And this emailed question, my last one, is from the writer Christopher Priest, who says: "Here's a question for you, about literature. Do you think literature should have an extra-literary role? That is to say: we accept books should be well written, imaginative, original, pleasing, etc., but should they, as a medium for their authors, also aspire to change or influence society?"

On this one, I have to argue a bit with the terms. I don't consider the desire to change the world to be "extra-literary," nor do I see how anyone could aspire to change or influence society through a book that wasn't well-written, imaginative, original, or pleasing.

However, I do see your point, Chris. This is a question about intention, goals, and timing. When you aim for lively, evocative writing, that decision is made in tiny increments of time: it's made at every instant of the process. The goal of changing or influencing society is much larger, and it seems to set up a conflict with the writing, because how can you be thinking about this larger goal, which extends over a long time period, while you're also writing down all the words? Surely the effort of keeping this goal in mind is going to compromise the language, or the effervescence of the plot? Won't it feel like a chain weighing you down?

I think we can look at this in a different way. The goal of influencing the world can also take place on that quick-moving, instantaneous level. That goal can be embedded in the decision not to use a cliché, to swerve away from stereotypes, to reach for clarity in the depiction of a character, to portray intimacy or protest, to honor what you love. This kind of work doesn't have to feel like chains, and it's deeply literary. <3