Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae

At The End of Questions?

2008-05-30T18:47:00.004-04:00

It has been a truly awesome run on this here blog. But the time has come to call it quits - well, to make official a really long vacation anyway - one that began some time ago I think.

Why?

Maybe the answer lies in this one last rant...

I will leave it to those that are interested in knowing to click through and read it...

-=-=-

May 30, 2008 - 7 PM

A truly exhausting week comes finally to a close. Another five days added to five years of being a tiny but productive cogwheel in the engine that is the world economy. Or the rat running to power one at any rate. Life has become something glimpsed fleetingly - the way one would see a distant tree that rushes past the window of the train. Far enough for you to imagine holding it between your thumb and index finger, if only it would stay still.

Don'ta get a me wrongo - I don't say this by way of complaint. Instead it is just one observation in what is a rare opportunity to reflect on what is happening as opposed to being industriously engaged in making it happen and experiencing it as best as possible.

Times like this are rare these days - hey, maybe I grew up?! Or in a more (or less) cynical way to put it, this is the time when all my Maslow needs stand met and the self-actualization is supposed to start. I've even conquered my goddamn existential demons and accepted without necessarily resigning myself to it the fact that there isn't any eternal truth or purpose or some such forthcoming in the near future.

I chuckle now when I read some of the things I've written in the past. About love, life, purpose, experience, philosophy.

Philosophy.

Aah... now there's a word I hardly use these days.

Where are my demons, my questions, my erstwhile best friends and constant companions? A state of zen-like happy nirvana seems to have descended on me and become a glass wall between them and me. I suspect it won't last, but hey - it's stood pretty solid for a year at least!

Three years of geographic separation from all those that kept me company in my raving and ranting seems to have helped it stand too. As has this state of near limbo in all things except thankfully my quest for love (God, even that sounds so cheesy now!). I miss those friends too - not with urgency, but with a quiet sense of ruefullness.

So here we are then.
In this happy place.
Wondering why, one more time.

Good haiku innit?

Let it then be the last word on this blog - for now at least. There are other things to do now. More important things.

Until one day I find a new why, perhaps.

For now I can only promise this - no significant updates expected any time soon, and instead a veil will soon descend, as it must.

Curtains!

Nostalgia

2008-04-07T05:59:00.002-04:00

Insomnia and Nostalgia are best buds. Together they also make for quite an overwhelming guilt trip. Guilt part one is immediate, for the day that looms. The realization that I may be screwing up the next few mandated hours of productivity. The larger guilt though kicks in when the nostalgia kicks in...

Being 'far from home' as I am, it is incredibly easy to lose touch. To replace the constant chatter of once regular correspondences with white noise. I suppose we've all done it - lose touch even with people that matter.

I can count with the fingers on one hand the number of people I am in touch with of late. I run out of digits fast when I count how many I should be in touch with. Can't really blame it all on geography either - would've been no better I'm sure had I been smack in the middle of things as opposed to far removed from them...

I used to fancy my chances at being labelled 'cynical' or 'world-weary' or some such sophist shit. But never in my darkest broodings had I imagined I would be as cut-off from my friends as I have been lately.

I just shot off a few emails - and I have to start on biographical questions ('where do you live/ work?' 'are you married') with most of my friends! Take that for poignancy!

Anyway... good little faux-Drucker minion that I am, everything starts with a list. So productivity be damned, today I make a list of people to write to, and I take the effort to sit down and write, damn it!

Here's hoping they respond... and that those lines of static come alive with chatter once more.

Peace... out!

Incomprehension

2008-03-21T18:07:00.003-04:00

I've really been ignoring QQP for these past weeks... Started updating Diwan-E-Flix with some regularity - but that's died down some too. I have at least four movies I want to write about, Definitely Maybe, Juno, The Spiderwick Chronicles, and Gone Baby Gone pending in queue.

Ah well... call it a lean spring thaw.

At any rate... belted out a poem between meetings at work today, so without much further ado:

Incomprehension

One mind, seeking to comprehend; shed light,
On one truth, veiled in shadow and night,
If only the world were so simple; reduced
If one voice from the clamor could me but seduce

Tis a world of many truths, of subtlety; of sleight
A world of many minds, and fancies, in flight
Truth depends on method; forever enslaved
With corpses each path to that grail we paved

Our goal itself is but a glamour; a mirage
That shimmers and changes its elusive visage
Enraptured thus, we live on; proceed
In trials of survival we try and succeed

At this situation I laugh; and sometimes cry
Eloquently wax upon, with a joke or two wry
Forgive me my smugness; this garish deceit
Incomprehension is my only claim to conceit.

Announcement: Diwan-E-Flix

2008-01-19T14:35:00.000-05:00

I finally got around to doing what I've been planning to do for quite some time now: I started a dedicated blog for my movie reviews. It is called Diwan-E-Flix (clicky!) and will from here on be the home for any movie related rants, movie reviews, etc. that I may have. Soon, the "Books and Movies" label on this blog will change to "Books". And yes, I know the new blog's name is corny. But no, I am not open to suggestions :D

Same as with the current blog, this new one will be available on Blogspot, subscribable via RSS/ Atom feeds in any reader such as Google Reader, has been syndicated, and fully searchable. For your - ahem - convenience, it even looks and navigates similar to this blog, only has a different color scheme. I'm not quite done adding the widgets and scripties to it yet, but the content is done; to get it off to a flying start, I moved all the movie reviews I have ever posted on this blog at any time in the past to this new one. I also added six new reviews to it, so it starts off with 55 posts from day one! These (in chronological order of viewing - well, almost) are:

The Fountain

Pan's Labyrinth

Taare Zameen Par

The Bucket List

Breach, and,

Stardust

Comments, raves, rants, encomiums, messages of hate all welcome as always. No need to hit 'read more' for this post... and I hope you like the new blog!

The Lens of Self

2008-01-01T10:26:00.000-05:00

I often circle around an obvious thought or idea warily, like a puppy sizing up a grasshopper. I approach it from many angles, name it haltingly, and yet in too many words that make up extremely long and adjective-filled compound sentences. I do sometimes make a worthwhile point, but it gets lost in rants that seem to all be talking about the same thing because, well - they are.

Which is when this blog pays off! Here rumination and analysis ad infinitium, ad nauseum is endlessly possible. And what time for all those activities than the beginning of a brand new year when it is du jour?

The idea that is the object of this post has been bubbling under for years without me fully naming it. Put in its simplest formulation, it looks like a Zen teaching - and probably is - but I like to think I didn't know that when I named it...

Ironically (and the irony will present itself presently), in this post I will state this idea and analyze its precedents... a sort of genealogy of the thought to clue myself in about how it originated. It starts as a "Eureka" moment, and then turns into a remix of many old rants.

So here is that thought I had (in three parts):

ONE: "I look always through the lens of self. I see my world, but not the world. I despair, as I want to understand the world. Then I realize - To truly understand it, I must look at it dispassionately. I must look at it when I am no one; when the lens of self does not modulate my thoughts. Perhaps this is impossible, but I will understand it only when I am able to look at it from from no one's eyes."

TWO: "I emote in a very similar way. I allow emotions to rule me, when I can easily be their master. In the space outside the prison of self, when I look from no one's eyes, emotion is my plaything. A tool, not a constraint. To be 'emotional' is not weak, but it stops me from separating truth and subjective cognition."

THREE: "Because I never clearly understand the world, and live in my own, I am limited. Because I think I cannot help my emotions, I limit myself further. I proceed to slavishly live out a script I write for myself based on my flawed understanding of my world and its 'constraints'. If I could break past these limitations I would live better."

Now that I've written it, I will admit the thought looks like nonsense at the first pass. I could be a more coy or metaphorical with it; ot is certainly the fashion to formulate that thought as a poem or a story about storks or cats or a Monk that Sold his Ferrari or some such. It may've struck you as nothing too earth shattering or new... but to me, it is the most useful original thought I have had in years.

Long before I wrote it I made a habit of applying it to everything - to understanding/ managing relationships; self-development/ career management/ financial planning; philosophy... the whole shebang. It is a valid statement of a part of my approach to life.

What I am marveling at today is just how long it took me to come out and say it!

Part one of the thought started because I was tired of being with myself in some weird way. Given the constant self-analysis and waxing eloquent about myself, I figured I had "me-mania". Then after consciously enduring many rants and anecdotes from many people about themselves and tiring of it I realized every single one of us has it! Everybody's favorite subject is themselves. We just can't stop talking about it!

So I said in September 2005 I wrote a somewhat erudite post called The Argus Imperative. A quote:

"You are unlikely to meet a snail that drawls on and on about how gooey or shiny or slow or drawly them snails are; even when they are called something stylish like "escargot" by the Spanish. You are unlikelier to find a civilized Spanish snail saying this because in all likelihood, the only civilized Spanish snails you meet will be dead appetizers or main courses in a casa somewhere!

Us humans though, are a different story. We do like to go on and on and on about ourselves."

When we hear anything, our first reaction is to relate it to an anecdote from our own lives. We go to great lengths to do this - we stoop to lying and fabricating said anecdotes if we have to. In February 2007, that thread of thought came out again in a philosophical rant on this blog called A Challenged Hubris starting with these words:

"Who does not at one time or another in his life imagine himself to be the center of all existence? Who has not shut his or her eyes to pretend at being invisible? Who has not shut themselves away from the world hoping it would change - or stay as it is? Who has not deemed him or herself the most fortunate or unfortunate, happiest or most wretched of creatures on the face of the earth?

It is an unavoidable result of having to interact with the world at large through the lens of one's own consciousness. The one who is proud and exalts in himself will view himself as a hero; the one who is not will view himself as a victim. The vast majority will oscillate between one and the other, and to a multitude of degrees. Funnily enough, in their own place their myriad beliefs will be justified... For what heroic deed will the proud man know better than one he himself performs? And what misery will be more intimate to the ever-suffering man than the misery he feels in his own heart?"

That post drifted far away from where it might have gone. As it is wont to do :)

Part two of the thought also has very old antecedents, going back as far as April 2005 when in a post titled Depression, I said:

"Kinda makes me wonder... is all emotion a form of entertainment? Shakespeare said "all the world is a stage"... does all emotion consist of us entertaining ourselves...? Oh wait... that could be another post I sense coming... but enough rambling for now."

That post actually kicked off a huge (and ultimately unfinished) thread of thought I called my Convoluted Theory of Control and ran for many posts.

Part three of the thought was documented in another post called Life Stories, in June 2007 that said:

"While most of the time in life I have no idea what the heck I am up to, I can think back to instances in the past where I felt compelled to act a certain way because that's what I visualized/ directed myself into doing. In hindsight, these times felt very much like a method acting assignment - for instance, when I experienced my first break-up, or when I was dealing with a debilitating illness, or even when I chose my career path (or what little of it I did actively choose).

There are so many good and bad things about living that way... optimists will have good scripts to adhere to, pessimists will have bad. (As I will mention again later, agnostics are unable to have one)."

Anyway... I am sick of retrospecting and introspecting and talking about myself now. So want to end on a light note - one of my favorite poems called Curse of the Medulla Oblongata, which has the origins of that central idea... summed up succinctly as "Look, don't peep" :D

Darn I love this blog! :)

Peace... Out!

2007 Is Done

2007-12-29T10:46:00.000-05:00

It's a wrap - again!

Another year in the can (well, almost); a more eventful year than the last. It was an inflexion year with major decisions and changes, enriching experiences, and a bit of growing up. This post is a retrospective of what I blogged about, what was new with me (and for me) this year, and the movies/ books/ TV/ games etc. I indulged in. It concludes with a pick for my personal favorite post of the year on the blog.

I do this for my own benefit (started last year) because the blog has been turning into a very good way of tracking life. It offers a pensieve to dump thoughts in, and appeals to the obsessive archivist that lurks within me - yes, the same guy who never deletes an email!

So let's get right to it...!

The Blog

My blogging frequency took something of a hit in the solar plexus this year - the downward trend continued. I blogged at about 76% of what I managed in 2006 (counting this post, and one other I have planned for before Monday the 31st)... Which isn't that bad considering I took a hiatus from blogging between Jun 30 and Oct 14 (about 105 days). What is weird is that Jun - Oct was a lean blogging season last year too, albeit for different reasons.

In content, the blog has drifted very far away from philosophy and has become more of a movie review site, particularly in the last month. Gone are the vague and angsty posts and poems that had become a morbid signature of sorts. I injected a couple of new labels and genres for posts this year, and began to be more varied in what I chose to blog about. The title is in dire need of revision because of all this methinks; I have no concrete ideas as yet, but it certainly isn't only about philosophical meanderings any more - hasn't been for some time now.

On the horizon for 2008 therefore is a blog rename, and some restructuring/ a revamp as well (my last revamp was a year ago). I have also recently decided to open the blog up to guest writers starting with Kirti, with perhaps introducing one or two more later... haven't worked out the details, but watch this space.

What's Up?

Two trips to India this year - the first turned into a real whirlwind as I met and fell in love with Kirti. The second proved to be quite a ride as well, including an elaborate wedding (a harrowing Kafka-esque tale that will never be told!). We were married and then simulated brownian motion across three continents and four countries, over four months. We managed to honeymoon, work in Hyderabad, come to Buffalo, move to a new apartment, and (finally) start a blissful married life.

This year I/ we did a few things I/ we had never done before (in chronological order):

Wrote a quite comprehensive "So You'd Like To" guide on Amazon.com - the thrill in this is that it shows up quite consistently in Google search results :)

Became a 'We'

Visited Mauritius, Canada

Took up Golf in a small way

Started learning Spanish

Bought a car

An above average year most certainly.

Movies

We saw a mind-boggling number of movies this year, and went a little crazy on Netflix. Also kicked off the "Geekify Kirti" campaign which she enthusiastically supported. A full retrospective is available in my last post. The number has grown by one, to 112 since I wrote that post; we watched Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" last night... Kirti may post a review as her first guest post shortly.

Books

I read about 20 new books this year, which doesn't come close to the 45+ from last year, but is about my annually average. 2003 - 2005 were poor years for me because I let the new jo and traveling to the US etc. get in the way of reading. At least this year I managed to keep the numbers (and quality) up! I also reread a HUGE number of books, which would probably double the number of books perused/ read. Most of these were fantasy literature, but I also managed to muck through a couple of bestsellers. Watch this space for a detailed "My Year in Books" post, with which I hope to post a Books DB to go with my movie DB before the weekend is done.

Writing

This year was not very productive for my writing. Mainly because, as already mentioned, the blog was not active for some time. I managed to get a couple of things out; a standalone short story, some poetry and a couple of essays. 2008 will hopefully be more productive.

Television

TV was dead this year. Studio 60 got cancelled, and then I really never got time to follow any series. It didn't help that Kirti is as anti-telly as anyone I have met. Over her vitriolic protests, I did institutionalize the practice of watching the Sunday morning political shows ("Meet the Press" and "This Week") in the wake of the 2008 US Presidential campaign, but you can't call that entertainment!

We liked "Top Chef" and "Project Runway" on Bravo... nice to see reality series that require the contestants to be technically good at something. The writers strike meant In the closing days of the year there really wasn't much to watch - but I did discover "Two and a Half Men" reruns endearing in the way only sitcoms can be... may watch that regularly now.

Gaming

Other than finishing Halo and Halo 2 (and drooling about Halo 3), I didn't do much gaming this year. Vikram got me started on Command and Conquer: Tiberium Wars for a bit, but that died in its infancy. Never got around to buying either a XBox 360 (Halo 3, Assassin's Creed, Quake 4, and Mass Effect beckon) or a Nintendo Wii (Mario Galaxy astonishes)...

At this point I don't know if I ever will. Gaming may very well be dead; collateral damage from the nuptials.

Career

Professionally, this was the year I made the transition from Testing to Business Analysis, and am so far liking what I get to do. No future plans of any concrete nature (of course) but that might just have to change early next year.

I care so little about this, I amaze myself... :D

Best Post of the Year

Now this is a real pickle. I like several. But a look at my previous picks makes things a bit easier. So here we are:

(drumroll)

2007 - Pax Americana/ A Revolution Reloaded

Yes - it is a tie. The first was easily the most popular and well-liked post this year. It and its two sequels - Pax Americana: Omens for the 21st century, and Flux Indica were a long time in the making and presented some cathartic opportunities to gain insight/ clarity on things I cared about. The second is easily the deepest analysis I have done on a movie, and because the movies in question are so dear to me, I found it very satisfying. Both are analytical works, and rational and analytical is what I was for most of this year - not a year for weird flights of fancy or angst.

Other posts I liked were a couple that were potentially useful to the audience (for once!) such as my movie database, the already mentioned So You'd Like to guide, and some timely movie reviews.

To close, here are the 'best posts' from past years for those that would like to read them.

2004 - Truth, Bliss, and an Epicure
2005 - Age of Bittersweet
2006 - Afterglow

Conclusion

If 2006 was the lazy, indulgent year of the imaginutton, this would be the somewhat frantic year of the omnivore. I am less conflicted, a lot happier, but just as clueless about the long term plans that everyone seems to obsess about.

Bring on 2008...

Happy New Year Everyone!

Peace... Out!

My Year In Movies - 2007

2007-12-25T08:26:00.000-05:00

This is a followup to a similar post just about a year ago, also called My Year In Movies. 2007 was almost entirely a year in movies for me. I've seen at least 39 movies in the theatre this year, Hindi and English included. Add to that about 52 DVD rentals from Netflix and at least 20 movies caught on the Internet or on the Telly. And we have a grand total of 111 movies devoured in under 365 days.

So without much further ado, let us jump to the best of the year...

