My review on “The Fountainhead” (part 2)

(Part 1 of the review is in my
previous post)

I started reading this novel since the opening was quite dramatic and it also boasted of some new philosophy. I got good comments on these by a couple of my friends who had read this and so I started to read it very expectedly. Initially I thought the story was quite good with some weird characterizations. Then the story also started getting weird. I knew something was wrong, but not quite what it was. About six months back I finally hit upon it when I read a stupid view on nature (given in the section on nature below). Not yet convinced, I did a search on Google and hit upon
Ayn Rand Institute’s webpage (the institute is headed by Leornard Peikoff, who is the ideological heir of Rand). I read two articles, one explaining why we should not care for nature because doing so would slow down ‘development’ and another arguing that there was nothing wrong in US invasion of Iraq, and in fact US troops should leave Iraq in anarchy and return immediately since the purpose of the war was served (this last part is a bit too much). It was then that I decided to go through the novel more carefully to understand how a novel on objectivism inspires people to advocate such subjective trash. In the first part of the review, I criticized the novel as I would from my heart alone. But since many “objectivists” would say that anything subjective is worthless, I am providing this review written as objectively as possible. I am not providing a plot summary since that would make the already long review, even longer. You can find a
plot summary here.

The main flaw with this novel is that Ayn Rand tries to justify her philosophy by only portraying two extremes. She has a black and white vision of the world, there is no grey, leave alone any color. Thus, there are two sets of characters in this novel. One is the ‘objectivist’ kind. They are a geniuses in their own field, mostly asocial, have absolute integrity, posses such ‘virtues’ like selfishness, self-centeredness, egotism and have weird personal relations. On the other side are the ‘subjectivists’ who are the exact opposite, incompetent in their own field, have no integrity, posses or pretend to posses these virtues - altruism, humility. There is no one who can posses a mixture of these (the exception being Ellsworth Toohey and few minor characters like Heller & Kent Lansing). So she manages to nicely bash up the subjectivists and their virtues. Now why can’t people posses a mixture of these characters? This question is never answered. In fact Rand tries to escape from this by saying that her characterization of hero is as “man ought to be and should be”. My simple question is that if a philosophy can be expounded only with such characters that are perfect (or totally imperfect), then how it is suitable to this world where the people have various shades in their characters? For instance, I have seen or known many people of immense original talent who don’t have the characters of Rand’s objectivists. For instance, Albert Einstien was one of the best scientists of last century. Yet, he was a humanist. He was know for his humorous, gregarious nature and though he
influenced US to build the atomic bomb (because of the threat of Germany), he was disturbed by it’s use and
later advocated for peace. Or consider, Linus C Pauling, the only person to get two unshared Nobel prizes, a noted chemist, he opposed the US government on nuclear issue so vehemently that he was not certain of being allowed to go to Sweden to collect his chemistry Nobel prize. Now was it not altruism? Or if still not satisfied consider the following quote –

Quoting from Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Aspects (Gerald Holton and Yehuda Elkana, editors) (thanks to this website):

“The one man who was, during the last years, certainly by far Einstein's best friend, and in some ways strangely resembled him most, was Kurt Gödel, the great logician. They were very different in almost every personal way - Einstein gregarious, happy, full of laughter and common sense, and Gödel extremely solemn, very serious, quite solitary, and distrustful of common sense as a means of arriving at the truth. But they shared a fundamental quality: both went directly and wholeheartedly to the questions at the very center of things.”

This exactly shows the point I am trying to drive at. These two men were both great scientists, yet very different in their personal traits. Einstein was unlike a Rand objectivist, but Godel was quite like one – like Roark for instance – though I don’t know whether he had the same ethics. Yet they were both good friends and worked together. This simply shows that being able to think rationally has nothing to do with a person’s personal relations and ethics – at least not in the black and white way it is described in the novel. Rand simply tries to impose her model of dangerous ethics and weird personal behavior as objectivism, when in fact, objectively analyzing it we find that this has nothing to do with it.

The other problem with the novel is that Rand twists and distorts the popular meaning of some common things like selfishness and selflessness, until it suits her philosophy. She defines selflessness and altruism in the most extreme way and of course manages to discredit them. Selfishness also has an extended definition which means that we care for what we own, where what we own can be anything which we rationally support. This is of course far from common meaning of selfishness (and is closer to altruism, in which case Rand has told nothing new) and thus the philosophy is ripe for a lot of misuse, which is I think what is happening now.

