( Though I doubt if I am actually in Love...
but the following somehow seem to have caught my fancy, for all the right reasons )
So you think you are in Love?
~You can never come up with anything witty in their glorious presence...
when your highly acknowledged powers of repartee conveniently desert you.
~You feel lyk maarofying mushy dialogues such as
"I know not where you are, but I shall love you from afar."
~It might even be a case of Love Bi-Polar when nothing except terra firma feels secure...
~Concerning heartbreak~
(which is always around the corner...
The trouble with disappointment being, it leaves you more cynical than ever before...)
I once believed in Love,
I thought it was all true,
...but I was so naive,
I once believed in you.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Post Sid's Waking Up
Now that Sid has Woken Up
and we have all decidedly fallen in love with Mumbai (once again)
its tym to rejoice!
*WoooooHooooo*
*YaaaaaaaY*
*TaTaDaaaaaaTaTaDaDing*
I may not want to be a Wit-scrambling-gorgeous Writer or even a flabbergasting Photographer, but I will, by all means, still identify with the Movie. So even if I have Baz Luhrmann's golden words echoing in my head
"The most interesting people I know didn’t know at 22 what they
wanted to do with their lives..."
I still want to know what to do with my sad excuse of a lyf!
Being a useless/aimless/hopeless Nitwit was never oh-so-berry out of Fashion!
To prove that point we have Ranbir Kapoor as Siddharth Mehra, who with his droopy-eyes-and-adorable-expressions has shown us why we can never tire of GrowingUpPains kinda flicks. And even if we do hear of comparisons between his Bachna Ae Haseeno and Wake Up Sid act, we can always rely on Konkana Sen to make the difference as the all-figured-out lovely Miss Aisha Banerjee.
The movie may not get best flick of the year award,( The best Popcorn-Flick, maybe)
but there are still several reasons to go catch it.
For Eg:-
1. Ranbir Kapoor
2. Konkana Sen
3. Rahul Khanna
4. 'Laaaksmi'
5. 'Chottu'
6. Cartoon Tees
7. Colourful Socks
8. A Do-It-Yourself House Painting Guide
9. Mangoes
10. How-Not-To-Study-If-Just-In-Case-You-Are-Intending-To-Pass.
11. What-To-Do-After-You-Have-Failed.
12. Various-Tries-On-How-To-Cook-An-Egg.
13. SkullCandies!!!
...Etcetra.
Hoping to catch you at the next show.
Btw, I still have not LEGALLY watched the movie.
and we have all decidedly fallen in love with Mumbai (once again)
its tym to rejoice!
*WoooooHooooo*
*YaaaaaaaY*
*TaTaDaaaaaaTaTaDaDing*
I may not want to be a Wit-scrambling-gorgeous Writer or even a flabbergasting Photographer, but I will, by all means, still identify with the Movie. So even if I have Baz Luhrmann's golden words echoing in my head
"The most interesting people I know didn’t know at 22 what they
wanted to do with their lives..."
I still want to know what to do with my sad excuse of a lyf!
Being a useless/aimless/hopeless Nitwit was never oh-so-berry out of Fashion!
To prove that point we have Ranbir Kapoor as Siddharth Mehra, who with his droopy-eyes-and-adorable-expressions has shown us why we can never tire of GrowingUpPains kinda flicks. And even if we do hear of comparisons between his Bachna Ae Haseeno and Wake Up Sid act, we can always rely on Konkana Sen to make the difference as the all-figured-out lovely Miss Aisha Banerjee.
The movie may not get best flick of the year award,( The best Popcorn-Flick, maybe)
but there are still several reasons to go catch it.
For Eg:-
1. Ranbir Kapoor
2. Konkana Sen
3. Rahul Khanna
4. 'Laaaksmi'
5. 'Chottu'
6. Cartoon Tees
7. Colourful Socks
8. A Do-It-Yourself House Painting Guide
9. Mangoes
10. How-Not-To-Study-If-Just-In-Case-You-Are-Intending-To-Pass.
11. What-To-Do-After-You-Have-Failed.
12. Various-Tries-On-How-To-Cook-An-Egg.
13. SkullCandies!!!
...Etcetra.
