A Gardener in the Wasteland


(This is extracted directly from an email I wrote to a friend. Some background: "The Phule Book" is a graphic novel titled "A Gardener in the Wasteland" by a young writer/artist pair-- Srividya and Aparajita. It is a retake on Phule's classic "Gulamgiri", a radical work denouncing the caste system)  

So, this Phule book you bought me is brilliant! I am not the greatest of graphic novel fans and usually find the content pretentious and, less frequently, the art obtuse. Several times, panels seem to be looking at me and screaming: look, I'm so smart! But, I think the foremost reason I am not singularly drawn to graphic novels is because I am not engaged by the story. 

The Phule book is actually about the art. Every panel is an experiment, every page a puzzle. Stare at a frame long enough and tiny details will emerge-- there's Buddha in a corner, an advertisement for a Coaching Class elsewhere, Srividya (the writer who is also a character) tying her hair as she speaks. It's also wonderfully conceptualized-- most panels are making their own significant points in distinctly different ways. 

However, when I read the extract from the original Gulamgiri in Makers of Modern India, I didn't feel the same sense of uneasiness I felt when I read this book. And I couldn't quite put the finger on why that was the case. 

Then, today, it struck me. The graphic novel is a blatant attack on Brahminism (so blatant that sometimes you have to shield your eyes against the harsh, blinding force of the content). But, so is the original text. Phule makes strange contentions-- sometimes extremely harsh, other times illogical and rarely, plain wrong to prove his points. 

But, when you read the original text, you are placing yourself in Phule's world-- there's a context to what Phule's saying and a reason why he's so angry. 

The graphic novel, on the other hand, tries to bridge time and space-- so, many a time, Phule's own arguments are used to deal with current issues. This is where things get clunky. I am all praise for Phule's bold line of reasoning, but some of it cannot be extended to today. To put it in your book is one thing, but to unabashedly and unquestioningly back a flawed idea and then draw lessons from it is another. Consequently, in places, the writing-- and, by extension, the writer-- come across as naive (and disconcertingly judgemental), a misconception that is laid to rest only when one reads the beautiful yet brief 'Afterword' at the end of the book. 

And that's my only grouse in what was, otherwise, a great read!

Books

Today I sat down and read a book. Start to finish, beginning to end, I opened it and then I closed it.

Except that that's not exactly how it went. For the first third of the book, I put it down every few pages, and thought. I don't know if anyone else does this. I have no idea how anyone else reads. All I know is how I read, and sometimes I just read and sometimes read and think and read and think. The thinking is always about what I've been reading. Usually it's when I read something that's not easy, because reading easy things gets boring after a while. But if I'm reading about important, powerful stuff I have to stop every now and again because I have to give myself time to process it and there's always the chance I'll break down crying if I don't.

I realise I'm talking in vague generalities, but for some reason this is the best way for me to put it. Reading is such an integral part of me that I can't write about it objectively, because I instantly know what I'm thinking, I never have to spell it out for anyone else. This is why this blog has been dead for two months, because I read books, and think about them, and write about them in my head, but I never actually type them out; why bother, when I know exactly how I feel?

And let me tell you, I read some books recently and then I had me some thoughts about those books. I read the new Thursday Next novel, and was highly tickled by it, I read a rather terrible Russian crime/mystery and have yet to finish it, I read Farewell, My Lovely by Raymond Chandler and I hate it.

That is a good thing to talk about.

I hate Raymond Chandler.

He writes very, very well. He writes achingly, in a manner that evokes a world that I will never go to, but know like the back of my hand because of his writing. I read Dashiell Hammett four-five years ago, and that went like a dream. This is somehow different, maybe because it has not been that long since I finished it. For some reason, unknowable but true, I hate Chandler. And I will happily, happily read The Long Good-Bye, and write about that, too.

I read Witches Abroad, by Terry Pratchett. See, I have now only two more books by Terry Pratchett I have not read. Just after finishing my exams, I decided that this was enough of a life event that I could justify to myself a classic Pratchett. Now I only have Lords and Ladies and Wyrd Sisters left. Yes, I know it was stupid to buy Witches Abroad having not read Wyrd Sisters, but it doesn't really matter. I enjoyed it so, so, so much. It was funny from page number one, all the way to the end. I am likely only to read the next one when some major life event happens. It'll probably be when I make my first million, or something. It's a Pratchett, I won't buy it for anything else.

