The role of the writer is changing more and more to meet the demands of contemporary society. Around the globe, novelists and poets have continued to play the role of the truth-teller, or what the ancient Greeks described as the parrhesiastes. Yet not all writers wish to sacrifice their safety to play that role. French philosopher Michel Foucault, in his study Fearless Speech, defines parrhesia , referred to as ‘free speech’, as a privilege offered to the individual who possesses personal, moral and social qualifications, and as a result has the means of acquiring the truth, have knowledge of the truth, and is able to communicate that truth to others. These qualities prevent the dangers of ‘ignorant outspokenness’ that once endangered ancient Greek democracy from being repeated. Foucault asserts that the character of the parrhesiastes is distinctive from other individuals. The parrhesiastes is committed to telling the truth to the interlocutor who is of a higher social standing, as the parrhesiastes considers it their duty. The parrhesiastes risks their own personal safety to speak frankly, as opposed to silence. The danger in the ‘parrhesiastic game’ comes from the speaker and their discourse, and how it is received by the interlocutor. If the parrhesiastes’ forthright criticism that defies public opinion offends the interlocutor, the parrhesiastes is exposed to punishment, in some cases, even death. However, the possibility of persecution does not deter the parrhesiastes from announcing their opinion. After all, parrhesia is being used for the good of society. The intent is more important to the parrhesiastes than the interlocutor’s response. For this reason, the parrhesiastes speaks out of a moral obligation to help their fellow man. This type of courageous effort to provoke change has been demonstrated by the parrhesiastic writer throughout history from Ismail Kadare to Salman Rushdie; where literature, as a conversation between author and reader, has presented the truth to the reader. Furthermore, as the popularity of the writer as a parrhesiastes increases, further responsibility is added to that position. In many societies, the writer is expected to adopt the public role of the spokesperson, where their parrhesiastic role has been linked to that of the wise man. This trend will persist the more governments violate citizens’ rights, and the writer is required to take a stand. The creative and critical aspect of this study examines the role of the writer as a parrhesiastes, and how through the power of literature they have contributed to a more tolerant, and just society.