google-site-verification: googled4848bdf35d112e3.html
Monday, February 5, 2018
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Rappaccini's Daughter
Mosses From an Old Manse and Other Stories- Nathaniel Hawthorne
Rappacini's Daughter starts of with a subtle joke when Hawthorne introduces the story as a translation from a story by a French Author, who he fails to mention is fictional. Hawthorne manages to anchor the readers mind to the idea that they are about to read something that not many have read, and hence gripping their interest deeply even before they start.
The morality of Giovanni, Rappaccini, Beatrice, Baglioni and even Lisabetta are dubious; they are all neither right nor wrong, not black nor white. Giovanni is the traveller, the student, posessing "...not a deep heart, but a quick fancy..." which is inadmirable but not unexpected. He denies his own senses and sensibilities when he takes Lisabetta's help to enter the garden. Rappaccini, the scientist whose love for his science renders him inhuman in the eyes of his peers, but in the end we see that it was his love for his daughter that caused him to make her the specimen of his experiment: to shield her from the cruel outside world. Beatrice, who aware of her poisonous nature still encourages this stranger to come down to her garden, knowing that being with her could be fatal to him. Baglioni, whose envy and hatred- in contrast to his colleague- makes him more human, but still in a way the most inhumane of all as he cries out at Rappaccini from Giovanni's window at the end.
The reference to the Garden of Eden makes me think of the dual consequences of being with Beatrice for Giovanni; ultimate happiness or absolute tragedy. Like Adam, his desire for Beatrice makes him make an irrational choice.
A theme recurring in many of Hawthorne's tales is the duality of morality. There is, in every epoch, an agreement on a set of morals, and a group of people who choose to defy them and hence restructure these prior agreements.
Rappacini's Daughter starts of with a subtle joke when Hawthorne introduces the story as a translation from a story by a French Author, who he fails to mention is fictional. Hawthorne manages to anchor the readers mind to the idea that they are about to read something that not many have read, and hence gripping their interest deeply even before they start.
The morality of Giovanni, Rappaccini, Beatrice, Baglioni and even Lisabetta are dubious; they are all neither right nor wrong, not black nor white. Giovanni is the traveller, the student, posessing "...not a deep heart, but a quick fancy..." which is inadmirable but not unexpected. He denies his own senses and sensibilities when he takes Lisabetta's help to enter the garden. Rappaccini, the scientist whose love for his science renders him inhuman in the eyes of his peers, but in the end we see that it was his love for his daughter that caused him to make her the specimen of his experiment: to shield her from the cruel outside world. Beatrice, who aware of her poisonous nature still encourages this stranger to come down to her garden, knowing that being with her could be fatal to him. Baglioni, whose envy and hatred- in contrast to his colleague- makes him more human, but still in a way the most inhumane of all as he cries out at Rappaccini from Giovanni's window at the end.
The reference to the Garden of Eden makes me think of the dual consequences of being with Beatrice for Giovanni; ultimate happiness or absolute tragedy. Like Adam, his desire for Beatrice makes him make an irrational choice.
A theme recurring in many of Hawthorne's tales is the duality of morality. There is, in every epoch, an agreement on a set of morals, and a group of people who choose to defy them and hence restructure these prior agreements.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Frankenstein
Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus
The first thing that struck me was the impact of the epoch in which the book was written. I expected an explicit description of the being that was created by Frankestein, or the details of its conception. Rather, it was about philosophy; about man's insatiable thirst to know, to achieve the unthinkable. There are always a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the creation of something novel, but as we see in the book all these dilemmas come forth in retropect and not when the creator is blinded by the passion of what they might truly achieve. It is simply: I can do it, so I will.
The way the monster evolved was akin to the learning of a child. It is a reflection of the belief that everyone begins life in innocence. Followed by curiosity and fear. Basic instincts are developed by hunger and the environment, which spawns the realization for the need of sustenance and shelter. The distinction of cacophony and cadence. Of the need to be part of a society, and the realization of the need of language to be a part of it. What still confuses me is how the monster developed the idea of physical beauty; I always imagined it to be a learned thing rather than natural. And finally, of how different emotions are developed by interactions with others.
