"The trouble with writing is we all do a little of it from time to time.And some of us start to think, delusionally,maybe with a little time, little peace, a little money in the bank, and you get that room of your own you think 'Well shit ! I might be a writer too !'
We Accept genius in sports as something we cannot do......
....because What you have to be before you try to be (say) an (olympic) pole-vaulter is a Pole Vaulter." - The Gambler (2015)
The above is from a little speech by the protagonist in the movie, playing an Assistant English professor, trying to impress upon his students the value of talent and practice in the writing profession, instead of trying to force themselves as mediocre writers on the world.
I like my food as I like my literature - prepared tastefully and lovingly. I know I am not alone but it seems like I belong to a generation being pushed out of fashion. There are still award winning books, movies etc that don't make millionaires out of the creative geniuses behind them.
Call me the textbook definition of snobbish or snooty or a 'wannabe intellectual' but I have my individual sense of taste and I therefore expect the subject of consumption to be a child of love rather than an outcome of a bastardised copy paste recipe. Either of them, Food or Literature, needs to appeal to multiple senses of a sensible being. Both of them need to simultaneously stimulate the appetite as well as provide that sense of gratification in their respective receptacles of absorption.
I would prefer my reading material to bear from sources that are original, polished and maybe prosaic to please the poet in me. I would want to sink the teeth of my mental faculties into words that tingle my wit-buds and zap those grey cells.
I would rather let my mind be drooling for lingering ribbons of a language that lend to my lexicon rather than condemn my brain to pick bones off the ever degrading teenager slang (Irrespective of how ever many of those make it to recognised dictionaries).
Grammar to me, is the gravy that adds salt, spice and texture of gravitas and grace, not just to the words that form but the feelings and thoughts that lead to those words on paper.
I like my content served subtle and sexy - not too hot with flames of exaggerated simplification, but just simmering enough to allow a sensuous affair to rage between the writer's words and the reader's thoughts. That doesn't mean I mind crunchy or even saucy stuff with crude jokes or obscenity thrown in for a flavour but then even absurdity deserves a flair to make it funny. You can't serve a Hyderabadi Biryani with a chocolate chutney and get away with it !
Most importantly - my kind of text comes with contextual richness worthy of my time and effort. My attention deserves a good mind-full of thoughts to chew on rather than wasting my brains and brawn on a hollow bone of banter. In a world where the term 'food for thought' has been force fed ad-nauseam, "thought" and opinion really are suffering the same dichotomy of abundance and insufficiency as food itself.
"Have you ever noticed ? You could have the most intense one to one discussions with any individual. However, as soon as the same people are in a group, the level of intellect seems to fall to the lowest common level of intelligence !"
That was a great observational insight I had heard after what seemed like an eternity. At the face of it, it explains my sense of aloofness in a social gathering buzzing with conversation. On digging slightly deeper, I realised it might also be the reason behind my general disdain with the way my online reading habits have been over the last few years.
The platform of internet and social media had (still has) the potential of exchanging thoughts with those who care to approach with an open mind. A milieu of minds meandering towards a merry medley, mingling to generate a fusion of ideas.
But Alas! As the dish of social media was left out for too long, it had to go sour - it became just another big group of people, catering to the lowest level of intelligence and being part of a large mutual admiration club. The content served on social media is generally aimed at getting those microseconds of online fame. Doesn't matter if it is plagiarised, falsified or plain misrepresentation. Besides questionable sources, there often is too little in meaning and thought formation, if any.
Screen fatigue and Scroll-dumbness later you realise that the article you just read was never telling you anything new. And it didn't even make for a good read as the language was average, at best and nothing enjoyable.
Hence the sense in that statement above - the more people there are in a conversation, the less likely it is to have a sensible conversation for long. In terms of creative content posted online as well as offline, I have started using this equation in reverse. Too many followers (likes, forwards in online terms) to a single source mean -
Caution:
Tread carefully. Stupidity and Close mindedness ahead.
Fact is, just like not everyone was born or brought up to be a pole vaulter or a cook, not everyone is meant to be a writer. While it is within everyone's right to throw together their choice of ingredients of thought into a bowl full of words, it is the reader's prerogative to refuse it politely - for reasons of language and/or opinions.
It's a foregone conclusion to me that freedom of opinion is not the same concept as equality of intellect. If humanity were a body, we would want to pay attention to the signals sent down by the cells that form the brain, not the ones sent up the rear end, where the sun of knowledge never shines.
Ideation is like fruits, the low hanging ones are in abundance but its the higher up ones that are pleasing and worth waiting, even paying for.
