lazybeds

You make something, as an artist, a poet,a cook,a project manager or whatever. You are inclined to think it is a good piece of work and there was even some excitement as you completed it. It gave you pleasure to review it, to hold in in your hands, to read it through, to taste it, its intrinsic properties blending with the thrill of having created something.

And then you submit it to a body of critics - your circle of friends, the people at table,the committee, the review pages of the newspapers,and their appreciation is somewhat restrained. Maybe there is puzzlement, or the subject is changed quickly and politely.

I had this once with a poem. Untypically, it buzzed me awake at 4 a.m., three images wrapped round a pre-occupation, and later fell into a very satisfactory shape, at least to my mind. I shared it with friends. Mystification, embarrassed coughing, quick slide to a new topic. Though I would read it from time to time for my own enjoyment, it was put aside under a cloud of doubt about its value to anyone else.

Then, a year or two later I showed it to the tutors at a poetry course and they liked it a lot. I also heard from a friend abroad that on reading she had been overcome with tears thought she did not understand a word of it. My baby!

Question is, how do you know when and when not to back your own judgment? These friendly critics are really important to me for their honest feedback. With poetry the solution is fairly easy - you put it in the drawer for a long time and then have a fresh look at it. With other things it is far from straightforward. At any rate I guess it is a special blend of humility and sheer stubborn-ness.

I like this quote from George Monbiot:

"Trouble-making is a costly nuisance, a drain on public resources, an impediment to the smooth functioning of government. It is also one of the only means by which our political leaders can be forced to address the concerns of the excluded, the dispossessed or, indeed, anyone who does not number among their target voters."

This chimed in with reading Paul Robeson's essays in "Here I Stand" where he chides the Gradualists, those who looked for incremental improvements in civil rights through patience and a growth in understanding.

I think the nature of the stushie is really important. I am suspicious of actual revolutions since they seem usually to bring in something worse than the status quo ante. At the other end the doctrine of "always keep a hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse" just will not wash. These days I am a bit muddled about how to navigate between these extremes. Clarification work needed.