A Wednesday

I finally watched 'A Wednesday'. Interesting movie, awful name, some cringe-worthy moments - for instance the over zealous cops. Overall, it was better made than most Hindi movies.

But of course, what people were talking about was not the quality of the production, but the questions it posed. Particularly poignant is the fact that it came out less than 3 months before the November attacks on Mumbai. I believe it captured the mood of the country perfectly. It clearly raised all the right questions. Now, if only someone would make a movie with all the answers!

Here's a Hemingway-esque short story for you: Wikipedia article for "13 September 2008 Delhi bombings" starts with "Not to be confused with 27 September 2008 Delhi blast".

My upcoming exam

We are coming up on our first wedding anniversary. We are also coming up on our green card interview. I'm not sure what to expect, but apparently if they suspect that the marriage is fradulent -- they put us in separate rooms and quiz us about our marriage.

Hmm, that sounds uncomfortable.. but what would be really awkward is if I couldn't answer the questions!
Where was he born? Where did you go on your first date? What did he have for breakfast yesterday? What's his favorite music band? What color are the walls in your bedroom? (I swear I looked around the house to double check the answer) What gifts did you give each other for your birthdays? (Uh, nothing...) Who does most of the cooking? (Umm, did you mean who defrosts the pizzas?)

Will the immigration officer pass judgment on the genuiness of my marriage -- or on my fitness as a wife? Are any of us ready to have our marriages examined by total strangers?

Tempests in Teapots

A British director makes a movie based in the slums of Mumbai, and self righteous Mumbaikars accuse him of 'peddling poverty porn'. As if hundreds of Hindi movies haven't dwelt on the exact same storyline. And as if the poverty needs peddling, as if it isn't right there, in your face -- on street corners, waiting at each intersection, squatting along train tracks.

In the movie, several very nasty characters scornfully refer to the hero as a 'slumdog' - and slumdwellers associations are up in arms! The irony of being offended by a term invented precisely to highlight the callousness of the characters using it.. is lost on them.

The New York Post printed a really nasty cartoon. A man with a smoking gun, a bullet ridden monkey corpse -- all this parodying the horrible mauling of a woman! Yes, a seriously disturbing cartoon. But racist? Give me a break! The stimulus bill has been roundly criticized by Republican types, but the bulk of the blame has been on Congress. If anything, the cartoonist was calling Nancy Pelosi a crazy chimpanzee, not Barack Obama. To jump from this image to racism to a call for violence against Obama is just plain ridiculous.

Ah well, the sillier the cause, the louder the protestors.

I am glad A.R.Rahman won at the Oscars today -- he has singlehandedly transformed Hindi film music over the last 15 years. My only complaint is that the quality of the lyrics is inversely proportional to the quality of the music.

Epiphany time

Hmm, I've never really known the US under any other president. Tomorrow is going to be a strange day.

I wonder how long the magic will last.

Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, The Daily Show and Real Time are all going to get a lot less funny.

I was watching a documentary about Dr King yesterday, and was struck by the parallels with Gandhi's struggle. You know something really weird - it doesn't take any more bullets to kill a great man than it does to kill an ordinary one.

WTF

Two and a half years ago, I wrote a blistering blog post ranting about Indian politicians. Yet again, they had allowed disaster to hit Bombay, and yet again their response was ridiculously inadequate. Well, here we go again...

Allow me to recap:

In 1993, Dawood Ibrahim and his thugs blew up 250 people, and injured thousands. Mumbaikars reacted like heroes, ordinary citizens rushed to help the injured. The next day everybody went about their jobs as usual, they were not going to let the biggest terrorism attack in India stop them.
Our wonderful government responded by
(a) praising the 'resilience' of Mumbaikars and
(b) whining about how Dawood Ibrahim was the mastermind behind the attacks, but Pakistan was sheltering him.

