obey in advance. So, the idea of advising writers to not discuss their political views openly is not only anathema to me personally, it's counter to how to resist authoritarianism advised by any historian or thinker on the subject. Of course, putting oneself out there is frightening, especially as the stakes get higher for openly expressing oneself. My next book is my first to openly discuss issues of gun violence and racism, some of the topics the Trump regime is attacking as "woke" and actively trying to suppress in various ways. It makes me nervous, but I can't but be honest as a writer. Writers must be emotionally honest otherwise their writing becomes meretricious. Of course, we are at the beginning of this authoritarian rollercoaster; they are now attacking the institutions and big fish first. Small press poets are not in their crosshairs yet. But as the regime gathers steam, it is nearly certain they will be.
Thanks for this, Michael. I appreciate the nod to 'On Tyranny' which is an excellent book that, perhaps, folks should keep in their passport wallet. (Kidding not kidding.)
Notably, being "emotionally honest" or speaking to "poetic truth" was a subject discussed during the Q&A / Community Time after yesterday's ONE ART reading. In these times, it's a front of mind concern. The right to write as well as the need to speak and questions of self-censorship are all intertwined and important to reflect on.
As you noted, small press poets can fly under the radar... at least for now. It will all depend how this takes shape over the months and years to come. I like to believe that there are simply too many of us (writers/artists) and too many, also, who are unwilling to be silenced in spite of potential repercussions. It would help if Higher Ed institutions refuse to kowtow to the Regime's demands... they are a line of protection and, of course, a pillar that fascist governments need to keep in check if they want to consolidate power and control systems of communication/education in the usual manner.
So, it's complicated for me. I will always share my opinion in the appropriate forum and my poems often evince my biases (although many will reveal to me beliefs I did not understand until a poem exposed them to me!). And, I am sure my poems responding to Israel's war on Gaza cause me great alienation with about 1/2 my Jewish friends.
BUT, my neighbor who is Trumpian (as are ALL my neighbors), reads my poetry eagerly. He knows my stance on Fascism and knows I think his Trumpianism is benighted. But we do meet on the ground of poetry (ever since I wrote a poem about his son who committed suicide with an AR15).
Not sure where my rambling is going except I agree completely with you AND take exception to who I can be in community with.
Yeah, it is super complicated, for sure. My sense is we're on the same team at least insofar as the notion that we can be in community with those who share [fairly] wildly different opinions from our own. That being said, sigh, this is on the basis of decency and tolerance. Part of the sigh there is that I learned a strange lesson in college that stuck with me about tolerance.
Here's the story. Circa 2004-05.
Because I was one of the few students with Jewish heritage at Albright College, students in Hillel convinced me to join... they had very few members. Humorously, they made me Treasurer for a number of years... it definitely felt like they assumed I might be good with money since I was actually Jewish... Anyhow, the Tolerance story is that Hillel decided it would be nice to make t-shirts with the the other religious orgs that showed some kind of solidarity between those with theistic beliefs. I believe it was going to be a "Coexist" shirt. Anyhow, an example of the shirt was given to the Christian org and they can back and said "No". They explained that the shirt implied "tolerance" and that they believed their faith was the one correct faith, so, in turn, they could not be involved. I know some form of shirt was made... I forget what Hillel ended up going with... My takeaway was basically shock... keep in mind this was the early 2000s... It struck me as very strange that "tolerance" was too much to ask. Especially strange that we clearly had a civil discussion about "tolerance" being somehow unacceptable for this t-shirt design... Just thinking about it feels kind of Pynchonesque. But tell me how it sounds in today's context.
It's difficult sometimes to not be judgmental about the ones who are staying quiet, but as best I can I keep the focus on myself. I am creating as much as I can, some through writing, posting, engaging, resisting, using happiness and laughter as a tonic, an act of defiance, a sign of freedom. I try to be patient the days I need to retreat and recharge and come back with more verve and gratitude for everything that's happening now. For learning our country's history and that none of this is new. To rejoice that anything I do in my profession is an opportunity to model behavior like kindness, gratitude, community, that remind us of our common humanity not these fabricated designs to divide us. And I take solace too in all those quiet people throughout the ages, away in monastaries and convents, hermitages, retreats, praying for the world's welfare, hidden power and mystery unseen but felt. All of these things are uncancellable. They prosper and grow and accumulate into new and exceptional empowerment. Take joy in protest too. Try it out if you haven't. It is invigorating, it is life giving. And remember, courage is fear that has said its prayers.
Truly well said, Dan. Thanks for weighing in -- it's appreciated.
Hon, is *Hon OK? (the tyranny of the stupid left-left on rhetoric for so long is a bit of the problem, speaking even from a Me-Too and Indigenous American perspective); I will just say, I so look forward to what you do. We have your back. Maybe we all ask ourselves with this what we are here to do. And that is a totally spiritual statement, that last sentence.
Hey Jessica, I think I'm missing something here. Are you referring to frustrations about Left in-fighting and the purity test problem? I agree, these are major problems. The DNC has been screwing up for a long time now... but the RNC is wayyy worse, let's be clear.
My thought for a while now is that it's beyond clear we need more parties. At least 3 serious parties, probably at least 6 parties.
It will be difficult (and take time) to transition to a different style of government... but I'd prefer to see a parliamentary system (more like what Germany and the UK have) in the U.S.
Sorry my reply was dense and short and confusing all at once. Jotted too fast, I guess. I hear you. I was not thinking about left in-fighting any more than thinking about right in-fighting. I was trying to address the way Dems failed to understand who is out here and what we need and want in what is overall a populist moment, with tech and money outstripping common folks of dignity and offering only online amusements in return. The formal Dems are as craven and lacking spiritual vision overall as the Repubs but yes, the RNC is wayyyyy worse. The RNC has debased itself beyond survival, as far as I can tell, were this a normal year. But they are taking powers that we have not dealt with in opposition in this generation. So what happens remains to be seen. I saw a photo of an elderly lady with a head wound delivered to her just because she stood outside the targeted ICE facility in Portland. Asked myself, would I take a head wound? Figured, Yes. Yes. More parties would indicate health. But in the last election cycle I kept noticing how online U.S. enemies capitalized on the horrible way our political parties are set up. (I do a lot of scrolling and searching and computing sort of like basic forms of deep AI but likely better, because I am human. Any time Jill Stein shows up, you kind of know someone has paid her to spoil something, even if she herself might tell herself she is doing something positive.) Until we get money out of politics or better educate the electorate, it's buyer takes all and the third party is only a spoiler in function. I want candidates telling me they see this, they have decided to come out Dem only because the Repubs have debased themselves too far, or come out as a clean-slate Repub, vowing to fight the enemy within their own party. I am independent. I think most of us are.
A lot to process here. Your thorough response is appreciated! Frankly, more people need to read statements in the vein of what you shared.
I will say that I don't think most folks identify as Independents; however, I *do* think deep down most folks have a nuanced opinions about why they vote the way they do — possibly not entirely at a conscious level.