Breaking Barriers

There seems to be a growing interest among my generation in the encompassing qualities of literature, and the growing need to write local stories that speak less to the us vs them philosophy, propagated so much by preceding generations. 

When I was writing Gray's preliminary form and discussing it with my professors, what stuck with me is Prof Farley's comment of focusing less on geography and more on the characters' humanity. I didn't realize it then but I was drifting toward a character-driven novel over a plot-oriented enterprise; that part would come in the middle of the program. One can argue (and do so quite reasonably) that there is supply where there is demand to fill readers' appetites. Or rather, as Aamer Hussain argues:

"...the implication was that Pakistani literature was made valid only by September 11.  Do we have to think of it in this way? It’s as if contemporary writing should concern itself with global affairs, and much of it doesn’t, and much of it shouldn’t. Another problem I have is that this body of work reflects the experience of different generations. We all started to write at different points in our lives. Mohammed Hanif’s novel is set in the 1980s. I don’t see that as particularly innovative, but he’s using the novel to address a particular historical moment. Kamila Shamsie has addressed different periods of Pakistani history throughout her writing. Mohsin’s book, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, was very topical but at its heart was a love story. What I would say about books like Moth Smoke and Kamila's first novels is that they came out in the 1990s. Much of what has been called Pakistani writing since then fulfills an interest that Western readers have in this supposed hotspot. There is this feeling that Pakistani history is embodied in its literature and some people will read between the lines of books to look for this even when it isn’t there. Much of that curiosity has to do with Islam and with how Muslim writers present themselves - The Paris Review"

If there is this demand and apparent interest in the region where so-called 'avante garde' literature like Muenuddin's 'In Other Rooms, Other Wonders', is targeted at a Western audience elucidating just how different the two cultures are, we lose the point. Why are classics classic? Because they transcend time and geography and touch the commonality within its readers binding them irrespective of where they are. There are reasons I hold Hugo and Orwell in such high esteem, a qualification that goes higher than the calibre of writing to the subject matters they covered. Jean Valjeane remains one of the most tortured protagonists in literature; despite his circumstances, you root for him, wherever he may be in the world. Reading allows you the liberty of reading whatever you want into literature; good literature, that is.

If we can step outside of our bubbled existence and scratch away the veneer of civility to the hearts that beat within, to the humanity inside each of us, literature will only be enriched by it. Culture has no role to play in literature. Not anymore. In fact, I don't think it ever deserved a place. A writer's culture will be imbued into the artist's soul where it belongs. Isn't knowing that enough?

The Imperfectionists

When I ended the blog, I did so with the idea that because I had achieved everything I set out to do. But now I'm working at a paper and there's a lot more to write about. I suppose it would be unprofessional to go too much into specifics, but suffice to say: between office politics, news, and the endless supply of people watching, there's a lot to write about.

For starters, I don't think I ever realized the shit they/we go through in shaping a piece from the bs it's often filed as to the wordplay it becomes. I read somewhere once about the indispensable relationship editors play for writers, and in the case of novelists in particular, you've got editors who so drastically shape events and in some cases, words and phrases, that it's as if the project's received a major facelift. When it comes to editing in my case, it isn't so much 'editing' as 'rewriting', a concept that seems to be lost on the reporters whose pieces are getting their much required facelifts. 

Established editors tell me the relationship between reporters and editors has always been a disrespectful one, a concept I've not been able to fathom yet given my previous experience with digital journalism with both The Missing Slate and Paper Cuts. But I'm beginning to see it in increasing evidence at this national newspaper. I think a lot of the relationship depends on how it's handled and how much of it is allowed to rest on the status quo.

For anyone who knows me or has read this blog, you'll know where there's a problem that's affecting job performance, I'd like a solution rather than a 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' approach. If you anticipate problems and resolve to solve them along with taking input from the rest of your team, it helps sell your vision and imparts in the group a sense of loyalty. Working at an office you learn things: some you can include in your next job, the rest you resolve never to replicate.

Either way, this is only the beginning. 

PS The title of this post comes from the book of the same name by Tom Rachman that deals with (surprise, surprise!) jounrnalists working for a small English paper based in Rome. This along with Eugenides' The Marriage Plot and Egan's Look at Me are the current reads on my virtual bookshelf.