Back with a difference!!

Yet again I have taken a long break and I don’t want to bore anyone by going into reasons for that (assuming I have some). Over the course of these months there have been quite a few posts which I wanted to write, but didn’t. Hence, it’s highly unlikely that I should come out of the break by writing a post not quite characteristic of my blog. It is no less unlikely that this is about a non-fiction book which was first book I completed in several months (after leaving 4 fiction books incomplete!). But unlikely things do happen and hence I am here with this post (or the above things are not so unlikely and I am writing this to only give a snazzy feel to my comeback post!).

Of late I have been fascinated by history and politics – both at national and international level. My interest in politics in not in everyday politics but rather in the conflicting ideologies and their approval or rejection by the society as such. All this lead me to wonder about human society as such and also about philosophy – since philosophy is basically about trying explain human life. I felt I needed a basic primer on this loosely bound array of subjects and luckily I came across this book a couple of months back. I wouldn’t really try to review this book as I don’t think I am competent enough (even by my standards). Instead I would try to summarize the content and what I had learned from that.

The book starts off by presenting the opposing theories of socialism (Marxism) and capitalism (functionalism). As the author observes both the theories start as grand theories which can explain everything in society – Marxism by focusing on class inequality and extraction of surplus value from labor and functionalism by theorizing a functional (utilitarian) value for any social trend, even devious ones. This same grandiosity becomes their flaw as instead of observing society and explaining it, they tend to fit the society to their explanations. Then the book moves into more pure sociological theories like action theory which try to observe specific scenarios and then propose theories suited for them. This wasn’t of much interest to me as except for some interesting scenarios this was like sociology for its own sake. The book later takes up a revised Marxism where the theory is extended to the current class struggle scenario – where a class is not related only by profession, but also by various other indicators like social status, religion, race and so on. This seemed to be an interesting one but there seemed to no strong conclusions like in original Marxism (which was probably why it was revised!)

Towards the end the author surveys mostly disparate elements in social theory like Critical theory, feminism, linguistic connections etc. I skipped most of the chapters in this except for critical theory which I found to be the most interesting. Unlike other theories ‘critical theory’ is not strictly a theory since it doesn’t try to explain any thing in society – the only thing it does is to criticize other known social theories. This seems to be crazy at first, but it does make some sense. When people support some specific theory they usually tend to become biased towards that and not be able to criticize it too much. Hence it is important for something like critical theory to exist, since they are the people who can give the most brutal criticism. This when addressed properly would only lead to a better theory. Apparently for this reason most of the critical theorists are not even attached to any universities. Of course the pitfall here is that they may begin to criticize just for the sake of it. More interestingly the critic of critical theory against capitalism was quite similar to what I have (based on, of course, Brave new world).

Apart from these specific learning it was interesting to get a feel of sociology as such. I knew it was not a science, but I didn’t expect it to be as far away from science as I found it to be. The author’s presentation itself leads to this as he presented the pros and cons of each theory before moving to the next. Therefore, at least by citing other people the author seemed to repeatedly contradicting himself. Of course I did like this format as I like to see opposing views. But what was more surprising was the skepticism expressed by several sociologists as to whether even core theoretical sociology can be treated like science.

The other interesting aspect was that to see the amount of contribution done by Marxism to social theory. Of course, it may not have contributed more than functionalism, but it is definitely a surprise to see the impact it has on other theories especially after reading some of our Libertarian bloggers who seem to bash Marxism as if it was the most evil thing on earth. Of course to counter them I also need to know a fair bit of economics, so at least until I find a good primer on economics I would restrict my blog to movies and book reviews!

One disappointing (or rather expected) thing about the book was that it was entirely about western sociology (and philosophy). In the later parts, some theories like postmodernism seem to be like Hindu philosophies, but there was no elaboration on this. Probably I need to read something on Hindu philosophy to get a completely different perspective! Anyway this was one of the most informative books I had read, though it left me with as many questions as answers (and probably this was why it was informative!).

A short story defends a novel !

What happens if a talented author’s popular and intriguing novel is criticized for its “lack of a clear moral”? Though I can’t comment on what other authors would have done, Gabriel Garcia Marquez counters the criticism through a short story - in his trademark magical realist and symbolic style, this story’s moral is “Why should a story have a (clear) moral?”

