REALITY FICTION

So I've been thinking a great deal about this idea of reality fiction and yesterday while watching a U-tube video I heard the same idea reiterated. The man who was talking about writing in general and screen writing in particular claimed that you can write about heartbreak only if you get your heart broken. And that your writing should be drawn from real life. I beg to disagree. I've been hearing this for so long that I thought I would address this topic today. 

Is writing a mirror of life? Yes. It is. Is fiction an imaginative piece of work? Yes it is. Then does it follow you cannot mirror life if you are writing fiction? No. It doesn't. Because that's where imagination comes in. Let us not deride imagination. It is a powerful tool in all creation. It helps us in creating situations, people who might not be real, but simulate reality. All actors do that. Enact people or situations which might be far removed from their reality. I think that makes them good actors. To be able to imagine themselves into their roles. They don't actually have to murder people to act as murderers. To commit crimes to portray criminals. To actually suffer heartbreak to portray it. Good actors simulate. So why should writers be any different? They cannot actually live the characters they create except in their imagination. In my opinion writers are not so different from actors. They too simulate. 

To say that you are a good writer only if you have lived your writing is to say you cannot write for instance, about the first world war because you were never born in that period. For that you must research your topic. Then use your imagination to dress that research. That's how a book is created. 

And it is in my opinion a very myopic way of looking at things to say you must write from real life. Your imagination is also very real, let's not forget. To you in your mind. The murderer in your book is as much as part of you as the hero. Because you have created them. You have given birth to them. Birthing you'll agree is the most real the most potent the most primeval connection in the universe. Nothing can transcend the bond between a mother and her child. In that sense all fictional characters are real. 

And what happens when a writer writes using only reality? Then he  becomes severely  limited. Because he cannot imagine beyond the scope of his experience. It means if I'm a campus writer I can  write only campus novels. If I'm from the corporate world I can only write about it. And that is where limitation comes in. Just because I was a schoolteacher I can only write about it and nothing else? It seems to be an absurd argument. Does my work becomes less because it is purely fiction ? Does it automatically become better if it is autobiographical in nature? No. I don't think it does. The best books I've read have not been autobiographical in nature but imagined pieces of work. That is my observation. That is my argument. I rest my case. You may or may not agree. This is what I think. What do you think?

Money, money, money!

We are in the throes of change. That's what we are being told. These long queues outside banks and ATMs are mere hiccups. Who are you kidding? Have you seen any of the queues? The insane rush to the banks? Because ATMs do not have sufficient cash? I know. I know. Papers are full of it. Go cashless. Banks, leaders, newspapers-(anyone and everyone)are telling you. Sure ready to go cashless. But how will you pay the domestic helps? Some of them don't even have bank accounts. For those who do you can wire money into their accounts through EFT. But and this is a BIG BUT you have to go into a bank, fill a form and drop it to do that. For every transaction now you have to go to the bank. And you can't get into the Bank. AT ALL. Hundreds are lining up from four in the morning. Some I'm told are sleeping at the banks. 

Yesterday after watching the news and hearing that ATMS will be up and functioning only after 28 days I rushed to the bank today. Luckily my driver helped out by standing for an hour and a half. I only deposited money. Mark you I did not exchange anything. No cash. Now I've no idea how our domestic helps will be paid next month. Anyone listening? These are poor people. They need money to eat. Most don't own smart phones so downloading Paytm app and singing paytm karo is useless. How do they get paid? I've also heard from people that only 2500 is being allowed to each person even with a cheque. So how are we going to survive on a few measly rupees when EVERYONE is dealing in CASH? The milk vendor is paid in cash, the vegetable vendor,(you name it)they want cash. 

EFT is possible with net banking but most Indians are afraid to because their accounts maybe hacked. Check recent credit card fiasco. 

Just some questions for you, Mr. Prime minister.

 Sweeping reforms require planning and forethought. There is still time. Till dec 30. Usher in a joyful year. Find solutions to problems because admit it or not the really rich are not affected. They do net banking. Their employees have bank accounts. For the rest it is - Money, money , money. 

What do you see?

The creative process is an incredibly convoluted one. Or so I'm told. An author is hardly an author till he or she spends at least 5 to 10 years writing a novel. It is so difficult to express oneself ably. To say what you want. And to say it in a different, newer way or form. So is the writer an inventor? Possibly from what I read or hear. Masterpieces often are new ways of looking at the world. To have a world view no-one else has. "To go where no-one has gone before." Sorry. Just couldn't resist that. 

