The Politics of Fiction

https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_politics_of_fiction#t-1165327

Elif Shafak is an author of fiction who claims she is "from everywhere." She is not referring to her place of birth or even her nationality, but she is referring to her writing. In her TED talk, Shafak is arguing the importance of fictional storytelling through imagination. She begins by telling her own story, one of being racially stereotyped and bullied by her elitist schoolmates. She connects this to the politics of fiction. Shafak claims that stories should evoke a "transcendental journey into other lives; other possibilities." She wants to emphasize the importance of leaving behind your own identity, your own "cozy apartment" when reading a story. Shafak introduces the idea of identity politics in writing: a Muslim woman will be expected to write about a Muslim woman, a Japanese man will be expected to write about a Japanese man, and the creativity will be left to Western authors. Shafak hopes to abolish these stereotypes by articulating the importance of separating identity politics and fiction. Through her use of pathos and ethos, Shafak effectively argues against the popular idea of "writing what you know" and for "writing what you feel."

In making her argument, Shafak primarily uses pathos. Her use of storytelling within her talk, such as the story of her childhood or one about her voodoo doctor grandma, connect the listener to the speaker emotionally. Her argument connects at the ends like a circle, each personal example linking to and supporting her theory. Though the use of ethos is rare, it can be seen in her allusions to her own novels and the use of quotes from other famous novelists and professors. Outside of the orthodox ethos, logos and pathos methods, Shafak uses a personable, laid back, down to earth technique in delivering her talk. She does not move about frantically or widely vary her vocal intonation. The talk feels like a conversation, though Shafak is the only one speaking.

I selected this talk because the title included the word politics. As politics is my favorite subject area, I figured it would be a perfect fit. I truly connected with Shafak's argument. Though the talk was not about neoliberalism or foreign policy, the topic truly connected to subjects with which I regularly have mental struggles. With IB English comes novels such as Woman at Point Zero and the God of Small Things. These are novels written by authors from the settings in which their stories take place. While the stories being told are important, is fiction not supposed to be about imagination? Is it not supposed to be literally made up? Shafak discusses her struggle impressing critics, as she was expected to write about Turkish characters in Turkey, as she is Turkish. She responds to this mindset with two extremely substantial points: primarily, she illustrates the togetherness that fiction brings, regardless of nationality. Fiction can eliminate bias. A Canadian author can write about an African character with whom an Indian reader connects. Shafak states that "stories bring people together." Relatedly, Shafak argues that stories can allow and escape from our own minds, creeds, and nationalities. "Stories cannot demolish frontiers, but they can punch holes in our mental walls." This is so powerful to me, because it illustrates the power of words. I am a white female living in a middle class neighborhood. I am certainly not a Turkish writer who has lived across the world, but words can connect me to Elif Shafak. I believe this is Shafak's ultimate purpose in delivering the talk; to illustrate the power of words, and to urge listeners and viewers not to waste them perpetuating the idea of identity politics.

 Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.

In Double Indemnity, each character supports the idea of id, ego, and superego. For example, Phyllis wants to kill her husband in order to collect insurance money, however, she strikes a flirtation with Walter Neff in order to get him to help her. I do not think that Phyllis ever had genuine feelings for Walter Neff. Also, she lied with such ease that it would be difficult to believe that she felt any pity or remorse for her actions. Contrarily, I believe Walter Neff did truly love Phyllis. I think Walter is the exception to this statement. Walter would not have risked his entire career and freedom in order to help Phyllis. The argument could be made that Neff wanted to share in Phyllis' earnings, but Walter seemed to be successful and wealthy, meaning that he would not need the money. Furthermore, Walter truly pities the victims of his crime, as he calls and confesses for the entire happenings. This statement can be supported by the actions of the wealthy insurance agency bosses. These men perform their jobs with one goal: to make money. They do not care who they hurt or take money from in the process. I think this statement is true for some characters of the film, but untrue for others such as Walter Neff.