I must accept that I have taken the help of a commentary (second essay in the commentary is more relevant) in understanding this beautifully symbolic story. In fact it was because of reading this that I started reading the story. It was a part of my still unfinished collection of his short stories. As many of the thirty odd stories were rather like essays, I am yet to read even half of them. But this one story is enough reason to buy the book! Of course after reading the story I realized that commentary or no commentary, the symbolism was so strong that I would have got it after some time.

The novel in question is “One hundred years of solitude” and the short story is “A very old man with enormous wings” (and intriguingly subtitled “A tale for children”). It goes like this. An old man with big wings is suddenly found in a fishing hamlet. The people there initially think he is an angel, but he doesn’t possess any trait of an angel other than his wings – he is old and dirty, wings are broken, he speaks a language which no body understands and though he does some miracles they are rather weird (like making flowers to grow on a leper's wounds). However there is a general curiosity and people from nearby places visit him and the couple who found him become rich. Meanwhile, another strange thing happens in the village. A huge spider with the head of a girl arrives in the village. It is told that the girl was turned into a spider by a flash of lightning since she had disobeyed her parents and gone dancing all through the night. The girl speaks and tells her pitiable story and now people are more amused by the girl than by the old man. Quite soon nobody cares for the old man, including the couple who gained from him. Nobody thinks he is an angel because he doesn’t look like one. This is another theme in the story – what is stranger, an angel appearing or an angel which doesn’t look like an angel appearing? The story ends with the old man, after some years, suddenly growing his wings again and flying away.

Now you can try to guess the symbolism yourself before reading ahead. It shouldn’t be all that difficult since it is quite intended. If your interpretation is sufficiently different from what I have given below, do leave a comment.

The first obvious part is that the girl represents a story (or work of literature) which is very simple to understand and gives easy morals for everyone to understand. On the other hand the old man represents the artfully created, complex story (like “One hundred years of solitude”), that ultimately has more moral than a simplistic story but has to be understood with effort. Though this story speaks a language not easily understandable to people and has apparently weird morals, its nature (of being equivalent to that of an angel) can’t be questioned because of this – if the people had probed more than ignoring the old man they would have learnt more from a true angel. Also Marquez seems to say that the popularity of the book was due to a curiosity and not many understood it sincerely (something which I always doubted!). If I extend the symbolism even more, he seems to say that those who benefited most from the work (publishing houses?) have done nothing to study it seriously.

I have myself thought the lack of a clear moral to be a defect in the novel, but now I don’t feel strongly so, after realizing how important and relevant to real life some of the themes in the novel are. Though the latter points in the interpretation of symbolism may be a bit far-fetched, the former points are strongly implied. When I realized that this story was his defense symbolically, I couldn’t help being amazed at his intellectual prowess!

More of "One hundred years of solitude"

These are some of the quotes that I like most in One Hundred Years of Solitude.

The opening line of the novel gives a teaser for the rest as it presents the past, present and future together in a single stream of thought.

“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.”

This comes near the middle of the novel and its simply amusing. Though some people take this literally, i guess this is more of a sarcasm. (The character Carmeilia is mentioned only here in the entire novel)

"Carmelia Montiel, a twenty-year-old virgin, had just bathed in orange-blossom water and was strewing rosemary leaves on Pilar Ternera's bed when the shot rang out. Aureliano José had been destined to find with her the happiness that Amaranta had denied him, to have seven children, and to die in her arms of old age, but the bullet that entered his back and shattered his chest had been directed by a wrong interpretation of the cards."

This is a beautiful quote for just its imagery and of course leaves us with quite a bit to think.

“One winter night while the soup was boiling in the fireplace, he missed the heat of the back of his store, the buzzing of the sun on the dusty almond trees, the whistle of the train during the lethargy of siesta time, just as in Macondo he had missed the winter soup in the fireplace, the cries of the coffee vendor, and the fleeting larks of springtime. Upset by two nostalgias facing each other like two mirrors, he lost his marvelous sense of unreality and he ended up recommending to all of them that they leave Macondo, that they forget everything he had taught them about the world and the human heart, that they shit on Horace, and that wherever they might be they always remember that the past was a lie, that memory has no return, that every spring gone by could never be recovered, and that the wildest and most tenacious love was an ephemeral truth in the end.”

This quote is a vivid example of Magical realism used by the author. This may be symbolic too, but I haven’t found the symbolism yet!

