Writing in turmoil

Certain kind of literature can only be a result of turmoil, internal, external, or both. More often than not this is the kind of literature that touches us, because it shows us the mirror that we had never seen before, it makes us see aspects of ourselves that we never thought existed, and also, sometimes it makes us realise the nature of the human flesh that we didn't want to see before, in all its limits, its helplessness, and its possibilities. To live is to realise, to realise all that we hadn't till the moment before. If a written word can help us realise and discern what is meaningful and profound, and what is meaningless and trivial, and the entire ocean of life that lies between these extremes, then that is good literature, though it may not be the only good literature. Still, I must say I haven't come across any other type of all literature I would care to call 'good'.

Looking at this issue from the point of view of the writer, is writing an act that can be performed satisfactorily without some motivation? There three aspects of the answer to this. Firstly, I don't think serious writing can be done without some motivation. Lack of motivation may be a greater problem than the lack of skill of the writer. There may not be any basic skill of a writer as testfied by the fact that there are all kinds of writers who have done well and been liked. Secondly, there is also an importance of sustained motivation. Writing without sustained motivation would be like trying to fly without proper wings; one can stay in the air for some time, but bound to come down and feel miserable (I know that feeling in my own humble way). Lastly, since the written word has a sense of permanence about it, writing is a bold act, and therefore the act of writing is also an expression of faith in the possibility of the risk (that could come with this permanence) being worthwhile, because of a hope of succeeding in making others understand what is behind the words, the hope of truly connecting with the other. For such a bold act of serious and long writing (and not a blurb like this one) what could be the motivation, if not to change something. Is there a sense in writing if it is totally purposeless? What is the use of such writing, if there is not a will to change something in the minds of the readers, and through them the minds of the Gods? I think this will to change must significantly drive the motivation of a writer of good literature. It may just be so that such a will to change is usually situated in a turmoil that creates churning of the kind that urges one to sit down and write, or stand up and do something else about it. This probably offers a partial explanation for why so much good literature has come out of troubled societies and beings.