Reviews, Length & Presentation

Hoover Institution publishes great book reviews. I have 2 issues - length & style. The first one is a minor quibble. The author has got to write all his thoughts. For the sake of impatient readership the author can consider condensing or editing out ideas/opinions/sentences that don't fit into the crux of the review. But if the author wants it out there, there's no stopping. Still 5500 words is pushing the limits by modern web article standards. There are pieces in NYT Magazine, TNR & New Yorker that run upto 12 pages - but they deal with a solid topic, like the recession or racism or celeb-culture. James Wood, one of the revered book critics in work today, conveys his thoughts in a far lesser number of words. At this point in my life and with my exposure, I'm not inclined to read a review that's a considerable size of the book being reviewed. But I respect the author's decision to go all the way.

Their style really puts me off. I've seen instruction boards in a few railway stations in India that makes little sense - because they were framed in the British Raj and nobody took the pains to rephrase it. It would be something as simple as 'Don't spit on the platform', but to comprehend what's written on the board you'd need a colonial tight-ass next to you. Hoover's reviews aren't that bad, but the mere fact that they invite comparison to 19th century British English is worrisome. Read these sentences:

Regardless of one’s political proclivities or whether or not one just happens to like the personable Barack Obama, it’s clear that the president relishes the vague metaphor, adores the illogical argumentative sequence, and luxuriates in making words mean what only yesterday they didn’t.

Orwell is important here less for the topics he wrote about — although subjects such as poverty and oppression are obviously significant — than for the observational and anti-theoretical way in which he endeavored to write about them.

It's not ununderstandable, but there are much easier ways to say the same thing. It's almost like decoding a poem to enjoy the juice - only to find that there isn't any juice, but a talk about juice. There's a lot of fashionable nonsense on the web which requires both dictionary and wikipedia to understand individual sentences, but put together as a whole wouldn't make much sense. There was a time when I wanted to be a decorative writer and I devoured on articles and writers who used high-sounding words that many didn't understand. I've changed since then and started valuing content more than presentation. Salman Rushdie was my favorite writer. He still is, but more for his richly imaginative narration and less for his vocabulary grandeur. Having said all of that, I still recommend their reviews; criticism is a literary genre and Hoover is very good at that.

I lost interest in women's tennis after Henin's retirement. To put it succinctly, they all sucked. Williams's sisters intimidated their opponents through sheer power, Sharapova & Safina inconsistent and a host of other ex-Soviet players stepping into top 10 on a round robin basis. Today I saw bits of the Wimbledon semi-finals between Dementieva and Serena Williams. Though not anywhere near greatness, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality.

MJ

Geroge Best once said "I spent most my money on women and cars. The rest, I squandered". Now that MJ's dead, I can't remember him for his contributions to music (of which I don't know much about) but for the decline of his life and lifestyle. He went from making millions a year, not only popularity and adulation but a crazy love of his fans, being a milestone in cultural history to financial bankruptcy, being reviled by the mainstream and an object of constant jokes for late-night comedians. For many of his fans he was long dead and the child molestation trials were only a walking ghost.

One of my friends said that he would make an interesting psychological study - he's been in front of the camera since he was 5 and practically lived most of his life chased by paparazzi. In a TV show aired sometime in 2002 he rents a grocery store for a night so that he could push the cart and buy stuff like bread and coke - just to see how if feels to walk the aisles of a store like a common man. That moment was heavy and I felt very sad for him. To be able to walk in a park without attracting attention might have been a sanity booster to him, but that day never came. (It is in light of MJ that I find celebrities like Daniel Radcliffe great; the kid made millions of pounds before he was 18 but still has a cool head and talks sense).

I've never really seen or listened to MJ. There was a brief phase in my early years when he was all the rage, just to fit myself into a coterie I listened to most of his tracks. Given my music appreciation background (grew up listening to Ilayaraja) I wasn't impressed. After his death I looked up one of his live performaces in Youtube. His pelvic gyrations, robotic movements, moonwalks, I liked. But mostly I'm impressed at the way he controlled just parts of his legs - it felt like a meeting point of kinesthetics and dance.

Homosexuality is not a crime anymore in India, finally. So cops can no longer blackmail to slap a case if they find two men hanging together in a restroom... that's a relief. I came to know that it was a criminal act when Vikram Seth came out of the closet a few years back. And wondered why the hell should the government intervene between two consenting adults in their bedroom. But I found later that a good chunk of the population still perceived it not only as unnatural, but also unethical. A couple of my ex-colleagues called it a 'disease' and said that gays should be 'treated'.

