Is the Writer Obligated to Use His/Her Medium as an Instrument for Social Betterment?

This short piece is from Tom Robbins's 2005 retrospective of short pieces, Wild Ducks Flying Backward.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A writer's first obligation is not to the many-bellied beast but to the many-tongued beast, not to Society but to Language. Everyone has a stake in the husbandry of Society, but Language is the writer's special charge. A grandiose animal it is, too. If it weren't for Language there wouldn't be Society.

Once writers have established their basic commitment to Language (and are taking the Blue-Guitar-sized risks that that relationship demands), then they are free to promote social betterment to the extent that their conscience or neurosis might require. But let me tell you this: social action on the political/economic level is wee potatoes.

Our great human adventure is the evolution of consciousness. We are in this life to enlarge the soul, liberate the spirit, and light up the brain.

How many writers of fiction do you think are committed to that?


Asked by Fiction International, 1984.