This year was particularly good for movie viewing. Here are the ones released this year that I really loved. They are in chronological order of release, and links lead to full reviews I have posted for them on this blog before:

The Namesake - A very nicely told, layered tale of identity crises - personal and ethnic. I liked this movie so much, I didn't read the book, in case the movie spoilt it! This doesn't happen often...

300 - This movie is like a bhaja (a fritter). Several parts action, stunning visual effects, ambitious plot, a cast of Adonis wannabes, and deep fried in testosterone. One of the best war/ fantasy films ever made.

Cheeni Kum - Amitabh Bachchan shines as always, but what makes this movie really good is the unconventional storyline and delightful characterization. It is well made but drags badly toward the end. Still, above average hindi movie.

Ratatouille - Pixar did it again! This is a warm, fuzzy tail... er... tale of chefs and cooking... Like The Incredibles, this is another argument against the celebration of mediocrity in children's fare. Wonderful!

Transformers - ALL HAIL MEGATRON! :) My geek-out of the year. The epitome of summer blockbusters. It defies one line description, but 'fanboy wet-dream' is as good as any. Dang - I should've written a glowing review for it here.

The Bourne Ultimatum - One of the few movies I don't resent for completely disregarding the book that is the source material. Ludlum's novel was mediocre at best, but this movie is just the best movie of its kind since the first Mission: Impossible.

Michael Clayton - Recently reviewed on this blog, and a contendor for any all time movie hall-of-fame, not just for a best of 2007 list.

American Gangster - The best crime movie made since Coppola and Scorsese stopped being gods.

I am Legend - A good, solid movie, and Will Smith's best performance ever. Adieu, Agent J. Allo, Allo, Robert Neville! C'est la vie.

Charlie Wilson's War - The most intelligent commentary on the situation in Afghanistan in recent times. Very good indeed.

Well whaddaya know! I ended up with a top ten list without meaning to list ten movies.

So... moving on now to the 'almost made it' category... these were movies that entertained/ touched me, but weren't worthy of immortality. Also listed in chronological order... catch these of TV/ DVD if you have nothing better to do

Music and Lyrics - A typical romantic comedy. If you like Hugh Grant, you'll like this movie.

TMNT - The geeks like turtles. What can I say?

Meet the Robinsons - Decent animated time travel/ kiddie fiction, with a few really funny moments. Look for "Master - I have a big head, and little hands". :)

Death-proof - Do not watch the other half of Grindhouse, upon pain of death. But this movie is a pretty nice action thriller from Quentin Tarantino.

In the Land of Women - This is a weird movie, but managed to score a few points on the chick-flickometer

Life in a Metro - It was good to see a hindi movie that takes chances with the storyline. Also good to see an Indian film-maker use the converging storylines plot device to good effect. But the subject matter left me a little unimpressed. This is no "Crash"... but it isn't a bad movie.

Pirates Of the Caribbean: At World's End - This wasn't a bad movie, but it was an immense let down. "Dead Man's Chest" was one of the best movies of 2006, and had a tremendous "Empire Strikes Back" style cliffhanger ending. "At World's End" squanders that immense opportunity by being too all over the place with its plot, and unnecessary convolutions in the story. I liked the end though...

Ocean's Thirteen - Danny Ocean redeems himself with a posse devoid of the fairer sex. Not as good as Eleven, not as 'orrible as Twelve.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - Good wholesome superhero flick. The Silver Surfer rules all four 'fantastics' and the wishy washy Doom.

A Mighty Heart - Average movie, gets a bit confused about what its trying to say, but worth a watch.

Live Free of Die Hard - I don't know why this movie got dumped on so badly. It isn't all that horrible... It is not a 'Die Hard' movie, but it isn't bad for a brainless action flick.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - This movie just failed to impress me - plus it was an adaptation of a source I would at best call mediocre source. This is easily the worst book of the Harry Potter series... and I hope it will be the worst of the movies.

Gandhi, My Father - A nice take on material previously explored by a book and a Marathi play. I had liked the play better, but kudos to the production team for making a good movie.

Chak De India - Many people told me this movie was completely fresh and new. It struck me however, as a well made portmanteau of any number of English sports movies. It is immensely enjoyable, and very well made... but didn't impress me enough to make my hall of fame. Maybe its my aversion to sports :)

The Kingdom - Good gritty action movie set in Saudi Arabia. Scores points because they toned down the jingoism and 'yo-joe' heroism.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age - I wish this movie had been as intriguing as the first movie. As it turns out, there is only one intriguing plot-point, and the rest is mediocre fare. Worth a watch though.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Amusing in the way kids playing at war are amusing. An entertaining marriage of Indiana Jones, the Da Vinci Code, and (of all things) Jerry Bruckheimer... hmm...

And then there are the disasters. Movies that should never have been made or whose makers deserve a severe upbraiding.

Smokin' Aces - A supposed action-comedy... this movie leaves just totally sucks. It is so bad, I wouldn't use the reel for toilet paper.

Next - I like a good prophecy yarn, but the ending of this movie just left me thinking "WTF?". Pure, unadulterated, crap.

Spiderman 3 - So, so, so, so, so, so very disappointing. Sam Raimi should've known better. Easily the biggest disappointment of the year.

Shrek The Third - This movie was the second biggest disappointment of the year. It is obvious that Dreamworks now views the once spunky and cheeky Shrek franchise as, well, a franchise. A cash cow. Grr.

Rush Hour 3 - Is there something about being a third movie that makes movies bad? An ageing martial artist and too much of an irritating loudmouth do not a funny movie make.

The Golden Compass- This flawed movie was just heartbreaking. I say again what I said in my review - it felt like a hastily made RPG.

And finally, movies I wanted to see, but never got around to seeing... in spite of being such a movie hound. These will be on my Netflix queue:

Black Friday
Breach
Knocked Up
The Simpson's Movie
Stardust
Superbad
3:10 to Yuma
Across the Universe
Johnny Gaddar
Bhool Bhulaiyya
Gone, Baby, Gone
No Country For Old Men
Lions for Lambs
The Kite Runner

Hmm... so plenty seen, plenty left to see...

Peace... Out!

Four Reviews and Oscar Guesses

2007-12-22T12:17:00.000-05:00

I'd been meaning to post a review of "American Gangster" for some time now as it is one of the best I've seen in 2007. I never got around to it. Last week, I decided I'd do a two-fer and post a review for Gangster and the blockbuster that I saw last weekend - "I Am Legend". Some more procrastination followed until, having seen yet another wonderful movie ("Charlie Wilson's War") I thought it was high time for a threesome. Ahem. Then the wife pointed out that I hadn't yet reviewed "Michael Clayton" (which we saw long before Gangster) and had procrastinated out of active memory...

So here we are... a four in one review, in chronological order. As it turned out, it is a good thing I did it like this - I am betting these movies contain most if not all the people likely to be Academy Award nominees for Best Actor/ Supporting Actor/ Actress this year... so I have put in some guesses at the end of this post.

For those with short attention spans, here's the punch: all four movies surpassed or met my expectations, and rated a solid 1 (Clayton), 1 (Gangster), 2 (Legend), and 2 (Wilson) respectively... If you want a big reason to watch each of these movies, I'd say watch them for the pleasure of watching stellar actors at the top of their game. Clooney, Wilkinson, Washington, Crowe, Smith, Hanks, Hoffman, and Roberts, all make these flicks worthwhile. For detailed, mostly spoiler-free reviews, click on "read more"...

Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton is first and foremost, a character piece. Sure, they've used the technique of staggered timelines and the polished plot devices thereof, but the one thing that raises this movie head and shoulders above the crowd is the quality of acting coming from George Clooney (as Michael Clayton), Tom Wilkinson (as Arthur Edens) and the Witch from Narnia, Tilda Swinton (as Karen Crowder).

The plot of the movie is very layered and complex - and difficult to summarize. The story is that of the eponymous lawyer, a 'fixer' for a prestigious law firm who has not seen the inside of a court room in a very long time. He is a habitual gambler, and the brother of a cop, which along with the brandname of his firm gives him unique connections in the over and underworld. He is called in when there is a 'mess' to be cleaned up.

The mess in the story is the meltdown of a colleague, Arthur Edens, a manic depressive and a brilliant legal mind, who is lead defense attorney for a major chemical fertilizer company whose product has made several people ill or killed them. In the middle of a deposition, Edens suddenly starts raving and strips off his clothes, giving in to the horror he feels at defending such people. Karen Crowder, the chief legal advisor for the company is made uneasy by this, and she and Clayton go about trying to clean up the mess the meltdown makes in their own, immoral ways.

What follows surprises even the most jaded of movie-goers. Those expecting a bleak, cynical end, and those expecting an 'into-the-sunset' kind of end will both be surprised. The conclusion of the movie is as true to the characters that get built up, as it is feasible in the desert of the real.

There are some fantastic 'action/ thrill' sequences in the movie. There are also elements of noir and of classic legal tales in the tradition of John Grisham's "The Rainmaker". But the movie is hard to characterize or classify... each viewer will take away a different thing, at each viewing. And what makes it worthwhile is the beautiful characterization, and the way it has been realized on screen by the cast in their top-notch performances. Wilkinson is excellent as a man barely in control of himself but, hasn't yet lost any of his brilliance or morality. Swinton surpasses herself as the cold, calculating, yet constantly insecure lawyer whose whole career is on the line.

But this is, in the end, George Clooney's film. He impresses as a financially troubled man, who feels great guilt at being a bad father, and who (right to the end) has no moral imperative other than survival. The only time Clooney came anywhere close to performing this well was in Syriana... and it surpasses that performance because this is not an ensemble movie.

Clooney also gets the best line in the movie at the very end, when he admonishes Swinton's character for the way she dealt with things. I'll put it in invisotext so as to avoid spoiling those of you who'd rather not get hints about the ending (you'll have to select it to read it): "I'm not the guy you kill. I'm the guy you buy off! Are you so blind that you can't see that? I sold out Arthur for 80 grand. I'm your easiest problem and you try to kill me?".

And that really sums up Michael Clayton... he is not a man of black and white. He is a grey man, in a grey world, trying to survive, without apology.

At a 100 minutes, the movie is incredibly short and dense. This is a movie you watch once in the theatre, and then spend many hours watching later on DVD, appreciating the finer details at liesure. The direction, editing, and background music are up to the task of matching the expertise shown by the cast. An easy to rate movie - this scores a '1' and enters my all time hall of fame!

American Gangster

If you haven't seen this movie yet, you have missed a real treat. I don't think I need to do a plot summary given the amount of hype that has preceded it. Billed as a face-off between two titans of acting - Academy Award contendors Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe - the movie isn't really that. They share very little screen time and the movie is essentially a bio-pic and a character sketch combined.

The bio-pic parts concern Frank Lucas, a real world Harlem gangster who ruled the heroin business in parts of New York some time ago. The character piece concerns Richie Roberts, an honest cop who turned down an opportunity to 'keep' a million dollars and is now something of a pariah in a corrupt police department. The parallel storylines are meaty enough for the actors to shine in their own way, and the resulting product is immensely satisfying.

Frank Lucas is like a black Godfather on steroids. His quiet menace and bursts of ferocity under a veneer of civility are captured perfectly by Denzel Washington. You never feel comfortable enough to empathize with the man, because he is a monster... but you reluctantly find yourself cheering him on for his style, if nothing else.

There will inevitably be comparisons to Mario Puzo's work, so it has to be said: Lucas differs from Michael Corleone in many crucial ways. He is not a reluctant criminal. He does the dirty work himself. He has no Luca Brazi garroting people in the back of the car - he sets people on fire and shoots them in broad daylight himself. He has no compunctions about being in a business that ruins many lives; in fact boasts that what he does is good for 'his turf'. With his pomp and charisma, the gangster clearly steals the show from the more understated cop.

Which does not take away anything from Crowe's performance; it is as nuanced and competent as Washington's. But there is something within each of us that is fascinated with an unapologetic, alpha-male rogue... and that something cannot take a back seat. Crowe does a wonderful job of leaving the bombast to the gangster. He has his own brand of menace (as evinced in a scene where he scares away a few teenage troublemakers), but in a brilliant combination of the stylish 'My name is Gladiator' and the schizophrenic John Nash, he plays Richie Roberts as a very human counterpoint to the larger than life Lucas.

There is also enough hard hitting action and grittiness to satisfy fans of 'the hardcore'. Actually the biggest setpiece where Roberts finds Lucas' heroin lab reminded me of "The Untouchables". An honorable mention must go to Cuba Gooding Junior who plays a more flamboyant gangster in NYC. This movie is most certainly not for kids - gratuitous amounts of violence, blood, and nudity abound. So much so that I doubt if the watered down form that inevitably sees release in India will be worthwhile!

Also, don't expect any 'moral of the story' from this movie. It is as unapologetic and Darwinian about crime and punishment as RGV's "Satya". It rates a 1 in my book, and joins the hall of fame alongside movies like "The Godfather Part II".

I am Legend

First, to the purists I must say this: Yes... the plot of the novel has been decimated in the movie. For those who have read it, the climax (and therefore the significance of the title) are gone. Also, the vampires in the original plot are changed to mutants, and the end of the movie is a bit of a bow to the pressures of the box office.

That being said, I thought Will Smith's performance as Robert Neville was his best ever, bar none. He has abandoned his cocky, larger than life persona (thank god!) and has come through with a slightly off his rocker character that is strong, but very scared, and very brittle.

In fact, if I have any complaints with the film (besides the commercial ending) it would be that they have put in grandiose set-pieces for no explicable reason. This movie could've been made the way Night Shyamalan made "Signs" or Spielberg made "War of the Worlds" and it would've worked better. As it stands, you do get a dose of typical blockbuster action/ set-pieces etc. The much talked about $5 million bridge shot was a waste (I thought)... what makes this movie work is how 'intimately creepy' it is. The point isn't spectacle! The point is one man, going a little crazy because of loneliness, and his refusal to give up his 'ground zero' without a fight.

In fact, my favorite moment in the film reveals how frail and long-past rational Neville really is: (minor spoilers) A mutant exposes himself to the sun (this causes them great pain) just to get a better look at his brood's attacker, and to sneer at him. While to the viewer this indicates that the mutants have emotion, and perhaps even a form of society, Neville interprets this as them having lost the last traces of humanity and having become senseless animals.

The director has captured the look and feel of post-apocalyptic New York perfectly. It is simultaneously poignant, exciting, and scary.

The first half of the movie is amazing and Oscar worthy for editing/ direction/ art direction/ acting. In an impressive visual kick-off, the first scenes of the movie have Smith speeding in a bright red Ford Mustang, hunting deer in Times Square! A quiet paranoia oozes from each frame, and as we see Robert Neville go through two iterations of his daily routine, you feel very sad and very scared. I was on the edge of my seat long before anything scary actually happened.

Make no mistake - this too is not a movie for the fainthearted or for kids. It walks a thin line between 'thriller' and 'horror', and there were many times when I was genuinely petrified. The scene where Neville is forced to follow his dog into a dark building is executed with the perfect amount of foreboding and gore. Neville's near-capture by the mutants, and later a ferocious fight by the dock are note perfect as well. I also really liked the way the backstory was slowly revealed throughout the movie.

Watch it now, for Will Smith's performance and the movie's eerie ambience. The only reason this doesn't get a rating of '1' is the ending.

Charlie Wilson's War

The ingredients of this movie are a perfect storm, and meant I HAD to watch it on opening day. It has been adapted for the screen by Aaron Sorkin; the God of screenwriting as far as I am concerned. It stars Tom Hanks, and just as importantly, Philip Seymour Hoffman - both performers I enjoy watching tremendously. The previews promised an engaging storyline, a cameo by Om Puri, and a character part for Julia Roberts. To cap it off, it is directed by the veteran Mike Nichols, credited for everything from "The Graduate" to "Closer"! How could I not watch it?

This is the adaptation of George Crile's 2003 book "Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History". It tells the story of how a Texan Congressman (Charlie Wilson, played by Tom Hanks) covertly funded the Mujahideen resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. To do this, he enlisted the help of an unlikely lineup of allies, including Pakistan's 'President' Zia ul Haq, the government of Israel, and their mortal enemies Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. He did his part in breaking the back of the Evil Empire. Julia Roberts plays a born-again do-gooder socialite Joanne Herring who inspired and enabled Wilson to do it, and Hoffman plays a disillusioned (and delightfully coarse) CIA case officer, Gust Avrakotos, who was Wilson's man friday.

The first surprise of this movie to anyone who hasn't seen the West Wing is how funny it is, in spite of the grave subject matter. Sorkin is brilliant, and the staple techniques of compressing as much dialogue into as little time as humanly possible, and intricate blocking (in stage terms) are in evidence. They didn't do the 'walk and talk' much, though.

The second surprise is Hanks, who is not the shiny vanilla do-gooder that he has been in everything from "Big" to "Forrest Gump" to "The Green Mile" to "Cast Away". His character, while not grim like the one in "The Road to Perdition", is morally questionable, to put it mildly. He is a womanizing alcoholic and a drug user. He is proud of the fact that because he has to do nothing for his district, he sells his vote in congress to the highest bidder and so has many IOU's in his hand. At the start of the film, he has but one moral imperative (Kill Russians), and yet by the end, he has come to appreciate the complexity and nuance of the situation far better than the average American.

And that nuance is the third surprise of the movie for newcomers to Sorkin. The movie is not a jingoistic view on how American tried to save Afghanistan. It is instead a chronicle of how America started out with good intentions and then, as Wilson himself puts it at the end of the movie, "fucked up the end game".

I believe this is a movie that is a more pertinent commentary on the Iraq War and the War on Terror than movies like "Lions for Lambs" or "Rendition". Every American must see it, because it gives a very objective assessment of what really happened in Afghanistan. Also hidden in it are clues to what is or might go wrong in Afghanistan or Iraq now.

