A great poet once wrote, pertaining to the future readings of their work:
“Be it known by all that this is a set of my own original creative works, unplagiarized and written by no other machine than my own, frequently referred to as a ‘brain’, and by the clock that ticks inside me, also known as the ‘heart’. Recognize, all, that these poems have one sole purpose, to empty the sadness and pain that resides inside oneself, threatening to leak if not emptied, and one sole answer, written and masterminded by myself, unmoving and unchanged, as these works are not for the interpretation of a lesser learned mind, but for the comfort of a disturbed one.”
“Be it known by all that this is a set of my own original creative works, unplagiarized and written by no other machine than my own, frequently referred to as a ‘brain’, and by the clock that ticks inside me, also known as the ‘heart’. Recognize, all, that these poems have one sole purpose, to empty the sadness and pain that resides inside oneself, threatening to leak if not emptied, and one sole answer, written and masterminded by myself, unmoving and unchanged, as these works are not for the interpretation of a lesser learned mind, but for the comfort of a disturbed one.”
How very wise, these words of a founder of modern-day poetry.
Fools, I wrote it.
Notice how in the second it took you to read my previous line, your entire interpretation of the quote above changed, to realize that a woman in this century could write “a great work.” (If not, then I commend you for being able to see through my facade.)
If you have not yet realized, this “great work” will tackle the controversial issue that strikes terror into the hearts of poets and artists alike: the biases that follow personal interpretation of creative works.
One too many times have I wrongfully been told what my own poems are about, and after confrontation, been told the all too familiar line: “art is subjective”.
Well, Dear Reader, I am here today to tell you that art, especially mine, is not.
This is not to say that it is wrong for you to take a different meaning and emotional importance from a piece of literature. Everyone has different experiences, life stories, and emotional needs to be comforted by a book, a poem, or an essay. It is completely human for one line, one word, one comma (as Angelica Schulyer so tightly held onto), to completely change the meaning of a written work for oneself—“oneself” being the keyword, as the second you voice your own interpretation and replace the real meaning the author intended, you have destroyed their life's work and silenced their voice, effectively making them roll over in their graves with disgust and displeasure.
If any of you have ever attended an English class, you will remember the grueling question English teachers often shout: “What is the author trying to say?” The author, having been already dead, decomposed, and returned to the soil, can do nothing to defend himself and protest: “No, the cold and sad spaghetti John happened to eat that day did NOT have figurative value.” But then, if the author, already a shiny skeleton, happened to live so long ago that the true meaning of their works, along with their actual beliefs that inspired said pieces of literature, can no longer be deduced, why are they used in modern-day classrooms and for what reason?
|
Yes, you can very often learn lessons of kindness, empathy, objectivity, and the importance of friendship from works of literature. Still, the real reason is that once the true voice of the author is lost, the piece of literature becomes an empty box, open for one to place inside whatever one sees fit.
|
Are you catching on, dear reader?
If the people in power—politicians and world leaders, or even just the grossly underpaid teacher standing at the front of your classroom every day at 12:00 pm—see fit, they can tell you whatever they please that day because the author can not say otherwise. Suddenly, a piece of literature written in the 1400s becomes a tactic to spread one's own beliefs and agenda, and the feeble young minds of students and older people alike become deposits of manipulated and corrupted information. Suddenly, a story about the dangers of the extreme rich and poor from the perspective of a child in a starving world becomes a silly story about a young boy who steals bread. The idea that there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire while people go hungry is watered down to make you complacent in the face of oppression and tyranny. And a person whose piece of literature no longer reflects their very possibly racist, classist, and sexist ideologies (as you must remember, dear reader, all of these characteristics were normal and quite socially acceptable until very recently) erroneously becomes a pillar in the world of authors.
|
One too many times, the public has forgotten the impact of their era’s beliefs on how they read and translate a text, and ironically use their own dogma to read what an author wrote about the dangers of using personal ideologies while interpreting literature. Why, at the start of this essay, it made perfect sense for the opening and quite riveting quote, if I do say so myself, to be written by a man (and not a woman) in God knows what prior century. That is where the biases of the world and the small minds that society has produced come in and tarnish good literature. It is, to say it bluntly, an utter idiocracy to believe that all important older pieces of literature be written only by a man when we have it on very good account that the theft of women’s intellectual property was and always has been rampant in society for the sole reason of a patriarchal society that has spread the belief that woman cannot produce anything of value and only men can contribute something of importance to the world. The second you assume it was a man, you diminish the work—the value of literature written by women in a time where their name could not be attached to anything, where women could do no more than sign letters and be seen as scandalous and doomed by society for wanting anything other than having a man’s child. You reduce the amount of courage and bravery and pure rebellion that she went through to write, edit, and publish any story or poem or autobiography. The uterus lying inside the body to which the hands of the author who wrote such a pivotal creative work are attached does not lessen its importance.
|
|
That is not to call you, dear reader, a misogynistic or sexist person, but to remind you that you are a product of a misogynist world that has been this way since the beginning of time, and said patriarchal tendencies and behaviors have grown alongside civilization for so many centuries. They have become a part of everyday life and are considered “normal”; it is instead a reminder to you to realize the way of the twisted world and not conform. Rather, question why it is common practice to assume that any doctor, lawyer, or person of status unattached to a gender context clue be named a man by default. Instead, recognize this behavior (if it is present in your psyche or in that of the people around you) and address it, for in your doing so, your world will open like a shell, unburdened by prejudice, and you will notice things you have never seen before.
Remember, dear reader, that words and one's mind hold so much power, a power that must be used carefully, so as not to tarnish someone else's words.
