You might very well think that....

After a long wait, D-Day has arrived. HoC Season 4 is on!! (Unfortunately, this isn't a review. A related topic, rather.... )

You see, I am not much of a TV watcher. I can watch mindless comedies while doing chores, but I am sort of a TV commitmentphobe- cannot be loyal to any series, watch it everyday, etc. However, occasionally, circumstances collude and I end up watching one. Two years ago, I started watching House of Cards.

At first, I was thoroughly impressed by Spacey and his lines. Spacey is, no doubt, brilliant. Robin is great too. She is sexy and power-hungry and magnetic all at once. I was not a big fan of Kate Mara or Russo or the Dunbar lady, but then Jackie and the Russian President guy were spot-on. I liked the Season 2 Mrs.President too, too lazy to look up her name now.
Of course, the focus is not the characters. It is the lines. When Spacey delivers his words, even in an act of unpardonable evil, you agree with him "Yes, yes, a matador. Never a doormat!". 

Yes, yes, the Netflix House of Cards is awesome. But..

1984

Can a book be simultaneously brilliant and nauseating? Can you ever reach a point in a book where reading the next word takes an excruciating amount of effort and yet, you cannot put it down? The last Thursday, I started reading a book like that and that's why I did not blog on Thursday and Friday. I know that's the kind of thing I was supposed to avoid when I took the one month challenge. But then, I simply couldn't put the book down. Not even to blog about it. The weekend I happened to go out and so couldn't find the time to blog either. I hope that doesn't happen in the future.

The book in question was '1984' by George Orwell. It's supposed to be a classic book (I was prompted to read it by a 'list of 10 books to read before you die'!). I remember reading 3-4 pages of a pdf copy sometime during my college days and like all other pdf books I have begun, I didn't get any further. So, the last time I visited India, I got a hardcopy.

(Warning: Spoilers ahead!) The book is about a dystopian communist society set in the future (the book was written in 1950) and a sort-of individualist who is unable to bear the communist regime and tries to break out. He also falls in love with a woman (in a world where marriage for love is banned) and eventually gets caught by the system. Whether he fights or loses forms the rest of the story.

If you have read 'The Anthem', you would realize it has the same outline as above. In fact, as I read on, I found so many elements to be the same- a society with no technological progress, one that glorifies obedience, one where all individuals follow the same routines and are forced by the government not to express their opinions, and so on. Even the fact that the party controls marriages. I tried to look up if 1984 had been influenced by The Anthem, but couldn't find anything. However, the more I read the book, the more I thought that both are simply extensions of reality in communist societies.

That being said, I definitely think 1984 is a lot more realistic. The Anthem is an inspiring novel but it assumes an almost stupid ruling class.1984, on the other hand, brings up the scary possibilities of smart people being evil and in power. It builds a world that is complete and makes sense within itself. A society where everyone is being spied on all the time, and any small breach from the expected conduct can lead you to 'vanish'. 

And the best part is this- a society where any piece of evidence about the past that contradicts with the government views about the present is destroyed and falsified. (Eg: If the government wants to prove  production has increased by 5% but had predicted it to increase by 10%- they just change all existing records of the previous announcement and replace it with ones that predict 5%). This brought up some very interesting questions about the past- does the past exist only in records? In fact, an even harder question- if a set of people refuse to acknowledge reality by consensus, is there any reality at all? (Eg: if everyone in the world see something falling down but refuse to admit that the thing has moved- has the thing moved at all?) While we are tempted to say 'obviously it has', in a  world where that reality is not accepted, for all practical purposes the thing might not have moved at all. (I find that idea mind-blowing!)

The last part of the book was haunting. The protagonist is tortured so much that he converts from the reality-acknowledging, sane-thinking, individualist to the typical party-supporting, communist with too much double standards. He doesn't just say what the society wants him to say- he actually believes in their ideas. It made me think- 'Until what point of adversity would I hold on to my ideals and values?' And if you do give up your values in the face of the worst torture imaginable to you, would you be considered moral? (Something about which I hope to write later)

As I said earlier- this was one book which was simultaneously brilliant and nauseating. There was a point I reached in the book where I did not want to read another word. And yet, I could not keep the book down. 

And 3 days later, the book still haunts me.

For anyone who reached this far without having read the book- I might have spoilt the best of the book's ideas for u, but I have not half-conveyed the details. So, highly highly recommend you to read it...

I hope to read 'Animal Farm'- the other popular title by Orwell- some other day..

Random Thoughts

After that last post, I have had quite a vacation. Though it was far from perfect, I got to read a few books (didn't finish them all), and also watch some movies that I should have seen long ago, but never did! Books include "The Extended Phenotype" which I am reading at worse than snail's pace, but hope that changes soon. So far, I think it should have been titled 'The Evolution MythBuster' but maybe when I am done with the book, that idea might change. Still, an incredible book (as always)! I was also rereading "Pride and Prejudice", but done with that now and started on "Sense and Sensibility", which I haven't read before and which is making me rediscover the joy of reading that I was sorely missing in my previous post. As for the movies I saw quite a few, including, "A 200 pound beauty" (Korean), which sent me on a train of thought about how and why should beauty be important, "It Happened One Night", which was plain Clark Gable, "The Message", which was good (though I am still not sure of its credibility), "Jodha Akbar", which was simply awesome, and a few more.

