The Necessity to Act


I have found that I have grown particularly weary of the mentality that is presented by Sam Hamill. Since I have returned to the U.S., I have discovered a country that is terrified to do anything. We have given up civil liberties only because we are becoming a nation of cowards. Possibly worst of all, is that we have suddenly all become victims incapable of overcoming whatever wrong was done to us, and entitled to something “more.”

I am not in total contention with this article, but many of the ideas presented in it seem a little naïve. Hamill talks about the responsibility that writers have due to their ability to stimulate emotion in the reader. He does not talk about the responsibility the reader has to exercise judgement and control. Just because someone is articulate and eloquent does not necessarily make them worthy to be listened to. For instance, Hamill says in his article that an abused child only as two options; continue being a “victim,” or “seize power and become the executioner.” Are those really the only options? Is it not incumbent upon me, as a victim of child abuse, to discover a third option where I no longer let myself be abused, and also break the cycle of violence for my children?

When it comes to reading some of the more depressing accounts of someone’s life or experiences, I wonder who is really getting more out of it. It seems that many times it should be more cathartic for the author than for the reader. The author is able to put their experience down on paper, and perhaps let some of it go. It is possible that they will, in some way, influence someone else into an action that they feel is correct. However, how much can we reasonably expect to influence someone who is capable of independent thought? Would playing the “peaceful solution” card work by sending Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or any other infamous leader, a passionate poem by one of their victims compel them to change? Hamill says that poetry is “embarrassing,” and that we cannot “bear very much reality.” This may be true to an extent. What he is referring to is the reality of abuse, rape, murder and who knows what other terrible things. While these things are, unfortunately, very real they are not the only reality. I’m not sure exactly what his point is here, it almost seems that he feels we are neglecting some sort of duty to humanity if we don’t sit around and read depressing poems by depressed people. Well, I’m not going to do that, and that does not mean that I am indifferent.

I am tired of being asked to bear the burden of other people’s poor choices. I am tired of everybody saying that people can’t be expected to overcome their environment. This attitude of only two options for victims is what is causing more victims. Human history is full of people overcoming almost overwhelming odds. I think people who need to write, or even feel like, writing poetry to communicate something or free themselves, should continue to write. However, I don’t believe that poetry is going to save the world.

It is not only a “profoundly articulated No!,” that will cause the human spirit to prevail. It is people refusing to allow themselves to remain victims. It is people who refuse to create other victims. “No!,” is just a word.