“A trickle of blood came out under the door, crossed the living room, went out into the street, continued on in a straight line across the uneven terraces, went down steps and climbed over curbs, passed along the Street of the Turks, turned a corner to the right and another to the left, made a right angle at the Buendía house, went in under the closed door, crossed through the parlor, hugging the walls so as not to stain the rugs, went on to the other living room, made a wide curve to avoid the dining-room table, went along the porch with the begonias, and passed without being seen under Amaranta's chair as she gave an arithmetic lesson to Aureliano José, and went through the pantry and came out in the kitchen, where Úrsula was getting ready to crack thirty-six eggs to make bread.

"Holy Mother of God!" Úrsula shouted.”

This is from near the end of the novel which I like it for just its play of words –

“It was the last that remained of a past whose annihilation had not taken place because it was still in a process of annihilation, consuming itself from within, ending at every moment but never ending its ending.”

One hundred years of Solitude -Perplexing, yet enchanting

Perplexing, yet enchanting. This is how I can describe in a single line my view of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s magical realist classic “One hundred years of solitude”. I can either say that the novel is an over-ambitious, confusing work or that it would take me some more time to appreciate it fully. I feel both of it now, though more of the latter.

A summary can be found here. It tells about the founding of an imaginary remote Latin American town called Macondo, it growth and its decline and along with it the story of six generations of its founders – the Buendias. Jose Arcadio Buendia and his wife Ursula are the founders of the town. A very helpful family tree can be found here. More than magical realism the novel brims with symbolism. In fact it would be hard to find a main incident which is not magical realist or symbolic or both. It is generally felt that this is more understandable than Marquez’s “The Autumn of the patriarch” – but I differ. “The Autumn…” though much more difficult to get into, is much easier to understand then this novel with loads of symbolism. Of course if one wishes, they can consider this only as a story of a family, disregarding all the symbolism.

But on another level it becomes the story of the entire mankind. In fact it is quite interesting to find out the exact meaning of solitude in this novel. I feel that all the main characters in this novel (belonging to Buendia family) have a trait of solitude. In some reviews it is noted that Ursula, the matriarch of the family who lives to more than a hundred years, is an anti-solitude character. But I differ with this. Ursula is a pragmatic lady and involves herself in making the family financially secure. But she does little else. She leaves the bringing up of the children to her Indian servants and is not even aware of their growth. The following quote brings this out clearly (p. 55)-

“So busy was she in her prosperous enterprises that one afternoon she looked distractedly towards the courtyard while the Indian women helped her sweeten the dough and she saw two unknown and beautiful adolescent girls doing frame embroidery in the light of the sunset. They were Rebecca and Amarantha”

Hence this is also a kind of solitude – where one is so involved with material welfare, that they lose track of others feelings. Based on this I would say that solitude here means any state where one is oblivious of some of the happenings around them. That may be because one is too much engrossed in earning money (Ursula), involved in politics and work (Colonel Aureliano Buendia), obsessed with science (Jose Arcadio, the founder), two people obsessed with each other (Aureliano(II) and Amaranta Ursula), obsessed with social status (Fernanda del Carpio) or engrossed in the bitterness of past events (Amaranta and Meme).

Many confusing symbolisms reveal themselves after some thought. The unusual fertility of the farm animals of Aureliano Segundo and his concubine, Petra Cotes indicate the limitless resources available to one at youth. As they grow old, the fertility of the animals decreases. As they have squandered their riches of the youth they are doomed to suffer during old age, as Aureliano does. However there a few symbolisms which have not yielded to me yet, like the flying to sky of Remedios the beauty or the strange murder of Jose Arcadio (the second).

The novel also tries to symbolically tell the whole story of the mankind, but because of the same symbolism it is still quite confusing as to what it really tells. When the founders arrive at Macondo, it is a pristine place and “many things don’t have their names”. The only contact with the outside world is through gypsies – who bring some useful innovations to them. It is interesting that the innovations which are regarded as magic at this period appear again at a later time, but are then considered science. Marquez also notes that later group of gypsies parade technology as a entertainment rather as being useful to life. It is interesting to ponder on whether this rings a bell with the current direction of technological progress.