In 2005, unprecedented rainfall caused massive flooding , leaving hundreds dead, widespread property damage and a paralyzed city. Mumbaikars reacted like heroes. Ordinary citizens organized rescue attempts, and lined the streets providing food, water and shelter to stranded folks.
Our wonderful government responded by
(a) praising the 'spirit of Mumbai'
(b) acting surprised that it was possible for this amount of rainfall to occur (it had only occured seven times before)
(c) acting surprised that such rain could cause so much damage in a city that is damaged every year by regular rainfall
(d) acting surprised that they were expected to have a plan to deal with it
(e) claiming that it was unrealistic to expect the disaster management team to get together during ... a disaster.


In 2006, a whole new generation of terrorists brought bombs to Mumbai, this time in trains. As in any large city, the public transportation system is the lifeblood of Mumbai. A bomb in a train is a truly egalitarian bomb, it targets rich and poor, Hindu and Muslim, men and women, college students and retirees. By now Mumbaikars knew the routine. They pulled bodies out of trains, drove the injured to hospitals, and streamed out into the streets to help the affected.
They told each other how resilient they were and boasted of the spirit of Mumbai, and talked about how they would all go back to work the next morning. The stock exchange shot up to prove its confidence in Mumbai.
Nobody particularly expected the government to do or say anything. But out of a sense of obligation, the government went through its old tired routine
(a) praise resilience
(b) blame the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI), indulge in some blustering and empty threats.
(c) announce large sums in compensation to victims and their families.
(d) wait for commotion to die down and carry on as always.

This time is different. I feel it in my bones.

For one thing this long, drawn out standoff -- in the full glare of international media -- has been a public humiliation for India. Our myth as an up and coming superpower was busted. I have the greatest respect for our troops and national security guards and they acted with great courage. But as the 3 day drama unfolded, it was abundantly clear to anyone with a TV, that we were completely out of our league. A handful of boys with guns landed in our largest city with bags full of explosives. They marched into our fanciest hotels and shot our rich and powerful at will. They wandered from one murderous job to another, completely unmolested. They hijacked a police van - a police van for crying out loud! They took a small building with maybe 10 hostages and it took us two days and six lives to free that building. They wandered around shooting up our most famous hotel for three days, and we were powerless to stop them, free the people inside, or even know whether the hotel was safe. A handful of boys with guns kept our commercial capital hostage for 3 days.

Nobody had the luxury of surprise this time around. Bombay has been struck twice before. There have been several terrorist attacks all over India this year. There was no excuse for the complete lack of forewarning, the complete lack of security and the completely shoddy response.

And of course, the targeting of foreign nationals has a clear psychological impact. It will definitely erode international confidence and cause real and lasting financial damage.

Most importantly, when the politicians go up on stage to offer another round of platitudes, they will find that the resilience of Mumbaikars has worn thin. They are finally tired of walking around wondering what will blow up next.

I hope that tomorrow, instead of going back to work as usual, Mumbaikars come out in the streets and go on strike. I hope they remind the government that its first job is to protect its citizens. Above all, I hope they remember that they are citizens of a democracy. Which means that they are the government and are ultimately responsible for all its failings and when the government is broken, it is their job to fix it.

November 4, 2008

It was 10 pm Pacific time. I was at a friend's house, watching the election results come in on her crappy TV (no cable; just scratchy, over the air network television). She had gone to bed but I stayed up, fingers crossed, switching channels, hoping against hope. And then, they called Ohio. Ohio went for Bush, Florida went for Bush, and before my unbelieving eyes, Americans elected Bush to the White House for four more years. This time around there was no excuse, no hanging chads, no partisan judges. Americans had voluntarily and decisively brought Bush back into power. And I went to bed, a little sad, a little worried and a lot disappointed.

Tonight was very different. The clock struck 8, polls on the Pacific coast closed, and instantly, CNN handed CA, WA and OR to Obama, and declared him "President Elect". Obama wins by a landslide, with more than twice the electoral votes McCain received. However he has a heavy burden on his shoulders. Extremely high expectations that perhaps no one can live up to. He has won the campaign and now the real challenge starts, and he will need to prove that he can act as well as he talks. There may well be disappointment in our future.