The creation of new life compells me to think about the the possible influence Shelley draws from the story of the creation of Adam and Eve as is observed in various religious scriptures. Especially Frankestein's holistic and puritanical feelings when he is creating the original monster, and his feelings when he starts working on creating its mate.
The book was a strory of human nature, and how incidences- big and small- shape the course of life to something that is much different than what we expect.
The first thing that struck me was the impact of the epoch in which the book was written. I expected an explicit description of the being that was created by Frankestein, or the details of its conception. Rather, it was about philosophy; about man's insatiable thirst to know, to achieve the unthinkable. There are always a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the creation of something novel, but as we see in the book all these dilemmas come forth in retropect and not when the creator is blinded by the passion of what they might truly achieve. It is simply: I can do it, so I will.
The way the monster evolved was akin to the learning of a child. It is a reflection of the belief that everyone begins life in innocence. Followed by curiosity and fear. Basic instincts are developed by hunger and the environment, which spawns the realization for the need of sustenance and shelter. The distinction of cacophony and cadence. Of the need to be part of a society, and the realization of the need of language to be a part of it. What still confuses me is how the monster developed the idea of physical beauty; I always imagined it to be a learned thing rather than natural. And finally, of how different emotions are developed by interactions with others.
The creation of new life compells me to think about the the possible influence Shelley draws from the story of the creation of Adam and Eve as is observed in various religious scriptures. Especially Frankestein's holistic and puritanical feelings when he is creating the original monster, and his feelings when he starts working on creating its mate.
The book was a strory of human nature, and how incidences- big and small- shape the course of life to something that is much different than what we expect.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Adventures in Wonderland
(Alice's) Adventures in Wonderland
I'd only read this book before as a child, and a much much abridged version. Reading it now, in the context of this course was enriching. I found the book full of metaphors about, well, everything! I would describe the style of writing as something between confusing, but leaning towards intriguing.
I saw the character of Alice grow during the course of the book; wiser and smarter. Alice starts off as being the stereotypical believer, and it was thought provoking to see her react with intrigue rather than shock when so many unusual things were happening all around her. The whole baggatelle with her height and the key were representative of the way we sometimes try to get things in order but fail. We cry, there's a metaphorical pool of tears, and then friends and people around us help us get by.
The dodo holding the stick was an intriguing paradox; I thought of the dodo as a stupid bird, but the illustration of it holding a stick seemed to present it as wiser. At the same time, it could be a reference to how smart people around us are sometimes considered stupid, or vice versa, I'm not sure.The fact that she knew what a hookah was is also interesting, maybe about how we sometimes conjure information out of our subconcious to make sense of things. Father Williamson's tale was one about taking lessons from everything, which although not elaborated upon, is what Alice does throughout.The instance with the Cheshire cat is all about fear and respect of the unknown.
The number 3 came up as expected; 3 sisters at the bottom of the well and the 3 gardners (although I expected the numbers of the 3 gardners to make some obvious sense).
Lastly, the bit about uglification and the suppression of applause were very very smart. An enriching experience indeed!
I'd only read this book before as a child, and a much much abridged version. Reading it now, in the context of this course was enriching. I found the book full of metaphors about, well, everything! I would describe the style of writing as something between confusing, but leaning towards intriguing.
I saw the character of Alice grow during the course of the book; wiser and smarter. Alice starts off as being the stereotypical believer, and it was thought provoking to see her react with intrigue rather than shock when so many unusual things were happening all around her. The whole baggatelle with her height and the key were representative of the way we sometimes try to get things in order but fail. We cry, there's a metaphorical pool of tears, and then friends and people around us help us get by.
The dodo holding the stick was an intriguing paradox; I thought of the dodo as a stupid bird, but the illustration of it holding a stick seemed to present it as wiser. At the same time, it could be a reference to how smart people around us are sometimes considered stupid, or vice versa, I'm not sure.The fact that she knew what a hookah was is also interesting, maybe about how we sometimes conjure information out of our subconcious to make sense of things. Father Williamson's tale was one about taking lessons from everything, which although not elaborated upon, is what Alice does throughout.The instance with the Cheshire cat is all about fear and respect of the unknown.
The number 3 came up as expected; 3 sisters at the bottom of the well and the 3 gardners (although I expected the numbers of the 3 gardners to make some obvious sense).
