A misconception among readers

There is found a great misconception among most of the common readers about the writers who are nonconformists or rebels in nature and whom the readers prefer to read.

It is generally observed that people are hasty; they often take things extremely emotionally or want them to happen in a rush. This issue of the prevalent misunderstanding which is unique in its nature evoked my curiosity to write upon this illusion in order to further a formal discussion.

There come many occasions in the flow of life that the readers treat a writer of this nature disgracefully when they find him talking against the existing culture, great society, rules, traditions and obsolete conventions besides remaining in their circles or boundaries while explaining his thoughts or taking support from the same tradition to illustrate his ideas.

Interestingly, sometimes reading such a writer’s works, the readers lose their temper, finding it within the traditional gestures or against their expectations, and throw the collection away without maintaining a formally accepted positive outlook and clear observation of the circumstances or events chronicled by the writer. It leads to an emotional rupture and breakdown because the reader takes the writer as a manipulator or hypocrite. It might be a lovely complaint (as a lover makes in presence of his/her beloved to get more attention) but it is possibly one which is completely unreasonable or unwisely.

It is obviously noted that they expect from such writers to represent a sharp and an absolute break with the tradition which is impossible in different ways reasonably. Firstly, it must be clearly known that such a writer wants the society to be reformed. As for example in the works of novelists, like D.H. Lawrence and E.M. Forster, it can be easily judged that they wanted to reform ‘the great society.’ But they could not totally remain unconventional. Every writer wants to analyze the disease of modern civilization and search for a possible cure, as did Huxley, Maugham, and Somerset.

Realistically arguing, it is very difficult to challenge the very fundamentals, the very basis of the existing beliefs and ways. A reader must feel this abundant difficulty a writer faces when he stands against ‘the great society’. Furthermore, the reader must realize that a writer is quite conscious of his age and desires it to be reflected in his words. But he needs the time, and space and mostly the moral support of the people.

A common reader must consider some important points before fighting or breaking up the reader-writer relation or bond.

 1- He must know there are some aspects and values in the existing traditions, productive and reasonable, which is what forces a writer or an intellectual to include them instead of throwing them away.

2- He should clearly realize that change is a slow and painful process which takes time to happen; seconds are not enough to bring about a change whether that is social, political or regarding the existing traditions and beliefs. It takes much time and effort to change the thousands of hundred years’ old conditioned minds and that is why the writer tries to change them layer by layer or slowly.

3- A writer is an individual and he faces a lot of challenges while questioning the existing norms and mores, and sometimes he faces death threats from the fundamentalists as a deviator, so it takes a lot of time to earn enough attention from the general public.