maroonimations

"The Man" and Curiosity

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:34:00 +0000

The Trial of Galileo
From Lightandmatter.com

Something about this Op-Ed article by David Brooks in the NY Times rankles me.

Forget the specific story of Jefferson Bethke who (in a viral video) said he doesn't like "the Church" but loves Jesus, and then went on to backtrack when a blogger, Kevin DeYoung, made what seemed to him a persuasive and perhaps better informed counter-argument. Ignore for the moment the question of whether or not the teachings of Jesus or the various Christian church systems are worth living by - that isn't what concerns me.

Here's what got my goat. David Brooks takes this example and then generalizes to say rebellion against established ideas is not a good idea in itself, for most people. (No, this rant is not about the 1% v 99%)

Cick To Read Further »

Apple and Utopia

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:45:00 +0000

Apple Devices Image credit: TechGenie

Call me slow, but until today I hadn't read the two New York Times pieces that have been in the news lately. The first was about Apple's manufacturing getting off-shored and whether medium skill manufacturing jobs (the ones that created the American middle class) will ever return to the US (short answer: No). The second was about Apple's supply chain and worker conditions in factories in China, that are, to put it mildly, inhuman. Workers work 70 hour weeks routinely, make hardly any money, have workplaces and working conditions that would make any Westerner scream and any Indian grimace (is true!), and have alarming suicide rates.

I must ask you, gentle reader, to first read these pieces in full before proceeding. Yeah, I'm a long-form kind of guy. Seriously, off with you... shoo!

So how did the world react to these 'exposes', that to the informed person merely brought a light to bear on what was well known - or at least very well suspected? The first article was met with the usual election year responses over in the US. Some chitchat about manufacturing having left American shores, noises about 'new economy' jobs not filling up the resulting vacuum quick enough, and so on. The second was met with outrage (as well it should), even as the cognoscenti acknowledged that Apple was an industry leader in policing and bringing to light such abuses, and really... unless we want an iPad to cost several hundred dollars more, nothing can be done about it...

What was my reaction? Multi-faceted...

Cick To Read Further »

Farmer Suicides Highlighted

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:14:00 +0000

KBC logo (c) Sony Entertainment

A story in the Hyderabad edition of The Hindu caught my eye today. The widow of a farmer who had committed suicide because of debts incurred, from the village of Vara Kawtha in Yawatmal district in Maharashtra, was given a chance to appear on "Kaun Banega Crorepati" (KBC - the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire). She was identified to the producers of the show by Kishore Tiwari of the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti, an NGO, and once selected she and some friends were flown to Mumbai for the taping by the producers of the show.

She ended up winning 6.4 lakh Rupees or about 13.5 thousand USD.

Now here is an issue no one else is really talking about, and KBC just gave it a nationwide audience of millions. 6.4 Lakh Rupees is not too much money, but for Aparna Malikar, who survives her husband and has two young girls to take care of, it could be a game changer. Amitabh Bachchan, the star and host of the show, also blogged about the issue and about Aparna herself, and was moved enough to hand over another 50 thousand Rupees (about 1000 dollars) of his own money to her.

Sustainable farming needs to be a bigger focus in India and the coming of big retail and factory farming will be a death knell to traditional, small-plot farming - a practice that remains the backbone of India's large agrarian economy.

Now I'm not a regular viewer, let alone a fan of KBC. I haven't seen a single episode for the latest season, and maybe all of one or two episodes from the last three seasons. Also, when I first read the story my instinct was to be cynical about it and dismiss it as sensationalism.

But here's the thing: KBC and Amitabh Bachchan just gave the issue an enormous amount of visibility, and they put their money where their mouths were.

All I can say is: Bravo! Well done!

If popular platforms like KBC can be used to raise awareness about serious issues, perhaps they will pierce the fog and be featured front and center in political and economic debates!

Social Networking Introspection

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:43:00 +0000

Perhaps I should title this post: "Why I post on social networks"... Or: "A note on what led me away from Facebook and Twitter, and on to Google+"... It will serve both titles equally.

Ever since Google+ launched I've been thinking about sharing things online - about why it is the thing to do these days, and whether this is simply the automation or "cloud-ization" of existing social behavior for most people.

The "why" is more perplexing to me than whether there is a real world analogue that we mimic every time we post something online...

Cick To Read Further »

The Grey Side of Business

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:12:00 +0000

Evidence suggests that technology companies enabled brutal repression in Libya and Bahrain, two of the countries currently undergoing impressive change as part of the Arab Spring. This is not a surprise.

Technology is morally neutral - you can use it for good and for evil. This is been discussed enough and often enough. The real question of the hour is are businesses morally responsible, should they be held to the same standard as we hold individuals and governments? When is it OK for a business stop following a profit motive and hold to a sociopolitical position? Should every business deal be scrutinized to ensure it is not aiding and abetting something "immoral"?

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, given the "evil bankers and financiers" it is easy to pass judgment and say "Of course businesses need to be moral!" Nokia and Siemens have no business enabling dictators to better spy on their people! Lenders had no business lending to people they knew wouldn't repay!

I submit that this represents a less nuanced opinion than the real world would support.

Cick To Read Further »

An-na-na-na-na-na!

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 03:20:00 +0000

Mass movements make me nervous, because their leaders are deified and in the eyes of their followers, can do no wrong. The kind of intensity and focus that members of these movements bring to the cause is not often matched by depth of understanding of the issues, or more importantly, breadth of understanding of the world. No issues can be resolved in isolation, or there will be unintended consequences.

