Should writers be invisible?

There are factors to consider when answering this specific question, the definition of ‘invisible’ as a writer being just one. If by ‘invisible’ we mean that a writer’s physical appearance should be unknown and only their name should be recognisable, then I think this should be the case, at least I would prefer that scenario for myself. However, in this day and age I feel that a writer can’t afford to be invisible. I think when answering this question we also need to consider the aspirations of each given writer and their skill level. If a writer wishes to be financially successful then a certain amount of publicity is usually needed, but only those who are truly extraordinary writers can possibly be completely unrecognisable to the public and not have their careers effected by their media shyness.

If you wish to be a very wealthy writer, through merely the selling of your books, then it is likely that you will be thrust into the public’s view. In the case of J.K Rowling, her books were such a success that the media was almost unavoidable and her career only benefited by her making public appearances. However, most writers will not have this eventuality in their careers and therefore should consider whether there is a need to do such things to become a success. I believe that if you are skilful and confident enough, then your name should be sufficient to lure the public in.

So even though I would ideally answer this question with a ‘yes, writers should be invisible’, a writer who does no promotion at all is brave, stupid, or immensely talented (possible all three).          

Is it necessary for a writer to write about the social/political issues of the time?

This question is dependent on certain definitions of the specific terms. What is politics? If you are more literal, thinking in terms of political parties, movements and messages, then this question is easier to answer. I am trying to avoid the notion that politics is everywhere. With this being said, my answer is no, the social and political issues of the day are not vital inclusions in writing. However, even though it is not necessary to include such issues from society into a writer’s work, the better pieces of work will most likely have a message that enables the reader to think and question, or reaffirm, their own status quo.  This message can be anything from ‘don't run with scissors’ to flaws in communism (Animal Farm by George Orwell) and even events of war (Poems on the American Civil War by Emily Dickinson, e.g 409); so as long as the piece engages and intrigues the reader the subject matter can be and should be whatever the writer sees fit.

I fully admit that even though it is not necessary to include political and social issues of the day into your work, I think it's unachievable not to, in some way. We are all influenced by the world we live in and unfortunately the world we live in is always influenced by the politics of the time. I tried to answer this question by merely saying no, as long as I limited the meaning of politics, but ultimately I can't do that. It isn't necessary to purposely involve the issues (social/political) because it is impossible not to, it will always be there in part, some more clearly than others.

What Do I Want To Do?

                  If anything were possible I would hope to be a different person with heightened abilities, which would then allow me to achieve and do all that I want to.

To be honest, I want to read more. I want to feel more in touch with my mind. Hell, I wish I could be more alive. I want to be a genius. The endless information to be drawn upon is the energy of life. I would show off, challenge those around me and watch them quiver with embarrassment as I outwit them. I want my work to be admired. I want to walk into any school, in any country, on any continent and see my work read. I want to stride into an English class and sit, and listen to mediocre minds explain my art to the youth. I would stand and yell, ha, not even close beard face; even if their summation was plausible. I would then skip out to stunned silence.

                If I had no inhibitions my dreams could be reality. I’d write more, not fearing the consequences of my words. I would not fear the lack of validity I expect. I would not throw half-baked symbolism into each piece hoping for recognition. I’d just write and be free to think. If I could do this without apprehension, a genius I would be, but more so, I’d be happy.  

Is there any place for the truth in writing?

Yes. Well, kind of. It is almost impossible to remove yourself from your own work; feelings and influences will creep their way among the chosen letters of each piece, no matter how hard one tries to eliminate such occurrences. What a person writes tells us a lot about that person, there is some truth there even if it is unintentional. When I say ‘truth’ I mean in terms of the emotion and character of a person, not the factual accuracy of their words. Some have said that John Creever used his work to display his own sexual ambiguity and if so a possibly unspoken truth was found in his writing; if not, and that statement was false, then I can truthfully apologise for my imagination.  

Factual accuracy, even in non-fiction, is never entirely without manipulation. A bias nature is bound to come through and it is up to each of us on how subtle we are when putting our pens to paper.

I believe that every writer starts with their own truths and then decides how much they are willing to unveil to the world.  Truth will always be in writing to some extent, however, even with the noblest of intentions there is unlikely to be a completely honest piece of writing, unless the writer is extremely brave or extremely stupid. Although I seem to have contradicted myself throughout, my overall answer to this question is still:

YES, there is a place for the truth in writing. 

How is it that I became a writer?

Everyone has influences in their lives and our choices are always a product of previous experiences. Each writer will undoubtedly be affected by their surroundings, whether it is their childhood, the society of the time or just the country they called home. Each factor is vital in the development of a writer and their sources of inspiration.
Margaret Atwood, born in 1940, has listed many different factors for her development as a writer. She was born during the war and in a time where the priorities for women were very different to today. Her family, especially her brother, encouraged her to pursue her imagination and the possibilities it may bring. Atwood’s episteme could be a result of the change in style of the writers that inspired her. Her reading, up to the age of sixteen, consisted of three types of books:
1) Books for school study.
2) Acceptable books read openly outside of school.
3) Books suspected of taboo.

These differences in style and subject matter may have formed the foundation for her poetry and other work.

I still feel as though I am yet to be a writer and therefore find it slightly difficult to answer this specific question. I will answer ‘Why do I want to be a writer?’ I have always lived in my own little world and thanks to my experiences in boarding school, where I met some interesting characters, I feel suitably inspired to try my best at a difficult principle. My ideology I have no doubt will adapt over the years, but all I hope is that my work is and remains sufficient enough to please some, and if not, my own satisfaction will have to do.