"now the "struggle" is to give voice to women who have no voice ie: those
women who are still in
some way being subjugated. Is not one of the roles of the writer to speak
for those who have no voice?"
No, it isn't. The idea is ridiculous and patronising. How can anyone presume
to speak for anyone else? I think that all writers can do - if they have the
opportunity that is - is to teach people how to express themselves - and
even that raises the question of whether it's the writer's mode of
expression that's being taught or the voiceless's that's being liberated...
"The once 'silenced' voice that emerges has a new unique sound, language, a
voice that
has soul, a wealth of knowledge, rhythm, the voice that has been struggling
to surface to tell their story."
Please give examples of how this voice is performatively different.
cheers
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|