I also read a series of terrible fantasy, called *clears throat, strikes appropriate pose* 'The Chronicles of the Black Company'. The blurb on the front assured me that it had singlehandedly changed the face of fantasy. It didn't. It was shit. Like, genuinely I don't know why I bought it and I should go and get my money back. But it was still fun, in the way that fantasy can be fun. In the middle of all the terribleness, there were some gems of wit and more importantly there were werepanthers being blown up. Who cares how bad the writing is?

Lastly, I'm also in the middle of a book about London, in which there is possibly the line of my month.

'Places make the best lovers'.

With that, I bid ye adieu.

March/April/May

I made myself a promise that I would at the very least write down a list of what I'm reading, even if I don't actually write about the books. Life has been sortof taken over by revision recently, but I hope to resume this endeavour after June 6th.

I suspect this is an incomplete list, but this is what I can remember off the top of my head.

Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck

The Buddha of Suburbia, Hanif Kureishi

Dragonborn: The Flaxfield Quartet Vol 1, Toby Forward

Fireborn: The Flaxfield Quartet Vol 2, Toby Forward

Doubleborn: The Flaxfield Quartet Vol 3, Toby Forward

The Flaxfield books are great, great children's books. Highly recommended.

The Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny

An Iliad, Alessandro Baricco

Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser

The Song of Achilles, Madeline Miller

Ripley's Game, Patricia Highsmith

Killer in the Rain, Raymond Chandler

The Big Sleep, Raymond Chandler

Angelmaker, Nick Harkaway

The Painted Man, Peter V Brett

The Desert Spear, Peter V Brett

Things I have been leafing through:

Jaya, Devdutt Pattnaik

The Discovery of India, Jawaharlal Nehru


Read the Worthy


Sreya said to me, when we were discussing this article by Maura Kelly, ‘Read the worthy’. I think I agree.

Read the worthy, man. Whatever the worthy is, because I’ve spent a lot of fucking time reading the unworthy and I can tell you it comes in all shapes and sizes. The unworthy can look like a classic, it can look like a children’s book, like high-concept sci-fi and fantasy, like poetry.

I read The Heart of the Matter a couple of years ago, in Philadelphia when I was staying with a friend of Amma’s, and he gave it to me because I’d spent three days looking hungrily at his books and his bookshelves. I wanted very much to like it, but let me tell you now it was painful. I actually don’t know what he was saying, why he was saying it, or why I should care. Dude, Greene is such a fucker.

I’m not even going to start on the tracts of bad fantasy (fie upon thee, Stephen Donaldson), the terrible crime series (argh, Harlan Coben), the shit poetry (Ms Duffy, you may have had some talent once, but you have killed it since).

Would a good edit really have gone amiss with Anna Karenina? Wasn’t the fire at the end of Jane Eyre a massive deus ex machina? Would Catch-22 really have suffered if there had not been a dead man in Yossarian’s tent? (Ok, perhaps that last was not fair, but I’ve read that book a couple of times now, and most of it just sort of… goes. Yes, the alfalfa farmers are pretty funny, but I didn’t really like Catch-22. There. I said it. Now you can shoot me.)

But let’s look at the other side, yes? To Kill A Mockingbird is the most classic classic ever. Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle remain thrilling in their ability to write crime. Shakespeare wrote such good poetry, man. Such good poetry. Ender’s Game, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, these are sci-fi novels that will last us forever (I read the Guide again recently. It is as good as the first time. ‘It says that the effect of a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick’).

Children’s books have always been my favourite. Roald Dahl and Quentin Blake made me see worlds I have been missing since. If there is one reason I read so much fantasy and sci-fi now, it is because I used to read books about giants and girls with telekinesis and girls with magic fingers. The Little Prince actually changed my life, no word of a lie. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was about a land inside a cupboard, and it held me spellbound.

