Interviews

Interview with Aditya Sharma

How do you remain unbiased, but still get a point across when sharing content about politically-sensitive topics?

​

When dealing with politically sensitive topics, I’d say the most important consideration is the audience for whom you’re writing a particular piece. Being “unbiased” isn’t necessarily my objective in every instance; for example, if I’m writing an op-ed about an issue I care about, or a piece of criticism where I want my opinions to come through clearly, I’d want to be very straightforward about where my sympathies lie - otherwise the piece runs the risk of being too wishy-washy. But at the same time, it’s important to acknowledge where your own argument falls short, or ways in which your judgment might be influenced. 

​

How do you get started with a topic that you’re passionate about?

When thinking about writing a piece, I typically put down some notes about what I’d want to say, general thoughts I’ve had about the topic, before doing some preliminary research to look for sources that might help me in my thinking - seeing what various other people have said about it, for instance, and engaging with contrasting views. Only after that do I begin planning the actual writing itself. 

What inspired your passion for writing?

​

I’ve always been a big reader, and as a kid I used to write some (probably awful) adventure stories, respond to little creative-writing prompts, that kind of thing. At university I was exposed to forms of writing I was previously unfamiliar with, such as the personal essay and long-form literary criticism. I was fascinated by the potency of these forms, and saw that kids my age were writing similar things for campus publications. This made me think that I might have a go too, so I entered a few essay contests and joined an undergraduate political magazine - super fun experiences that motivated me to start reaching out to “real” newspapers and magazines to see if I could write something more significant. ​

​

What is the most challenging part of getting started as a writer?

​

I’d say the two most difficult parts are, first, finding the motivation to turn your ideas into a finished piece, which is a time-consuming and frustrating process; what seems like fully fleshed-out idea in your head can turn out to be something much more unwieldy and difficult when you try and put it down - it takes patience and a willingness to go without instant gratification to get through it. Second, especially when first starting out, it takes a certain amount of courage to let other people read your writing - particularly when trying to pitch ideas to editors, which can definitely feel scary. 

​​​​

What does it take to pursue freelance work? 

​

Freelancing takes endless patience and a capacity to face a lot of rejection. The vast majority of the pitches I send out get turned down, which can feel disheartening - but then again, I’ve been lucky enough to write for a few fancy places where I was rejected probably a dozen times before finally having an idea accepted; and sometimes, some of my more significant pieces were accepted months after my initial pitching, after being turned down by a few outlets. I think the most important thing is to not get discouraged, to learn from feedback, to not take rejections personally, and to try and speak to people with more experience in the field - some of the best advice I’ve received is from older writers who have been very generous with their time, and in my experience many are happy to speak to young people who are curious and interested.

​

What are some recurring themes or patterns that you see when writing criticism, as well as wider trends and changes in the field? How do you envision the future of literary criticism, and how do you expect this to unfold down the line? 

​

Criticism should be the kind of field that’s ever-evolving, since by definition it deals with anatomising and engaging with the world around us. Critics, especially those writing for larger outlets, help shape taste and opinion, which in a sense gives them some amount of power. Many critics are doing the important work of engaging with works that have traditionally been overlooked or deliberately excluded from the critical field (for reasons of race, gender, or class, for example) and bringing these to a wider audience. Lots of criticism is now turning somewhat inward, asking questions about the role of the critic and literary criticism in the world of books and beyond - for example, arguing that traditional outlets of criticism are failing in crucial ways to fulfil their responsibilities to the reading public. Plenty remains to be done, however; criticism in English is dominated by British and American outlets, and in its most influential forms is written and read mostly by a Western, traditionally affluent and highly educated group of people, which risks warping the way in which the general public views art and literature. 

​

(As a bonus - some of my own favourite critics, whom I would really recommend reading: Parul Sehgal, Andrea Long Chu, and Wesley Morris.)