Yes, writing comes from the personal, however it cannot remain there if it is to become art. It therefore becomes other. Put simply the kind of writing (and art) I am speaking of, above all, is a state of the soul. So obviously this makes literary criticism a most difficult thing. The critic can tear it apart technically, because all good writing must perform well in this area, however, it’s the critic who can sense the soul of the piece and have a stab at articulating that who will do it justice. Fortunately, literary critics are not the only, or even necessarily best, arbiters of literature. Although there are some good ones around. Nobody has the last word. (The esteemed Australian poet and academic, A.D. Hope, many years ago critiqued the work of Patrick White, writing it off with some contempt – White went on to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, the only Australian to have done so. I have every book White has written; I remember my excitement as a younger woman on discovering him, because he exposed the dark underbelly of Australians, something that most Australians at the time disliked.)

I am not for one moment saying that a work of art or literature cannot or should not be discussed with a view to content and how that content might have been conceived, then planned and executed, how it manifests itself, how it resonates and perhaps even goes on to change due to different perceptions. And it’s true that some authors might well methodically plan their work before commencing – although it’s also true that often they find themselves being taken elsewhere, deviating from the plan, once they’re in writing mode. A vast number of writers and artists do not work this way. They work in the first instance from images and/or ideas and allow those to take them wherever. Those images and ideas are already imbued with a world of depth and have had a gestation period. The writer has already wittingly or unwittingly borrowed from others over a long period of time. It is AFTER the initial creation that one crafts it to the requirements of the art form, again and again and again if necessary, until it’s as good as you can get. That’s when all the elements necessary to it come together. It becomes art if one succeeds. It is the same for painting and sculpture. And, I would think, music.

We are dealing here in this context with shapers of feelings, and the personal, with visions and symbols, multi-dimensional metaphors and articulation that is deeply rooted in the inner, so rationalisation in that regard is not a useful or appropriate tool. Rationalisation in this arena is a wan and limited thing. I for one, though, am always happy to discuss any aspect of my work, however not to limit it by attempting to ‘explain’ it in a rational way. If a reader/viewer/listener can’t access the soul of a piece, then rationalisation is not going to assist them in any way at all. If they can’t understand the core of the work intuitively then they will not understand it at all.

As you will know, there have been tumultuous changes in the art world since the late nineteenth/early twentieth century that simultaneously affected fine arts, writing and musical composition. It was the Impressionists and Cubist/Surrealists who broke most definitively with the last real influence of Classicism and Renaissance Italy. So ‘strict guidelines’ were certainly done away with there. Although artists such as Marc Chagall found Cubism (Braque & Picasso et al) and even Cezanne’s remarkable departure from previous form, far too restrictive for his particular style of painting, which ultimately had to be true to him, despite other influences dabbled with. There end up being guidelines of one sort or another with whatever we bring into the world as ‘form’, however they change according to new forms created.

Pedestrian platitudes? No, you don’t deserve that accusation, not at all.

Dear Liat

the cheapest way out, easiest and totally devoid of interesting ideas would be to say that the vocation of writing in whatever genre is one of the most personal human manifestation made public and that nobody has the …right to deny and, subsequently even criticise almost anything the author does.The last bit about the right to criticise is completely false…
Based on somewhat conventional scales of value, the output is “treated” by the “recepients” of each opus in manners outside the authors’ control. Here we apply the SAME principle of …. freedom/right of expression. One may be totally wrong in types of appreciation/criticism and , once again based on convention, certain opinions of considered authorities would have a somewhat decisive word on the “quality’ of the creation.
One thing I cannot agree is that the creator, be it fine art, literature, music would not be involved in “rationalising” own “productions”. Some would be passive and not outspoken or “involved” in explaining or debating the content and implicit purpose, others have been and still are quite active, vociferous in outlining the intent and even stylistic elements. One of the most celebrated such works is Thomas Mann’s “novel of the novel” of his magnificent “Doctor Faustus”. Other such outlines are readily found in Mahler’s explicit notes to his symphonies, not in manner of performance , but, precisely in the meaning of the stimme – score -. It would be illogical not afford the very author the competence in appreciating the actual creative effort.
Another matter is the very intent, purpose of the works in terms of what is “extracted” from the reality exposed in whatever genre/style. Pertaining to canonical imposition in fine art and mostly music, a lot is known to have been following fairly strict “guidelines”. When freedom of expression was won, say, post French Revolution etc., agendas defined by extrapolations and omissions, some due to class interests ( here I sound quite Marxist ) also crept into the creative process. Thus we have the same creative mind adjusting its efforts to what could easily be called “prejudices”.
In terms of the notion of “isolation”, I prefer to use “limitations” instead. Ontologically there is so much to be said, but right here the circulation, acceptance is , indeed, at the behest of the receptive reading “market”. To this I recall that in all types of expressed creativity there have been legions of famous authors of all kinds whose acceptance and fame have been incredibly shortlived and, respectively, others rejected at the time, but who have proven far more lasting and influential. I am sure you know how big is this “class” and who are most of them.
One’s imposed exigences would be an important factor, but, then how easy is for anyone to “objectively” detach from his/her own mind !!! Quite a few thought they had the means of doing so only to be relegated to the huge heap of irrelevance, even if still mentioned in that long list of indexes. In our larger gambit I consider philosophes as the most immediate members of that club.
None of this is meant to, once again, clip anything in one’s desire, indeed need, to create.
Anyone accusing me of pedestrian platitudes could well be right.

Thank you for your last response (06/02). It’s a big topic, that of the writer’s communication of her/his words with the public out there. And such a big, diverse public it is too. Leaving aside works written purely for intended commercial gain, such as Mills & Boon Romances and more populist fiction of varying kinds, and bearing in mind that, yes, once the work is out there one is at the behest of public response, I say the following:

1. the writer does not necessarily have an ‘intended’ public in the initial stages of creating as much as publishers insist they should have (writing as response to issues in a public arena is a different matter). Publishers categorise and streamline a work towards a category, such as Young Adult literature (which I can’t abide as a concept, for its gross limitations – I was reading Russian, French and English classics when I was twelve, so what are we doing creating such a limited reading agenda for our young with the stuff served up to them today under the YA genre!). However writers pretty much write what they themselves are motivated to write, with their own ideas and experiences becoming part of the imaginary process in fiction and those same things creeping into their attempts to write non-fiction, even with their best attempt at objectivity.

Poetry, which is my forte, although I have published articles and reviews as well, is not created with the public in mind and obviously, due to its very nature, is understood in different ways by different people, if understood at all. The worst thing you can do is ask a poet or a painter to ‘explain’ and rationalise their work. To do that is to limit it immediately. It can be discussed and elaborated, but not put in a neat box and ‘explained’. Largely a poem needs to be felt and understood by the heart and senses first and foremost, the intellectual analysis can follow if need be. There is still unresolved discussion going on between tutors and students at University about the meaning of lines written years ago by all kinds of poets. Of course, communication is important on a basic level, however the best writing always allows enough space for the reader to do their own work in perception – one should ‘show’ and suggest, not tell.

2. Each writer has a voice unique to them, and that is what must be developed if the writer and writing is to develop. So any estrangement that may cause in the way of ‘assertive individualism’ or influence of the writer’s operandi/vivendi, would just have to be chalked up to losses on the one side and gains on the other if the work is well-written and engaging, even if the engagement provokes discomfort.

3. A writer usually works in isolation, but never with an ‘isolated mind’. Basically the writing is informed by all that one has absorbed, and that includes the works and thoughts of others throughout the years, as well as more personal experience and observation, and the stuff of the sub-conscious. You are not necessarily aware of all this at the time of writing. The processes of creating in writing and the end result is nothing short of miraculous. The work sometimes seems to write itself, then is redrafted if necessary to as good as you can get.

