The Comedy put up by the Singapore group, Hum Theatre at the Metroplus theatre fest on the 12th. The best part of the show was quite honestly the props- done by the late Mr. Mitran Devanesan- it was the picture of an almost typical Indian house- though the setting was Singapore- it could have really been anywhere.
The story revolves around a young newly married couple - an Indian boy and a Chinese girl - so a little culture shock - though it didn't focus so much on that- no food jokes. There's the typically interfering Indian boss and his vamp wife, the annoying younger brother with no regard for privacy - and to top things off the young couple are staying with his parents.
There's a lot of adjusting, finding themselves, and meanwhile a good many family secrets come out( and they're all fairly disfunctional).
The best role- and actor- was by far, Eeshwar, the boy's father- by turn, comic and tragic, a caring father and an utterly obtuse and interfering man. Some of the plot was hackneyed, the first half dragged a little, and I thought, it ended on an unnecessarily unhappy note- not entirely unexpected, but unfortunate all the same. Guess not everyone gets a happy ending
Friday, August 13, 2010
Sunday, August 01, 2010
India's history and Other thoughts
We made a lovely trip to Tanjore and other parts of South India a week or so ago. There were things that were particularly striking, as we made our way through
For the better:
1. The Indian Archeological Society cares! Yes it actually does! It cares enough to maintain some of these places decemtly, for example, the Chola temple in Kanchi is really well maintained-its obviously regularly visited, and has very good guides very willing to explain the old motifs and their meanings to you(for a small price-but that goes without saying)
2. Roads- I know its fashionable to complain constantly about the state of the roads in India. And its true- driving here is a nightmare. But that's got more to do with the traffic now- the roads on the way to Tanjavur were actually really good- and there were signs! That pointed straight to the Palace Museum! Signs make so much of a difference! I loved the museum - it boasts an enormous collection of manuscripts (most of which are not open to the public-alas!) ... but what you can see is fascinating- different scripts of India - Grantahm, Brahmi, Tamil... sculptures dating back to the 10th and 11th century- its really interesting to walk through the rooms and see the way the face of religion has changed over the centuries- you have mostly Nataraja statues to begin with - and them slowly, the Vishnu sculptures come up- and there are the statues of deities we don't really worship anymore - Bhairava, and Surya (as a full fledged god), Brahma- things have changed so much since then!
All along the journey I was reading a book called Gates of India by Thomas Holdich - an interesting guide to the exploration of trade routes through India - yes, I know, unremittingly dry stuff- and written in the mid nineteenth century , by a staunch colonialist, who saw everything through the eyes of British trade competition. It was a litte dismaying to find how little had been contributed to that narrative by Indian authors- Well, you could say, that's not surprising for the nineteenth century- and in an Englishman's book- but not long after, I was looking for books on ancient India - life, culture and so on.... and was highly unsurprised to find that there was more on the Greeks (for example) than on the Mauryas.
Indian history seems pretty much limited to three parts - Ashoka, the Mughals, and the British rule, with everything else slipping into a black hole.
For the better:
3. The Big Temple in Tanjavur should have been one of the nominations for the new Wonders of the World- when you think monuments in India, you tend to think of the north- Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Jama Masjid etc. The South is a pilgrimage place- but not known for architecture- this changes everything. It may be true that God maybe in a pin or a pillar, but a place like this, inspiress you to worship- not just God, but your own humanily- what people have achieved in the name of devotion.
4. Which brings me to another point- why on earth do we not see these places on tourist guides and things? They're a good five centuries older than the Taj, and incredibly elaborate- a real testament to Indian culture- they do attract an enormous number of pilgrims, but what about people who just come to admire the art and architecture of the place?
All along the journey I was reading a book called Gates of India by Thomas Holdich - an interesting guide to the exploration of trade routes through India - yes, I know, unremittingly dry stuff- and written in the mid nineteenth century , by a staunch colonialist, who saw everything through the eyes of British trade competition. It was a litte dismaying to find how little had been contributed to that narrative by Indian authors- Well, you could say, that's not surprising for the nineteenth century- and in an Englishman's book- but not long after, I was looking for books on ancient India - life, culture and so on.... and was highly unsurprised to find that there was more on the Greeks (for example) than on the Mauryas.