Lastly, the bit about uglification and the suppression of applause were very very smart. An enriching experience indeed!
Sunday, February 5, 2012
headscarves on the field
no, that's not some sort of rhetoric, I mean quite literally.. headscarves on the field.
http://www.change.org/petitions/allow-girls-women-to-play-football-wearing-headscarfs?utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert
whoever came up with that idea? and why should muslim women get to flaunt their religion when nobody else is really allowed to either. everything isn't designed as a conspiracy against the muslims y'know... it's just a matter of principle, no faith on the field... wait..
...
i just realised what i just said. no faith on the field? faith... faith is all there is on a field of sport. or anything in life that matters. faith is what topples monarchies and wins football matches. faith is why millions die and millions are saved. sigh...
if you feel bad for the girls who feel they can't play because of a petty ban, then do sign the petition.
http://www.change.org/petitions/allow-girls-women-to-play-football-wearing-headscarfs?utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert
whoever came up with that idea? and why should muslim women get to flaunt their religion when nobody else is really allowed to either. everything isn't designed as a conspiracy against the muslims y'know... it's just a matter of principle, no faith on the field... wait..
...
i just realised what i just said. no faith on the field? faith... faith is all there is on a field of sport. or anything in life that matters. faith is what topples monarchies and wins football matches. faith is why millions die and millions are saved. sigh...
if you feel bad for the girls who feel they can't play because of a petty ban, then do sign the petition.
Friday, August 26, 2011
the thing about these motorcyclists
Have you ever wondered why all the cd70 and cd70 lookalike bikers are the same degree of menace on the road. I have, and I've come up with a theorem... of sorts...
I've figured its about self-esteem. Would you ever cut someone off remorselessly if you were riding a chopper? no. Would you ever run a red light when everyone is being civil and waiting their turn if you were riding a Kawasaki Ninja 650 R? no. Would you ever overtake another motorcyclist going at 30 by hogging the high speed lane while going at 32 yourself if you were riding a Harley Davidson classic Fatboy? no. NO! NO! NO!
Why you wouldn't be a meanie on the road while driving a better set of wheels is that you'd actually care what people thought of you. You'd have self esteem. You'd have respect for yourself in your own eyes; and THAT is what the cd70 walas lack. While sitting on that horrible 4-stroke engine, they feel so worthless, lives so meaningless, ride so ugly, existence so sad.
So the theorem simply clarifies that they're not bad people, they just made a bad choice when they stepped into the wrong Honda showroom.
Friday, June 24, 2011
The suicide theorem: corollary no. 1
Well anyone who knows me knows about our (my) suicidal frog theorem. So, it took a while but I've come up with a corollary to it, well not so much came up with it as witnessed it.
This was a while back, but Musti and I were driving to... well, someplace... It had rained some time back and as usual the frogs were out on the roads putting their lives on the line for love and humanity and peace y'know. We're not proud of it, but we killed some... I mean, it was suicide on their part, so don't look at me that way alright. Anyway, there was a dry patch and then (i forgot to mention it was night time, so our headlights were on) we turned onto a wider road. We saw this crazy-big frog on the far edge of the road. Our headlights barely caught a glimpse of it, it was a little far away. It saw us coming... I can't explain it, but I saw it in its eyes... I saw it; the will to take its own little hoppity life! I kept driving, who was I to deny that frog its God given right to Kamikaze glory.
The course was set, collision was inevitable. It all happened in a fraction of a second; i saw it take the supposed second-last jump, the next jump was going to be its last. When driving, one can never see the last jump, only the sound of it remains, lingers... until the next suicide atleast. Anyway, I saw it take the second last jump, then no sound. Mustafa was baffled, I was simply nonplussed. No squish... none at all!
I got out of the car to inspect and I saw it. This daddu, just sitting there in the middle of the road, inches before its death, just sitting... or so i thought. I saw its eyes, they were cold as ice. I saw it in its eyes. It was like- "Fuck that shit! imma just stop...! stop the madness...! stop the killin'...! just STOP!". Just like that, it saved itself from the asphalt of its doom.
The corollary simply states that sometimes, under inexplicable circumstances, a frog will go against its nature and refuse to take its own life. Now that, is rad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)