Is it possible to write literature in a repressive regime?

[kev67]

I have just read Orwell's essay, Prevention of Literature. In it he writes that good literature is impossible to write in a totalitarian or repressive regime, because either the author's work is censored and the author is punished, or the author has to self-censor, in which case he cannot write freely. He said there were very few good books written in the Soviet Union in the first half the 20th century after the Russian Revolution. He also said there were very few books written in the Mediaeval period because of the dominance of the Catholic Church. I wondered how true this was. Shakespeare seem to be able to write good literature (although I do not like it myself) and he was living at a time when you could be hung, drawn and quartered for treason. Shakespeare did not seem to mind keeping off some dangerous subjects. Indeed, he wrote the some very sychophantic plays. For example, one of his plays villifies King Richard III, in the process justifying Queen Elizabeth's grandfather in usurping the throne. Richard III was not a good man, but Shakespeare wrote no plays about Henry VIII, the queen's father, who was much, much worse. When Elizabeth I died, she was succeeded by James I of England, also James VI of Scotland. Almost immediately, Shakespeare writes Macbeth, which flattered King James by having a character tell his forbear, Banquo, that his line would succeed forever. He also flattered James by writing a play with witches in them. James was very interested in witches, and took part in interrogating them (I believe). Another thing that Orwell said was that there were not many good Catholic writers, because the Catholic Church had been very controlling and censorious. There seemed to be a whole school of mid-twentieth century Catholic writers, for example Graeme Green, Muriel Spark and Evelyn Waugh, so where did he get this from? Also, is it true that no good literature came out of Russia after the revolution?

[wordeater]

There are some great writers in the USSR period: Bulgakov, Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn. They had huge problems with the regime however. They're the exception that confirms the rule.

[Emil Miller]

I have just read Orwell's essay, Prevention of Literature. In it he writes that good literature is impossible to write in a totalitarian or repressive regime, because either the author's work is censored and the author is punished, or the author has to self-censor, in which case he cannot write freely. He said there were very few good books written in the Soviet Union in the first half the 20th century after the Russian Revolution. He also said there were very few books written in the Mediaeval period because of the dominance of the Catholic Church. I wondered how true this was. Shakespeare seem to be able to write good literature (although I do not like it myself) and he was living at a time when you could be hung, drawn and quartered for treason. Shakespeare did not seem to mind keeping off some dangerous subjects. Indeed, he wrote the some very sychophantic plays. For example, one of his plays villifies King Richard III, in the process justifying Queen Elizabeth's grandfather in usurping the throne. Richard III was not a good man, but Shakespeare wrote no plays about Henry VIII, the queen's father, who was much, much worse. When Elizabeth I died, she was succeeded by James I of England, also James VI of Scotland. Almost immediately, Shakespeare writes Macbeth, which flattered King James by having a character tell his forbear, Banquo, that his line would succeed forever. He also flattered James by writing a play with witches in them. James was very interested in witches, and took part in interrogating them (I believe). Another thing that Orwell said was that there were not many good Catholic writers, because the Catholic Church had been very controlling and censorious. There seemed to be a whole school of mid-twentieth century Catholic writers, for example Graeme Green, Muriel Spark and Evelyn Waugh, so where did he get this from? Also, is it true that no good literature came out of Russia after the revolution?

Much would depend on what is meant by repressive. For example, there is a difference between the dictatorship of Napoleon III's Second Empire and that of Joseph Stalin's USSR. In both cases however, critically acclaimed works such as those by Emile Zola, Alphonse Daudet and Gustave Flaubert in France and Mikhail Sholokhov, Boris Pasternak and Mikhail Bulgakov in Russia were written under politically repressive regimes. True, writers under such circumstances have to be careful about overt criticism of the government but that doesn't preclude good writing. Indeed,there's an argument to be made that the need for judicious selection in what is being written can enhance a work rather than degrade it. Orwell sometimes let his loathing for dictatorships in general and that of the USSR in particular, overrule reality.

[mal4mac]

James I was very interested in witches, even writing a book about them. I've just read a superb novel by Jeanette Winterson. "The Daylight Gate", which centres on the Lancaster witch trials during James I reign. Shakespeare even makes an appearance!

[AuntShecky]

In my opinion the only time that it's impossible to write literature occurs when the would-be author consciously intends to write "literature."

[PeterL]

Silly question, of course it is possible to write literature under a repressive government. It happens all the time.

[kev67]

There are some great writers in the USSR period: Bulgakov, Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn. They had huge problems with the regime however. They're the exception that confirms the rule.

I have just been reading about Boris Pasternak on wikipedia. His experience seemed to confirm Orwell's essay. Orwell said a poet was more likely to get in print than a story writer in a totalitarian regime. Wiki says Boris Pasternak received a telephone call from Stalin shortly after one of Pasternak's friends had been picked up for writing pieces critical of the regime - scary :(

Still, I suppose it depends what sort of literature you're trying to write. I don't suppose Jane Austen need have worried, or might she: her subjects were bourgeois.

[JCamilo]

Orwell wrote some non-sense. Maiakovski and other russian poets also had problem with the Communist regime. And of course, that Pushkin, Tolstoy, Turgeniev and Dostoieviski - who was almsot excuted - existed completly throws his theory on the garbage can. And Flaubert was persecuted and his subjects were "burgeois" as well. Forget Orwell.