The only key positive takeaway is the importance of reason, but Rand is not the first one to tell this! Reason is always the main thing to guide our actions and I have seen its importance being stressed in many places in the traditional literature I have learnt in my childhood [for an instance see FOOTNOTE 4]. Also Rand, as with any other thing, takes reason to an extreme and claims it as the absolute and in the process doesn’t recognize that reason has its own limits [see FOOTNOTE 1].

Inconsistent characterization:

Peter Keating:

This character is Rand’s illustration of how a ‘selfless’ man ends up unhappy. This is worst characterization flaw in the novel. I have never known any topper in my entire academic life who is so bereft of original talent. It seems Rand simply wanted to bash up academic establishments by this. Accepted that toppers may not be the best in their class, but a topper in Architecture in Stanton (parody of Stanford?), not confident enough to design a house is simply too much. He also seems to be so emotionally weak. However lacking in integrity a person is, there is always a breaking point and realistically it should be when he is asked to send Dominique(his wife) along with Wyanand, for the sake of a single commission. He wouldn’t have starved without that single commission!

Dominique Francon/Keating/Wyanand/Roark:

She is the heroine of the novel. I was confused as to which last name I should use, so I have given all those which come in the novel. She seems to a character with no aim in life until she sees Roark and from the moment she sees him, her only aim is to live for Roark (this is individualism?). She proudly states that she has no purpose in life in the following quote (conversation between Dominique and Alvah Scarret, pp 134):

“…Is it an inspiring sight to see a man commit a heroic gesture, and then learn that he goes to vaudeville shows for relaxation? Or see a man who’s painted a magnificent canvas- and learn that he spends his time sleeping with every slut he meets?

What do you want? Perfection?

- or nothing. So you see, I take the nothing”

Rand has provided an ideal excuse for any idler! Dominique doesn’t seem to be educated in any grad school but suddenly becomes an expert in Architecture. She is the one who can separate wheat from chaff, and also judge that the one who designed Enright house was an objectivist, just with its drawings! (Dominique to Toohey, pp.232) She also dumps two of her husbands Keating and Wynand very rudely. In fact I could never get the way she dumped Wynand. It was at the worst possible time, in the worst possible manner and for what? How did she suddenly realize that she should defend Roark? What if Wynand had never defended Roark in the first place? It seems Rand just wanted a picture perfect ending with the hero and the heroine living happily together ever after!

Howard Roark:

He is Rand’s idea of a perfect man. Except for his genius in architecture, everything in this character is weird. I won’t discuss about his ethics, since I don’t like to trivialize ethics by discussing them as Rand has done ‘objectively’. But still some things were very irritating. He eats drinks and sleeps only architecture and he can’t live without it. I don’t know how he ‘objectively’ (at the age of ten!) chose architecture. If he is exposed to other fields would he not find another interesting? Can’t he work in that field and architecture simultaneously? Again Rand seems to forget history. We have had many multi-faceted geniuses, like Leornado Da Vinci, who was good as a painter, engineer, mathematician, architect and philosopher. So does this mean that he was not good in any of those? Probably according to Ayn Rand.

Ellsworth Toohey:

Being a powerful antagonist character in the novel, this is quite well etched. However there is still a small flaw I perceive. Why does he try to encourage mediocrity when he himself is certainly not mediocre? The reason Rand gives is that he finds that “only weak people need his help”, which doesn’t seem a strong enough motive. Rand also says that he wants power, but it is very uncertain as to what sort of power it is and how he intends to use it.

Treatment of Nature:

Rand for some reason seems to utterly despise nature. The quote below would be enough to show it (Wynand to Dominique, pp. 433)-

“… When I look at the ocean, I feel the greatness of man. I think of man’s magnificent capacity that created this ship to conquer all this senseless space. When I look at mountain peaks, I think of tunnels and dynamite. When I look at planets, I think of aeroplanes.”

This is at the core of the mistake of the industrialized world and Rand stresses it as a philosophy! Why is the ocean senseless? Is human kind really independent of sea life? Similar themes that man’s principal aim is to “conquer nature” are consistently and quite unobtrusively inserted in the whole novel, mainly in philosophical dialogues. The fact that we view nature as something external to us and to be exploited and not as something which is a part of us and necessary for our own survival has been the reason for much of the environmental crises arising of late. If our rampant industrialization destroys our environment then how do we live? The answer by the objectivists may be something like in the dialogue I have given in the previous post. Though this may be a bit of an exaggeration this was the impression I got from going through many articles in ARI website.

