It could have been a day of celebration but it wasn’t.
A boy was born. A new life had joined the legacy of men. The continuation of the blood line was assured.
His father could have danced with joy at the news and dragged his friends, his brothers and his cousins in the merriment. Perhaps his mother would have liked the baby to rest in his grandfather’s arms and to see the old man touch the baby’s tiny fingers to trace any familiar imprint. Or maybe both the parents would have liked to hold the baby close and wait for his face to wrinkle into a smile. Maybe they would have searched for resemblances in the tiny form that was looking at them.
Is the baby’s dimple a little bit like his wife’s cheeks when he kisses her unawares? Or those eyes narrowed into an almost-frown, don’t they remind her of the way her husband devours the newspaper at night?
Maybe.
It could have been a possible narrative but that’s not how the story eventually unravelled.
There must have been some celebration and of that we have no doubt. The mother must have smiled with joy when the mid-wife showed her the living breathing crying form that emerged from her. One of the nurses must have uttered ‘congratulations’ and in an unguarded moment she must have been elated at what took place.
It’s clear the father was not present when it happened. Or if he was, it’s likely that for one whole minute or maybe two or three, he must have felt proud of having fathered a son. He must have looked in the mirror and felt confident that his lineage wouldn’t disappear. Maybe it was only later in the night when she phoned him to discuss the matter, celebration must have turned into panic.
How could they be proud of a bundle of shame? How could they hold this evidence of a love that shouldn’t have crossed a certain line in the first place? Who among their own kinsfolk will ever dote on the little child when he makes a fuss like babies usually do? Won’t he always be a cruel reminder of the parent’s folly and their loss of honour in the town where they lived?
So when they finally took the decision, she knew that this was the last time she would ever hold this baby like the mother she was to him. He bought her the pink blanket even though she asked him to choose a different colour. It would solve the problem, he told her and she was too tired to argue.
She gave him a bath and resisted the urge to feel involved when she saw that he enjoyed playing with water despite crying out loudly. Then she decided to feed him herself, and had to look away when she noticed the baby was feeling comfortable in her arms. She was too vulnerable at this stage and could change her decision at any moment but knew they had made an agreement and it was done for love. Love. Their love for each other. After all, that’s what mattered at this moment for her, and for him, too, she thought.
He didn’t want to upset her any further and decided to drive to the mosque himself. He told her that he’ll do so quietly and ensure that he won’t attract any attention. She asked him not to trouble her with details but just do what they agreed since she felt that any additional information will only crumble her resolve and show him how weak she really was. It was too late for debates and discussion, she told him, it is time for action. She didn’t agree but thought that was what he wanted to hear.
That night she couldn’t sleep and wondered what might have happened. She didn’t have to wait for too long because the very next day, the front page of every newspaper carried the story. It was no longer their dirty secret. It was out in the open now except that no one knew the names of the culprits. She soon found out that the news had hurt an entire nation and many wondered how someone in their midst could do such a thing.
She wasn’t sure whether to be glad at this news or just continue regretting what she should have – naturally – done in the first place
The only thought troubling her was that from now on, for her son, she would be the very definition of his idea of abandonment. And that hurt. Badly.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Expat Kids
It happened again.
I was at a party where a group of expats were talking about the hollowness of expat life, which was fine because it’s an opinion that sounds fascinating only in the telling and not necessarily due to any intrinsic merit. It’s the kind of topic that can be lovingly embellished with all the sarcasm one can find and still gasp for more.
And at a party, what else do you need?
I don’t want to reveal the nationalities of these expats since it would be quite pointless doing so. It’d only reinforce some generalisations and that’s something I don’t want to do. Generalisations are a useful crutch for the intellectually lazy but it can be cruel when it becomes the sole prop for knowing, understanding... and even defining people groups. Now that is a topic for a separate blog-post altogether since it also happens to be one of my pet peeves.
Generalisations never fail to agitate me and, more so, when it is spouted by people who are educated, articulate and well-travelled.
Maybe it was for this reason a certain generalisation that evening got me seriously annoyed. It’s not that I made a scene at the party and knocked some sense into everyone’s head. I simply stayed silent and listened. I wanted to know what kind of embellishments will be given to this particular generalisation and what new nugget of information was I going to learn this time.
One of the expats in the group exclaimed that expat kids – or rather, ones who grew up here in Bahrain – have led a rather privileged and 'deprived' life and then went on to say that children in his home country lead more exciting lives. He described his own childhood to be full of rich experiences that expat kids only read about or get to watch only on their TV screens. Suddenly everyone seemed to be in agreement and began adding their comments, insights, what have you.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard anyone make these remarks before and it isn’t the first time that I haven’t heard anything ‘new’ spoken on the subject.
Now I happen to be an ‘expat kid’ myself and so, for me, anything that was said had to be taken personally. The only difference being that since I happen to be in my 40s the others in the group thought I would not only get what they were saying but also agree with them.
Somehow everyone expects that the fortysomethings have already sorted out their existential and identity issues and can be counted upon to give a more experienced argument or a more nuanced tongue lashing against all what ‘expat kids’ stand for. A weird assumption that the confusion expat kids go through lasts only till they are 25 or 27and that when they approach their 30s or get married, somehow by magic, it all goes away and they immediately take on the characteristics, absorb the world view and imbibe the experiences of adults from their home countries. And heaven help an expat-kid in his or her 30s or 40s who dares say this is not so, and speaks candidly of the confusion and identity crisis that’s natural for an expat.
Now I have to say that my life as an expat kid hasn’t been that fantastic and many of my peers would agree with me that being an expat kid is not necessarily very rosy. Our sense of belonging is more conceptual than local since we can’t claim ‘ownership’ over familiar geographical contexts. Our cultural moorings lack any regional or provincial dimension but are a mish-mash of things picked up in our global wanderings. We are always regarded as outsiders no matter where we are because our sense of belonging seems more negotiable than definite. It is for this reason, for example, we can’t apply for any scholarships, fellowships or awards, and in those instances where we do qualify,the fees are on the higher side because it is assumed 'we are floating in oil'.
We have to struggle for everything and work hard to achieve all that we dream about and aspire to reach. We can't claim any concessions or seek some privileges on ethnic grounds. We have to work hard and achieve success or suffer failure on our own steam. We are the default outsider and, hence, the default expendable component in any environment. And since, this has defined our worldview, the pressure to work harder is so much more intense and the need to exceed one's potential and excel is that much more urgent.
Having said this, does it still make us deprived?
Maybe those of us who grew up in Bahrain never had the pleasure of climbing trees, hiking through dense forests on weekends, going to the river for a swim, drinking fresh milk direct from the udder, knowing the names of the different colours one can see in nature or getting wet in the rain... in comparison, our adventures would seem rather mundane: watching TV, listening to 96.5 FM, reading books from the (now closed) British Council Library, cycling through the streets of Manama, hunting for the best shawarma or samboosa, eating hamburger and pizza with friends, playing acrobatics on the bannister, mall cruising and for the present generation... surfing the web in the comforts of one's home.
I suppose , on a purely superficial level, our life does appear rather dull, uninteresting and, yes, 'deprived' in comparison to what children in other countries have to face. Their adventures seem to be far more energetic than the mostly indoors fun that we seem to have grown up with.
But I disagree.
I believe that the wonders of childhood cannot be measured merely by what one has done as a child but by how those experiences end up shaping, informing and influencing the thought patterns and mental make up of one's adult life. And on that score, I think, our life as 'expat-kids' in Bahrain have been a true blessing.
In Bahrain, we have grown up with and have had close interactions with people of various nationalities and cultures, and so, a global world view is not a foreign concept to us. It's what has shaped our social circle since our childhood. Access to entertainment and information from various international sources have enriched our tastes and made us aware of diversity of experiences. It has broadened our cultural contexts and made us aware of a 'different' point of view. Even the so-called negative of not having a place we can call our own is a blessing in disguise because it has protected us from xenophobia, parochialism and narrow loyalties to one's ethnic background.
Now it's not that we've grown up without a sense of our own culture, or some sort of pride in our nation of origin or lacked knowledge of our country's heroes, founding fathers or heart throbs. It's just that we've realised the greatness of our countries does not immediately give them the right to be the centre of the universe. Yes, we do love our countries but we've been made aware that their uniqueness is not an excuse for arrogance but for a humble realisation that this uniquness forms a crucial thread in the vast tapestry of nations that constitute this planet we are part of.
More than anything, a global mindset is one of the biggest blessings any expat-kid can have, and this has been one of the most defining feature of our childhood and adult years.
I must admit that in recent years there has been a negative trend. Many expats have chosen to ghetto themselves in their own ethnic group. A few of them do not mingle with the 'other' and base their opinion on some preconceived notion that they've brought with them from their home country. Generalisations have become the favourite tool in cultural understanding and are robbing the expat population of the dynamism that it is capable of.
But this is just an aberration and cannot be considered a defining feature. At the end of the day, it all depends on individuals and how they see themselves, how they want their children to be, and what is the source of their pride. If they want to enrich themselves with the diversity that's all around, then, they'll be that much more richer and broadened in their mental make up. But if they want to shelter themselves only with people of their colour, race, language and ethnic background, then, they will be the losers.
So are we - expat kids - still leading deprived lives, as the party folks suggested?
Not a chance!!!
I was at a party where a group of expats were talking about the hollowness of expat life, which was fine because it’s an opinion that sounds fascinating only in the telling and not necessarily due to any intrinsic merit. It’s the kind of topic that can be lovingly embellished with all the sarcasm one can find and still gasp for more.
