The Invisible Writer

Should writer's be invisible? For many writers, writing is in and of itself, enough. Emily Dickinson and Franz Kafka to name a couple of authors, never intended or indeed actively requested that their work be published. But had Max Brod not posthumously published Kafka's work, his friend's uniquely surreal style might never have been recognised and we may never have adopted that most modernist of terms, Kafkaesque. Similarly had Lavinia Dickinson not released her sister's work, the reclusive poet may have remained invisible to the world forever.

The real crux of the matter is, whether an author's personal desire to remain invisible at the cost of depriving the public of their work is a fair price to pay.

Both Dickinson and Kafka have become household names as significant and influential writers of the 20^th Century and, without the latter, a young travelling salesman may never have woken up to find himself transformed into a 'giant vermin': a story which has become the subject of a plethora of satirical and tribute works. On the other hand, as respected as both writers are, by reading work they never intended to be published, one could argue that to an extent we are showing them an equal level of disrespect.

On balance however, I'd be inclined to say that the appreciation of a writer's work surpasses the issue of whether or not the author intended it to be published, providing that the writing does not infringe severely upon their right for privacy: Lavinia Dickinson's destruction of (the majority) of her sister's love letters was an understandable deed, however many would argue that destruction of her poetry would not be.

And had Kafka's work never been published, this might never have existed:

Right To Write?

As a writer, is it necessary in to write about political and social issues of our time? And furthermore, what constitutes as a worthy issue to be discussed? A writer like George Orwell, for example, would certainly agree that it is very much the responsibility of writers to address contemporary political and social issues: remarking in his 1946 essay 'Why I Write' that 'It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects.' 'Well obviously' I hear you say, 'Orwell was a raging leftie who loved to satirise dictators and totalitarians as farmyard fiends: of course he'd tell you to write about politics.' And it's at this point I'd like to point out that Orwell also wrote an comprehensive 11-point essay on the perfect cuppa.

The fact of the matter is, that consciously or not, every issue a writer tackles will be relevant to the time.

Examining Emily Dickinson's poems, for example, affectionados of her work such as Richard Sewall argue, with good reason, that Dickinson's work intentionally deals with the American Civil War of her time - albeit through largely metaphorical language - whilst Daniel Aaron concludes that even those poems which deal directly with the war are moreover a reflection of Dickinson's inner conflicts. It's hard to deny that Dickinson's work is certainly affected by the war, but even if this were not the case and her poetry simply reflected her inner conflicts it would be no less of an issue of the time: granted, the Civil War will always be the more pressing issue of the time to the masses, but like Orwell's perfect cup of tea, Dickinson's inner conflict is no less pressing an issue, if only purely on a personal level.