The town then gets embroiled in politics, as Colonel Aureliano organizes many revolutions against the central government (to which Macondo finally comes in contact with). The important turning point comes when a company decides to setup a banana plantation in the town. Initially it brings in a lot of progress but finally thousands of workers are massacred in a strike and as the banana company leaves the town, its decline begins. Despite his reportedly communist leanings, Marquez doesn’t seem to explicitly say that the banana company brought decline to Macondo. He notes the ‘prosperity’ brought in by the banana company and the decline when they withdraw from the town in a more or less neutral way. It is for us to decide whether the company is to be appreciated for bringing in some prosperity or accused for starting the decline from the height of the prosperity. And of course for us to decide whether the company stands as a metaphor for capitalism in today’s world.

The false ideologies in politics and the futility of war are clearly brought out. Here I found that Aureliano’s character became quite similar to the General in “The Autumn…” with Marquez using the concept of “Solitude of power” – but Aureliano recovers just in time.

Also Marquez stresses on the theme that Time moves in a circle. This is very obvious based on many things in the novel, like the inventions of gypsies appearing later as scientific inventions, Jose Arcadio Segundo fighting and remaining incognito like his grand-father Colonel Aureliano Buendia and incest between Aureliano Jose and Amaranta repeating itself more vigorously as that between Aureliano (the last) and Amaranta Ursula. In the novel also this is mentioned several times. The incessant repetition of names also hints at the circular nature. An interesting question is “If Time moves in circles then why does the town come to an end?” The novel itself provides the answer –

(p.402) "…the history of the family was a machine with unavoidable repetitions, a turning wheel that would have gone on spilling into eternity were it not for the progressive and irremediable wearing of the axle."

Thus Time moves in a spiral rather than a circle! A spiral which points towards the inevitable destruction, because when people repeat the same mistakes, the family is not as strong as before to deal with the mistakes.

The novel also has some puzzling things towards the end – the whole story of the Buendia family is foretold in the parchments written by the gypsy Melquiades. In fact the name of the novel comes from the fact that a hundred years after the parchments are written, it is interpreted. Then is the novel the same as these parchments? Not likely because the novel doesn’t have this beautiful and chilling epitaph of the parchments (pp. 420) –

“The first of the line is tied to a tree and the last is being eaten by the ants”.

Also a character with the name Gabriel Marquez (yes! with the same name), who is a friend of Aureliano (II) and descendant of a founding family, escapes from Macondo, just before it is destroyed. Is the whole story told through him?

Of course the last few pages of the novel happen to be the most puzzling. Especially the last sentence of the novel is as enigmatic as it is poetic –

“…because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth”

How can a race (or a town) be in solitude? The explanation I used to think of before reading the novel fully was that, the town was remote and always separated from the rest of the world. However, Macondo becomes well connected to the world around the time the banana company comes and even during its decline is connected by a rail road – only that it’s forgotten by the rest of the world. Now I think, this solitude has the same meaning as the others in the novel. In some vague way, it refers to the people of the town not paying enough attention and not taking enough efforts for the survival of the town. They are too busy earning and enjoying during the times of the banana company and after it leaves are totally shattered and they too begin to leave or stay passively in the society.

In trying to understand this novel I tried reading a few reviews online (by noted literature study aid publishers) and they seemed to be as confused as me! Quite a few reviews I read were contradicting each other in interpreting some of the symbolisms. In fact one of them interpreted that from the vigorous mating between Aureliano Segundo and Petra Cotes, Marquez favors sexual promiscuity, whereas his treatment of the sexual passion between Amaranta Ursula and Aureliano (II) would have easily disproved this. I am aware that there are entire books on this novel, but I would still like my remaining questions to be answered more easily. They could also be answered if I was to read the novel once again, but though I have the interest for it I don’t seem to have the patience for it now.

Irrespective of whether you want to peal away the symbolisms or not, this novel is certainly a good read – touching, comical and revealing sometimes, but always puzzling.

Ponniyin Selvan - An engaging lesson in history!

This is another post after a long break in my blog. But still this was a pretty quick entry to write up. The post which is really long pending is my review on “One hundred years of solitude”. Apart from the novel itself being very dense with a lot of symbolism, I also have to hunt through it for quotes whose location I have forgotten – felt I should have made a note of quotes as I did for “The Fountainhead”.

