One of the astonishing things about talent is that it often
comes wrapped in quite impossible people. I don't particularly
want to encounter those nasty talented people in person--
and I'm glad they aren't on this list. But I don't want to
be deprived of their wonderful work! Writers generally send
out the words and worlds they create, and sit in a room creating
more. They inflict their nastiness on family and friends--
or fans and publishers. Of course, if there is a lone monopolist
publisher, such as a censoring government or church, piss
them off and your "career" is over. But for a writer, the
blackball isn't necessarily the end. Work can circulate on
papyrus or as Samsidat, and emerge when the Emperor is replaced.
I know that theatre is a collaborative art form. But audiences,
eventually, don't know or care whether an author is naughty
or nice. Posterity could care less.
What set off my volcano was the Webber article's numb assumption
that a tight circle of gatekeepers have figured out a way
to tell whether or not a writer is talented without reading
him/her--- and surprise! It's that the writer has certain
credentials and has been pre-approved to be Just The Sort
They Like, One Of Us.
Writing has 2 main functions: Re A. Pope, to say "What's
oft been thought but ne're so well expressed" and/or to give
us access to thoughts that would never otherwise occur to
us, situated as we are in our own little worlds.
And many artists now conceded to be more or less universal
were condemned as freaks and fools in their time. As a critic,
I must recognize my own limitations-- and try to be grateful
to talent that challenges me to move beyond them.
As a writer, I can only write in my own voice, out of my
own experience, and hope that some people, some where, will
find that what I write speaks to, if not for, them.
But of all the reasons for rejection, the one that prompts
despair is the a priori. (4/08/04)
by 