But for tonight, I am going to bed a little happy and a little proud, my faith in humanity a little restored.

Let's pretend this is my diary

It is 6pm on a lazy, rainy Saturday in November -- and this is going to be one of those stream of consciousness posts. You have been warned.

I have missed out on several blogging opportunities this year. I did not blog about the upcoming elections, or my recent trip to Greece, or about sunny San Diego or my friend's newborn kid or another friend's wedding. For that matter, I did not even blog about my own wedding or honeymoon! And now, it is too late. The window of opportunity has passed, along with the window of enthusiasm. Instead, here I am, with itching fingertips, yet no stories left to tell. But I can't turn away, the desire to talk, to say something -- is too great. My heart is filled with that strange emotion I can never find a name for, but which comes over me every once in a while. You know what I mean -- the sort of feeling that engulfs you when you are sitting around a campfire in the middle of the night. Or in a rocking chair by the window on a rainy evening. You want to speak so badly, speak about serious things -- not silly stuff -- but stuff you rarely out loud. In fact, things you just don't know how to say out loud, you feel them inside of yourself, but you lack the language to articulate them.

It has been a strange week, I have seen myself reflected in different people's eyes, and am left wondering who I am. Who I am, who I am pretending to be, and who I want to be.

And just as I write this, my husband comes scurrying in like an excited school boy. He wants to show me what he just made - a wood threading tool. Except the demo doesn't work quite so well, and he goes back to his woodshop, still excited but a little subdued.

And I'm sure there is a great moral lesson I can draw from all this, but I have no idea what it could be.

Touchy topics..

Facebook should really learn not to insult its users.

Here's the ad it showed me today:

"I am 87 yrs old, but I look 67! Thanks to Vogue Wrinkle remover"

Thanks, but no thanks :)

I've been lying in bed sick the last few days.. entertaining myself with an HBO historical mini-series John Adams. David didn't care for it, he thinks it "strange".

The drama is of course about the life of America's second President, John Adams, starting shortly before the American revolution and ending with him being elected President. I liked it, I don't mind slow movies, and I love historical dramas. But as I watched the revolutionary war unfold, the main thought that went through my mind was - Thank God for Mahatma Gandhi.

Seriously, I have never given much thought to non-violence. But while watching the movie, I realised the immense moral burden of unleashing death and destruction, even in a just cause. You are supposed to root for the revolutionaries, but I felt the anguish of the pacifists too. And I am truly glad that Indian independence was not bought at such a moral cost. You know, it's become quite the fashion in India to demean Gandhiji, but he was quite the guy!

And since tomorrow (or today, depending on where you are) is August 15th, I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts..

Vande Mataram

and

Doordarshan occasionally did not suck

Sweetest XKCD strip ...

http://xkcd.com/458/

(Funniest xkcd strip ... http://xkcd.com/416/)

"Wear Sunscreen"

I was not looking forward to going to work on Wednesday morning.
I had to give a presentation on Thursday afternoon. A presentation I had a serious mental block about. Which meant that I had done no preparation. Which in turn meant that in addition to the mental block, I now had a healthy dose of stress. And disappointingly enough, none of the other work I was procrastinating on had magically disappeared.

So yes, I wanted to crawl back in to bed.

And right then I found an announcement in my email: Peter Sagal's talk will be at 12:30 pm. Peter Sagal? Peter Sagal of "Wait Wait, don't tell me" fame was coming to Google??

Since I am reasonably sure that none of you know what "Wait Wait, don't tell me" is, this needs some background.

WWDTM is my newest guilty pleasure. It started out as a casual, occasional weekend fling. My car radio is tuned to NPR all the time. And if I was ever driving around between 11 and 12 on a Saturday morning, I would catch snippets of a mildly amusing news quiz show. The more I listened to it, the more I liked it - and soon I started planning my errands on Saturday around the show. Then came the fateful day when I realised I could get the show's podcast. It was a godsend! An excellent way to amuse myself while doing mundane tasks around the house, it almost made me look forward to cleaning and washing dishes! And in recent months I have become completely addicted to the show. To the point where I have listened to the last 3 years of archives. To the point where I have seriously contemplated flying to Chicago, just to watch a taping of the show.