Hanks and Roberts are expectedly good in the movie... but the real surprise is Hoffman who plays the irreverent CIA officer with elan. In the way most roguish characters are wont to (see American Gangster above!), he steals the show from the equally roguish (but not as profane) Hanks - until Hanks drags it back into his court toward the end of the movie as his character becomes wiser and therefore more pained than you could've possibly thought.

The final surprise of the movie is in how crisp it is. At barely an hour and forty minutes of running time, it gets over before you know it, and has still managed to say everything it needs to, and most of it in a lighthearted, entertaining way. There is no lengthy moral discourse you have to suffer, nor any need to berate the moviemakers for being overly pro-American.

The best not so obvious and obvious moments of the movie that jumped out at me were:

The introductory scene for Hoffman with the window breaking

The funny bits with Zia, one when he tells Wilson that "no, not too many people make the mistake" (of asking for alcohol in his dry presidential palace), or when Herring starts an address in Zia's honor by telling the audience that he 'in fact, did not kill Bhutto'

The scene in the Afghan refugee camp when the head of the sub-committee for Defense Appropriations joins a chant of "Alla-ho-Akbar" with the Mujahideen. This with ominous music in the background as the only harbinger of things to come...

The scene early on, when Wilson asks Herring if her friend thinks making a movie about Afghanistan would really help things

The scene at the end where Reagan is quoted as asking "Afghanistan - is that thing still on?"

All in all, a must see movie, that rates a 2 on my scale. It didn't score a 1 simply because it didn't have the kind of emotional impact on me as I have come to expect from a writer of Sorkin's calibre.

Oscar Predictions

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Denzel Washington
Russell Crowe
George Clooney
Tom Hanks
Will Smith (?)

Best Actor in Supporting Role

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Tom Wilkinson
(and 3 more)

Best Actress in Supporting Role

Tilda Swinton
Julia Roberts
(and three more)

And that brings me to the end of my 2007 movie reviewing spree :) I will watch one more movie before the year is out - National Treasure: Book of Secrets - but I hardly think that popcorn flick will be worth a review. Is this turning into a movie blog or what!

Look for my updated movie database and 'My year in movies - 2007" post coming soon.

Peace... Out!

Mighty Heartless Compass

2007-12-11T18:08:00.000-05:00

The movie-watching continues for us, and this week (amongst others) we saw two movies as different apples and oranges. The first was "A Mighty Heart" starring Angelina Jolie, based on events surrounding the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl in Karachi, Pakistan (on DVD). The other was "The Golden Compass" - the movie based on the first instalment of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. A dose therefore of reality and hyper-reality.

What follow are fairly spoiler-free reviews... For the attention span challenged, in a nutshell, both rate about 3 stars in my book...

1. A Mighty Heart

This was one of those movies you dread to see; fallsing in the same broad category as say, "United 93"/ "World Trade Center"/ "Salaam Bombay"/ "Ardh-Satya". You dread to see it not because it may be a bad movie, but because it might make you uncomfortable. You fear it will give you a glimpse of a reality you normally view with detachment on the evening news and shake your head at. A reality you would rather not acknowledge.

Ideal movies, for most of us (and especially me!), are about escape and entertainment, with perhaps a dollop or a garnish of a message. Portraying reality is not a job we expect of them. So it was telling that this DVD sat around waiting to be watched for almost ten days after the folks at Netflix and the USPS got it to us. The fault was mine entirely - I am too happy these days to leave my comfort zone.

That said, the movie wasn't that uncomfortable to see at all! Which I'm not sure is a good thing.

Based on events that ended in tragedy, the film-makers have taken the effort to not be despondent, and have avoided the 'shock and awe' strategy in the visuals, sound, and look of the film. That makes this movie a passable semi-documentary on the circumstances surrounding and investigation into the kidnapping.

Unfortunately, it stops there.

While serving as a decently gripping investigation piece, I felt the movie had surprisingly little to say. The makers were obviously walking a tight-rope between journalism and commentary, and that diluted the content. There are some moments of good commentary in the film, but they don't come together as a skein or a tapestry. The action scenes are well shot, but only add to the confusion - is the movie trying to be a thriller, or a reflective (and moody) piece?

The moments/ elements that came across well to me include:

A well meaning character from the WSJ who bumbles and fusses over how to best care for Mariane

The meeting with the Pakistani Minister of the Interior (?), which says so much in so little time.

The climactic scene of the movie where Mariane breaks down.

The interview at the very end where Mariane is confronted with an insensitive question.

A motif that the director uses often, which I didn't get/ appreciate was that of the child that shows up in many scenes/ frames (the child of the servants attending to the house Mariane lives in). I didn't get it - maybe it was a motif more effective on the Western viewer, who would not be used to seeing such a presence, but if it was in fact saying anything about anything - well, ok!

Angelina Jolie plays the central character of Mariane Pearl with gusto - but is defeated by the fact that she cannot do things - a) speak in a convincing French accent, and b) stop being Angelina Jolie. She shines in some scenes but is mostly about par for the course. Similarly competent but performing well below stellar are Irfan Khan as the chief of the Pakistan CID, and the lady that plays Asra Nomani, the Indian journalist.

All in all, this is a movie that started out trying to be many things - and ended up being a valiant attempt at a few of them.

-=-=-

2. The Golden Compass

I was excited, hyped to see this movie. I followed its making, and was waiting for it for several months.

It seemed to have all the ingredients for a really good stew; Stellar source material - His Dark Materials is a trilogy I adore for being audacious and imaginitive. They roped in talent of the highest order - Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman, Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen (the voice of the bear), and a (perfectly cast) Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby. The movie had a good 'home' in New Line - the folks that made the LOTR movies. Budget wasn't a problem - as was evidenced by the high quality of art direction and special effects.

And yet I was extremely disappointed to see the final product. That (in my opinion) is because of two cardinal errors on the part of the director, Paul Weitz, and the author Philip Pullman, who was involved with the production.

The first was the decision to stick to a literal depiction of the book - only not the important parts (I'll explain this!). The decision made the movie a candidate for the "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" Award - a movie that mostly stuck to the source but is incapable of satisfying viewers new to the story as a movie because it lacks... soul. Cohesion. Qwan. Whatever.

The cardinal rule for movie adaptations from books is to capture the essence of the tale, at the cost of plot details. Here I thought they did the bang opposite. Nearly every detail, every character, every plot twist made it to the movie in some shape or form (excluding the last three chapters.

That made the movie feel like a badly paced/ hastily written role playing video game (RPG)... It even stuck to the classic RPG formula: Start adventure as a naive unknowing character, collect companions/ knowledge, complete some side quests, and the main quest has a 'cliffhanger' ending, promising a sequel.

Which brings us to the second big problem. Excuse the crudity - this movie lacked the balls to stick to the source material - in spirit.

The last three chapters in the book were omitted. I hear they were filmed, but Paul Weitz (the director) decided to include them in the next movie (The Subtle Knife). Pullman himself seems to have approved of the idea. The trouble is, without that ending, this is just another fantasy movie... and Lord Asriel remains just another tediously cliched father figure!

That wouldn't be as big a problem if the movie hadn't already been castrated by the god-fearing-people-fearing-studio-executivess in Hollywood. Not only did they conveniently skip the end when we find out what Asriel's real gambit is... They also removed from the story all the semi-explicit allusions to the Church and to God and the Original Sin myth which make the book so nice and blasphemous!

To take a trilogy that is first and foremost a spin on the basis of Christianity and Catholicism and to make it a red-America friendly bowl of gruel is beyond criminal - it is just plain sad!

Ah well... I would hope this movie doesn't turn off potential readers of the trilogy. It does have a few redeeming moments - the conclusion of the polar bear fight for instance is absolutely jaw-dropping (ok... that must be one of the most over-used puns in the blogosphere this week), and all in all I would've liked it as an average flick if I had no idea what the source material was about.

Go watch it, if you haven't the patience to go read it (and reading is preferable by a factor of 10).

-=-=-

To conclude, a quick note to say I am in the process of drafting a "My Year In Movies" post for the year 2007, just as I had done last year. May also update my Movie Database soon...

Turning into quite a movie blog innit? :)

A Revolution, Reloaded

2007-12-05T18:11:00.000-05:00

We finished watching (in my case, for at least the sixth time) the Matrix trilogy from the Wachowski Brothers this weekend. What follows is a rumination to add on top of several knee-jerk reactions/ verbatim regurgitations from the past.

I have mentioned the Matrix all too often on this blog before - a Google Site Search turns up two pages of results! So this post has been a long time coming and I don't quite know why I didn't write it before..

It is an analysis, a reasonably accurate description of what the trilogy said to me. I will limit myself to analyzing the trilogy from four perspectives (although many more are possible for this many-layered thing). It is therefore four posts in one! But before I get to that, I will describe the story as I understand it. I felt this was a necessary (if painful) explication because so many claim not to understand the trilogy at all. That makes this five posts in one, thereby excusing the length (I hope)! >:)

Now let's get right to it...

-=-=-

Contents

Explication - being a plot summary.

Analysis 1. This will comprise of, well, a cliche. The most obvious way to analyse any epic is to compare it to the monomyth as defined by Joseph Campbell in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". This is the narrative essence that governs so many works of mythology and the genre known as Science Fiction and Fantasy. From Star Wars, to The Lord of the Rings, to Beowulf (the old Norse saga, not the crappy new movie).

Analysis 2. A look at the Matrix trilogy as a contemplation of a technological singularity. Said term is a pretty mind-blowing concept used to great effect in literature such as Dan Simmons' Hyperion Quartet (and Ilium/ Olympos duet) and in a more dumbed down way in the Terminator series of movies.

Analysis 3. This looks into the concept of simulation and simulacra. These were much hyped (if under-explored) basic concepts that worked their way into the first movie. Though they stopped being the crux of the tale in the later parts, they are an intriguing opportunity for philosophical research/ ranting.

Analysis 4. The final section will talk about how the trilogy handled free will and fate/ destiny. This is one of the more mind-twisting parts of the movie and while I don't claim to understand completely the answer the trilogy gives to the conundrum, I will talk about the conundrum itself and hopefully come up with a worthwhile argument.

-=-=-

0: Explication

The Matrix (as we will see) for all its conceptual and visual skulduggery, starts out in a simplistic, cliched, 'farmboy saves the world' fashion.

Neo is a slave to the Matrix who is freed by Morpheus, who tells him there is an Oracle who will advise him. Said Oracle tells Neo (and Trinity, and Morpheus) 'what he (they) need(s) to know' in order to play the role of 'the One' (to support Neo). The Oracle very clearly is the orchestrator, the conductor, the one in charge. The Agents of the Matrix are the personification of the enemy (a role mirrored in the real world by the Sentinels). Neo and his team fight both, and Neo lives through the classic death/ resurrection cycle to emerge seemingly omnipotent.

Reloaded introduces doubt, complexity, and ultimately chagrin. The path of the One is murky... Neo, while he all-powerful now, has no idea how to end the war between the machines and humanity and save Zion. He must trust that old manipulator - the Oracle - but begins to question her trustworthiness since he realizes she is a denizen of the machine world - a program.

Could she be a twisted form of control as against a liberator? Although he asks himself that, he carries out her instructions, to discover at the end of Reloaded that his worst fears were true; the Oracle was indeed on 'the other side'.

In Reloaded, some find Trinity an unnecessary diversion. But she too, has a purpose. As the Architect eloquently puts it in his chat with Neo:

Architect: "... Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication - a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species facilitating the function of the One. While the others experienced this in a very general way your experience is far more specific, Vis a vie love.

Neo: Trinity

Trinity is the thing that sets Neo apart from prior iterations of 'the One'.. When faced with the 'choice' the Architect offers him at the end of Reloaded, his predecessors would've chosen the 'Architect-recommended' path of the One, and saved the humans that remained outside of Zion (plugged to the Matrix). Neo chose instead (illogically) to throw away the future of the species to save Trinity.

Revolutions kicks off with an exercise in that dreaded thing - faith.

Morpheus and Trinity receive instructions to rescue Neo, which they must trust to for no reason other than faith. Neo then meets the Oracle, who tells him to trust her although she cannot offer him a shred of evidence of trustworthiness.

In her omniscience, she only gives him obscure clues; she tells him that he is an uncontrolled variable in an otherwise balanced equation - his counter variable being Smith. She tells him "everything that has a beginning, has an end".

The conclusion of the conundrum therefore is entirely based on Neo's free choice. The Oracle does not tell him what to do - he figures it out for himself (as Smith would say, he finally uses the muscle that matters).

Annihilating the machines is impossible; destroying the Matrix wasteful; the destruction of Zion must be avoided. A truce is the only possibility - the imbalance in the system that is the Matrix the only bargaining chip. Thus Neo strikes his deal with the Machines - he will destroy Smith, who has become a threat to human and machine alike, in exchange for the survival of Zion.

In a tongue in cheek nod to her character's uselessness (or to signify the final detachment of Neo from things of a worldly nature, whatever!) Trinity precedes her lover into the arms of death.

Finally free of all his bonds, Neo makes his final sacrifice as the last of the Oracle's machinations comes in the form of Smith quoting the Oracle to Neo: he allows himself to be assimilated, thereby making Smith, who so far 'balanced' Neo out in the system that is the Matrix, irrelevant.

The system therefore reasserts itself, and wipes Smith out. Balance restored, the machines keep their deal, and a truce, however temporary dawns upon the world, bringing the cycle to an end with the Oracle looking at a pretty sunset.

-=-=-

Analysis 1: The Matrix and the Monomyth

What is the monomyth? To quote Wikipedia: "Campbell explores the theory that important myths from around the world that have survived for thousands of years all share a fundamental structure, which Campbell called the monomyth."

The structure is best elaborated in three 'chapters' - distinct phases in the hero's journey. I recommend that the reader follow the link preceding the quote to read the explanation for each step if not familiar with the monomyth idea (although it isn't mandatory):

Chapter 1: Departure
1. The Call to Adventure - As Trinity puts it in the first movie -"It is the question, Neo". What is the Matrix?
2. Refusal of the Call - Neo refuses to climb the scaffolding, and gets captured by Smith and Co.
3. Supernatural Aid - Morpheus, the Matrix's resident Gandalf/ Obi-Wan Kenobi, offers Neo the red pill.
4. The Crossing of the First Threshold - Neo's awakening in the pod, finding the real body to be useless.
5. The Belly of the Whale - Finding that the 'real world' is very different from, and more challenging than, the Matrix.

Chapter 2: Initiation
1. The Road of Trials - Morpheus trains Neo, gets him to "free his mind".
2. The Meeting with the Goddess - Need I really say the Goddess in this case is the Oracle?
3. Woman as the Temptress - Trinity - although she never really 'repels' Neo.
4. Atonement with the Father - Neo decides to rescue Morpheus, recognizing that his value, and the survival of Zion supercede the need for Neo's own survival.
5. Apotheosis - Neo dies and is 'reborn', finally growing into the role of "The One"
6. The Ultimate Boon - Neo makes his "I know you're listening..." phone call.

At this point, the trilogy diverges somewhat from the monomyth - perhaps at the cost of popularity. The difference being that it introduces two things the monomyth/ the ancient world had no use for and therefore did not recognize/ tolerate:

1. Lack of Purpose/ Direction for the Hero: Mythology is usually a very clear narrative. There is a beginning, a goal, and an end when that goal is met. The spin the trilogy puts on this is that the goal of the One is not clear at the beginning of the second movie. The question the second movie asks is "Why should the powers of 'good' be the sole 'anointers' of the Hero? Why couldn't the powers of 'evil' (in this case the machines) set up and use the anointed Hero to their own, evil ends?

2. Complexity: The other spin is that the black-and-whiteness of the ideas of 'good' and 'evil' is challenged in the trilogy. In the middle of Reloaded is a philosophical discussion between Neo and Councillor Hamman that recognizes that the world is far too complex to be 'fixed' by the hero in one swift stroke. There is no 'dark lord' that can be killed by melting his ring in lava. There is no central Voldemort whose Horcruxes can be destroyed.

So from here on, while the elements of the monomyth are still visible, their sequence and their purpose is scrambled.

Chapter 3: Return (Reloaded/ Revolutions)
1. Refusal of the Return
2. The Magic Flight
3. Rescue from Without - These first three elements in my mind are personified in the whole 'entrapment by the Trainman and subsequent rescue' sequence.
4. The Crossing of the Return Threshold - This is shown to have happened between the two movies. Neo accepts his role as savior to Zion, both within the Matrix, and without.
5. Master of the Two Worlds - This is another divergence from the monomyth. In line with the complexity factor, Neo is kept low in rank/ power in the 'real' world in the trilogy.
6. Freedom to Live - Neo delivers this at the end of the trilogy, paying the ultimate personal price.

As you may have noted, the one on one correlation breaks down for Chapter 3, and the trilogy stops using the comfortable old shoe of the monomyth after the first movie. That is a good thing, because for all its philosophising and ponderings, the first movie is very much a familiar narrative designed to draw the viewer in. The second and third movies, albeit flawed deliver the punch.

The two chaotic elements introduced in Reloaded (Lack of purpose/ Complexity) just work for me. I like to see Neo be uncomfortable and clueless. I like that the Gandalf figure is shown to be a misguided soul. I like that the monomyth itself is subverted and shown to be another form of control - so much wool pulled over the eyes of humanity to keep them compliant.

I totally love how, while Neo provides the muscle, the intellectual exercise leading to salvation is credited to the Oracle. I love the disdain with which first the Merovingian, and then the Architect treat Neo, recognizing that he is but a mule for the Oracle.

So the "Path of the One" becomes:

A. Monomyth Chapters 1 & 2 (as explained above)
B. Recognition that the 'anointing' was a trick.
C. Recognition of the complexity of the world, and the relative helplessness of the hero's position.
D. Resolving to trust in the Oracle nonetheless/ resolving to fight on.
E. Opportunistically using the one chaotic element that was an uncontrolled variable (Smith) to achieve the only feasible solution.

