The Archeology of Ideas, Writing and Censorship

I'm a controversial figure. My friends either dislike me or hate me.

--- Toni Morrison, speech, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, New York,1978

Censorship is tough stuff. How much should one reveal or censor a private conversation in non-fiction, or reveal the line of a furrow so deep that my friends would recognize the person in fiction? I recall a course I once took with writers David Bezmogis, John Metcalfe and others talking about this very subject – about using friends and family and people we know in writing, to which the final conclusion was “don’t they know you’re a writer?” In other words, every experience, every conversation, every aspect of a writer's being and perspective is… “material.” I need not ask permission to write and shape things as I see them. I have a right to see things the way I do. I may wrap someone in another "identity," in the context of an event or conversation to protect that person, but even if I changed the colour of someone's shoes, s/he would know about whom I was writing, even if others do not. The question always on my mind is, if the intent is to further an argument, to shape an argument bathed in descriptions of the experience, how much does one have to reveal? How much truth is there in fiction, how much fiction in the truth? John Metcalfe critiqued my draft book about my experiences and noted that even in a piece of non-fiction, the "artifact" is what's left. The craft of writing, the descriptions of people all have a purpose in writing, in an argument. In writing, both fiction and non, everything is shaped by the perspective of the writer. Further, there is not one fiction writer I've met so far, who does not "use" all the people in their lives to shape their characters.

This blog is about discussing human diversity within the context of acceptance. Once one begins to think about things, to go on the archeological digs of "why" and "how" and "to what end," it is natural to consider how one lives as a reflection of belief. Every point I raise is something that is on my mind in this vein. Somtimes I reflect on the origins of our current ideas, as innocuous as they may seem, to question how pervasive our ideas of perfection are within this context. Everyday conversations are examples of ideologies, known or unknown. I can’t censor my thoughts or my words and no one should try. Explorations into how we feel, think, and what we do are essential in looking at the complexity of autism.

I've had hundreds, if not thousands of episodes and conversations yet to write about in the subject of autism, and hundreds of more personal past "mistakes" in the way I've lived which juxtapose my emergent ideologies. I've had friends who with the best of intentions, have left me feeling utterly isolated in the way they view autism and disability, the way they disperse "empathy", and the way they look at and behave around Adam -- I intend to write about these experiences in order to continue to promote awareness and understanding. This is important stuff to write about, the meat and potatoes of living with autism. Should I edit the conversations? Censor the characteristics that shaped the experience? The ones that evoked strong emotion in me as I write about my experiences will likely remain on the page.

I may be wrong and I may be right in my evolving opinions, and the importance is in the asking "what does this mean," and "what is the origin of that idea?" Here are some other good quotes on writing I thought some of you might enjoy:


David Ben Gurion:
Anyone who believes you can't change history has never tried to write his memoirs.

Denise Levertov:
One of the obligations of the writer is to say or sing all that he or she can, to deal with as much of the world as becomes possible to him or her in language.

Jessamyn West:
Writing is a solitary occupation. Family, friends, and society are the natural enemies of the writer. He must be alone, uninterrupted, and slightly savage if he is to sustain and complete an undertaking.

Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Put the argument into a concrete shape, into an image, some hard phrase, round and solid as a ball, which they can see and handle and carry home with them, and the cause is half won.

Margaret Chase Smith:
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.

Martin Luther King, Jr.:
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

As I learned from writer teachers and friends, the stuff of life, of conversation, is material. I do, however, believe in respect. It is difficult to draw the censorship lines in writing.

Epictetus:
First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.