All too often, the recruits for these mass movements are those with the time to devote to them - not necessarily those qualified (in any sense of the word) to contribute.

Finally the leaders of these mass movements become rockstars - and from there either they are corrupted by their power, or become victims of their own fallibility, because no one is smart enough to be a god... unless they go completely offstage (or worse, die) before they make their first mistakes.

This is why Anna Hazare's "anti-corruption movement" in India is at best a quixotic piece, and at worst a circus that is going to benefit media TRPs more than the country. I almost feel sorry for the man - he has one good idea, but no vision to speak of, and is now cornered by his own followers. He reminds me of Raju Guide more than Mahatma Gandhi at this point!

Cick To Read Further »

A Clouded Memory

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:35:00 +0000

The Matrix

Remember the Information Superhighway? Used to be a buzzword about a decade and a half ago. No one uses it any more! I read about this study by Columbia University psychologist, Betsy Sparrow published a little while ago and I was reminded of the concept, and how it is finally coming to fruition.

Scenario: two colleagues are talking about their favorite author or poet (who I've never heard of) while I'm sitting at my desk. I quickly Google the name, and join in the conversation - but I enter it saying "such and such" is my favorite poem by this poet... particularly the line "..."

Cick To Read Further »

Book Review: God is Not One

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:55:00 +0000

An interesting book!

We take a break from our regularly scheduled programming to speak at some length now about a book that got me thinking about my beliefs or faith (or lack thereof).

Stephen Prothero's "God is Not One" is the kind of counter-argument in the face of the prevailing conventional wisdom that wakes you up like a strong cup of coffee on a bleary morning.

His central thesis is that for all the analogies ("many paths up the same mountain" or "different pieces of the same elephant") being tossed around to describe world religions as being essentially the same, they are in fact very different from each other! They address different central dilemmas, and don't line up in a neat row as those focusing on their commonalities would like. This is a bold idea, and very relevant to our times. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I found myself agreeing with it; it brings a clear-eyed approach to a field that suffers too often from an excess of either fanaticism or romanticism.

Cick To Read Further »

A Malazan Meditation - (On Species)

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:16:00 +0000

This is a continuation of my 'meditation' on Steven Erikson's opus: The Malazan Book of the Fallen, which I view as an exercise in attaining reader catharsis. If you haven't already, for some context, please read my prior posts - a Prologue that explains what this is all about, Part 1 - Elements, and Part 2 - Quirks & Features. If you have already, read on...

Warning: This post contains spoilers for various books in the series, but I have tried to stay away from revealing too many specifics. The imagined species that make an appearance in the series, their physical attributes, and some portions of their history and overall arc are mentioned. I don't think I reveal anything that will necessarily spoil your experience of reading the books; if anything it might enhance your appreciation for some of the elements... but that's just what I think.

This (and the next post) will be the most spoiler-filled of the lot. If you're completely anti-spoiler, please stay away!

A Malazan Meditation (Part 3: Species)

Where I look at each of the eponymous elements of the world, their role or agency in-story and in the series as metaphors and motifs...

Cick To Read Further »

A Malazan Meditation - (Quirks & Features)

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:25:00 +0000

This is a continuation of my 'meditation' on Steven Erikson's opus: The Malazan Book of the Fallen, which I view as an exercise in attaining reader catharsis. If you haven't already, for some context, please read my prior posts - a Prologue that explains what this is all about, and Part 1 - Elements. If you have already, read on...

Warning: This post contains spoilers for various books in the series, but I have tried to stay away from revealing specifics. Some tropes used, and the social/ philosophical dilemmas explored will however be revealed. That said, I don't think I reveal anything that will necessarily spoil your experience of reading the books; if anything it might enhance your appreciation for some of the elements... but that's just what I think.

If you're completely anti-spoiler, please stay away!

A Malazan Meditation (Part 2: Quirks and Features)

Where I try and point out what makes this series ‘special’ or what literary devices within it expand upon the primary theme. To highlight how this series is set apart from other SFF literature, I propose to compare it where appropriate with the writings of JRR Tolkein (the grand-daddy of fantasy literature) which have served as templates for much fantasy fiction in the last sixty or so years.

I'll start with the low-hanging fruit, the easy 'structural' features and then move into heavy territory...
Cick To Read Further »

A Malazan Meditation - (Elements)

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:45:00 +0000

This is a continuation of my 'meditation' on Steven Erikson's opus: The Malazan Book of the Fallen, which I view as an exercise in attaining reader catharsis. If you haven't already, for some context, please read my prior post that explains what this is all about. If you have already, read on...

Warning: This post contains spoilers for various books in the series, but I have tried to stay away from revealing specifics. Broad plot structure, the various crises explored etc. will however be revealed. That said, I don't think I reveal anything that will necessarily spoil your experience of reading the books; if anything it might enhance your appreciation for some of the elements... but that's just what I think. If you're completely anti-spoiler, please stay away!

A Malazan Meditation (Part 1: Elements)

Where I describe some of the building blocks of the series...

Cick To Read Further »

A Malazan Meditation - (Prologue)

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:38:00 +0000

Once upon a time, there was a world...

How would you tell the story of Planet Earth? Is there a coherent story to tell?

Would you focus on the 150 million year reign of the dinosaurs, their rise and cataclysmic fall, or the roughly 10,000 year history of ‘civilized’ apes? Is it enough to depict the rise and fall of the Neanderthals – a "failed" branch of ‘humanity’ as broadly defined - who eventually lost to us Homo Sapiens? Should it be the tale of the triumph and attendant hubris of Humanity itself?