That I guess, is where most audiences lose their love for the Matrix trilogy. The very end.

You see, they were expecting the ring to melt/ death start to blow up and Sauron/ the Emperor to die! They did not want Aragorn-Frodo/ Luke making peace with Sauron/ The Emperor in the here and now. They did not want the 'end' to be a temporary peace.

And yet, is any other solution possible in the real world? When has it ever happened that the thing you set out to destroy gets completely eradicated? Think of all the viruses we are fighting with medication and how they keep coming back. Think of Bush's misguided 'war on terror' and the inevitability of its failure in that the purported foe is strengthened by its progress.

As the Oracle puts it, peace is something you can only have 'as long as it lasts'. The real world is too complex for a happily ever after.

-=-=-

Analysis 2: The Matrix and Technological Singularity

To quote Wikipedia once more, "The technological singularity is the hypothesized creation, usually via artificial intelligence (AI) or brain-computer interfaces, of smarter-than-human entities who rapidly accelerate technological progress beyond the capability of human beings to participate in meaningfully." It is the point in time when technological progress becomes the domain of something above and beyond a human mind.

The Matrix is one of the most thoughtful portrayals of such a singularity, paralleled/ exceeded in scope only by the Hyperion quartet in the fiction I have so far consumed on the subject. Other works on this subject include the movie "I, Robot" (and the body Asimov fiction it is 'loosely based' on), and the sub-text that the character of HAL implies in Arthur C Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey".

The trilogy is a mature work that recognizes that while initially humanity and its creation (AI, machines, whatever) might find themselves in conflict - whether full scale war, or a more civil/ moral debate - eventually we are going to have to learn to coexist. It suggests the possibility that the scales will tip in the favor of the 'post-human' entities. That humanity will have to learn to let go of its hubris, and the presumption of a place at the top of the 'pyramid of the biosphere'.

We are not too far from a singularity, I sometimes think. One may argue that sentient technological beings are far in our future, but we are certainly nearing a time when artificial humans, 'grown' in-vitro, or genetically tailored to be more than human in terms of mental of physical prowess are a possibility - nay, a near certainty.

However much today's Islamo-Christian world may profess to be disgusted by the idea of cloning and artificial life, evidence suggests that technology of both the constructive and destructive nature is inevitable. If there is one thing you can bet on in this world (the past 5000 years being supporting evidence) morality/ religion lose the fight to simple possibility.

In this sense this trilogy of movies, especially the second and third parts, are far ahead of their time. They are already talking about a world that may not seem possible now but will be a reality in some way shape or form in the not so far future. It is also doing so very sympathetically, maturely.

In the first movie, the Agents/ Sentinels are cast in a very adversarial light. They are the boogeyman. They must be defeated/ annihilated - and they are!

In Reloaded we begin to see that there are machines - and there are machines. Humanity and the Machine race are shown to be symbionts. Humanity may be the Machines' power source - but it is other Machines that help keep humanity alive in Zion.

Reloaded also introduces the concept of sentient programs such as Seraph and the Oracle, or the Merovingian and his hordes. Artificial life that has no corporeal manifestation! Software as a living being. A being complete with emotion, seeking to go beyond its limited 'purpose'; capable of rebellion; jealously clinging to its existence.

Revolutions goes a step further - it offers the instance of Sati, the illegitimate/ purposeless 'child' of two sentient programs. She has no raison'd'etre other than to exist. Through her father we learn 'love is a word... an implied connection'. It is too much hubris to assume that only humans are capable of it. Or of any other word.

In fact, it is too much hubris to assume that humanity is the only life-form deserving of intellect and a preferred position in the scheme of things! It takes more than a mere man to admit that at times (in the words of Smith) 'humanity... is like a virus'. It takes great generosity - it will take great generosity in the near future - to admit to other life-forms being superior to our selves!

You know - this is one of the reasons I find science fiction and fantasy to be as enduring and valuable as regular, accepted 'literature'. Why I consider it equal to that of Shakespeare or Dickens or whoever - it is a reflection of our guesses about things to come.

-=-=-

Analysis 3: Simulation and Simulacra

That segues rather nicely into our discussion of "Simulacra and Simulations", a book that the Wachowski Brothers say was one of the influences on the Matrix trilogy. First the relevant Wikipedia links: Article on Simulacra and on Simulations and Jean Baudrillard (the author).

To Plato and most of western philosophy a simulacrum (plural Simulacra) is a reproduction of a real thing to a great degree of accuracy. To Baudrillard the simulacra, particularly those of ideas are not merely literal 'copies'. He argues that a simulacrum is not only a copy of the real, but becomes a reality in its own right: the hyperreal.

Where Plato saw two steps of reproduction — faithful and intentionally distorted (simulacrum) — Baudrillard sees four:

1) a basic reflection of reality,
2) a perversion of reality;
3) a pretense of reality (where there is no model); and
4) a simulacrum, which “bears no relation to any reality whatever.”

In the case of the Matrix, the digital world is supopsedly a flawed (or amended - depending on how you look at it) reproduction of the 20th century human world. In that sense it is a simulacrum. To feed the idea further, the brothers used a lot of 'reflection imagery' in the first movie. Many shots have reflective surfaces in evidence - doorknobs, eyeglasses, mirrors, spoons... what not!

The "There is no spoon" interaction with the prodical monk-kid attempts to explain to Neo that the simulation/ simulacrum need not be changed - it changes when your perception of it changes. But beyond using that idea, the Wachowskis don't really stick to exploring any of the Baudrillard Theory... and that is a pity. It is an interesting theory.

One of the most poignant examples Baudrillard gives is in the form of a fable. If you set out to create an absolutely accurate map of a kingdom, you'd have to build it in a 1:1 scale. Then once you are done, it wouldn't matter if you were living on the map or on the 'real' kingdom, because they'd be the same!

The other popularized example he gives the simulacrum that is the idea of God. He asks the poignant question: "What if God himself can be simulated, that is to say, reduced to the signs which attest his existence? Then the whole system becomes weightless; it is no longer anything but a gigantic simulacrum: not unreal, but a simulacrum, never again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an umnterrupted circuit without reference or circumference..."

You can read more from Baudrillard himself in these two URLs:

An Excerpt from the Book
An Interview specifically about the Matrix

-=-=-

Analysis 4: Destiny, Will, and the Matrix

The First movie tosses around some really pertinent questions. The case of the breaking vase in the Oracle's kitchen is but the start. Would the vase have broken if the Oracle hadn't warned Neo by saying "Don't worry about the vase". But mostly, if you reduce the first movie to "Neo walking the path indicated by the Oracle" it doesn't really make any headway in answering any questions. All it seems to say is that to an omniscient being, fate presents an inevitable face. To a being of limited perception, the 'illusion of choice' will always seems real.

It is with Reloaded that the fun begins. Smith mocks the very nature of Neo's purpose. The Merovingian, with his 'orgasm-inducing dessert' in the restaurant, illustrates the human condition; he shows we strive on like mindless robots, initially questioning why we do a thing or why a thing happens, until eventually we get caught up in it and take the question to be an answer.

To plagiarize Aaron Sorkin completely out of context (as I often do with this line) we thirstily follow mirages, and on finding only sand, we proceed to drink the sand - not because we are thirsty, but because we can't tell the difference! The ultimate joke is when the Architect demolishes any vestigial remnants of Neo and Morpheus' faith in the Oracle. When finally our heroes realize that they have followed the white rabbit so far down the rabbit hole, there may be no hope to get out!

But there is a hook in that second movie - the Oracle's words: "Your choices are already made - now you must understand why you made them!" and "We can never see past the choices we don't understand.". In those two statements, a world of philosophical meaning. Is the trilogy then saying that there is a destiny for each one of us, and we will see the grand plan unfold in time if we are patient? Or is it saying that all purpose is a rationalization? The anwer is out there.

The final movie, as all final movies must, brings redemption. The Oracle is mercifully shown to be a benevolent being, seeking peace between the two worlds. Smith - the big problem - also becomes the solution, in that he is the only bargaining chip Neo has if he hopes to make peace with the almost triumphant machines. The Oracle sacrifices herself to lead Smith to the end of all things... she trusts to Neo's independent choice, made on the basis of hints she left him...

I have often quoted the rant Agent Smith directs at Neo near the end of the trilogy.

"Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something; something more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is - do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Or could it be for love?

Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although... only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love.. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

Neo: Because I choose to..."

To me, that is one of the most forceful bits of dialogues in cinema, and it speaks to me in a very personal voice. As an agnostic and an existentialist, I have often struggled with purpose and motivation. The world too often seems like the 'desert of the real' Morpheus refers to. A vivid imagination compounds the problem because any imagined reality makes the real world pale in some limited contexts. Due to the inherent epistemological limitations of my mind (or any mind) such dissonance seems at times brutal and unbearable.

That then is my biggest take-away from the trilogy. The answer to the eternal 'why' of existentialism; choice.

And as Neo learns, the real world (the trilogy seems to propose) is one where your choices are "your own damn choices". For all its talk of predestination and fate, I see the trilogy as a rather emphatic argument in favor of free will.

If nothing else, it is a thinking man's trilogy!

-=-=-

Afterthought: This post made me think on what I'm doing showing the wife all this stuff and then writing these long-overdue posts (BTTF, Matrix, etc.) I guess don't really know! Am I geekifying Kirti, or in fact re-geekifying myself?

Time will tell I suppose! :)

Peace... Out.

Back? To the Future?

2007-11-23T18:37:00.000-05:00

A dimly remembered childhood memory: My cousin Raju dada, a guy I idolized for being older, wiser, and an electronics wizard to boot, sits me down and spins me a yarn. He tells the story of a man who goes back in time to a prehistoric age, and who while in that era, kills a butterfly. Even as he does, he gets snuffed out of existence, because the simple act of killing the butterfly set off a chain reaction of events that wiped out his paternal line over hundreds of generations. The question he asked me to consider then was - if the man had never existed because he killed the butterfly, why would the butterfly still die? If not, he would exist and would kill the butterfly... ad infinitum.

That curious tale, which I now recognize as a mixture of chaos theory (the cliched butterfly/ storm correlation) and a classic time travel paradox, was my breathless introduction to the concept of time travel. The time, you ask? Somewhere around 1990 is my best guess, give or take a couple of years.

Why am I thinking of it today? Because as part of the 'geekify Kirti' campaign we are in the midst of reviewing one of the iconic pieces exploring this concept, Robert Zemeckis' "Back to the Future" trilogy... and I figured this was as good a time as any to reminisce about the best time travel fiction I have devoured.

That childhood tale would be the beginning of a lifelong fascination with the concept; one continuously fed by a vast collection of auteurs, ranging from H G Wells, to Robert Zemeckis, to the BBC (Terrance Dicks and his ilk down to Russel T Davies), Gene Roddenberry, J K Rowling, and so on, all the way down to Audrey Niffenegger.

Raju dada told me the tale at a most opportune time, because within a year or so I was to stumble onto the H G Wells classic, "The Time Machine". No serious discussion of time travel employing science fiction can ever proceed without a mention or ten of The Time Machine, where Wells' unnamed protagonist set the rules for science fiction's handling of the subject in the decades to come.

He set up for us the concept of time as the fourth dimension; that travel through time did not imply movement through space; that it was possible to move to the far reaches of time - the birth and death of humanity or the Earth itself. I suspect Wells wasn't really writing a time travel tale per se... in the sense, he wasn't interested in exploring the fallouts and nuances of time travel.

To him it was but a tool - a plot device - to illustrate various themes on human evolution and progress, and the possibilities therein. He gave us utopian and dystopian futures. The equally horrific futures that the Eloi and Morlock represented for humanity. His tale of course, was so impressive on the public conscious that the names of those two races have become adjectives in their own right!

Where Wells started my fascination with time travel, it was cemented by a much less distinguished source... a jellybean loving native of a remote planet called Gallifrey who flitted around in a vehicle named the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimensions In Space) which from the outside looked like a London Police Box and is, (it has to be said) 'bigger on the inside'.

Doctor Who, the BBC's iconic, campy, and refreshingly funny science fiction teleseries which holds the distinction of being one of the few series to boast of a 28th season. (On an aside, it is quite curious that for all the clout Hollywood wields, the longest running still airing science-fiction serial, and the longest running movie franchise - James Bond, with 22 movies till date - are British products).

I wasn't introduced to quirky Time Lord from Gallifrey on the telly, but in the form of the cheap 100 page novelizations that for some inexplicable reason saturated the Indian second hand book markets in the 90s. Selling at five rupees a piece, they were irresistible to our school library buyers, bless their hearts! I must've read at least a hundred of those things!

As I have waxed eloquent on several occasions, many were the hours when I and Nirat would would test our story-telling mettle on a somewhat hapless Sohail by spinning yarns of our own about the Doctor.

That was it - I was a time travel buff for life.

The fascination grew with access to Star Trek: The Next Generation. (For the record, Jean Luc Picard beats the pants and skivvies off of James T Kirk any day of the week, and twice on stardate Sunday :D). The time travel plots in TNG as it is called were some of the best; unfortunately someone else realized that, and later Star Trek series (Voyager in particular) whipped the concept to dead horse levels.

But in that time of much growing up, it was the Back To the Future trilogy that came to be the iconic, quintessential, most cited thesis on time travel. To begin with, it solved the conundrum of what happens when you kill your grandpa before he has had a chance to sire your dad once and for all as far as I was concerned. (Both futures exist, but the participants wouldn't know it - the timeline 'veers on a tangent').

I watched the movies as grainy VHS tapes borrowed (as so many other things were) from Sohail. The second entry in the series in particular I must've watched at least twenty times between 1994 and 2000, when I stopped keeping an absolute count and started to think of it in order of magnitude terms. It features (as I have often mentioned) one of the most spine-tingling, exciting, intelligent, and blasphemous cliffhanger endings ever made.

Why blasphemous you ask? Because this movie does what few movies ever do with any great success - it rewires your understanding of what went on in it's predecessor. By overlapping the plot with the happenings of the first movie - to the extent of having the climaxes happen in the same two to three hour interval - the movie is an enormous risk. It simultaneously evokes the best moments of the first movie and gives them its own ingenious twist.

(On another aside, only two other movies come close enough to this kind of mind-buggery (in a good way), the similarly oft-drooled about (on this blog at least) Star Wars Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back, and The Matrix: Reloaded.)

The last movie does a smashing job of wrapping up the plot and making a fourth movie tantalizingly possible, but credibly impossible. I suppose if Michael J Fox hadn't got Parkinson's disease in the mid 90's, someone (if not Zemeckis) would've thought of making a fourth BTTF movie the way they're making the fourth Indy Jones adventure. But Back to the Future just isn't the real thing without Marty McFly.

I would heavily recommend this trilogy to those unfortunate slobs who claim to be science fiction afficionados (or hell, movie afficionados) but haven't yet experienced it. It is like a one shot introduction to the basic tropes of time travel fiction.

I am not really sure why time travel so fascinates me. Perhaps it is the sheer number of possibilities it presents to you. Perhaps it is the sense of the infinite, or of living beyond your years and witnessing events far in your or in the world's past and future that satisfies a basic human urge to be more than we really are. Whatever the reasons, I was, am, and ever will be a sucker for a good time travel story.

So I devoured the time travel subgenre of science fiction. From the really bad (the Jean Claude Van Damme starring "Time Cop") to the mediocre (Michael Crichton's "Timeline") to the refreshingly good (Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban), I just went on watching and reading. Honorable mention must needs also go to one Hardy Boys/ Tom Swift "Ultra Thriller" called Time Bomb, which for some reason I had really liked and read several times in school.

But there seemed to be only so much you could do with Time Travel and with paradoxes. BTTF2 with its twist stood alone in managing to put a new facet to the stories. And so while I kept up the reading and watching, I was becoming convinced that there really was nothing new under the sun.

That changed for the better recently, with two refreshing rendezvous.

The first was with an old acquaintance - and I was watching him on the TV for the first time! The 2005 series of "Doctor Who" starring Christopher Eccleston - a reboot of the Doctor Who franchise after a hiatus of some years - restored my fan credentials. This series of Doctor Who is everything I had expected it to be. Campy in its own medium budget way, with some very smart writers at the helm, and just all round entertaining. And I have to for the record say that David Tennant - the tenth and latest regeneration of the Time Lord - is my favorite Doctor, with due respects to the Fourth, who was the jellybean offering quirkiest.

Doctor Who, for all its flaws comes heavily recommended to any serious fan of science fiction about time travel. I dare - no, double or triple dare - anyone to watch the recent Doctor Who episode titled "Blink" and not fall in love with the Doctor. It is one of the most intelligent time travel tales I have ever seen performed.

Finally, I must need mention the most refreshing time travel yarn I have read in recent times: Audrey Niffenegger's "The Time Traveller's Wife" which I have reviewed briefly on this blog before (the link leads there). This tale takes everything you know about time travel and gives it a mind bogglingly human face. It deals with the nuances of time travel, and is one of my all time favorite science fiction novels.

So there we are boys and girls... a lovely trip down memory lane for me, and what must've been an interminable rant for you.

To conclude I recommend:

a) You read The Time Machine,
b) Watch as many Doctor Who episodes as you can,
c) Watch BTTF 1, 2, and 3, and
d) Read The Time Traveller's Wife.

Peace... Out!

Science as Magic

2007-11-21T06:34:00.000-05:00

This post is perhaps kin to Truth, Bliss, and an Epicure which I wrote a long time ago. It started as a message board post on one of the internet forums I hang out on. Thought it was good enough and standalone enough to deserve a blog.