Ayn Rand considers unrestrained capitalism to be the cure for all evils and I don’t quite see the reason in this. Rand, quite rightly, criticizes social vanities like party circuits, fashion and escapist entertainment and recreation as being “irrational”, but I don’t think she really acknowledges that capitalism plays an important role in promoting these. Also, she seems to assume that capitalism always encourages original talent, with which I strongly differ.

It was my individual interest which made me have a closer look at the novel and there in lies the irony – some ideas (like reason) work against many other ideas in it. Also Rand ironically becomes similar to her main fictional antagonist, Ellsworth M Toohey.

Toohey has an amateur knowledge of Architecture, but still writes a book which becomes a bestseller and changes public opinion in architecture. Rand too explains her philosophy in two dramatic novels with a lot of pop-heroism, makes it a bestseller and has a dedicated cult like popular following
(article here). Their intentions may be different, but their means is very similar. Again, ironically a saying which best fits the situation would be this, though Rand would scorn at it as being mystical.

“The more two things are different, the more they are the same”

In summary, the following is my opinion on the novel. As a literary work it is good in parts (I like especially the dialogues of Dominique). However, I should also note that in my limited exposure to fiction I have read authors much better than her in style and characterization (like Marquez and Okri). As a philosophy it is ironically very subjective [Footnote 2] and even dangerous. Rand destroys even some good ideas like reason and integrity by taking them to an absurd extreme. The dangerous extreme to which the novel goes is best summarized by this quote. (Roark’s speech, pp. 667)

“All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil”

In this way, all products from our big companies are evil! In addition, she links reason with such unreasonable ideas like utter disregard for environment, asocial behavior and retrogressive portrayal of women (I have not touched on this, but this aspect is too well known). This might have been a vehement counter to socialism when it was written, but today it is apparent that it has aged very badly. It is also quite a dangerous book since Rand manages to be quite manipulative, especially if read quite lightly. This aspect is also apparent from what her followers like ARI and to some extent Libertarian party[FOOTNOTE 3] are doing. I don’t know why this novel is so popular and influential, but probably because people like reading weird things told in a dramatic way or worse because they like the philosophy since it allows them to justify some of their actions which can’t be justified otherwise.

Now I know that many would pounce upon me saying that I am commenting on objectivism without reading Rand’s masterpiece “Atlas Shrugged” or her few philosophical books. This is true. But I guess Rand has fully defined objectivism in this novel and it is only explained in more detail in “Atlas Shrugged”. Nevertheless I would like to read it some day, but since literary/ideological criticism is not my livelihood I wouldn’t like to spend much time on it very soon (especially since I would like to read it “in depth” as I had done with this novel). Also, as much as I try to refute it, it is undeniable that criticizing a novel to this extent results in a certain negative emotional drain and thus I would like to move away from all this and read some works I really like. Of course I am open to answering any comments/queries based on this review/novel, which in any way shouldn’t require much effort since I have done most of the home work already.

[FOOTNOTE 1]

Why reason is not the absolute

A mathematician Godel discovered a result in 1931 which has far reaching consequences. He proved that “No consistent logical system can prove itself to be consistent, unless it is inconsistent in which case it can prove anything” [Kozen, D.C, Automata and computability, Springer]. As a result of this, no logical system can claim to prove all known truths (mathematical truths or “true theorems”) and worse some truths proven by it may not be true because we can never know whether it is consistent. Of course we can prove a system is consistent by going to a meta-system, but again that meta-system may be inconsistent and hence we have to stop some where by just trusting that the system is consistent until an actual inconsistency is found out. Thus our entire mathematical system is in essence built upon faith. Not the same faith as used in common parlance, but faith nevertheless. Now, I am not a philosopher or a mathematician and so I won’t try to elaborate on the philosophical significance of this, though it is true that it does have a lot. The simple question that I wish to ask is, when logic (or reason) is not absolute even in the idealized world of mathematics how Ayn Rand expects it to be the absolute in the imperfect physical world?
(back)

[FOOTNOTE 2]

Some glaring subjectivisms in a book on “objectivism”!

• Roark and Dominique seem to understand each other through telepathy (as in their first meeting and many meetings later)? Is telepathy scientifically proven?
• During their first love making Dominique doesn’t have any idea of Roark’s creative skills or his ‘objectivism’. Or did she find it out by how he grilled through stones at the quarry!?
• “The first motor was considered foolish [Roark’s speech pp. 664]”. Who considered it foolish? When? Can somebody provide some reference on this, as I am not able to find any despite my best efforts!
• “…when I look at the planets, I think of aeroplanes” .Who ever told Wynand (and Rand) that an aeroplane can fly to a planet? ‘planets’ should have read ‘sky’ or something else, but is it a innocuous mistake or a sinister distortion of truth?
• How is the art (sorry, science) of knowing a person by his face and first glance objectively justified? (Toohey’s speech, pp. 252)
  (back)