So yes, I was excited to see that the host of the show would be at Google. He is a great host and very witty. Recently I discovered his blog, and he came off as a thoughtful and likable person as well. The idea that I would get to see him in person made my day.

The talk was one of the better attended talks at Google. I am clearly not the only NPR junkie in town. Peter Sagal did not disappoint in person. He started off with some Google jokes, at the same time telling us how much he loved our products. I don't know if he really likes them or he was just being polite.. but I enjoyed the needling about "Googlers" and "Googly". To an outsider, those terms must be seriously cringe-worthy. I know I cringed the first time I heard them! [You get used to it, though I have never used the word Googly myself - atleast, not without mental "air quotes"]
He then went on to read us some excerpts from his book. They were quite funny but sometimes a little hard to follow... wordy comedy like that needs to be read rather than read aloud. And then several people aske him about WWDTM. He told us about how Gene Simmons from KISS appeared on his show and was a complete a**hole. Apparently Gene Simmons was equally bad with Terri Gross [never mind, she's another NPR personality who you will be perfectly satisfied to know nothing about]. He told us about how he hates Clippy, the Microsoft Office animated paper clip, and how they fantasized about a gangland execution of Clippy on the show one time. I remember that show, it was a great bit.

All in all, I am thrilled that I got a chance to finally see him in person. If my colleague with the big camera had attended, I would have had a few pictures of the talk to post here. Oh well.

I still want to watch a taping of the show though.

By the way, the blog title has nothing to do with this blog post. I just really like the Wear Sunscreen speech. What do you mean: what Wear Sunscreen speech? Look it up - I hear there's this wonderful website called "Google".

Yet another Web 2.0 parody

(but a funny one)

Here's a hilarious video made by some amateur geeky musicians. At least one of them works at Google (though I don't know him)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fi4fzvQ6I-o

Even more geeky humour (this will ring depressingly true if you went to grad school in the US) :
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php

Mee Mazha

You know the problem with Wikipedia?

Google is equally bad. I started off looking at wedding dresses online (P.S.: I want to look like this... or maybe like this)

Four hours of "fascinated clicking" later, I end up on a site for Mee Mazha. Before we go there though, I have to confess my secret shame. I have read very little Marathi literature. Very very little. True, the little I have read is really good. Some stories by P.L. Deshpande. A gigantic two part epic about Shivaji. And, of course, Mrityunjaya - the revisionist story about Karna. My parents were very surprised I made it through that book... they didn't realise that Karna was my favourite mythological character.

But other than those, the only Marathi book I ever read was a little pocket book collection of 4 line poems by Chandrashekhar Gokhale - Mee Mazha. Turns out, it's quite a popular little book, several people quote it online. Which is a good thing for me, because I can effortlessly copy from their sites on to mine, for your reading pleasure.

We'll skip the romantic ones shall we? Happy romantic poems are either trite or cringe-inducingly mushy. Poems about the loss of the loved one are less awful, since the poet has been hit by a healthy dose of reality.

The kind of poetry I like is the cynical type with a tinge of pathos.

इथे वेडे असन्याचे
खूप फायदे आहेत
शहाण्यान साठी ज़ग्ण्याचे
काटेकोर कायदे आहेत

[In this world there are many advantages to being mad. The so-called sane ones need to abide by very strict rules]

पाण्याच वाग्णं
किती विसंगत
पोहोणार्याला बुडवून
प्रेताला ठेवत तरंगत

[Water behaves very inconsistently. It drowns a swimmer, but makes the corpse float]

God, these sound morbid in English! If Chandrashekhar Gokhale were in school, he'd be put under psychological supervision!

Alright, here's one that's more ironic than morbid.