I, too, expose myself to what I consider to be reprehensible and ugly, especially in regard to the Jewish people and Israel, as a means to be a kind of activist in relation to that, so I do understand where you’re coming from. We each do it in our own way.

Dear Liat
I shall make myself, once again, brief and reduce thoughts to a few snippets.
A dedicated writer’s vocation is one that necessarily involves constant searches of all kinds. One stable element, however, is connectivity with the intended reading public. Obviously genres define levels of sophistication, therefore language and, of course content approaches.
In all cases, however, the writer is at the behest of the public intended. This, simply, involves a professional communion. As such, certain cannonical elements creep into the writers MO and MV – one being “operandi” the other one “vivendi” -. Here certain degrees of assertive individualism may estrange the intended “addressee” of the literary effort. Everybody is “who he/she is”, we know that from a lot of reliable sources. To this extent, even radically seen opposites may engage in exchanges and confluences that result could be most beneficial, profitable to at least on side.
All this does not preclude from the principle and practice that guiding lights must be sought outside the strict perimeter of an otherwise isolated mind, quarantined from “destabilisng” influences, G-d forbid.
I have acquinted myself with viciously opposing stances, have ingested sources I concluded most outrageous, some vile and repulsive and, with that , I bettered my capacity to react and protect my integrity. It also enhanced my passion for retort, one of a confident manner some call arrogance or even brutality. Well, I have to live with it, but most importantly, make my opponents life a misery. Can’t help it. But you is in my very good books, the kind I read with pleasure. Let me tellya, it is precisely that feminine double “W”, warmth and wisdom, something no arrogant man can live without.

Our conversation has not been limited to formal ethical discussion, especially with all the personal asides you have thrown in willy nilly. The fact that you continue as much as you can to stay within the parameters of Judaic thought as a response to everything has advantages and disadvantages. It can be a quite splendid and comforting place to be, an inspiring place to be, however if you are continually reaching for its tenets without thought for easy response, you are not taking anything further. You are basically saying, that is it, there is not a single new thought that can be added. I do not believe for a moment that that is what Judaism is meant to be. I do not believe that one is supposed to be constrained by it, I do not believe that one is to loll comfortably in a passive support role, and use it in quite the way you do.

After reading of your background I consider it a fine thing that we are able to discuss anything at all, as my own is so very different. However, there will always be a huge gulf due to the differences. Never mind, I for one am not daunted by that. And the idea is not to convert one to the other anyway; well, that’s my view.

I do understand your statement about being assured of your longevity in happiness due to your trust in Judaic wisdom. And I believe you. I have myself been touched to the soul by my own experience with it, as disparate as that has been. And I am glad of it. However, I am still a woman, with a woman’s problems due to Orthodox Jewish interpretation of what a woman is and should be. So my position is more complex than yours.

I have never much cared whether or not society accepts my behaviour … if I find myself acceptable and others do not, I might try to explain myself for better understanding, however ultimately if there is still a problem, well it’s not mine, it’s theirs. The creative part of my make-up is of utmost importance to me, and, in the view of some, that would mean a clash between the spiritual and the artistic, even though they can be combined. You can’t place NO-GO areas on creativity. It comes from the sub-conscious, the heart and soul, then is fashioned to final form intellectually. It has a gestation period and a will of its own. It allows the birth of new and sometimes startling things, although it’s also connected to the ancient, allowing greatness of depth. Poetry, painting and music reside there. In their own way they offer better possibility for more universal communication that religion or politics, because they encompass the gamut of human experience and aspiration, they can transcend polemic and rhetoric, and they also rely on the receiver to give them life, for what are they if they are not received, absorbed and reacted to. I suppose religion also relies on the receiver in the same way. The kind of happiness you are alluding to, which is far, far from superficial, for me is very much berthed in that.

