6 days ago
Should writers bare their raw feelings or keep them hidden?
Many writers — myself included — are apostles of hypocrisy, like the most frivolous patient who enters a psychiatry clinic under the guise of getting proper treatment for the ills he or she will never disclose. This is the same patient who fears his beautiful sandcastle, which stands in the front yard of his waterfront home, will crumble under the tsunami of emotions the doctor might generate with a series of tremulous queries. Yet, when it comes to the appointment, he shows up.
Do writers really pen the principles they hold close to their heart? Do they really practise what they advocate to the public? Writing a weekly column for nearly six years isn't a joke, especially when your memory needs to be on-point to ensure no repetition. Every column messages a philosophy that the writer assumes his or her ardent readers will not only absorb into their souls but also pass on to the younger generations in their family.
Penning a personal column highlighting the musings of life is supposed to be as sincere and anecdotal as possible. It's an intellectual exercise, taking a page from your own life or the experiences of someone you know or is close to you and process it in such a way that it doesn't hurt the protagonist or send out the wrong message to society.
While the cleverest method a writer can employ is to narrate the story and leave it to the readers to elicit whatever they want from it, the most ideal way to go about it is to carve out the lessons learned for the goodness of the readers. While being non-committal by telling the readers, 'you take what you want' would be irresponsible writing, there would be times when the writer would find himself at a crossroads.
My recent column Cherish your grief is a classic example of a writer's dilemma. Two weeks after the column was published, the question of whether I was politically correct about debating the psychology of falling in love with a person less than half my age still haunts me. While there were letters empathising with the writer and praising his skills, likening the episode to peeling back the layers of an onion bulb, there was one which did a dissection of the work in so many words. 'I get the whole depth of the article, irrespective of your arguments that the column was a bit of exaggeration for the sake of presenting a psychiatric analysis of a possible human dilemma,' argues Malaika Rodrigues, who has been a reader of my column from day one.
'If at all there's a controversy about the topic, it depends on the way the reader perceives it; so, if your fan base is young, there's no controversy at all. But if your fan base is old enough and has an idealistic vision of men and women, then there's a problem.
'It's possible a reader might think the writer is condoning something that's not morally right. We are not actually — because idealistic visions change with the times.
'What you have mentioned in the article is raw feelings with depth. It can happen to anybody, ideal or not. Even the most loyal of partners could feel for someone from the past or even the present.
'Your earlier articles, starting from 2019, had a very cryptic message. It could be this or it could be that. That is the most enjoyable way of reading an article because you don't know who it is about.
'But this particular one showcases you. From all your previous ones, people know what has happened to your wife.
'And that's on record in today's article, too. They do also know that you are a granddad because you have beautifully portrayed the boy so many times.
'So, people already know you as this ideal guy, family man, and wonderful husband. And then today they received a shocker.
'Now, today's big reveal or confession to your psychiatrist that you've fallen in love with someone half your age seems outrageous for the idealistic reader. For some reason, these key points get stuck in his mind, like, 'What's happening to this man? We all thought he was a family guy.
'One could wonder what's happening to this role model husband who, despite the circumstances, is still so loyal, faithful. He cannot falter. He cannot waver in his attention to his ailing wife.
'But nobody really knows what real feelings are. It takes a lot of guts and courage to actually confront those feelings like you did.
'Yes, I understand that you have to avoid controversies, but then what would happen to the liberty of a writer? You had written about raw feelings in your previous articles and still escaped a controversy because it takes a very good reader to understand cryptic language. A real reader will understand and will ponder on the said feelings, reflect on them, introspect on them, and ask questions about them.
'While such readers are very rare, this one was very obvious even to the common man. Yet I enjoyed reading it. It was very deep because you narrated how people, young or old, could have a hard time tackling grief over losing someone, or getting over someone.'
So, while the verdict is still out on disclosing raw feelings in a personalised column, it's still being debated whether the story was a figment of imagination or a chapter wrenched from the writer's own dog-eared book of life.
