I was the middle child of three, but there was a gap of seven years on either side. For this and other reasons I was somewhat lonely, and I soon developed disagreeable mannerisms which made me unpopular throughout my high school days. I had the lonely child’s habit of holding conversations with imaginary people inside my room or was it my six sense acting up, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. Nevertheless the volume of serious – i.e. seriously intended – writing which I produced all through my childhood and boyhood would not amount to half a dozen pages. I wrote my first poem at the age of four or five, my mother taking it down to dictation.
From time to time, when I was a bit older, I wrote bad and usually unfinished ‘happy peoms’. I also attempted a short story which was a ghastly failure. That was the total of the would-be serious work that I actually set down on paper during all those years.
However, throughout this time I did in a sense engage in literary activities. To begin with there was the made-to-order stuff which I produced quickly, easily and without much pleasure to myself. Apart from school work, I wrote semi-comic poems which I could turn out at what now seems to me astonishing speed – at fourteen I wrote a whole rhyming script I kept to myself.
But side by side with all this, for fifteen years or more, I was carrying out a literary exercise of a quite different kind: this was the making up of a continuous ’story’ about myself, a sort of diary existing only in the mind. I believe this is a common habit of children and adolescents. As a very small child I used to imagine that I was, say, a superhero, and picture myself as the hero of thrilling adventures, but quite soon my ’story’ ceased to be narcissistic in a crude way and became more and more a mere description of what I was doing and the things I saw. For minutes at a time this kind of thing would be running through my head: ‘He pushed the door open and entered the room. A yellow beam of sunlight, filtering through the muslin curtains, slanted on to the table, where a match-box, half-open, lay beside the inkpot. With his right hand in his pocket he moved across to the window. Down in the street a tortoiseshell cat was chasing a dead leaf,’ etc. etc. This habit continued until I was about twenty, right through my non-literary years. Although I had to search, and did search, for the right words, I seemed to be making this descriptive effort almost against my will, under a kind of compulsion from outside. The ’story’ must, I suppose, have reflected the styles of the various writers I admired at different ages, but so far as I remember it always had the same meticulous descriptive quality.
When I was about twelve I suddenly discovered the joy of mere words, i.e. the sounds and associations of words.
As for the need to describe things, I knew all about it already. So it is clear what I wanted to write, in so far as I could be said to want to write at that time. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their own sound.
I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer’s motives without knowing something of his early development. His subject matter will be determined by the age he lives in – at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own – but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job, no doubt, to discipline his temperament and avoid getting stuck at some immature stage, in some perverse mood; but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:
1. Sheer egoism.Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen – in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all – and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.
2. Aesthetic enthusiasm.Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.
3. Historical impulse.Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.
4. Political purpose.– Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature – taking your ‘nature’ to be the state you have attained when you are first adult – I am a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth.
I remember a little poem that I wrote at that date, expressing my dilemma:
What I have most wanted to do throughout the past ten years is to make my writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. When I sit down to write, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art.’ I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing. But I could not do the work or even a long magazine article, if it were not also an aesthetic experience. Anyone who cares to examine my work will see that even when it is downright propaganda it contains much that a full-time politician would consider irrelevant. I am not able, and do not want, completely to abandon the world view that I acquired in childhood. So long as I remain alive and well I shall continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take a pleasure in solid objects and scraps of useless information. It is no use trying to suppress that side of myself. The job is to reconcile my ingrained likes and dislikes with the essentially public, non-individual activities that this age forces on all of us.
It is not easy. It raises problems of construction and of language, and it raises in a new way the problem of truthfulness.
In Ateneo, my university professor, Rene Fernandez, a journalist whom I respect read me a lecture about it. ‘Why did you put in all that stuff?’ he said. ‘You’ve turned what might have been a good article into journalism.’ What he said was true, but I could not have done otherwise. I happened to know, what very few people in this country had been allowed to know, that innocent men were being falsely accused. If I had not been angry about that I should never have written the book.
In one form or another, this problem comes up again. The problem of language is subtler and would take too long to discuss. I will only say that of late years I have tried to write less picturesquely and more exactly. In any case I find that by the time you have perfected any style of writing, you have always outgrown it. Darwin and Freud was the first poetry in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole. I have not written anything serious for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon.
I don’t want to leave that as the final impression. All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing poetry or a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some negativity whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that it is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality. Good prose is like a windowpane. I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless blogs and poetry and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.
South African Boy1 : sweet man, how much did you get it for? 
ally created it. I know some artist think that kind of do-over is scandalous, as though the first draft is the purest form of artistic expression, but I've always thought that was crap. The emotion is purest in the first draft, but sometimes the emotion damages my ability to express it. So, I think there's a lot to be said for reflection some time later, and a willingne ss to fine-tune creation that may have suffered in the first go-round. Since I'm
doing this sort of re-creating, the process is taking longer than it would if I were simply churning them through my word processor. But, I think that's okay, since the end results are so much improved. 
I get lots and lots of nosebleeds every time I see something FUN. When I was a kid, sometimes I would get a nosebleed while I was sleeping and only realize something awful had happened when I would wake up and find my hair glued to the pillow. As an adult, I've actually had to cover my nose with a cotton ball because I was experiencing endless nosebleed. Many people mark the first falling leaves as the indicator of autumn, but not I. It's my first nosebleed that always marks the turn of the seasons for me. So, get ready, folks---dry air and long-sleeves are imminent, so sayeth my sinuses.
WELL I DO! haha 
From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grow up I should be an artist cum writer. Between the ages of about seventeen and twenty-four I tried to abandon this idea, but I did so with the consciousness that I was outraging my true nature and that sooner or later I should have to settle down and write books. 
I'm not overly concerned with my extra weight, the size of my thighs or the wrinkles (or are they laugh lines?) around my eyes.
Fesca na aplaya
Posts