Will you project the end of us self-acclaimed "intelligent overlords" of the Earth – the only species in existence to (arguably) subjugate its environment – and laugh and cry at the colossal, idiotic waste and ephemeral achievement?

Well... must you choose?

Cick To Read Further »

On Pakistan

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

A. Hypothetical Scenario...

Imagine... a large country, of disparate ethnic populations and a brutal history of Imperialism, war, and fluctuating borders. Parts of it are tribal areas, ruled by tribal laws and councils of elders, and feature separatist/ insurgent sentiments. Large chunks are in the grip of seemingly insurmountable poverty and beholden to grassroots radical movements, increasingly restive and violent.

The military strutting proudly before a domestic audience, has little hard power or "projection" capability on the world stage - except for control over a nuclear arsenal which, although only marginally useful strategically and tactically useless does earn it bragging rights.

The right-wing political class openly advocates a philosophy based on the majority religion, projects a jingoistic national identity that glosses over any historic failures, and nurses a grudge against a neighbor.

Religious nuts and a sensationalist media have taken command of the public square and and often operate behind the political scene, commanding policy-makers if not the policies themselves. Resource and market hungry corporate actors use and enable shadowy such power-players. The trivial and banal rules the burgeoning airwaves at the cost of serious issues - a situation all too convenient for the empowered class engaged in essentially strip-mining the country of its natural resources and filling their own pockets.

A rising middle class is oriented to the West and largely out of touch with the rural and poorer population; income inequality is at horrifying levels and rising. Corruption is rife, and the subject of much public debate. In large parts there is a flight of the affluent class to greener pastures (mostly America and Europe).

Located in a volatile region, this nations territorial disputes abound and two neighbours were (at least until recently) in a state of civil war, one is in the grip of poverty and natural disasters, another is a "failed state" according to Foreign Policy magazine, and yet another is ruled by an uncompromising military junta...

Do you see it? Do you see this sad country?

That's India, not Pakistan, as you may have guessed already - from a biased point of view.

Hold that thought.

Cick To Read Further »

On SMS-speak (or whatever the kids are calling it these days)

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sun, 22 May 2011 03:40:00 +0000

Seriously, people. It isn't "tat" or "dat". It's THAT. See also, dis, dere, n, whr, u, c, fr, tk, cr, AARGH. Does typing one extra alphabet really give you Carpal Tunnel? I can understand (not like mind you, but understand) people using SMS-speak on a cellphone with a T9 keyboard; but if/ when you have a full QWERTY at your disposal, why not use it?

Also someone explain to me the value in changing "My" to "Ma". I was talking about this the other day with a friend of mine and we both thought it senseless because it doesn't actually save any keystrokes. in fact, on a full QWERTY keyboard the m and the y are closer together than the m and the a. So unless you are a Chicago gangster asking his crack gang to "go back to ma crib n hang" you really shouldn't be invoking your dear old ma.

While on a and m... no, sweetykins, sentences DO NOT begin with a fucking Am. You can't say "Am going here" when you mean "I'm going here". Phonetic equivalence be damned. We aren't speaking Spanish where you can officially shorten "Yo verbo" to just "Verbo" and everyone knows what you're saying.

It isn't cool to use SMS-speak. Really. It's more like irritatingly idiotic. It indicates a lack of patience, polish, and an all round retardedness that is a major turn-off.

So, u no... tk ur fking crp ls-whr /rant

Next time on Grumpy Old Troll - making paragraphs out of your indecipherable blocks of text in an email...

Of Moments

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:40:00 +0000

I've stood upon a beach
At dawn
Felt sand at my feet
And marvelled
At the stars overhead, infinite

I've stood atop a forest
In the morn
Breathed in the wooden smells
And gaped
At life's myriad battles, unending

I've stood by a river
At noon
Toes buried in the loam
And stared
At ripples over the water, ephemeral

I've stood on busy streets
In the afternoon
With sweat on my brow
And wondered
At the bustling people, uncounted

I've stood by towers mighty
In the evening
Hands in empty pockets
And goggled
At ambition that blocks the sky, unchained

I've stood by my beloved, fast asleep,
In the middle of night
The world a mere whisper at my ear
And felt awed
By the promise of love, unconditional

I sit now and ponder
About the times I've seen
A smile on my lips, and a tear in my eye
And am overcome
By this heady mix, of moments...

Open Letter to Nat Geo, Discovery, and Ilk

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:16:00 +0000

O Mighty Custodians of Popular History and Science,

I'm tired of most of your programming.

I'm tired of programs that rehash the same history/ science and pretend to be new. I'm tired of Penguins, Nazis, King Tut, Polar Bears, Aliens, Tigers, Mythical Monsters, 2012, Nostradamus, Dinosaurs, Black Holes, Whales, and UFOs. If I had to put a number on it - looks like I'm tired of 80% of your content! (Pareto - it gets everywhere, what can I say!)

I hate how your programs feature silken-voiced narrators who pose rhetorical questions about the most banal things before a commercial break to build "suspense". For example: Narrator says "Could the team on the verge of proving Einstein wrong?... fade to Kellogs Corn Flakes commercial. Seriously? Dude, wasn't it obvious from the past 40 minutes of jabber that the old master WAS in fact wrong about some things? Your whole program was predicated on that. For all I care, the program TITLE was "Einstein's Greatest Mistakes".

