Since the dawn of his being, man has been intricately intertwined with literature. It has become ingrained in his nature to seek solace in its embrace, to flee to its sanctuary, to take refuge in it from the cruelty of intentions, the coarseness of emotions, the audacity of the materialistic, the emptiness of trivial. He finds in it respite from the rigidity of philosophy and the austerity of science. As society progresses, as development propels its gears, sparks revolutions, erects factories, and inundates minds before warehouses with its products and inventions, man’s thirst for literature only deepens. The tragedy lies in the indifference with which development regards literature, relegating it to the margins, a gilded ornament adorning the stage of human endeavor. Despite the prejudice and exclusion that literature faces, the transparent soul remains eager for its embrace, devoted to its artistry and creations. This fervent longing explains the inherent desire of people to engage with creative literary works in all their diverse forms. It is no coincidence that the world’s best-selling books are predominantly works of literature or those that present religious or social themes through a literary lens.
Our central focus revolves around a concept we refer to as “literaturization,” which involves infusing writing—be it research or intellectual discourse—with broader aesthetic and artistic qualities, tailored to the specific context in which the text is positioned. Our interest in literature here is not its specialized knowledge domain, which finds parallels in other fields like religion, nature, society, and humanities, but rather in its artistic, creative, and poetic essence, particularly as manifested in written works. Consequently, it is pertinent to contrast “literaturization” with “freewriting,” as the latter refers to writing that lacks the aesthetic, poetic, and creative elements inherent in the former. Many scientific and intellectual works fall prey to two inherent weaknesses: constriction, in which the presentation loses its fluidity, and impotence, where the breadth of revelation suffers. A case in point are some philosophers, thinkers, and researchers who adhere to “freewriting,” remaining confined within their tomes, failing to reach the minds and hearts of their readers despite harboring profound ideas and concepts. Freewriting does not prioritize writing for its own sake; it is primarily concerned with achieving the goal of effective communication, by conveying specific content to the intended audience. It is akin to someone entering a marriage solely for the purpose of procreation. “Freewriting” constructs content through writing, whereas “literaturization” interweaves the two, enabling each to contribute to the other, resulting in a text with both structural integrity and opulent finishing.
A few nights ago, I called upon the esteemed Arab writer Abū ʿUthmān Al-Jāḥiẓ (163-255 AH – 780-869 AD), hoping to take a journey of “expression and exposition” (bayān wa tabyīn) alongside him, with the intention of venturing into the verdant fields of literaturization. To my delight, he graciously granted my request and enveloped me in his familiar comfort and joyful demeanor. He began by reminding me of a widely acknowledged principle: “If the meaning is noble,” he intoned, “and the expression clothed in eloquence, then upon the heart it shall fall like rain upon fertile soil.” And from the vast treasure trove of Al-Namir bin Tawlab, the mukhaḍram poet, he unfurled a poignant plea:
Oh Lord of Refuge, shield me from the shackles of constriction and the hollowness of impotence. Grant me shelter from the very soul I yearn to heal.
At the outset, Al-Jāḥiẓ taught us that literaturization compels the writer to transcend the mere conveyance of information, results, or emotions, moving beyond the role of a simple transmitter of knowledge. It urges the writer to depart from the state of one who mindlessly accumulates material, akin to the saying, “A foolish woman who has found wool.” He who holds metaphorical wool must envision what tapestry it shall weave, unfurling beauty within its threads, revealing the veiled, drawing near the distant, and taming the unruly with the brush of language. Abū ʿUthmān proposed a ten-stage map for our exploration, allowing for pauses and capturing rare anecdotes along the way. In each stage, he would unveil one of the secrets of literaturization, presented in sub-headings that were not strictly logical or sequential, more akin to the spontaneous, free-flowing spirit of literature itself. This grants the reader the agency to roam among them, to rearrange them as his heart dictates. Perhaps it is this very freedom that affirms our belief in the democratization of the text.
- The explicit significance of the hidden meaning
Al-Jāḥiẓ emphasizes the importance of clarity and elucidation as a fundamental aspect of literaturization. He considers expression to be “a comprehensive term encompassing everything that unveils the mask of meaning.” He particularly appreciates the dictum of Sahl bin Harūn that declares, “Expression is the interpreter of knowledge.” Al-Jāḥiẓ extensively discusses the necessity of avoiding ambiguity, the use of harsh language, and he expresses his disdain for convoluted speech. However, he does not advocate for the use of vulgar or absurd words. He envisions that “literaturization lies in ornamenting speech, coupled with fine intelligibility,” selecting words thoughtfully, and employing elevated language, to climb towards what he shall unveil in our second stop. With a subtle wink, he reminds us that a man’s word choice is “a fragment of his very mind,” placing writers under a magnifying glass of “mental evaluation.” Before we depart from this station, Al-Jāḥiẓ regales us with a whimsical prophecy that highlights the inevitable failure of those who fail to literaturize their texts. He suggests that such individuals will lack splendor and have limited impact, even if they were to attempt to scratches the skies with the words of their mouth.”