घराभोवती कुंपण हवं
म्हणजे आप्ल जग ठरवता येतं
बाहेर बर्बटलेलं अस्लंतरी
आपल्या पुरतं सावर्ता येतं

[This one is going to be slaughtered in the translation...
We build a fence around our homes, to mark out our world. So we can ignore the messiness outside, and keep our corner tidy.]

No smart exit line for today's post. Just the dawning realisation that globalization can kill cultures. And what shame it would be if my mother tongue died out...

The coalition of the reluctant

The newest political casuality of Bush's war on terror... John Howard. The Australian PM, was defeated in what the BBC repeatedly referred to as a "landslide". In fact, last I heard, he's likely losing his own seat in Parliament. What a crushing humiliation for a sitting Prime Minister!!

And so it continues - Bush's poisonous association fells allies home and abroad. The House, the Senate, the United Kingdom, Australia... But no fear. Bush has promised that as long as Laura and Barney (his dog) are on his side, he's fine. No guilty conscience keeps him awake. He can sleep the blissful sleep of the empty-minded.

As for the rest of us, we can celebrate another small victory for sanity.

Pet Peeve #5678: "Values Voters"

"Values voters" - that was a term tossed around a lot during the 2004 elections, and now its back. All the Republican candidates are flip-flopping like crazy to woo the crucial value voters.

I have just one question - what the @#$!#$% hell are value voters? Since when are bashing gays and forcing women to have children considered "values"?? And what about the other values in life? Like you know, not torturing people, or invading countries for oil? How about not misleading a people into war, or not scaring them into giving up liberties?
I don't even buy the idea that religious people are the "value voters". I mean, doesn't being "Christian" mean having compassion for others? Caring for the poor and the needy? Judging not lest ye be judged?

All I can conclude is that the Republican party has the best PR machine ever. They've convinced the followers of Jesus they belong on the same team as the rich bloodsuckers. And they've convinced the mainstream media to adopt their ridiculous, dishonest characterization of the electorate.

Every age has its heroes

(Despite what it sounds like, this is not a post about Yuvraj or Dhoni!)

I caught a rerun of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Comedy Central) tonight. An episode I'd missed last week. Usually the monologue's the best part, but tonight was different.
The interview was with Chris Matthews from Hardball (MSNBC?) Chris Matthews, who I've never watched, was promoting his new book - "Life's a campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success".

Now, I don't know about you - but when I saw that title, it didn't make me warm and fuzzy all over. "Life's a Campaign" is definitely not the moral lesson I want to pass down to my children. So I wasn't surprised when Jon started chaffing Chris about the title.

"It sounds like a recipe for sadness..."

But Chris disagreed vehemently, and it went downhill from there.

Ok, lets face it - went downhill for Chris, not for Jon and certainly not the audience. There was no shouting match, no fist fights, and both of them were laughing copiously throughout. But it was very uncomfortable laughter - Jon was laughing to take the edge off his remarks, while Chris was just laughing in disbelief. Throughout the interview, Jon didn't back off from his main position; he was polite but insistent. The book did not have a moral core. Political campaigns were a series of orchestrated, contrived, fake events. And telling people to treat life that way - to win by lying and pretending and attacking, was shallow and wrong. Chris, on the other hand, couldn't believe what was happening, he felt he'd been ambushed!

"You're trashing my book!"

"No, I'm trashing your philosophy of life"
...
"This is the worst book interview ever... Why don't you come on Hardball, two can play at this game!"

Jon's response? "I don't troll"

Does this remind you of anything? My introduction to Jon Stewart was the Crossfire interview he did a couple of years ago, where he told off Tucker Carlson. And I stumbled upon that while following Stephen Colbert's extremely ballsy act at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
I could not get over either of those two videos! Here finally, finally, someone was talking sense. I wasn't crazy to hate network news, it wasn't weird when TV felt like an episode from Through the Looking Glass. There were others who felt the same way! And they were up there, saying it - very articulately and even funnily!
Now I'm a cynic, and I've often wondered about the motivation behind Jon's Crossfire interview. It paid off big time and clearly did wonders for his popularity. Was it yet another orchestrated display of insincere emotion? Was he just playing to his core audience? Maybe. Probably. But at the end of the day, I agreed with what he said and I liked the way he said it. What more can I ask for? A window into a stranger's soul?
Colbert's speech was far gutsier - roasting the President of your country when he's sitting five feet away? Performing before a live audience that you're alienating with every word? Of course, he must have hoped it would become a viral video sensation overnight.. But still, those must have been ten terrifying minutes.