[hannah_arendt]

I think that it is possible. There are many very good polish writers writing during comunism. In almost each country exists situation when somthing is forbidden. There isn`t anything like pure freedom.

[mona amon]

That's true but as Emil said earlier, there are different types of repression, and different degrees. Not being able to write about gay relationships in the nineteenth century is different from having to submit all work for approval by a Ministry for Cultural Affairs or something. There will always be writers who manage to get themselves heard even in the most repressive regimes because resistance is the natural counterpart of repression, but I do not think this completely invalidates what Orwell is saying. Surely there must be many artists who cannot subvert, circumvent, resist, escape to another country or produce work that conforms to official requirements and still remains great.


Indeed,there's an argument to be made that the need for judicious selection in what is being written can enhance a work rather than degrade it.

This is so true! Complete absense of restrictions tends to produce quantities of self-indulgent, egocentric rubbish, but hopefully the great works also have a better chance of being created.

[kasie]

..... Shakespeare wrote no plays about Henry VIII, the queen's father, who was much, much worse.......

Granted there is considerable debate about whether Shakespeare did indeed write The Famous History of Henry the Eight, subtitled All is True, or, if he did not write all of it, which bits he did write, the play is generally ascribed to him and was printed in the First Folio.

As to whether it is possible for good literature to be written in a repressive regime, I can't see any reason why it should not be - the real problem would be getting it past the censors and published for general reading.

[AuntShecky]

As to whether it is possible for good literature to be written in a repressive regime, I can't see any reason why it should not be - the real problem would be getting it past the censors and published for general reading.

The real problem is getting published. Period. This is true even under non-repressive regimes which have a different kind of repression under an oppressive economic system.

[JCamilo]

Not to mention some people forget there were good writers being published because they actually supported the regime. Writers of all spectrum since ever.

[JBI]

Not to mention some people forget there were good writers being published because they actually supported the regime. Writers of all spectrum since ever.

Would we include Virgil in that group? When does a regime become restrictive in the 1984 sense. Most of the great totalitarian regimes were big on the arts. Rome, Tudor England, even Nazi Germany.

In general art is often Regarded as a period's mouthpiece. In that sense most repressive regimes went out of their way to fund their artists. The moral compass of art has always been limited.

[JCamilo]

Virgil and Ovid of course, one dying on the Emperor's arms and the other facing an exile. Art is a form of wealth and power. Literature then, the domain of writting text that belonged to few was a extreme form of power. Tyrants are not dumb to let it go and in many ways were educated to keep "writting" as their power. In a sense, literature was a form of exclusion. Usually when the regime persecute a literary movement they support another.

I think it is extreme rare sittuations like the late nazist germany, when the regime went cutting heads like crazy wihtout replacing with their own writers. In the end, Orwell idea (if it is what he really said) is not an accurate historical analyse. It is more an ideology: writers should face the tyranny and because of that they must be persecuted. That can be the only explanation, as he certainly cannot ignore that being totalitariam is a basic russian's tradition and that didn't stop their literature at all.

[AuntShecky]

Would we include Virgil in that group? When does a regime become restrictive in the 1984 sense. Most of the great totalitarian regimes were big on the arts. Rome, Tudor England, even Nazi Germany.

In general art is often Regarded as a period's mouthpiece. In that sense most repressive regimes went out of their way to fund their artists. The moral compass of art has always been limited.

I don't know about Nazi Germany -- maybe you could argue that Riefenstahl was clever with a movie camera, but the stuff she produced was blatant propaganda. Same with Stalinist Russia-- the arts the regime supported had a steady assembly line of paintings about tractors, tanks, etc., and they certainly "went out of their way" to throw writers like Solzhenitzen into the gulag.

[JBI]

Yes, but Virgil is propaganda as well. As are Spenser and even much of Tennyson or even the later Wordsworth. There is no connection between silence and authoritarian regimes. And there is very little that separates good or even great art from Propaganda. I like to use interesting examples, such as the massive Buddhas in the Yungang grottoes outside of Datong China being carved with the heads of the Northern Chinese Emperors of the time.

The majority of renaissance works in the west were commissioned by people in positions of power. We don't go around advocating the burning of Ariosto.

[AuntShecky]

the massive Buddhas in the Yungang grottoes outside of Datong China being carved with the heads of the Northern Chinese Emperors of the time.

Why-- because of a shortage of marble? Oh, I kid, I kid.

Seriously, I think we're more in agreement than not.

[NedSiegel]

Write great literature under a repressive regime? Yes. Publish it? Usually not. Not if it is perceived by the regime to threaten its authority, mores, doctrine, or other teaching. But it could be smuggled and published abroad, as often happens.

[Eiseabhal]

Well Orwell was political and politically he was right but he was wrong about it being impossible to write quality literature. It is true that if there is a repressive orthodoxy then some expression is stifled, some is strangled but some slips through in apparently innocuous form and some finds its audience outside the borders of the repression (which may still be within the state boundaries)or after the repression has ended. It was the case that inferior sycophantic party-line art was encouraged in the Soviet decades but there were good writers probably unknown to Orwell or the majority of readers within the Soviet state and these authors were producing good work surreptitiously or work which had just enough orthodoxy to slip by the Marxist/atheist mumbo-jumboists without them noticing. The soviet state had periods of relaxation as well as nasty restrictions.