Every writer should uncomplicate the complicated. To the general populace life is amazingly complicated, uncertain, dark, selfish, and full of unending theatrics. Life, on the other hand, is surprisingly uplifting, sparks our curiosity, enlighten us in other aspects, as is beamed to us from all outlets. Life, is something we have found in a mish-mash – an interwoven whirl – its vast network of interconnection is where an individual is tossed in all directions while every person, every group, every institution, claim its existence on his behalf. No one is assigned to be dogmatic about the true sense of life – or to choose for us what pains him or her the most about life, in the pretext of self-advertising as an intellectual. We have found ourselves in life, not even having a clue at what phase the evolution of life is, let alone being delivered into life which has endless frictions and interests. To begin with, we haven’t gotten around understanding what a human being is – his temperament and unpredictable nature, his obsession with self-advertisement, his hidden source of his ambitions, how he gets to make the kind of choices he makes, how he gets to embrace a culture, why he is at ease with a certain kind of thought. Notwithstanding that we have a whole host of things we need to define, to assist us in this daily mesmerise in the convention and customs. One sees that much of the desire to uncomplicate the complicated is that the orthodox thought or discourse where no other dimension(s) of thought is/are considered, has consequently occupied a common format of intellectual engagement by those who are able to breathe life into it. Nothing new, though, is being said, because, all that is said is within the normal conventional framework or paradigm. The gospel of common thought stultifies; it leaves an individual an easy prey of unidimensional bamboozle. This is what writers must sought to unpack, as to how an individual got so entangled , ensnared into so much blind passion, became an adherent of one side of life, claimed unaware, and how he ought to navigate his life in this interconnected maze, as he has found it existing. The relations, amongst people, and institutions, are personal, are idealised, are murky, are interest based, and need to be cleared through lucid writing. A writer who also makes an effort to unpersonalise his writing is much closer to uncomplicating the complicated. To stand outside as a writer, so to speak, is the very duty of a sober writer – to write while inside poses the likelihood of blind passion to your subject. Writers might tell a thought at a (particular) level (or angle) – and in isolation to other dynamics, or a writer might attempt to tell a thought at two related levels (and again missing other dynamics), or a writer might go the whole hog, that is go deeper, and draw for us a criss-cross of relations that affect the individual, its community, and as a consequent of such diligence, know what informs an individual’s philosophy, or the community’s paradigm. A writer’s perpetual unidimensional thought (or ideology), which comes in various snapshots of opinions, is a misrepresentation or a disregard, at a basic level, of the (dynamic) nature of the individual and the evolving environment he or she finds himself or herself in, notwithstanding the questions: at what level are we in; how can we escape our humdrum; what are the drivers of a community yearning for progress.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:24:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015