The ending is beginning...

I never could do linear...
I'm pondering the conclusion of my Experimental Fiction book.  I'm arguing a New Era is dawning for fiction.  There are lots of chapters to this section, but the chapter that has me thinking today is: Why is it necessary for writers to experiment?  I've written lots of pieces for all the different sections: Modernism, The Beats, Postmodernism and a New Era Is Dawning, but the chapter that is preoccupying me is: Why is it necessary for writers to experiment?  I guess the article I read over the week-end, set me thinking. (Again). 
It wasn't an article about fiction; it was: How British Theatre Once Inventive & Daring, Lost Sight Of The Avant Garde.  Maybe this can be said of all works of art?  I think it's true of the publishing industry.  There is very little out-there that challenges readers to shift out of their comfort zone.  Although, admittedly there are some writers...very few...I could go on.  I won't.  I'll be here all day.  And I have a deadline to reach???!!!!(Hypocrite?!)
 
In November, 2011, I had a paper accepted for: 1st Global Conference: Writing: Paradigms, Power, Poetics & Praxes, in Prague.  In this paper, amongst other things, I was discussing where my writing comes from...
I wrote that: 'For many years, I have written some mainstream work for commercial ventures, which has been constrained by deadlines, publishing fads and trends.  I have also engaged with 'experimental' writing, which has been to contemplate specific lines of intellectual enquiry, and to act as a vehicle for spiritual development and for the joy of exploring, and developing, my creative writing practice.  With no desire to please, impress, entertain or attract commercial interest, I feel that in this 'experimental' fiction, I have been able to write more freely and honestly, more directly and intensely: I was free to experiment.' 
The article, How British Theatre... says that, 'David Hare, Mark Ravenhill and Simon Stephens argued that comfortable, safe theatre was in danger of pushing more challenging new work off the stage...According to Ravenhill, 'theatre is being starved of fresh writing by a new emphasis on commercial success...the grant receiving sector now pays too much attention to pleasing the crowd...the capital has lost its risk-taking culture.' A political hot potato!
So, my question, is: should artists create to please, and for commercial success?  Oooh, a difficult one.  And something that each artist/writer has to decide for themselves.  This is a MASSIVE debate.  And I guess, it depends very much on whose money an artist/writer is using?
Sometime ago, I made a decision, that I didn't want to compromise my 'experimental' work by writing specifically for a market, a publisher, who quite rightly, wants to make a profit.  I want to 'experiment,' and I accept that my work may only resonate with a small community of like-minded readers and writers.  If I am to express, and be true to 'me,' that's how it has to 'be,' for 'me.'
If artists don't experiment, what happens?  We are not given 'uncomfortable perhaps even painful feelings,' according to Alistair Spalding, Sadler's Wells.  I'm not so sure about this, but what I am sure is, if Nijinsky hadn't created The Rite Of Spring, if John Cage hadn't composed 4'33, if Kerouac hadn't written On The Road, if, if, if...

If writers don't experiment, writing does not evolve; it becomes stale, dull, b-o-r-i-n-g yawnnnnnn

I'm going to quote McCarthy once more, I can't help it, he speaks for me too, when he says:  'the avant-garde can't be ignored because to ignore it-as most humanist British novels do-is the equivalent of ignoring Darwin.' Here!  Here!
And so endeth the lesson...
I better get writing.  I'm in the mood now.  I'm fired up.  Perhaps just one cup of coffee first...
And check this out- with a big thank you to Ciaran ( I really enjoyed this)
http://someguyswithapen.tumblr.com