Cick To Read Further »

Complexity

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:38:00 +0000

The world is complex.

This simple admission is too much for most to stomach.

“No!” they protest, “when you think about it, when you break it down to manageable pieces, within the context, it is not that complicated at all! Why...” and then they proceed to stop thinking, start believing, and disseminate said belief, in manageable pieces and within the context, of course. Except soon that context will be stripped off and said belief will become an unassailable truth, an axiom of civilization!

Consider a student, young and of nimble mind, toiling away at his lessons. He has been told by all quite often that his lessons will determine his life's direction, its quality, and content. He works away, devouring knowledge that everyone agrees is relevant and germane… and yet that knowledge is not the only determinant of his future, nor is it even the most important determinant. What is? How the fuck would I know? The world is complex!

Causality is a fact, undeniable, enshrined in the very nature of the universe we inhabit. That is not to say however, that it can be gleaned by any human. These waters are muddy, and those on the quest to uncover the bottom only succeed in kicking up more silt.

And yet there are those that take whatever glimmer they caught of some causal relationship and they peddle it as the truth. Within context, initially, until one day it becomes the whole truth,the truth of their existence, and of all existence,the prime mover, the cause at the beginning of all causes! Until one day it becomes a cause of its own, and then they come down the mountain and crush all dissent…

Their certainty, you see – their faith in the veracity of that glimmer – is the most dangerous thing in the world; not only when they are wrong, but also – and especially – when they are partly right. For then this certainty, bolstered with a smattering of evidence, and a throng of believers, makes them… zealots.

Cick To Read Further »

The Great Malazan Re-Read

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:25:00 +0000

As many of the readers of this blog will know "The Malazan Book of the Fallen" is a ten part series, written by Steven Erikson (SE) that I first started reading in May 2005. It is (in my rather informed opinion, if you allow the hubris) one of, if not the best high fantasy - or for that matter SciFi and Fantasy (SF&F) - set of books/ series out there now.

When I first read it, my fantasy obsession was in full bloom, although it was not yet the lifestyle it is now. I proudly claimed to have "evolved" in my reading, starting from Tolkein/ Clarke/ Asimov to Robert Jordan to Stephen King to... and so on until I read Stephen Donaldson. (Aside: a retrospective from back then on the old blog: My Fantasy Bibiliospective).

I thought I had read everything there was to read.

As stupid statements go, that one was... really stupid, because with my discovery of"Gardens of the Moon", the opening volume of the series (from a hearty recommendation by Donaldson on his site), I was about to be blown away. Never before or since have I found anything that comes close in the genre for sheer scope of imagination, expert story-telling, or literary significance (yes, that old chestnut!).

Cick To Read Further »

On Being A Generalist (BA)

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:54:00 +0000

A colleague and friend of mine (Anupam) posted an opinion on the virtues of being a generalist Business Analyst (BA) vs being a specialist BA. He seems to be leaning toward saying specialists have an easier life and that being a specialist overall is better.

As a generalist (and coincidentally a BA) myself, I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint! :) Enough to bring me out of my blogging semi-retirement. (Well, more like laziness induced inertia)

First, check out his post here: http://www.upmaan.com/2010/06/15/are-you-a-generalist-business-analyst/ For those too lazy/ unable to do so, rather than quoting him wholesale here, I'll attempt to summarize each of his points and rebut:

Cick To Read Further »

From The Darkness, Light

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sun, 02 May 2010 04:12:00 +0000

A vast darkness, not empty at all, but full of... things.

Colossal clouds of matter, luminous and dark, constantly in flux, morphing anew into shapes and essences and structures wondrous and complex and astonishingly ephemeral. A superstructure one cannot begin to grasp or visualize, let alone comprehend. A wild dance of chaos and order hurtling, hurtling, and in spite of all the matter and all that energy in eternal conflict, all is eerily silent.

I am falling.

Riotous colors assault me. Blue and yellow, red and green, orange and purple; and yet the inky blackness pervades all; my very soul. Yet I hear nothing, can utter no sound, no screams, no howl of wind; so I imagine one for myself. I am cold; so very cold - yet I am on fire. A remote speck of light in what was a blinding, remote array but a moment ago suddenly surrounds me, as though it were a universe by all by itself, it snatches me from the inky shroud and fills my world with blinding light.

They are dancing.

Globes of fearsome majesty move along in tune to an unheard melody. Strands of light stretch between them, faintly glowing as if they were the trails of their motion from ages past. And yet they last for only an instant in time... their own tiny era... before they dissolve. Dissolution is everywhere now... this cloud is dying. Slowly, and gracefully, but surely. I stifle the inevitable sob, the aching despair, even as I dance myself, to that melody... and the cloud is past me.

And then I see it.

Another cloud, as though a disc, spinning, its tentacles reaching out and whipping back, a whirlpool of light and matter. It is my objective - it ever was. Not its center, no, that place is for the behemoths that will not be denied. A remote corner instead, away from their pull, away from... everything.

Then I hear them. Others. For the first time, others!

The inky black makes way for another yellow globe, and the littler globes around it. I am upon one of the smaller globes now, where I hear them... I really hear them. Screaming, laughing, speaking, crying, moving, shaping, struggling, mating, living, dying. There are billions, here, suddenly, there are billions! I call to them myself, in exhilaration I finally let voice to that vast emptiness I have been lugging around... and they ignore me! ME!