Jon Stewart's show is very hit-and-miss in funniness. But his opinions are sound (or atleast, they agree with mine, which is essentially the same thing). Among all the talk shows I've seen, his - paradoxically, the comic one - stands out for its integrity, honesty and penetrating insight. (Remember, insight is not less penetrating because its expressed as a joke.) And it is pretty clear that a lot of young Americans agree with me. You see all these surveys about how the majority of youngsters are getting their news from Comedy Central these days. But you know what? I've watched Jon Stewart's five minute monologue, I've watched CNN's Headline news and I've watched Fox News' Weekend edition on Sundays. They all contain an equal amount of content. So why the hell not??

I know what you guys are thinking... Seriously, Mugdha? You're holding up a late night fake news comedy anchor as a hero? Well, you play with the cards you're dealt. I would much rather idolize a bright eyed young moral statesman or an idealistic resistance fighter. Even a brave athlete, who wins against all odds. But lets face it - all politicians have lost their wide eyed idealism before they get elected, all resistance fighters are corpulent dictators in the making, and most athletes are either doped up on steroids, knee deep in match fixing or just plain stupid.
I can see now why people got so excited about Gandhi - it is so rare to see an honest to goodness good man on the public stage. The last one I can think of is Nelson Mandela.
Maybe there will be another one in my lifetime.

Until then, I will have to settle for a 5'6" guy who does something very very rare. He comes on in front of a camera, and actually talks sense!

Jon Stewart, you're my hero!
(and Stephen Colbert, you too!)

Don't Tase Me, Bro!

The problem with real life is that it doesn't make for a very good story. Take the recent case of the young man who was tasered at the University of Florida.

If that were fiction, it would be a simple yet captivating story, with police brutality, uncaring politicians and lots of scope for moral outrage. A college student was asking a politician some tough questions. "They" (whoever they are) wanted to muzzle him, and had him dragged away. He bravely stood up to them, refused to go quietly and so, the police - in an unparalleled example of abuse of power - tasered him.

Of course, real life is not fiction. It doesn't tie up quite so neatly. First, it was apparent even from the video that the student was a borderline nutcase. He was suggesting that Kerry threw the 2004 elections because of some massive Skull & Bones (a Yale student club) conspiracy. The audience seemed clearly irritated with his comments and he wasn't really asking questions. It also seemed like he had made a scene to get to ask the question in the first place.

Ok, so he's a jerk, but we don't taser people for being annoying (though we should!)

Then it turned out that he asked a friend to videotape him going up. oh well, so he was videotaping the whole speech anyway, of course he wanted to videotape his own q&a session.

The police claimed he was just publicity hungry and started hamming for the cameras whenever the cameramen showed up. Hmm, have to say - he was yelling just a little too loudly. And made some fairly ridiculous remarks about being sent away to be killed by the government. On the other hand, he apparently believes the 2004 election was fixed by the Skull & Bones society - so maybe he was sincere when he feared for his life.

Still, all this injects that enemy of righteous moral outrage - the reasonable doubt. So I put aside my moral outrage for a few minutes and considered all sides. The conclusion? Maybe he was a publicity hungry kid. And maybe he's secretly thrilled with his overnight celebrity status - maybe he even anticipated it during that painful tasering moment.
Doesn't change a thing. He was being midly irritating, but perfectly orderly while asking his question. Kerry started replying to the question, so there was no need to drag him away. Of course he was shocked at being dragged away from the mike by four cops, anyone would have been. He shouldn't have tried to fight off the cops, but at no point did the situation get out of the cops control. Yet, they made a coldblooded, calculated decision that they needed to subdue him. Instead of taking him out of the room and letting him go, they wrestled him down, pinned him to the ground, and tased him into submission.