And at a party, what else do you need?
I don’t want to reveal the nationalities of these expats since it would be quite pointless doing so. It’d only reinforce some generalisations and that’s something I don’t want to do. Generalisations are a useful crutch for the intellectually lazy but it can be cruel when it becomes the sole prop for knowing, understanding... and even defining people groups. Now that is a topic for a separate blog-post altogether since it also happens to be one of my pet peeves.
Generalisations never fail to agitate me and, more so, when it is spouted by people who are educated, articulate and well-travelled.
Maybe it was for this reason a certain generalisation that evening got me seriously annoyed. It’s not that I made a scene at the party and knocked some sense into everyone’s head. I simply stayed silent and listened. I wanted to know what kind of embellishments will be given to this particular generalisation and what new nugget of information was I going to learn this time.
One of the expats in the group exclaimed that expat kids – or rather, ones who grew up here in Bahrain – have led a rather privileged and 'deprived' life and then went on to say that children in his home country lead more exciting lives. He described his own childhood to be full of rich experiences that expat kids only read about or get to watch only on their TV screens. Suddenly everyone seemed to be in agreement and began adding their comments, insights, what have you.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard anyone make these remarks before and it isn’t the first time that I haven’t heard anything ‘new’ spoken on the subject.
Now I happen to be an ‘expat kid’ myself and so, for me, anything that was said had to be taken personally. The only difference being that since I happen to be in my 40s the others in the group thought I would not only get what they were saying but also agree with them.
Somehow everyone expects that the fortysomethings have already sorted out their existential and identity issues and can be counted upon to give a more experienced argument or a more nuanced tongue lashing against all what ‘expat kids’ stand for. A weird assumption that the confusion expat kids go through lasts only till they are 25 or 27and that when they approach their 30s or get married, somehow by magic, it all goes away and they immediately take on the characteristics, absorb the world view and imbibe the experiences of adults from their home countries. And heaven help an expat-kid in his or her 30s or 40s who dares say this is not so, and speaks candidly of the confusion and identity crisis that’s natural for an expat.
Now I have to say that my life as an expat kid hasn’t been that fantastic and many of my peers would agree with me that being an expat kid is not necessarily very rosy. Our sense of belonging is more conceptual than local since we can’t claim ‘ownership’ over familiar geographical contexts. Our cultural moorings lack any regional or provincial dimension but are a mish-mash of things picked up in our global wanderings. We are always regarded as outsiders no matter where we are because our sense of belonging seems more negotiable than definite. It is for this reason, for example, we can’t apply for any scholarships, fellowships or awards, and in those instances where we do qualify,the fees are on the higher side because it is assumed 'we are floating in oil'.
We have to struggle for everything and work hard to achieve all that we dream about and aspire to reach. We can't claim any concessions or seek some privileges on ethnic grounds. We have to work hard and achieve success or suffer failure on our own steam. We are the default outsider and, hence, the default expendable component in any environment. And since, this has defined our worldview, the pressure to work harder is so much more intense and the need to exceed one's potential and excel is that much more urgent.
Having said this, does it still make us deprived?
Maybe those of us who grew up in Bahrain never had the pleasure of climbing trees, hiking through dense forests on weekends, going to the river for a swim, drinking fresh milk direct from the udder, knowing the names of the different colours one can see in nature or getting wet in the rain... in comparison, our adventures would seem rather mundane: watching TV, listening to 96.5 FM, reading books from the (now closed) British Council Library, cycling through the streets of Manama, hunting for the best shawarma or samboosa, eating hamburger and pizza with friends, playing acrobatics on the bannister, mall cruising and for the present generation... surfing the web in the comforts of one's home.
I suppose , on a purely superficial level, our life does appear rather dull, uninteresting and, yes, 'deprived' in comparison to what children in other countries have to face. Their adventures seem to be far more energetic than the mostly indoors fun that we seem to have grown up with.
But I disagree.
I believe that the wonders of childhood cannot be measured merely by what one has done as a child but by how those experiences end up shaping, informing and influencing the thought patterns and mental make up of one's adult life. And on that score, I think, our life as 'expat-kids' in Bahrain have been a true blessing.
In Bahrain, we have grown up with and have had close interactions with people of various nationalities and cultures, and so, a global world view is not a foreign concept to us. It's what has shaped our social circle since our childhood. Access to entertainment and information from various international sources have enriched our tastes and made us aware of diversity of experiences. It has broadened our cultural contexts and made us aware of a 'different' point of view. Even the so-called negative of not having a place we can call our own is a blessing in disguise because it has protected us from xenophobia, parochialism and narrow loyalties to one's ethnic background.
Now it's not that we've grown up without a sense of our own culture, or some sort of pride in our nation of origin or lacked knowledge of our country's heroes, founding fathers or heart throbs. It's just that we've realised the greatness of our countries does not immediately give them the right to be the centre of the universe. Yes, we do love our countries but we've been made aware that their uniqueness is not an excuse for arrogance but for a humble realisation that this uniquness forms a crucial thread in the vast tapestry of nations that constitute this planet we are part of.
More than anything, a global mindset is one of the biggest blessings any expat-kid can have, and this has been one of the most defining feature of our childhood and adult years.
I must admit that in recent years there has been a negative trend. Many expats have chosen to ghetto themselves in their own ethnic group. A few of them do not mingle with the 'other' and base their opinion on some preconceived notion that they've brought with them from their home country. Generalisations have become the favourite tool in cultural understanding and are robbing the expat population of the dynamism that it is capable of.
But this is just an aberration and cannot be considered a defining feature. At the end of the day, it all depends on individuals and how they see themselves, how they want their children to be, and what is the source of their pride. If they want to enrich themselves with the diversity that's all around, then, they'll be that much more richer and broadened in their mental make up. But if they want to shelter themselves only with people of their colour, race, language and ethnic background, then, they will be the losers.
So are we - expat kids - still leading deprived lives, as the party folks suggested?
Not a chance!!!
Saturday, July 04, 2009
The Michael Jackson Persona
A week ago Michael Jackson died and the world hasn't been the same.
On one hand tributes are being poured to mourn the loss of one of 20th Century's greatest entertainers and on the other hand there are serious discussions on the phenomenon that Michael was. Nothing surprising about all this since every celebrity death brings out this curious mixture of obituaries and amnesia. It's not that everyone has suddenly forgotten 'wacko jacko' or the oxygen tank or the pet chimp or the possible paedophile or the weird things he did but, somehow, all that is suddenly being explained with a certain degree of nuance. The context is amplified to condone the weirdness as if to say, it was quite normal except for... so and so reasons.
Now I don't expect the media to start lynching the late Michael Jackson so soon after his death but it makes me wonder... why was there so much of silence when he was still alive? If he was truly such a huge phenomenon whose quirks could be explained away, then, why wasn't it done when he was fighting a court case and fighting for his reputation?
I didn't exactly buy the paedophile argument because, somehow, he just came across -- at least, to me -- as a sad and immature and perpetually juvenile case. More weird than criminal. More insane than callous. More of a boy than a man. Thankfully, I haven't had a non-childhood like Michael Jackson and am sure neither did majority of people who disapproved of his lifestyle and the choices he made in life. Hence, we can't even begin to understand what it really means to live in a fish bowl since childhood, being under the glare of the media since the age of ten, being made aware of one's genius throughout one's life and to be constantly surrounded by people who delighted in taking advantage of you.
In some interview, he did comment that he preferred the company of children because they didn't 'see' him as the money making phenomenon that he was and accepted him just the way he was. And just the way he was didn't seem to be quite a pretty sight. The plastic surgeries augmenting some of the flaws he was reminded of. The elaborate wardrobe that seemed to hide the insecure child taught to suppress the boyhood glee. The grown up man unsure of his place in the company of his peers.
Now this is in no way a justification for some of the accusations or even a rationale to what Michael said about it being okay to sleep with little boys. I certainly don't think it's a good thing for any man to do whatever his or mental state may be.
It's just that the more I think of Michael Jackson as a human being, he seems like a truly tragic case. A sad spectacle of a man who was unable to live a full life despite having the resources to do so. Of course, his would be a perfect example of money's inability to buy happiness.
But then, again, if I really think deep into the issue... the obvious fact is, I really don't know Michael Jackson and, for that matter, neither does any of the scribes who have written loud commentaries on his life, his career, his legacy. What I know of him is what the media presented to me and to the rest of the world. We were given an image that we enjoyed and made it part of our lives. And now it is the loss of that image we mourn.
And for that matter, even the criminal Michael Jackson is an image that the media created and presented to us in ways that left many in no doubt about the man's leanings. Two images that were created, nurtured and sustained by a ruthless and insensitive media who saw a goldmine in Michael's rise, success, weaknesses and eventual tragedy.
The entire Michael Jackson phenonmenon -- the good and the bad -- was a media creation that we bought, believed in and made it an integral part of our consciousness. The image was manufactured and so was our response. We played into the hands of a cruel media monster who nurtured this phenomenon and then got bored of him and sought our help in bringing him down.
Unlike other similar casualties of media's cruelty, Michael Jackson had one thing going for him: he was incredibly talented. His music, his dance moves, the concerts and the videos provided a cultural and musical context to much of the 80s and the 90s. He was a one man music industry who was responsible for an album as unique as "Thriller". I'm not sure if any original album has - as yet - been able to surpass the magic of "Thriller" or any performer in recent times who can be such a powerful cultural and musical influence the way Elvis and the Beatles were.
