Literary Rehab: How to balance Life with Lit
Dear Reader,
This is my week of non-reading. I've been forced into literary rehab.
As someone who spends all their free time between the pages of a book, this is pure torture. The only times I haven't read were when I was forbidden to —maybe there were exams, or maybe my mother decreed I was straining my eyes too much. Even then, there were always inventive ways around the ban: reading a Five Find-Outers mystery between my science textbooks or reading Gone with the Wind under the sheets.
But now, even I know it's time to stop reading. I've returned to Mumbai to a house filled with cartons that need unpacking, a desk cluttered with unpaid invoices, and chaos in every corner. I have a week to fix it all before leaving again. The writing is on the wall: I need to stop reading—even my to-be-read list. Sonya, don't look at Audition by Katie Kitamura, never mind that your book club is reading it. Or How to Kill Your Family by Bella Mackie, by your bedside after your girls recommended it as riveting. Or Fasting—no, you can't call it 'health research.' and pretend that's not reading. Sonya, read the writing on the wall. Stop Reading.
My friends say, 'You read so much!' like it's a virtue. (The truth? I've long disguised my escapist addiction as self-improvement. My notebooks are plastered with lofty quotes: 'Reading fiction allows us to explore the depths of our own emotions, question the world around us' 'Readers are leaders,' etc. All true—but did those wise souls mean for me to neglect life entirely?)
I skim from story to story, drunk on make-believe. Monday: Chinese spies in The Hidden Hand by Stella Rimington. Tuesday: Shanghai murder mysteries. Wednesday: Nigerian sci-fi in Death of the Author. Friday: House of Huawei. And on the weekend, real life scams in Empire of Pain and The Everything War.
Sounds perfectly bookish I know. Except that at this point, between you and me, and strictly off the record - it's time to stop. My binge-reading has left me mired in a mountainous mess. And it's just a week of not reading—how bad could it be? Plus I've done it once before.
Six years ago, following Julia Cameron's The Artist's Way program, I was forced to quit all reading as part of the course. For a whole week ! The first days were hell—what to do in queues, waiting rooms or winding down before bed? But slowly, I re-learned to play the piano, sketched, even tidied drawers. Shockingly, not reading had unexpected perks.
Also Read | Book Box | Reading without rules
Now on Day 1 of literary detox, I clear my desk, my cupboard and my hard drive. Afterwards, I slump onto my reading spot (red cushion, propped pillows) with no soothing prospect of a book before me. Instead I stare into space, at my walls full of bookshelves, and wonder: Did I always read this much? At 21, studying at IIM Calcutta, I barely touched novels—just MBA notes. Work life weekends in Mumbai revived my habit. Motherhood pared reading down to Saki and Maugham short stories, read in bits between baby cries. Now, with grown kids, I read 100+ books a year, and binge on book clubs.
This week is different. With no books to gobble my attention, I discover life beyond the pages. I sit about more, I day dream. The girls and I go buy flowers, we go hunting for light fixtures. I make mango ice cream, egg sandwiches and homemade mustard. I write more. I start writing a screenplay. I also end up irritating my family ! Suddenly I am noticing all their little misdeeds and their messes. Go back to your murder mysteries, they beg me.
As the week draws to a close, I am strangely content. This literary detox feels like a palate cleanser, like breathing in the scent of coffee beans between glasses of wine. I am more intentional and more mindful about my reading life. I shift away from the latest bestsellers and decide to begin a long planned project - re-reading old classics, beginning with The Brothers Karamazov. It feels like this break - even from a good habit - has sparked creativity in me, and given me more focus.
Going back to reading is amazing - for reading is magic—it deepens our empathy, stretches our imagination, and connects us to lives we'll never live. But I realise there's another kind of magic too: unhurried conversations, homemade mustard, swimming with your daughters, noticing the shape of your day. The best stories aren't just the ones you read—they are also the ones you pause long enough to live.
