One fine day I walked into a small time poet's house unknowingly. You can imagine what might ensue! But for a change instead of a poem he had a newly written "short story" to tell, I mean 'when the ink is still wet' kind. It was apparently his first. As the story unfolded it became apparent that the story's plot was a rape scene. I was still in high school mind you and so was my friend: the author. I could not think of a reason why he needed rape plot; couldn't he find something more creative. Who am I to decide the story of the plot he has written. I said story was not bad and left.
I read Bairappa's Vamshavruksha, Avarana. Both have these sex plots of a kind. I picked up Mandra and to my disgust it begins with a scene where musician is trying to plead someones wife to have sex with him. Sex is not a problem but it is not an analgesic tablet that you can take whenever you have head ache. For the second time I am looking for a reason why some authors are obsessed with sex.
I read Windy Doniger's exploits. Another clear case of lack of any creativity. I admire all authors for the effort they take in creating a piece. Bairappa especially rights well researched novels. Vamshavruskha is one of the finest novels. But to me that does not change my belief that those who lack creativity of some sort resort to sexual references too often especially extra marital ones. Over doing it is wrong not the reference itself.
15 April 2010
How we interpret the tone of an email and the emotional value in it, I wonder, may be a reflection of our own attitude rather than what is implied in the email. I pick up phone or show up in person where I strongly suspect email wont solve problem but might end up creating one! Nonetheless, even under normal informal conversational circumstances, people get offended by emails.
Email when used often becomes a chat like tool. Email is a name we have give to a mode of communication but what is going on is a conversation. But old habit of curtsies hardly dies; we still expect each mail to "address" us like old snail mail did! We do not say "Dear Siddu" every time we say something in a conversation. This difference in looking at E-mail becomes huge problem when unwanted emotions creep in.
E-mail over the years among a community of people creates an email culture so customized that people in that community start to believe everyone has the same set of protocol to deal with emails and expect others to behave the same way. New comes to a community feel that heat when they get angry emails apparently for no reason. This new community may be a new work place, new social circle. I am leaning to remember individual preferences when I communicate. Yet it is much easier if people relax a bit and stop attributing emotions to every word of emails. Emotions are hard to understand when communicating directly. How will that become easier on emails? Ignoring emotions will help a lot. Sensitive matters however are best dealt in person.
01 April 2010
Richard Dawkins argues that just as a child can not have a political ideal, she can not have a religion either. He says, it is like calling children 'these are socialist children', 'those are republican children'. Therefore there can not be a Hindu child. I like the idea. It is my own to be precise when I had realised that I am a Hindu because I was born to Hindu parents, a brahmin, a veggie etc all because I was born to a particular couple. I would be dishonest to say I chose to be this after I grew up. No I did not chose, I merely did not chose anything else. That is all.
My vegetarianism in particular is mostly inherited. However, I consciously chose to continue probably to avoid a sense of uneasiness if not guilt. Now of course I defend it! I tried to think, but I can not figure out if it was uneasiness or aversion to cruelty that made me continue. That is why I say it was probably uneasiness since I am may not have been exposed to cruelty in the sense it is required to develop aversion to it.
Even though I like the Dawkins idea. I can not figure out the solution. If some one can help separate religion and culture we could have children with cultural identity but no religious identity. Only if you can separate them. This is even more complicated for Hindus. We can definitely make children plural but depriving them of some faith is not reasonably feasible even though interesting. Absolutely queerer than we can suppose!