But all that again is just one side of Michael Jackson. The only sad thing is that it is coming under greater scrutiny after his death when it is a little bit too late.
Better late than never, I guess.
On one hand tributes are being poured to mourn the loss of one of 20th Century's greatest entertainers and on the other hand there are serious discussions on the phenomenon that Michael was. Nothing surprising about all this since every celebrity death brings out this curious mixture of obituaries and amnesia. It's not that everyone has suddenly forgotten 'wacko jacko' or the oxygen tank or the pet chimp or the possible paedophile or the weird things he did but, somehow, all that is suddenly being explained with a certain degree of nuance. The context is amplified to condone the weirdness as if to say, it was quite normal except for... so and so reasons.
Now I don't expect the media to start lynching the late Michael Jackson so soon after his death but it makes me wonder... why was there so much of silence when he was still alive? If he was truly such a huge phenomenon whose quirks could be explained away, then, why wasn't it done when he was fighting a court case and fighting for his reputation?
I didn't exactly buy the paedophile argument because, somehow, he just came across -- at least, to me -- as a sad and immature and perpetually juvenile case. More weird than criminal. More insane than callous. More of a boy than a man. Thankfully, I haven't had a non-childhood like Michael Jackson and am sure neither did majority of people who disapproved of his lifestyle and the choices he made in life. Hence, we can't even begin to understand what it really means to live in a fish bowl since childhood, being under the glare of the media since the age of ten, being made aware of one's genius throughout one's life and to be constantly surrounded by people who delighted in taking advantage of you.
In some interview, he did comment that he preferred the company of children because they didn't 'see' him as the money making phenomenon that he was and accepted him just the way he was. And just the way he was didn't seem to be quite a pretty sight. The plastic surgeries augmenting some of the flaws he was reminded of. The elaborate wardrobe that seemed to hide the insecure child taught to suppress the boyhood glee. The grown up man unsure of his place in the company of his peers.
Now this is in no way a justification for some of the accusations or even a rationale to what Michael said about it being okay to sleep with little boys. I certainly don't think it's a good thing for any man to do whatever his or mental state may be.
It's just that the more I think of Michael Jackson as a human being, he seems like a truly tragic case. A sad spectacle of a man who was unable to live a full life despite having the resources to do so. Of course, his would be a perfect example of money's inability to buy happiness.
But then, again, if I really think deep into the issue... the obvious fact is, I really don't know Michael Jackson and, for that matter, neither does any of the scribes who have written loud commentaries on his life, his career, his legacy. What I know of him is what the media presented to me and to the rest of the world. We were given an image that we enjoyed and made it part of our lives. And now it is the loss of that image we mourn.
And for that matter, even the criminal Michael Jackson is an image that the media created and presented to us in ways that left many in no doubt about the man's leanings. Two images that were created, nurtured and sustained by a ruthless and insensitive media who saw a goldmine in Michael's rise, success, weaknesses and eventual tragedy.
The entire Michael Jackson phenonmenon -- the good and the bad -- was a media creation that we bought, believed in and made it an integral part of our consciousness. The image was manufactured and so was our response. We played into the hands of a cruel media monster who nurtured this phenomenon and then got bored of him and sought our help in bringing him down.
Unlike other similar casualties of media's cruelty, Michael Jackson had one thing going for him: he was incredibly talented. His music, his dance moves, the concerts and the videos provided a cultural and musical context to much of the 80s and the 90s. He was a one man music industry who was responsible for an album as unique as "Thriller". I'm not sure if any original album has - as yet - been able to surpass the magic of "Thriller" or any performer in recent times who can be such a powerful cultural and musical influence the way Elvis and the Beatles were.
But all that again is just one side of Michael Jackson. The only sad thing is that it is coming under greater scrutiny after his death when it is a little bit too late.
Better late than never, I guess.
Friday, May 08, 2009
How 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' Made My Weekend
Remakes of popular classics are, by definition, one of the worst possible encroachments on our treasured memories.
The recent Indiana Jones is a perfect example of how a good idea can be ruined by a need to be topical, with-it and savvy. The same goes for the Avengers movie, which shouldn't have been produced in the first place, as well as Bewitched, Starsky and Hutch and, yes, Charlies Angels, too.
The unbelievable Star Wars prequel trilogy (must find a suitable title for those three movies) was another sad instance of an attempt to revive a franchise and ending up with something else altogether. I'm sure the jury is still out on that one and while it can be said that Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader was shown as a tragedy in the classical sense nevertheless one couldn't help asking, but why on earth? I've yet to see the new Star Trek movie and since it's about Kirk and Spock's early years... one can only hope that the obvious need to extend this franchise is done in more subtle ways.
Having made my distaste for re-makes quite clear, I need to point out that there can be a few exceptions, too.
It's really not possible to satisfy anyone with remakes because the original usually is so much part of a certain era's cultural landscape that a remake just doesn't succeed in reconnecting that past. Some would say that's not the idea of remakes in the first place and the only purpose is to show that the 'story' or 'plot' is relevant across generations, and still has the capability of registering profits for studios. This could be right in a way because Charlies Angels the movie is so far removed from Charlies Angels the tv show. Those of us who grew up watching the show found it a bit hard to relate with the fast-paced, sexually charged, campy look of the movie even though the show had all these elements but not in such obvious ways. Maybe we were just too fixated on Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd... and somehow however attractive the new Angels were, they were no match for the original threesome. Alright, I'm just being biased, that's all.
And this brings me to last week's DVD that I rented and inspired this post.
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" comes with two discs -- the original 1951 version and the new Keanu Reeves version. I didn't grow up with the original and so there were no cultural or emotional milestones that connected me with the original. To me it was just another black and white movie produced long before I was born or even thought of. The new version is lot closer to my cultural experience and should resonate with what I'm expected to appreciate.
What I did, however, was to watch both movies back-to-back to get a sense of how a plot could be 'adapted' and 're-made' for a new generation that has no 'link' with what people in the 50s experienced. And it would be no exagerration to say that it was quite an eye-opener and one of the most delightful experiences I've had for a long, long time. It has to be added that this 'delightful experience' had nothing to do with the merits of both the movies and more to do with the similarities and dissimilarities that I noticed between the two.
The film is essentially about a flying saucer that lands on Earth and an alien named Klaatu walks out of the saucer alongwith a robot named Gort. Klaatu comes in peace but gets shot by an overenthusiastic military personnel and is promptly hospitalised. The 'government machinery' is suspicious of his intentions and has him apprehended but Klaatu escapes and a manhunt ensues. He warns of an impending apocalyptic scenario unless people of the earth change their ways and it is left up to ordinary citizens to show him that the Earth is not such a bad place, and we earthlings should be given a chance. In both versions, he prefers relaying his message not to one nation but to all nations that represent the planet, and this suggestion is not appreciated by the powers-that-be that are in contact with him.
It's amazing how we have this love-hate relationship with alien beings. Sometimes we like to show them as ferocious and how alien savagery initiates the process of bringing earthlings together. And then we have these other bewildered aliens who come in peace but are hunted down by angry and paranoid humans. In both cases, it is always the disunity amongst humans that gives these 'alien' plots their driving force... almost as if we're trying to figure out why we hate each other so much and how only an 'outside' force is required to unite us or to tell us that we've lost our way.
The original 1951 movie was made right after the Second World War and has a strong anti-nuclear message. Klaatu says that as long as Earthlings fought amongst each other it was not a problem to other alien beings in the universe. However nuclear energy used for destructive purposes had the possibility of unleashing violence beyond the earth's atmosphere and this was something that the aliens will not tolerate and unless governments on earth promise to eliminate these weapons earth will be safe... if they don't destroy these weapons, then, the aliens will destroy earth before earth becomes a destructive force for other planets.
The new version doesnt use a nuclear holocaust as the 'danger' but the environment becomes the villain and once again a warning is issued that unless earthlings shape up the earth will be destroyed. However, in the current version, the decision is already made and Gort has a more important role in the matter than in the original. While in the earlier version, Gort was subject to Klaatu's commands, nothing much changes in the command structure in the new version except that in the new version Gort is more autonomous and is pre-programmed and Klaatu has to travel through a storm to 'change' the command.
What I found more interesting is that the story's essential premise of the earth gone haywire and its imminent destruction is as relevant today as it was five decades ago. Nuclear holocaust is still very much a threat but the environment, too, reveals some dangers due to humanity's irresponsible tinkering. In that sense, the film was easily able to 'update' itself without losing the essential plot. I'm sure even if the story is given another makeover fifty years from now there will be some 'new' danger that will require alien scolding. This is a really curious phenomenon: is it hubris or something else that makes us, as a species, so self destructive?
Ideally, education and technology should have eliminated the savage instinct and made us more responsible, cultured, and humane but that hasn't happened. We seem to be technologically more sophisticated in our destructiveness and education hasn't really done much to build cohesiveness or a sense of unity. If anything, it has given us better explanations for perpetuating our prejudices and our violences because we are not a peaceful race and it would require a major shift in our basic thought processes to make it possible. The greek word for repentance is 'metanoia' or 'new mind', and perhaps, that's what is required: a complete rebooting of the mental framework.
In the 1951 version, the saucer lands in Washington DC but this time it lands in Central Park, New York because this time Klaatu apparently is well informed that the United Nations, the official representative of a majority of countries is located in this city. I was wondering what subtle message was being conveyed by making an alien spacecraft land in Washington DC and not anywhere else. I'm sure many would contest that the message was not subtle at all but a bold statement on US power, supremacy and supposed hegemony. It is understandable since the cold war was at its paranoid heights, and each bloc wanted to emphasise its own moral superiority. While these compulsions may have been there, I do think it was quite bold for the film to take a neutral and an almost 'non-aligned' position because eventually the government machinery is not shown in a favourable light as much as Moscow is shown to be obstinate.
Another glaring difference between the two version was the near absence of any 'black faces' in the original... there were only few in the crowd but nowhere else and this could be more to do with the era being less politically correct and shot many years before the civil rights agitation began in earnest. Hence, the newer version made appropriate changes keeping in mind the changes to the demographics. If the earlier version had a single white woman and her white son as Klaatu's friends, the newer version also has a single white woman but in this case she has a black stepson. This would have been impossible in the earlier version because it would have implied that a white woman actually married a black man, and was willing to adopt his son as her own.
The tension between the woman and the boy was less to do with race and more to do with relational problems that any step parent has to face. I think this has been a welcome change because it shows that race is no longer an 'issue' worth bothering about and the real tension in relationships is of 'individual' nature. In fact, that should be the case in all circumstances but is rarely so and we use 'race and ethnicities' as our favourite excuses for any breakdown.
Another big difference between the two movies is technological. While the earlier version was focused on the story, the newer version used a lot of special effects to massage it further to spice up the narrative. In the same vein, the newer version brought in a lot more complex details into the film such as, doing away with the linear narrative of the 1950s version and introducing other elements, too. Hence, we have a Klaatu lookalike making a discovery of a sphere in the Himalayas in the 1920s that seems to suggest the aliens have been visiting our planet for many years now. Or having him meet an old Chinese man who happens to be an alien spy left on earth for many years. His task was to give a report on the planet and recommends earth's destruction because it fails to meet the grade. However he refuses to leave the planet along with Klaatu because he loves it here and finds the planet a pleasant world despite its various contradictions.
So in a sense the film is worth watching but only if you view both versions back to back. I wouldnt recommend the newer version by itself because, for all its technology and special effects, it is not engaging enough and many of the plots seem rather forced. But if you compare both films together, it can be a very interesting socio-cultural and anthropological study. I'm not sure if that falls in your idea of entertainment, and if it is, then the films will be worth viewing. However, if cool effects is all what you're looking for, then, 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' wont disappoint.
But what I really need to find out is: how does this film match up to those who grew up on the previous version? Their answer will be far more interesting than anything we may have to say.
The recent Indiana Jones is a perfect example of how a good idea can be ruined by a need to be topical, with-it and savvy. The same goes for the Avengers movie, which shouldn't have been produced in the first place, as well as Bewitched, Starsky and Hutch and, yes, Charlies Angels, too.
The unbelievable Star Wars prequel trilogy (must find a suitable title for those three movies) was another sad instance of an attempt to revive a franchise and ending up with something else altogether. I'm sure the jury is still out on that one and while it can be said that Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader was shown as a tragedy in the classical sense nevertheless one couldn't help asking, but why on earth? I've yet to see the new Star Trek movie and since it's about Kirk and Spock's early years... one can only hope that the obvious need to extend this franchise is done in more subtle ways.
Having made my distaste for re-makes quite clear, I need to point out that there can be a few exceptions, too.
It's really not possible to satisfy anyone with remakes because the original usually is so much part of a certain era's cultural landscape that a remake just doesn't succeed in reconnecting that past. Some would say that's not the idea of remakes in the first place and the only purpose is to show that the 'story' or 'plot' is relevant across generations, and still has the capability of registering profits for studios. This could be right in a way because Charlies Angels the movie is so far removed from Charlies Angels the tv show. Those of us who grew up watching the show found it a bit hard to relate with the fast-paced, sexually charged, campy look of the movie even though the show had all these elements but not in such obvious ways. Maybe we were just too fixated on Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd... and somehow however attractive the new Angels were, they were no match for the original threesome. Alright, I'm just being biased, that's all.
And this brings me to last week's DVD that I rented and inspired this post.
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" comes with two discs -- the original 1951 version and the new Keanu Reeves version. I didn't grow up with the original and so there were no cultural or emotional milestones that connected me with the original. To me it was just another black and white movie produced long before I was born or even thought of. The new version is lot closer to my cultural experience and should resonate with what I'm expected to appreciate.
What I did, however, was to watch both movies back-to-back to get a sense of how a plot could be 'adapted' and 're-made' for a new generation that has no 'link' with what people in the 50s experienced. And it would be no exagerration to say that it was quite an eye-opener and one of the most delightful experiences I've had for a long, long time. It has to be added that this 'delightful experience' had nothing to do with the merits of both the movies and more to do with the similarities and dissimilarities that I noticed between the two.
The film is essentially about a flying saucer that lands on Earth and an alien named Klaatu walks out of the saucer alongwith a robot named Gort. Klaatu comes in peace but gets shot by an overenthusiastic military personnel and is promptly hospitalised. The 'government machinery' is suspicious of his intentions and has him apprehended but Klaatu escapes and a manhunt ensues. He warns of an impending apocalyptic scenario unless people of the earth change their ways and it is left up to ordinary citizens to show him that the Earth is not such a bad place, and we earthlings should be given a chance. In both versions, he prefers relaying his message not to one nation but to all nations that represent the planet, and this suggestion is not appreciated by the powers-that-be that are in contact with him.
It's amazing how we have this love-hate relationship with alien beings. Sometimes we like to show them as ferocious and how alien savagery initiates the process of bringing earthlings together. And then we have these other bewildered aliens who come in peace but are hunted down by angry and paranoid humans. In both cases, it is always the disunity amongst humans that gives these 'alien' plots their driving force... almost as if we're trying to figure out why we hate each other so much and how only an 'outside' force is required to unite us or to tell us that we've lost our way.
The original 1951 movie was made right after the Second World War and has a strong anti-nuclear message. Klaatu says that as long as Earthlings fought amongst each other it was not a problem to other alien beings in the universe. However nuclear energy used for destructive purposes had the possibility of unleashing violence beyond the earth's atmosphere and this was something that the aliens will not tolerate and unless governments on earth promise to eliminate these weapons earth will be safe... if they don't destroy these weapons, then, the aliens will destroy earth before earth becomes a destructive force for other planets.
The new version doesnt use a nuclear holocaust as the 'danger' but the environment becomes the villain and once again a warning is issued that unless earthlings shape up the earth will be destroyed. However, in the current version, the decision is already made and Gort has a more important role in the matter than in the original. While in the earlier version, Gort was subject to Klaatu's commands, nothing much changes in the command structure in the new version except that in the new version Gort is more autonomous and is pre-programmed and Klaatu has to travel through a storm to 'change' the command.
What I found more interesting is that the story's essential premise of the earth gone haywire and its imminent destruction is as relevant today as it was five decades ago. Nuclear holocaust is still very much a threat but the environment, too, reveals some dangers due to humanity's irresponsible tinkering. In that sense, the film was easily able to 'update' itself without losing the essential plot. I'm sure even if the story is given another makeover fifty years from now there will be some 'new' danger that will require alien scolding. This is a really curious phenomenon: is it hubris or something else that makes us, as a species, so self destructive?
Ideally, education and technology should have eliminated the savage instinct and made us more responsible, cultured, and humane but that hasn't happened. We seem to be technologically more sophisticated in our destructiveness and education hasn't really done much to build cohesiveness or a sense of unity. If anything, it has given us better explanations for perpetuating our prejudices and our violences because we are not a peaceful race and it would require a major shift in our basic thought processes to make it possible. The greek word for repentance is 'metanoia' or 'new mind', and perhaps, that's what is required: a complete rebooting of the mental framework.
In the 1951 version, the saucer lands in Washington DC but this time it lands in Central Park, New York because this time Klaatu apparently is well informed that the United Nations, the official representative of a majority of countries is located in this city. I was wondering what subtle message was being conveyed by making an alien spacecraft land in Washington DC and not anywhere else. I'm sure many would contest that the message was not subtle at all but a bold statement on US power, supremacy and supposed hegemony. It is understandable since the cold war was at its paranoid heights, and each bloc wanted to emphasise its own moral superiority. While these compulsions may have been there, I do think it was quite bold for the film to take a neutral and an almost 'non-aligned' position because eventually the government machinery is not shown in a favourable light as much as Moscow is shown to be obstinate.
Another glaring difference between the two version was the near absence of any 'black faces' in the original... there were only few in the crowd but nowhere else and this could be more to do with the era being less politically correct and shot many years before the civil rights agitation began in earnest. Hence, the newer version made appropriate changes keeping in mind the changes to the demographics. If the earlier version had a single white woman and her white son as Klaatu's friends, the newer version also has a single white woman but in this case she has a black stepson. This would have been impossible in the earlier version because it would have implied that a white woman actually married a black man, and was willing to adopt his son as her own.
The tension between the woman and the boy was less to do with race and more to do with relational problems that any step parent has to face. I think this has been a welcome change because it shows that race is no longer an 'issue' worth bothering about and the real tension in relationships is of 'individual' nature. In fact, that should be the case in all circumstances but is rarely so and we use 'race and ethnicities' as our favourite excuses for any breakdown.
Another big difference between the two movies is technological. While the earlier version was focused on the story, the newer version used a lot of special effects to massage it further to spice up the narrative. In the same vein, the newer version brought in a lot more complex details into the film such as, doing away with the linear narrative of the 1950s version and introducing other elements, too. Hence, we have a Klaatu lookalike making a discovery of a sphere in the Himalayas in the 1920s that seems to suggest the aliens have been visiting our planet for many years now. Or having him meet an old Chinese man who happens to be an alien spy left on earth for many years. His task was to give a report on the planet and recommends earth's destruction because it fails to meet the grade. However he refuses to leave the planet along with Klaatu because he loves it here and finds the planet a pleasant world despite its various contradictions.
