Speak Truth Sideways
How Shakespeare Wrote About Power Without Losing His Head, and Why Writers Still Have To Do The Same
Every generation eventually asks the same question of its writers: why aren’t you saying more? And every generation of writers quietly asks a more dangerous one in return: how much can I say without losing everything?
This tension is not new. It did not begin with social media, public shaming, or institutional gatekeeping. William Shakespeare lived inside it. He wrote during a period when words could quite literally cost you your freedom or your life. The Elizabethan state did not cancel writers on Twitter. It imprisoned them. It shut down theatres. It interrogated. It punished.
And yet Shakespeare wrote relentlessly about power, corruption, tyranny, legitimacy, injustice, and lies.
He just didn’t do it head-on.
Shakespeare Knew the Limits of Direct Speech
Elizabethan England was not a place for blunt political commentary. The monarch ruled by divine right. Questioning authority was dangerous. Even speculating about succession was taboo. Theatre was monitored by the Master of the Revels. Plays were censored. Writers knew where the lines were, even when they were invisible.
Shakespeare was not reckless. He was attentive.
He understood something crucial: truth does not always survive direct confrontation with power. But it can survive translation.
So he learned to speak sideways.
Allegory as Survival Strategy
Shakespeare almost never writes about his own present moment explicitly. Instead, he displaces contemporary anxieties into other times, places, and structures.
Ancient Rome becomes a safe container for political unrest. Medieval Scotland becomes a laboratory for ambition and tyranny. Fictional kingdoms become testing grounds for authority, legitimacy, and collapse.
This displacement is not avoidance. It is method.
When Shakespeare writes Julius Caesar, he is not really writing about Rome. He is writing about populism, manipulation, mob psychology, and the fragility of republican ideals. Elizabethan audiences understood this perfectly. They did not need the parallels spelled out. In fact, spelling them out would have destroyed the play’s ability to exist at all.
Allegory allowed Shakespeare to examine the mechanics of power without naming names.
That is how truth survived.
Symbolism as Shield
Beyond allegory, Shakespeare relied heavily on symbolism to communicate danger without accusation.
Storms do not merely describe weather. They signal political and moral disorder. Darkness does not just set mood. It reflects secrecy, corruption, and moral decay. Disease imagery appears whenever leadership becomes rotten. Sleep disappears when guilt and tyranny take hold.
In Macbeth, the tyrant is not described as a tyrant. He is described as sleepless, haunted, frantic, and isolated. Shakespeare never lectures the audience on the dangers of illegitimate rule. He shows what it does to the human psyche.
That is symbolism doing political work.
Importantly, symbolism creates plausible deniability. If questioned, Shakespeare could always say he was writing about ambition, fate, or human weakness. And he was. That was the genius. The truth existed on multiple levels simultaneously.
Writing Under Surveillance Requires Intelligence, Not Silence
It’s tempting, especially now, to romanticise writers who speak openly and suffer for it. There is honour in courage. But there is also tragedy in silencing yourself permanently.
Shakespeare chose endurance.
He understood that a dead or exiled writer cannot continue the work. A banned writer does not reach an audience. A silenced voice teaches nothing.
So he embedded critique inside story.
He trusted readers and audiences to recognise injustice without being spoon-fed slogans. He believed people were capable of interpretation. That belief is itself radical.
The Modern Parallel We Don’t Like to Admit
We live in a time that congratulates itself on free expression while quietly enforcing ideological boundaries. Careers are not usually ended by the state anymore. They are ended by institutions, platforms, reputational attacks, and moral panics.
The result is similar pressure through different mechanisms.
Writers today face real consequences for speaking directly about power, corruption, and oppression – especially when those critiques challenge dominant narratives. Publishing doors close. Invitations disappear. Labels replace nuance. Work becomes “problematic.” The language is softer. The effect is not.
And so the old question returns: how do you tell the truth without alerting the people who benefit from the lie?
Shakespeare already answered that.
Why Allegory Still Matters
Allegory is not cowardice. It is strategy.
When you write about fictional systems, invented regimes, speculative futures, or historical settings, you are not escaping reality. You are creating distance – distance that allows readers to think instead of react.
George Orwell understood this. Animal Farm could not have existed as a political pamphlet. Margaret Atwood understood it. The Handmaid’s Tale is not a news article. Ray Bradbury understood it. Fahrenheit 451 is not a manifesto.
They are all working in Shakespeare’s tradition.
They report on injustice by disguising it as story.
Symbolism Protects the Writer and the Reader
Symbolism does something else that direct argument cannot: it bypasses ideological defence systems.
People resist being told what to think. They are far more open to recognising patterns when they believe they have discovered them themselves.
A symbol does not accuse. It invites recognition.
This is why symbolic writing often survives where explicit critique is destroyed. It feels less threatening. Less confrontational. But its impact is deeper and longer lasting.
Shakespeare knew that outrage burns quickly. Insight lingers.
The Ethical Duty of Writers – With a Caveat
There is a solemn duty embedded in writing that has always existed: to examine power, to expose lies, to illuminate injustice, and to give voice to what is denied or erased.
That duty has not changed.
What has changed is the myth that this duty must always be fulfilled through personal sacrifice. That writers must martyr themselves to be moral. Shakespeare did not believe that. He believed in staying alive, staying published, staying heard.
He chose longevity over spectacle.
That choice allowed him to say far more, over far longer, than a single act of defiance ever could.
Writing Under the Radar Is Not Writing Without Integrity
There is a dangerous narrative circulating now that subtlety equals complicity. That if you are not shouting, you are endorsing. That if you are not explicit, you are cowardly.
Shakespeare dismantles that lie.
He proves that subtlety can be lethal to falsehood. That indirect critique can be more enduring than direct confrontation. That the quiet exposure of patterns often does more damage to tyranny than naming it once and being silenced forever.
Integrity is not volume. Courage is not recklessness. Truth is not always loud.
Sometimes truth survives best when it is smuggled.
What This Means for You as a Writer
If you are writing in a time of pressure – ideological, political, cultural, institutional – your job is not to retreat. It is to become smarter.
Ask yourself:
Where can I displace this story?
What symbols already exist that carry this meaning safely?
How can I trust my reader to connect the dots?
What would survive scrutiny if challenged?
Shakespeare never insulted his audience by assuming they needed everything explained. He trusted them to see.
You can too.
The Final Lesson Shakespeare Leaves Us
Shakespeare did not stay silent about tyranny. He wrote about it obsessively. He just refused to do it in a way that would end his ability to write at all.
That is not moral weakness. That is moral stamina.
The writer’s duty is not to burn brightly and disappear. It is to keep the flame alive long enough to illuminate more than one moment.
Truth that survives is more dangerous to power than truth that dies theatrically.
Shakespeare understood that.
And if we are serious about examining injustice in our own time – without surrendering our voices to those who would gladly silence them – then we would do well to learn the same lesson.
Keep Writing!
Comments