I have long admired the talent of Joyce Carol Oates. She can tell a good story and knows how to flesh out a character. But she is not a philosopher or in a position to give her opinions on the prevailing presidency as if she is an authority on such matters. She is a prolific writer and knows how to string words together in a poetic and touching way. But when she gives speeches on the the state of the union or declares that the state of humanity now is absurdity because we have elected such and such, she falls flat. She is not fascinating or dynamic and exemplifies the introvert. This does not make for dramatic viewing.
She is frail and shy and not really dynamic and is not qualified to speak on subjects outside her field. It's like asking star basketball players about their social and political concerns. They may be very astute if they talk about game strategies, psychological approaches to the game, spiritual approaches to their fears and how they deal with fame. But if they start bringing in what is supposed to be an informed opinion about what is going on in the world politically, I am not going to give too much credence to them.
Joyce Carol Oates spent her life in isolation and quiet, as most writers must. Writers are cerebral, introspective, and through their art can shed light on the human condition. But to use a gathering for literary enlightenment as a podium for denouncing the presidency is beyond her talents and purpose as a speaker. I was very disappointed that the director led with her political beliefs at the outset of the film. She is not a very interesting person and therefore he may have been trying to add some sort of controversy or action to the movie. It ended up infuriating me on a number of levels. She's a storyteller. Period. She is not the voice of the people.
Art is a thing of beauty and is not a propaganda organ for political views, such as the wooden Soviet Union "artworks" that are there to spur people to work harder for the state. Let creativity reign when it comes to art and leave out the social reform. Some may argue that Dickens' works spurred much social reform as he brought the plight of the poor and needy to light in Victorian England. But that was a byproduct of his inspired writing. In Oates' case, she is not a political writer and has as much clout as the Kardashians or film starlets when it comes to an educated outlook on political systems. I would have liked to have seen more depth of character in her instead of the schoolmarmish moralism that thinks the world can be saved by the right president.