I am reading a book at the moment, ‘The Artist and the Mathematician’ by Amir D. Aczel. One of the mathematicians (Jewish) discussed, Alexandre Grothendieck, had a very difficult, impoverished life in his early to teenage years, which included being incarcerated in camps in southern France during WWII. There were many occasions in his life when he was alone, with much time for thought and reflection. He was to become pre-eminent in the world of mathematics, despite the more privileged upbringings of his peers, due to his creativity which was part of his genius. There were others more learned than he, but not as creative. At one point he realised the importance of learning how to be alone. He was not good working with groups, despite participating. He wanted to verify for himself the mathematical facts he came across, rather than accept ideas that people took to be true “by consensus”. Even so, he was welcomed within the groups. ‘Grothendieck was not just a mathematician who could understand the discipline and prove important results – he was a man who could ‘create’ mathematics. And he did it alone.’ (quote taken from p. 54 – publ. Thunder’s Mouth Press, N.Y. 2006).

Having wisdom is one thing and to dispense that wisdom creatively would be a good extra to add. Creativity often resists categorisation, despite the tendency of many to stable it and only allow it to run when permitted.

Dear Liat

the notion of “emotional” stance in ethical discourse is quite different to what you are alluding to. The nearest equivalent would be “idiosyncratic”, “individual” or, simply, personal. A.J.Ayer, for instance, uses as opposite “radical empiricism” and I, for one, am very happy with it.( “Language, Truth and Logic” , Pelican, ).
In your reply I found precisely what “emotional” means as above. I can also reduce the discussion to the analogy that ethics are not quite like wearing a dress to your fancy, bugger what people think. Behaviour in society can only be acceptable if…. society accepts it.
I am also aware that there are frequent views that personal gratification, happiness, not specifically prescribed by a “rigid” system, is perfectly acceptable as “ethics”, harking back to that Aristotelian pursuit. I will offer only one reference; if only some 20 years back longevity on a job was a favourable point, these days frequent changes of employment are a plus !!! A salient point. In our case, trust in Judaic wisdom assures me, at least, of MY longevity in happiness.

In my discourse with you so far I have not used the emotive statements you refer to, and as much as writing can hint at one’s emotive state, you have not been given full access to mine by any means. In fact, I suggest to you if you cast your eyes over our discussion, yours is far more emotionally excitable than mine. You might be going into male default here (a bit like the kitchen references) and assuming because I’m a woman I’m over-emotional, impossibly subjective and therefore unable to argue my case objectively. As a woman I must be more careful than a man in how I express myself due to this inappropriate expectation and assumption. And I am. Again, I suggest much of your discussion is coloured by your strong emotive reaction to the subject matter, as well as your ‘owning’ of it. Being subjective and being emotional should be seen as two separate things. None of us can escape subjectivity in assessing things.

It is my mind that has always saved me in life, saved me and sustained me. Being at the complete mercy of emotions leads to chaos and no understanding of self or the other. Being a slave to intellectual analysis has the same result. As to happiness, I’ve never mentioned that word, and think it highly ridiculous, and damaging, the way Western people chase happiness, as if it’s an entity in itself, as if it’s somewhere up there for the reaching and the taking. It’s not – we’re lurching between kinds of happiness and various levels of sadness, anger, anxiety throughout our days. So my motto is, just accept that and live through the lot.

I don’t impinge my views on anybody else – I don’t even say I’m right. I express my views as cogently as I can and they’re there for you or anyone else to accept or not. I would change my view if I thought your comments or argument warranted it.
The thing is, Otto, nothing should be pronounced ‘incontestable’. Contesting something can be a kind of feeling out for further understanding sometimes. There’s no harm in contesting ideas or querying the way laws and ideas are arrived at and carried out. There’s no harm in objecting to them, either, if you consider them unfair or harmful. There would be more harm involved in not being allowed to do so.