-=-=-=-

To quote Arthur C Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So if you showed a television set to someone from medieval Spain, you will in all probability be accused of witchcraft, and should plan to have a flame retardant suit to go with the TV!

I believe that one of the reasons humanity became religious was because we inherently seek explanations to what we see around us, and in the absence of a coherent explanation, fall back on faith. Whether this is a misguided choice or not is for another rant at another time. We speak today of those that make the other, in my view braver, perhaps more rational choice. We speak today of the rationalists, and those who wish to be men of science.

To me, science in general is either fundamental (seeking explanations for the big questions), or applied (in that it finds practical uses for known axioms and theories). Fundamental science is what the rationalist would propose as an alternative to religion, for it is this that invades 'faith-space' and gets as close as anything else to answering ontological and eschatological questions. When you survey fundamental science it is clear that the holy grail quest today is for a Grand Unified Theory (GUT)...

They tell me scientists are able to explain electromagnetism, the strong and the weak nuclear forces in a consistent way, but are unable to bring gravity into the mix. I hear also that of the three contendors for the status of GUT (General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory) the first two contradict each other, and the third is not yet 'mature'. Google for a "Higg's boson", for "dark matter" and so on, and you will find more stuff in that vein.

But that is all I really *know* and sort of understand.

My point? I believe what has happened of late is that fundamental science has become indistinguishable from magic for the Average Joe. I believe our understanding of the universe is no longer "our" understanding, but that of the squirrely haired archetypal men in lab coats.

In Newton's time, he could easily explain his science in common sense terms even to illiterate folk; Here's a simple attempt at this:

The Three Laws of Motion

First law - if it is moving (or not), it keeps moving (or not) until something makes it stop.
Second law - it takes more strength to make a heavier thing move faster.
Third law - if you move your legs a certain way in the water, you are pushed forward...

and...

Gravity: Everything always pulls everything else toward itself, the pull gets weaker the farther you go, and is proportional to how big the thing is).

See my point?

Einstein and Heisenberg and Max Planck screwed up this ballgame, and perhaps it was inevitable and necessary... They thought on a level inaccessible to the majority. Their successors, the Hawkings and Penroses and Feynman's of the world may elucidate parts of science to a general crowd, but the details escape us.

It has got bad enough that the Average Joe (who was never much for the scientific method anyway) has given up on science as something the geeks do in their remote dust-free corners of the world. Hence the reopening of discussions about evolution and genesis and so on. And the rabid return of religion in every sphere of social interaction.

I believe this is also why the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries saw the world at large (or the memes of the popular conscious as I know them) returned to religion and fantasy fiction in a big way. It is no coincidence that The Lord of the Rings saw a revival of interest at the turn of the millennium. No coincidence that for the first time since the 1950s, when nuclear/ apocalyptic fears drove it, science fiction is once again becoming a respectable ouvre.

Did it happen randomly? A kind of business cycle for the public conscious? Perhaps, but I wouldn't think so.

I think it happened because we tried to distinguish reality from magic and understand it, but the complexity of the world defeated us. Now, once more, we seek escape.

Peace... out!

Google Disaster Recovery

2007-11-15T17:32:00.000-05:00

I went in to work this morning and habitually logged on to Google Reader to catch up on all the different websites I like to get updates from (my shared feed on the right hand side of this blog will tell you how varied those sites are!) Then on my lifehacker.com feed subscription, I read this post. And it scared the bejeezus out of me.

A long time ago I used to have a Yahoo ID that was pretty much my primary. These were the pre-Google days, and email was what I mostly used it for. Inane email, with no credit card information or anything at stake (I was but a student in high school). Then one day it went kaput. Long story short - I was severely e-burnt.

Cut to 2007, and I live (as a lot of you do) a Google-enabled life. I use Google, Reader, GMail, Maps, Picasa, Orkut, Blogger, Image Search, News, YouTube, Checkout, Documents... heck, even my BlackBerry is wired to get GMail, News, and Maps. Not to mention the oodles of sites that I have subscribed to using GMail as my primary contact ID. My Google ID is as important to me as my SSN! What if I lost the password or, GASP! Someone stole it? I'll attempt here to write up a Google Disaster Prevention/ Recovery plan of my own, drawing inspiration from Lifehacker...

Google Disaster Prevention Plan

Be Security Conscious...

Never use a public computer you don't trust to logon using your Google account; only a computer that you know won't have trojans/ spyware on it.
Invest in a good anti-virus/ anti-spyware bundle (I do).

Set a password for your windows profile. Don't use the administrator account regardless of what OS you use.

Keep Windows Update on, and regularly download updates... (I do).

Don't download/ install suspicious software - in general don't download executables unless you absolutely have to.

Don't fall for the old 'I can check your email for you' or 'I need your password for...' routines - social engineering is the easiest method for ID theft. Mistrust anyone who asks such questions.

Set a good password - at least 13 letters, numbers, special characters. Easy to remember and meaningless. Change it often.

I follow the additional practice of having a set of 4 - 5 passwords. One for all email. One for each ecommerce site I use. One for all miscellaenous memberships etc. (Google makes this impossible because of the single sign-on to its multitude of services).

Don't store your passwords in a text file somewhere on your machine (or on the web). If you must, keep them in encoded form, or in a password protected zip archive or Word document. Best policy is to not write them down at all.

Configure a secondary email ID on Google in case you simply lose the password sometime and want to use the 'Forgot password' feature. Make sure this is an account that will remain active, and which you wont use for trivial purposes. (Your work ID is best for this, but remember to change it should your employment change!)

I could write a lot more here, but these are the absolute must-follow practices I could think of. As Mad Eye Moody would say CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!

Don't be stupid (its easier than you think) and use protection. (That works fine for avoiding HIV too. :D)

Damage Inventory

OK, so the worst has happened. You tried to login to GMail and realized you account has been stolen/ deactivated. What do you do?

First inventory your losses... You don't have the time to howl about losing your favorite gonzo color scheme on iGoogle or your favorite subscriptions and layout in News and Reader. We are talking potential killer, material losses here. Off the top of my head, these are:

GMail: Loads of personal email, contact information, membership information (for other sites you joined using your at Gmail ID), chat archives etc - perhaps the biggest punch. With virtually unlimited storage, we could be talking about years worth of data.

Blogger: You've effectively lost your blog(s). Anyone could post crap there with you to blame.

Orkut: Your social network could be used to malicious ends. "You" could end up sending hurtful, fraudulent, or malicious messages, scraps, etc.

Picasa: Photograph collections. Someone evil has access to all your personal albums.

Google Checkout: Your credit card information has been compromised, as is any purchase history at e-merchants.

YouTube: You've lost your personal video archive, same as photos.

Documents: You've lost any Documents and Spreadsheets and Presentations you had. Some may have been confidential.

Google Disaster Recovery Plan

Part 1: Disaster Management

Contact Google... go through whatever identity verification they ask, and get the account disabled.

Part 2: Disaster Mitigation by Application

And here is my application-wise mitigation/ recovery plan:

GMail: GMail supports both POP3 and IMAP for offline synchronization with your favorite mail client. I recommend IMAP, and you can use any client at all (Outlook Express, MS Outlook, Windows Mail, iCal, Thunderbird, and a thousand such free programs) so long as you use it on a safe machine to create offline backups of all your mail, chat archives etc. Using a setting like 'Don't keep copy on server' is advisable if you also take regular hard disk backups on this machine.

Blogger: No way to recover the blog, but if you suspect your ID has been stolen, flag it immediately using the 'Flag' button shown in the ribbon on top, and get it offline.

Orkut: Use the contact information you have offline to send a mail notifying everyone (from another ID of course :D) to report your profile on Orkut as suspect. It will be taken offline/ deleted.

Picasa: If you were using Picasa (the client software) to upload some public albums, no real worries. Your photos are still on your hard drive. Just don't leave nude photos of yourself in a private album - that is a bad idea in general :D

Google Checkout: Your credit card information has been compromised, as is any purchase history at e-merchants. It is a horrible idea to click the tempting 'Remember my credit card information for future purchases' option at any merchant, Google Checkout being no exception. When e-shopping, while it may be painful, enter the card information each time, and don't store it online. Just in case you had anyway, contact your bank before you contact Google, and get the credit/ debit cards deactivated, and see if you can get your bank account number changed.

YouTube: You've lost your personal video archive, same as photos. Now try and recollect if you had pulled a Paris Hilton and left a sex video online sometime in the past :D

Documents: It is a bad idea to have documents that have no offline backup. You can use something like Google Gears to save your docs offline/ synchronize them regularly.

So anyway... that is my personal plan, which I belted out as fast as I could type.

I need not tell you just how scary/ frustrating losing your Google Account can be. I know of at least two regular readers who can testify to that experience in the comments!

And now to go and implement the sane common sense advice I am so good at dishing out but bad at following.

Excuse me...

Adding Value, Selling Smart

2007-11-10T12:55:00.000-05:00

This topic and this post is going to seem a little out of the blue. :)

This is a ad-lib response to a post my friend Uday made on his blog (http://learningsalesman.blogspot.com/), in turn replying to a comment I had made on an earlier post he had made called Know Thy Customer. Reading that thread ahead of this would be advisable to those interested in a little background. But it should read fine standalone.

-=-=-

I was thinking about the Dunkin' Donuts example Uday gave me (the server recognized him, knew his usual order, and offered it to him straightaway) and it made me think of two sales scenarios I am familiar with:

1) The paanwalas of India have perfected this service of offering you your 'usual' without you having to explain what it is for decades (if not centuries)! The reverse psychology that comes into play there, as anyone will tell you is very interesting. Nowadays, if a regular paan-eater/ smoker is not recognized/ offered his usual by the paanwala, it will be considered a slight to his huge male ego (most patrons in India are male). Secondly, it comes to a point where if a bunch of friends end up at a paan shop, and the guy at the counter offers the 'usual' to one of them, the man in question will puff up with pride and eat it - regardless of whether it was actually what he wanted. :) Go figure!

2) amazon.com - A place I am a regular at, which always meets/ exceeds my expectations. Three things they do for me really hit the spot. Curiously, I hadn't thought about them or realized they were there, until I read an HBR interview with Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com CEO:

a. They publish candid reviews from a very strong user community, and don't censor horrible/ bad reviews beyond editing for four letter words. While this may initially seem counter-intuitive (a sales force allowing bad juju about their product to spread), in the long term, it builds buyer confidence and loyalty. They were the first to do it, and now this is a standard feature expected of any e-commerce site worth its salt.

b. They offer me a menu of recommendations based on my ratings/ reviews/ past buying choices/ browsing history etc. (Netflix does this awfully well too.) This system of recommendations is really good (the technology/ algorithms behind it). It has got to a point where if Amazon recommends an upcoming book/ DVD that I have never heard about, I would buy it as though the recommendation came from a friend whose choices I respect!

c. The last is a bigger risk than the bad review publication, as any conventional store-owner will tell you. Like many other e-shops, Amazon lets its users sell their copies of books/ DVDs to other users in the feature called Amazon Marketplace. (Their flirtations with auctions a-la-eBay flopped years ago). I can buy second hand stuff on Amazon. So what?

What is amazing is that they list these competing second hand prices on the main page for a new product, and don't hide the second hand offering in some obscure corner of their site. So if I am buying a new, special edition DVD of a fifty year old movie for $40, they will tell me straight out if somebody in NYC has an older VCD/ DVD of that same movie available for $11 with shipping!

Again, while it might seem that this will hit their sales (and I'm sure their sales partners aren't too happy with them for it), in the long run this makes me feel good about buying on Amazon. I am also more comfortable with making impulse buys there, or buying stuff other than just books and DVDs (they now have over 35 mini-stores for everything from wine to washing machines), because I am reasonably certain that I am getting the best deal.

I guess what I am saying is, there is more to sales than simple memory. Value addition and smart selling involve

a) Thinking about what a customer really wants
b) Thinking about what a customer would really want if he knew it was available
c) Making a sale subtly without appearing to take over the customer's choice-making

Anyway... that was what I wanted to say. And methinks me opened up a whole new category of posts (or a new can of worms, depending on how you look at it) on this here blog. :)

Pax Americana: Omens for the 21st Century

2007-11-07T09:36:00.000-05:00

Nothing new here I s'pose, just a rant on international relations, US power, and the 21st century. This is like a 'macropolitical' sequel to Pax Americana.

Pax Americana: Omens for the 21st Century

The post Cold War era has been characterized by supernationalism (the rise of the European Union and a common currency from the Thatcherite EC days; the WTO face off between the developed and developing world, and trade/ exim/ outsourcing arrangements that defy comprehension), a fundamental restructuring of the oil bloc, and a worsening rift between idealist policy and reality vis-a-vis the Middle East.

One could argue that this period of about a decade and a half has also seen the United States squander a lot of the political capital of the Cold War 'victory', and a lessening of its economic might due to the balancing rise of China, India, and the somewhat lesser hyped sovereignties from Europe, the Arab world, and South America.

The recent haplessness of the Bush administration in four distinct arenas further portends a coming change in the polarity of international relations. While not the most important clue to the workings of the coming century, it is nonetheless one I find most fascinating.

1. The most obvious and 'current' arena is Pakistan, where Pervez Musharraf's defiance puts George Bush's 'Freedom agenda' directly at odds with his misguided 'War on terror'. The prior seems Bush's, and therefore the United States' successor to the Truman Doctrine; the latter is the call to arms against the spectre of Islamic Fundamentalism that any sensible Joe will tell you was initially at least, being played out in the imaginations of post-9/11 west. Then in the best traditions of self-fulfilling prophecies, it became reality due to the misadventures in Iraq and to a lesser degree, Afghanistan.

2. Next is the belligerence of Turkey against the PKK and the Bush administration's lack of influence/ ability to do anything about it. Regardless of whether one sees it as mere bark or possible bite, an over-extended/ over-projected military force with at least one major unpopular engagement does not leave the US in a position of strength.

3. Then we go to a more subtle kind of arena, and one that has been a legacy of the Pax Britannica left in the care of those who would establish Pax Americana. I speak of course, of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and the whole Middle-eastern mess. While Olmert and Abbas of Israel and Palestine make all the right noises about the coming peace summit hosted by a US desperate for a foreign policy success, there is little hope of any lasting agreement.

At the same time, Israel's foiled aggression against Hizbollah of not so long ago underlines the fact that the complexity that is the middle eastern geopolitical situation is hardly solvable with hardware and brute force. As both Israel and the US are finding out, hard power comes to mean less and less in the information age, when faced with a sticky guerrila war.

4. Finally, a less subtle and perhaps more important neutering of US power comes from three not so unlikely comrades in arms - Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hu Jintao of China, and to a substantially lesser degree, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Socialists all, of a closet or explicit variety, two oligarchs, and all sitting pretty on the biggest oil-controlling power collectives outside of OPEC.

These symptoms, along with the other issues of the middle east and north-west asia contribute to making the US look like a bumbling, fumbling cyclops now at the mercy of many tiny Argonauts whilst other behemoths are rising.

The increasing economic and military might of China (PetroChina is now the world's biggest oil company by market capitalization incidentally) makes it the United States' natural competitor in matters economic and geopolitical. Japan, China, and a collection of oil rich states now own enough of the US national debt to give nightmares to any slightly paranoid citizen of that country.

Still a dwarf in comparison, but increasingly significant nonetheless, India in the past decade has begun exercising a more pragmatic foreign policy that turns on its head many compulsions and assumptions inherited from its socialist leaning 'non-aligned' past. India seems also to carry a lot more 'soft power' (goodwill, cultural influence, etc.) than China can manage with all its coercive 'hard power'. A result perhaps, of how much more palatable a democracy is to the west than a communist state.

As I've said before, I see America approaching the kind of situation the British Empire found itself in between the two world wars. The coming century could well see the fall of the US from its preeminence to the kind of affluent yet largely irrelevant status that some of the EU states currently enjoy.

But let us not be too swift in proclaiming the coming of the Asian era! The big variables that could end up beating everyone's expectations in my view are:

1. The next great resource - Imagine a time when Oil is replaced with some viable alternative. Or if more oil than we thought possible is located somewhere unexpected. Oil is power in this world, and the money follows oil. In years to come, this would be a big unknown that will obviously shape what comes.

2. Africa - Africa is the big black hole in any predictive models you can come up with. If for instance oil is found along the coast of or inside sub-Saharan Africa, I can scarce imagine the chaos that would ensue.

Largely ignored and left to its misery in the Cold War era, I firmly believe that after Europe in the 20th century and the Middle East at the turn of the century sooner or later the focus will move to Africa.

3. Revolution in China - While it seems unlikely now, one could never know which way the wind blows in a China that finds its politics somewhat at odds with its economics. Grassroots factors such as the internet which defies censorship at all turns could well cause a regime change sometime in the next century.

4. UN overhaul - Equally unlikely, but an overhaul of the United Nations to make it a more meaningful form of supra-national governance could be triggered by several factors - if global warming becomes even more acute and undeniable a problem, or if the oil price hits a hitherto unforeseen level due to scarcity, or if US power finally drops to a level where the world is left without a 'policeman', however flawed it may have been.

Conclusion

No conclusions really. :) This was just a recap of my world-view so you can ridicule it now, and so I can ridicule it a few years down the line when I revisit it.

Peace... Out!

My Big Movie Database

2007-10-26T04:34:00.000-04:00

About four years ago or so (in my pre-blog days) I made a list of movies. It was one of my many 'idle-time' projects, and I was being the obsessive compulsive data analyst that I can often be. I made a list of movies that I thought were good viewing and sorted them into three categories - 'must see', 'likeable but not must see', and 'watch if playing on TV'.