[FOOTNOTE 3]

There is a
movement called Libertarianism which is closely related to objectivism (though
"objectivists" don't recognize this). It is the “third largest” political party in the US now. I came across an open letter
by its "pioneer" president-candidate asking voters to vote for Bush in this
presidency elections (though I saw this in ARI, I don't have that link now ). I don’t question his political stand, since I can’t lay claim to enough first-hand or even second-hand information on the political scenario in US. My point here is that this article, coming from a
"objectivist" movement is very subjective. It is common knowledge that one of the main accusations against Bush was that he lead US to war on Iraq on still unsubstantiated grounds of existence of WMDs. The author who supports Bush, doesn’t mention
this even once and beats about the bush for most of the part claiming things like "terror network in Iraq" has been destroyed. Alas, to what levels has objectivism fallen!
(back)

[FOOTNOTE 4]

This couplet from the nearly two thousand year old Tamil work Thirukkural is one which quickly comes to my mind, but surely there are many others.

“Epporul yaryarvaik ketpinum apporul

Meypporul kanbadhu arivu” (Kural 423)

“What ever we may hear from whichever source, to find the true meaning of that, is the function of the intellect”
(back)

I am an objectivist!

I have realized after finishing Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead, that I am an objectivist. I am an objectivist simply because I like to be. Yes there is an objective reason behind this, but I don’t have to explain this to anybody since others opinions don’t matter to me. Yet, due to my own objective decision, I would let some of those reasons be known to you now.

It gives me absolute freedom. I can do anything I want and since anything I do is for my own interests and selfishness is a virtue, I am right in doing whatever I like. I don’t have to care for the society and in particular for those I don’t like (because they are always subjective). I have no responsibilities, barring what I choose to be comfortable for myself. It also gives me absolute freedom in my personal relations. I can make or break any relation without having to offer any explanations (just like Dominique does to Keating and later Wynand in the novel). I am correct in disobeying the government in many things, since it has no right to curtail my individual freedom. In particular I am correct in not paying my taxes, since taxation is only a means to benefit the poor by stealing from the rich. Above all I like this philosophy now because with some luck I am powerful in the society now and I don’t want to share the power with anyone, nor help anyone else to reach that place.

I do not care for the environment because I would make less profit if I care for it. And in any case my wealth insulates me from the environment with the use of technology and it is only the poor people who are going to suffer, with whom I don’t sympathize for any reason. In fact if somebody were to ask me about environmental concerns, inspired by some ideas in this book, I would answer them in the following way.

Are effects like global warming, not a result of our unrestrained exploitation of our environment?
Yes.
Then should this continue?
Yes.
Then what would happen to our environment? All of the land mass may be submerged soon. Where would we live?
Human genius has long found an answer for this. Using super-strong alloys, we construct entire cities suspended in air. We can grow vegetables and fruits using greenhouses, we can have even parks, resorts…
Who would provide the money for this?
Our great corporations will do.
Then, wouldn’t this be prohibitively expensive for our poor? Don’t they need to live?
Yes it will be too expensive for the poor. And yes they don’t need to live. The poor have no right to live. The poor remain poor because they are incompetent, lazy and dumb-headed[see speech by Dominque at pp.130]. In this world of survival of the fittest, they don’t deserve to live.

Of course I understand that there some moral issues which can’t be dealt with entirely rationally, and as long as they are not important to me, I’ll allow organizations like ARI to decide for me.

If these reasons don’t seem to be objective it is because I have chosen to disclose only some of my reasons and obviously my reasons can never be subjective because I am an objectivist which implies that I am a perfect man.

PS: If you haven’t got what I am saying, then look out for my review on “The Fountainhead” which I’ll post shortly. If you are getting it, then that is better – you would be able to enjoy my review much more!

