Mobilization for a Culture War

It’s practically a tradition in this country. Writers are considered solitary figures. They’re thought to be reclusive by nature and defiantly autonomous. It’s simply not in them to be joiners. Good writers are supposed to stand alone: artists within worlds of their own making.

But, at least for some, that romantic stereotype is giving way to a more realistic image. Around lofty ideals like freedom of expression and cultural diversity, American writers are starting to take collective action. Out of pragmatic self-interest, they’re beginning to demonstrate a tough new attitude. In growing numbers, creators of the written word are realizing that it’s time to protect themselves and their creative product.

That may be why the often imprisoned playwright-turned-President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, hit such a raw nerve earlier this year. Addressing the U.S. Congress in February, he said: “It is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distaste for politics under an alleged need to be independent.”

His words struck at the heart of a new crisis among American writers. For some, the message was supremely irritating--the invitation to nothing less repugnant than a herd mentality. For others, it was simply a reminder that even among literary artists, there is strength in numbers. And this latter group, from the famous to the obscure, has been waging guerrilla battles in a war with several fronts.

The best-publicized of those struggles has been the increasingly bitter conflict over the besieged National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Driven by the ominous specter of more censorship by statute, representatives from various writers’ groups met in Washington late last year to form the Coalition of Writers Organizations (COWO).

By the time the group met again on a rainy February weekend at the Writers Center in Bethesda, Md., more than 60 writers’ organizations were represented, including PEN Center USA West, the Authors Guild, the Modern Language Assn., the Associated Writing Programs, the Writers Guild, the Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Poets & Writers, the National Writers Union, the Before Columbus Foundation and scores of others.

In effect, COWO represents the best attempt, so far, by American writers to establish a single, collective, national voice on issues of mutual concern.

The effort proved to be a serious one. In fewer than seven months, the group has hired one of the capital’s top lobbyists to argue for its positions, pledged itself to raise $100,000 in operating and outreach monies, and personally met with key Congressional representatives on issues ranging from book bannings to reauthorization of the NEA. Put simply, COWO has become a formidable force within the arts world.

When Congressional hearings on the NEA were to be held in March and April, COWO lobbied hard to have writers testify. (Believe it or not, we were not included at first.) And COWO won. Ultimately, writers Garrison Keillor, Norman Cousins and Larry McMurtry testified in support of the NEA.

The organization’s reputation was further enhanced in May when Rep. Pat Williams (D-Mont.), leader of the pro-free expression forces in the House of Representatives, formed an advisory group to help resolve the agency’s future. COWO was one of the first groups that he asked for help and input. Along with older and better established arts organizations such as the American Arts Alliance, American Council for the Arts, American Assn. of Museums and the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, COWO’s representatives met for four days to help hammer out a report entitled “Artistic Freedom: Our American Heritage.” Williams plans to use it as the basis for amendments to a White House bill reauthorizing the NEA.

Whatever the ultimate fate of the NEA, COWO has helped unite writers in the war against censorship. According to Richard Bray, a member of the group’s steering committee and executive director of PEN Center USA West, COWO “is here to stay.” At a time when the prestigious University of Iowa Press chooses to reject a $12,000 NEA grant rather than sign an anti-obscenity oath, COWO will be a vital force in the escalating clash with pro-censorship groups.

Writers and their allies also are organizing around issues of more obvious self-interest. For example, they’re in the thick of fairly serious discussions with this nation’s $14-billion book-publishing industry. Under the leadership of the National Writers Union (NWU), a campaign to rectify inequities in contractual agreements with publishers has been launched. Called the Book Campaign of the National Writers Union, it concentrates on four major areas of concern to working writers: clear royalty statements, timelier payment of those royalties, non-returnable advances and arbitration provisions.

According to a letter from the NWU to the Assn. of American Publishers, “The sad fact is that most authors can barely support themselves from their writing. The average full-time published author earns about $10,000 a year from writing and must rely on a second job or the earnings of a spouse to make ends meet. . . . As writers, we know that our creative work is the heart and soul of the publishing industry. We are willing to struggle to put words on paper, but we see no reason to tolerate substandard conditions.” Signers included Isabel Allende, Toni Cade Bambara, Russell Banks, William Burroughs, Barbara Ehrenreich, Herbert Gold, Tracy Kidder, Jonathan Kozol, Tillie Olsen, Marge Piercy, John Rechy, Scott Turow and Alice Walker.

In a related development, the Authors Guild is paying for the random auditing of the royalty statements of three books published by major houses. The audit of the books was organized by the guild to check the accuracy of publishers’ royalty statements. Guild president Robert K. Massie thinks the program will be expanded next year “to include subsidiary paperback contracts, multi-book contracts, textbook contracts, and university and small-press contracts.”

For anyone whose emotional identity and economic survival depend on literary expression, this era calls for pragmatism and action. A recent news item, tucked neatly away on page something-or-other of a few major newspapers, tells it all. A single poem by e.e. cummings caused such controversy that one Michigan school board withdrew the “offending” text from its classrooms. As one board member put it: “The poem was open to numerous interpretations, one of which was explicitly sexual.”

The American Library Assn.’s (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom reports more than 1,000 cases in the last year alone where materials have been removed from schools and libraries. The American Booksellers Assn. (ABA), the ALA, several bookstore chains and publishers felt compelled to take the unprecedented step of buying full-page ads in newspapers across the nation to say that there is “increasing intolerance, which is changing the fabric of America.”

The good news is that 75,000 readers responded positively to the ads by sending in ballots supporting artistic freedom. Last month, the ABA established the Foundation for Free Expression to further help writers and readers retain their rights. And a new survey by People for the American Way has found that 93% of all Americans believe that even when they find a work of art offensive, others have a right to read or view it.

In defense of the NEA, writer Garrison Keillor recently testified before Congress on the ways in which this highly successful federal agency has helped to change the way we think about the arts. As he so aptly said: “Today, no American family can be secure against the danger that one of its children may decide to become an artist.”

That thought no doubt strikes terror in more than one American parent’s heart. It should, because at its best, the written word has always threatened the status quo. With any luck, and through well considered collective action, it always will.