Indian history seems pretty much limited to three parts - Ashoka, the Mughals, and the British rule, with everything else slipping into a black hole.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
More on fabulous Singara Chennai
So... Chennai has changed so much, its practically a foreign place now. Its got giant malls (Express Ave) giant Wal Mart like shops that stock everything (Big Bazaar)... and still traffic jams galore.
The best thing about Chennai remains the food though. There are all the old hangouts... Gangotri , Adayar Ananda Bhavan , Grand Sweets and Sree Krishna Sweets, for those looking to recapture the old days... and there are the new ones... Coffee Day and Barista have been around for a while of course, but now there's Mocha and High on Caffeine ... and India cofffee is waaay better than Starbucks. And there's Cafe Ashwatta and Amethyst for those wanting something to do with their coffee - shop for handicrafts and jewellery while you're at it.
Then there's the huge number of small eateries- La Boulagerie and French Loaf, Winners, Pupil and the Pizza Guy on the beach (Pizza's replaced the poor old kadalai carts- I didn't see one there! How does one put kadalai on the beach anymore ... ok bad joke...) The beaches have undergone a massive cleanup. Cozee's is still there and so's the Fruit Shop in Greams' Road, and many more bakeries... Adayar Bakery doesn't look so good, but instead there's Cakepoint and Cakewalk and innumerable others. Frankies and Corn stalls have become ubiquitous all over... there is a sad lack of molaha bajji though... which is my current craving.
Aside from the big box clothing stores- Naiha (good grief- who came up with that?), Reliance (which seems to be into everything - more fingers and more pies than anyone on earth), Westside, Lifestyle, Fab India (which should just ask for payment in dollars with their prices)... its the small ones that are interesting - Palace right next to Fab India has nice clothes, extremely reasonably priced, and totally over the top decor that is going to attact every foreigner who comes to Chennai. There's Azure, which has been beckoning me ever closer, with pretty, floaty displays, and the classy looking Silver Moonlight... then there's Chennai's 'own' designer Rehane... and numerous other little pop-up shops crammed into every street jammed with bags( Fab India had some lovely, hideously expensive ones, and there's also Dora Bag Mall right opposite), clothes, shoes (check out Heels).
The only disappointment has been bookshops. Higginbothams has become a relic of the bookcenter it once was, and Landmark happens to sell books, along with, you know, bedsheets and decorations and other random things. Odyssey is more interested in watches and crystals and jewellery. And the new Oxford book store is a travesty- a cafe that masquerades as a book shop. I have to try out Crossword, but I wasn't impressed by in 10 years ago, and don't have any serious expectations any more.
The best thing about Chennai remains the food though. There are all the old hangouts... Gangotri , Adayar Ananda Bhavan , Grand Sweets and Sree Krishna Sweets, for those looking to recapture the old days... and there are the new ones... Coffee Day and Barista have been around for a while of course, but now there's Mocha and High on Caffeine ... and India cofffee is waaay better than Starbucks. And there's Cafe Ashwatta and Amethyst for those wanting something to do with their coffee - shop for handicrafts and jewellery while you're at it.
Then there's the huge number of small eateries- La Boulagerie and French Loaf, Winners, Pupil and the Pizza Guy on the beach (Pizza's replaced the poor old kadalai carts- I didn't see one there! How does one put kadalai on the beach anymore ... ok bad joke...) The beaches have undergone a massive cleanup. Cozee's is still there and so's the Fruit Shop in Greams' Road, and many more bakeries... Adayar Bakery doesn't look so good, but instead there's Cakepoint and Cakewalk and innumerable others. Frankies and Corn stalls have become ubiquitous all over... there is a sad lack of molaha bajji though... which is my current craving.