But I will not be denied. I have traveled too far, too long. An explosion then, of heat, and light; a roar to quell their voices for one moment, so they see I am come. I darken the sky they look at with wonder, scarcely knowing what lies beyond; and for that reason their wonder is inadequate. I hasten to show them.

Look! This is your universe, as it is mine. I have seen it, and you have not. See it for yourself - look! You need no names, no comprehension, no words, just to look. To be drawn in and be buffeted by this majesty. To look beneath and beyond the obvious, to the essence of things and thought.

They fall to their feet. Not in wonder, but - to my anguish - in fear. They chant and burn things. They kill and offer. They cajole and rail, and worst of all, they close their eyes and bow their heads. They seem to think I care. They seem to think I know. They seem to... live and die... for me?

For the first time, then, incredulous, I laugh, and they cower some more. So it is, to the moment I depart...

Once again, falling... seeking...

Admit to Complexity

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:41:00 +0000

Complexity. Nuance. More grays, less black and white. Please! The popular media, the public conscious, zeitgeist - whatever you call it is so obsessed with reducing things to anecdotes and representative summaries/ cliches that aren't that representative at all.

I know, I know... what's the point in blogging for the first time in six months and wailing on a point that is essentially a corollary of the previous post?

Well... I watched Avatar, that's why. Yes, patient reader, I shall explain. In a longish rant (I feel your chagrin).

To dismiss it as eye candy (or a play on "Dances with Wolves") would only prove the point I'm trying to make and add me to the count of the unwashed masses I decry. It is a phenomenon of computer imagery and sound design and whatnot. But at its core, it is yet another big-ass rip off of Joseph Campbell's mono-myth, with a dash of Gaia-ism, anti-Bush/ war/ Blackwater rhetoric and a big dose of "John Carter of Mars" and "Midnight Tides".

To the uninitiated, John Carter of Mars is a series of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs (he of Tarzan fame) about an American on deathbed who finds himself transported to Mars in the blink of an eye, discovers he has superpowers while there, joins a clan of Martian warriors (Martians come in green or red or yellow skin if memory serves, and call their planet Barsoom), marries a princess, defends against fanatics, tames a six-legged steed (no dragon here) and so on... until one day he is the "warlord of Mars"; sound familiar? Well, these books got written somewhere in the last century.

Midnight Tides is the fifth book in the Malazan Book of the Fallen saga by Steven Erikson. It tells the story of how a capitalist empire (Lether) which has already subsumed many indigenous civilizations by trade-craft and war finally meets it match at the hands of a very war-like if fallen (grey skinned) civilization known as the Tiste Edur. One of the primary characters of the book is a Letherii man responsible for studying/ helping destroy several civilizations in the past who this time around intends to betray Lether and make it eat crow...

Fanboy tangents apart, here's the thing: both Burroughs' Barsoom and Erikson's writing feature a beautiful world with imaginative flora and fauna, and the authors (more so for the latter) in broad strokes paint a narrative that is far more complex and real than Avatar. In other words, they do everything on a page that Avatar does on screen, and then they do a lot more.

Someone said to me, this movie is more of an experience than a story; and I agree completely... it is a superlative experience (as I tweeted the morning after I saw it). But did it also have to be so f**king dumb and derivative?

In the translation from page to screen these days (and hardly anyone would argue that the zeitgeist is now ruled by the screen more than the page) we lose all manner of nuance that would otherwise make things much more worthwhile. For that matter, if you read the scriptment that Cameron had written for Avatar years ago, in its 70 odd pages it had a lot more meat on the bone than what's in the final movie. Where did it go?

Cameron hardly had Hollywood suits breathing down his back asking him to make the movie merchandise or lowest common denominator friendly (one assumes)! He calls himself an auteur (and he is, technically) but seriously - this is an Eragon-esque story that a teenager could belt out in a year or so of effort. This took him a decade and a half?

Movies - science fiction movies - like the Matrix and Blade Runner and The Fountain (and many more) have come out over the last three decades that frankly don't allow people like Cameron the excuse of having to make their work "accessible". Can anyone honestly say Cameron shouldn't have spent another - oh, 5 million - and come up with a better story?

Now all this said, the truth is Avatar and movies like it will remain the gateways, nay the gatekeepers for a vast majority of people to the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy literature and imagination. That is not a bad thing. If I'd been twelve years old and had never seen a science fiction flick in my life, Avatar would be enough of an excuse to become a fanboy, buy every toy that comes out, devour all spin-off comics and books, and dive deep into SF&F. Hopefully I would still end up discovering the joys of Erikson and Dan Simmons (whose Hyperion Cantos featured the concept of uploading your consciousness to a cosmic network by the way) and others that are devastatingly good.

But guess what? I'm not twelve any more, and I prefer my Oz to be closer to Kansas!

Heed the Ent

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sat, 30 May 2009 04:07:00 +0000

In my first year as an I.T. professional, I took pride in being a perfectionist. I was - and in a more conciliatory way, still am - anal-retentive about grammar. Good vocabulary was something I commanded and demanded from those that wrote to me - use the perfect word, or shut up. I was a formatting freak - font sizes, margins, table widths, spreadsheet colours - everything had to meet a standard at once sober and functional. Every document of the many I wrote had footnotes, explications, counter-points, whatnot. If a point was not precisely and accurately made, I thought it better not to make it.

I would pore over the finished draft of each email, each document, each presentation and spreadsheet (you can tell I never wrote a line of code to save my life!) for several minutes; read them over twice/ thrice before sending them out. I would often re-word/ refine/ explicate something in that last minute review leading to much self-congratulation.