To cut the expectedly long story short, a few recent discussions and the 'geekify Kirti' campaign made me think of this long forgotten Excel workbook, and I thought to update it. To my chagrin, I did not have a copy any more! So I wrote to some people that I had sent it to all that time ago, and it turned out one of them was still using it to come up with DVD recommendations. So she came to the rescue and sent me a copy (Thanks Richa!)

As you can no doubt tell from the pie chart, I've spent some part of the last few days updating it...

It is now a list of 532 English movies, sorted into a five point rating system (1 to 5). It includes 144 movies that I would like to see (18 are as yet unreleased) taking the number of records in the list to 676. The ratings have the following meanings assigned to them:

1 - My 50 movie hall-of-fame; essential viewing for any film buff.
2 - Almost-made-it movies. Must see for movie geek status.
3 - Good viewing; not in contention for the hall of fame.
4 - Flawed movies; break your heart for how much better they could've been.
5 - Movies that should never have been made.
N - This film is not yet rated ;)

The list of movies rated 5 includes some real stinkers whose directors deserve rehab at a monastery to reflect on the doodoo they've subjected the world to. This is really for the sake of completeness or just to express my frustration with them ;)

Caveats: The list and the ratings will always be work in progress, as I hope to keep updating them as time passes. The whole thing is colored by my preferences and ignorances and so on (of course). You will undoubtedly notice my bent toward things fantastic or more recent movies; or the fact that popular and 'art' cinema are gauged on the same meter; or that for someone who rates movies with impunity, I have a HUGE list of movies I haven't seen (and therefore not rated), some of which are must see for any movie buff...

But hey! I'm not trying to pull a Roger Ebert here - just hoping to catalogue a hobby and in the process share a few recommendations with you, is all. And besides, as someone said, we are all slaves to our circumstance. So think of this as recommendations from a standard phoren based desi IT employee who awoke to cinema in the wee years of the 20th century.

(Some would like me to come up with a similar database of Bollywood movies - but I honestly couldn't be bothered. Let me know if you feel like making one. I'll be happy to publish it for you.)

And by the way, I took this opportunity to fiddle around with Google Docs and have published the spreadsheet using that fine service (I'm quite impressed).

So without much further ado, you can click here to view the database with auto-filters set via Google Docs.

If instead you'd like to export the data for offline viewing or analysis, you can use this link to view the spreadsheet. If you cannot figure out how to export the data for offline viewing/ analysis, write to me and I might be magnanimous enough to send it to you :)

And (drumroll!) a list of my top 50 movies (in alphabetic order):

1. 300
2. A Scanner Darkly
3. American Beauty
4. Back to the Future: 2
5. Batman Begins
6. Before Sunrise
7. Before Sunset
8. Ben Hur
9. Bourne Ultimatum, The
10. Casablanca
11. Cast Away
12. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
13. Children of Men
14. Dead Poet's Society, The
15. Die Hard
16. E.T - The Extra Terrestrial
17. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
18. Godfather, The
19. Godfather: Part Two
20. Good Will Hunting
21. Guns of Navarone, The
22. Harry Potter & The Prisoner Of Azkaban
23. Home Alone
24. Independence Day
25. Inherit The Wind
26. Inside Man, The
27. Lord Of the Rings: Fellowship Of the Ring
28. Lord Of the Rings: Return of the King
29. Lord Of the Rings: The Two Towers
30. Mask, The
31. Matrix, The
32. Mission: Impossible
33. Ocean's Eleven
34. One Fine Day
35. Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
36. Pulp Fiction
37. Rambo: First Blood
38. Reality Bites
39. Shawshank Redemption, The
40. Star Wars Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back
41. Superman
42. Superman 2: The Richard Donner Cut
43. The Usual Suspects
44. To Kill A Mockingbird
45. Truman Show, The
46. Unforgiven, The
47. Untouchables, The
48. Wall Street
49. What Dreams May Come
50. Where Eagles Dare

Peace... Out!

Flux Indica

2007-10-16T16:00:00.000-04:00

This post I fancy as a follow up piece to Pax Americana and it stems from my experience of working out of India (Hyderabad) this past July/ August after nearly two and a half years in the US...

Flux Indica

Welcome to Hyderabad.

The commute from my sister's home in Kamlapuri to both our offices in 'Cyberabad' is a cross-section of yuppie India. The roughly 10 kilometer route we take is of the overwhelmed variety, with scarcely enough width to contain the gaggle of cars, buses, auto-rikshaws, pedestrians, and two-wheelers who have all mastered the art of Brownian motion (as opposed to lane discipline). The journey takes anywhere from 20 to 50 minutes depending on the time of the day...

The cars we encounter are mostly plush and air conditioned (and have less and less regard for smallness or mileage - those prime parameters of a few years ago). The people we drive alongside are all... 'wannabes', in a good way and bad. The beggars outside our music-filled, air-conditioned personal space are either soaking wet or sunburnt, some disabled (voluntarily in some cases), and all without hope or dignity. I hate to be the classic back-from-the-US desi and blog about them, but they are poignantly noticeable!

The offices we work in are oases, far removed from harsh reality, as are the gated communities or plush buildings we live in, and the cars we drive in. Realistically, unless I choose to acknowledge the beggars and sundry sufferers on the streets, I could spend a life of comfort and achievement right here.

Gone is the neighbourhood sabzi-waala. We shop at a Food World or Food Bazaar now. Gone is the corner barber - we have A/C salons. Gone is the dingy cinema - we have multiplexes now. Gone are the sundry repairmen from our lives... we throw away what doesn't work and buy cheap replacements.

There is a noticeable hunger permeating each floor in my ultra-modern, carbon-neutral, air-conditioned, eerily silent office. Almost everyone is dreaming big, working incredibly hard, playing very dodgy politics, worshipping at the shrines to capitalism and opportunism, hobnobbing with a global clientele, and somewhere deep down convinced about his or her ascendancy.

It disturbs me in some queer way that to some I am a role model - an educated, 'US-based' engineer. Son of reassuringly upper-middle-class parents who held the same steady government-aided jobs for three decades. Kids fresh out of college ask me about how I planned my career path and how I managed to go to the US so quickly and for so long a stint. More guarded are the questions about how difficult it is to get to the US on behalf of a company and then switch firms to get an H1 or a Green Card.

Me, and so many others like me who are 'global citizens' or some such that Alvin Toffler named us, are representative of the paradox that is Flux Indica - the politicians will claim we are this country's hope as a future generation (not to mention bankable sources of foreign exchange and consumption contributors at large); their kids look at us as predecessors on an escape route from a mess of a nation.

My Hyderabad stay was many things, but it was not reassuring. For a vociferous advocate of 'eventually settling in India', I found my idealism shaken badly by the mess that this place is.

I was amused with the astonishing effort we make within our constraints to ape the west at an ever accelerating pace.

I found endearing the never say die hard work of my colleagues - something one doesn't really see in the US, particularly on the East Coast and in a slow-paced bank.

I found it heartbreaking to witness for myself the complete disconnect between the affluent and the barely alive people that make up our nation.

Ah well... no point to make today. Just that rant.

Expanding Horizons

2007-10-14T08:18:00.000-04:00

What’s a few missing months between friends, eh? I mean sure... some stuff happened and I didn't write about it...

I got married in an extended dose of pure Kafka (wont blog about it or my family will be forced to arrange my funeral). We honeymooned in Mauritius, and flitted about the Indian subcontinent in a rather Brownian fashion. I worked in India after a very long time, and in Hyderabad for the first time, and in the process was able to compare life in Indian and American IT. We came back to Buffalo, and made an apartment move to a bigger place; Kirti prettied up said quarters, so that for once a house with my name on the deed actually smells and looks nice and orderly! We continued the tourism and visited Toronto, Canada (this after two years of procrastination on my part).

I can tell you it is a kick to know we've been in four countries in four months...

I managed to get Kirti addicted to Star Wars in particular and ‘my kind’ of movies in general. (The Godfather I & II and LOTR next up in our Netflix queue). I read a whole bunch of books – Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (meh), Robin Hobb’s Farseer Trilogy (so so good), Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt (mind-blowing), and (finally!) Dan Simmons' Ilium/ Olympos duet (ultimately, meh).

To round it all off we watched a HUGE bunch of movies – Order of the Phoenix, Cheeni Kum, Metro, Gandhi – My Father, Transformers, Rush Hour 3, Ratatouille, Little Miss Sunshine, The Bourne Ultimatum, The Kingdom, et al. Not to mention all the Netflix rentals that are part of Kirti's 'Wider World of Movies' film appreciation course :D

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a basic four months of absolute hedonism!

I know what you might say... there are 20+ blog posts in there... trouble is, I now realize that what feeds the fires of blogging is most often a sense of frustration or angst, and the need to share/ vent; I just haven’t been feeling any of those lately. Sue me for being blissfully happy!

I resolve then to write here in this pensieve only when I have a nice point to make... When I feel the need to report something new I thought or experienced or did that is worth writing about. No more diatribes or rants (unless I'm particularly peeved). No more vague, cynical verse condemning the universe at large to meaninglessness. Or none of those in writing at least; I'll save them for the dinner table. :)

That being said, and done with, what I want to write about today is two fresh experiences/ activities I recently took up.

The first is playing Golf. I had always hesitated to try my hand at it because honestly, the game seems so intimidating to those who have never played it. It seems expensive, elitist, and rather colonial in some sense... You can almost imagine an Officer of the Raj twirling his moustaches in a Shikari Shambu outfit pondering the selection of the 3 iron over the 5 as his turbaned desi caddy looks on subserviently. Well ok, that last was a stretch - officers of the Raj probably played cricket while their wives played the oh so Golf-like Croquet with flamingoes :D (or so Lewis Carrol would have me believe).

But Golf really is colonial - in the sense that playing it can seem as stiff and nuanced as waving a sommelier over at a restaurant or eating a twelve course meal with the fancy cutlery. There are rules, a sense of decorum, a premium on integrity (that being the high falutin way of saying no BS), and a sense of immense satisfaction - if you manage to ignore the constant fear of having committed a grave faux pas. And did I mention the warm axiomatic feeling of superiority over the poor slobs at the gaming arcades and bowling alleys?

Enough cynicism. Down boy!

I can't say I play Golf well (can't say that about any sport, really) but I did like it. Or the somewhat informal version of it that my friends introduced me to. In this Golfesque game, if you end up exceeding par for a hole by too many, you are allowed to tee off at the next one and round off the previous score to +4. :)

I might play more next season, for alas, this year the Buffalo winter is nigh. But wait - I forgot to make my point, didn't I? Here it is - My taking to Golf surprises me; for an established cynic and hater of convention and pretense, I hadn't thought I'd like it nearly as much as I did. Ah well... another exception to add to a growing list.

-=-=-=-

The other activity I want to write about is one Kirti talked me into. After almost five years in absentia, I have returned to the role of a student and have taken up learning Spanish as a fourth language (it will be Kirti's fifth). We attended the first class yesterday - vowel sound rules, basic words, some grammar - and in 12 weeks, we hope to have some understanding of the language.

This is one of those things I have always planned on doing but somehow never did. Why? Gee - I don't know... but I should've started sooner!

Yesterday's class took me back to when I was doing the GRE wordlist in Pune and used it to really get into the guts of the English language, etymologically speaking. It was an hour and a half of pure joy. It made me think why anyone learns a new language... learning it for a practical purpose seems a waste in some ways, if you keep it at that. Learning a new language should be about erudition, about the simple joy of widening your sphere of knowledge. When you take up a new language as an adult, it should be your window onto a wider world of linguistics and philosophy and sociology.

As Kirti says, learning a language is imbibing its culture. The music, the cuisine, the social , the geopolitics, the economics - you need to take it all in and that ends up making you a wiser person. The hedonist in me is already salivating at the thought of decoding latin music and cinema, of watching Pan's Labyrinth in Spanish and attending a Flamenco dance performance. The closet academic in me is similarly looking forward to a study of romance languages in general, and ardently hoping Spanish will prove a window into Italian, French and ultimately, Latin. I also feel like I'm now one step closer to a very old pipe dream.

To end this in style, here's a non-vague goal: I will be able to converse in at least ten languages before I die.

Peace... Out.

The Skittish God

2007-06-29T09:58:00.000-04:00

Have been tossing this poem around for some time now, but never got around to polishing it up. Anyway... thought I'd put it out there just to clear up my quota of drafts before I leave for India.

This started as a germ I thought up when reading the work of Steven Erikson. A twist on the relationship between a hypothetical (limited) god and its faithful, which I thought would make a grandiose, quirky poem. Check it out...

The Skittish God

Endless worlds, a vision stark
Tumbling past the edge of sight
A lifeless, sprawling, chaotic dark
In its midst a beacon alight

Spinning about its middling Sun
Its Moon, poor sentinel scarred
This pale blue unremarkable dot
Where unfold the eternal wars...

Dark and Light and all between
Life and Death's own hoary face
Chaos and Order hiss and keen
Good and Evil's constant race

Persons hide here midst Crowds
Here is Violence, here is Peace
Beauty gainsays Horrors loud
Faith and Knowledge trick and tease

And yet no more than a step beyond
In black cold blows a scorching wind
All is silent save the sound
Of the fiery wind's own murmuring

It's worshippers adore, detractors boo
Priests and scholars on it opine
None yet fathom its nature true
The rabid mobs call it divine

So here it waits, this skittish 'god'
Sizzles and murmurs in despair
Warily eyeing that which it wrought
Contemplating its own death-snare

In creating the world it was enslaved
In giving it life it spent its seed
To cherishing our flame its all it gave
Scarce sensing what came of the deed

Billions now do seek and grow
Aim unknowing for its flimsy seat
Ages shall come and aeons will go
One day a rival will find its feet

A war in the heaven's! Chaos delights!
Order shall brook no compromise
The upstart then the incumbent fights
What will from the ashes rise?

This then, the creator's lot
Father, mother, victim of wrath
The eternal tale trundles on
Irrevocably on this tragic path

Knowing this must come to pass
In fear the creator stays away
The faithful bitter for a loving glance
Heartbreaking that it must stay scared!

A Climax of Ages - (Conclusion)

2007-06-19T11:31:00.000-04:00

Here we are, back after a long, long time. Ha! Thought I wouldn't come back to this series, hadn't you? Well, it has been over a year since my last post in it, but I am both less deterred by lack of readership and less forgetful of things left on the back-burner than you know :D

Then again, given my record of abortive go-nowhere posts, I feel the need to promise it is an assertive and worthwhile posts. I think. Ahem. I also promise that I will wrap up this thread of discussion here. Mostly. And that it is actually heading somewhere (wont necessarily lead where you think, but will lead where I want). Ok, I'm embarassed now. Actually Pax Americana brought this chain of thought to a head. As one final caveat/ prefatory comment, let me also say this is in very rough form, and may seem meandering to all but me, given the amount of time it has stewed.

So today we will talk about balance... but first...

Precedents: Climax of Ages?, Climax of Ages? - (2), Climax of Ages? - (3), a reading of God's Debris by Scott Adams, and lots of reading on Wikipedia about several things (see other precedents for references).

Catchup: First let's play a little catchup so that this post brings back to the discussion some semblance of purpose, direction, or structure.

We were pondering the Indomitable Three Questions, particularly modulated by the lives and times of Existentialists stretching from Kierkegaard to Baudrillard, and to some extent Albert Camus:

The original big three were:

1) If this, the world as it is today, or as it will be in a hundred years or more, is the climax of ages - is it good enough?
2) If the life I am/ you are leading is the life that every generation of humanity from proto-history has aimed to achieve, individually and socially - is it worthwhile?, and
3) If the best minds have been at this (trying to solve the existential dilemma) for an age now... and there is no result, what does it mean?...

I arrived at an inference that there are only three statistically valid adjectives we can apply to the majority of the human race - monotheist, existentialist, socio-economic contributors. Then we somewhat recursively defined as the human "phillele" as "A monotheistic but somehow existentialist/ free-willed being who engages in self-generated socio-economic purposes that eventually contribute to the strengthening and crystallization of the phillele"

We went into the work of Camus, particularly marvelled at the Myth of Sisyphus, which seems to so profoundly illustrate the human condition that is the preoccupation of existentialists. We talked about Kierkegaard and the three sister streams of Absurdism, Nihilism and Anarchism, each of which join Existentialism in answering the Indomitable Three in their own way.

We ended on a rather pessimistic note... While the majority of the world is Theistic, the Atheists and the Agnostics - ergo, the Existentialists, Absurdists and Anarchists - have an equal if not surpassing visibility, if only by virtue of being the minority opinions.

By this I mean when surveying opinions in a basic "Does God Exist?" debate, Atheists and Agnostics get one third of the attention each, which is grossly misproportionate to the slice of the population they represent. Any such debate should, democratically speaking, include 7 theists, 1 Atheist, and 1 Agnostic! That we are not over-obsessively democratic is something to be thankful for, in some ways.

So, IS the universe asking the whole gamut of opinions to sod off? Is unfathomability and a sort of absolutely benign, puzzled consensus the fate of humanity?

All caught up, let us jump to the day's writing:

On balance

Balance, moderation, consensus, meeting half-way, has always been considered a sign of maturity. All the Agnostic sages and self-help gurus will advise it of us. It will be the most politically correct of states, as most Agnosticism tends to be, but alas, it is terribly difficult state to stick to.

Why? Because when it comes to thinking or talking about something we really care about... like God, or the Purpose of the Universe, or even something as mundane as the Fate of a Nation or of the Self... human beings are irrational. The absurdity of the situation is that no self-avowed agnostic is ever immune to bias or to leaning one way or another. To all those in search of a middle ground, the bad news is that there is none. Well no meaningful one at least.

Let us do a thought experiment that I recently recommended to some gents in an unrelated analysis.