(Sonya Dutta Choudhury is a Mumbai-based journalist and the founder of Sonya's Book Box, a bespoke book service. Each week, she brings you specially curated books to give you an immersive understanding of people and places. If you have any reading recommendations or suggestions, write to her at sonyasbookbox@gmail.com. The views expressed are personal.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
9 hours ago
- News18
Who Are ‘Man Mums'? The 5-Minute Women-Only Service In China For Rs 600. Know What They Offer
Last Updated: Man mums initially meant strong men who are muscular, but now women choose who to hug based on qualities like kindness, patience, looks and body shape. In China, young women are paying about 50 yuan (approximately Rs 600) for a five-minute hug from men called 'man mums.' This unusual trend is growing on Chinese social media and it offers comfort during stressful times. At first, 'man mums' meant strong, muscular men, but now women choose who to hug based on qualities like kindness, patience, looks and body shape. They arrange meetings through chat apps and hugs usually happen in public places like subway stations or malls. The price for a short hug usually costs between 20 to 50 yuan (approximately Rs 200 to Rs 600). According to the South China Morning Post, Zhou, who has hugged 34 times, said he earned 1,758 yuan (approximately Rs 21,000) and hopes his hugs help women feel better when they struggle with worries about their body or work pressure. The man offering hugs says he has no plans to turn it into a full time job. For him, charging a small fee helps keep clear boundaries. It makes the experience feel more professional and less personal. Another man who has given hugs a few times said that doing this makes him feel good about himself. He feels more confident and important because he can help others feel better through his hugs. A student feeling uneasy with her thesis shared that she was looking to pay for a hug from a caring and fit man to help relieve stress. She remembered being hugged once back in school and said it made her feel safe. She suggested meeting at an underground station and keeping the hug short. Some women also feel that paying for the hug makes the situation safer and more respectful. It helps avoid misunderstandings or unwanted behaviour, as both sides know the rules and limits from the start. First Published: June 06, 2025, 15:08 IST
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Breaking the Engagement' Review: The China-U.S. Divorce
'There is no realistic prospect or false nirvana of returning to an amicable and cooperative bilateral relationship,' David Shambaugh writes in 'Breaking the Engagement: How China Won and Lost America.' Few American scholars have a better understanding of China than Mr. Shambaugh. So when the George Washington University professor tells us that the official U.S. strategy of engagement with Beijing is dead—'D-E-A-D'—we had better pay attention. This isn't only a question of state policy. The American people have had enough of China, too. Mr. Shambaugh points to a recent Pew survey, which found that eight out of 10 Americans hold 'unfavorable' views of China, with 42% describing it as an 'enemy.' Only 6% see it as a 'partner.' Certainly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio's announcement that the U.S. would revoke the visas of many Chinese students who are already in this country—and make it much harder for future Chinese students to enroll at American universities—lays bare the fact that the U.S.-China relationship is at a nadir. It would not be overly shrill to say that in many of these cases we're educating the enemy. Mr. Shambaugh, who describes himself as a 'disillusioned former engager,' would agree. (His disillusion, it should be noted, began when the Chinese government banned him from Beijing's many universities and think tanks after he published a long essay in this newspaper in 2015, titled 'The Coming Chinese Crackup.' It took a personal slight to make the scales fall from his eyes, but fall they did.) A China-hawk ever since, Mr. Shambaugh sets out to explain how Washington and Beijing have reached the lowest ebb in their relations since Richard Nixon's 'breakthrough' in 1972. The Sino-American relationship, while always demanding vigilance, has rarely been so nakedly hostile. Mr. Shambaugh's book covers a 75-year period, from 1949—when the Chinese Communists took control of the country—to the second election of Donald Trump in 2024. Although the relationship fluctuated during that time between 'amity' and 'enmity,' as the author puts it, the American desire for engagement was not merely constant but 'axiomatic.' This policy of nonhostility was bipartisan in the U.S. Congress, even as some Democrats