“Writing is a form of personal freedom. It frees us from the mass identity we see in the making all around us. In the end, writers will write not to be outlaw heroes of some underculture but mainly to … survive as individuals.”
This is a quote from Don Delillio, a writer born in 1926 in NYC. It brings to mind how important the sense of individuality that develops when you write is. And I think it explains why I deeply feel that everyone should regularly write (albeit merely the perspective of the social psychologist in me). See it’s tough to make make too many assumptions when you write, which in turn sparks freedom of thought.
But there’s one more thing I realize as I blog about this: while writing may be highly individualistic, the act of publishing, no matter how small the scale, is distinctly collectivistic. It is an effort for your thoughts to be known - and this involves not just yourself but virtual strangers. Writing for others sparks freedom of speech. (Call this bit the social activist in me if you will.)
Okay, so I’m not sure what my point exactly is, but I needed to put this down, if only for starters. A somewhat-related article I read in the New York Times today deals with the fascinating interaction between our language and our thoughts. Here it is. (If you don’t already have an account, you may have to sign up for NY Times, but it’s simple, free, and very worth it.)
Kudos to Airtel and the chaps at Rediffusion DY&R in India for the new direction in which they have taken the campaign.
It’s almost predictable, which is precisely why it is close to genius. Much like the Corona campaign: on-the-tip-of-your-tongue intuitive. The trick often lies in hitting on a concept so seamless that everyone - from consumer to creative to CEO - takes a look and wonders why they didn’t think of it first. Nice!
Airtel’s reliability index better be pretty good though, or users might have to take the brand with a pinch of salt! Good for beer, not so much for a mobile network - no matter how noble its advertising.
Condoleeza Rice at a press conference on Friday: “The United States doesn’t have permanent enemies; we’re too great a country for that.”
No-permanent-enemies is obviously semantic strategy to clarify that North Korea and Iran are indeed enemies until they comply with nuclear demands. It makes little diplomatic sense to refer to enemies - however temporary - as enemies out loud. Okay, so it’s a clumsily put statement, but at least it is honest.
Now the too-great-a-country bit. It brings to mind instantaneously the fact that truly great countries - if there are indeed such things - should have no enemies! Particularly in the unctuous way the US currently does. What were her speechwriters thinking when they churned that out?