Talking of laws and gays, even a culturally liberal country like US doesn't allow gay marriages in all of its states.

*

Listen to what this clown called Kamal Farooqi has to say about the ruling:

You are known as a liberal Muslim. Why don't you see the sexual emotions of hundreds and thousands of people around us? If your son or daughter would have been gay how would you have addressed the topic?

If my daughter or son would have been such, I would have definitely counsel them. I would have explained them this is unnatural and inhuman. Because this will ultimately lead to the destruction of the human race. This (legal right to have sex with the same sex) cannot come under the definition of 'freedom'. All kinds of freedom have some moral context or ethics. We have to follow those ethics.

Nature of Crime

Bernie Madoff got 150 years. He's 71 now and considering the average age of a U.S male, he might live another 10 years. So, the number 150, is merely symbolic, media fodder. A number thrown at the general public by the court so that they come to appreciate the immensity of his crime in the light of his punishment. I'm usually a man of peace, but I believe Madoff should have been let alone with his victims who shouldn't be punished if they were to resort to their primal instincts.

We associate crimes with where they leave their victims. So a rapist or a murderer is at the top of the list. Fine. But a pick-pocketer should not be relegated to the bottom just because he picks the wallet of a salaried man. The effects of a loss of what could be a sum equivalent to a weekly budget could be colossal. And in a time & culture of credit cards, hedge funds and electronic transfers, Madoff is proportional to a billion pick-pocketers. Not only did people lose their beach homes, but also their retirement savings. I was listening to this woman who lost $750000. A typical response-attitude would be "She's a rich bitch anyway, she just lost a yacth. She's not on the roads." But as I listened to her story I realized that it was her whole life's savings and she has worked hard and smart to get where she was. To rob that money was robbing her of her life's fruits, of her belief in humanity. Without spilling a drop of blood, he has sucked the life and soul out of her. That's as big a crime as murder.

Lera Boroditsky, a professor of psychology, neuroscience & symbolic systems (aww.. the very words sound sexy), writes in a brilliant article on how languages we speak shape our thoughts:

Follow me to Pormpuraaw, a small Aboriginal community on the western edge of Cape York, in northern Australia. I came here because of the way the locals, the Kuuk Thaayorre, talk about space. Instead of words like "right," "left," "forward," and "back," which, as commonly used in English, define space relative to an observer, the Kuuk Thaayorre, like many other Aboriginal groups, use cardinal-direction terms — north, south, east, and west — to define space.1 This is done at all scales, which means you have to say things like "There's an ant on your southeast leg" or "Move the cup to the north northwest a little bit." One obvious consequence of speaking such a language is that you have to stay oriented at all times, or else you cannot speak properly. The normal greeting in Kuuk Thaayorre is "Where are you going?" and the answer should be something like " Southsoutheast, in the middle distance." If you don't know which way you're facing, you can't even get past "Hello."

It baffled me to see Tony Blair not only stutter enormously but also fail to offer decently mature answers on his interview with Fareed Zakaria. I have my own problems with Zakaria in spite of being one of the most lucid writers on current affairs today. If you read his columns for Newsweek or his books, you'll be convinced that he certainly knows a great deal about the subject he's talking about and offers nuggets of insights that are easily understandable. But when he's on video, he doesn't have that grip on me, he has a little less charm. But Blair made Zakaria look like the king of TV hosts - he mumbled & jumbled and in the end didn't say anything worthy for the viewers to take home. And he was a charismatic leader for 10 years! Talk about the role of speech writers and teleprompters.

In order to get out of the confirmation-bias trap, I read WSJ and other conservative columns. Peggy Noonan is one I love to hate. She uses a grand language and argues with little or no points at all. Today I saw her in This Week where she sort of defended conservatives who fall off their high moral chariot while discussing Mark Sanford's affair. Wow, if this crap continues not only the Republicans, but also their mouth pieces will have no credibility left.

This is probably the best genetic disorder out there - fountain of youth, did you say?

I bet that Roger Cohen will be a strong contender for next year's Pulitzer for international reporting. Though he gets a bit dramatic at times, I'm thoroughly impressed at his depth of coverage and his efforts in bringing the voice on the streets to the world.

