Lawrence Hill is one of Canada’s most distinguished and published authors. In this extensive interview, we discuss everything in Hill’s purview. In his words, “I have to say that I don’t think I’ve ever been interviewed by somebody who had such a profound grasp of such a wide variety of things that I’ve shared, written, or spoken about whether they are personal, professional or things to do with my books or my family life.” This series will explore his life and philosophy, just for you, part 7.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s a good coda statement on it. What economic and political philosophy most appeals to you?
Lawrence Hill: I do not believe in unfettered capitalism. I do not believe in the Adam Smith idea. That is, the pursuit of one’s own individual profit above all as necessary to ensure that people thrive in society. Clearly, in pure capitalism, we would see some people abandoned and starving.
For people to thrive, in a loving definition of the word “thrive,” I flirted with ideas of socialism and communism at an early age. I find much to admire in it, but I am not a socialist or a communist. I believe in the hybrid of socialism and capitalism.
I believe that people should be free to pursue their individual economic interests, but that they should support a strong, democratically-elected government that tends to those who are disenfranchised or not thriving, and that focuses on the development and protection of public goods and services such as roads, schools, hospitals, health care, our environment, our water supply, foreign aid and international relations.
I also want to live in a society that embraces and encourages volunteer activity, non-profit groups and organizations serving a wide range of community needs.
Jacobsen: You write at home. You might write at a friend’s cottage. You leave a couple to a few times a year to enter into isolation to write, intensely. You wrote an essay entitled Dear Sir, I Intend to Burn Your Book: An Anatomy of a Book Burning (2013) based on a letter from a Surinamese Dutchman named Roy Groenberg. You wrote back in an “outrageously Canadian” way – with tact and politeness. Based on that tone, in hindsight, what would have been the appropriate response to Mr. Groenberg at the time?
I do not feel my response was inappropriate. There would not have been a point in being aggressive. I do not know if I would have done anything differently, if it happened today. I offered an explanation about the origins of the title of my novel The Book of Negroes in my first email to Mr. Groenberg. He was not interested in explanations, in reading the book, or in talking about it.
He was interested in escalating the conflict. It is hard to talk to somebody who seeks to escalate conflict. There does not seem to be a point. The other possibility would have been to ignore him, and not to confront the issue in an essay for The Toronto Star.
I don’t know if I wrote things perfectly. I don’t walk around with a great sense of pride about it, but I do feel that I reacted to the issue in accordance with my own values. I would not have reacted any differently today.
Jacobsen: On page 31 to 32, you closed:
The very purpose of literature is to enlighten, disturb, awaken and provoke. Literature should get us talking – even when we disagree. Literature should bring us into the same room – not over matches, but over coffee and conversation it should inspire recognition of our mutual humanity. Together. I can’t see any good coming out of burning or banning books. Let’s talk, instead.
Jacobsen: What emotion does book burning evoke you?
Fear and horror, a sense that we are witnessing a precursor to physical violence. It makes me think of people whose anger has run amok and are interested in wreaking vengeance and hurting. It makes me think of the Holocaust during which huge numbers of books by Jewish writers were burned.
It makes me think of a person or a group of people who have decided that there is no point in civil dialogue. It makes me think about people who want to intimidate, silence and hurt others. I am troubled by book burning – even a book that I despise. Every person should be entitled to write a book, or to despise a book, but when we discover differences of opinion, they should be addressed through conversation and debate – not by means of book burning or violence.
—
Original Publication (1, 2, 3, and 4) in www.in-sightjournal.com.
—
—
Photo Credit: Getty Images