Dear Editor,
Not so long ago I was involved in a rambling discussion concerning writers. Whatever a writer does and believes in, I am in total agreement with Ryhaan Shah that integrity should be their hallmark, the rock upon which he/she stands. This is a nugget of advice extended to young writers.
Though the mouth has hardly ever ceased to be “muzzled by the food it eats to live,” nature has always had this quaint way of producing those daring ones determined to go against the grain. There are stories galore about writers with a passion for truth but who under pressure were forced to compromise.
Once I heard about the critic of a king who was told by a friend who was enjoying the good graces of the monarch that if he (the critic) could just learn to flatter the king his life would be so much improved that he would no longer have to subsist on dandelion leaves. To this the critic responded: “If you can learn to feed on dandelions there would be no need for you to flatter the king”.
No doubt one has to have the conviction of steel to take such a stand, and this decision will not appeal to a highly materialist writer. The very rich who write for kicks are not too fussy about integrity or conviction, though they can be if they so desire.
Editor, as I understand it, writing is never without a reason, be it fantasy, persuasion, exploring new ideas, inspiring, beautifying and healing the soul, restoring hope, giving strength, reassuring, encouraging – something! Except for tomfoolery and dishonesty – but wait! some folks do that too. And here I’m yet again reminded of by Regis Debray who noted that well-to-do folks with their full quota of daily calories, can write well but have nothing to say, as against poor folks who do the hard work and get the least calories, and have much to say but can’t write. Lao Tzu said: “Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know”.
Now, in the discussion as stated above there were opinions expressed by Ms Ryhaan Shah and Mr Ruel Johnson on the Guyana Prize and other cultural matters. I noted some points by Ms Shah which to me were pretty valid as she stated that not to be invited to participate in the state’s organized parades, motorcades and masquerades ought not to be seen as victimization but rather as an honour.
And indeed, it is an honour and tribute to one’s independence. And I further cannot quite disagree with her when she went on to say “that writers and artists of integrity are most often found outside looking in armed with their criticism … for that’s where the revolution happens.”
Mr Johnson has been a foremost critic of things cultural and was never one to back down. If I can recall well he once threw his cards on the table, saying something to the effect that he had the time, energy, ammunition and ability to go the distance. I met Ruel Johnson via our dailies and have been following most of his prolific writings. I admire his radicalism and courageous stand as a young man, something that is obviously lacking in our society, and especially his stern incessant castigation of the former Minister of Culture and his ministry. There were instances where some of his criticisms were news to me, but he is the one in the camp and ought to know. I have even promoted him to others, sharing his writing; I saw him as one of a rare breed of exemplary young intellectuals. The brother, as we are won’t to say is, “young gifted and black” ‒ a coveted position. A friend I introduced him to is always on the lookout for his “bombshell letters”, and told me once there is no stopping him and he was genuine material. Later, however, he became a bit more concerned. This time he thought the brother was craving too much attention even as he ‘slammed’ the government. Ryhaan Shah once made a similar accusation. Anyway I think the brother is too talented to be lost to his people; he certainly possessed the wisdom to collect himself if so, and proceed with what he is gifted to do. Yet one has to admire his self-confidence which some consider to be somewhat brazen. But for sure he remains radically consistent and steadfast as we noted in his recent broadsiding of the APNU+AFC government in the SN of June 9: “The new government campaigned on a platform of transparency accountability and merit – based on inclusiveness – here is a situation in which the absence of all three is glaring.”
Yours faithfully,
Frank Fyffe
