Dhanu and I were asking if the quality of a book can be determined from the number of markers it has within it. From this we started pondering if a better book had more markers or less? Okay, we understand that fiction is not mathematics and there can be no easy way to answer the question. Still, the problem begets more questions, so here they are, at random:

• To appeal to a larger readership, should a book be specifically located?
• Is it possible to write a book with no markers?
• Is it possible to think without markers? In abstracts alone?
• Is the book which is more fun to write also more fun to read?
• Isn’t it true that most writer-thinking in fiction is from the tangible to the abstract? In fact, most times do you not as a writer record the tangible (make markers) and leave the reader to develop the abstract?
• Does a reader then not move from the abstract to a tangible? Say you believe in Feminism or Marxism, do you not as a reader then pick books from those readings to call your favourites? The story of one woman or one working class situation?
• Why do we then see that most writers have not-so-happy lives? If they had fun writing, gave fun to the world through their writing, should they not be more satisfied with themselves? 

I have always held that the more specific a story (solid markers), the greater chance it has of reaching a universal audience. Take the best novels, the reason they work is because they are so located (with markers) that they touch a universal chord with the readers. What do you think?

Tags: abstract, Dhanwanti Nayak, markers, tangible