These are books written for children, and if you try and tell me they are unworthy I will punch you in the fucking face. They’re funny, terrifying, poignant, and they can be read by a twelve-year-old. They don’t engage my intellectual capabilities, they make them irrelevant. When I first read Artemis Fowl, I laughed out loud. When I read Artemis Fowl now, I still laugh out loud. That first book is the paragon of what books for adolescents should be: witty, full of suspense, and a nice clean finish.


And I have not even gotten started on books that have been published since about 1985.

So, when someone tells you ‘Read the classics, ‘cause nothing else is worth it’, make them go away. Read Patricia Highsmith, Mohammed Hanif, the lesser known works of Salman Rushdie (screw Midnight’s Children, his best book was clearly Haroun and the Sea of Stories). Read the worthy.

February to March


Read

Fantasy

The Quantum Thief, Hannu Rajaniemi

This is so good. It looks like one of those standard sci-fi set in the future novels, but it's really not. Though there's a lot of science, and a lot of fictional science, it's really about the people in the stories. The story itself is about Jean le Flambeur, who is a master thief, and has been broken out of a prison to recover an item he doesn't even remember stealing, and what happens as he slowly tries to regain those memories.

The Minority Council, Kate Griffin

Griffin's fourth book is as good as the first three. At some point I'll write about why urban fantasy is so good, why Griffin specifically writes it really well, and why Matthew Swift is awesome. Until then, suffice it to say that I quite liked this book.


Fated, Benedict Jacka

This was a hard book for me to read, because it was written like a first-timer might written it. Not just in terms of the story, but in terms of the way he narrated it. This is obviously the debut of a good author, but a lot of the ways in which the story was structured was fairly rough. Fated is another one of those stories about a magician living in London, he's got a dark past and some interesting abilities, and if the same story had been written better I would have liked it more. As it is, all I'm left with is the feeling that it could have been much better.


Fiction


Rules of Civility, Amor Towles

This is so good! If there were two books of fiction from this month I'd ask you to read, they'd be Rules of Civility and The Quantum Thief, for pretty much the same reasons. They gripped me from start to finish, and reading them was such a smooth experience. Rules of Civility is about Katie Kontent, a second generation Russian living in New York, and the events of one specific year in the 1930s. It looks at how she, her best friend, and the man they are both semi-involved with, deal with their lives in that one year. Muchly recommended.

The Ripliad, Books One and Two, Patricia Highsmith

The Talented Mr Ripley
Ripley Underground

The first book took a while to get going, because Highsmith had to introduce us to the characters and set them up. The second book didn't have those problems, because we already knew Tom Ripley and who he was. They're really good books because of two things: firstly, that the suspense is set up really well, and secondly because of the growing horror when you realise you are rooting not for the police, but for the murderer. The moment for me happened about three quarters of the way into the first book, when it struck me that Ripley was indeed a bastard, and I wanted him to win.


Non-Fiction, Semi-Fiction, and Self Help Disguised as Poetry


The Emperor of All Maladies, Siddhartha Mukherjee

This is the best book I have read this month. It took me about that long to read it, because it is hard, and he keeps jumping time frames, and the subject matter itself is vast, complex and often depressing. But Mukherjee writes about cancer in a way that I had not thought about before: as a disease that has haunted humanity for centuries, and as one that we have fought, successfully and unsuccessfully, for about that length of time. It is quite literally a biography of cancer, and it is very, very engaging. What I'm saying is, this book didn't win the Pulitzer for nothing. I now want to read about genetic biology.


The Psychopath Test, Jon Ronson

This is semi-fiction, because while I have no doubt that everything in the book is factually true, the way he writes it has a hint of frivolity that probably didn't exist when all of those things actually happened. Which is good, because psychopaths are scary, and the way he describes them and how they're tested for would otherwise be morbid and disturbing.

The Art of War, Sun Tzu

This is a poem. Double You Tee Eff. I actually had to read it a couple times, I still don't understand why it says such deep and profound things, a lot of it strikes me as fairly obvious. 'When faced with a stronger enemy, flee'. Thanks, Mr Tzu.

Bought but not yet finished

The Hidden Reality, Brian Greene

This is such a hard book to read. The book itself looks at different views of multiverses and how they might exist, but there's a lot of difficult physics in it. It's got a load of stuff about string theory, energy fields, inflation and other things. I struggle with it every time I go into and come out of the Tube, and while it's nice to understand a little bit about how the world functions and might function, too often I just reach for fiction instead.