So in a sense the film is worth watching but only if you view both versions back to back. I wouldnt recommend the newer version by itself because, for all its technology and special effects, it is not engaging enough and many of the plots seem rather forced. But if you compare both films together, it can be a very interesting socio-cultural and anthropological study. I'm not sure if that falls in your idea of entertainment, and if it is, then the films will be worth viewing. However, if cool effects is all what you're looking for, then, 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' wont disappoint.
But what I really need to find out is: how does this film match up to those who grew up on the previous version? Their answer will be far more interesting than anything we may have to say.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The End
The end of any relationship never comes as a surprise. The signs are always there. The only problem is that we lack the courage to pay attention. We are way too focused on trying to patch up the cracks, looking for that magic antidote, hoping against hope that the silence is just a pause and that we would soon witness the rapid palpitation of life once again.
However, optimism is a strange animal that refuses to be satiated even when fed with cold hard facts. It finds an explanation for every slight, a convincing argument for every rebuff and a rationale for every rude remark spoken. It has that sunny disposition that cynics find absolutely irritating while the hopeful see in it the very breath of life itself.
Some would call it 'denial' but that would be too simplistic an assessment to make. Maybe it's just the survival instinct attempting a last stand. Or a feeble effort at trying to see something normal even when there isn't any trace of it.
I couldn't help thinking along these lines when I met this friend who told me that a relationship had ended. She seemed relieved, elated and acted as if a weight had gone off her shoulders. I wasn't surprised but I didn't say so because it would have seemed a tad inappropriate. My only thought was, why did it take so long?
I wish there were easier explanations but there aren't any. My friend's reaction, for instance, was not that unusual even though her apparent inaction seemed rather exasperating and, at times, quite annoying. It was exasperating because we couldn't imagine how anyone could be blind to some of the most outrageous behaviour. How could anyone be unaware of what was really going on? How can anyone not be rational about this?
But the cold hard fact of life is that people do not like to be rational about such things. The obvious is rarely palatable, and that's what the rational approach does – shows us a situation for what it really is and confronts us with its truth in all its gory details.
However, most people like to believe in the possibility of a happy ending. They may agree with the facts presented but they won't see it as the complete picture but only as part of the process. Excuses will be offered for any apparent deviation so that the 'perpetrator' is not seen as some sort of a villainous character. The nastiness will be brushed aside as a minor quirk, that's all.
It's part of this elaborate process to avoid disappointment even if it involves being in denial. It is not a conscious act of being untruthful even though it may appear to be so. I suppose it's one way of making it appear that one has not made a mistake, that somehow one was not made a fool of, and one's rational, cool-headed side is still quite intact.
No one likes to be considered a fool or, at least, as someone whose trust was betrayed because it suggests that one is capable of being betrayed and made a fool of. It exposes weakness at a very fundamental level and one that we don't like to admit. We like to project strength, rationality, common sense and a with-it-ness. Anything that's less would make us look stupid and weak.
Hence, when I asked my friend, 'why do you seek out wounds', she didn't reply because she wasn't ready to peer closer and inward and discover the answer for herself. Some answers do not just fall from the sky, they need to be sought with a mountaineer's determination to reach the peak. And even then, a satisfactory answer is not a guarantee. Truth rarely is. And that's the cold hard fact of life: it is not pat answers to questions that we need but truth that will set us free.
Question is, are we prepared to listen to that truth? And therein lies the crunch.
However, optimism is a strange animal that refuses to be satiated even when fed with cold hard facts. It finds an explanation for every slight, a convincing argument for every rebuff and a rationale for every rude remark spoken. It has that sunny disposition that cynics find absolutely irritating while the hopeful see in it the very breath of life itself.
Some would call it 'denial' but that would be too simplistic an assessment to make. Maybe it's just the survival instinct attempting a last stand. Or a feeble effort at trying to see something normal even when there isn't any trace of it.
I couldn't help thinking along these lines when I met this friend who told me that a relationship had ended. She seemed relieved, elated and acted as if a weight had gone off her shoulders. I wasn't surprised but I didn't say so because it would have seemed a tad inappropriate. My only thought was, why did it take so long?
I wish there were easier explanations but there aren't any. My friend's reaction, for instance, was not that unusual even though her apparent inaction seemed rather exasperating and, at times, quite annoying. It was exasperating because we couldn't imagine how anyone could be blind to some of the most outrageous behaviour. How could anyone be unaware of what was really going on? How can anyone not be rational about this?
But the cold hard fact of life is that people do not like to be rational about such things. The obvious is rarely palatable, and that's what the rational approach does – shows us a situation for what it really is and confronts us with its truth in all its gory details.
However, most people like to believe in the possibility of a happy ending. They may agree with the facts presented but they won't see it as the complete picture but only as part of the process. Excuses will be offered for any apparent deviation so that the 'perpetrator' is not seen as some sort of a villainous character. The nastiness will be brushed aside as a minor quirk, that's all.
It's part of this elaborate process to avoid disappointment even if it involves being in denial. It is not a conscious act of being untruthful even though it may appear to be so. I suppose it's one way of making it appear that one has not made a mistake, that somehow one was not made a fool of, and one's rational, cool-headed side is still quite intact.
No one likes to be considered a fool or, at least, as someone whose trust was betrayed because it suggests that one is capable of being betrayed and made a fool of. It exposes weakness at a very fundamental level and one that we don't like to admit. We like to project strength, rationality, common sense and a with-it-ness. Anything that's less would make us look stupid and weak.
Hence, when I asked my friend, 'why do you seek out wounds', she didn't reply because she wasn't ready to peer closer and inward and discover the answer for herself. Some answers do not just fall from the sky, they need to be sought with a mountaineer's determination to reach the peak. And even then, a satisfactory answer is not a guarantee. Truth rarely is. And that's the cold hard fact of life: it is not pat answers to questions that we need but truth that will set us free.
Question is, are we prepared to listen to that truth? And therein lies the crunch.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Mama Earth
Today is Earth Day. Officially speaking, it means that we're all supposed to go all-gooey about mama earth, kiss the soil and declare undying love for this planet we call home. At least, that's the image one gets when one reads about how governments and corporations and media outlets go about honouring this day.
Now don't get me wrong. I think it's a great idea because, at least, it celebrates something that's a little bigger than ourselves. All other events – including national days, birthdays, valentines day – have a narrow or a parochial agenda. They're all about celebrating one's little corner but the Earth Day forces one to expand that outlook and see the bigger picture.
But the trouble with Earth Day celebrations is that the hype rarely matches the action, and the ground reality is never the same as one that's screamed from posters, concerts, podiums and pamphlets. There's an odd disconnect between what should be and what really is. And so, I often find myself squirming when I see an Earth Day poster because, I wonder, how serious are these intentions. Are they as urgent as the words imply?
A look at the history of the Earth Day would indicate that, at least, the intentions were sincere. After witnessing the huge numbers galvanised by the anti-Vietnam protests, US Senator Gaylord Nelson felt a similar movement must be created to establish a strong grassroots demonstration on the environment. In many ways, April 22 1970 is widely seen as the birth of the modern environmental movement.
So in other words that's almost 40 years of a sustained campaign on a variety of environmental issues, from global warming, deforestation, ozone hole depletion, CFC emission, population growth, extinction of wild animals, toxic dumps and what have you. 40 years is a long time. 40 years is as old as some of us who have crossed the 4-oh mark. 40 years is as old as a man or a woman approaching middle age. 40 years is not youthful but decidedly mature.
All that's fine but what do we have to show for a movement that's as old as some of us. Have we seen a better world order? Have governments taken initiative to stop population explosion? Have industries taken the lead to protect the environment instead of looking after their own balance sheet? Are we seeing lesser number of animals entering the extinction hall of fame? Or are we still waiting for that magic moment that will change everything?
I know I sound terribly cynical here but governmental and industrial track record has not been very encouraging. It's true that some governments are very proactive in these matters and some industries are spending millions of dollars in turning their processes more environmentally friendly. But that's just a few and it's not a mass movement yet. For some odd reason, people who talk about green issues are still considered a bit odd and hippy-like. And for many people, even a simple thing like using a jute bag instead of a plastic bag in the supermarket is a big thing. Not because they cant afford but they don't feel the urgency or the need. As I said before, these actions are still considered weird and good for 'others' and not for 'us'.
But if the Earth Day has to have any meaning or substance, then, this is the battleground because all the other issues like legislation, picketing outside factories and the like are just minor. The day everyone starts believing that environmental issues are as necessary as brushing our teeth, eating healthy food and wearing sun glasses in summer... that's the day when Earth Day will have acquired its meaning and will fulfil its purpose.
Until then, we need to keep on trying.
Now don't get me wrong. I think it's a great idea because, at least, it celebrates something that's a little bigger than ourselves. All other events – including national days, birthdays, valentines day – have a narrow or a parochial agenda. They're all about celebrating one's little corner but the Earth Day forces one to expand that outlook and see the bigger picture.
But the trouble with Earth Day celebrations is that the hype rarely matches the action, and the ground reality is never the same as one that's screamed from posters, concerts, podiums and pamphlets. There's an odd disconnect between what should be and what really is. And so, I often find myself squirming when I see an Earth Day poster because, I wonder, how serious are these intentions. Are they as urgent as the words imply?
