Write your abstract here. Who is a scholar? A widely read person is a scholar. But a creative writer (creator
hereinafter) may not have such extensive study. Even without so-called formal education, an
individual may be a creator. But a scholar makes brilliant result in the examination. In other words, score is the yardstick of a scholar. The more marks, the more scholar an individual is. On the other hand, a creator, generally, cannot make good result and even sometimes fails to qualify in the examination. Perhaps, failure renders an individual to be a creative writer. Thus, disqualification is his qualification.
A scholar has thirst for knowledge. But a creator feels to create something new. Both of them try to increase knowledge. A scholar continues his study to widen the horizon of knowledge. He can do anything to acquire knowledge. For that reason he can undertake painstaking endeavor to realize his ambition. A creator also starts his study like a scholar. But in the mid-way creativity disturbs his attention towards studies and leads him to do something new thus rendering him a diverted genius. And finally a creator fails in the examination due to lack of preparation. But a scholar makes brilliant result and paves his way towards temporal gain. However, both the scholar and the creator start with studies but the former finishes it while the latter leaves it. Thus a scholar works hard, but a creator hardly works hard.
Everybody cares and respects a scholar. But a creator is ignored. He has innovative power. Imaginative faculty of mind agitates him much. So he is compelled to forget his mundane existence. Thus wild flights of fancy chases him from one galaxy to another. As a result, a creator fails everywhere in this world and becomes a laughing stock. Because he has business having no return.
Writing of a scholar lacks imagination but full of information. A scholar, in fact, is always guided by reference. But no reference is the preference of a creator. A scholar always pays attention for chronological and systematic representation of writings. But the talent of a creator is scattered.
A scholar, basically, is a consistent person. In the worst case, he may be inconsistently consistent. Thus whatever the case may be in the activity of a scholar, there must be a consistency at least. But a creator is very whimsical. He is a vagabond. In fact a creator is an
inconsistent individual by birth. Either he will be consistently inconsistent and in most of the cases he is inconsistently inconsistent. In real life, consistency has immense value. There is no substitute for consistency. In fact consistency itself is substitute.
In every sphere of life we expect consistency. We hate inconsistency since it has no exchange value. But consistency is the manifestation of artificiality already in man. On the other hand, inconsistency is the outcome of natural trait of an individual. The nature itself is inconsistent in its nature and behavior. For example, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. But both sunrise and sunset do not happen at the same time. Everyday the time of occurrence changes. A man who, everyday, comes in time has to face much trouble Because every morning does not dawn to him at a particular point of time. So to reach in time he has to deprive himself from enjoyment and engagement from other events. As such to maintain continuity one has to face much hurdles which remain unknown to us. Inconsistency faces no such troubles. Spontaneity is the alias of inconsistency. Inconsistency needs no practice. It is quite natural like a spring of the mountain. But one has to practise much to be a consistent artist, i.e., an artificial individual.