Hoping to catch you at the next show.
Btw, I still have not LEGALLY watched the movie.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
My Son's Story
Commenting on the significance of the title of
Nadine Gordimer’s My Son’s Story.
Nadine Gordimer’s My Son’s Story published in 1990, takes up several issues of the time -
interracial love, adultery and the ongoing revolution to overthrow apartheid in South Africa - and brings them together in an exceptionally well-told story format from the view points of the boy, Will, in first person and his father, Sonny, in third person, perhaps, making the narrative sound patriarchal. Even Malashri Lal in her introduction to the novel calls Will
“ a patriarchal producer of knowledge. “
But whose story is it anyway?
According to Malashri Lal, in her introduction to the book,
“ Gordimer’s choice of a youthful recording voice serves the purpose of placing agency outside the immediate realm of action , and also to subject the agency itself to a critical review.”
The story comes out as Will’s burden which he insists on hiding rather than sharing with the two prime female characters- his mother, Aila and his sister, Baby. Will considers himself a helpless observer. Just as the novel is meant to be Will’s story about Sonny, it is equally Sonny’s story about Will as Will makes it obvious in the end of the novel.
“ – my father – made me a writer. “
These lines bring out Will’s utter frustration at not being able to share anything verbally either with his sister when she started a conversation with him,
“ you never open your mouth, but I suppose you wonder why anyone’d do such a stupid thing.”
Nor does he convey the grievances of his heart to his mother. Hence, after he is left alone in the house with his father he takes to venting out his pent up frustration on the word processor he bought with his own savings.
According to Dominic Head in his essay, My Son’s Story,
“ Will’s reluctance at his ‘enforced’ vocation ( of being a writer ) stems from the appropriation of his personal life for public need: … the avowed impossibility of publication suggests a paradoxical reluctance to make the sacrifice, which has in fact already been made… it also suggests the need to protect the sensitive details of the activism Will has described in his translation of his famil’s ‘reality’ into ‘fiction’. “
According to my own personal view, the title could also stem from the Mother’s (Aila’s) viewpoint rather than just the father, Sonny.
Will being Aila’s baby, as emphasized and proclaimed by Will himself in several parts of the narrative was closer to Aila than he ever was to anyone else in his family.
He felt for her. He was a friend to her in her times of solitude. He was someone she could rely on.
Aila is the only character in the book whose personal story never comes out. As Malashri Lal points out in her introduction,
“ she (Aila) is the only person who knows her own story. Silent, self-contained, assured, she guards her privacy, always. “
The epigraph, the novel begins with,
“You had a Father, let your son say so.”
- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 13
Could as well as be from the father’s side as well as the mother’s side.
Therefore, the story becomes a metaphorical narrative constructed by the parents for their children.
Nadine Gordimer’s My Son’s Story.
Nadine Gordimer’s My Son’s Story published in 1990, takes up several issues of the time -
interracial love, adultery and the ongoing revolution to overthrow apartheid in South Africa - and brings them together in an exceptionally well-told story format from the view points of the boy, Will, in first person and his father, Sonny, in third person, perhaps, making the narrative sound patriarchal. Even Malashri Lal in her introduction to the novel calls Will
“ a patriarchal producer of knowledge. “
But whose story is it anyway?
According to Malashri Lal, in her introduction to the book,
“ Gordimer’s choice of a youthful recording voice serves the purpose of placing agency outside the immediate realm of action , and also to subject the agency itself to a critical review.”
The story comes out as Will’s burden which he insists on hiding rather than sharing with the two prime female characters- his mother, Aila and his sister, Baby. Will considers himself a helpless observer. Just as the novel is meant to be Will’s story about Sonny, it is equally Sonny’s story about Will as Will makes it obvious in the end of the novel.