For some reason, all that reading and movie watching led me to this debate about what we regard as ideal, and whether it really exists. For a long time, I used to be a fan of the ideal, in the sense that I believed it to be possible, but maybe a little difficult to attain. (Ideal here, refers to the "perfect"- in any aspect or domain or context). But the more time you spend with science the more you encounter usages of "ideal" in the context of the non-existent. Maybe, that influenced me, or maybe it was something else, but I have ended up with a not-so rosy picture of the world in general. Most of the time, it appears stupid (or at least over-optimistic) to pile too much hopes on something ideal.

But then again, there is this whole notion of 'everything is possible if you only strongly desire for it'. I remember APJ's autobiography talking about how desire possesses electromagnetic energy that makes the cosmos conspire to make it come true. While I don't know about the electromagnetic part, I have often seen near-miracles happen to people who strongly believe in them.

Which leaves me in a quandary. So does the ideal exist and is my desire for it not strong enough to see it? Or is what I regard as perfect simply a fantasy of my imagination and there may be no point believing in it? Is it better to hope for something and be disappointed (so you at least gave the cosmos a chance :P) or is it better to be sensible and keep your expectations low? What if you were too sensible and so missed the miracle? Maybe it is a mixture of both. Maybe I shall never have an answer for this question....*

One of the other things I have been thinking about is the very stupid NCERT cartoon ban thing going on. Maybe I will do a post on it later, but knowing myself, most probably not. So let me just say what I think about it here anyway. It is unbelievably stupid, but quite unsurprising, considering the intelligence of our elected members. (I hope that statement doesn't qualify as contempt to the constitution). I just want to ask all who find it incredible- "What did u expect of the people in the Parliament? Sense? And you think they are irrational?" I can't even hope that the government will see sense in this issue. If someone was stupid enough to take offense at a political cartoon and to consider it something that will corrupt young minds, how can you expect them to understand that a cartoon is simply an alternate viewpoint on the issue and with the necessary critical thinking skills, a student would be able to still appreciate a great leader while acknowledging his mistakes? That you don't have to paint an all-white picture of a leader, however great his contributions to the nation? It is such a subtle balance, especially in a culture where we insist on never identifying the gray and do not encourage questioning, that I doubt a government like ours shall be able to get it at all. Maybe I am too pessimistic in this, but I can only think of Roark saying- reason is something that people most definitely don't want to have on their side when they enter an argument. Which brings me back to an idea I mentioned a few paragraphs before- "The more sensible you become, the more bleak the world appears" (Interestingly it applies to science as well. The more I learn about processors and complex systems and human brains, I just can't imagine how anybody got them working at all!") There should be a moral somewhere in that sentence about pessimism and knowledge, but for the life of me, I can't see what it is... 

Well, that's it for now. Let's hope I find time to post better and more stuff during the semester....  

*Couldn't help thinking of a recursive question here- Is it too hopeful to think that I shall find the answer or should I take the sensible route and say that I might never find it? :P

Ephemeral truths?

Talking about ephemeral truths and eternal lies.. I wanted to write about this truth test thing.

I personally find it funny/weird/childish for a CM to promise or ask someone to promise in front of 'God' about anything. Come on, even kids know how to lie.. Or in Hindu style, it is Kaliyug, for God's sake. Even if the CM had promised, I wouldn't have believed him entirely. But what he did in the end was funnier. He just dodged the issue entirely.

Huh?

He refused to take the truth test he himself devised and expects us to believe he is true? I hope he isn't as naive as that. But that brought me to another question. If you truly believe in God and if you truly believe God will punish you for misdeeds etc, isn't corruption a misdeed? Isn't trying to hide corruption a misdeed? If you are anyway going to be punished for all these, you might as well have promised. (Or) If you truly believed in God, why were you corrupt in the first place?

I have seen this kind of 'god-fearing' people a lot. (Like people who fast for one month thinking about Butter Chicken throughout!) People who spend their lives making black money, evading taxes, misappropriating funds, what not. ("Aisa nahi karoge, toh zindagi me kuch nahi kar sakte.." or the "Ner vazhi romba suthu kozhandai!"* types) And then they go and write off one crore to charity. I am honestly unable to understand if they think their God is that dumb- like he will forgive you if you pay him enough! It is like they believe in God in spurts when they realize he might punish them. And for the rest of their lives they continue without any morality. If I could be God for a day, I would spend at least some part of it ragging these people. You know, just keep arguing with them, until they accept they thought God was as big a fool as themselves.

Anyway, back to our CM. I was discussing this stuff with a friend and we came up with the theory that the CM thinks corruption is not wrong as such. But he knows lying to God is wrong. And that's why he didn't make the promise. That answered my confusion a little and the theory sounds OK to me, though I can't find for the life of me how anyone can think corruption is not wrong. I can imagine someone saying, "Everybody does it. Why penalize me?" or even "Without doing so, you can't become rich" but "NOT wrong"??? Honestly, either I am incapable of that level of self-deception or I am impractical by Indian politics' standards, but corruption IS wrong. Even to save your soul. 

And if you really think God exists, forget your double standards and better believe in him fully enough not to be corrupt in the first place. Or you will land up in this funny "God-promise I didn't do it" situation. And then, don't blame me for laughing!

*This was one of Sujatha's most awesome dialogues. I really really love Sujatha for this one! For those who don't recognize it, it came in Anniyan.

Link of the day...

Quick link...

It is on Tamil Nadu politics and tweeted by krishashok. I have a lot to say on the topic myself, but most of it has already been said in this article. 

(Especially on how the current government tries to appreciate only certain aspects of Tamil literature and ignore everything else! Thiruvalluvar being the epitome of this policy. I admit Valluvar's writings were very good, but he was not the only good writer of Tamil Nadu.)

Plus I like the style of writing- Point Blank. No beating around the bush. I wish our journalists wrote this way...