*That* was the ultimate problem - the police used force, not to stop him from harming anyone, but to subdue him. At no point did he do anything that could be remotely construed as threatening, to the audience, to the speaker or to the police. The police just decided to hurt him, before he could come up with the idea of hurting anyone.

It was a preemptive strike. Seems like there's a lot of that going around!

Princess Diana

The TV channels have been running shows about Princess Diana over the last couple of days. I guess that means its been ten years since she passed away.

I remember how terrible I felt about the way she died. Hounded by the media, they never left her alone, followed her everywhere, till she had no escape - except in death. That's what I thought. Of course, life is never that simple. Turns out, Diana wasn't above manipulating the media. Generated a lot of the media attention herself, and used it to draw public sympathy to herself.

Yup, that's life. As somebody once said - the truth is rarely pure and never simple. Have you heard of the British king who abdicated his throne for the woman he loved? Edward the VIII... Oh, when I first heard that, it sounded so incredibly romantic! Just like a fairy tale.
Except that Edward was no handsome young prince. He was a 40 year old man who had several affairs with married women. As for the woman he loved - she was on her second husband, had an unsavoury reputation and was already having an affair with Edward. And the whole thing was mostly stubbornness on Edward's part anyway. He wanted it both ways (the marriage and the throne), triggered a face off with his government, and lost. Oh, and did I mention - they were both big fans of Hitler!

Anyway, my point being - life is seldom what you expect. Princess Diana had a beautiful, magnificent wedding, watched live by millions of people. She went through a fifteen year marriage, outwardly living the perfect life. And all the while, her husband was in love with another woman. A woman he had never stopped loving. A woman he finally married after years of separation.

Hmm, now that sounds like a romance... Not the conventional story book kind, but at least it has a happy ending. Princess Diana had the fairy tale wedding, but I guess it was Camilla who got the fairy tale.

my test page

testing testing testing

Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows

(WARNING: SPOILERS! I discuss the plot details in excruciating detail - don't read if you don't want to know how it ends!)

The last Harry Potter has been out for two weeks now. Time to tell the world what I think of it!

I have to admit that my interest in the series has been waning these last few years. I thought the first 4 books were great, just what they ought to be. Intriguing plots, skillful storytelling, well fleshed out characters. Once we got to the fifth book, things slowed down. Let's admit it, the fifth and sixth books were really fillers, building up to the climactic seventh book. And they were of a lower quality. Rowling seemed to lose the self discipline to reign in her stories. The books ran to mammoth sizes; and in such large books, there are bound to be parts that sag. But there was a more fundamental flaw. I really believe Rowling did not have enough material for those books, and yet they needed to exist (7 years of Hogwarts). So she generated story lines that went nowhere, built up suspenseful plots that stretched believability and secrets that were completely predictable. Hence my loss of interest.

But the seventh book still held out hope. It would decide the fate of the Rowling legacy - it could justify the multi-year, multi-book build up. Or not.

Most people I have spoken to loved the book, they think it turned out to be everything they expected.

Me? I was ... disappointed.

Ok, firstly, it must be said that I finished the seventh book in a couple of days. It held my interest from start to finish and I completely enjoyed reading it. And yet, it was not good enough. If this book had come directly after the fourth book.. if it had started off with Dumbledore explaining horcruxes to Harry, and ended with Harry killing Voldemort; it would have been a very good book.

A very good children's book, like the first four.

Unfortunately, the series built itself up to be much more than that. By killing Sirius and Dumbledore, Rowling established a precedent of breathtaking unpredictability. With the horcruxes, she raised the tantalizing possibility that Harry may have to sacrifice his life to rid the world of Voldemort. Through throwaway clues in the last two books, she hinted at shocking secrets to be revealed. And after all that, the last couple of hundred pages of the seventh book turned out to be as predictable as any Famous Five or Secret Seven book I ever read. The big secret about Aunt Petunia is that she was jealous of her sister's magical ability? The big secret about Snape is that he was in love with Lucy?? The big twist at the end is that Harry doesn't die??? No, really? Shocking!