A look at the history of the Earth Day would indicate that, at least, the intentions were sincere. After witnessing the huge numbers galvanised by the anti-Vietnam protests, US Senator Gaylord Nelson felt a similar movement must be created to establish a strong grassroots demonstration on the environment. In many ways, April 22 1970 is widely seen as the birth of the modern environmental movement.
So in other words that's almost 40 years of a sustained campaign on a variety of environmental issues, from global warming, deforestation, ozone hole depletion, CFC emission, population growth, extinction of wild animals, toxic dumps and what have you. 40 years is a long time. 40 years is as old as some of us who have crossed the 4-oh mark. 40 years is as old as a man or a woman approaching middle age. 40 years is not youthful but decidedly mature.
All that's fine but what do we have to show for a movement that's as old as some of us. Have we seen a better world order? Have governments taken initiative to stop population explosion? Have industries taken the lead to protect the environment instead of looking after their own balance sheet? Are we seeing lesser number of animals entering the extinction hall of fame? Or are we still waiting for that magic moment that will change everything?
I know I sound terribly cynical here but governmental and industrial track record has not been very encouraging. It's true that some governments are very proactive in these matters and some industries are spending millions of dollars in turning their processes more environmentally friendly. But that's just a few and it's not a mass movement yet. For some odd reason, people who talk about green issues are still considered a bit odd and hippy-like. And for many people, even a simple thing like using a jute bag instead of a plastic bag in the supermarket is a big thing. Not because they cant afford but they don't feel the urgency or the need. As I said before, these actions are still considered weird and good for 'others' and not for 'us'.
But if the Earth Day has to have any meaning or substance, then, this is the battleground because all the other issues like legislation, picketing outside factories and the like are just minor. The day everyone starts believing that environmental issues are as necessary as brushing our teeth, eating healthy food and wearing sun glasses in summer... that's the day when Earth Day will have acquired its meaning and will fulfil its purpose.
Until then, we need to keep on trying.
Re-wind
It's funny in a weird sort of way that my return to blogging has to do with an election story. The last time I wrote anything with any degree of passion and interest was during the American election circus: Palin's bloopers, Obama's eloquence, McCain's blunders and Hillary's desperation were too good to resist. It was like Survival and Bold & Beautiful rolled into one.
Well, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since my last post, and the world has seen a lot many changes. Some of these changes nearly got commented on this blog but due to this facility called 'incomplete posts', most of those comments are still at the drawing board. Life has a way of intervening and postponing even the most serious commentary on life.
Obama was elected and is now the most powerful person in the supposedly free world. Thanks to the current economic recession, the idea of a 'free world' does need some serious re-definition. For too long, the western world sold the idea of a free world where customers are kings, market forces are the great levellers and governments not being the ones to decide how one lives one's life. With rising debt, defaults and possible liquidation of large corporations, this 'free world' appears neither 'free' nor charming anymore.
It's not that there's an alternative out there somewhere and that's the bummer because one cannot imagine the present system to continue with the same laissez faire approach as before. Communism was tried and tested but failed to make the grade and reached its end twenty years ago this year. So that option is ruled out and one has to only watch and wait how things unravel in the months to come.
However, on the plus side, Obama has been using the right rhetoric so far, and one can only hope that the man combines style with substance and delivers the goods.
And this brings us to the election story. India will soon elect its prime minister and the world's largest democracy will either have a new leader or the same faces will return to Parliament House in New Delhi. These are not ordinary times for the elections because the global economic crisis has spread its tentacles far and wide, and India is not immune to these events. If the western markets experience a slow down and consumers buy less, it will have an impact on exports and delivery of services at the backend offices.
So in other words, if we celebrated the virtues of globalisation for the past two decades or so, now we are all looking at its downside. Or rather, the globalisation of a collective mess. Whoever comes to power in New Delhi has to address this issue as a priority and ensure that the downturn doesn't impair productivity, jobs and economic momentum.
India and China have, so far, been touted as the next big economic superpowers and it would be interesting to see how leaders from both countries address the current crisis. The actions they take – or do not take – will have an impact on the kind of role the two countries will have in the next fifty years. If this is supposed to be the Indian or the Chinese century, then, the quality of that century will be determined by the policies and programmes enacted by the respective leaders of the two countries.
For this to be clearly articulated, the next prime minister whether it will continue to be Dr. Manmohan Singh of the Congress led UPA coalition or L. K. Advani of the BJP led NDA will need to move beyond petty brinkmanship, narrow populist postures and be more proactive in declaring the kind of leadership they want India to have in the coming decades.
However, another issue that the next prime minister must address is terrorism and Pakistan. While both issues are not necessarily inter-related but the Mumbai terrorist attack last year made it clear that while the Pakistani government may not have been directly involved in the attacks, there are forces within Pakistan that are determined in unleashing violence and mayhem. This cannot be ignored nor wished away.
And as the recent events in Swat Valley have shown, the Pakistani political establishment is also facing its own existential threat with a resurgent Taliban and appears helpless and impotent in addressing this crisis. The Pakistani Talibans want nothing more than a takeover of the entire country and would like to overthrow the current political establishment.
If that happens, then, it will be a bigger crisis for India than anything the country has experienced before. Not only because the ragtag militants will have access to nuclear weapons or they'd be zealous about unleashing havoc on the infidel regime next door, there will also be social and political unrest throughout Pakistan resulting in influx of refugees and possible violence, too.
The Taliban are as much a threat to Pakistan as they are to India, and so it would be in India's best interests to stop the 'blame game' for any acts of violence and instead work alongside Pakistan's political establishment in curbing this threat. Not doing so will be disastrous in the long term even though talking tough to Pakistan right now might, in the short term, gain the political parties some brownie points amongst the vote bank.
It will be necessary to take decisive action with the terrorists but vital to be conciliatory towards elements within the Pakistani establishment that agree with the terrorist threat.
Whoever will be the next prime minister will not have an easy job because the conditions worldwide are not as simplistic as before. It requires someone with a progressive mindset, who understands the bigger picture at stake here, who knows what India's role ought to be and, finally, should be someone who is recognised as working for the benefit of Indians – rich or poor, Hindu or Muslim or Christian, rural or urban.
Maybe what India needs is another Obama like figure who can restore hope and confidence amongst its citizens. Sadly, neither Dr Singh nor Mr Advani fit the bill because so far they haven't captured the imagination of the young or the idealists (not necessarily one and the same, by the way). And that Obama space is still vacant.
It's not that Indians didn't have an Obama type experience before. It happened more than 20 years ago when Rajiv Gandhi became prime minister and brought a youthful vigour to the political order. But sadly the Indian Camelot didn't last long, he lost the subsequent elections and could have possibly emerged as a better prime minister in his second outing but a suicide bomber put an end to that dream.
Let's only hope that the next government will not spend its energy on dreams and hopes but on policies and programmes that deliver the goods... for the short term but most importantly for the long term.
Well, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since my last post, and the world has seen a lot many changes. Some of these changes nearly got commented on this blog but due to this facility called 'incomplete posts', most of those comments are still at the drawing board. Life has a way of intervening and postponing even the most serious commentary on life.
Obama was elected and is now the most powerful person in the supposedly free world. Thanks to the current economic recession, the idea of a 'free world' does need some serious re-definition. For too long, the western world sold the idea of a free world where customers are kings, market forces are the great levellers and governments not being the ones to decide how one lives one's life. With rising debt, defaults and possible liquidation of large corporations, this 'free world' appears neither 'free' nor charming anymore.
It's not that there's an alternative out there somewhere and that's the bummer because one cannot imagine the present system to continue with the same laissez faire approach as before. Communism was tried and tested but failed to make the grade and reached its end twenty years ago this year. So that option is ruled out and one has to only watch and wait how things unravel in the months to come.
However, on the plus side, Obama has been using the right rhetoric so far, and one can only hope that the man combines style with substance and delivers the goods.
And this brings us to the election story. India will soon elect its prime minister and the world's largest democracy will either have a new leader or the same faces will return to Parliament House in New Delhi. These are not ordinary times for the elections because the global economic crisis has spread its tentacles far and wide, and India is not immune to these events. If the western markets experience a slow down and consumers buy less, it will have an impact on exports and delivery of services at the backend offices.
So in other words, if we celebrated the virtues of globalisation for the past two decades or so, now we are all looking at its downside. Or rather, the globalisation of a collective mess. Whoever comes to power in New Delhi has to address this issue as a priority and ensure that the downturn doesn't impair productivity, jobs and economic momentum.
India and China have, so far, been touted as the next big economic superpowers and it would be interesting to see how leaders from both countries address the current crisis. The actions they take – or do not take – will have an impact on the kind of role the two countries will have in the next fifty years. If this is supposed to be the Indian or the Chinese century, then, the quality of that century will be determined by the policies and programmes enacted by the respective leaders of the two countries.
For this to be clearly articulated, the next prime minister whether it will continue to be Dr. Manmohan Singh of the Congress led UPA coalition or L. K. Advani of the BJP led NDA will need to move beyond petty brinkmanship, narrow populist postures and be more proactive in declaring the kind of leadership they want India to have in the coming decades.
However, another issue that the next prime minister must address is terrorism and Pakistan. While both issues are not necessarily inter-related but the Mumbai terrorist attack last year made it clear that while the Pakistani government may not have been directly involved in the attacks, there are forces within Pakistan that are determined in unleashing violence and mayhem. This cannot be ignored nor wished away.
