Turkish Writer, Selin Tamtekin, Faces Criticism For Writing Diplomat's Daughter

dee:

Why is it considered to be loose behavior on the part of a woman if she discusses sexual matters openly? Worse still, why is a woman called a whore if she writes about explicit sex? Stephen King isn't some psychopath just because he wrote numerous books about blood, gore and gruesome death. What a writer writes does not necessarily reflect his life, right?

very well said!

even given the largely conservative strain in our societies the still slumbering attitudes are difficult to digest

and the dichotomy becomes all the more apparent

one standard for you, one for me!

t, there will always be people living in Sesame street dreaming about burning others on pyres;)

just wondering

if the women writers are labeled whores

how about gigolo for men?

;)

Lol, to be a gigolo one has to be suave - women are very choosy;)

nooooooooooo Dee... to be a gigolo, one must just have an inflated sense of ego. haven't you noticed that most of those men are not adored by women but by other men for their made-up stories? women are not taken in by those greased-up, bloated, hairy-chested troglodytes. but they sure make good fiction! LOL

(this is, however, not aimed at male writers)

The history of women (especially in India) writing frankly sexual material predates Arundhati Roy by decades. There was Kamala Das who wrote My Story, which was actually a frank memoir of her own sexual history. Then, of course, Urdu writers like Ismat Chughtai ( 'Lihaf,') and Wajida Tabbassum ('Utran'). In fact Chughtai was actually brought to court on obscenity charges in 1944 and was part of the Progressive Writers Movement. I am sure there were other writers in the Indian vernacular languages with whom I am not familiar.

But then only women have not been brought up on obscenity charges. Manto was also part of the 1944 obscenity trial in India. D.H. Lawrence had caused an uproar in 1928 with its frank sexuality and the use of then banned obscene words. In fact, as recently as 1960 there was an obscenity trial in England against Penguin who published Lady Chatterly's Lover.

Then, of course, as far as women go, there was Anais Nin, who famously wrote porn (or erotica, depending on who defines it) for a dollar a page for a wealthy patron.

The point is that whenever anything controvorsial, sexual or not, is written, people go crazy. Anything that upsets a paradigm (women, Indian women or Muslim women are meek, shy, sexually retiring creatures) is bound to create an uproar. And you go after it with the only weapon (usually the most base) to attack with.

With Rushdie it was a death sentence. With women it's calling them sluts and whores.

And despite all this persecution writers continue write stuff that would only make matters worse for themselves. Has anything really changed since then?

For me personally, I think writers and artists are supposed to push against the boundaries of their worlds. They *should* challenge the prevailing norms. Not in a deliberate, baiting manner but...sometimes something a writer or an artist naturally produces strikes a discordant note, rubs against the society of which they are a part, or against the world...and something great happens.

Otherwise they churn out the same old stuff. Then, to me, they are hacks and not writers. There are writers, of course, who manufacture controvorsy for the sake of it. Dan Brown anyone? Now he is definitely not a great writer but he touched something off. And before he came around there was the well-written 'The Last Temptation of Christ,' by Nikos Kazantakis.

I find it amusing that each time a writer (or an artist) is villified the reacion is always of shock. There is nothing new in this. Artists have created and writers have written and society has reacted.

Perhaps when sex is no longer taboo and heresy no longer news-making, that will be old hat and writers will find something else to come up against. Perhaps they will write something about chastity and godliness.

To me, this friction (creative, not manufactured) in the hands of a true writer is one of the wonderful things that make me aspire to be a writer. To challenge, to mock, to be (to use one of my favorite words) be blasphemous are the gifts that writers give to the world.

It is the job of society to tug things towards the middle. And it is the job of writers to challenge society. It is through this continuous tug of war that we continue to evolve, and develop towards the center, which is held together with the forces of tension around it.

Personally, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It makes people think. Even when society opposes something it makes people think about the concept being written about. It broadens our horizons.

Society gradually absorbs those very things it villifies. So while Plato and Aristotle were heretic troublemakers in their time, they form the basis of Western society. These controvorsies then are still being played out, and are just a blip in time.

jawahara... very interesting points you have raised about literature and writers. nice to get a peek into a writer's mind once in a while. although I am not sure all writers believe it is their job to challenge society. some just write to exercise their demons or chronicle something or the other. everyone has a different purpose. but the way you see it certainly is one that gives a lot of purpose and meaning.

Let me clarify: I don't necessarily think that writers and/or artists should deliberately bait society. This is why I made the distinction between the manufactured and the creative.

A manufactured controvorsy would be something written by a mediocre (or worse) writer to deliberately court controvorsy.

A creative one is a happy accident, where a good (or great) writer writes something for him or herself, and that natural creative evolution touches off a spark.

So, while I don't think writers should write to teach/bait/fight societal problems, etc. the great ones do end up doing that just by creating a story and writing it so well that it makes us think.