So, yes, that is my first complaint about the last book. It is too predictable. Harry is a horcrux (which everybody had guessed by now). Harry fights Voldemort, Harry kills Voldemort. Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione live happily ever after. Sure, a few characters die in the process - but the death of Lupin (though he is one of my favourites) is nothing after the dramatic collapse of Sirius. And while the twins were lovable characters, Fred's death only made me thankful that it wasn't Ron who died. Like I said, this ending would have been much more effective if we hadn't spent ten years building up to it. Of course, it also suffered from the Matrix syndrome. You remember, how after the first two Matrix movies, fans were speculating online what would happen in the third? Wild ideas, crazy theories floated by literally thousands of intensely creative minds? No mainstream movie could stand up against that level of expectation. After all the theories that went around, the real ending was just too - bland. And it's the same with the last Harry Potter. I mean, we knew Harry Potter was a horcrux (and if we had any kind of sense, we knew that Snape was a good guy). So where was the suspense? What was the twist?
An ending conceived fifteen years ago, an ending for an innocuous children's book, could not stand up to the expectations built up by several years of Pottermania. Well, but if nothing else, the epilogue could have presented a twist. Maybe Ron and Hermione not together after all? Maybe Luna as Hogwarts Headmistress - who knows? Just something that actually justified an epilogue - not just a four page version of "and they lived happily ever after".

But I'm not done with the ending yet. My second complaint is the double ending. The fake ending followed by the real one. I always hate stories like that - it reminds me of the worst kind of Hindi movies. The kind where the director couldn't decide which ending to go with, so he squashed them both in. In this book, it felt like Rowling almost decided to kill Harry. But couldn't go through with it, and so brought him back to life. With some lame hand wavy explanation about his mother's sacrifice protecting him. And yes, I do think it was lame - just from a story telling point of view, his mother's sacrifice has been done to death. Couldn't we get something new? And from a dramatic point of view, what good is an invincible hero? Why were we so vested in Harry, so scared for his life? Why did so many people sacrifice their lives to save him, if Voldemort could never kill him? It is a dramatic let-down of the greatest kind. And so, we get this remarkably unsatisfactory fake death, followed by a highly predictable duel in which Harry kills Voldemort.

And my third complaint about the book - the supernatural, spiritual, religious, mythical components injected into the story. All I can say is that it was too grail quest-y for my taste. Suddenly, an everyday book about magic, good and evil turned into an epic allegorical tale. I have no objection Holy Grail metaphors in general, but it is not the sort of thing you can just inject into an ongoing narrative. The Harry Potter saga has suddenly lurched into different modes at various times, in a clumsy manner. In the fourth book, a fairly light children's book turned into a darker, more sinister good versus evil epic. And in the seventh book, this epic now tries to take on several dimensions of meaning, far too many for its size. Hence we are inundated with metaphors, the hallows and horcruxes for good and evil. The quest for the hallows - which many have sought and but only the worthy will find. The death and resurrection of Harry, who chooses to return from Heaven, to save the world.

You cannot build a perfectly ordinary world (give or take a few wands) and suddenly turn it into a grand religious metaphor. Not without making the whole thing feel surreal. And slightly ridiculous. The moment when Harry jumps into the lake to retrieve the sword of Gryffindor made me cringe with embarrassment. Don't get me wrong. I do like grand mythological epics. I loved the Lord of the Rings. But it always knew what it wanted to be. It always was a cathedral fresco - not a miniature portrait that became ambitious. The seventh Harry Potter feels like the ending of the Lord of the Rings was tacked on to The Hobbit.

Oh well, I do sound harsh, don't I? At the end of the day it was an entertaining read. And the fastest selling book in recent times (which means the fastest selling book ever). Maybe it's ungracious of me to expect more.