But today I'm not dealing with this creative process however convoluted it maybe. I'm dealing with the "after- phase" if you like. What happens after the author surrenders the creation into his/ her reader's hands? There the control exercised over that body of work comes to an end. It is then up to the reader to make of it what he/she will. I will give you a simple example. The phrase" naked and helpless" can be interpreted in myriad ways. The nakedness maybe symbolic or physical. Now what happens when a supposedly symbolic reference is taken to be literal? Then the gross meaning of the text is altered. What the author wanted to say is twisted completely. Because both physical and symbolic nakedness are miles apart. This was just an example. There are many more instances where the intent of the author is missed by the reader or misinterpreted. (Don't know which is worse). Our ways of perceiving things are always different. How can the author ensure that the work is interpreted exactly as he/she meant it to be? Well, in today's age of media and internet it's not difficult at all. There are plenty of talk shows, publicity where authors talk of their work. But without those explanations the author is at the mercy of the readers when the work is delivered to them. 

The creative process then includes an important chapter. That of the reader or the target audience as we call it today. Most books, of course, are easily interpreted. But ultimately the author has to leave it to the reader to see what he/she will. 

Which brings me to another question- what exactly do we mean by fiction? I've read of so many people talking of drawing on their real life experiences in fiction etc that I must confess I'm slightly puzzled. Then is fiction supposed to be based on reality? Is there something known as real fiction? As far as I know fiction is supposed to be just that. An imaginative account which has no basis in reality. If I was writing a real account it would either be a biography or an autobiography or.... Sorry. I can't think offhand about any other genre. Maybe we should add a new one called the real fiction genre. These are merely random thoughts and questions. 

My main issue( which I've wandered from) is that of interpretation by readers. The author is all powerful in the act of crafting his trade but once he has given it to his audience he/ she is at their mercy. All he/she can ask of the reader is- what do YOU see? 

The standalone novels

Some novels are never meant to have sequels. These I call the stand alone novels. 

Very recently I finished reading "Go set A Watchman" by Harper Lee. Like millions of readers I had waited eagerly to read the sequel to "To Kill a Mocking bird" written years ago. But I have to confess Harper's Lee's sequel fails to evoke the same emotions her first  novel does. Scout Finch returns home from New York to a vastly changed home town; worse, her much idolized father seems to have feet of clay. The Atticus Finch she has looked up to her entire life disappoints her. "Watchman" deals with the same theme of racial prejudice, of white against black but for some reason it fails to have the same impact as "Mockingbird. "The tone of narrative is shriller, strident and at times it borders on didactic. It could be that the narrative of an innocent nine year is vastly different from that of an adult. The love angle between an adult Scout and Hank is touched upon in passing as is the death of Scout's brother Jem. Jem, a central character in the first book, dies in this one. But his death is glossed over. I found that to be a deficiency. Jem and Scout seemed inseparable but in this sequel Jem appears only in a flashback cameo. After the emotional impact of "Mocking bird" "Watchman" is oddly flat. Perhaps racial prejudice has more impact when seen through the eyes of a nine year old. Much of the humor that leavens the narrative in the first book is absent in the second. The vision is darker, the didactism pronounced though humor does make its appearance in brief flashes. All in all a sequel which fails to stir the heart as the first did. "Mocking bird" is ludicrously simple yet unbelievably profound. As truth always is.  However the sequel does not achieve the greatness of the first. 

Another sequel which should not have been written is the sequel to Gone With the Wind. It is a great book. Those who call it a love story are doing it an injustice. It is so much more. A picture of a world gone by, a way of life, an epic portrayal of the Southern culture. There are layers within layers. Even if Margaret Mitchell had attempted the sequel herself I doubt that she could have lived up to the breadth and scope of the first. Sometimes a creation becomes greater than the creator. And to attempt to match the matchless is a futile attempt. But I've to applaud the courage of one who dared to do so. Just as the attempt to write a Poirot novel after Christie's death. Poirot is one of the greatest creations in detective fiction and no matter how one tries to resurrect him after Christie's death I don't think the effect is the same. Which brings me to the question of ghosting novels. Is it really possible? Can ghost writers achieve the same effect long after the author has abandoned the post- either due to death or lack of inspiration? What about this idea of co-writing novels? I find extremely difficult to comprehend it. But I can see for myself it is successful. Lars Kepler is a husband and wife team writing together. I've read their work. I must say it does seem to work for them. But I'm old fashioned. I still think writing is a hugely private affair. And it has very little to do with talk shows, tours and publicity. In fact I think the best thing about it is the anonymity it affords. But in today's world of internet it's next to impossible. And anonymity probably won't spell success. 

What do you think? Is it a private thing? Or nothing so sacrosanct? Do you think a creation can surpass the creator? I think it does. And has. In a few standalone novels. 