And as the recent events in Swat Valley have shown, the Pakistani political establishment is also facing its own existential threat with a resurgent Taliban and appears helpless and impotent in addressing this crisis. The Pakistani Talibans want nothing more than a takeover of the entire country and would like to overthrow the current political establishment.
If that happens, then, it will be a bigger crisis for India than anything the country has experienced before. Not only because the ragtag militants will have access to nuclear weapons or they'd be zealous about unleashing havoc on the infidel regime next door, there will also be social and political unrest throughout Pakistan resulting in influx of refugees and possible violence, too.
The Taliban are as much a threat to Pakistan as they are to India, and so it would be in India's best interests to stop the 'blame game' for any acts of violence and instead work alongside Pakistan's political establishment in curbing this threat. Not doing so will be disastrous in the long term even though talking tough to Pakistan right now might, in the short term, gain the political parties some brownie points amongst the vote bank.
It will be necessary to take decisive action with the terrorists but vital to be conciliatory towards elements within the Pakistani establishment that agree with the terrorist threat.
Whoever will be the next prime minister will not have an easy job because the conditions worldwide are not as simplistic as before. It requires someone with a progressive mindset, who understands the bigger picture at stake here, who knows what India's role ought to be and, finally, should be someone who is recognised as working for the benefit of Indians – rich or poor, Hindu or Muslim or Christian, rural or urban.
Maybe what India needs is another Obama like figure who can restore hope and confidence amongst its citizens. Sadly, neither Dr Singh nor Mr Advani fit the bill because so far they haven't captured the imagination of the young or the idealists (not necessarily one and the same, by the way). And that Obama space is still vacant.
It's not that Indians didn't have an Obama type experience before. It happened more than 20 years ago when Rajiv Gandhi became prime minister and brought a youthful vigour to the political order. But sadly the Indian Camelot didn't last long, he lost the subsequent elections and could have possibly emerged as a better prime minister in his second outing but a suicide bomber put an end to that dream.
Let's only hope that the next government will not spend its energy on dreams and hopes but on policies and programmes that deliver the goods... for the short term but most importantly for the long term.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Empress' New Clothes
If Sarah Palin gets elected as the next Vice-President of the United States, then, it will certainly be a triumph of style over substance. Her election (if at all it does happen) to this second highest position in the US will underline the incredible power that a well-oiled PR machinery can generate. It will, basically, show that one can achieve absolutely anything with the help of a good hype generator.
I'm sure she has incredible talent and political skills that have moulded her to be what she is. Fact that she is a governor of a state and managed to defeat the incumbent from her own party does indicate that she does possess that certain something that ambitious politicians usually possess.
However, getting ahead of the game can be great politics, but it may not be sufficient for someone aspiring to be a leader of the most powerful country in the world. After all, in the worst case scenario that something should happen to McCain, she'd be just a heart-beat away from the Oval office.
So far her only powerful performance was at the Republican convention where she managed to electrify the base. I'm being generous when I say 'powerful' because her speech lacked wit, eloquence and depth. It was clever alright and full of smart one-liners but wasn't deep enough to convince the unconverted. Her subsequent speeches, debate performance and interviews were an embarrassment, and it's amazing how a respected political party could even select a person with such a shallow world view.
The US is going through one of the biggest economic crisis in its recent history, and for her to berate Joe Biden for even suggesting that paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Patriotism is not about one-liners alone but it's about sacrifices, and sacrifices are not the monopoly of the armed forces alone but must involve everyone who considers themselves to be citizens.
And then there's the question of presidential qualities that a person needs before even aspiring to be a political leader and potential statesman. It needs a broader world-view, an intellectual insight into contemporary issues and concerns, the wisdom to make the right judgments, and the ability to understand that gaining foreign policy know how is not just a matter of looking out of the window.
I was amazed at how Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson both managed to keep a straight face at the interview although I could detect a trace of a half formed smile on Couric's face while interviewing Palin. Her mumbled response to the economic crisis is something to be worried about - considering the situation we all are in - and if she does manage to become something that most people - surprisingly even a few Republicans - do not want her to be.
Now if Palin was somebody else, then, I'm sure she would have been skewered by people like Hannity and others from Fox News. But somehow she has been turned into a heroine, of sorts: hockey mom with lipstick. Her every fault has been 'justified' and 'excused' and her detractors are called 'sexist' or worse. Even basic questions like, asking why rape victims in her state were made to pay for rape kits or why did she toy with censorship as mayor of the town of Wasilla are not even considered worthy to be included in any analysis.
Somehow her supporters are trying to create this enormous myth around her - as an ordinary housewife thrown in extraordinary circumstances, and one who is blessed with the common touch enabling her to readily understand the situation everyone faces.
Perhaps it may have worked for a while, but am not sure if this hype has managed to retain its staying power. If Colin Powell and Lawrence Eagleburger's disenchantment is any indication, then, the Empress has certainly showed that she has no clothes. The GOP certainly gave this metaphorical state a more real dimension by paying a staggering $150,000 to dress her like a diva and not the ornery housewife that she must be to connect with the base.
But something in me feels that the Republican Party can't be that stupid to choose someone like her to be the vice-presidential nominee... its either a reckless decision by the maverick in chief or the party decided to set her up as the fall guy so that none of the establishment figures could be blamed if and when the party loses the elections.
But that's assuming that the party does lose the elections, and till then, the hype machine will be working overtime to ensure that she is propped up to be what she is not.
I'm sure she has incredible talent and political skills that have moulded her to be what she is. Fact that she is a governor of a state and managed to defeat the incumbent from her own party does indicate that she does possess that certain something that ambitious politicians usually possess.
However, getting ahead of the game can be great politics, but it may not be sufficient for someone aspiring to be a leader of the most powerful country in the world. After all, in the worst case scenario that something should happen to McCain, she'd be just a heart-beat away from the Oval office.
So far her only powerful performance was at the Republican convention where she managed to electrify the base. I'm being generous when I say 'powerful' because her speech lacked wit, eloquence and depth. It was clever alright and full of smart one-liners but wasn't deep enough to convince the unconverted. Her subsequent speeches, debate performance and interviews were an embarrassment, and it's amazing how a respected political party could even select a person with such a shallow world view.
The US is going through one of the biggest economic crisis in its recent history, and for her to berate Joe Biden for even suggesting that paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Patriotism is not about one-liners alone but it's about sacrifices, and sacrifices are not the monopoly of the armed forces alone but must involve everyone who considers themselves to be citizens.
And then there's the question of presidential qualities that a person needs before even aspiring to be a political leader and potential statesman. It needs a broader world-view, an intellectual insight into contemporary issues and concerns, the wisdom to make the right judgments, and the ability to understand that gaining foreign policy know how is not just a matter of looking out of the window.
I was amazed at how Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson both managed to keep a straight face at the interview although I could detect a trace of a half formed smile on Couric's face while interviewing Palin. Her mumbled response to the economic crisis is something to be worried about - considering the situation we all are in - and if she does manage to become something that most people - surprisingly even a few Republicans - do not want her to be.
Now if Palin was somebody else, then, I'm sure she would have been skewered by people like Hannity and others from Fox News. But somehow she has been turned into a heroine, of sorts: hockey mom with lipstick. Her every fault has been 'justified' and 'excused' and her detractors are called 'sexist' or worse. Even basic questions like, asking why rape victims in her state were made to pay for rape kits or why did she toy with censorship as mayor of the town of Wasilla are not even considered worthy to be included in any analysis.
Somehow her supporters are trying to create this enormous myth around her - as an ordinary housewife thrown in extraordinary circumstances, and one who is blessed with the common touch enabling her to readily understand the situation everyone faces.
Perhaps it may have worked for a while, but am not sure if this hype has managed to retain its staying power. If Colin Powell and Lawrence Eagleburger's disenchantment is any indication, then, the Empress has certainly showed that she has no clothes. The GOP certainly gave this metaphorical state a more real dimension by paying a staggering $150,000 to dress her like a diva and not the ornery housewife that she must be to connect with the base.
But something in me feels that the Republican Party can't be that stupid to choose someone like her to be the vice-presidential nominee... its either a reckless decision by the maverick in chief or the party decided to set her up as the fall guy so that none of the establishment figures could be blamed if and when the party loses the elections.
But that's assuming that the party does lose the elections, and till then, the hype machine will be working overtime to ensure that she is propped up to be what she is not.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Week From Now
In a week from now, the circus aka the US Elections will have ended and the tragi-comedy will once again begin its four year march to the next denouement.
It has been a very exciting journey so far even though - at times - it bordered on the near ludicrous. In fact, it even felt like watching an episode of Survivor: The White House, and at other times, a little bit like watching a really corny soap opera with its parade of stock characters.
But in a week from now, it will all be over and the debate will focus on the more pertinent question: what next? The ongoing economic crisis, the Iraq imbroglio and the Iranian nuclear puzzle will provide enough material for the president-elect to chew over, ponder and even look for real answers, if any.
So far, if the polls are any indication, it does look like Barack Obama will be the next occupant of the White House. But then, again, people talk of the Bradley effect, laziness of some Democrat supporters, and other 'surprises' that may sway the votes towards the McCain-Palin camp. So one should keep one's fingers crossed and hope for the best.
And therein lies the rub... who is the best after all? Or should we even bother measuring the candidates on some vague bestometer? This search for the best whatever has taken the discussion to some absurd levels.
For instance, the word 'elite' became such a bad word that suddenly ignorance, lack of education, absence of well-cultivated manners were seen as right qualifications for one of the world's toughest jobs. Joe the Plumber (who incidentally was not a plumber) and Hockey Moms became the ultimate brainiacs who are in 'touch' with the real world, and graduates from Ivy League were dismissed as irrelevant to the concerns of the common man.
