Skip to main content

Writer or a Right-er?- Righteousness in Writing

Isn't it unfair to insist that stories should be cleansed to match the fanatic measure of moralism and righteousness. A story doesn't need to be a lecture or an essay in morality. I had recently shared an immensely beautiful, intricately ornate paragraph, picked out from "Lord Jim" by Joseph Conrad on a social media site. As a rare one for me, I received an almost immediate response, objecting to the fact that women, some women was blamed for some sorry state of affair. Why women? was the theme of comment.
 
I was totally lost. The context was not there, agreed. But it wasn't supposed to be. It was written with a broad notice that it was an excerpt, which I was sharing simply because how exquisitely words were woven into that paragraph by the master wordsmith. The near-poetic feel of the prose was mesmerizing. It wasn't a political statement, neither from me, not from the writer. I could not understand the indignation.  
 
In my view, Every stories need both sides, as arrogant as stubborn as the other for one of them to prevail. Every writer takes a position initially when he writes a story. Story-writing is driven by two things, one- to propagate a position which is dear to the writer and Two- to tell an enchanting tale, purely out of a sense of sharing. Even when the case is former, still, the writer needs to have two sides. The two sides are represented by two characters, two forces in the story, who take diametrically opposite position and who have enough arguments on their respective sides to keep the story engrossing. The struggle, the drama arise from the two contradictory positions. If the two were to speak the same language, take same position, story becomes tame, rather it is no longer a story, it becomes an essay, a viewpoint.
 
The writer wears a mask of neutrality till the end, when he throws his weight behind the preferred point of view and lets the reader know where his sympathies lie. The insistence on the story not to have anything racial/communal/political/ gender- biased will kill a story. Any righteous fanaticism will kill the spirit of a story and kill its purpose. All kind of fanaticism kills free thought and thus kills literature and we must be watchful against it. We need to have characters speaking in different language through the story for the truth to emerge. All fanaticism rest on unyielding, unbending position. This can exist on either side of the divide. "All women are goddess and divine" is as ridiculous a position as is "All men as animals", thought the former carries the garb of neutrality and progressive thought. Life does not breath in absolutes. We are all children of gray. We live and prosper in our inherent contradictions. To insist to paint one class as absolutely divine is as much an insult to intellect as is to paint a class as criminal.
 
A writer can be a crusader of truth and justice, but truth and justice by the very nature of them are derived facts. You can not start a discussion with absolute fact and you can surely not write a story based on absolute fact. The story needs to tease you, guide and beckon you to the truth which itself can have many colors and hues. We all need to discover our own truths through the literature we peruse. The premise ought to evolve, the position ought to develop. The beauty lies in the contrasts. Through the contrasts, truth emerges- between Man and woman, Light and dark, ecstasy and gloom, dread and courage, confusion and clarity. A writer can not decide for you, he can merely be a light in which you may see.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Great Shake in Governance- New Modi Cabinet- My Take

This week, the Narendra Modi government was expanded. However, as it turned out, it was not merely an expansion, rather complete rehash of the cabinet, with many faces, widely believed as non-performers eased out of their positions.  The expansion came with the dropping of some key names, much famed and widely seen on TV Channels, perceived to me closest to the leftist media houses. Prakash Javadekar was shunted, Ravishankar Prasad was dropped, so was Ramesh Pokhariyan Nishank. Apart from the worthies of Ministries of Information & Broadcasting, Law and IT and HRD, Dr. Harshvardhan was also dropped from health.  Before we look at the addition, it is pertinent to look at the deletions from the earlier Cabinet. Prakash Javadekar, as I&B Minister was expected to take strong stand, make statements, blast the inane propaganda in key policy initiatives that the Modi Government was taking. From Land Acquisition Bill to Demonetization to GST to Triple Talaq to CAA to Farmer's Bill-

Analyzing the Analysts- Failed Attempts to Understanding the Modi Magic

  " When a writer tries to explain too much, he is out of time before he begins. " wrote Isaac Bashevis Singer, 1978 Nobel Winning writer. As year wraps to an end and Bengal Elections are around the corner, Analysts are jumping over one another to analyze the way politics panned out over this Pandemic-ridden unfortunate and sad year.  When you go through most of the analysis, you find them dipping into the froth floating at the top. They often develop the hypothesis first then try to fit the data. This gap between interpretation and data leads to their conclusions mostly turning way off the mark. The most common and prevalent hypothesis that is being currently floated is that those who support Narendra Modi are some sort of fanatic army, which has no reason to support him and which are loyal to him in the most retrograde terms. For that very reason, Narendra Modi, in return, cares only about those who voted for him and no one else. While there is no proof of Narendra Modi app

Pandemic, Politics and Propaganda

  There is an interesting episode in Mahabharata , in Drona Parva . Mighty Drona, the teacher of Kaurava and Pandavas took charge after the great Commander of the Kaurava Army, Bhishma had fallen. There was a huge battle and Krishna predicted complete routing of the Pandava forces if Drona was to fight even for half a day. To circumvent this, Bhima was to make an announcement that Drona's son Ashwatthama was slain. This would have led to a dejected Drona surrendering his weapons and thus could be killed, unarmed. As Drona  did not believe in Bhima, he called upon  Yudhisthira, the eldest of the Pandava to confirm.  Yudhishthira, the righteous one, than famously said that  Ashwatthama was dead, not the man but the Elephant. It is then mentioned in before now the Chariot of Yudhishthira had remained at the height of four fingers' breadth from the Earth's surface; but after he uttered the lie, his steeds touched the Earth.  There is a certain glory and lightness of spirit in s