Of questions and answers -part two

Right. So here I am again. To answer the second part of the question put to me: "Are you a working woman Ma'am? Surely you're not a housewife?" While the words used aren't exactly the same the import of the words is. On my asking why she thought so she replied: "Because you seem so confident." It was on the tip of my tongue to tell the young girl that she didn't know the first thing about housewives. They are confident. Super confident. Most of the time I get the heebie- jeebies seeing exactly how confident they are and how splendidly they manage their lives and homes. I've worked for exactly six years as a professional and for the rest I've been a homemaker. But somehow I've never been able to include myself in that category. Instead I've stayed on the sidelines watching admiringly and slightly wistfully the assurance with which the breed we call homemakers or housewives live their lives. Among them and foremost among them is my mother. With mother's day around the corner it's the perfect time to tell my mother what a wonderful person she has been. The rock of our family. Everything I am- the good not the bad- is because of her. My real education has come from her and not from the books I've read or schools I've attended. The reason I've taken so long to write the second part of questions and answers is that I've 

been busy on U tube doing some research for this blog. I've watched umpteen videos posted by homemakers who've turned homemaking into a skilled art. From folding clothes to cleaning tips to making room fresheners, candles, hypertufa pots, to organizing the fridge, files, kitchen, cupboards- you name it, they've done it all. To a person like me whose idea of cleaning the house is once a year or on the rare occasions we have a visitor and too by picking everything up and cramming it into the cupboard with the warning to my family to open cupboards at their own peril, it was a revelation how efficient these women are. I've haven't subscribed to any of their videos or given a thumbs up but here I'd like to mention a few- At home with Nikki, Alejandra organization tips, Do it on a dime, Do it gurl, the sorry girls, house & home, and tons of gardening videos. I've tried a few tips, messed up many, made room fresheners( believe me they work!) and at the end of it stayed awed by these women and the amount of labor and love they invest in their homes. Some of them do it professionally-( House & home videos) but most are housewives. I've learnt a lot from them. But I still cannot classify myself as a housewife. The reason is I've been a penniless writer for the last 7 years before which I was a teacher. The lessons I've learnt as a homemaker are not all pleasant. It is and remains the worst and most thankless job ever. Zero appreciation- everything that goes wrong from leaking taps to absentee maids - is your fault and NO HOLIDAYS ever. Yes. If you're on the brink of being a dreamy eyed newbie housewife you should rapidly get used to the idea of no holidays because your life is anyway one big holiday, isn't it? Because you are AT HOME. Hubby has the excuse of work pressure, and the classic excuse: I've been working the whole day while you've been chilling. Yup! Housewives live in a chill out zone. Perpetually. But in reality their existence sucks. Having seen both sides I cannot deny that financial independence is a must for all women. Without that you are reduced as a human being and your self esteem suffers when you must accept handouts from your spouse. But that is just my view. I'm sure umpteen women disagree. 

 The second refrain you get to hear most frequently is: No-one is coming so why are you making this effort? And that is another of my observations. How often we live our lives for others, to show others. How many of us say hey! I'm doing this for myself because I like it. Most housewives don't live for themselves because they don't have a clear demarcated space that says Me. When you are working it's different. Then your space is demarcated, as is your social identity. You are not taken for granted. So to all the housewives out there I say: you are marvelous! The greatest! And on mother's day I say: Thanks ma. For giving a beautiful clean home to come back to and making me the person I am today. From telling me stories, to listening to my grouses, to scolding me and criticizing my mistakes, to giving me pieces of yourself you have made my life. If you hadn't been a housewife I wouldn't have been me. So here's to all of you great women from me- a big salute! 

Of questions and answers- part one

Recently a young girl visiting my flat to ask me for donations for SOS village and Helpage etc. asked me a question that sent me off on a tangent of thought which has been pickling in my mind for weeks. The question was simple enough: Where are you from? The answer ought to be simple enough. Only it wasn't. Because I didn't know. I thought long and hard after she left about it. The reason for my ambiguity was that I was an army officer's daughter and I had lived all over India at different times of my life. By birth I was Bengali but I had only lived in Kolkata for a couple of years. I had settled down In U.P. having spent my adult years in Delhi cantonment. We had lived in Assam, Jabalpur, Chennai, Jhansi before that. So to be completely honest I didn't know where I was from. I did not feel any special affinity to Kolkata as such, my few visits there over the years being more a form of duty than anything else. I did not belong there. No umbilical connection there. The only connection I felt was to army. To those green lush cantonments,  to order and discipline, to organization in its myriad forms. Apart from that where was I from? Would you think me an absolute douche bag if I said- India? Come to think of it I've never been unduly patriotic. Not the flags and banners kind. But I do have something to say about the recent trend( or has it always been so) of making little pockets where you lay claim to your piece of territory. Telangana. Kashmir. Everyone wants a piece for himself. Independence from independence. And the fighting. My god. Everyone wants to live free. Irony isn't it in a democracy? We are free. So why are we clamoring for our little pockets and hidey holes? Search me. I racked my brains and couldn't come up with an answer. If you do let me know. It's your country man. Why do you need a pocket to crawl into? Demarcate territories? Put up fences and barriers? Large signs saying: This is mine. Keep out. Why are we so threatened? 

I may speak Bengali eat Bengali food but may feel at home just about anywhere. Why do I have to limit myself to a region or state? So I gave her the only answer I could. "Everywhere." I said. "I'm from everywhere." It's how I feel. What about you? What do you feel? What do you think? A pocket to crawl into or the whole damn country? Where are you from? India or Assam, Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, Punjab? Hey only you have the answer to that question.