A Little History of the World, Ernst Gombrich

This is awesome! It's basically a children's history of the world, and while told very simply, it is clear, and intuitive, and I love it!

Human Sacrifice?

Recently, as we flew over the length of India on a pair of flights from Delhi to Mangalore, I raced through Amitav Ghosh's classic The Shadow Lines. It was not my first reading of the book; though, coincidentally, my first read was also on a journey (by train, however) between the same two destination points. I remember finishing the book then, in one single, exhilarating sweep, in the dim yellow-light of the vestibule. It was late in the night-- the lights in the rest of compartment were long gone off. I remember being unable to sleep for some while afterwards, as characters and scenes flitted through my head.

In January, I discovered Kuvempu's collection of poems-- Koneya Tene Mattu Vishwamanava Sandesha-- at the Sapna Book Store in Bangalore's Basham Circle. The poems are witty, incisive, markedly progressive and honest; the poetry is light but never delicate. While there's not a single overarching theme that binds the poems together, I found one poem-- Nere-- heart-wrenching; but, more interestingly, its core idea finds a mirror in The Shadow Lines, a novel written more than fifty years later.

The Shadow Lines is about many things: the illusory nature of time, of space, of borders ("... the ghostliness was merely the absence of time and distance-- for that is all that a ghost is, a presence displaced in time"); it is about bonds that bind memories and people (and bind people to memories).

At another level--a less abstract one perhaps-- The Shadow Lines is a novel about sacrifice. In what is easily the book's most engaging sequence, Tridib, the narrator's uncle and childhood idol, is murdered in a riot. Tridib walks straight into a mob of deranged men involved in the act of killing a senile grand-uncle of his. The men are armed, possessed by that crazy frenzy that grips people in riots, a frenzy located brilliantly, courtesy its inverse, in a passage from the book: "... for the madness of the riot is a pathological inversion, but also therefore a reminder, of that indivisible sanity that binds people to each other independently of their governments". Tridib must have known, as May later testifies, that he was walking to his death, just as certainly as you'd know you wouldn't be attacked by the man walking down the street in normal civil life.

Why does he do it? The Shadow Lines, like life, offers no straight answers.

Nere is a story within a story-- the story that Manjanna, an old man of the hills of the Western Ghats, tells the narrator and his friends. On a dark, stormy night, by a fire that blazes and warms, Manjanna speaks of another dark, stormy night when it rained so much that the water flooded in. It took the household dog's incessant barking (referred to simply as "bitch") to wake the sleeping residents up (they sleep so soundly that they "forget their bodies"-- mai marethu-- a common Kannada phrase). Quickly, the narrator and his parents hop onto a raft and sail through the storm to safety. It is only then that they realize that they've left the bitch behind. His father pauses to think, before he decides to row back to save it; his mother begs him to reconsider. But the man is firm, arguing, somewhat unconvincingly: "Do we let go of it just because it is dumb?"

Three days later, the bodies of both, bitch and man are found. Manjanna weeps as he retells the tale-- not for his dead father, Kuvempu informs us, but for his dead father's neeti, his morals. To the discerning mind-- indeed, perhaps even to Manjanna seventy years later (we are never told if he's shedding tears of pride or sorrow)-- the choice his father makes is clearly flawed: he must have known the waters were fierce, he is even told so explicitly by his wife. What's more, the choice is not made on impulse for Manjanna describes the moments preceding the decision thus: "Father stood thinking for a while/ What would have raced through his mind?". He's clearly weighing the trade-off: on one hand was his own life and the prospect that his wife and son were left, almost certainly, husband- and father-less respectively; and on the other was the life of the dog that saved their lives, the chances of rescuing which were already minuscule.

What would drive seemingly intelligent men to jump straight into the jaws of death? What did they achieve? Something that approaches an answer is found in The Shadow Lines, when May says: "He gave himself up; it was a sacrifice. I know I can't understand it. I know I mustn't try, for any real sacrifice is a mystery" [Emphasis mine].

