Sunday, 12 January 2014

Writers with nothing to say - but saying it anyway

*

It happens a lot. And in the history of literature there are broad phases.

In the early and mid twentieth century there was a lot of stuff of the writer writing about writing (nothing to say).

Then there was a lot of stuff of writers writing about the fact they had nothing to say - and this was pretty mainstream in the sexities and seventies when I was a youth.

After quite a bit of this, then writers got used to the fact that had nothing to say; and since they had been brought-up in this situation, and had never known any differently; writers for the past few decades say nothing because (as they perceive it) there is nothing to be said.

That is the subtext of what the Mass Media scream at us every day, and what we encounter in the highbrow world of serious novels, art movies, ambitious TV programmes - writers are simply messing around, trying to grab and hold attention, producing positive and negative feelings - just passing the time.

They have nothing to say and they believe there is nothing to be said - and they are just filling-in time: their own and everybody elses.

Filling-in time with time-filling is not, however, morally neutral - nor is it passive; it is actively destructive of good.

Thus writers are generally become agents of evil, so are books, TV and movie narratives.

Art is destructive now, as is science and academia - indeed much that once was good (on the whole) has become bad (on the whole) - including education and socialization which now make people dumber and worse citizens (on the whole); because with the mass social communications media almost everybody is now a writer, and they have nothing to say, and believe there is nothing to be said - but say it anyway; louder, more frequently, more manipulatively, and with ever-smaller breaks in-between.   

*