On Kudaikkul Mazhai and other movies

I had seen quite a few movies a recently and I thought I can comment on a few. One that I was most impressed by was “Kudaikkul Mazhai”(Rain within Umbrella), scripted, directed, produced and performed by Parthipan. I was expecting something different from this film, but nothing prepared me for what I saw. Given that most of the film took place in an old bungalow, I thought it would be similar to either “Kadhal Kondean” or “Julie Ganapathy”. But I couldn’t be more wrong. The story shows how a sensitive man is very much disturbed when a girl pretends to love him for a candid camera show. It then shows how he is afflicted with schizophrenic delusion and from then on proceeds to the rest of the story. I wouldn’t like to spoil the suspense by revealing anything, but there is a sudden twist at the end, which puts the entire story at a different perspective. But there are numerous clues for this throughout the film, for instance, that the rest of the film has a surreal feel and also that heroine seems to behave in a way that is strangely ideal, as the hero would like her to. Well I guess I have already revealed quite a bit! The twist is some ways similar to one in “The sixth sense” though the story has nothing to do with it. The dealing of illusions is in some vague way similar to “A beautiful mind”, though when comparing with that, this story ends where that really begins. Though I am comparing with other films for their style, the content and presentation is startlingly fresh and I have certainly not seen this in any other film before. Parthipan builds the film with various strange incidents which finally get justified only by the climax. There are numerous symbolic incidents too, a few of which went over my head! But what astounded me was, the professionalism displayed in the film. There is not a single incident, a single scene which is wasted and inserted for commercial sake. Many describe the brother character of hero as unnecessary but on retrospect (again after the climax) it is very much necessary, though those dialogues could have been cut down. Parthipan has not compromised anything for commercial sake, and if the film is intellectually challenging he lets it to be so. With only two main characters the performances are important and both, especially Parthipan have done very well. In all it’s a refreshingly different, moderately entertaining film, even if it strains on your brain. I guess the film hasn’t done well commercially which is not very surprising, though I hope Parthipan continues to take such films!

I also saw “Nandha” directed by Bala, for the second time. This film, which remade Surya as an actor, is quite somber, mostly about relationship between son and mother and ends with mother poisoning her son and killing him and herself. Most films would be clarified on seeing them for a second time, but in this I only got more confused. It is always quite difficult get any intended message out of Bala’s movies and so just as I considered “Sethu” to be only a new kind of love tragedy, I was considering this film as an emotional tragedy. But I did notice something else in this viewing. It seems to show the conflict between violence and non-violence. Rajkiran, who professes violence to right any wrongs and that we are our own god is at one extreme. The other protagonist is, strangely, silent but much more effective. Surya’s mother is appalled at the effect of his violence, like her husband getting killed or about the plight of Rajkiran’s daughter (at the end of the film). Surya is torn between the two, and chooses the path of violence initially though in the end he willingly and knowingly submits to his mother poisoning him. This makes me wonder whether Bala resolves the conflict towards non-violence, though this is too vague an indicator. What impressed me most was that many important twists in the movie are explained by only one dialogue or none at all– just the barely sufficient, no over emphasis or theatrics. For instance, in the climax, the fact that Surya willingly takes the poison gives a new interpretation for the film. But this is shown without even a single dialogue. Surya takes in the food, after tasting it and finding it to be poisoned looks confused one moment, then he looks at his mother with a bitter look which slowly translates to a knowing glance and he finally takes up the rest of the food. This turned out to be the most poetical scene in the film. This is what I consider to be the hallmark of any Bala film. The most important scene which justifies the whole film is dealt with only subtle emotions and no dialogues and no theatrics. Whether it is Vikram in “Sethu” who silently disregards his relatives and goes back to the asylum, not necessarily because he is mentally retarded but because he wants seclusion, or Vikram in “Pithamagan” who disregards his lover and hence the entire society in a single gesture and walks back, or Surya in this movie, Bala confidently rests his entire film on a few powerful gestures, instead of wasting time on lengthy dialogues and theatrics, something which even famed directors like Mani Ratnam don’t do consistently, as was demonstrated in his latest film “Aayitha Ezhthu”. My AE and Pithamagan reviews can be found here and here.

Though this post is already too long, I have to comment about a few more films. Both had revenge as the theme and hence I shouldn’t have liked them. But they gave quite convincing reasons and the presentation was also good and so I should accept that, regardless of the message, they were an entertaining watch. One was “Varnajalam” (Play of colours). This is a fairly recent film and Srikanth had done a grey character very well. This is a story of a personal revenge which is executed coldly and clinically. The story is told quite well, though it appeared a bit confusing to me, probably since I wasn’t watching the film attentively. What impressed me was that there were no insertions to the climax like a new love relation for the hero – it just ended with him taking revenge. However the film sagged in the middle and comedy track by Karunas was a damp squib. The second was “Sabash”, with Parthipan as the hero. I actually started watching this after sometime from the start, but it was quite interesting. This shows how, a husband avenges a person indirectly responsible for her wife’s death by framing him in the same case. There was a constant suspense as to whether Parthipan’s methods would be exposed and how he deals with various challenges. All the actors had performed well. This was also quite professional with no unnecessary stuff. I think these two films were not noticed much, though I don’t know the reason. They were focused on their theme and were quite entertaining, and frankly I don’t expect anything more from a film.

