[Dimension] Not reading books, in order to write oneself

Author: Wu Chaohui (JEFFI CHAO HUI WU)

Article Date: Friday, July 11, 2025, 2:53 PM

What I mean by not reading is that I have never read any classic masterpieces. It's not that I didn't study hard during school; rather, from childhood to adulthood, I haven't flipped through a single one of those "classic literatures" or "world masterpieces" that are truly revered by the times. Do you think it's because I didn't have time? No; is it because I lacked interest? Not entirely. The real reason is that I instinctively feel that once I immerse myself in them, I will inevitably "write like others."

Yes, I don’t read books, not because I disdain reading, but because I place too much importance on “writing about myself.” People say that writing is creation, but what most people refer to as “creation” is merely “collage”—rearranging the styles, sentence structures, and ideas noted in dozens of books within the shell of their own stories. It seems full of personality, yet the paths are all the same. The tone resembles Kafka, the syntax resembles Haruki Murakami, the structure resembles Márquez, the themes resemble Yu Hua, mixed with a bit of Eileen Chang's irony and self-pity. This is not writing; this is literary assembly.

I do not want to be assembled by anyone, nor do I wish to become a continuation of any "style." I want to be an uncarved stone, with my own edges and direction even without being sculpted. For this reason, I have decided not to read classics, but to write what is real.

Some may retort, if you don't read others, how do you know if your writing is good or not? I respond: I never rely on "what others say" to judge "who I am." My criteria are very simple: after I finish writing, can I recognize that this is truly me? If I finish a piece of writing and it sounds like someone else, then it is a failure; if I finish it, even if the grammar is illogical and the sentences are not well-structured, as long as "I" is complete, I feel it is worthwhile.

This is not stubbornness, but a choice of an independent path. Just like a child learning to speak, if they imitate the tones from the television every day from a young age, they may speak fluently, but they lose the flavor of their hometown and their own rhythm. As for me, I have never let so-called literary masters teach me how to speak, nor have I ever tried to turn someone else's logic of life into the framework of my expression. What I use are my own lived experiences, my own chewed thoughts, and the language I have honed myself.

Many people are surprised that I can write nearly two hundred articles in three weeks, covering fields such as literature, philosophy, martial arts, technology, logic, history, system design, and practical business, with almost no repetition. This is actually not surprising—because I am not "creating" them, but "releasing" them. I did not select writing materials from piles of books; I was simply digging up one handful after another of long-accumulated brilliance from the vast ocean of my personal experiences. That is not writing; it is organizing!

Books can indeed provide knowledge, but they may also block one's intuition; they can open the imagination, but they may also close off reality; they can instill systems, but they may also steal individuality. For me, not reading is not an act of rebellion, but a way to protect the original state of my soul. I am not opposing the value of classics, but defending my right not to be shaped by them.

I have seen some writers who pride themselves on having read all the classics; their words flow like water, and their structure is seamless, yet they can never write a "living person." They can accurately reproduce "Kafka's anxiety" and "Lu Xun's coldness," but they cannot express their own doubts, introspection, and struggles. What they write is "the rumination of reading experiences," not "the manifestation of life itself."

I am different. I do not rely on simulated writing, nor on talent that is polished and packaged. What I rely on is—living, thinking, doing, and then writing. All theories are hatched from practice, and all language naturally emerges from understanding. Every article is an intersection of body, mind, and time. This kind of thing cannot be gained by reading a thousand books.

So I never feel anxious about "not knowing what to write"; I just often find it "difficult to choose where to start." Others write because they have found inspiration; I write because there is too much reality surging within me, and if I don't write, it will block me. I also never worry about being criticized with "You don't read, so why do you write?" Because writing is not a qualification exam; it is the right to express oneself, the sediment of life after living. Just like an old man in a village telling stories, he may not have read books, but every word resonates deeply—he does not come from books; he comes from life.

Some say that without reading, there is no depth. I counter with a question: is the "depth" you speak of the "philosophical structure" set by the authors of classic works, or is it the "genuine insight" that you have repeatedly refined within your own heart? If you want me to imitate depth, I would rather be superficial; if you allow me to define depth, I am willing to exchange my entire life for a phrase that belongs solely to me.

In every field in the world, the first book was created by someone who initially had no books to read. They could only rely on themselves to explore step by step, organizing their observations, experiences, and thoughts into a system, thus giving birth to the "first book." This is not an exception, but rather the origin of all knowledge systems—whether in medicine, physics, philosophy, or art, the earliest recorders were those who "wrote themselves," the ones who first awakened and took the first step in that field. Without the brave writing of the "experience summarizers," how could later generations have books to read? Therefore, the starting point of writing has never been about "how many books you have read," but rather about "whether you have experienced, whether you have thought, and whether you have faced yourself with enough authenticity." When there are no predecessors to imitate, the only thing you can write about is yourself. This is the source of knowledge and the starting point of civilization.

I am not citing examples of others; I am the example.

Writing comes from within me, not copied from books.

I am neither proud nor arrogant. I have simply chosen the most difficult, the most unsafe, the most lonely, yet the cleanest path.

This road is called: Only by not reading can one write oneself.