Un-subtitled

Over the past year I've become a fan of West Wing - every episode is intensely dramatic, nobody stutters, every actor knows what to do, super photography, believable production design... I greatly liked the fact that the story didn't pander to the common denominator, trying to explain every action and it's consequence in great detail. If you're attentive you understood - this was more demanding in my case because I didn't know much about the American political system. In fact, I think I got a lot more about Capitol Hill & White House by seeing this series than if I had I watched a documentary.

I rent the sixth season and find out that it's subtitled only in French & Spanish. My fluency & command over American English is fairly good and in most cases I don't switch on the subtitles. But in niche dramas like West Wing where a lot of sharp politico dialogues are spoken in quick succession, though written with the mainstream in mind, I found it difficult to follow (and I'm one of those crazies who tries to understand every spoken word). It beats me why the stupid producers didn't subtitle it in English, especially after carrying it for the first five seasons.

Update: I don't see a reason for this post to exist. It's an utterly useless observation, just a bit garnished. Hmmm..

On Reading & Writing

I've been reading a lot this past year. Not just books, but a lot of print available online. From news reports to analysis to editorials to editorial cartoons. But I don't feel a strong urge to blog about issues and events that I feel strongly about - and that puzzles me. Because when I started blogging, everything I saw or felt had a blog-worthiness angle to it. There were times when I saw a movie just to write about it. And then gradually I lost my motivation to write about them though I have retained my appetite for movies. (I still continue to see 1 or 2 every week). I've been quite interested in world news for about a dozen years now and have a decent grasp of countries and their relationships. But I'm not pumped up to write about what I'm actively reading, informing and educating myself.

Currently I'm occupied with what's happening in Iran (general public protesting election results), how important freedom for that young generation is (average age of Iran is less than 30), the role of technology in mobilizing mass movements (twitter, facebook) how Mousavi himself wouldn't be radically different from Ahmedinejad (of course, all candidates are approved by the Islamic Assembly of Experts), a subdued American response (Obama hasn't said much), future of oil prices (obviously), impact on it's repressed neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Syria)....

I think it's mostly because if someone wanted to read about these, they'd go to experts like The Economist or NYT. And I don't want to regurgitate what's already said. Do I have strong, interesting, original opinions about some events? Yes, sometimes. But mostly I'm just under-informed to have a concrete opinion. I feel like watching CNN or reading an analysis isn't enough to write "I think they should..." Because I'm never in 'their' shoes. When I read 'From Beirut to Jerusalem' by Tom Friedman I felt an assurance because the author had been a reporter, he's seen action, he's talked with leaders, he's seen people suffer the decisions of their politicians, he knows the history of the place. Of course, I'm not a reporter and I cannot hold myself to his standards. My access to first-hand information is very limited.

This insecurity that I'm not coming up with quality content, I think I've written about it previously on this blog, arises when I see extremely half-baked blogs on the web. People recommending 'solutions' to political/racial/social problems that a rat wouldn't consider. When I read and smirk and move on, I also think about what I've written before on that or a similar topic. What would someone, better informed and having a sharper mind, think of my piece? Should I always begin with a disclaimer that says "I'm not an expert and these ideas of mine could quite possibly strike the reader as crazy"? Why so apologetic, can't the 'expert' cut some slack to me... No, because I'm not cutting any slack to that sophomoric blogger. I ask "when the internet is abound with resources why not do some basic research?"

I've for long, never taken my intellectual laziness seriously. Now, I'm confronting it. Reading a two-page article about the financial crisis may be just enough to say a sentence or two in a party. But people smarter than me are going to know where I stand the instant I mouth those words, just how I nod at people who don't know shit about anything but still talk about it. While I'm always a fan of people smarter than me, I'm beginning to realize that getting smarter is not all that difficult. I think I've rambled enough for today.

Anjali Arrives

And I thought I'd have more time after I become a father... not wishful thinking, just plain stupid thinking. Anyway, here are a few pictures of Anjali, who was born on June 5th and here's a video of her first hair wash, within her first hour. When she was crowning, the doctor said "we need some ribbons"... a lot of hair, she has.

Whoa

I was watching the spelling bee contest yesterday and the commentator said the following about one of the participants: He read a book titled 'How to be a Good Parent' when he was 8 and then told his parents the things they were doing wrong.

Why Telugu Movies Are Better Than Tamil?

Tamil Sampler



Telugu Sampler

Facebook Bashing

It's 4 in the morning and second day in a row where I can't fall asleep.  Add stuffy nose and sore throat to that.  And also these Facebook messages (modified):

Person1: It's sooo colddddddddd!!!!!!!!!