Now at a certain level, there might be some truth to this railing against the elite but dismissing the elites as spent force and a disqualifier does come across as totally idiotic... and even scary. If lack of education and culture is seen as something to be proud of, then, its logical conclusion endorses a future society akin to this one.
And then, there is this over-excitement over polls.
Quite frankly, the only polls that matter are the ones on November 4th, but opinion polls have acquired a life of their own and no media pundit will be without one. We are told that polls indicate that Obama is leading but at the same time we are cautioned about the Bradley effect, which in retrospect, implies we need to take these polls with a pinch of salt. Of course, this begs the question: if one has to take it with a pinch of salt, then, why on earth are we discussing it in the first place.
But I guess they do indicate the pulse of the moment, and that seems to be beating to the tune of Obama.
All said and done, this is a historic election... and not just for the obvious reasons like either the first non-white President or the first female vice-president... the historicity of this election will also be a big burden on the next president who will have to juggle between being FDR and JFK. The economic crisis requires urgent attention to prevent a repetition of the Great Depression and some sort of a 'new deal' has to be created if the economic 'world' order is to be preserved. And then, again, the new President has to possess the kind of charisma that would inspire and engage everyone to work together for the common good and be filled with hope.
Now that's a tall order for anyone, but these are not ordinary times and the demand is such that nothing less will do. It's not just the US that awaits the outcome with bated breath, but the world at large, is desperate for a different kind of US leadership that does not follow the formulations of the last eight years but takes a chance at a much brighter vision.
Of course, the bigger question for those of us in the Middle East remains the same. Will the new leadership take concrete steps towards ensuring that the region is more peaceful, less war-torn and economically vibrant? Or will we see a return to deja vu?
It has been a very exciting journey so far even though - at times - it bordered on the near ludicrous. In fact, it even felt like watching an episode of Survivor: The White House, and at other times, a little bit like watching a really corny soap opera with its parade of stock characters.
But in a week from now, it will all be over and the debate will focus on the more pertinent question: what next? The ongoing economic crisis, the Iraq imbroglio and the Iranian nuclear puzzle will provide enough material for the president-elect to chew over, ponder and even look for real answers, if any.
So far, if the polls are any indication, it does look like Barack Obama will be the next occupant of the White House. But then, again, people talk of the Bradley effect, laziness of some Democrat supporters, and other 'surprises' that may sway the votes towards the McCain-Palin camp. So one should keep one's fingers crossed and hope for the best.
And therein lies the rub... who is the best after all? Or should we even bother measuring the candidates on some vague bestometer? This search for the best whatever has taken the discussion to some absurd levels.
For instance, the word 'elite' became such a bad word that suddenly ignorance, lack of education, absence of well-cultivated manners were seen as right qualifications for one of the world's toughest jobs. Joe the Plumber (who incidentally was not a plumber) and Hockey Moms became the ultimate brainiacs who are in 'touch' with the real world, and graduates from Ivy League were dismissed as irrelevant to the concerns of the common man.
Now at a certain level, there might be some truth to this railing against the elite but dismissing the elites as spent force and a disqualifier does come across as totally idiotic... and even scary. If lack of education and culture is seen as something to be proud of, then, its logical conclusion endorses a future society akin to this one.
And then, there is this over-excitement over polls.
Quite frankly, the only polls that matter are the ones on November 4th, but opinion polls have acquired a life of their own and no media pundit will be without one. We are told that polls indicate that Obama is leading but at the same time we are cautioned about the Bradley effect, which in retrospect, implies we need to take these polls with a pinch of salt. Of course, this begs the question: if one has to take it with a pinch of salt, then, why on earth are we discussing it in the first place.
But I guess they do indicate the pulse of the moment, and that seems to be beating to the tune of Obama.
All said and done, this is a historic election... and not just for the obvious reasons like either the first non-white President or the first female vice-president... the historicity of this election will also be a big burden on the next president who will have to juggle between being FDR and JFK. The economic crisis requires urgent attention to prevent a repetition of the Great Depression and some sort of a 'new deal' has to be created if the economic 'world' order is to be preserved. And then, again, the new President has to possess the kind of charisma that would inspire and engage everyone to work together for the common good and be filled with hope.
Now that's a tall order for anyone, but these are not ordinary times and the demand is such that nothing less will do. It's not just the US that awaits the outcome with bated breath, but the world at large, is desperate for a different kind of US leadership that does not follow the formulations of the last eight years but takes a chance at a much brighter vision.
Of course, the bigger question for those of us in the Middle East remains the same. Will the new leadership take concrete steps towards ensuring that the region is more peaceful, less war-torn and economically vibrant? Or will we see a return to deja vu?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Word Map
I don't know how far this image is a true indication of words I mostly use in my blog, but hey, that's the claim Wordle seems to be making. Having seen it in Sabbah's blog, I thought of trying it out and seeing for myself what it will uncover.
I guess I ought to be surprised at some of the words that appear in this 'map' because it never occurred to me earlier that these words had a significant presence in my writing. I wonder how many of us realise what words and, consequently, what thought processes actually guide our mental framework. It does provide a peek into the way we think and in what we think about... or as Christ put it: 'out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.'
This image is made possible by a java applet developed by Jonathan Feinberg of Wordle.net. It has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Explaining silence
It's been a while since I blogged, and it's not because I had nothing to say. In fact, I got a dozen or more unfinished posts just waiting for my finishing touch. So basically there have been stuff that I've been wanting to post but, for some reason or the other, I did not do so.
Interestingly, a few months ago I said exactly the same thing after a similarly long spell of blog-silence. I wonder if this post will, once again, precede another long spell of blog-silence. I don't know which way my blogging will go, but one thing is certain... I'm not quitting. Once a blogger, always a blogger. Once you're in it, you can't get out. OK. That was being a little dramatic but you know what I mean.
But then there is such a thing as 'real life' with its many demands like deadlines and deadlines and more deadlines. So what does one do after a few sleepless nights writing a brochure or a corporate film? No points for guessing... the zzzzz song, of course.
On the other hand, there are times when one wonders if blogging stuff achieves anything of value. Does it make any difference to anyone what one writes here? Is it a colossal waste of time disguised as 'making a difference'?
I wish I have some answers to these questions, and frankly, I don't.
However, these questions apply not only to blogging but to other forms of writing as well. Journalism - that self appointed doyen of responsible writing, suffers from this malady (or rather, is supposed to be). Similar questions are raised about poetry, short stories, essays and novels as well. There are people who'd insist that enthusiasm over an iambic pentameter is just way too frivolous and elitist and that people are better off pondering over water filtration devices instead.
So it all boils down to... value, and the struggle to define what constitutes a value added activity and what should be clearly regarded as a glorified waste of time. The eternal battle between the idealists and the pragmatists. The battle for space that no one wants to abdicate that easily.
Frankly, I don't know whether blogging accomplishes anything or for that matter I don't know even know if any of these words will touch a soul and move a mountain. But as a writer I realise that's not for me to worry about. My responsibility ends the moment I finish writing and then whatever I write assumes a life all its own. Readers - if there be such entities - will respond the way they wish to. They may love it, hate it, be inspired by it, be repulsed by it or be totally indifferent to the point of not caring what's written. That should not be my problem.
What I should do is, simply, write when I feel the urge to say something. Silence is never an option when a thought requires articulation. The choice is mine. Either I listen to my inner muse and write or I just throttle that urge and silence the storm.
Question is, will I do what I must or just continue doing things the way they are?
Interestingly, a few months ago I said exactly the same thing after a similarly long spell of blog-silence. I wonder if this post will, once again, precede another long spell of blog-silence. I don't know which way my blogging will go, but one thing is certain... I'm not quitting. Once a blogger, always a blogger. Once you're in it, you can't get out. OK. That was being a little dramatic but you know what I mean.
But then there is such a thing as 'real life' with its many demands like deadlines and deadlines and more deadlines. So what does one do after a few sleepless nights writing a brochure or a corporate film? No points for guessing... the zzzzz song, of course.
On the other hand, there are times when one wonders if blogging stuff achieves anything of value. Does it make any difference to anyone what one writes here? Is it a colossal waste of time disguised as 'making a difference'?
I wish I have some answers to these questions, and frankly, I don't.
However, these questions apply not only to blogging but to other forms of writing as well. Journalism - that self appointed doyen of responsible writing, suffers from this malady (or rather, is supposed to be). Similar questions are raised about poetry, short stories, essays and novels as well. There are people who'd insist that enthusiasm over an iambic pentameter is just way too frivolous and elitist and that people are better off pondering over water filtration devices instead.
So it all boils down to... value, and the struggle to define what constitutes a value added activity and what should be clearly regarded as a glorified waste of time. The eternal battle between the idealists and the pragmatists. The battle for space that no one wants to abdicate that easily.
Frankly, I don't know whether blogging accomplishes anything or for that matter I don't know even know if any of these words will touch a soul and move a mountain. But as a writer I realise that's not for me to worry about. My responsibility ends the moment I finish writing and then whatever I write assumes a life all its own. Readers - if there be such entities - will respond the way they wish to. They may love it, hate it, be inspired by it, be repulsed by it or be totally indifferent to the point of not caring what's written. That should not be my problem.
What I should do is, simply, write when I feel the urge to say something. Silence is never an option when a thought requires articulation. The choice is mine. Either I listen to my inner muse and write or I just throttle that urge and silence the storm.
Question is, will I do what I must or just continue doing things the way they are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
