There are a few things about me that I am pretty sure I'm aware of. For one thing, I am a writer. For another thing, I am not really a writer. For the past four years, I am convinced that I was never a proper writer because (1) I write about crappy things (2) I know I am not good enough (3) I have never produced anything that is substantial for anyone to read (4) I barely write anything these days. Over the years whenever a lecturer ask "Who writes in this class?" or "Do we have writers in this class?", I gradually found myself keeping my arms by the side with my head bend low. I would usually receive a few looks from friends that reads "You're a writer! Raise your hand!". But I never did and whenever I do, I always have that tingling, doubtful thought at the back of my head, whispering "Are you sincerely and seriously are a writer, Akmal?".
Upon the lecturer's question, I knew there will be familiar faces raising their hands. Their writings and works are far more advanced than anything that I've ever worked for. Some already had their works recited in front of audiences in numerous occasions while some have far better structure and style than I ever implemented. I have never read most of their works before but from how they talk about their works, it seems as if they are 10 steps ahead of me. I had watched performances written by one of these writers. Once in a while, I found myself analyzing her works. I often ended up questioning the credibility of her works, thinking that though the gists, main ideas and the layers are well pondered upon, her style and structure are somewhat messy, inconsistent and too bizarre even Harry Potter could not digest. Within a short time span, the writer seems to be trying too hard by including too many layers/main ideas within one story without even developing any one of the main ideas, resulting the entire plot to be somewhat inconclusive, lack of quality and messy in style. Yes, I have gradually become a critique. I'd found myself sitting at that chair quietly, taking the whole atmosphere of the stage, taking note of little movements, the lightings and hanging onto every word. Then, the performance ends, and I would usually found myself mulling over the performance, repeating each movement and sound over and over again until the entire piece is put into a perspective and just like that, my brain would spontaneously compute an interpretation. I would sometimes grimace at the ugliness of the performance. Other times, I would be sitting there feeling miserable, either due to my disappointment of the entire piece or feeling underachieved of my own writings. Either way, there I was sitting quietly and analyzing everything. I think I learn a lot more by sitting quietly and by listening to others: it provides me a clearer image of everybody's thoughts, perspectives and worldviews. From there, I could create a new reality and implement on my next interpretations for my future readings.
There is no way I could teach people on how to read, understand and interpret metaphorical pieces because your understanding of the gist mostly depend on how much you read and how much you know about imageries and symbolisms. I never think that I've read widely enough but so far, I think I've read enough to enable me to make interpretations of quiet many a metaphorical works which is mostly due to some imageries and symbolisms that I've picked up over the years through my leisure readings. "Mind sex" (as Walt Whitman said) helps too, provided if you spend some time brooding over issues and the reality a few hours a day. Discussions on the philosophy of reality with your friends (or thinkers/broody people) always help you to widened your telescope, helping your mind to broadened itself and eventually help you to read beyond those mere words.
Erm...I don't know why i am writing this. I wanted to write about something else but I ended up writing this rambling/random entry. I should stop now. Till then :)
P/S: lame giler tak menulis. my sentences rs mcm pelik giler. sorry about that XD