“ – my father – made me a writer. “
These lines bring out Will’s utter frustration at not being able to share anything verbally either with his sister when she started a conversation with him,
“ you never open your mouth, but I suppose you wonder why anyone’d do such a stupid thing.”
Nor does he convey the grievances of his heart to his mother. Hence, after he is left alone in the house with his father he takes to venting out his pent up frustration on the word processor he bought with his own savings.
According to Dominic Head in his essay, My Son’s Story,
“ Will’s reluctance at his ‘enforced’ vocation ( of being a writer ) stems from the appropriation of his personal life for public need: … the avowed impossibility of publication suggests a paradoxical reluctance to make the sacrifice, which has in fact already been made… it also suggests the need to protect the sensitive details of the activism Will has described in his translation of his famil’s ‘reality’ into ‘fiction’. “
According to my own personal view, the title could also stem from the Mother’s (Aila’s) viewpoint rather than just the father, Sonny.
Will being Aila’s baby, as emphasized and proclaimed by Will himself in several parts of the narrative was closer to Aila than he ever was to anyone else in his family.
He felt for her. He was a friend to her in her times of solitude. He was someone she could rely on.
Aila is the only character in the book whose personal story never comes out. As Malashri Lal points out in her introduction,
“ she (Aila) is the only person who knows her own story. Silent, self-contained, assured, she guards her privacy, always. “
The epigraph, the novel begins with,
“You had a Father, let your son say so.”
- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 13
Could as well as be from the father’s side as well as the mother’s side.
Therefore, the story becomes a metaphorical narrative constructed by the parents for their children.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Howard Roark
My Favourite Character
and
Is it possible to be like Howard Roark ?
“I don’t wish to be the symbol for anything. I’m only myself.”
~Howard Roark
“The Fountainhead”
Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” which was published in 1943 had a lot of new things to offer – from architecture to Objectivism, everything was lapped up the cult following it generated. For me, the best part of the book is its protagonist-
Howard Roark – Architecture.
Roark is the kind who wonders why ineptitude should be allowed to exist. He is the sort who would rather struggle in obscurity than compromise on his artistic and personal vision. He is from the rare species who in shrugging off a compliment manage to keep their integrity and self-respect perfectly intact. He denies all references to his inherent selflessness, instead declaring himself as selfish as humanly possible and referring to Peter Keating a selfless man. He denounces his kindness while at the same time helping a man face through his most troublesome projects. It is the same man who later refers to him “a failure, a flop, an incompetent”.
Ayn Rand, in descibin’ the character of “Mike” Sean Xavier Donnigan,
has given us an inside view of Roark as well-
“…People meant very little to Mike, but their performance a great deal. He worshipped expertness of any kind. He loved his work passionately and had no tolerance for anything save for other single-track devotions. He was a master in his own field and he felt no sympathy except for mastery. His view of the world was simple: there were the able and there were the incompetent: he was not concerned with the latter. He loved buildings. He despised, however, all architects.”
After reading the book I believe that each man has the moral obligation to defend what is good and true- to stand for every man, woman and child who can not be stood for.
I believe a man should stand for himself.
To the sheep and the second-handers, I have only one thing to say – Learn to swim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Is it possible to be like Howard Roark ?
“I don’t wish to be the symbol for anything. I’m only myself.”
~Howard Roark
“The Fountainhead”
Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” which was published in 1943 had a lot of new things to offer – from architecture to Objectivism, everything was lapped up the cult following it generated. For me, the best part of the book is its protagonist-
Howard Roark – Architecture.
Roark is the kind who wonders why ineptitude should be allowed to exist. He is the sort who would rather struggle in obscurity than compromise on his artistic and personal vision. He is from the rare species who in shrugging off a compliment manage to keep their integrity and self-respect perfectly intact. He denies all references to his inherent selflessness, instead declaring himself as selfish as humanly possible and referring to Peter Keating a selfless man. He denounces his kindness while at the same time helping a man face through his most troublesome projects. It is the same man who later refers to him “a failure, a flop, an incompetent”.
