Read to Write

It is often heard in the academic purlieus and the reader-writer discussions that one must read well to write well. I think this is not quite true, and to much extent this false assumption also greatly discourages the novice writers to explore themselves with their own eye. A person with an extensive reading is preferred to a person with a little or no reading at all. A typical reader is revered just on the basis of his reading habit - whether or not he has an insight into things, whether or not he has a clear vision and an eye that can see deep beneath the appearances, whether or not he has an idea or thought of his own - whether or not he has any kind of merit, he would simply become a venerated entity of his circles. Ask him a reference to a text or book, he will quickly provide it without taking another second. Ask him to give his personal viewpoint on a topic, he will quickly provide borrowed opinions and then present before you these opinions as his own.

In this article I am talking about Creative Writers, all the other writers, of course, require information from diverse sources in diverse perspectives - so they are not by any criteria here a point of discussion. Also, I am not talking about every reader in general, I am specific at discussing people who are die-hard followers of this false conception of read-to-write and therefore are victims of hollow-mindedness.

They are just like those Pundits and Mullahs who speak but not with faith, who read but not with comprehension, who pray but not with souls, who think but not of the Divine. I am reminded of a great couplet at this time, which I am going to translate and then transliterate:

Alike are the words and the meanings, but
a Mullah's Azan is else, and a Crusader's Azan is else

Alfaaz o Maani Main Tafaawut Nahin, Lekin
Mullah Ki Azaan Aur, Mujahid ki Azaan Aur

Although, the modern readers and thinkers claim their open-mindedness and freedom of thought, yet they are prone to unbelievable biases and baseless conceptions.

Why must we first taste someone else's small pastry before tasting our own big cake? Why not first eat your own cake, relish its chocolate cream and the tender little chocolate chips? After that if you still desire to eat someone else's pastry, you definitely lack a taste for life! That approach is really childish, I must say. No doubt, reading works of other writers can give you an idea about word-presentation and thought-presentation, but that's just a second-hand experience.

We all have learnt bicycle when we were young. What do you think, had you just kept watching other kids riding their bicycles, would you have been able enough to ride your own bicycle? Did you say to yourself at that time, I will just observe - at least until when I feel that I am ready now, or did you just give it a try - and there you go at the very first try!

No matter who you watch how much you observe, you have to give it a try yourself. You have to test yourself first - who knows you are better than the most of the biggies out there?

We have a research from Neuro-scientists available on the internet, which says that the more you read the more complex the connections of the brain-cells get. These connections enable your brain to think in more comprehensive way. Then, they give the example of the Bronte' sisters who were voracious readers right from their childhood - they were like ones who come into existence from words, unlike those who exist in words (like the picture at top of the page says :) ) It might be the job of the literary critics and the cannonists (those who exalt certain writers through their critiques to a level of Cannon) - it might be their job to say the things which I am going to say now, but I think I reserve the right to say whatever I want until it isn't a direct hit on someone's character. (Oh, God! How tactically and safely one has to write to save oneself from the intellectual bullies)

It is the job of the brain to all the time associate totally different things together to give a new and striking outcome - the task that is incessantly done while we dream. Psychologists have their own technical terms for this association. When a writer stuffs his mind with lots of word-formations, sentence patterns, word-idea combinations, his brain then automatically starts twisting and twirling things randomly and give new patterns - the patterns that are not genuine in their creation but are like hot-dogs - everything being mashed-up together. Our brain doesn't mash up everything though, it filters things before giving it a final form. Nevertheless, the created thing isn't genuine in its own place.

Compare this activity with the one I am going to tell you - the activity that occurs more often in an artist's mind. A true artist interprets the nature himself - creating ideas himself. The raw-material for making a mash-up of everything is not the creation of someone else's mind, rather an artist's imagination broods upon the mother nature - it manifests whatever mother nature provides it. An artist interprets the targeted object directly by making connection with his mind. He does not crave for second-hand information and second-hand expressions. He seeks the expression of the nature itself, including the nature of human beings. A true artist finds both the questions and answers within the natural existence of life forms - not in the interpretations of others.

If you read the chapters of the life itself, rather than reading the chapters of the books, you will surely find something worth sharing - something you can live for and die for.