I guess people like me who spell properly and use not more than one exlamation at the end of the sentence are now comparable to upperclass tight-ass Englishmen who drink tea, talk about weather and read the business section.  If you haven't noticed, the length of any word can be stretched to emphasize your emphasis on the emphasizable.

Person2: Life is like [add anything you want here]

'Third Rock from the Sun' offered better nuggets of wisdom.  These guys, trying to impress you-know-who, blabber something like 'Like is like a banana peel, only with no real fruit inside'.  Of course, you can make sense out of it you're inclined to assign meanings to any crap.

Comment for a photo: wow, this is a cool pic yaar!!! you look sooooooo cuteee!!!!!

No, it's not that of a child.  It's a close-up of a 31 year-old, slightly out of focus with bad lighting.  Either you don't appreciate the basics of photography or your definition of cuteness is plainly screwed-up.

Status message: X is looking out the window.

Wouldn't this be appropriate: My current status is that I'm writing my status message.  Vetti pasanga.

The Middle Finger

So, it isn't enough that they've fooled us through their movies.

Rare Voice

An exchange between 2 men in Karachi:

I smiled back: ‘Tell me brother Ashfaq, how did you respond to the 7/7 event in Britain?’
‘I prayed for the well being of all Muslims,’ he said proudly.
‘Of course, you did,’ I said, with a smile of resignation. ‘But, being a good Muslim, did you also pray for the non-Muslims who died in the suicide attacks?’
Ashfaq went into the trance mode once again. ‘Brother Nadeem …are you by any chance a non-Sunni?’
I laughed out loud: ‘Brother Ashfaq, are you by any chance an idiot?’
Ashfaq went all serious: ‘You don’t have to get offensive, brother.’
‘Ashfaq, what sort of a question was that?’ I said. ‘Am from this sect or a that sect of Islam? I was talking about something a lot more meaningful than sectarian.’
‘Doesn’t matter,’ he said. ‘Islam is for all mankind.’
‘Fine,’ I replied, ‘but how do you plan to prove this? Wouldn’t you rather set a more reasonable and intellectual example in this respect rather than a ritualistic one, or worse, a violent one, like that of the fanatics?’
‘I am not a fanatic,’ he said, his eyes now ogling repressed anger.
I offered him a cigarette.
‘I told you I don’t smoke,’ he said, politely pushing away the offer.
‘You may as well now,’ I said. ‘You have already missed your prayers.’

He worriedly looked at his wrist watch: ‘That’s correct. I did.’
‘Don’t worry,’ I smiled. ‘You wont burn in hell for this.’
‘You are right, brother, I wont …’ he replied, and then in a quiet but foreboding tone, added: ‘But you will.’

On Government's Support for Arts

Greg Beato writes for Reason:

Today the [NEA] is careful to fund nothing more controversial than bilingual puppetry epics. And given the glut of cultural opportunities that now bedevil us, its status as a nurturer of the arts is less pronounced than its status as an agent of state-sponsored moral engineering. Now, it exists largely to reinforce the notion that musicals are somehow more inherently suited to nourishing the roots of our culture than sitcom pilots. That ballet is a greater part of our national heritage than burlesque. That mediocre opera singers deserve more support than our best gangsta rappers.

What are the ramifications of spending tax-payers money on encouraging a rapper who writes misogynistic lyrics and the beauty of getting high on drugs? Should the government support Seinfeld-like comedians to come up with Seinfeld-like sitcoms? Is 'what is art?' a less significant question than 'who defines what art is?' ? If 'art' & 'culture' is mainstream and if they already make money out of it, why should the government sponsor? What next, NEA supporting Hollywood studios?

But then, why do mediocre opera singers (never been to one) deserve a financial pat-on-the-back while thousands of wannabe-cinema-stars live in their cars? Is an older art form (ballet, 'classical' music, theater, etc) inherently a better form of art than today's (Hollywood, rap, video games, etc) even though the mass cannot understand or appreciate that? If something doesn't have an audience (or has a sagging audience) why should the government intervene and prop it up -- should not the market force do its job and wipe away what's not needed?

WTF?

I was browsing various Indian-name databases for my soon to be born girl. Guess what I found -- 'Kate Winslet'. Kate, I can understand. Since when did Kate Winslet become a modern Indian name?