Ayn Rand, in descibin’ the character of “Mike” Sean Xavier Donnigan,
has given us an inside view of Roark as well-
“…People meant very little to Mike, but their performance a great deal. He worshipped expertness of any kind. He loved his work passionately and had no tolerance for anything save for other single-track devotions. He was a master in his own field and he felt no sympathy except for mastery. His view of the world was simple: there were the able and there were the incompetent: he was not concerned with the latter. He loved buildings. He despised, however, all architects.”
After reading the book I believe that each man has the moral obligation to defend what is good and true- to stand for every man, woman and child who can not be stood for.
I believe a man should stand for himself.
To the sheep and the second-handers, I have only one thing to say – Learn to swim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 19, 2009
OBJECTIVISM
“Man cannot survive except through his mind”
~Howard Roark, “The Fountainhead”.
The theory of Objectivism was first propounded by the writer, novelist and philosopher, Any Rand. According to Wikipedia , Objectivism is derived from the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not intrinsic to some inaccessible reality, nor created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind. Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.
Rand when asked to simplify the terms of her theory said that Reality existed as an objective absolute. Facts are facts independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
She identified Reason as man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. According to her, Man - every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Rand believed that there must be only three supreme values allowed to govern a person's life: Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem.
Reason, as his only tool of knowledge.
Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve.
Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.
These three values implied and required all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertained to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.
It is like Roark says at the Cortlandt trial, “Mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as thing as a collective brain.”
Bibliography-
~Wikipedia
~Ayn Rand Institute
~Howard Roark, “The Fountainhead”.
The theory of Objectivism was first propounded by the writer, novelist and philosopher, Any Rand. According to Wikipedia , Objectivism is derived from the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not intrinsic to some inaccessible reality, nor created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind. Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.
Rand when asked to simplify the terms of her theory said that Reality existed as an objective absolute. Facts are facts independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
She identified Reason as man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. According to her, Man - every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Rand believed that there must be only three supreme values allowed to govern a person's life: Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem.
Reason, as his only tool of knowledge.
Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve.
Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.
These three values implied and required all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertained to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.
It is like Roark says at the Cortlandt trial, “Mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as thing as a collective brain.”
Bibliography-
~Wikipedia
~Ayn Rand Institute
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Its all in your Jeans!
"...Some like it short,
Most like theirs hot,
Tight is not always right,
But a true fit is certainly a hit!"
~Courtesy:- Moi
Originating in the eighteenth century those comfy pair of Jeans are one major piece of heritage! They have truly withstood not just the test but also the CBSE Examination of T.I.M.E (Truly Intense Mortifying Experience).
The word Jeans itself comes from the first Fashion Frat- the Genoan sailors who used to wear clothes made out of a mixture of various stuff. Denim was a kind of black clothing used in France from the town of Nimes. Then an entrepreneur decided to come along and make jeans while the gold was dug. His name was Levi Strauss. The rest is pure old history!
From the 70's Bell Bottoms to the 2000s Skinny - everyone has a story to tell. So do our parents! I have heard accounts of how Connaught's Mohan Singh Place was the only market in Delhi to cater to the need of the then young and happening crowd who also wanted to be seen in Jean-Pants. Or if you happened to have generous NRI relatives, you could always twist them into getting a pair or two for you!
So what is it about the Jeans culture that has managed to not just survive but blatantly, against all odds, remain the most haute couture item in everyone's wardrobe? Evolution, my dear Watson! Think about it. It makes perfect sense. In order to survive, something must adapt to its ever-changing environment. This principle applies to all things, alive and non-living. Without adaptation comes extinction. It is essential to evolve. Jeans have done exactly that. In the constantly changing world of fashion and popular culture, jeans have been adjusted every step of the way to suit their new environment. In this case, the environment involves trends, attitudes and looks. With every decade and every new generation, jeans have been adapted in order to ensure their continued popularity.
Initially worn by workers, Jeans, have managed to sustain life for a century or so. Now, with my and every die hard fanatic's wish, may they continue to do so forever and ever!
