THE OPACITY OF LITERATURE

 Every Literary work presents itself as a form of opaque transparence to the reader. The Form is as transparent as it could be. In fact, 

The Form is by definition, a transparent display of the content. If it is judged solely on the basis of its own, it is not encrypted at all. The encryption comes only when It is seen in the context of the content. 

The Content, on the other hand, by virtue of being content, needs to be encrypted to meaning, connected to Form via an encryption and more so, In its structure, Encryption comes as an ingredient to the story itself. 

The three-factor authentication of Content is what makes it Decode worthy. The reader is invited in, engaged in and pushes him to know and decode. 

Take an example of a fiction drama, "Asaad ka Ek din" or "A day of Monsoon". The form in front is a set of people talking under the banner of "A day of monsoon". This generates some expectations. Some pre-assumptions about what the story is going to be about. 

But an intelligent reader knows that it is very much essential for the expectation to break and more and more rift between expectation and content to arise for further engagement of him with the content. So he is not only prepared for conflict, he is hopeful, he is counting on it. 

The content of course, then turns out to be a love story. Love stories in all day and ages are not that conflict generating. It might be having some inner conflicts of its own, but at least, it is not more deviation from the Form. A monsoon day can be considered already romantic. 

But the hidden message is that the title is kept fundamentally non-relevant to the story at large. As if, Mohan Rakesh, the author, delivers this message that the fundamental seer of this conflict, him, sees it not from any one perspective, but from the perspective of the stage, since it was a drama. 

A temporal title. This is what a day in a monsoon looked like once upon a time between these people. One of the key tenets of storytelling is to further de-aggrandize your story since, it is the very nature of fiction that it often intimidates reality. 

The reader enters, already intimidated to the characters at large, thinking, "What special have they done to deserve being written on a page and I don't? 

The reader comes from a certain space of intimidation, that is why he decided to turn to fiction in the first place. As I say, 

"Zen men read non-fiction. Rest non-Zen men and women console through fiction. Those who do not read at all, their sexuality is always in conflict, they remain unsure of their sexuality." 

What do I mean by this is, It requires a certain amount of give in, a submission to fiction only those can afford who do not have a good reality to look forward to. On the other hand, Non-fiction is basically truth. If taken literally, "Non-fiction" means "Not a story" that is, basically truth. It requires a very courageous mind and a sort of privilege to be able to read non-fiction. Rest those who do not read, they fight with both natures. They are submissive where it is required to fight, they are aggressive where it is required to submit. Their lives become a constant anxious nightmare. 

The Opacity of literature, be it fiction and non-fiction reveal itself like sexuality. You slowly discover the facets of sexuality, and you slowly get to know what the story is about.