And of course after all this, the stuff I sent out always had glaring mistakes I would only notice the next day, week, or month. This is the best cautionary tale I can tell for the point I make below.

This was all before we truly entered the age of Facebook feeds, single paragraph blogs updated with posts every hour, Twitter feeds where 'no post over 130 characters' is supposedly a good thing(!), and 24x7 news where everyone has news and analysis, but where you have to dig through piles upon piles of absolute horseshit to get one long-term, panoramic perspective!

It is fitting that in this "fast-paced" world we are working on constantly increasing the volume and "instantaneousness" of information available for consumption. It certainly fits in with the fast food, fast car, private space, romance by email and Facebook culture we live in. It is also fitting that just as I am working on turning thirty, I should publish this post complaining not that I can't keep up with technology, but that in some instances such as the ones cited, technology and the ways in which the media - both organized and 'web 2.0' - is using it, are a complete disservice to mankind. That I'm doing it online I think shows that I am not a crusty old technophobe - that I'm doing it at all shows I'm not 'with the times'!

Folks, think about this piece of Entish wisdom spouted by Treebeard in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: "You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."

It is perilous to constantly reduce the distance between (if not to short circuit) thought and broadcast, emotion and reaction, event and news report; it is prudent to be a little long form, a little elaborate, a little considerate, deliberate, and less prolific in what we say, and do.

I don't fear the 'oops' email where you end a friendship at 3 a.m. with an ill thought jibe; I fear that in this day and age, whether you are a private citizen or (worse) a media person, or (even worse) a public figure, once it's out there, it's out there. And if it is ill-thought out, it will do damage. So my friends:

Fear the tweet, heed the Ent! Out!

On Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:22:00 +0000

Mr Churchill, erstwhile PM of the UK said on the floor of the House of Commons on the 11th of November, 1947 that "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Said quote having been beaten to death from time to time by many a commenter to justify everything from fascism to electronic voting to pornography. The key to (ab)using the quote lies of course in paraphrasing it, emphasizing a word or two to change it's meaning (emphasize "tried" for instance in the last bit and the meaning changes completely, opening the field for the user to propose an entirely new form of government for trying!) or simply going full anon with ; 'Someone once said' and then proceed to cast aspersions on their intellect and/ or intent. That can be done with any good quote, whether actually uttered by a dignitary or made up on the spot (full disclosure: I've often made up quotes for school/ college essays, and mostly attribute them to Bertrand Russell - a man hardly anyone has read and who could plausibly have had an opinion on anything).

But I digress. This here is supposed to be a meditation on Democracy. More specifically Representative Democracy.

The infamous "they" say democracy in general started with ancient Greece of course, and conjure up images of potbellied, half-robed, and flaxen-bearded sophists gathering in yonder agora for a good spot of drunk verbal jousting. They also say the tradition spilled over into Rome where unfortunately some bloke called Julius had other ideas.

This is hogwash, of course... for one thing Greek democracy (particularly in fabled Athens) was participatory, not representative, and although Aristotle did say (and condemn many of us, myself included)" "To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god!", what us modern people fail to acknowledge is that Graeco-Roman citizenship was exclusive! Women, 'barbarians', and slaves had no vote, no say. Citizenship was for the privileged few.

This was probably for the best because a) it cut down the number of participants in the debate in yon fabled agora and b) it probably cut out the 'salt of the earth, unwashed masses' types who wouldn't be 'wise' in the Socratic sense anyway.

Of course, beyond early Rome, there were few instances of even semi-democratic republics (unless there were some in Africa that got wiped out by slavers before the historians knew it). In India for instance, the authority and dharma of kings were institutionalized by many means, not least through religion, but also through the works of Chanakya and his ilk.

So let us then fly past the monarchies and the feudalism and imperialism and fascism and communism with scarce concern and arrive at a seminal epoch - Earth circa 1947, post World War II, when Imperialism was in its death throes and the cognoscenti were mostly nodding their heads in acquiescence when Mr. Churchill said what he did. The consensus was, 'Democracy Rocks'.

The consensus also was that we needed a more... acceptable way to keep the unwashed masses in check than slavery or the denial of suffrage to women, both of which the western cognoscenti now considered despicable, although their own Bibles silently (for the former) or actively (for the latter) encouraged the practices. Fear not, for the Brits and Yanks had in the time past come up with practical representative democracy, which they proceeded to prescribe to a world in flux.

Representative democracy is convenient to the cognoscenti. It is power in the hands of a representative who, by definition, will be elected from among 'the best of us'. S/he will be more qualified, better educated, wiser etc. than the people s/he represents. "More qualified" is the new "Powerful"; "Wiser" the new "Manly"; and "Politically connected" the new "Royal". Which is sort of predictable when one frames the descriptions in a post-industrial, faux-egaletarian, more crowded, and income-gap ridden world.

It would be tedious now to walk you through the dense history of the past sixty-two odd years, so instead take a moment to view the rushes: democracy fails (for the most part) in Africa, flounders (for the most part) in Asia and South America, takes on a local, somewhat corrupt but vibrant flavor in India, and finds zealot levels of belief in North America and western Europe. (we will conveniently forget the Middle East and anything west of India for the length of our discussion, where the black gold seems adequate reason for the prescribers to withold prescription from time to time e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

Of course, the prescribers do get an anomalous zealot elected to high office in the last 9 years of this period who foolishly starts, well, prescribing zealously... but then his work will (one assumes) be undone in a few years to come.