Coming to this post’s topic, it is the review of the Tamil historical epic novel – Kalki’s “Ponniyin Selvan” (Son of Ponni (Ponni is a river)). I had heard about this book for quite some time – it is arguably the most widely read Tamil novel and though written about 50 years back, it is still very actively read among the current generation of Tamil readers. It deals about the events during the succession of the Chola emperor Parantaka Chola II (Sundara Chola) around 970 AD. It is really an epic novel in characterization and the length – it runs to an amazing 5 volumes and nearly 2200 pages (in a size slightly bigger than normal English novels!).

Though the novel is too big to summarize here, I would attempt a very short summary to the story. During this time, Cholas are the dominant force in the south and their empire stretches from Kanyakumari to the banks of river Krishna and east cost to the Nilgiris. Aditha Karikalan is the crown prince (leading the northern forces at Kanchi) for over three years now, as the health of the emperor gets worse. However, due to some reasons a section of Chola generals plan to bring Madhuranthakar, the younger cousin of the emperor to throne. Vandiyathevan, heir to a now defunct royal family, brings a message from the crown prince for the princess Kundavai and comes to know of this plan and is sent by her to Srilanka to where Karikalan’s younger brother Arulmozhi Varman is leading an armed invasion of the country. On the way, he meets the bewitching Nandhini who is the wife of Chola chief general Periya Pazhuvettarayar (who is aligned with Madhuranthakar) and unknown to her husband is involved with a group of Pandya conspirators who are plotting to destroy the Chola family. The novel builds on the relations between these main characters and many more characters who come in later and finally ends with the succession being resolved in a rather unusual manner.

There are many areas in which I feel that the book is top notch. Below are the few of those.

• Retaining the interest of the reader for this length is itself quite an achievement, for any novel of any genre and Kalki does this with ease. Though I could notice a bit of slowing down in parts 3 & 4, part 5 picks up with more interest than ever. And of course I never felt the story was being dragged (considering that this was first serialized in a Tamil magazine and noticing the current mega serials in T.V!).
• Most of the major characters are real historical characters and many of the incidents are also real incidents. The amount of research that has gone into this is spectacular. Kalki brings alive the Chola world before more than 1000 years, reveals to us ancient Tamil culture and rule and all this without compromising much on historical truths! It seems he has only capitalized on the fuzzy areas of history to makes his own characters and incidents.
• The amazing depth in characterization. All the characters in the novel are truly multi dimensional and in fact nobody is portrayed as a villain! Kalki shows the fallibility and the prowess of all characters, except perhaps Arulmozhi. Here too, he shows that it is Arulmozhi’s nature that he is very gentle and obedient to elders, so this also seems quite realistic. In fact the novel seems to have two equally important heroes, Arulmozhi and Vandhiyathevan. Though the story is named after Arulmozhi (whose other name is Ponniyin Selvan), the narration starts, ends and mostly proceeds through with Vandhiyathevan. There are varied kinds of romances in the story from the matured love between Kundavai and Vandhiyatevan to the mad love of Manimekalai to Vandhiyathevan. This is one of the best, if not the best novel I have read as far as characterization goes.
• Kalki’s style of writing. In this story of betrayals, revenge, love and murder, Kalki succeeds in keeping a gentle undercurrent of humor mainly through the characters of Azhvarkhadiyan and Vandhiyathevan. He also turns the prose enjoyably poetic in quite a few places. And of course there are quite a few songs and poems, some of his own and some culled out from classic Tamil texts. Most touching among these were the song by Poonkuzhazhi (which appears quite a few times in the novel) –

“Alaikadalthaan oyindhirukka

Agakadalthaan ponguvathen?....”

(When the sea of waves is silent, why is the sea of my heart turbulent?)

And the love song of Manimekalai.

Also he handles the narration almost continuously for over 6 months, which is quite difficult to do. He achieves this by focusing the story at some place and then goes back and forth a little in time. Though this doesn’t make the narration non-linear, the effect was quite different.

• Kalki includes so much of historical information that this almost becomes like a historical text! Though the story is about the Chola dynasty which has been flourishing for about 100 years, Kalki takes pains to illustrate the history of earlier Cholas and also the history of some Chola general’s dynasties. He also deals quite a bit on the religion, culture and even food habits of the time! In particular he shows the Saiva – Vaishnava dichotomy in Hinduism very clearly. He also maintains the tone of the novel very objective. Whether it’s dispelling myths of Kollivaipisasu (a form of ghost) or discussing atheism and religious theism at one stretch, this is about the most liberal a historical novel can get!

