Writing fiction is akin to erecting a temple of consecrated ideas which, like religious convictions, should be sacrosanct for the author. However, it is disconcerting to note how this analogy can be brazenly distorted to signify that the essential quality of a literary work is in the framework of ideas inherent in its plot. Such a line of reasoning casts aside the importance of stylistic merit and hence, it can be argued, that literature which presents strong ideas without much sophistication, is a weak portrayal of the author’s flair for creativity. Literary creativity is a two-pronged concept that entails both the profundities of expression and the richness of ideas.
Pakistani fiction in English has packaged creativity with much ingenuity. The region has produced writers who have tackled the two-fold notion of creativity with great ingenuity. This set of writers does not only subsume those who have received international acclaim but also includes those who have been published locally.
However, there is an attitude of complacence in some Pakistani writers, particularly with regard to their stylistic persuasions. Owing to the restive urge to write speedily, literary works by some of these writers are, more often than not, devoid of the originality that comes from introspection. They use written words as a motif for expressing ideas without placing due emphasis on literary sophistication that offers the reader insight into the writer’s personality. As a result, the ideas become stale and fail to reflect the passion with which the author has penned the literary work.
For instance, upon reading Khadija Khan’s The Mind of Q, I was astonished to find that her compact ideas had not been enshrined through inventive prose. In fact, I felt that she had blithely executed the range of her ideas, rendering the book a tiresome read. More significantly, I was disquieted by the following sentence:
‘Questa made frequent use of The Calculator that had been eternally fixed into her brain – not to make general additions and subtractions – but to assess the precise probability of the result that may have occurred if she were to go ahead with a certain decision.’
Although the originality of the sentence is intact, there is still a pressing need to refine the blandness with which it is fashioned. The analogy may read like a metaphor but it stifles the impulse of creativity by restricting the complexity of the mind to a mere mathematical precision. My detractors may argue that the notion of likening the mind to a calculator is pertinent in that particular stage of the plot, but they must also comprehend that there are more insightful analogies that the writer could have expressed herself.
This goes to show that the literary scene in Pakistan is encountering three detrimental problems: Firstly, there is a dearth of innovation and stylistic techniques are still very archaic and unappealing. Secondly, the writers themselves are averse to tapping their true stylistic potential which has rendered their ideas numb and dreary. Lastly, there is an infinitesimal degree of thought given by writers to the possibility of acquainting their literary aspirations with their personal motives and values lest their work is dubbed sentimental.
These concerns can only be addressed by editors who should try to offer sound advice on how to improve and ‘personalise’ a literary work in such a way that creativity is retained.
The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necassarily reflect the views and policies of the Express Tribune.
Sure, but should literary sophistication come at the cost of rendering the idea incomprehensible to the majority of readers (which would be true given the state of our education system)? Maybe thats the reason why your article has no comments as yet =P
lol I must admit, I’ve a literature buff but even I had to read a couple of sentences twice to grasp their meaning. But I disagree with Farhan on one point, sure, a lot of people in Pakistan don’t want to read creative, artful prose, but then again, that sector of our population wouldn’t be interested in reading anything other than Twilight or Harry Potter. The latter is well written to an average degree, but for people that love to read but struggle with the language, there’s those books. For the rest of us, there’s Thomas Hardy or Frost.
One more thing I’d like to point out;
True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
As those move easiest who have learned to dance.
(Alexander Pope)
In other words children, your teachers lied. Not everyone can write. Or, at least not everyone can write well, so I suggest you seek another profession. Harsh, but true.
taha:
you could have used a few more pertinent examples to back up:)
and
These concerns can only be addressed by editors who should try to offer sound advice on how to improve and ‘personalise’ a literary work in such a way that creativity is retained.
this is a far too optimistic an assumption
how ironic that is rather badly written 🙂
mostly jilted writing that lacks flow
don’t mean to discourage you, but there is much joy in writing simple, taut prose that can be sophisticated without being too wordy. i learned that the hard way too by being called on it, someday if you maintain passion for literature, you will too…good luck
I doubt the writer is against simple prose. He is just trying to show that there is room for improvement. And all of us need to accept that. The attack here is on the passage he has quoted. I agree that some more pertinent examples could have been quoted, but no generalizations have been made.
i would recommend you to make your language simpler… especially the first para… because there is when you catch the reader’s interest
also…(personally) i find:
less is more
…
and it is far harder to say something directly and simply
Although the feedback has been sufficiently helpful, it is interesting to note how ‘literary sophistication’ means different things to everyone who has commented. Some view it as a supporting argument for verbiage (which has neither been mentioned clearly or even implied) whilst others (like Ghausia) have actually understood the crux of the issue and taken it a step forward. This goes to show that this piece has multiple interpretations which, I must confess, is encouragement enough.
However, the readers have ignored the fact that the issue of originality of style has been examined in this piece and not the debate concerning simplicity and wordiness. Originality of perception is needed. And if this is to be achieved, innovation in imagery, expression and content has to be refined. Although Farhan’s point of view is worthy of appreciation, there is no justification for being educationally subnormal. Our people – whether educated, or unlettered- have the intellectual capacity to appreciate creative prose. Might as well provide them with a stimulus to hone this capacity!
Are you the mysterious tyvek? If you’re not, lol, sorry. I covered the incomprehensibility of this ridiculous book on my own blog; together you and I, my friend, are among the few voices of sanity. Regarding this book, at least.
Amen to Ghausia’s comment above. The fact that writing is in equal parts aesthetics as it is about the ideas themselves, seems to be forgotten. Ideas are a dime a dozen; writers aren’t and if they are, we’re doing something terribly, terribly wrong. Kudos for tackling the subject! 🙂
Look, I don’t really mean to burst your bubble or rain on your parade as it were. However, a couple of observations; one, you my friend did not write this piece as horrible as it is, second, if you really want to write some free advice to all; two basic principles of good writing; simplicity and brevity. Capeesh!
@Ghausia; mademoiselle, Harry Potter series is in fact a very well written. Thomas Hardy is not an easy read. Thus does not make the grade!
Mawali, no offense but I think you just went and proved Ghausia’s point. I’m not saying HP wasn’t nice, it was: I enjoyed it tremendously, but it’s not an absolute classic of brilliance. If you’ve read Lord of the Rings, Alice in Wonderland, etc, you will see a lot of similarities. An eery amount, really. But still, the book series was great: it took you out of your own life, which any good book must do and true, Hardy isn’t everyone’s cuppa tea. Dude’s not a particular favorite author of mine although I will forever be in love with the Mayor of Casterbridge. 🙂
I guess at the end of the day, the topic of discussion is simple: they don’t make ’em as they used to.
This is a great piece.
As the author said, it makes you think.
Some say it’s an optimistic assumption just to highlight a publishing woe. Some say it’s badly written just to be rude. Some even say that readers interest is weakened by the use of complex language.
I personally feel it is a device used by the author. Just recently, I read this blog piece on hate-commenters. How beautifully it applies here to the commenters who have not tried to think once before degreading the piece.
I say keep it up, Mr. Author.
@cynic: You’ve missed the point of the piece. I recommend a more feasible attempt to understand the writer’s point as against prejudging things. And yes, you haven’t discouraged the writer one bit. That’s the best thing.
about the writer, I meant