LOVE THIS ESSAY! especially speaks to people in academic settings who are urged to be transformative and break barriers, but only in the most sterilized sense as you can’t be so provocative as to call out the organizations who control whether your work is deemed worthy of praise + and good grade.
wow. this quote here put so many of my thoughts into words: “These are the essays, often (though not always) told as a first-person account of the author’s own experience, that are usually grouped under the umbrella of ‘creative nonfiction’—and they are decidedly not the kind of essays that I usually feel inclined to write. The defining feature of such writing is that while it engages with political subjects, it rarely, if ever, makes concrete political arguments—at least, not without fully or partially cloaking its ideological message behind an opaque aesthetic veneer.” thank you for writing this!
I wrote my undergrad thesis on Arundhati Roy, I think she is interesting compared to ie Rebecca Solnit because she has the traditional literary acclaim of winning the booker as well as heaps and heaps of essays/non-fiction. I do think that in some ways the Ministry of Utmost Happiness was recieved very differently by the literary world because of her two decades of political/ideological writing. In many ways it is a much more collectivist book, with a much more practical vision of utopia (at least in small scales) than the delicate melancholy of The God of Small Things. Yet it was the debut novel by a previously unknown writer from a non-US/Europe country that was held up as a triumph, not the assured sophomore novel from a confident, acclaimed activist. (I'm sure that sales of The Ministry of Utmost Happiness were fine, and so were reviews -- but it was a very different reception!)
oh this is a fascinating point and you’re so right! would love to hear more about the similarities/differences with solnit as a point of comparison in your view
very slow reply! but I've been reading Roy's Azadi collection, where she talks about this heaps. Both Solnit and Roy have spent lots of time actually in the radical communities they're writing about, being on the ground, doing the boring stuff. And both of them have been bold in writing about new things - Solnit has such a broad remit from nuclear tests to climate change and Roy had written lots about agriculture policy, indigenous people, American colonisation and the oppression of the caste system. They're clearly both 'say yes' people who editors know they can rely on for good, thoughtful content (perhaps at time to the detriment of younger writers working in the same space).
But I think by having fiction as a tool too, her too extraordinary books, Roy is better at building a picture of the world as it is as it could be, both at once. This is totally what the Ministry of Utmost Happiness is about, hijra women making a new form of hospitality in an India where Muslims are oppressed, India is implicated in the Iraq War, surveillance is everywhere, the Gujurat riots and military occupation of Kashmir are murderous forces, not facts of life. Perhaps Roy's understanding of language is from English being her second language - she writes exquisitely in Azadi about coming to Delhi as a young architecture student at a campus full of Indians from different parts of the country, finding a mutual language in sharing joints and going to the movies. I think lots of people, including literary critics (and myself a little bit) find it hard to balance the clarity and explicitness of Roy's nonfiction with the subtlety and humour of her novels.
Thank you for writing this! I have also been feeling the tension of writing "literary" works vs writing "political" works. Most days I can't write because I'm afraid what I want to write cannot and will not be enough to make any difference so reading this feels like a pat in the back and an encouragement to keep going <3
I am truly in love with this essay. There is almost no section that would not be worth to restack. This resonates to the blues of this moment in history as it does with all the continuous struggles still strong.
you're so real for writing this amazingly put together essay!! I have probably shifted more than a millimetre reading this; despite agreeing with your points already, reading this inspired me so much
This is so well written and researched. I was actually surprised reading this because I've always considered 'political' and well researched essays more literary than personal, broad topiced essays. I feel like the thrill of reading something that has rich vocabulary with is well researched with thoroughly thought out sources and arguments is unbeatable. Everytime I came across an essay like yours or a political one or anything that requires a specific amount of research I always get so happy. I myself don't write such essays because I just never have the time to sit and put so much work into it, and I'm sure for you and others it's normal writing but I'd give my KIDNEY to be able to conjure up something like this as you have. Great essay, great writing, great topic I loved this so much. ♡
I have tried to do nothing but make concrete political argument since I self published my book “Stairway to Peace: Zionism, Transcendence, and the Human Condition” and started my Substack. What did I discover? That people are uncomfortable with new ways of seeing the issues. They may like the writing but are hesitant to share it. It’s as if they wonder if what they read makes sense or is just crazy talk. Actually I don’t blame them. I often wonder that about my writing too.
I have been writing political comment fo fifty years. My comments have been refused publication by decisions made far from my home local and applied to local and regional news outlets. Early in my effort at making change I wrote a couple of short stories that presented moral dilemma faced and resolved with negative personal consequence.
I realized that confronting the crimes of imperialism required direct honest discription , the poignancy of betrayals, the deliberate misrepresentation of acts of resistance, the violence of repression and war is presented in factual description supported by evidence and logic.
Our writing may never be widely known. Our purpose may be blocked. But we don’t write because we desire personal recognition, we write to express what we believe needs to be expressed.
Literary critics are not considered in our purpose or in the words we use to express it.
We write what we feel compelled to, we express our meaning directly or subtly according to our assessment of the audience and the state repressive reaction, the consequence we are prepared to absorb and fight .
Let the world appraise our product as it will now and in the future. We need to express what we feel in words that do so.
‘They know they have nothing to fear from the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucracy, but they sense that to defeat the working class only a fascist dictatorship will suffice.’
I have definitely shifted by a millimeter reading this
that’s always the goal!