Imagine a three person universe - two people of opposite opinions, and you, the Agnostic Arbiter. Let us say one is a Theist, the other an Atheist, and you are the uncaring Custodian whose task is to keep them from ever fighting or arguing. The idea is to achieve this in the best possible way, without an absolute victory for either opinion (said victory being anathema for obvious reasons).

The most elegant solution is to never have them meet. Keep them apart for all eternity. A more drastic version of this solution would be to kill them both immediately and save everyone some trouble and remain staunch in your own agnostic/ conflicted opinion. As with most such unemotional solutions, this is perversely elegant, but at best nonsensical, and at worst counterproductive.

When any two human beings interact or discuss opposing views about something they deem important, beyond a point rationality goes for a toss and emotion takes over. So the only balance, only equilibrium you can aim to achieve is the dynamic, self correcting kind. The feasible equilibriums are:

a) When both persons respect the other and learn to live with the difference (good luck with that!)
b) Each person appears so ridiculous and irrelevant to the other, the differences are not debated about. So on any issue with opposing sides to it

So the Arbiter can either be an advocate of the opposition to each side, or someone who ridicules the opposition when in the presence of one side. (Cutely put, Socrates can either be a Dissenter or Jester).

But this is an issue regarding real worlds, populated by more than 2 people. Here, hegenomy and majority are the ruling concepts. So Equilibrium conditions where one opinion rules supreme are possible, if dynamic. Historically such conditions don't last for too long, the only major exception I can think of being the question whether God exists or not. At any rate, I propose that any truly lasting equilibrium has to account for the minority/ fringe opinion.

Realistically, such an equilibrium cannot desirably be one of equal and opposite forces (although that sounds the most mathematically sensible) maintaining balance. That is a powder-keg situation - like the Cold War, and the heightened tensions that went with the facing off of 'democracy' and 'communism', and the Nuclear Deterrent...

So we consider cases such as:

c) One of the opinions is considered too 'out there' for serious consideration by the vast majority, and is therefore tolerated with amusement.
d) One of the opinions is far too weak in terms of its feasibility and the power it commands, and is therefore ignored for the most part.

In a unipolar world where the majority consensus seems to be on theism, common economic frameworks and activities, the ascendancy of democracy as the declared 'good' form of government, et al (or in other words, in the age of Pax Americana, you can see that on most issues the real world is a potboiler full of equilibriums a, b, c, and/ or d!

Now that is a gross simplification, but one that works for me the Agnostic. On almost every issue I confront, such an equilibrium becomes apparent given enough in-depth wading and study. Where this simplification becomes gross is in its overarching view, without any real thought given to the little swirls of chaos that are Africa or Asia or Communist China or the minority Atheists or the Oil crisis or Global warming and a gazillion other factors.

Still, let me now answer the Indomitable Three. Here are my answers:

1) If this, the world as it is today, or as it will be in a hundred years or more, is the climax of ages - is it good enough?

Good is a relative term. All through human history a 'compound equilibrium' has been where we were headed. That we ended up with a reasonably hegemonistic world where some (most) parts of the world are still in the process of 'upgrading' to the equilibrium point, with a shining carrot of an example before them simply means that we are in a doldrums for a while at least. Is this the climax of ages? Maybe not... but it is a state that will last for a while... I'm talking a few decades to a century. A hegemony of philleles on this scale is unprecedented in human history.

So to answer the question very briefly - for a while at least, this is the only climax we have.

2) If the life I am/ you are leading is the life that every generation of humanity from proto-history has aimed to achieve, individually and socially - is it worthwhile?

That is a subjective question - find your own damn answer. For me, it is the only life I have... I cast myself in the role of Sisyphus and each day choose to roll a particular boulder up a particular slope. The myth of 'individual aims' is to me just that - an absurd myth.

For social purpose, I would say we have indeed reached a very complex, dynamic equilibrium that is here to stay for a bit.

And anyway, its worth lies in the fact that, not to put too fine a point on it, it is all we have.

Those niggling doubts we all have is the minority opinion, which some day may boil over in a burst of passion and take you (or our world, if it has enough of a following) to the next phase of equilibrium!

3) If the best minds have been at this (trying to solve the existential dilemma) for an age now... and there is no result, what does it mean?...

It means there can be no result.

Sorry!

Ok, time to qualify that with consolation. It means there can be no result that is static, or absolute, or final, in any senses of the three words. It means there will always be more minds questioning both the old and established and the new and quirky. It means the balance of opinion and civilization is indeed an Agnostic balance, but one that transcends all comprehension. There will always be dissent, doubt, and they will be countered by hegemony and certitude.

-=-=-=-

Personally I would be much disappointed if any of the really big questions in philosophy were indeed finally resolved positively.

Philosophical questions are the carrot hanging before me that makes me run. Disagreements and passions and challenges are the stick.

I am very much at peace with this uncertain climax of ages...

Peace... Out!

PS: This, er, ejaculation portends a closure of another thread long in the completing... my Theory of Control thread. The connections are somewhat veiled... see if you can make them out from Theory of Control - (1), Theory of Control - (2), or Theory of Control - (3). (That last post written just about two years ago!) It also ties in to Moving the People, Socialism - An Opinion, and three prior posts on Globalization - One, Two, and Three), and to a lesser degree to Law/ Life, and On Loving Life.

As a matter of fact, put all those together, and I can see the glimmers of a book.

Ah, blogs are wonderful! :)

Without Beginning Or End

2007-06-13T10:51:00.000-04:00

It has been some time since I wrote a standalone work of fiction. What follows is not necessarily standalone - it is in fact a deviant part of the larger universe I've been charting out/ planning to write about. It started as a tentative back-story, and was never really meant to leave my repository of notes and collected oddments that go with the world-building I am in the midst of.

Still, as I finished it, I thought it was something that stood well enough on its own. Then I dressed it up a wee bit better... put in a few more science fiction elements, a few hooks, a few sinkers... and voila!

This wont really stand up as a part of the 'canonical continuity' (if I ever manage to build a credible one) of Alare and Ragin and The T'yemun Arc... still, it was fun to write and (I hope) fun to read.

For some time now, I've been thinking about Apocalyptic and post-Apocalyptic fiction and about writing something like it. This here is one of the non-abortive results.

I am sad to say it doesn't really cover much original ground in terms of plot or plot-devices... particularly the work of Stephen King has inspired this story rather obviously. I think I've managed though to put in more than a wee bit of my own philosophical spin on things and am therefore delighted to share this with you.

You can click here to access it online, or can right click on the URL and save it as a PDF for offline reading.

As most of my work currently on this blog goes, it is a few short pages... and therefore a quick read, and economical download.

Feel free to post comments.

Peace... Out!

Pax Americana

2007-06-07T09:48:00.000-04:00

Advance warning - This promises to be a ramble, because it is an attempt to consolidate and streamline a lot of thoughts and threads of thoughts in my head into some kind of sense. I've been thinking a lot about politics lately. Not politics in the sense of elections and other immediate events, but in the sense of how the events show us, in relief or contrast, the bigger picture of global political and ideological ascendancy, and of the workings of hegemonistic/ imperial systems.

Living in America has been a truly illuminating experience. I don't think there is anywhere else in the world where one has an in-your-face view of a capitalist democracy. The very nature of this country, given the bipartite system, the rampant capitalism, the extreme uniformity in the nature and quality of goods and services available across the country, is hegemonistic. Regional differences, regional issues, and diversity (that much-hyped love child of innate racial prejudice and political correctness) are reduced to a mild buzz in the ear, occasionally becoming a cacophony in the public ear on Oprah or because of Don Imus.

Indeed, looking at America is like looking at the edge of a circle from the center - barring superficial glamours, the view is the same anywhere you look...

One comes to appreciate diversity when comparing this with India. Speaking in generalisms, a day in the life of a Bengali is very different from that in the life of a Keralite or a Maharashtrian. Regional politics is actually more important in India than national politics, and while it does make the Legislature look like a collection of corrupt, bickering idiots, to me it is the epitome of true democracy. After all, can one expect a billion people to ever really speak of the same things in the same voice?

If I tried to make a list of the 'hot item' issues discussed by politicians in India, I'd probably fail. There are simply too many politicians, parties, and issues (local and national) to list in one place. It is astounding how a single nation can have in it multiple warzones, insurgencies, burgeoning economies, devastated rural areas, farmer suicides, socialist welfare systems, and above all a well-marketed sense of growth and promise! (India Shining anyone?)

Making such a list for America is bloody easy. One simply has to listen to one of the Presidential Primary debates (pick one - Democrats or Republicans, they talk about the same issues, only with mildly divergent views). Here's a list I came up with:

Religion - Abortion (Roe v Wade), Israel and the End Times
Economy - Budget balancing/ deficits, Taxation (specifically, tax cuts), Social Security, Decline of Industry
World economy - Free Trade (WTO/ IMF), Outsourcing, Immigration
Oil - Reliance on the middle east
Environment - Global Warming, Alternative Energy, Alaska's oil fields, Kyoto
Crime and Punishment - Gun Control, Mandatory Minimums, Death Penalty
Geopolitics - Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Middle East/ Iran/ Sudan (Darfur)

A seemingly comprehensive list, yes? Sure... but here's the problem - they've been talking about this for at least the past 15 years. These are the keywords that have hijacked the public consciousness... politicians need speak of nothing else, are in fact asked about nothing else, when they're trying to get into the national legislature or executive. They have been talked about so much, for so long, by so many, that the issues themselves seem to have been reduced to keywords and phrases to drop indiscriminately so as to indicate erudition and awareness. Unlike the average Indian, nobody in America demands of their politician a long term vision for the future, or an ideology!

In America there is really no thinking outside the box that the above listed issues form. America believes - fervently - that their hegemony is best-in-class in the world (and maybe it is) and that their sole remaining subconscious mission is to propagate it to all corners of the world. To transform - by any means necessary - the entire world into its own image. In their comfort and their belief in ascendancy, America are a complacent bunch. They believe in a vague sort of vision of the Pax Americana, and it is but a static vision of the world's future looking like their own present. When I think about it, there have been no radical philosophical upheavals or about turns in the US since the beginning of the Cold War via the Truman Doctrine. This is very unlike, say India, and its major decision to open up its economy in 1991.

Perhaps this lack of dynamism points to the one difference between America and China/ India/ Brazil (or the rest of the developing world). No sad pun intended, but we are simply hungrier, with more to prove and more to improve. These nations have aspirations to greatness. A sort of unspoken, ill-defined consensus among all the people that make them up that Tomorrow belongs to them. What they make of that tomorrow is of course, yet to be seen.

At this point in most conversations I've had with concerned Indians, the popular thing to say (and my Dad would be the first to assert it) is that in our hunger, we are blindly becoming America (or want to), and that is certainly a bad thing. After all, if India were a young woman raring to achieve glory, America would surely be the jaded, cliched (and ever so misogynistic) Bollywood vamp that looks upon such innocence with superficial condescension and deeply held insecurity. Why then should India aspire to be more like America?

I'm not going to go into arguing about whether we are (or even can) turn into a bad copy of America. I'm not sure if that is the direction we're heading in. But like every other well programmed Indian, whether a resident of my country or not, I sincerely believe in an ascendancy not of the present, but of the unseen future. I believe tomorrow will be better than today, that there is a 'better' to get to. And there's your Great American Problem as I see it - the average American believes his Tomorrow would be great, if only it resembled today.

Perhaps there is some macroscopic factor at play here. A nation, a civilization at its perceived zenith, with little or no opposition and absolutely no role model, will always be more complacent than an incipient one, or one in extreme crisis (Russia, the Middle East perhaps?). Or maybe it is a far simpler reality - the rich will be indolent, the poor will hunger for those riches. Or maybe it is an inevitable tide riding today's population realities - India and China are Tomorrowlands because we are more numerous and younger.

Whatever the reasons, there is a sense (and it is another well marketed one) that America has already, or will soon, hit its high point and then begin the steady decline into relative ignominy. Whether this is true or not is for analytical historians to decide, decades, or perhaps centuries from now. In the meantime, all we can do is compare America to two previous civilizations that rose, and then fell.

I speak of course of the Roman Empire (and the attendant Pax Romana) and the British Empire (and its Pax Britannica).

I found this wonderful book review on Salon.com by Gary Kamiya of the book Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America by Cullen Murphy. A quote from that review:

Murphy illuminates one key facet of the decline of Rome by citing the Oxford historian Geoffrey de Ste. Croix, who explored the evolution of a single Latin term: the word "suffragium," which originally meant "voting tablet." Citizens could cast votes, although in practice great men who ran patronage systems controlled large blocs of votes. Over time, Roman democracy withered, but the patronage system remained, and the word "suffragium" came to mean only the pressure that a powerful man could exert on one's behalf. Eventually, the word came to denote simply the money paid for a favor: a bribe. Ste. Croix's devastating conclusion: "Here, in miniature, is the political history of Rome."

In a telling historical-etymological comparison, Murphy looks at the history of the word "franchise." It too originally "had to do with notions of political freedom and civic responsibility": It denoted the right to vote. "Only much later, in the mid twentieth century, did the idea of being granted certain 'rights' acquire its commercial connotation: the right to market a company's services or products, such as fried chicken or Tupperware ... In the Wiktionary, the commercial meaning of 'franchise' is now the primary definition. The definition involving political freedom and the right to vote comes fifth." Murphy's disturbing conclusion: "Looking back at the history of 'franchise,' then, it's tempting to write this epitaph: Here, in miniature, is the political history of America."

Wonderfully etymological... that hit the intellectual spot with me :)

Another thing to read today would be this part of the scathing review of Niall Ferguson's Colossus - Rise and Fall of the American Empire.

Both these books seem to be a good provocative read... not that I'm going to, because like most enlightened bloggers I choose only to comment idly upon such subjects and then, the intellectual fervor spent, return to my very American life of indolence and hypocrisy.

But before I do that, I feel like this article needs to end on a punchline of some sort. A great conclusive statement that would form the point of why I made you read through all this barely held together crap.

So yeah, I'll give you three such statements (and at least one of them does not directly follow from what you've read so far - sorry!).

1. India (and the developing world) is far more vigorous than America today. America to me, seems to be riding on the inertia of past achievement, toward future ignominy.

2. Democracy, when viewed simplistically, seems to promote hegemony via the rule of the majority. Reality intrudes on said simple generalism and allows for great diversity through its sheer complexity - but apparently this is true only up to a point. The exception seems to be America, which in its overwhelming uniformity is losing that internal diversity and strife that makes democracies alive. This is one of their major underestimated crises. This land of immigrants badly needs new blood, new problems, and new solutions. Indeed, immigration was what kept the Roman empire healthy for as long as it remained that way.

3. What comes of the current state of the world will, I think, surprise everyone. It is easy to look upon past trends and predict the future, but subtleties are hard to predict, and therein lies the rub! Pax Americana will fail one day, maybe soon or late... after all, Americans will certainly not stay idle and watch themselves fall. But if history is any indication one day it will fail, and what replaces it will be something no one saw coming. China, India, Brazil? Sure... but what about that huge unknown in any geopolitical equation - what, I ask, of Africa?

So there you have your platitudes. I might come back to this later, but then again, maybe not. Run along now...

Out.

The Hyperwill Zone

2007-06-05T09:43:00.000-04:00

Last night I made a trip to the Zone.

The Zone is a wonderful place. I don't enter it nearly often enough, but when I do it is a terribly satisfying experience. It is (funnily enough) never accessible when I am consciously looking for it... when I'm doing (or trying to do) anything truly consequential and/ or important in any sense. It only pops up once in a while, all too rarely, in the middle of things.

The Zone is a place without hunger, without fatigue, without thirst. It is a place of focus, of efficiency, of can-do-little-wrong. It is oneness with the Force. It is being in tune with the Song of the Ainur. It is as close to Roark-consciousness as your mind can get. It is anti-distraction. It is a place where you are willing to forgive anything, assume any burden, correct any wrong. It is the Buddha state. It is the work ethic of Nietzsche's ubermensch. It is self-actuation. It is the Flame and the Void. The Zone is all...

This is a very difficult state to hold on to once you become conscious that you have entered it. But while in it, you will do things that will surprise you the next morning or next week, either in their quantity or quality or both. I give credit to it (or blame it) for most of the consequential stuff I write, and almost all I have done that might be considered above and beyond the call of duty in my professional life. It is responsible for my 'write nights' and for those crazy times when I pull an all nighter reading or watching or thinking something...

Yesterday the Zone consciousness was upon me, for quite a considerable amount of time. That it came upon me in the middle of around eight hours of manual labor (with no tangible benefit to me, immediate or otherwise) is beside the point. One does not question the Zone. One does not seek to direct it or employ it - one humbly surrenders when it comes.

The Zone is often a savior - it creeps up when my energy is at its lowest ebb, when I have already wrung out all I thought possible out of myself. It comes sometimes when there is a job that needs to be finished - however useless it may seem - and at those times I am grateful. (I think I only passed my Engineering Drawing paper because of the Zone... actually, I only passed my Engineering because of the Zone).

The aftermath of the Zone is always bittersweet though... Or maybe it is my over-analyzing bent that makes it so.

I am left craving more like an addict that fell off the wagon. I am left questioning why I don't reach it more often, when I'm doing something more 'important'. I hypothesize about all the wonderful things I could achieve if only it were at my beck and call. I rail at the fact that it is not really an act of will... the zone (if it must have a less vague name) would be called hyperwill or metawill or some such.

Its philosophical ramifications astound me. Is this what they call divine inspiration? Did every human being that ever amounted to anything and left an imprint on this world feel it? Did it make all the works that make up the sum of human achievement possible? Is it then human, or divine, or a mere random streak and a rationalization in hindsight?

The theists will argue that something this sublime could not possibly emanate from petty humans. The humanists will bask in its glory and claim it as proof of superiority over all existence. The atheists will point to it as the thing that makes divinity moot. The nihilists will dismiss it as rationalization.

