Skip to main content

Why do I Write?


Every writer is happy when his writing sells.  When I decided to collect some of my short stories into a book, I was not very hopeful about the commercial success of the book; I was only venturing on an experiment.  The real motive was not commercial success but the dedication of the book to some people who nagged me into writing the stories.  The publication of the book with its dedication that appears on the very title page was a ritual of exorcism for me.  I was casting out the demons that were put in me by certain people. 

One of my acquaintances who read the book or a part of it asked me today, “What made you write these stories?”  Most of the stories in the volume are subversive to some extent, he said that in different words.  My first reviewer, Sreesha Divakaran, said the same thing in her own words: ‘...all the stories in the book, in subtle ways, question morality as we know it, what we have been taught as “right” or “moral.”   Being a subversive is not my conscious choice.  Subversion is my subconscious rebellion against what I cannot protest more effectively and consciously.  Fiction-writing is not entirely a conscious activity.    

Towards the end of his relatively brief life, George Orwell listed four reasons why any writer writes though “in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living.”  The reasons are, in Orwell’s own words:

1.     Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen - in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all - and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

2.     Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

3.     Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

4.     Political purpose - using the word "political" in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples' idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

I don’t think I can add anything more to what Orwell said as far as my motives as a writer are concerned, leaving aside the exorcist one mentioned already.  Only a clarification is required: the ranking of my writing may not rise much “above the level of a railway guide.”  Nevertheless, the impulses that drive me as a writer are no different from those which drove Orwell and others, in short.  There is a lion’s share of egoism, an aesthetic motive which I would like to believe is not too feeble, a very strong historical impulse and a matching political purpose. 

My attempt here is not to compare me with any great writer like Orwell.  Rather, it is to state that my motives and impulses are as good or bad as those of other writers. 

My book, The Nomad Learns Morality, is doing good business, my publisher tells me.  They have made it available at the following sites.

 https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/591619
http://www.lulu.com/shop/tomichan-matheikal/the-nomad-learns-morality/ebook/product-22451721.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/289057153/The-Nomad-Learns-Morality
http://www.shopclues.com/the-nomad-learns-morality.html?utm_storefront=onlinegatha
http://www.bookstore.onlinegatha.com/bookdetail/277/the-nomad-learns-morality.html

Comments

  1. Congratulations on the success of your book. Thanks for the links, will see where I can get the best deal and e-version of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congratulations Tomichan :) I have always loved your writing and it is no surprise to me that the book is doing well :) I do believe sheer egoism is a huge factor for any writer, even if they do not admit... in fact due to this factor only they do not admit :) *vicious cycle*

    Richa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Richa.

      Yes, there's something vicious about the egoism of writers. Very few are honest enough like Orwell to admit it.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Thanks, Sachin. And nice to hear from you after a very long while.

      Delete
  4. Ah,about another anarchist.(Look at the alliteration in that line!) I was thinking about Orwell today itself.Quite a coincidence. I was particularly thinking about "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." It doesn't quite justify that socialism is baseless,as was said on a website.
    I don't know on what basis he said it.May be it inclined to naturalism.Naturalism is not all that functions in a society.In fact,the modern society life hardly reflects concepts of naturalism. May be it was on something beyond my capability to understand things. May be it was satire approached towards the right side,if there is any side as such.The rightly identified wrong side,or something like that.

    I liked the explanation and content here.Writers are escapists,egoists but you know,a particular race out of them,who aren't interested in money are also very rare a species.They speak what they do not seem to like but they speak what any of them can't deny.What seems to be upside down but is erect logically.You are a great writer,in fact people like Chetan Bhagat and Durjoy Dutta drove my entire interest out of contemporary Indian writers who write in English.You are bringing it back.You incite my own interests in philosophy.I love your blog and have recently been liking all the satire and criticism and thrill in your stories and articles.
    Your book has every right to be read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to have such an observation, Titas. There's a fire burning in you, a fire that longs to burn up all the hogwash that is imposed on us in the name of religions and traditions, convenient isms and economic theories.

      Orwell was a socialist initially. It disillusioned him eventually especially with Stalin inverting it with his dictatorship. Under Stalin, socialism in Russia was no different from the capitalism of America. That's why we find the pigs and the men, socialists and capitalists, sitting together at the end of Orwell's Animal Farm.

      No, Orwell was not inclined to the right side. He was showing how all revolutions end in futility. Didn't the French Revolution reveal that futility? Didn't the Russian Revolution repeat the same lesson? Revolutions won't change human systems in the long run.

      Then what can make the change? That's what my stories are asking. Perhaps, that's why you like them. Beneath the satire and sarcasm, irony and paradox, in my stories, there is an underlying hint of spirituality though I am a non-believer where religions are concerned. Spirituality has nothing to do with religions. Paraphrasing Einstein, I may say that spirituality is what is left in your soul when religion is cast out. The genuine seeker finds it in him-/herself. And there's a genuine seeker in you. All the best.

      Delete
  5. Congrats! I hope I can finally lay my hands on it :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I share your hope. The marketing left quite some room for improvement.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

The Chhattisgarh Story

Deforestation in Chhattisgarh Kerala’s Catholic Church is teeming with rage these days because of the arrest of two nuns in Chhattisgarh on false charges. No one seems to understand the real politics behind the Modi government’s enmity towards Christian missionaries in Chhattisgarh as well as other backward states in its neighbourhood. Modi is selling the tribal areas and forestlands to the corporate sector part by part, his friend Adani being the chief benefactor. The Christian missionaries are a severe hindrance in that commerce. Let us get some facts right, at least. The Adivasi villagers allege that Gram Sabhas (local governing bodies) were forged or manipulated under pressure from Adani and the BJP government officials in order to take away their lands. In Hasdeo Aranya, minutes of the local body meetings were altered to show the villagers’ consent for land transfers. Also, the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes Commission found that Panchayat secretaries were detained and coerc...

The Ironies of Power: Modi at Gangaikonda-Cholapuram

When Narendra Modi posed for one of his infinite photo-ops framed against the gopuram of the ancient Gangaikonda-Cholapuram Temple on 27 July 2025, one of the biggest ironies of history was created. Gangaikonda-Cholapuram was the capital of Rajendra Chola (r 1014-1044) who was much different from Modi upon whom the BJP leader H Raja conferred the title of the “Living Gangai Kondan”. Rajendra Chola’s empire was marked by pluralism. He built temples but was not a religious bigot. The differences don’t end there. They just begin. Rajendra Chola was a Tamil ruler and a symbol of Dravidian pride. A man like Modi, who is using every means at his disposal to impose Aryan-centric ideology and suppress India’s diverse cultures, religions, and languages, can never truly wear the mantle once borne by Rajendra Chola. Modi’s very presence in the ancient Chola capital looks like a grotesque appropriation of a legacy that resists his political agenda.   The Chola Empire patronised multipl...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...