Quite a contrast from the films I have described above was “Minnale”, which was also remade/dubbed in Hindi as something whose acronym is RTDM. This is directed by Gautam who later directed “Kaaka Kaaka” and frankly I couldn’t believe that it was the same person who directed both. I have always believed that a director stamps his identity on all his films, but here I am wrong. Virtually everything that is good in KK is messed up here. One instance is the picturization of the songs. Nice music by Harris Jayaraj and good lyrics has been messed up in the film. Of course the script is itself quite weak and the climax was the expected one. The film also has numerous logical flaws, but I won’t waste time & space by discussing that. Either Gautam must have learned a lot in the time in between the two films or he must be quite inconsistent in the application of his skills and I hope it is the former .

An experience called "Autumn of the Patriarch"

I was planning to write about “Brave new world” first, but since I thought I needed to compose my thoughts more, I would be commenting on “The Autumn of the patriarch” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Reading this novel was a whole new experience. Some books like “Brave new world” have made me think, but this is the one which has made to feel strongly. Not that there wasn’t anything to think about it, but that happens much later. The novel is about the life of a tyrant of an imaginary Caribbean country. Marquez’s imagery and narrative is so stunningly beautiful that we become a part of this novel, sympathizing with the people of the country ruled by the tyrant and also sympathizing with how a normal person with normal fallacies becomes a tyrant.

Marquez follows a ‘stream of consciousness’ style here – which means that the flow is as chaotic as our everyday thinking. It starts somewhere and in between branches of to something related, backwards or forwards in time and often Marquez doesn’t come back to where he started. The whole novel is organized as six independent sections (or chapters) – independent because they don’t exactly build upon events in earlier chapters. Each one starts just after the death of the dictator, and crisscrosses time and space. To heighten the effect, Marquez uses long (really long) sentences running to 3-4 pages usually and last one (which is the last chapter) running to some 50 pages. Of course these are not grammatical, as everything like person, tense and time change during a sentence and to add to all this the author doesn’t put dialogs in quotes. What results is a novel which is quite difficult to get into. But I think it is these same things which add to the magical appeal of the novel – the ‘stream of consciousness’ with long sentences really make the happenings a little bit confusing and hence add a magical, illusionary appeal – it hints on the theme of the novel – deception and self-deception. It is as if, the state machinery deceives the people about the dictator and dictator about the people so from either side we don’t get the true picture and hence traces of that deception remain in the reader’s mind too. Apart from the style, Marquez doesn’t use much of magical realism here, but where he uses, it intensifies the imagery superbly.

I also felt like regretting the choice of the novel for the first 15-20 pages, but once I really got in, nothing, not even the effort of reading each part at least twice to understand it, could stop me. The imagery and narrative was breathtaking and it was really an experience to read this. For instance, in one of the sequence where the dictator’s wife is assassinated, the description wasn’t exactly so gory, but the imagery was so disturbing that I had to take my eyes off and relax for a minute or so. The final page really drives home the theme of self-deception. Reflecting on this, I realized how dangerous self-deception was and even recognized some instances from my life where I have willingly deceived myself. This can also be read as a tragic tale of how a simple person is pushed in to becoming a dictator for his life. But most of all, this can be simply read for its literary splendor; it’s breathtaking and awe-inspiring imagery.
Below is my favorite quote from this novel, plucked out from near the end of last sentence and another quote to go with it.

"...but he learned to live with those and all the miseries of glory as he
discovered in the course of his uncountable years that a lie is more comfortable
than doubt, more useful than love, more lasting than truth, he had arrived
without surprise at the ignominious fiction of commanding without power, of
being exalted without glory and of being obeyed without authority..."
Gabriel
Garcia Marquez,"The Autumn of the Patriarch".

"Nothing is so easy
as to deceive oneself; for what we wish, we readily believe." Demosthenes, Greek
Orator.

A desperate move?