- One of absurd words is akin to one of absurd meanings
Al-Jāḥiẓ deliberately selects the second secret, which may be surprising and even shocking to some, as he asserts that ridiculous and vulgar words do not indicate honorable meanings or profound connotations. Litertarization, he proclaimed, is a battle between word and meaning, a duel for the reader’s heart. He states that “a speech cannot be deemed eloquent until its meaning vies with its wording, and its wording competes with its meaning. Its words should not captivate your ears before the meanings could enthrall your heart.” For literaturization seeks to pluck profound, boundless meanings from the murky depths of our thoughts, the fertile fields of imagination, and the hidden vaults of our emotions, draping them in verbal garments of exquisite language. “Within our hearts,” he explained, “meanings lie dormant, conceived in minds, lodged in souls, entwined with thoughts, yearning to be spoken. Hidden, unseen, distant, veiled, these unborn meanings exist in the void, until they find breath in our words, life in our telling. These qualities make them comprehensible, illuminate the mind, bring the hidden to light, the absent to presence, the distant near. And their revelation depends on clarity of meaning, accuracy of reference, elegant brevity, and skillful introduction. The clearer the indication, the brighter the light, the greater its power, its impact.” Considering that meanings are infinite while language is inherently limited, literaturization always faces the challenge of managing its own domain and inventing effective expressive techniques. It relies on the generation of new ideas through derivation and the skillful manipulation of language within the boundaries of established linguistic norms. However, the validity of literaturization does not lie in the beauty of the written word when it is coupled with a naive perception. As a wise man once remarked when asked about the point at which literature becomes more harmful than its absence, he replied, “When literature increases while refinement diminishes.” This danger is amplified when it is recognized that “people often have a tendency to glorify the unfamiliar and admire the extraordinary”, even if the underlying ideas are hollow or lacking substance.
- How far is the distance between heaven and earth? An answered prayer
The title suggests that literaturization often requires a delightful element of surprise, whether in the approach to questions or in the presentation of ideas. Abū ʿUthmān recounts an incident involving Ali bin Abi Talib, may God be pleased with him, who was asked about the distance between heaven and earth. He responded with a clever answer: “An answered prayer.” This notion of pleasant surprise does not imply a departure from logic, reason, or the use of simplistic wordplay, as has been observed in recent times. Therefore, when Ali was posed with a second question about the distance between the east and the west, he sagaciously replied, “A day’s distance from the sun, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying.” After delivering such a memorable surprise, he promptly returned to the original question, preserving its significance, and firmly etching it in the recipient’s memory.
- Avoid the lukewarm “average.”
Abū ʿUthmān, renowned for his remarkable intellect, brings to our attention a peculiar aspect of literaturization. He posits that in many instances, a lukewarm approach is inadequate. He states, “A very cold rare food may be preferable to a very hot rare one, but what truly matters is the intensity that stirs the heart and takes one’s breath away. This applies to songs that are neither passionately hot nor completely devoid of emotion, as well as to mediocre poetry and average singing. However, the real concern lies with the extremes of very hot and very cold.” What does this imply? It signifies that literaturization allows for a certain degree of exaggeration in the depiction of emotions, objects, events, and behaviors. It is not bound by the strict precision pursued by science. An astute reader may discern a more subtle yet significant point: when criticism is employed by literaturization, it is akin to employing both scorching and chilling methods (similar to the techniques used to treat pimples). Both approaches can be painful, but they aim to evoke a transformative response.
- For every type of speech there is a type of word
Abū ʿUthmān emphasizes the importance of contextualizing literaturization, considering the specific circumstances, objectives, and intended audience. He advises, “Whenever you come across a rare speech from a Bedouin, take caution in retelling it unless you employ its distinct linguistic markers and master the vocal origins of its words. If you mistakenly pronounce it or recount it in the manner of a mixed-heritage individual (muwallad) or a city-dweller, you will have deviated from the essence of the story and face significant criticism. Similarly, if you encounter a unique narrative from common folk or tales from the scums of society, avoid using grammatical expressions, selecting refined words, or employing ornate language. Such actions diminish the pleasure derived from it, disrupt its intended form, and diminish the desire and appreciation for it.”
