Transgressive writing

It’s been said at many a writing workshop that we should be willing to write the unconscionable. Giving the subconscious free rein upon the page, whether its violence, sex, cruelty or depravity. The thinking being that no one else has to see what was written or, should we feel so inclined, we can publish and risk being damned.

 

That’s all well and good when it comes to exorcising our creative demons but what about when we’re writing to order? I recently applied for a writing opportunity that I knew would challenge my view of the sort of writer I am. Sometimes it’s good to take a step into the unknown. Sometimes…

 

The project wanted humour material about the crisis in the Middle East. You know the one I’m talking about. The clients want to use humour to promote peace at a ground level, rather than relying on leaders to do the right thing.

 

I get it. Humour is, after all, a great way to unite people and to approach difficult subjects diagonally. Bringing in different perspectives to highlight similarities, differences and incongruities.

 

Against that backdrop I approached this assignment as I would any other. I met the clients online and did my research in order to prepare an original pitch. We chatted, I threw in some ideas…they threw them back or stared blankly at me.

 

It became clear one of the clients wanted hard-hitting humour slanted in one direction only, at least initially, which did not sit well with me. After further discussion and receiving some suggestions I put pen to paper.

 

I decided to write exactly what I wanted, rather than working to any brief. A sort of litmus test to see if we were on the same page (you’re welcome). They could use the piece and pay for it or decline it as they saw fit. Turns out they didn’t get the joke.

 

Here’s the sample piece. Read on at your own discretion.

 

 

What The Frick Is The Problem In Gaza?

(Political History for Dummies)

 

Let's start at the beginning. G*d** said...

 

Okay then, not at the very, very beginning.

 

Who's to blame for the cultural beef in Israel / Palestine? The British, obviously. Every Disney animated movie should have prepared us for that.

 

A little history lesson

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (who knew furniture could be so dangerous?) the Council of the League of Nations - so good they named it once - took Palestine and asked the Brits out on a mandate, 'it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country'.

 

Simpler times, right? There was also the Emirate of Transjordan, which was not necessarily as progressive as the name now implies.

 

It's fair to say that the British were not universally appreciated as landlords of a land that was nothing to do with them (but when did that ever stop them?). They sought to limit the number of Jewish people settling in Israel and Zionist paramilitary groups formed to enter into political discourse with them, via the medium of assassinations and bombings. 

 

Of course, as the British thriller writer Gerald Seymour pointed out: "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter". The Brits eventually gave up and some of those Israeli freedomists were absorbed into the IDF or took office in government.

 

The rest, as they say, is history. But if you ever wondered whether G*d has a sense of humor, consider this: 

Lehi, one of the paramilitary organisations during those turbulent times, had a weekly publication called Hamaas. If nothing else, it reminds us of the importance of spelling.

 

 

** Other G*ds are available. There's like a whole bunch of them.