The perplexity i always had in writing was about a subject that appeals to everyone, though the intensities of interest varies. That was the confusion i had in choosing my 'strong area' too. Its of course like marriage. We choose one, and we are integrated to the name. When i saw the magician Muthukad in the judges desk at the reality show 'munch star singer' in asianet channel, i wondered what business this person has here. Blame my ignorance of his fields of expertise, but this was the first question that sprang up in my mind. So, i think this is the question of being labelled. Your nomen clature is based upon what you deliver.The output.
I was mark-scorer in school. It never was the result of a conscious study, though. I devoured sentences like a worm. May be the reason why i too got nick-named by the term, which most of voracious readers are entitled with at least once in their lives- book worm. I surmise the marks came through this channel. The reading too was not a conscious act. For i have no clue what the titles were, whose 'miserable efforts' they were or what were the famous quotes that could be used in and out of place.
I've travelled out of the box. What i try to say is that this had sown in me seeds of different interests. It be science, humanities, literature or even maths. I cant choose between. Some years of absolute dormancy had followed, which i didnt knew would have been damaging my competency. I remember my malayalam teacher who insisted me to keep on writing, because 'the gift would wean away if you dont use it.'I didnt agree to it at the moment. How can one ever confront with difficulty to write? I considered her old-fashioned. Was it arrogance that i was confident i can write anything when demanded? Miss, as you taught us in your classes, those who dont study from what is told, study from experience. I feel sorry to scorn your words.
The problem of selection always existed. In life. Selection of courses, books, garments. I liked everything and everyone. Universal love it seems. What my point was that i didnt want to get tied to any particular thing. When doing a course in English literature i was jealous of my friends in Sociology departments. I felt envious seeing the zoology and botany texts. I wondered why i didnt select a subject that would tell me of emperors and revolutions. Mine was the subject most suitable for me, but i wanted everything and everything. Hence the dilemma of selection.
So i've thought of a subject that appeals to everyone. That should be read by everyone alike. I read what others have written. The suppliments of papers. The comments received by my friends who scribbled what they wanted. I talked to people. The search had been long.
There is no universal subject. There is no universal interest. Hunger in Isthanbul is no different from that in Lucknow. Luxury appeals to the gilded in Paris, the plush in Mumbai. But not all in Turkey are starving, not all in UP. Not all in Paris are filthy rich. And so is the case in Mumbai. Poverty, wealth, knowledge, literature, science, society, sex.. not all appeals to all. Various people. Variety of pleasures. Interests. There is no an ideal, universal topic.
A journalist therefore cant sit confined to a single corner. There is no dilemma in selection when situation demands everything to fill the space. All is well. A journalist has to have everything. Iam blessed to be one. I can have all.
As one of my friends said, "Write, write and write"... "To derive your strong area", as another suggested.
No comments:
Post a Comment