In exploring Al-Jāḥiẓ’s rigid emphasis of contextualism, I discovered two distinct paths he outlines. The first, “societal contextualism,” recognizes that certain expressions hold esteemed positions within specific communities. He states: Each person has expressions that find high standing among them. This path demands respect for both serious and humorous contexts, without blurring their boundaries or excluding either when appropriate. As he says, “The silly is for the silly, the light is for the light, and the tender is for the tender.” The second path, “disciplinary contextualism” or “field contextualism,” focuses on the specific terms and language used within different fields of knowledge. Here, Al-Jāḥiẓ argues that “Every discipline has terms its people acquire through testing others, only adopting those that prove compatible with their specific field.”
- The most effective words are those that can convey much with only a few
Literaturization is not aligned with unnecessary prolongation and the excessive use of synonyms unless there is a convincing reason to do so. It is economical in its use of words and sentences, avoiding wastefulness. Abū ʿUthmān establishes the principle that “hitting the truth in a single sentence is a mark of success”. He takes this further, rooting it in human experience: “Both Arabs and non-Arabs instinctively value brevity, praising its conciseness while condemning prolixity, repetition, and anything exceeding need.” This echoes the Prophet’s own “comprehensive speech,” imbued with profound literary beauty. Indeed, writers often extol the “astuteness” that pierces directly to the “essence of meanings.”
Al-Jāḥiẓ reiterates the importance of the previous principle through various expressions and vivid imagery. He affirms that “the most effective words are those that can convey much with only a few, where the intended message surpasses the literal interpretation of the words”. He strongly warns against affectation, emphasizing the need to avoid artificiality in expression. This does not mean prolongation is always unfavorable, as “there are situations where abundance of words may be preferable to brevity. Each approach has its rationale, and the appropriate choice depends on the circumstances and the purpose of the statement.” Al-Jāḥiẓ establishes the principle of aligning the means of expression with the desired objective. “Brevity serves well for lighter purposes, while length may be suitable for elaboration. Repetition can be employed for emphasis, and abundance of words can also serve that purpose.” He sets a boundary to distinguish what is acceptable from what is not, stating that “reprehensible words are those that promote laziness, exceed what is necessary, involve excessive details, and deviate from customary norms.” Before we move on to the next station, Abū ʿUthmān shares a secret about affectation. He reveals that “prolonged speech exposes the speaker or writer to the pitfalls of affectation, which ultimately yields no benefit.” This insight reminds us not to be confined to a “predetermined word count”, but rather to focus on creating a well-crafted and “literarized text”, regardless of its length.
Literaturization embraces the principle of utilizing a diverse range of verbal and structural elements. This does not imply that repetition of words is entirely disapproved of. On the contrary, there are instances where literaturization employs the repetition of a specific word multiple times within an intense context to achieve a desired effect. Abū ʿUthmān presents an example of such repetition, as he describes a scene where Omar bin Abdulaziz tells a servant from the Bani Makhzum tribe, “I fear God in the position I have taken,” to which the servant responds, “I am not afraid that you will be afraid, but I am afraid that you will not be afraid.” Here, the word “afraid” is repeated four times, yet the elegance of the description remains intact. In fact, the repetition enhances the solemnity of the statement. Al-Jāḥiẓ further suggests that “part of being cautious is knowing when to abandon excessive caution.” Thus, repetition can be permissible in its appropriate place and serves a purpose within literaturization.
- The speech of eloquent orators has “an abundance of rhymes”
Abū ʿUthmān acknowledges the power of eloquent orators who wield “an abundance of rhymes,” but he cautions against excessive or overly sentimental displays. He cites numerous examples of perfect rhyming, where the essence lies in its natural, unforced beauty. One such example shines in the famous sermon by Quss ibn Sāʿida, where captivating rhymes emerge spontaneously: “O people, gather together, and listen and be aware: for whoever lives eventually dies, and whoever dies goes away, and everything that is to come will come.” (ʾAyyuha al-nās ijtamiʿū, fa-smaʿū waʿū. Man ʿāsha māt, wa man māta fāt, wa kullu mā huwa ʾātin ʾāt) Among his other illustrations are a Bedouin proverb: “By God, we’d rather feast than you, strive harder in want, and give more generously to the needy,” and the anecdote of Nawfal ibn Musāḥiq who remained silent when he entered upon his wife and only spoke when he left. When his wife noticed this pattern, she remarked, “When with me you are silent, and when with people you speak.” Nawfal quipped, “My silence elevates me above your trivialities, while you remain beneath my lofty level.”