It does not come as news to me that you are happy to ignore examples of Rabbis who don’t measure up ethically or competently. I am not so hard on what my idea of a Rabbi is that I expect perfection (I don’t even believe perfection possible, and don’t care for it at all as a concept); everybody makes mistakes and all of us have differing capacities and abilities. I’m sure you will agree, however, that there are certain lines one does not cross when making mistakes, especially when you are servicing others, and that’s where the framework and elements of ethics come into it. I assume you would not ignore news of a Rabbi being a serial killer or a child molester, or even a voyeur as has been the case recently in the mikveh case ?! I do certainly admire and respect a Rabbi if he maintains humility, compassion, and strength to be honest within the institution in which he works; also if his intellect allows far-reaching and pertinent comments on important aspects of life and the events taking place. Oh, and if he will deign to have equal conversation with a woman. If you want to consider inspiring discussion on all manner of things from an Orthodox Jewish perspective, have a look at the website of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. For starters, perhaps read ‘Covenant & Conversation 5775 on Ethics: The Face of Evil (Beshalach 5775) – 26/01/15, and a much older posting, ‘One Thing a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian and a Humanist can agree on – 04/03/2006 (I’m not usually one for inter-faith type dialogue, but that’s not what this is about).

You suggest my ethical ‘rules’ should be tested to see if ‘a larger contingent of individuals subscribe in a complex cognitive manner’ – my thoughts on ethics and morality are already out there for all and sundry to agree with or not. I’m always interested in what others think. However, I do not have to bow down before the majority if they don’t make a case that convinces me. My response can be to maintain my own thoughts, build on them, or change them. It’s as open as that. I am not immoveable. Are you yourself open to the possibility of change?

Dear Liat
I shall be “brief” because I am launching myself again into convoluted phrases.
We are still talking ethical values as promoted by Rabbi Ingram.
I am more interested in the objective validity of ethical statements. While necessarily we must use normative ethical symbols , such as “good”, “wrong” , to which “acceptable”, “being partial to”, “preferred” and other emotive statements will inevitably be attached, we are still stuck with the fact that “wrong” or “good” or even “proper” and “acceptable” have no meaning by theselves simply because the ONLY reflect Liat Nagar’s emotive state. In other words why would YOUR happiness ( and here we are back at Aristotel’s concept of personal state ) or personal acceptance of ethical categories, as you see/understand/ express them impinge on my or anybody else’s condition. Saving for the forceful imposition on some individual you would “control”, once again not acceptable, anyone else is quite free to adopt the same position as you and , then, we will inevitably, have a muted or otherwise “balagan” of individual emnotions involved in an explosive existential vessel.
What I am proposing are notions verified in concrete terms of an ethical complex and comprehensive by its DYNAMIC , perpetually adjustable, ethical source i.e Judaism. As pragmatic evidence is by far the most important condition for its social validity, Judaism has been working consistently over millenia in the MOST tried circumstances. What matters most is a continuum of socially cohesive manifestations, an incontestable phenomenology for which such seemingly “odd” institutions as those lead by Rabbis are responsible. Occasional failures by the way of variables in human competence do NOT come into discussion, so, if someone wants to retort by giving us examples of certain Rabbis who did not comply, I am very happy to ignore them….
To conclude more directly, the stated “fact” that you have created a satisfactory set of ethical “rules” can only be classed as commendable and legitimate, but shouldn’t it be tested to see if a larger contingent of individuals subscribe in a complex cognitive manner to them !!!
Careful, once again, that what may be a genuine proposition for you, using those normative symbols, may be “attacked” by so many anxious to have THEIR concepts constructed in exactly the same manner, aired and accepted…It could be anyone, even poor little ME.

One does not have to accept every construct established in the process of learning. To do so would mean no original thought and no development of thought that sometimes provides new ‘facts’ and illumination. It would certainly preclude creativity! Writing our own thoughts makes us part of the building block of others who went before us and who are with us now. That is a beautiful thing. That is how we can be at once connected and singular. My singularity has nothing to do with ‘detachment’ from humanity, but rather a certain detachment from what is before me to explore, examine and discuss, so that I can do so without the handicap of prejudice and/or immediate alignment with the precepts of others. I’m never going to be completely free of these, but I can try to the best of my ability.