Most like theirs hot,
Tight is not always right,
But a true fit is certainly a hit!"
~Courtesy:- Moi
Originating in the eighteenth century those comfy pair of Jeans are one major piece of heritage! They have truly withstood not just the test but also the CBSE Examination of T.I.M.E (Truly Intense Mortifying Experience).
The word Jeans itself comes from the first Fashion Frat- the Genoan sailors who used to wear clothes made out of a mixture of various stuff. Denim was a kind of black clothing used in France from the town of Nimes. Then an entrepreneur decided to come along and make jeans while the gold was dug. His name was Levi Strauss. The rest is pure old history!
From the 70's Bell Bottoms to the 2000s Skinny - everyone has a story to tell. So do our parents! I have heard accounts of how Connaught's Mohan Singh Place was the only market in Delhi to cater to the need of the then young and happening crowd who also wanted to be seen in Jean-Pants. Or if you happened to have generous NRI relatives, you could always twist them into getting a pair or two for you!
So what is it about the Jeans culture that has managed to not just survive but blatantly, against all odds, remain the most haute couture item in everyone's wardrobe? Evolution, my dear Watson! Think about it. It makes perfect sense. In order to survive, something must adapt to its ever-changing environment. This principle applies to all things, alive and non-living. Without adaptation comes extinction. It is essential to evolve. Jeans have done exactly that. In the constantly changing world of fashion and popular culture, jeans have been adjusted every step of the way to suit their new environment. In this case, the environment involves trends, attitudes and looks. With every decade and every new generation, jeans have been adapted in order to ensure their continued popularity.
Initially worn by workers, Jeans, have managed to sustain life for a century or so. Now, with my and every die hard fanatic's wish, may they continue to do so forever and ever!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
India... ???
-India is where sweet Lassi and tangy MangoChutney go hand in hand and somehow where famine is the norm every summer.
-India is the land of Monsoons where rains clog up the most metropolitan of our cities.
-India is where Rituals and Traditions throng the markets - From New Year to Diwali, its all about the money, honey!
-India is where the Government employs the world's largest railway system under a single management.
-India is where we have a fine of 50 bucks for riding atop the Delhi Metro.
I am certain quite a few may have tried it.
-India is where every teeny weeny kid recites the anthem whereas only a handful understand the highly Sankritised Bengali.
-India is where there is a Paradise on Earth, only Pakistan seems to think otherwise.
-India is where the public signs up protesting against rape atrocities in the Congo War, while our very own females (age no bar) have no voice.
-India is where we have 1% of the world's road vehicles and 6 % of the world's road accident deaths.
-India is where we have a population of One Billion and counting with about 40% of them below the poverty line.
-India is where the average age of people losing their virginity is eighteen years.
-India is where the highest number of HIV infections are found.
-India is where the 500,000 female infants were chosen to be killed before they arrived in his world.
-India is where everyone points out the problems in our system... but never the solutions.
-India is the land of Monsoons where rains clog up the most metropolitan of our cities.
-India is where Rituals and Traditions throng the markets - From New Year to Diwali, its all about the money, honey!
-India is where the Government employs the world's largest railway system under a single management.
-India is where we have a fine of 50 bucks for riding atop the Delhi Metro.
I am certain quite a few may have tried it.
-India is where every teeny weeny kid recites the anthem whereas only a handful understand the highly Sankritised Bengali.
-India is where there is a Paradise on Earth, only Pakistan seems to think otherwise.
-India is where the public signs up protesting against rape atrocities in the Congo War, while our very own females (age no bar) have no voice.
-India is where we have 1% of the world's road vehicles and 6 % of the world's road accident deaths.
-India is where we have a population of One Billion and counting with about 40% of them below the poverty line.
-India is where the average age of people losing their virginity is eighteen years.
-India is where the highest number of HIV infections are found.
-India is where the 500,000 female infants were chosen to be killed before they arrived in his world.
-India is where everyone points out the problems in our system... but never the solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)