In literaturization, good rhyme is determined by its appropriateness to the extent and context of the work. It attains a higher quality when it incorporates classification, division, or a delightful contrast between two elements in a surprising manner. Such rhyming serves as an artistic tool to achieve a meaningful goal. This can be described as “aesthetic and functional rhyming.” Consider a modern writer tackling social and economic issues. To express these themes with authenticity and freshness, they could turn to a Bedouin proverb seeking refuge from “al-fawāqir” (calamity breaking the back) and “al-bawāqir” (discord dispersing society). These terms, beautifully paired in rhyme, encapsulate both economic hardship and social unrest. ‘Al-Fāqira’ (singular of al-fawāqir) signifies a burden crushing the spirit, with the word for poverty (al-faqr) coming from the same root. ‘Al-Bāqira’ (singular of al-bawaqir) alludes to discord and fragmentation, embodying the ills of social disparity.
- Ensure that the juxtaposition of a specific word with other words is deemed satisfactory
Abū ʿUthmān exhibited astuteness by recognizing that solely relying on rhymes may not be captivating or persuasive to everyone. Consequently, he shifted his focus towards achieving verbal harmony by satirizing the disharmony between letters and words, declaring that “when words are not placed in a pleasing and harmonious manner alongside other words”, it burdens the reader and hampers the text’s readability and appeal.
One of the techniques endorsed by literaturization is the comparison of two things through opposition and parallelism. It is crucial however to ensure that such comparisons are devoid of affectation in meaning and arbitrariness in expression. Its beauty lies in weaving together opposing yet complementary ideas, leaving a lasting impression on the reader. Take, for example, the unforgettable plea of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd: “O God, enrich me through my yearning for You, and do not impoverish me by making You seem dispensable.” This poignant contrast between dependence and independence speaks volumes. Similarly, Al-Jāḥiẓ’s insightful phrase, “the apparent indication of the hidden meaning,” masterfully juxtaposes the surface with the depths, the verbal with the unspoken.
- Do not polish, refine the text, and don’t exaggerate its ornamentation!
While Abū ʿUthmān recognizes the importance of refining and improving a text, he also acknowledges the potential hostility from the knowledgeable reader who stands watchful for the author’s faults. He emphasizes that a writer “should refrain from over-polishing, embellishing, or ornamenting the text, and instead focus on conveying the essence of the matter at hand.” He highlights that excessive refinement can lead to a ruggedness in the text and make it challenging to digest, akin to the complexities found in books of logic, writings of rugged philosophers, and the pretentious language of self-proclaimed philosophers.
This profound statement reveals a crucial principle: Over-refining your text not only removes its excess but also diminishes your unique flavor. To succinctly summarize this maxim, we can say: Excessive revision erodes style. Through multiple rounds and stages of revision, you may begin catering to the tastes and rationality of others openly, causing the elegance of your writing to dissipate. Consequently, your readers may struggle to recognize your distinctive voice. To further illustrate this concept, let’s explore the etymological overview of the word “uslūb” (style) itself, derived from the verb “salaba,” meaning to steal. How can style be associated with theft? Some writers propose that style is named as such because a writer cannot truly excel unless they acknowledge that they are “stealing” from their own secret reservoir of creativity.
- Omitting a specific matter can often lead to a more effective comprehension of it
In our previous exploration, Abū ʿUthmān acquaints us with Indian literature, which declares that “literaturization lies in clarity of meaning, seizing opportunities, making effective references, and demonstrating insightful arguments.” He invites us to explore this rich Eastern literature and presents an episode that unveils a secret of masterful literaturization. Within this episode, a writer unveils a key insight into the craft and understanding of seizing opportunities, through “the deliberate choice to avoid explicit expressions and instead employ metaphorical language” to convey these opportunities. This approach is particularly effective when explicit expression proves to be challenging. Abū ʿUthmān shares this valuable wisdom by stating, “Omitting a specific matter can often lead to a more effective comprehension of it and a more successful grasp.”
The essence of this concept is that literaturization recognizes the value of emptiness or intentional gaps within a text. This deliberate act of leaving voids prompts the reader to actively participate in the creative process by filling those gaps with their own interpretations, deductions, and critical thinking. In the case of the text at hand, intentional gaps have been strategically left in various aspects of the subject matter. This approach encourages the writer and the reader to collaborate in completing the missing pieces. It is this dynamic interaction that gives rise to a continuous and ever-evolving series of diverse creative texts.
Abū ʿUthmān intended to guide us through two consecutive topics: digression and synonyms, showcasing his “practical” approach. However, I whispered to him that contemporary writing style no longer embraces these elements and considers them to be flaws rather than advantages. He chuckled and responded, “In that case, we shall halt here. You have your preferences, and we have ours.”
T1644