chafed at a glossing over by Washington of Chinese human-rights abuses and some Republicans 'questioned the long-term wisdom' of strengthening China through trade and transfers of technology. The roots of America's decadeslong policy of engagement with China lie, says Mr. Shambaugh, in its two-centuries-old 'missionary complex' to change China. America not only sought to trade with China starting in the late 18th century but to 'mold and shape it' in other ways: 'religiously, intellectually, socially, economically, and politically.' The fluctuations in bilateral relations have resulted from the dialectic between 'American paternalism vs. Chinese nationalism.' To put matters at their plainest: We like the Chinese when they're inclined to be more like us, 'conforming to American expectations of liberal development.' But one man can make a tectonic difference. American paternalism prevailed—whether genuinely or as a result of the Chinese faking conformity to extract material advantage—until 2012-13 and the ascent to power of Xi Jinping, the most hardline nationalist leader China has had since Mao Zedong. Until then, China had needed America in what was still a unipolar world, so Beijing was largely vested in playing down discord. The 1989 Tiananmen massacre and the 2008-09 financial crisis—which sparked Chinese disillusion with American economic management—were rare blips in the pre-Xi age, when China was led by less Manichean men: Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao. Mr. Trump, too, has played a decisive role in altering the course of this relationship. His election in 2016 saw growing American hostility toward China grafted atop Mr. Xi's mercantilist, irredentist jingoism. This hard line on China, Mr. Shambaugh observes, was continued by the Biden administration, albeit with differences in nuance and rhetoric. With the second Trump administration, we have Mr. Rubio driving important elements of America's China policy. 'He may be,' writes Mr. Shambaugh—whose book went to press before Mr. Rubio's elevation at State in January—'the single most knowledgeable Member of Congress about China,' who has been 'outspoken and unafraid to take the Xi Jinping regime to task for a variety of its malign actions.' Given our loss of global predominance and primacy—as well as Mr. Xi's drive to make China the global hegemon—the best we can hope for, Mr. Shambaugh concludes, is 'competitive coexistence' with China. The U.S. should expose China to the world at every opportunity. 'The Chinese government's own negative behavior is one of America's greatest assets in its contest with China, and it must be taken advantage of.' We must also retain our global strut and confidence, Mr. Shambaugh says, and not overestimate China, a country with 'multiple systemic weaknesses.' These include an aging population, a stark gender imbalance, a rigid one-party system, widespread repression, massive income inequality, capital flight, a nonconvertible currency, industrial overcapacity and a vindictive control-freak at the helm. No one has the slightest idea what will happen when Mr. Xi dies. Mr. Shambaugh's most radical suggestion is his call to 'consider resurrecting and applying the 'Trading With the Enemy Act,' ' which would take American companies to task for conducting business with China in ways that harm our 'national interest.' The American corporate sector needs to 'understand that some—much—of what it does in China is strengthening an existing rival and a potential adversary.' This is a controversial idea. It's also audacious. We may not stop the Chinese juggernaut in its tracks. But there's no reason to actively help it run us over. Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at NYU Law School's Classical Liberal Institute. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Op Sindoor Sent China a Stern Message: Tharoor, Surya Expose Beijing's 'Kill Chain' Ties With Pak
In a fiery address at the National Press Club in Washington, Shashi Tharoor reveals how Operation Sindoor — India's retaliatory military strike against Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack — sent a loud and clear signal to China. With Pakistani forces reportedly using Chinese tech and radar systems, India's successful airstrike shattered the so-called 'Chinese kill chain.' BJP MP Tejasvi Surya also slammed China's 81% arms support to Pakistan, highlighting India's diverse and increasingly indigenous military capability. Was this Delhi's hidden warning to Beijing? Watch the full expose.#shashitharoor #operationsindoor #shashitharoorspeech #shashitharoorinus #pahalgamattack #indiachinarelations #killchain #tejasvisurya #pahalgamattack #indianairstrike #pakchina #modidoctrine #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews Read More