No doubt the novel rekindles the interest in Tamil history, literature and culture among the people in the current generation and is hence a hot favorite even now. I have personally seen copies of this book getting sold out in a book exhibition when copies of most other novels were still available. In spite of all these, I feel the novel could have been better in some ways. These are not flaws, but I feel the novel could have been even better (though many may not agree with me). I feel the difference especially when comparing this with my other favorite historical novel, The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. This novel tells about the English history from about 1123 to 1174 AD. I feel the following points are worth noting –

• The novel seems to be almost obsessed with happenings in royal household. Most of the major characters are royal characters and even the few exceptions like Poonkuzhazhi and Senthan Amuthan are highlighted only when they interact with the royal family. This is of course not a flaw, but I feel that to reflect more on practical values one could have focused on some commoners. This is where I like the “The Pillars…” more, since it shows a few commoners as the main characters and through them illustrates a range of values. Though this novel also illustrates few values like good governance, true love, generosity I feel it lacks the full range of values as done in “The Pillars…”.
• I personally like an epic novel to span a large time, like 50 years for “The Pillars”. I feel this shows the real nature of the characters as they age and take on more responsibilities and change. However this novel stretches only for about 8 months. Though Kalki tells some history about each character and ends with a note on the future of the main characters, this still doesn’t have the same effect.
• (Spoilers here!) I can’t fully appreciate the climax of the novel, which is the sacrifice done by Arulmozhi – relinquishing the throne to (new) Madhurantakar. At least if he had relinquished it to old Madhurantakar it could be called a sacrifice, since old Madhurantakar wanted the throne badly. But in the climax, when every one wants him to be the emperor, Arulmozhi almost forces new Madhurantakar to be the emperor. This seems more of a shrewd move, of freeing himself for his long wanted expeditions, than a sacrifice to me! Of course, as I have learnt from some articles in Ponniyin Selvan e-group, history could be actually different here, as it is mentioned in some engraving that the Madhurantakar who was crowned as Utthama Chola “wanted” the throne.

To summarize, this is an excellent read for anyone who is even slightly interested in Tamil / Indian history. For a non-Tamil reader there is a complete English translation available here. It seems to be quite a faithful translation of the original.This novel is ideal to be made into a two part or three part movie. It seems the cost is deterring people who wanted to film it, but it's nevertheless a pity that this hasn't been made into a movie. Though there is a related movie by name Raja Raja Cholan, it deals with his life after coronation and it seems to be more of fiction than history.

[Note on history: For those who haven’t found this out already, the novel’s hero Arulmozhi is later crowned as Rajaraja Cholan. He and his son Rajendra Cholan expanded the Chola Empire far and wide by conducting successful expeditions to various places like Srilanka, Bengal, Myanmar, Malaya peninsula, Sumatra and came to be known as one of the greatest emperors in south Indian history. He also built the famous Thanjavur Big temple and later built a new capital for Cholas – Gangaikondacholapuram, consecrated with water from the Ganges. The Cholas flourished for nearly another 300 years, creating a Golden age for Tamil literature and culture, until they finally fell to the resurgent Pandyas by about 1279 AD]

"Brave new world" and our future

So I am back after a long break (longer then what I intended it to be) and I decided to relieve myself of a long pending post, by putting into words some rather abstract ideas in my mind. This post will be primarily concerned with reviewing and interpreting Aldous Huxley’s The brave new world. When I first started with the novel I thought it was a science fiction. Yes, it has a lot of elements in a science fiction novel, but it is much beyond that. It is a prophecy on our society and as it happens to be quite accurate it is also a grave warning for our future. It is extra-ordinarily prophetic considering that it was written in 1930s.

The novel presents a future society (nearly 600 years into future) which is on the surface a utopian society. Everybody (well, nearly everybody) is happy, there is no violence of any kind and society is very stable. But just below the surface it presents quite a few horrors – everybody is happy because they are not allowed to think of anything beyond their day-to-day work. After their work, to divert them they have unlimited sex, since there is no family setup and anybody can and should mate with everyone else in the society. They also have feelies for more divertion, which seem to be horribly close to the current movies with virtual reality added. They have pretty sophisticated sports which are our simple sports adapted to use a heavy amount of machinery to encourage consumerism. And of course if nothing of this is of any use, then they take soma – the drug which relieves them from reality. So this is how they remain “happy”. Their Happiness is not by a quest and oneness with Truth, but by denying the existence of Truth and refusing to search for it. To maintain this social order all the babies are raised in bottles fed with nutrition (since there are no mothers) and also there is a strict classification of people into classes – alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon and into some sub-classes like alpha plus. Each class is to do a specific kind of work like intellectual work for alpha. And they can do only that, since they are psychologically taught so from childhood and some enzymes are used to restrict their functionality. In fact the alphas are only one who can “think”. Cloning is also used widely, though Huxley uses a different terminology for that, and in the lower classes many hundreds of people are from the same clone (since that helps preserve social order more). The novel then shows how somebody who comes from a civilization like us (the savage), feels in this kind of a world.