LOVE THIS ESSAY! especially speaks to people in academic settings who are urged to be transformative and break barriers, but only in the most sterilized sense as you can’t be so provocative as to call out the organizations who control whether your work is deemed worthy of praise + and good grade.
wow. this quote here put so many of my thoughts into words: “These are the essays, often (though not always) told as a first-person account of the author’s own experience, that are usually grouped under the umbrella of ‘creative nonfiction’—and they are decidedly not the kind of essays that I usually feel inclined to write. The defining feature of such writing is that while it engages with political subjects, it rarely, if ever, makes concrete political arguments—at least, not without fully or partially cloaking its ideological message behind an opaque aesthetic veneer.” thank you for writing this!
I wrote my undergrad thesis on Arundhati Roy, I think she is interesting compared to ie Rebecca Solnit because she has the traditional literary acclaim of winning the booker as well as heaps and heaps of essays/non-fiction. I do think that in some ways the Ministry of Utmost Happiness was recieved very differently by the literary world because of her two decades of political/ideological writing. In many ways it is a much more collectivist book, with a much more practical vision of utopia (at least in small scales) than the delicate melancholy of The God of Small Things. Yet it was the debut novel by a previously unknown writer from a non-US/Europe country that was held up as a triumph, not the assured sophomore novel from a confident, acclaimed activist. (I'm sure that sales of The Ministry of Utmost Happiness were fine, and so were reviews -- but it was a very different reception!)
oh this is a fascinating point and you’re so right! would love to hear more about the similarities/differences with solnit as a point of comparison in your view
very slow reply! but I've been reading Roy's Azadi collection, where she talks about this heaps. Both Solnit and Roy have spent lots of time actually in the radical communities they're writing about, being on the ground, doing the boring stuff. And both of them have been bold in writing about new things - Solnit has such a broad remit from nuclear tests to climate change and Roy had written lots about agriculture policy, indigenous people, American colonisation and the oppression of the caste system. They're clearly both 'say yes' people who editors know they can rely on for good, thoughtful content (perhaps at time to the detriment of younger writers working in the same space).
But I think by having fiction as a tool too, her too extraordinary books, Roy is better at building a picture of the world as it is as it could be, both at once. This is totally what the Ministry of Utmost Happiness is about, hijra women making a new form of hospitality in an India where Muslims are oppressed, India is implicated in the Iraq War, surveillance is everywhere, the Gujurat riots and military occupation of Kashmir are murderous forces, not facts of life. Perhaps Roy's understanding of language is from English being her second language - she writes exquisitely in Azadi about coming to Delhi as a young architecture student at a campus full of Indians from different parts of the country, finding a mutual language in sharing joints and going to the movies. I think lots of people, including literary critics (and myself a little bit) find it hard to balance the clarity and explicitness of Roy's nonfiction with the subtlety and humour of her novels.
Thank you for writing this! I have also been feeling the tension of writing "literary" works vs writing "political" works. Most days I can't write because I'm afraid what I want to write cannot and will not be enough to make any difference so reading this feels like a pat in the back and an encouragement to keep going <3
I am truly in love with this essay. There is almost no section that would not be worth to restack. This resonates to the blues of this moment in history as it does with all the continuous struggles still strong.
you're so real for writing this amazingly put together essay!! I have probably shifted more than a millimetre reading this; despite agreeing with your points already, reading this inspired me so much
I saved this essay because I know that I'll be returning to it again and again. Thank you for writing and sharing it with us.
Bit late to the party but better late than never. Consider me officially on board. Death to subtlety, long live nuance!
This is a lovely piece, thanks.
This is so well written and researched. I was actually surprised reading this because I've always considered 'political' and well researched essays more literary than personal, broad topiced essays. I feel like the thrill of reading something that has rich vocabulary with is well researched with thoroughly thought out sources and arguments is unbeatable. Everytime I came across an essay like yours or a political one or anything that requires a specific amount of research I always get so happy. I myself don't write such essays because I just never have the time to sit and put so much work into it, and I'm sure for you and others it's normal writing but I'd give my KIDNEY to be able to conjure up something like this as you have. Great essay, great writing, great topic I loved this so much. ♡
Extraordinary!
This essay is an absolute banger
I have tried to do nothing but make concrete political argument since I self published my book “Stairway to Peace: Zionism, Transcendence, and the Human Condition” and started my Substack. What did I discover? That people are uncomfortable with new ways of seeing the issues. They may like the writing but are hesitant to share it. It’s as if they wonder if what they read makes sense or is just crazy talk. Actually I don’t blame them. I often wonder that about my writing too.
I have been writing political comment fo fifty years. My comments have been refused publication by decisions made far from my home local and applied to local and regional news outlets. Early in my effort at making change I wrote a couple of short stories that presented moral dilemma faced and resolved with negative personal consequence.
I realized that confronting the crimes of imperialism required direct honest discription , the poignancy of betrayals, the deliberate misrepresentation of acts of resistance, the violence of repression and war is presented in factual description supported by evidence and logic.
Our writing may never be widely known. Our purpose may be blocked. But we don’t write because we desire personal recognition, we write to express what we believe needs to be expressed.
Literary critics are not considered in our purpose or in the words we use to express it.
We write what we feel compelled to, we express our meaning directly or subtly according to our assessment of the audience and the state repressive reaction, the consequence we are prepared to absorb and fight .
Let the world appraise our product as it will now and in the future. We need to express what we feel in words that do so.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/02/22/lays-f22.html
‘They know they have nothing to fear from the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucracy, but they sense that to defeat the working class only a fascist dictatorship will suffice.’