Understanding the world around us, it’s past, present and consequently, the future, seems to be a driving force for much of the reading we indulge in. Events however, on accord of its driving or reporting agents, are perceived through different lenses, which makes understanding the world not only a question of mindlessly assimilating facts but also about building (or finding, if you’re the lucky few) the world view you conform to. So, the problem is two fold, daunting in each, to acquire as much wealth of knowledge as possible alongside building a solid foundation of ideals and morals to weigh this information by.

Being short of foresight regarding the longevity of life, and fueled by the melancholy of ignorance, the above process never seems to receive the amount of time it deserves. One half a spark of doubt in these matters I mention, is more than enough, to send me into a confused toss, egged on by the countless many of these other matters I have only an acquaintance with. So, trying to optimize this process is not as indulgent an idea as it initially might seem.

Too much information, at the outset, seems to be a good thing. The number of blogs, opinions, re-statements, and aggregator sites, relevant to the subject under consideration, are only limited by your capacity in exploring them. So then, we reach the point of this rumination: does one follow this mode of acquiring information, which has the capacity to keep you involved forever, or invest in books, innumerable as they may, still exhaustive towards the purpose of understanding the subject.

The RSS/GoogleReader/FriendlyNeighbourhoodBlog occupies a vulgar amount of my waking hours, and is forced off with contempt, like one for a dirty thought, only with the strongest amount of self-loathing. Every time I come across a new blog or magazine, it lodges itself in my ‘to-read’ list, adding to this never-ending misery. I can only attribute this vice to the adequate food it provides to our dwindling attention spans, providing the apt, measured quantity to our minds, lest it go obese.

However, the importance of editorials, columns, opinions, which also one acquires via the internet, cannot be overstated. It might very well be the path to understanding these matters, however, considering that there are never ending of these, this source definitely eats into the, more important, book reading. A book, a good book, is a thoroughly researched and carefully compiled source, which immerses you into the subject of its concern, and gives you your best attempt at figuring it out. Books also elicit a responsible selection from its reader, unlike the ever-increasing variety of internet snoopings, and helps narrow down all the required material to understand a subject.

The internet leads you on a horizontal quest, often leading to nowhere, whereas books create verticals based on your needs. I often have to stop myself from dying by link de-referencing, where one link leads to another pertinent one, the end of which is an aviyal of ideas, with no particular start or end connecting them all. All said and done, these are a gold mine of information, albeit unstructured and addictive to the weak.

What is the correct balance? It seems painfully difficult to ignore, heck, even to curtail the RSS monster, with me procrastinating important tasks at the expense of catching up the next day with these curtailed nuggets. Books, on the other hand, are often the first casualty, losing out on accord of their overlooked specialization, and unappreciated length. Does one attempt to strike a balance, or tilt it towards books, until the stage is reached when you can confidently turn to the vastness of the internet? Or does this cycle never end, forever expanding my house of cards?

Currently reading “The difficulty of being good” by Gurcharan Das. I haven’t read any of his books, and am not basing this read on the author’s reputation either. Just that any metaphysical analysis of the Mahabharatha can capture my attention, no matter how trivial. There are a lot of unanswered questions in the epic, which I carefully brush aside till the next meeting. Hopefully, this book will throw some light into these… at the least providing an interesting perspective.

Amit mentioned a curious intersection of this book’s table of contents with that of Yuganta, a seemingly similar analysis of the Mahabharath by noted anthropologist, Dr. Irawati Karve. It will be interesting to compare the two.

On lighter moments, R.K.Narayan beckons, with “The Financial Expert” next on the plate. I read “The Printer of Malgudi” last, and it was mildly disappointing, almost like a hodgepodge of meandering thoughts without the purpose needed to create a good novel. Nevertheless, even this indulgent rant of his is a pleasure to read, a lazy one at that…

There must be a time when I stop binge-blogging about an absolutely inane movie just watched. As no such time has yet knocked, here’s a rant about Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds.

Rant number one, I had to google the movie’s correct spelling. Followed by philosophical inquiries about the logic in the search, and the efficacity of such a title.

Even though I am a self-professed Tarantino fan, the Grindhouse/Deathproof debacle had a strong enough impact on me to not rush to a hall to watch the eagerly awaited IBs. I probably was conciously delaying my possible disappointment, something that the trailers made no mistake in conveying. And true to that, a disappointment it is! It probably is the worst movie Tarantino has made, while still under the remnant intoxication of Kill Bill’s success, meanwhile exhausting his audience-reinforced flamboyant bravado, which borders on simply corny in this travesty of a thriller.

I have to admit, the first scene was typically gripping, after which it was all downhill. The forgettable casting doesn’t let you forget it. Roth (riding on Tarantino’s contribution to him) as the bear jew is absolutely ridiculous, and his whole act feels like a high-schooler’s rendition of a supposedly great character, which the audience never had the fortune of seeing. Brad Pitt seems to constantly have a nagging doubt about his casting, and he’s absolutely right. There are too many references to Kill Bill, seemingly a nostalgic tribute to a masterpiece, albeit less than 10 years old. Flowery rock ballads are peppered in at the perfect times to transport us into the 90s and forget what the hell we were doing in the first place. Long gripping sequences, which are supposed to keep you on the edge of your seats, are so long and predictable, that you successfully tip over the edge out of your seats. Tarantino needs to use his stylistic baggage assumed because of a few successes to sparingly few and appropriate occassions, and not on every possible opportunity.

Finally a note about the ending. Only after complaining about the movie for half an hour did it dawn on me that Hitler and Goebbels were brought to their demises. I wonder if it is just me, or that this impactful ending occured as a mere passing to the maker! I strongly feel, when you play with history, the best approaches are to either change audience perception of history while keeping events in tact (like “The Last Temptation of Christ” or “Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha“), or if you’re brave enough to change history, then bloody well follow through with it. If art is an adequate representation of the artist, then Tarantino probably wanted the ending to end on a brash note, conveying his bravado and callous authority to shock. It seems to me that he has taken the easy way out, all in all, leading to not even titilating a curious peep to the audience’s mind as to the possible repurcussions of such a dramatic change in history. Alas…

What a drag…

A temporary, albeit lazy respite amidst the unreasonable hurry to catch up with erstwhile Indian fiction is the association of two of its greats with UT-Austin. Raja Rao, who taught here from 1966 to 1983 and, more interestingly, R.K.Narayan, who was here in the fall of 1989.

Now for some associated UT memorabilia … :)