Now this is only some piece of fiction and why should we bother about it? Because our society (especially the western society) is quite close in some aspects to it. The family structure has degraded and sexual promiscuity is an ever increasing and accepted part of our society. Entertainment and media is increasingly being looked at as a way to ‘escape’ from reality. The use of drugs has been increasing and media promoted consumerism means we consume more than we ever did, even if don’t know what to do with the waste material generated. And worse I am also able to figure out how the society may be lead in the same direction. So here is my theory. Whatever appears below is only my interpretation of the novel.

The novel is unique that unlike many other dystopian novels (like “1984”), the society has elements of socialism and capitalism. As a socialist totalitarianism, the government scrutinizes all media and scientific research, so that no “truth” is revealed. Also there is total lack of individuality and a lot of collectivism. But there are unmistakable capitalistic traits like use of mass-production, consumerism and of course other things that I have mentioned above. As a result of these socialistic traits of the novel it is difficult to imagine how such a society can result from a society like ours, though I think I have the answer for this. The answer also lies in the novel, in the final chapters of the wonderful dialogue between the savage and the world controller. The world controller explains that the quest for truth and beauty (science and art) must be controlled to reach a state of happiness. He remarks at a point

(The world controller to the savage)

“It's curious," …"to read what people in the time of Our Ford used to write about scientific progress. They seemed to have imagined that it could be allowed to go on indefinitely, regardless of everything else. Knowledge was the highest good, truth the supreme value; all the rest was secondary and subordinate. True, ideas were beginning to change even then. Our Ford himself did a great deal to shift the emphasis from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness. Mass production demanded the shift. … Still, in spite of everything, unrestricted scientific research was still permitted. People still went on talking about truth and beauty as though they were the sovereign goods. Right up to the time of the Nine Years' War. That made them change their tune all right. What's the point of truth or beauty or knowledge when the anthrax bombs are popping all around you? That was when science first began to be controlled–after the Nine Years' War.”

(Emphasis by italics original, by bold mine)

Even in this short extract there are many interesting things. Huxley indicates that industrialization caused the shift from the truth to comfort. This of course supports my theory. But I don’t agree that “in spite of everything unrestricted scientific research was permitted”. We agree to carry out research in areas where we don’t know how to handle the outcome (like in human cloning, for instance), not only because we want to search for truth – but we have powerful corporations who have put or ready to put in millions of dollars in it and hence lobby for it. Industrialization makes us search ruthlessly, heartlessly for at least a part of the “truth” which is profitable to the industries, at least in the short term. Huxley makes a slight jump now, talking about the Nine Year’s war. He doesn’t explain anywhere how unrestricted scientific research leads to the war. That is for us to make out – and given the current global situation we are one of the best equipped to do it since sometime in history. Unrestricted research and their unrestricted use has produced nuclear weapons and only now we are discovering how close the two superpowers of the world were, to using it during the cold war. We refuse to stop the unrestricted use of our environment, despite threats of global warming and umpteen other hazards. What I mean here is that our world is increasingly becoming unstable. It may be either due to increasing threat of terrorist’s attacks and its reactions which can lead to a situation like the Nine Year’s war – or it may be just the instability in our environment which may finally boomerang on us.

Now my theory is that when such a thing happens, the (surviving) human kind’s reactions would be over-cautious, which would be to strictly regulate all forms of art and science. And of course to prevent us from being aware that they are being regulated the vices of our capitalistic society come in handy – escapist entertainment, unrestricted sexual promiscuity, mindless consumerism and its endless “innovations” and free use of drugs. Now my theory explains logically how our society can progress to society as depicted in the novel.

