Eldoria
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2025
- Messages
- 1,762
- Points
- 113
In a digital age that demands instant consumption, writing stories for popularity has become the norm. Chasing trends has become a tradition. The number of views, favorites, and readers/followers seems to be the measure of writing success. In this world of writing, market research and tailoring stories to the market in order to gain support from a broad audience are strategic moves. All of this leads to one premise: "writing for popularity."
However, in a world that chases popularity, there are a handful of people who continue to write even though there are few readers or no reader. For them, writing is not for popularity; they write because it makes them feel 'alive' and their writing is a vessel to show that they once existed in the world. Perhaps their writing is not read now, but who knows, their writing might be read in the future; even if it is not read, their writing is a legacy of their history. All of this leads to one premise: "writing to exist/to be eternal."
Throughout history, we have witnessed people like this writing in silence, their writing becoming controversial and challenging the market, but often in the future, their writing becomes a reference. One of them is Elie Wiesel.
He was a Holocaust survivor. His first book, Night (1956), is a short but poignant memoir about the horrific history of the Holocaust genocide. His initial manuscript was rejected numerous times for being too dark and "unmarketable." But Wiesel didn't change it for the sake of the market. He wasn't writing for readers; he was writing for historical truth. He even said:
"I don't write to be read today. I write so that someone, perhaps in the future, will know that this happened."
Despite being recognised and winning the Nobel Peace Prize (1986), Wiesel never sought fame. He shied away from exploiting suffering. He did not sell trauma to the market. He said:
“I have tried to keep memory alive, that sacred memory... I did not want it to become literature. I wanted it to remain a scream.”
His writing is a scream in the form of words. A scream written not for praise, but to awaken the conscience of humanity.
Wiesel may be just one writer who opposes writing for popularity and instead writes for eternity—to be remembered in the future. And perhaps 'other Wiesels' share this view. The question is:
What do you think about writing not to be popular but to be remembered (eternal)?
Edit:
Many readers have misunderstood the essence of my article. I will clarify this understanding so that it is not misdirected:
However, in a world that chases popularity, there are a handful of people who continue to write even though there are few readers or no reader. For them, writing is not for popularity; they write because it makes them feel 'alive' and their writing is a vessel to show that they once existed in the world. Perhaps their writing is not read now, but who knows, their writing might be read in the future; even if it is not read, their writing is a legacy of their history. All of this leads to one premise: "writing to exist/to be eternal."
Throughout history, we have witnessed people like this writing in silence, their writing becoming controversial and challenging the market, but often in the future, their writing becomes a reference. One of them is Elie Wiesel.
He was a Holocaust survivor. His first book, Night (1956), is a short but poignant memoir about the horrific history of the Holocaust genocide. His initial manuscript was rejected numerous times for being too dark and "unmarketable." But Wiesel didn't change it for the sake of the market. He wasn't writing for readers; he was writing for historical truth. He even said:
"I don't write to be read today. I write so that someone, perhaps in the future, will know that this happened."
Despite being recognised and winning the Nobel Peace Prize (1986), Wiesel never sought fame. He shied away from exploiting suffering. He did not sell trauma to the market. He said:
“I have tried to keep memory alive, that sacred memory... I did not want it to become literature. I wanted it to remain a scream.”
His writing is a scream in the form of words. A scream written not for praise, but to awaken the conscience of humanity.
Wiesel may be just one writer who opposes writing for popularity and instead writes for eternity—to be remembered in the future. And perhaps 'other Wiesels' share this view. The question is:
What do you think about writing not to be popular but to be remembered (eternal)?
Edit:
Many readers have misunderstood the essence of my article. I will clarify this understanding so that it is not misdirected:
- Eternal here means remaining alive in the memory of a collective wound that must not be forgotten. Not to be known by all (not to be popular across time), but so that silenced voices can live on, even in silence. Even if it only touches one fragile soul in the future.
- My fictions are not written to be famous, but so that the cries of those once unheard remain alive in this world. If one person hears them and is saved, then that is enough.
- I realise that a work of fiction like this may not be widely known and may be forgotten by the larger world. But I write for the small world left behind, those who have lost their voices, their bodies, and their homes.
- I quote Elie not because he won a Nobel Prize, but because he said, “I don’t want my work to be literature. I want it to remain a scream.” That is also why I write, not to be beautiful, but to keep bleeding. If you doubt my statement, you can examine my works of fiction to see if they truly contain the screams of collective pain or are merely aesthetic melodramas.
- This article is not a writing guide, not a tutorial on becoming famous, not a motivation for success as a writer. This is the existential manifesto of a writer who refuses to forget humanity's collective pain and refuses to be forced to write for the market.
- I have never rejected the idea of popularity. On the contrary, if popularity can evoke collective pain for remembrance, then that's fine. What I reject is the market becoming a 'sacred guideline' for writing. If the market loves 'rape,' should we write about rape to satisfy the market? Even if rape is a tragedy that needs to be written for a tragic narrative, aren't there always elegant ways to write that avoid the male gaze, trauma porn, and sadism and remain empathetic toward the victims? Writers should have narrative integrity and not become slaves to the market.
- Popularity can make you known. But an honest cry, even if only heard by one soul, can make you remembered by a wound that refuses to die. And a wound that lives on... far more eternal than trending.
- Closing: I apologise if my thread has hurt your feelings. This thread is intended as a space for discussion, not judgment, because full awareness comes from voices that are willing to listen.
Last edited:
