It is not easy explaining to people that one does not want to categorise one’s works in any way, whatever kind of works they are. This has many reasons, but I want to focus on a more personal and important one that causes this kind of aversion. Next to the sheer will to not categorise my works, there is also the fact that I myself cannot categorise them yet - even if I wanted to. The descriptions would be so general and inconsequential that they would in my opinion not do my work justice. Do people categorise stuff only because of an inherent laziness or plain comfort? If so, then I want to work against that with all the strength I have.
Why is it that people shudder just upon encountering the term “poem”? It is not the poem itself that causes this reaction. It is the social stigma that poems are somehow denoted as “strange”, “hard to understand”, “useless” or even “inconsequential” and “pretentious”. To approach a text open minded - no matter what text it is or which art form it belongs to - is apparently a skill less and less people have. I don’t think that this can be solely blamed on education. Educational systems themselves do not teach people not to doubt anything. It is education and society that is to blame. In spite of all this, a man can still decide to doubt both certain core beliefs of his and the more common ones of society.
I find it peculiar when people ask: “What are you writing?” Shouldn’t one rather ask “About what are you writing?”, or “What is it that makes you write?” Instead of figuring this out, people try first to categorise a work. It should not be that the categorisation of a work is more important than the work itself. In the end the value of a work is its content, and not its category. So when people ask me what I write, then I should answer “Text.”
When eventually the question will be about what I write, then I should answer: “Everything.”, for it is man’s whole life that affects a man and matters to him. In the end one should read the texts, and not ask these questions. One should think about the texts themselves, and not try to come up with a category for them. One should approach a text deliberately, without reservation, bias or any notion of expectation.
When ultimately the question will be what it is that makes me write, then I can only give very personal reasons. In a world that is dominated by jobs in technology and technology as a whole, it is natural that people lose the ability to express themselves or find fulfilment in anything. Technology does not lead to thoughts about being or more philosophical aspects like the human condition, it only leads to thoughts of a mathematical and calculating nature. These thoughts are without an exception useless. They do not further the goal to understand oneself, others, or humanity as a whole. They only further the understanding of technology itself. This is why I wish to write. By writing I can give expression to my self, encourage people to think or even inspire them to write themselves. Writing and thinking are my only remaining methods to escape the constant oppression of society and the system as a whole. It is in the end the only way for me to be free.
A life without freedom is a life that is not worth living. Thus I will do my utmost to reclaim my freedom and defend it. Everything else is secondary. So when the question will be why it is that I write, then I should answer:
“To be free.”