What can we do to avoid this? Huxley doesn’t directly answer this question. In fact in some places, he hints that he has lost hope with this society and a society as depicted in the novel is the only possibility for human kind to survive. Now I won’t be so pessimistic. I still think we can do something, but time may be soon running out. We should not think of technology as an end in itself - scientific research, at least in some areas should be restricted and its use even more restricted. We also need to fully rethink (though we are already doing this partly) the basis of our industrialization and define the line between need and greed. Mindless consumerism results in over-consumption and this should not be allowed to prevent a sustained use our environment. In short instead of creating an unsustainable paradise for the elite of the present generation, we should create a sustainable living place for all the people of the next several generations. The above may not be easily implementable suggestions, but that alone can’t undermine their correctness.

Many may disregard this as a paranoid conspiracy theory, but using the reasoning I followed this does seem to be a distinct possibility and we need to prepared for it. I would be eager to debate on any flaws in my reasoning or even otherwise about this post.

My commentary ends here. The following is an interesting quote from the novel, which talks of relevance of god in the “brave new world”. This and previous quote was got from the full text version of novel at http://www.huxley.net/bnw/. Chapters 16 & 17 form the crux of the work and can be read even by itself.

"Quite so. I'll read you one of the things he did dream of in a moment. Meanwhile, listen to what this old Arch-Community-Songster said." He opened the book at the place marked by a slip of paper and began to read. "'We are not our own any more than what we possess is our own. We did not make ourselves, we cannot be supreme over ourselves. We are not our own masters. We are God's property. Is it not our happiness thus to view the matter? Is it any happiness or any comfort, to consider that we are our own? It may be thought so by the young and prosperous. These may think it a great thing to have everything, as they suppose, their own way–to depend on no one–to have to think of nothing out of sight, to be without the irksomeness of continual acknowledgment, continual prayer, continual reference of what they do to the will of another. But as time goes on, they, as all men, will find that independence was not made for man–that it is an unnatural state–will do for a while, but will not carry us on safely to the end …'" Mustapha Mond paused, put down the first book and, picking up the other, turned over the pages. "Take this, for example," he said, and in his deep voice once more began to read: "'A man grows old; he feels in himself that radical sense of weakness, of listlessness, of discomfort, which accompanies the advance of age; and, feeling thus, imagines himself merely sick, lulling his fears with the notion that this distressing condition is due to some particular cause, from which, as from an illness, he hopes to recover. Vain imaginings! That sickness is old age; and a horrible disease it is. They say that it is the fear of death and of what comes after death that makes men turn to religion as they advance in years. But my own experience has given me the conviction that, quite apart from any such terrors or imaginings, the religious sentiment tends to develop as we grow older; to develop because, as the passions grow calm, as the fancy and sensibilities are less excited and less excitable, our reason becomes less troubled in its working, less obscured by the images, desires and distractions, in which it used to be absorbed; whereupon God emerges as from behind a cloud; our soul feels, sees, turns towards the source of all light; turns naturally and inevitably; for now that all that gave to the world of sensations its life and charms has begun to leak away from us, now that phenomenal existence is no more bolstered up by impressions from within or from without, we feel the need to lean on something that abides, something that will never play us false–a reality, an absolute and everlasting truth. Yes, we inevitably turn to God; for this religious sentiment is of its nature so pure, so delightful to the soul that experiences it, that it makes up to us for all our other losses.'" Mustapha Mond shut the book and leaned back in his chair. "One of the numerous things in heaven and earth that these philosophers didn't dream about was this" (he waved his hand), "us, the modern world. 'You can only be independent of God while you've got youth and prosperity; independence won't take you safely to the end.' Well, we've now got youth and prosperity right up to the end. What follows? Evidently, that we can be independent of God. 'The religious sentiment will compensate us for all our losses.' But there aren't any losses for us to compensate; religious sentiment is superfluous. And why should we go hunting for a substitute for youthful desires, when youthful desires never fail? A substitute for distractions, when we go on enjoying all the old fooleries to the very last? What need have we of repose when our minds and bodies continue to delight in activity? of consolation, when we have soma? of something immovable, when there is the social order?"

"Then you think there is no God?"

"No, I think there quite probably is one."

"Then why? …"

Mustapha Mond checked him. "But he manifests himself in different ways to different men. In premodern times he manifested himself as the being that's described in these books. Now …"

"How does he manifest himself now?" asked the Savage.

"Well, he manifests himself as an absence; as though he weren't there at all."

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!

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.

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.