Phew!

OK, got it.

"the great ones do end up doing that just by creating a story and writing it so well that it makes us think."

and totally agree!

So basically good writers are fearless in their creativity.

To me, yes, Dee. But I guess we all differ on whom we consider good writers :-).

jay:

reading through the comments i picked this to comment on:

It is the job of society to tug things towards the middle. And it is the job of writers to challenge society. It is through this continuous tug of war that we continue to evolve, and develop towards the center, which is held together with the forces of tension around it.

:)

and was merrily churning my response when i read further down this:

I don't necessarily think that writers and/or artists should deliberately bait society. This is why I made the distinction between the manufactured and the creative.

So, while I don't think writers should write to teach/bait/fight societal problems, etc. the great ones do end up doing that just by creating a story and writing it so well that it makes us think.

hmmmmmmm

am not sure, but we have crossed swords over this somewhere before

i think it may have been in context of taraqqi-pasand adab movement of 1935 (progressive writers' movement)led by sajjad zaheer, prem chand, faiz, etc.

briefly, they made literature subservient to 'goals' however laudable

there were many writers that held that creative writing should not be held accountable to 'goals' but to 'whims'

a creative writer should be able to create freely

:)

unhindered, in this free floating subjectivity a wordsmith's objectivity sometimes shines more brilliantly

dee:

So basically good writers are fearless in their creativity.

hmmmmmmmm

maybe yes, maybe no

depends on how far we can agree to stretch fearless

yes, we are talking about creative writers!...


well, tell me -- this fearlessness is expressed at or against whom?

and if there is a line - where is it drawn?


let me give my take - one can not be entirely free ...and of course i am stretching 'free':)


--a writer needs pen and paper (keyboard and pc)!
--a writer needs words
--a writer needs readers
--a writer needs reaction


free the writer from these basic needs and what does s/he end up as?

in a great big vacuum

(and i did not bring in censorship, govt. overlording, society and its tolerance level yet)

***

there are constraints on the utopian freedom that every writer knowingly accepts and plods on

some chose to push the envelope farther in their endeavors some decide not to

dee:

So basically good writers are fearless in their creativity.

hmmmmmmmm

maybe yes, maybe no

depends on how far we can agree to stretch fearless

yes, we are talking about creative writers!...


well, tell me -- this fearlessness is expressed at or against whom?

and if there is a line - where is it drawn?


let me give my take - one can not be entirely free ...and of course i am stretching 'free':)


--a writer needs pen and paper (keyboard and pc)!
--a writer needs words
--a writer needs readers
--a writer needs reaction


free the writer from these basic needs and what does s/he end up as?

in a great big vacuum

(and i did not bring in censorship, govt. overlording, society and its tolerance level yet)

***

there are constraints on the utopian freedom that every writer knowingly accepts and plods on

some chose to push the envelope farther in their endeavors some decide not to

T, generally those who do push the envelope are remembered but some like J.K Rowlin do it after they have made their money;)

T, as a writer (even a hack such as I) I don't feel a responsibility to anyone than myself and to nothing. Sorry, that's just me. I am a purist when it comes to writing. When writers write with an agenda they most often create something preachy and/or self-consciously unreal.

"unhindered, in this free floating subjectivity a wordsmith's objectivity sometimes shines more brilliantly"

Not sure I understood this :-) T. Again I must disagree. Journalists are supposed to be objective. Writers have a point of view and should have that point of view no matter how out there or aberrant it is.

As far as how far can one go? I would say as far as you can imagine, and further. But that's just me.

jay:


what did i mean? same as you summed in one word "purist"

sorry for being convoluted:)

think am one too ... though i may be stretching it by remaining under the radar;)

T, sometimes you are too convoluted (ghuma phira ke baat karna) for my poor little pedestrian brain.

j:

monotony can become monotonous
simplicity can become mundane
spice can lose its spice-ness
convolution can creep up
with sleep deprivation, not intent

;)

This is a bit off-topic, but there is a case for conservativism. Keep questioning the world, and its values, and pretty soon you end up in nihilistic hell. "Modernism" has killed god and already created this hell for those who embrace it totally. Most modern writers and artists already suffer from this disease, as is evident from their literature.. Look at their faces, and you don't see them smiling.

It is very easy to scoff at the world and its values like arundhati does. Change, especially societal change is a gradual process, and needs to be done with love and compassion. If you want to cause a revolution be prepared for the consequences...a journey into nihilistic hell!!!

What makes you so sure we aren't living in one already?

beady:

It is very easy to scoff at the world and its values like arundhati does.

she does?

this is news!

what i read from her is her passionate and articulate views on SOME issues IN our world. (whether we agree or disagree is secondary.)

Don't think this our beady or are there two of them?

apologise!

pls. read "Bhaskar" in #24