I found the premise fascinating-- that a real sacrifice crosses over into the realm of mystery; the idea that, usually, sacrifices involve giving up something valuable for a cause or an object deemed worthier, but when one discusses real sacrifices, the worthier object is beyond comprehension. Indeed, stripped of its aura of nobility (one every sacrifice possesses by default), every real sacrifice borders on the plain stupid. Moreover, seen this way, all questions about such sacrifices become redundant, because they possess an amorphous quality that never lets a third-person grasp their fundamental essence; because, by definition, we cannot know. 

I am specifically kicked by the idea that both authors-- both Sahitya Akademi winners, but separated geographically, linguistically and chronologically-- choose to resolve the question by not resolving it. By adopting an open-ended conclusion, it forces us, as readers, to remain agnostic about the choices made during the sacrifices.

On Reading Shitty Books (and Rick Moody) for Fun

Rick Moody is an affirming talent.

Rick Moody's existence means that my own abilities, whatever they are, can't be that poor. Somewhere in the throes of my self-doubt I imagine some limit -- a sub-basement -- where my feelings can call it a day. Rick Moody, along with nine thousand adjectives, occupies that space.

Dale Peck's done a much better job of marinating, cooking, and skewering Rick Moody than I ever could. Say what you will about Peck's hatchet jobs, I'm not sure I can get behind a writer that stresses the orthopedic nature of shoes at least thirty-five times in a paragraph that is as many pages long.

But why read bad books?

Or, the better question: why read Rick Moody?

I read Rick Moody for the same reason that I have some boring friends. It's the same reason why I know anything about the differences between various swimsuit cuts. It's also why my sister Angelica likes to set things on fire in crowded restaurants.

Boredom inspires a functioning mind. It lets me finish a draft. (For Angelica, it helps determine the flammability of one's plum sake.)

Boredom makes me reconnect with old contacts rotting away in my cellphone, anything to prevent me from finishing that one paragraph about the aged breasts and the blender.

I love Rick Moody because I realize that if he can connect such disparate things as fishermen at dusk, geiger counters, spaghetti, a series of flaccid interstate highways into one trail-mix paragraph -- read, Purple America -- I ought to be able to do the same, readability be damned.

January and February

This is an incomplete list.

Fantasy

The Gentlemen Bastard Series, Scott Lynch

The Lies of Locke Lamora
Red Seas Under Red Skies

Given that these are two parts of the same story, I don't really think they count as different books. Scott Lynch writes fantasy about elaborate heists in a land that seems a lot like renaissance-era Italy. The hero is called (unsurprisingly) Locke Lamora, a man whom you sympathise with only really because he is the protagonist. As part of my evergrowing pile of fantasy books, it probably doesn't stand out, but it is still a good deal of fun. 

Warbreaker, Brandon Sanderson

Sanderson just writes solid fantasy. I think solid is the best word to describe it, because all of his books have been good, but I'm not sure I've read anything that is outstanding, though The Way Of Kings was pretty damn impressive. Warbreaker continues that tradition. It is about interesting characters in interesting places doing interesting things, people who betray and are betrayed, there's a little adventure and a little love. I think the best bit of Warbreaker is that it uses a novel system of magic consistently, that every person has Breath, and only one Breath, and if you give it away to someone they can use it, and if you have lots of Breath you can do lots of exciting things. Warbreaker is very much a book written between other projects, but like Locke Lamora, it's a good way to pass the time.

Non-fantasy Fiction

The Sisters Brothers, Patrick deWitt

The Sisters Brothers is set in 1850s America, at the height of the gold rush. It is about a pair of brothers, Eli and Charlie Sisters, who make their living killing for a man they call the Commodore. It is a rambly sort of book, that goes through several events without really connecting them except through the first person narrative of Eli Sisters. Eli is a fat man who describes his world in a nondescript manner that only emphasises (to me at least) the complete terror of living in the Wild West. Though he regrets killing, he still does it in a manner that seems to accept that it was in some way inevitable.

If there is one thing that comes through this book, it is that the Wild West was genuinely terrifying.

Romance? These books are about love, in any case.