More pertinently in the here and now, the world's largest democracy is currently in high gear, electing officials to various levels of office. We vote in millions, for reasons as varied as from a bottle of free booze to a high falutin philosophy. Every one of my closet elitist friends is afraid Mayawati will be PM (perhaps not recognizing that maybe Mayawati being PM is the logical next step in the emancipation of the under-privileged). The dance of democracy, that imperfect goddess, is in full flow.

So here's my question: Why hasn't anyone pointed out the obvious? That democracy, in the cosmic scheme of things, is only a recent invention with an at best spotty track record?

Why isn't anyone concerned that in most democracies (India, the US, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan for about ten years of its sixty year lifetime) seems to give the world as many (albeit less potent or long lived) dynasties as any other form of government?

Why isn't anyone concerned, (this is most puzzling for me) that the cognoscenti everywhere seem to be alternately at war with or engaged in manipulating and hoodwinking the very masses they want to serve?

Why aren't we concerned in this age of information and the world wide web that although participatory democracy is actually almost feasible in this day and age, we ('wisely') still stick to the representative variant? Why aren't we concerned about the obvious focussing (and consequent abuse) of power this allows?

Think about it - a voting machine on every street corner, that uses biometrics to establish identity, and on a timebound basis allows you to vote yea or nay on not representatives, but issues, bills, and propositions before local, state, and national governments.

Does that really sound so impractical or unreasonable? Why have elections where we exercise our right every few years? Let the 'unwashed masses' of yore rule, continously. Remove this creamy layer of elected officials. Let the bureaucrats get their instruction directly from the public they serve! Sure, we'll probably see a guillotine or three, and almost certainly have a couple of wars and a disastrous foreign policy for a while... but hey, it will be the people's rule.

Perhaps government will break down and political parties will transmogrify into lobbying groups - people wont vote on issues unless they have their skin in the game somehow. Certainly people like me who wax eloquent about their apathy and agnosticism will not bother to vote every hour or day or week when we don't vote every few years! Perhaps the litany of boredom that is governance will actually put most voters to sleep...

But doesn't all this happen anyway? Wouldn't true technology-enabled participatory democracy be democracy in all her glory?

More to come... out!

Politics and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:50:00 +0000

Let me start out with a confession that will shock no one (it should) and concern even fewer people (which is tragic). In my life of just over 28 years, having lived in India from birth for the most part, except a four year spell in the US, I probably know more about the constitution and politics of that land than I do of my own. Head hanging appropriately shamed, the only mitigation that comes to mind is the fact that I really did not know/ care about politics until a few years ago, so in some sense I 'awoke' while in the US. I must also say my taste for politics was defined and honed by a spectacular TV show - "The West Wing", which in itself is, over its seven seasons a course in liberal American politics.

Growing up in India, politics was always something you tapped your nose about and sighed knowingly (although you knew nothing). The thing to do for those my age was to say we thought politics was dirty. Of course, if you pressed us for detail, we could respond with scant little other than a few movie references; or perhaps with some headlines that had pierced the indulgent media cloud that was forming around us. We laughed at Laloo, tut-tutted the Thackerays (and turned up our noses at those who wouldn't), and stared slack-jawed at Jayalalitha without bothering to understand.

I never got that these politicians who obsessed about things we cared nothing about (suitcases filled with cash, endangered ethnic identities, and buffalo care) were in fact representing us, our ideas and ideals, our hopes, dreams, nightmares, and philosophies. Until far too recently, I couldn't tell a leftist from a right-wing nationalist or a centrist if my life depended on it... curious, because I had spent hours obsessing about the very philosophies that they espoused.

My otherwise trivia-obsessed mind never drew lines to connect Lenin and Trotsky with a Naxalite or a Jyoti Basu, or Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan with Montek Singh Ahluwalia and P Chidambaram. Laughable as it sounds, I was obsessed with understanding some philosophies of economics and governance without recognizing they local variants!

Fast forward to 2009... and we are in the thick of an election season. Another confession - I haven't voted this time (registration and location issues were a convenient excuse) but before you cite all the damn Tata Tea Jaago re commercials let me explain why.

If there is a sin I am guilty of, it is apathy. I don't glory in the fact that I have the wherewithal to admit it where a lot of others don't. I also don't want to propose any solutions or remedies to my condition because, well, I am apathetic to it. Anyway, this blog isn't about what I propose to do about it. This is, (to borrow a wonderful phrase from R Scott Bakker, whose mind-blowing book "The Judging Eye" I am currently reading) an attempt to analyze 'the darkness that comes before'.

Why is it that I am apathetic?

First of all, I don't have too many problems with the way India is run. I am rich enough, escapist enough, and 'travel-enabled' enough to have all these problems seem distant. I live in a gated community that charges premiums on everything to make sure only the 'elite' live here. The beggars on the street are a dull buzz outside my air-conditioned car. I have a good job, eat well, drink expensive, and am allowed to live in a cocoon of my own design.

In fact, if there were one difference between me and the pre-ascetism Prince Siddartha (beside the fact that no banyan tree is going to see me get turned into a Buddha any time soon), it would be that I've had more than the fabled four moments of 'realization' - I've seen poverty, and death, and hunger, and pain, et al - and I walked on past them. Maybe ascetism (or a realization that my comforts are holding me back) is needed before one is truly enlightened, but I am selfish and blase enough to deny myself denial.