I have a lot of things in my mind and since I wasn’t finding enough time to put them down, I thought I can take a look at a current issue. As some would have guessed from the title, it is nothing but the “ban” on release of non-Kannada films for 7 weeks after their release elsewhere. Surprisingly, this ‘ban’ is not from the government but from the film producers association (or whatever it’s called), but seemingly has the tacit support of the government. While the ban, which is from somebody outside the government being implemented, is itself a cause for deep concern, the reasons given for the ban are only more so. This move is supposed to protect the Kannada film industry and give more (captive) market for the Kannada films. I don’t know how they expected everyone to start viewing Kannada films just because other films are not available, rather than do the obvious, view the same other language films through pirated VCDs. The first obvious reaction of this ban has already come with the closure of many theatres in Bangalore. If, god forbid, should the ban become permanent, the net effect would be that most of the theatres which showed non-Kannada films would close down and there would be an increase of piracy for all these films and as a side-effect for the Kannada films too. Thus the producers association seems to have come up with a magical solution which harms both parties. The only reason for such a move could be, I think, desperation. After this ban, I came to know from various press reports that the Kannada film industry is in quite a bad shape. But the solution is to introspect and improve the quality of Kannada films, not these kind of moves which seem to be an acceptance of the poor quality of Kannada films. Of course during the rebuilding period some kind of protection may be required for Kannada films, which can be enforced in a much gentler manner like requiring all theatres to screen a fixed number (which should be judiciously decided) of Kannada films in a year. These kind of moves only end up in making people seeing other language films feeling discriminated against. As an aside, moves like these and some simple things like bus route labels still being in Kannada only, makes me feel that Bangalore is still unable to reconcile itself being a cosmopolitan city. Click here to see how a Kannada filmmaker also feels in the same way (read under sub-heading 'appalled').

On some Vikatan books and director Bala

An interesting and absorbing series has just come to an end in the Tamil weekly Ananta Vikatan. Authored by writer S.Ramakrishnan and titled ‘ThunaiEzhuthu’ (Supporting Letter), the series was one of the best ones I had read in magazines. It is a series of essays focusing on various topics sometimes quite abstract. The author usually starts of with a personal incident, but soon goes to a deeper and somewhat philosophical interpretation of the topic that is usually quite touching and also thought provoking. Hopefully, Vikatan should be publishing this as a book as they do for most of their series articles. Then it would be a must buy for me.

Meanwhile, one of the books already published by Vikatan which would be good buy is Evan thaan Bala (He is Bala), a semi-auto biographical account by director Bala. It recently came as a series in the same magazine and I read most of the parts. Atleast according to me, it is a very frank account of his life by Bala. To those who are not aware of Bala, he is currently one of top directors of Tamil cinema. Many adore his direction style and some others, I guess, hate it. The reason may be that all his 3 films so far have been quite disturbing and end in tragedy. Still his first film (Sethu remade in Hindi as Tere Naam) was a blockbuster and others were also hits. Though regarded by many to be on the same league as Mani Ratnam, his direction style is quite different. For one, he shuns any form of glamour, which may be results in an added emphasis on violence in most of his films. Interestingly, I have observed that many die hard fans of Mani detest Bala. Frankly, I like both their films though they are very different. I was intrigued by the weirdness of Bala’s films and started reading this series to know more about this. This book could be quite inspirational to many, as Bala describes his transformation from reckless, uncared for and rowdy youth to one of the top directors in Tamil cinema. Both the books are published by Vikatan Publications.

The kumkonam tragedy and it's lessons

The recent fire in Kumbakonam is a very tragic and entirely avoidable incident. For many years, I have seen such schools which are run from a residential building with no open space at all. The thatched roof literally became the final straw, I think. Only now after the incident the government has taken steps to close all such schools. However I don’t think that this incident should be politicized. Also I feel the opposition’s statement that the government did not take enough steps after the Srirangam fire (which was at a marriage hall) is also not just. Simply because, the government had then taken steps to scrutinize (only) all marriage halls and this is what you expect from any normal government here ! Such is the state of governance and administration in our country that the government only takes stop-gap measures after each tragedy. May be another tragedy (though god forbid that) should happen so that government scrutinizes some other public facility. What is needed now is a complete relook at the administrative system that has allowed this to happen and just a suspension of a few officers involved in the incident would not serve that purpose.
 
However for me, what was more disturbing was the reports that teachers of the children had abandoned them and saved themselves. Also it is reported that one of the teachers instructed the students not to leave and told that the fire can be controlled ! As if to vindicate these reports the teachers are still absconding. I think that this is only symptomatic of the moral decline of our society. In a society driven by money, teaching profession (especially at school level) is not at all lucrative because of the pay levels. Thus mostly only those who are not able to take up other professions end up in this and they also only think of earning more money by taking tuitions. Being service oriented and caring for their students seems to be a thing of the past. If not for high ideals of the teachers even basic humanity should have prevented such a despicable action. That the teachers who are supposed to make the next generation don’t even have these basic human values is a cause for grave concern.
 