All My Friends Are Superheroes, Andrew Kaufman

This is such a great book. It's very short, a hundred and twenty pages, and it took me a train ride to read it. It is about Tom, whose friends are all superheroes, and whose girlfriend is also a superhero, called the Perfectionist. But at their wedding, the Perfectionist's ex-boyfriend Hypno hypnotises her into believing that she can't see Tom, though everyone else can. Now she's on a plane to Vancouver, determined to make a new life, and Tom has the duration of that flight to try, one last time, to make her see him.

I don't really want to spoil anything else, but I seriously think everyone should read it.

The Lover's Dictionary, David Levithan

This is perhaps the opposite of the book before this. It is told in this weird post-modern way where he takes loads of words, puts them in alphabetical order, and then recounts incidents or little expositions that have to do with that word. For 'love', he says something like 'Don't even ask me to define this'.

It is fairly depressing, but still a book worth reading. Bittersweet and all that.

Non-Fiction

Quantum, Manjit Kumar

I'l be honest, I've been looking for a book on quantum for a while, and this had a pretty cover. Also The Guardian liked it. Kumar writes about the history of quantum mechanics, tracing it from Boltzmann and Planck to the arguments between Bohr and Einstein. Though the first bit of the book is a little irritating in that there is no maths and the assertions he makes about the nature of quanta are hard to understand (for me, anyway) without some maths, the book really comes into its own when it describes Bohr and Einstein arguing about reality. The best part of the book is when he describes Einstein's attempts at constructing thought experiments to try and disprove Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and Bohr defeating all of his attempts. There is one in which Einstein constructs a box of light which will stay with me forever.

17 Equations That Changed The World, Ian Stewart

I keep dipping it into this book, because I think 'Hey, maybe this time it won't be so bad', and then it is as bad as all the previous times, and then I forget again.

My problem is that there is not enough maths. There is some intuitive explanation, there is some history of these equations, but I would really like a mathematical description of these things. The general public really needs to get more numerate so that books are written for the rest of us. But I'll keep dipping into it, and maybe one day I'll have dipped into all of it, and then I'll have finished it.

Children's

Wyrmeweald: Bloodhoney, Paul Stewart & Chris Riddell

Unashamedly, this is me being nostalgic for The Edge Chronicles. But it still stands really strongly on its own. The second book in this trilogy continues the odd story of the first, of a land where kith live off dragons however they can, and weird and wonderful creatures kill them or not as they will. Everytime I read Stewart and Riddell I am stunned that these are children's books, because they are so well written, with so much depth, that it is only the obvious happy endings that really signify anything else. Happiness, I tell you.

The Song of the Quarkbeast, Jasper Fforde

This is so much fun. I finished it, then read the book that comes before it (The Last Dragonslayer), and then read it again. I highly recommend it to anyone who thinks (as I do) that children's fiction started to go downhill round about the time I grew up (if indeed I have).

The thing about this book is that the heroine is exactly who you want her to be: a no-nonsense girl who just wants to fix the problems she has in as straightforward a manner as possible. Read, read.

In Progress


The Talented Mr Ripley, Patricia Highsmith

The Emperor of All Maladies, Siddhartha Mukherjee

I have been sitting on the second one for a while, having been distracted by physics and the Wild West. Am halfway through it.

The Talented Mr Ripley has yet to grip me, though I'm told it will. I'll write about them once I've read them.
What I read this week:

- Factotum by Charles Bukowski
- A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein

Factotum:

There is something about this book that haunts me. It's a thoroughly messed up book, about the most messed up people, living in a state of poverty only first world countries can possibly throw up. It's a book about wandering, not necessarily aimlessness, and I'm quite sure there's a stark difference between the two.
In a very personal way, this book knocked me over and gave me exactly the sort of read I wanted - something meandering, something mean, something low, something all over the place. Bukowski does this thing where he makes it okay to be lost, or not have anything to hold on to, or ground you.
There's nothing heroic or aspirational about Chinaski, he's just some guy who wants to make enough money to get drunk in the evening. It's not like the book is leading into some eventual doom either - he's just getting by, one drink at a time.