It is, I believe, quite ridiculous to say that arguing, or disagreeing, with spiritual constructs, or anything else, negates the claims of others, reflects superiority, and means that I know better. To think differently is not necessarily to know better. Thoughts are not necessarily final anyway – along comes other information, different facts, and one can change their thinking. I am quite open to that, however I think perhaps you are not.

I fear after all the words we have shared, you understand me not. Autonomous thought does not mean dismissal of another’s view. Arguing about tenets of Judaism, or anything else, does not imply being dismissive. It implies different thought, and not necessarily TOTALLY different thought. You are too immediately on the defence, then into attacking mode, on this subject, and perhaps need to allow other perspectives to percolate a bit so that they can intrude on your own cerebral space. I’m not having a go in saying that. The issue of cerebral space can be looked at in many ways.

Dear Liat

with due affectionate respect for your resolute, passionate reclaiming of your singular place under the sun, that precious independence/autonomy of thought and action, I must also consider that the very validity one’s ( anyone’s ) such claims can only be afforded if anchored in those indispensable “cannons” of extended social “contracts” , all based on collectively agreed principles. In other words, perhaps even more convoluted, the insular man/woman, no matter how self-reliant,can only be relevant to others ( and those others matter in as much as you DO impart your thoughts with them ) if they can relate to them, so, your insular status is more like part of a universal archipelago intimately linked by a myriad of causeways. And thus, we arrive at the point whereby it becomes too evident that your singularity and implicit detachment may not be be SO distinct from the rest of contributing factors to your substantial being. Hence we are what we eat and also what we learn and what we learn is provided from outside, it is the environment which shapes us. Ethics, once again, are precisely the construct which gels all those “autonomous” free agents. Now would be the time to comment that, while we protest against being considered some kind of an “elitist”, not thinking superior to whatever, the very dismissal you affirm of anything – including important tenets of Judaism, never mind other spiritual constructs – is very identical to asserting your…superiority. Sorry , but this is what negating other claims really means i.e. that you are/know better than them.

There is an apparent contradiction in accepting changes to the 18C while objecting to the profile and contents of such publications as ”
Charlie Hebdo”. What could mitigate in favour of Rabbi Ingram’s stances would be the very manner in which necessary objections should be expressed. The issue at hand is freedom of expression/objection as well as the fact that our society should guarantee civilised platforms of manifestations of stances. Particular groups with programs/ideologies/strategies need to be publicly exposed , including their right to assert themselves, REGARDLESS of their profiles, in other words allowing all to manifest peacefully in the public domain. Peaceful is implicit not by means of intimidation of any kind, including verbal etc. Once above that surface we call ” civil society ” , cvilised modes of retort should also be allowed. Those capable by “mere” competence to express their – their interest group’s – objections would exercise that opportunity of deflecting/eliminating the unwanted effects of the entities they object to. In OUR case, Judaic individuals properly trained would consider it their duty to put forward the alternative Jewish stance Providentially inspired/capable to eliminate the objectionable. We do sing in Shul on all Shabbos “Adon Olam” which ends with the most engaging line ” Adonai li vlo ira”, “G-d is with me and I do not fear ( anything)”. That, to me , is a perfect starting point, but only if I do poses what G-d had intended me to acquire in knowledge. We close thus the circle here by alluding to the fact that it is not an oppressive “submission” to accept wisdom originating outside our cerebral space, rather be grateful that it is available. To this extent, I would object in my own civilised manner to some of the ways “Charlie Hebdo” manifested their collective believes and as such I would say that their fairly decisive leftist/atheist ideology does allow offensive expressions. I would not resort, though, to any acts of violence and that is what I strongly abhor the unfolding “Charlie Hebdo” tragedy.