As an aside, I think the habit of students going for tuitions has increased phenomenally in Tamil Nadu. I myself never went to tuitions until my 12th standard and it was the same for most of my then classmates. Now I hear of students going for tuitions for many subjects even before 5th  standard, even in small towns. (In this atleast there is a generation gap with in 6-7 years!)And most of the times, the tuition teachers are the same as their teachers in school ! Also, various pressures exerted by teachers to make children join their tuition, like being biased against them or not teaching properly are not uncommon. I am strongly against this trend, not only because this puts the teaching profession in a bad light, but also because it is sure stamp out any creativity that is still left in the students after going through our syllabus and examinations.    

Becoming more mundane

As I told in my previous post, the title of the blog was chosen impulsively and like for most decisions taken so, I began to regret it after sometime. The title appeared to grandiose in nature and though occasionally I would discuss such grand ideas, by no means would my blog be composed of only such discussions. After thinking about an alternative name for sometime, I hit upon this title – ‘Pseudo random scribblings’. I would now try to explain the rationale behind this title (assuming there is one!). I was tempted to name the blog as ‘random scribblings’, but after some thought I realised that my writings would not actually be in random areas and I would exclude myself from certain areas while concentrating myself one some other areas.
Some of the areas from where I would exclude myself are – 

•   Active political stands or discussions 
•   Personal issues which are of no relevance to anyone except me (this will not be a personal journal)

Some of the areas where I would like to concentrate are –

• Apolitical discussions on current issues
• Review, criticism on literature I come across (mainly fiction)
• Review, criticism on movies I happen to watch (mainly Tamil, occasionally English, Hindi)
• On other things which affect me in some way (like my first post)

With the bulk of my writings to be concentrated in these areas, I didn’t think it could be called as ‘random scribblings’. True, that this is not exactly pseudo-random either, but I don’t know of any other class of randomness in between these two!
[Even assuming that there is no other class of randomness between random and pseudo-random, what is given above is not a precise definition of the scope of the blog and hence concepts like random & pseudo-random may not be even applicable to this.

Accepted, but I am not immune to the human tendency of trying to explain intellectually the things which are in essence decided at heart.]

Truth , Beauty and Happiness

I have started this blog quite impulsively after seeing that quite a few of my peers in IISc have started one ! For sometime now, i have had some ideas which i wanted to post somewhere, but was hesitant in starting a blog because i knew that i would not be able to update it frequently. But today, in a moment of impulse i have started one and i only hope that i can continue to keep it alive.

Coming to the topic of the blog, for i think it ought to be explained in the first post, i should concede that the topic was also chosen quite impulsively as the page asking for topic was staring at me, as the only barrier for me creating a blog. Nevertheless, this had been a topic which has provoked quite a few thoughts in me. The first time i began to consider truth and beauty as being equivalent, was when i read (actually, re-read)
John Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn. Though, i am not a avid reader of poetry, i first read this as a regular part of our syllabus in high school and though i didn't understand it fully, i was enchanted by it. A few years later in college, i managed to do some searching in net and understood more of the poem. The following lines were present as my mail signature for quite some time (perplexing quite a few !) -

"...Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard Are sweeter;...
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty.'-that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
John Keats in "Ode on a Grecian Urn"
"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
--Buckminster Fuller

The whole poem is so enjoyable and thought provoking to read. Just do a google search, you'll find many copies.

The third item in the list - "Happiness" may be considered by many to be equivalent or alteast directly proportional (pardon my terminolgy) to the other two. I always had a vague veiwpoint that while 'true happiness' can be considered to be equivalent to these, the happiness that most of us want and get, which is merely a delusion of our senses, only leads us farther from Truth and Beauty. And then one day by quite a chance, i happened to read a novel by Aldous Huxley - The Brave New World. This not only supported, but also reinforced many times my views on these. This novel is extraordinarily prophetic, as in 1930's Huxley has prophesised a society which has a strong resemblance to our current society, but live in a way which would not be very pleasant to us all. All the inhabitants (well, almost all) are happy, because they are made to be happy, by sensuous delusion of their senses. This is where i think our current soceity influenced by western materialism is heading to. Some may find that some things dont exactly confirm to a capitalist society, like the state control over the subjects, but upon some thought this is the only way there can be some stability in a purely capitalist society. I intent to post a detailed review on it, sometime soon. But for now, here is a tantalizing quote from the novel -
(pardon me that this not exactly a quote, since i dont have the text with me now).

(From the coversation between Savage (a being like us!) and World Controller)
Savage: Do you think God exists now?
WC: Yes, i think so. God manifests himself in various forms at various times....
Savage: Then, how does he manifest himself now?
WC : He manifests himself by his absence