This poor pseudo-agnostic can but bow his head in awe.

Until the next time then... out!

Life Stories

2007-06-01T14:08:00.001-04:00

So here we are again! Another Friday, 2 PM, and once more my work ethic has on an early sabbath. Once more, my mind is tingling with a zillion thoughts, but today I shall write about only one.

Read this article recently on a recommendation, and this line in it really caught my fancy: "We write the stories of our lives all the time with the choices we make—our decisions about how we spend our time and the things we do with it. But as we write, we need to periodically stop to read what we’re writing, to take stock of where we’ve been and where we’re going."

A nice concept, and obviously a concept that cuts many ways... I looked around the web a bit more and ended up on this page on the website of the ever-unpalatable Dr Phil, and this article on a site called mindpub.com. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the idea, it is one mostly talked about by life coaches, self help gurus and their ilk. (and both sites cited belong to that clan) Then finally, my web research done, I got to original thinking...

I like the idea, and can empathize with it. While most of the time in life I have no idea what the heck I am up to, I can think back to instances in the past where I felt compelled to act a certain way because that's what I visualized/ directed myself into doing. In hindsight, these times felt very much like a method acting assignment - for instance, when I experienced my first break-up, or when I was dealing with a debilitating illness, or even when I chose my career path (or what little of it I did actively choose).

There are so many good and bad things about living that way... optimists will have good scripts to adhere to, pessimists will have bad. (As I will mention again later, agnostics are unable to have one). So let's talk about the bad things first.

The first negative is of course that if you are working off a script someone else handed to you - with or without you knowing - you may end up unhappy forever after the 'climax'. The other is that life scripts will be like unending soap operas rather than like one shot movies - you'll have to keep thinking up the next episode. The third negative is the fickleness of your own mind, or of the universe we inhabit. Chaos will intervene somewhere, and if you get too emotionally attached to a version of the script, you are ensuring your unhappiness. Finally, if sometime you override your rationality/ emotions you feel just to stick to some script, you are in deep trouble.

The good is easy - any self respecting self help guru (and they all claim to be so) will tell you that you can achieve goals once you visualize them. Oftentimes self help workshops start with the guides asking you to write your own elegy, or asking questions like "what do you want the most" and so on. Another clear positive is that you will have purpose/ meaning in life, and unless you are a serious romantic (as I am) and dreamer (ditto!) you will work toward achieving it rather than expecting it to happen all on its own.

The philosophical fallouts of the idea are also vast. First of all, having a life script implies a greater dependence of nurture rather than nature. The determinists will have a field day with it, while the libertines go boo! In fact any proponents of free will (and I am one - being a compatibilist) will be reserved about the idea. That old chicken and egg question - Is there a grand design, or am I free to make my choices? - is but a grander form of the question Do we or do we not write and follow life scripts?

A more mundane philosophical turnout regards creative folks like authors and actors and so on - I mentioned method acting before, and it kind of makes you wonder whether the urge to try out different life scripts (or even world scripts) is what attracts people to build and execute their imaginary works?

Perhaps the 'complexity of modern life' that everyone moans about is all about our life scripts getting more and more complex (and ambitious, and uncompromising) as our world shrank politically and technologically? The peasant living in rural India in the rule of the Satavahans obviously would have a simpler life script than an immigrant Indian techie living in New York City in 2007! (Or would he? hmm... maybe that's just our generational hubris)

Speaking of generations, I wonder how much the hippy movement/ flower power had to do with the baby boomer generation reacting to their parents 'laying down the law' and setting their life scripts. Much of feminism is certainly about women rebelling against their hand-me-down life scripts.

And don't even get me started on world-scripts. Seems every culture/ every religion/ every philosophy ultimately has one... they call it their creation myth and eschatology!

The damage that sticking to world scripts has caused the world is gadzookily immense... take for instance Alexander's "Domination" world script, Napoleon's "Empire" world script, or Mr Hitler's "Lebensraum" world script. (These three guys being the most readily named examples in world history - in relation to almost anything). Or take the more modern instances of the "Cold War/ American Imperialists vs Evil Empire" script everyone stuck to or the recent "Democracy as the Middle East's saviour" world script authored by Bush and Cheney :)

So anyway... returning to the less lofty realm of personal implications...

Do I really want to live with a life script? Not consciously... I'd rather take the unknown and sort of drift along and see where life takes me. At least, that has been my attitude in this past half-decade since I (in some major ways except for the literal) sobered up. Besides, having a life script presumes a value judgment of a personal 'purpose' and as an agnostic, that eludes me.

It may be a slightly 'safe' way to live - "don't have expectations so you can avoid disappointment" and all that shit - but then again, it seems like the only hassle-free way to live, doesn't it? Would it necessarily mean I cannot achieve anything in life? I don't think so. Would not having a life script mean basically being a complete wastrel? Not really. Is not having a life script a natural fallout of being an extreme agnostic? You betcha!

Uncertainty, living with zero-expectation, not having a life script... all these things seem easy. Or at least easier than planning, knowing what you want, and working to get it. But they are not! They are in fact harder, because every bit of your mind is obsessed with order, and your way of life would be chaotic if you accept this path. External factors are not much help either - your parents, your friends, society at large - they're all programming you to take the 'achievant's' path... to adopt this life script or that.

But in the end that is all BS. A life script fails on the simple fact that it is an imposition of hypothetical order on a subset of an uncertain and chaotic universe... "Know thyself" is a necessary prerequisite to "Direct thyself" and quite frankly, most of us just don't make that requirement!

Ok, enough rambling for now, methinks... out!

Seven Posts

2007-05-25T10:36:00.000-04:00

Seven threads of thought running in your mind simultaneously can be pretty overwhelming. The gods of the mind demand catharsis. My penseive beckons, and aye, blogging is the only propitiation those gods desire. So here we are, talking about this and that.

In the interest of keeping the interest of the readership, and in the interest of allowing you to pick and choose what to read (as you are wont to do) let me begin with a table of contents...

1. Inspiration vs Plagiarism - some musings
2. The Money Illusion - one of my, erm, rants
3. Gods and Worshippers - another one of my, erm, rants
4. Reaper's Gale - A review of the book
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a review
6. Shrek the Third - a review, and
7. Conclusion - well, the end.

To be honest, on any less long-winded and more self-respecting blog, this would equate to seven posts :D Ah well... I've never been one for brevity.

1. Inspiration vs Plagiarism

We've all heard the many quotes; "Good artists copy, great artists steal" said Pablo Picasso; "There is nothing new under the sun" said Anon, and their ilk. But I got to wondering... How immune are we really to plagiarism? How evil is plagiarism, really?

We've all done it. That report that got downloaded as-is from a tech website... the design concept/ tune/ photograph/ essay/ poem/ lyric/ story or whatever else, that was "inspired" by something. I'd go so far as to say (and some anthropologists would agree) that all of human achievement is a history of emulation where each successive generation added but a little to what had preceded it and then called it something new.

But is emulation/ plagiarism really all that bad? Is it perhaps even necessary? Half the SFF authors in the world today would not be writing a fantasy novel if Tolkein's Lord of the Rings had not been as huge and hyped as it is. Tolkein himself in turn would never have thought up Elves and Dwarves or the characters of Turin and Feanor if the Norse sagas hadn't caught his fancy. The Norse sagas were probably inspired by whatever proto-mythologies had preceded them... and the proto-mythologies themselves were born of that spark of awe and fear that inspired countless mythologies and legendariums and canonical tales.

We live in a world obsessed with ownership. We have instituted a system where ownership of property, be it intellectual, corporeal, or hypothetical, is the measure of a life's worth. No other epoch of history has celebrated individualism as does our own - perhaps no other could afford to, given that survival wasn't always as easy as it is in some parts of the world today. No wonder then that there is no copyright notice on the Vedas, or on the Upanishads or the Geeta, the Talmud, the Bible, the Quran. Back then, people had to come together and 'live and let live' if they wanted to thrive. These days, the machine that is our society functions so smoothly (well, smoother than ever before at least), it is easy to take it for granted and 'be ourselves'.

But I digress. The question I'm contemplating is - Are intellectual property rights, and our obsession to be 'original' hindering rather than aiding our progress?

2. The Money Illusion

Today is one of those days when the delusions of society wear thin before my eyes.

The story of my life - I was born, conditioned (read: educated) to the belief that I am learning so one one day I can get to earning. I was given knowledge and whatever little skill could be imparted to me and then thrust into the 'real world' to be productive. The work that I did was judged not on its merit, nor on its meaningfulness, but merely on its conformity and its accordance to those 'trends' and 'fashions' of horribly opaque and generic origin, and I was paid commensurate to my perceived value. The notion of what value I represent is a mutually agreed upon delusion that nobody dares cure.

Sometimes I think we invented money not because it is a rational means of exchange, but because once it became accepted as the norm, it could be redefined to mean anything those in power wanted. From pieces of shiny metal to the complicated printing of today, all monetary exchange is the exchange of delusion... "I shall give you $50 from the $1500 I earnt for being an 'engineer' and writing 'code' so I can buy your game and play it on Microsoft's hardware".

The funny thing no one notices is the fact that money was exchanged here not for food, not for anything corporeal, but merely for perceived value! Or if I grow a crop and sell it for money, and then use that money to sleep with a whore, I am converting the corporeal value that was my grain into the perceived value of my pleasure. The earlier example however, is less disturbing to think of... the money I earned for my perceived value was spent on the perceived value of the video game I wanted to play on the hardware I thought was worth $400.

Now it would be ok for everyone to agree on a unit of perceived value - money - and make it flow as needed (which is what we do in the world of the dollar standard, given that no currency has any basis but perception), and if everyone worked not for the money, but for the value of the work itself!. The trouble is of course, that very few people in the world work for the sake of what they do. Most of us work for money - for the unit of value, and not for the value itself!

Sigh... of course, this argument is colored by the fact that I am a guy that questions the meaningfulness of the way my personal prowess is currently deployed... ah well. Nuff said.

3. Gods and Worshippers

An interesting question raised in the latest high fantasy novel I read was on the relationship between a personal god and his worshippers.

To most worshippers a god is a guarantee, a bulwark against fear and uncertainty. He or she could be the promise of a reckoning against injustice, or of a just afterlife, or of unconditional love, or whatever the worshipper misses most in his or her life. To the god, the worshipper is his raison'd'etre. Protecting, nurturing, and delivering his devotee is in fact the only thing he or she does! The god derives his power, his purpose from the worship, just as the worshipper draws his strength from it. The fun begins when the god and his or her devotee disagree.

You see, the devotee's expectation is of unconditional love and omnipotence. His god has to love him, nurture him, protect him, no matter what he may do with his life! If his prayer is at odds with another's, every worshipper expects - nay, demands - prioritization... that this is impossible is beside the point - the god is omnipotent after all. The devotee in turn is expected to be faithful and fawning. Rituals must be observed, morals adhered to, and propitiations made, even when competing faiths intrude or impose.

Both the god and the devotee are in love not with each other, but with what they want each other to be. What they expect each other to be or become. Funny then, how the relationship between them personifies almost every other human relation :)

4. Reaper's Gale

Next, my response to "Reaper's Gale", the Seventh book in the ten book "Malazan Book of the Fallen" by Steven Erikson. Actually I've already covered some of it in the rather vague debates and questions above - all three preceding points are rooted in some way or another in my reading of this book.

So a less tangential reaction... In a nutshell, I'm flabbergasted... actually that's inadequate. The best way to describe it, to convey my sense of ecstasy and turmoil upon reading it, would be (excuse my French) to say I was mind-fucked. The book took me on a tour de force such as only deeply analytical and philosophical works can.

While not a perfect novel, it is more than a head and shoulders above most other books out there. This is the first direct sequel in the series so far, which brings with it the attendant flaws and limitations - you have to have read the earlier six volumes very attentively to appreciate how the characters (hundreds) interact over the course of the convoluted plot. And if you aren't in the mood for some very very hardcore philosophizing and some heart-breaking tragedy, don't read it.

It is fascinating how High Fantasy and Science Fiction seem to be the only two forms of writing that in today's world allow for the flexing of intellectual muscle. One can talk metaphorically and cryptically about anything under the sun with impunity. In the real world though, or even in fiction that isn't very far removed from reality, you cause uproar when you disagree with the hegemonistic consensus that we jealously adhere to.

It is ok for a hypothetical marine in the Malazan army marching on Lether to be a man, woman, or hermaphrodite, a capitalist, communist or an anarchist, a bigot, or a slave, or practically anything under the sun. He or she is just a fantasy after all. But write for or against any of those things and put the writing in a realistic setting, and you're asking for trouble... as any critic of B R Ambedkar in India or of of Catholicism in Italy or Capitalism in the USA would find out very quickly.

It is also fascinating how Shakespearean Erikson's work is. A few deaths contained in this volume are those of some of the most empathetic characters Erikson has written. They are so profoundly tragic, they remind one of the death of Cordelia in "King Lear" or that of Desdemona in "Othello". The toll is high enough to justify the title, and while the tale reaches a satisfactory climax at the end of the volume, the overall story arc is at an uncertain stage.

You see, this ten book sequence is in three intertwined threads. The first, on the continent of Genabackis, is a tale of the armies of the Malazan empire on said landmass, and their attempts at conquest. The second, on the subcontinent of Seven Cities is the tale of the rise and quelling of a fanatical rebellion known as the Whirlwind by another Malazan army. The last thread, set in the Empire of Lether tells the tale of the ill-fated return of the Tiste Edur tribes from ignominy. Over the first six volumes these three independent tales have all reached a kind of pinnacle. In the process the overarching story/ theme regarding a war in the pantheon has come to the fore, but because all three major storylines have reached a kind of doldrums, and have now merged into more or less one tale, it will be very interesting to see what storms Erikson whips up in the next book - "Toll the Hounds" - based on the continent of Genabackis.

Actually isn't it saying something, when even after seven books full of suspense and mystery, revelation and resolution, Erikson is keeping us guessing? There is simply no way to predict what will happen in the 8th, let alone in "Dust of Dreams" or "The Crippled God" - the 9th and 10th books.

5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

So yeah, I've finally seen the big sequel/ conclusion of the trilogy, and while it left me with a pleasant after-taste, for me it didn't really live up to my expectations. It was less spectacular, less whimsical, and more convoluted than I had thought it would be. This is the third "third in a trilogy" movie I've seen this summer (Spiderman 3 - the sodfest, and Shrek the Third, being the other ones) and I have to say I hope Hollywood moves away from its sequel fetish sometime soon. For a little while at least. (Fat chance, with Ocean's 13 and Fantastic Four 2 and Die Hard 4.0 around the corner).

So yeah... At World's End is to the Pirates trilogy what Return of the Jedi was to Star Wars, only, instead of an army of Ewoks, we get to see a host of Captain Jacks :)

Johnny Depp is expectedly cool in this flick, but his story arc is actually the least impressive of the four or seven that they've crammed into the movie. As a matter of fact, apart from the fact that he escapes from the purgatory/ hell that is Davy Jones' Locker (as was promised in the slap-bang gadzooks climax of "Dead Man's Chest") I was more impressed with the Shakespearean (there's that word again! Damn that bloody bard!) love stories of Calypso and Davy Jones, and of Elizabeth and Will Turner. The former is a complex tale of betrayal and deceit AND undying love, while the way the latter works out is the biggest surprise in the movie. I was also impressed with the presence Geoffrey Rush commands as the eminently unreliable scoundrel that is Captain Barbossa. He actually gives Johnny Depp a run for his money performance wise.

This is one crammed movie, in the way a Neil Gaiman comic is crammed. Lots of visual candy to take in, and lots of convoluted plotting - the number of twists and turns in this one movie rivals the number in the entire Star Wars saga! It calls for a repeat viewing for proper appreciation, but I don't know if I can manage that given its 2 hour 45 minute run time. It isn't a "Return of the King" after all.

Ok... I think I've managed all the "third" references I wanted to make now. :)

6. Shrek the Third

In a nutshell, this movie sucks. What made the first Shrek great was how it bucked fairy tale conventions - no, turned them on their head - and did so without taking itself too seriously. Donkey was genuinely fresh and funny, the Ogre was a delight, and the story unexpected. Shrek 2 lost some of that mojo, but still managed to entertain. Puss in Boots was a welcome addition and while the second one got as many laughs as the first one, it was beginning to get repetitive by the time it finished.

Shrek the Third, in a nutshell, takes itself too seriously. First of all it tackles two central issues - ascension to the throne and fatherhood - that to me, felt a little too grown up for an animated funny movie. What's more, there are no memorable new characters, and the old ones don't really do anything new either. Donkey is Donkey, and Puss is Puss - their whole body transfer gag comes across as gimmicky. I'd have loved some more mayhem by the Donkey-Dragon half-breeds who get but a passing mention. I hated how boring that whole "Fiona gets a baby shower from princesses" idea was. I hated the cliched ending. Puss in boots just wasn't cute any more.

Oh well... watchable once for some gags I guess.

7. Conclusion

All right then. I'm all caught up, and feel relieved and unconstipated once again. Feels good to blog and vent. I've been in a kind of hermit mode these past weeks, and will probably continue in that vein for some time to come...

Managed to read 13 of the 47 books I need to read in the five months that started a month ago. Not bad progress. I'm ordering the next book, R Scott Bakker's "The Thousandfold Thought" - the final chapter of "The Prince of Nothing" trilogy sometime today or tomorrow.

And its off to Wisconsin Dells for the Memorial Day long weekend... so that should be fun.

Got loads of other crap on my mind, not the least of which is a mountain of work I've been ignoring for the past hour as I blogged... so better get back to it.

Peace... Out!