A Light in the Attic:

Is almost the absolute opposite of Factotum. It is the most delightful book of (not) children's poetry I have read since Roald Dahl. Let me assure you, it is also quite dark for a children's book - but so full of sunshine at the same time, that it's difficult not to be drawn in or fall in nothingbutlove with it. While it made me laugh nearly all the time, it also almost made me cry. (The story about Cloony the Clown, hey, that is not a children's poem, Mr.Silverstein!) For the most part though, it has radically altered my mood and my (ahem) attitude towards life for the day. And because I cannot leave you without said radical alteration of mood:

Somebody Has To
by Shel Silverstein

Somebody has to go polish the stars,
They're looking a bit dull.
Somebody has to go polish the stars,
For the eagles and starlings and gulls
Have all been complaining they're tarnished and worn,
They say they want new ones we cannot afford.
So please get your rags
And your polishing jars
Somebody has to go polish the stars.

Countdown

In some ways, George Fernandes in Countdown (which I recently finished) serves as a microcosm for everything that is right and wrong with the book.

Things had changed drastically in the recent past for Mr Fernandes, resulting in a set of perplexing paradoxes: his party had won a grand total of two seats in the Lok Sabha polls, yet he had landed a cabinet position. Even two years previously, when he was languishing in the farthest outposts of political wilderness, that would have seemed laughable; he was now a minister in Vajpayee's saffron-tinged cabinet-- Fernandes was a left-winger ideologically, a fiery communist in his earlier days; he once openly supported disarmament, was for years vocally critical of the Nuclear Bomb and yet, now, the blasts at Pokhran had been carried out with Mr Fernandes at the helm of Defence.

When we encounter him in the book, he is a busy man, traveling from South Block (Delhi's power-centre) to Kashmir to Siachen, drafting policy, addressing crowds, dining with army-men in nondescript canteens. A political veteran, he is still energetic, still a workaholic, still dreaming of a better India and still, strangely, very pessimistic: 'India has hit a nadir' (in 1998!), he says, curiously echoing sentiments of several others in the book. He is disillusioned with India's politicians, questions whether we would ever be taken seriously by the Big Players in the World Political Arena. He is clearly a thinking man and, much like the book, is articulate, even brilliant, but also terribly wrong about what was to come.

*****

15 years later, George Fernandes has sadly gone senile. Alzheimer's. Vajpayee, according to most accounts, is worse off. Pakistan has collapsed too, succumbing to a host of self-bred diseases; Walmart features more than the Bomb in our discussions on foreign policy; the fears about India remaining a shaky player in international affairs, always looking westwards for approval, seem severely misplaced.

Peculiar are the ways of history, of chronicles of contemporary events. Countdown talks of fears and hopes, people and places, debates and counterpoints whose ghosts have long since vanished.

And the funny bit is, it's been only a decade-and-a-half. 

As on 18th Feb, 2012

Currently reading:
1. The God of Small Things, Fiction, Arundhati Roy, English
2. Countdown, Non-Fiction, Amitav Ghosh, English
3. Koneya Tene mattu Vishwamanava Sandesha, Poetry (largely), Kuvempu, Kannada.
4. The Bhagavad Gita, Fiction (?), Vyasa, Sanskrit.

Short-notes:
On 1-- She writes like Rushdie. I would much rather read him.  Also, needlessly dark.
On 2-- Its about the Pokhran nuclear blast of '98. Its too recent an event to be read as history and too dated to be read as a commentary on India in the Nuclear World-- much has changed since then. I think Amartya Sen's essay on the same-- also in the Argumentative Indian-- says much of the same  in a more succinct manner.
On 3-- I re-bought the book (my original copy was left in Delhi). Splendid. Plan to write a review of the book sometime.
On 4-- My Sanskrit is slowly improving. Slowly.

Just finished:
1. The Shadow Lines, Fiction, Amitav Ghosh, English.
(For the 65th time; but the first book read on my Kindle!)


See, Pindimiriyam's!

In keeping with Sita, I have decided I should also keep track of what I'm reading, so that I don't just sit about only reading fantasy.

I also want to read about:

a) Physics
b) History
c) Maths
d) Things that are interesting once I start reading them but would not otherwise pick up because Abercrombie rereads are too much fun.

I will start putting up lists after the weekend.

The name comes from Sharan. I claim no ownership.