The fact is that in a complex reality like India, I am in the minority in the class sense. I don't have tales to tell of a childhood of poverty that I had to pull myself out of by my bootstraps. I was well-provided for - coddled, actually - as a child, and the only difference between me as an adult is now I know where the money comes from!

But then apathy isn't all that keeps me from being political. There is perhaps a deeper reason - my agnosticism.

Another reality is that I just can't tell the difference between political parties and philosophies in India. They are peopled with semi-senile geriatrics or dynastic mediocres who think power is their birthright, for the most part. I do see once firebrand revolutionaries and activists reduced to the role of ignorant yet arrogant pimps in the horse-trading games that repeat at each level of government. Quid pro quo is not only the way in India, it seems to the guiding philosophy!

To vote, to be politically active, is to make a choice and to be convinced of a direction and a philosophy/ vision. I am, first and foremost, a disgusted agnostic.

If I were to have political opinion, I suspect I would be labeled a conservative in India; against unchecked free markets, against invasive government, against affirmative action, for aggressive and engaged foreign policy (particularly projection of regional power), for devolution of power to the states, for uniform civil codes and several key constitutional amendments (beginning with the removal of 'socialist' from the pre-amble, which to my mind is an anachronism now), etc.

To be sure even these opinions sit in my mind with a hundred caveat emptors and while I lean in those directions, I haven't made up my mind.

It is perhaps that hesitation, that recognition that today's just cause could well be tomorrow's grave error (or genocide without the need for brute force) is what keeps me in my stall while all the other horses are running around. I am genuinely afraid of political/ activist passion.

Given that believing/ doing something might not work out for the best, I resign myself to believing/ doing nothing with any force. (I'm not a nihilist - just an armchair commentator with mild preferences).

This is made further strange that my parents are activists, and always have been. They have stated preferences and they do what they say they should. From my earliest days I have seen them fight for some social cause or other (although, it must be said they too for the most part shun the regular channels of elective politics and believe more in people's movements).

I think I am beginning to understand now why I didn't ever feel like jumping in and helping them... first of all, the family dynamic never behooved me to do it just to please them, and secondly, somewhere in my subconscious sits an agnostic sage with the advice:

"Believe nothing, and be wary of passion; passion leads to unreason"

I know that sounds smug and convenient... but not to me. I can't say I've lived by that statement all of the time, but I can confidently say I have most of the time.

Anyway... I just realized I've gone past the point where this post could've had a good punchy finish, and into ramble territory.

So let me conclude by saying... I am a political work in progress... and might - just might - vote the next time. Assuming all things don't remain equal...

Indian Premier Lame

noreply@blogger.com (Hrishikesh Diwan) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:11:00 +0000

Yes dang it, I know. Tis the big show, the holy TV pilgrimage for most Indians these days. The most cash-rich sports league in the nation. A breath of fresh air in the cricketing world. A way to build bench strength in Indian cricket more effective than any before it. A marketer's dream come true (even with the move to rain-plagued South Africa). A celebrity making device for Lalit Modi and an ego-stroking device for Shah Rukh Khan. Another way for Indians to waste their time listening to Shilpa Shetty wax eloquent about things she doesn't know. And an opportunity for that host guy who sits with Arun Lal in what the wife tells me are the most atrociously put together clothing ensembles beyond what's in my closet.

But, with apologies, it is an exercise in Lame. Fail. Cannot haz cheezburgr.

First of all: Bangalore Royal Challengers, Kolkata Knight Riders, Chennai Super Kings? Are you kidding me? A nation of over one billion and we can't come up with names not inspired by booze, a dumb but fun David Hasselhoff show that was badly remade last year, or whatever it is Super Kings is based on (cigarettes maybe)?

Secondly: there is a singular lack of differentiation between the teams. Watching , I just can't pick favorites. One problem is, there's nothing particularly Mumbai about the Mumbai Indians. You could call them the Bhatinda Brawlers, make Bhajji captain, and be the same team (of course, you'd need an international venue in Bhatinda)! Why aren't the teams regionalized? Well, I understand why, and they are good reasons, but at least do *some* zoning to make sure the teams can capitalize on the regional identities they have embedded on their names, and pick players from, you know, the city they claim to be from? If they were truly regional, we'd get some nice fanbases delineated... at this point, I just can't cheer for a favorite because I'm having a tough time telling them apart. (the garish uniforms do help in this regard and have ensured that I will never cheer for Mohali with their hint of pink, or the wife for the garish red Mallya team, whatever it's called).

Which brings me to how there just isn't enough of a team image/ reputation yet, and the owners/ players are just too damn polite (of course with Shah Rukh Khan, its hard to get the maniac to comment on anything or anyone other than himself, so...). Some marketing guy needs to tell them to sling mud at each other, get some rivalries going, and make this interesting. They can't do that right now because its like the Buddy League where losing captains go pat the back of the winning one over a beer at the end of the day. Where's the venom? I thought the whole reason why cricket got boring and T20 had to be invented was that it was, you know, sedate. Lose a little more of 'gentlemanliness'... the Aussies will teach you!

Third: They really need to move back to India. Or don't call it what it is called now. That move made me angry, and just added more dollops of lame to the lame sundae.

And finally, either get the cheerleaders less clothes, teach them to dance, or get them a damn half-time show so they do more than just randomly flail around on the sidelines.

Anyway, I feel slightly sullied by the fact that I've actually blogged about sports now - me, with my history of playing no Cricket other than EA Sports' excellent Cricket '97 on the PC, or golf on Wii Sports. So I'm off to take a bath. Out.