Aside from the big box clothing stores- Naiha (good grief- who came up with that?), Reliance (which seems to be into everything - more fingers and more pies than anyone on earth), Westside, Lifestyle, Fab India (which should just ask for payment in dollars with their prices)... its the small ones that are interesting - Palace right next to Fab India has nice clothes, extremely reasonably priced, and totally over the top decor that is going to attact every foreigner who comes to Chennai. There's Azure, which has been beckoning me ever closer, with pretty, floaty displays, and the classy looking Silver Moonlight... then there's Chennai's 'own' designer Rehane... and numerous other little pop-up shops crammed into every street jammed with bags( Fab India had some lovely, hideously expensive ones, and there's also Dora Bag Mall right opposite), clothes, shoes (check out Heels).
The only disappointment has been bookshops. Higginbothams has become a relic of the bookcenter it once was, and Landmark happens to sell books, along with, you know, bedsheets and decorations and other random things. Odyssey is more interested in watches and crystals and jewellery. And the new Oxford book store is a travesty- a cafe that masquerades as a book shop. I have to try out Crossword, but I wasn't impressed by in 10 years ago, and don't have any serious expectations any more.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Diving Pool -by Yoko Ogawa
is a set of three short stories. The first is about a girl whose parents take in orphans, the second about a woman whose sister is pregnant, and the third, a wonderfully creepy story about a man without arms and only one leg, who keeps a boarding house.
The writing is wonderfully spare, and yet detailed. Each story focuses focuses on physical appearances and the emotions that they evoke within. Her descriptions of the human body, especially, are like a pencil drawing, sharp lines and curves, gently shaded. She deals with the dark thoughts, the fears and suspicions of everyday life, the ends that may or may not be reached. The first story is the cruelty of children and the shame and loss of discovery; the second is an unusual perpsective of pregnancy, the disgust of a woman of the changes in her sister's body- her half hope that the pregnancy should fail, the third seems to narrate a horror story, but leaves more questions behind than it answers.
The writing is wonderfully spare, and yet detailed. Each story focuses focuses on physical appearances and the emotions that they evoke within. Her descriptions of the human body, especially, are like a pencil drawing, sharp lines and curves, gently shaded. She deals with the dark thoughts, the fears and suspicions of everyday life, the ends that may or may not be reached. The first story is the cruelty of children and the shame and loss of discovery; the second is an unusual perpsective of pregnancy, the disgust of a woman of the changes in her sister's body- her half hope that the pregnancy should fail, the third seems to narrate a horror story, but leaves more questions behind than it answers.
Madras in Monsoon
There is something particularly sweet about the scent of rain in the hot Chennai air. The humidity settles slowly on the skin, almost suffocatingly; the clouds slowly overpower the sun, the whole place goes just a little misty, a little dreamy without that blinding glare; and with the lush green of mango and coconut trees, and the sound of the koel, it all seems like a place from a forgotten era.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Intricate Fantasy
The first book of Robin Hobb's liveship series- 'Ship of Magic' introduces you to a detailed fantasy world with highly developed characters and a twisting, intricate plot. While the take off is slow, once in flow, the book moves smoothly, alternating a number of points of view that come together slowly to reveal the plot.
The story is set in Bingtown, where the old Trader families own ships that come alive. One such family is the Vestrits, and the plot takes off with the death of the patriarch and the passing of the legacy to the son-in-law Kyle Haven, instead of the younger daughter Althea. Althea must prove that being female is no impediment to becoming an effective trader. In the meantime, Kyle is faced with his recalcitrant elder son, who was forced to join his father aboard the ship, while he wishes to join the priesthood. Althea's mother must find a way to keep the family from losing their lands to debtors until they are able to raise money to pay them back, and also keep her young granddaughter out of trouble. In the meantime, the pirate Kennit is determined to win himself a liveship and become King of the Pirates, and finally there are the serpents who are looking for some destiny of their own. All these lives and stories come together to form the plot of this book.
The most interesting thing is that Robin Hobb is able to separate means and ends and keep the characters, their actions and the results separate- Kennit who's only looking for power ends up the unlikely savior of slaves, Wintrow, once a non-violent priest ends up enslaved by his own father, then leads to the capture of his own ship, and death of his ex-coworkers. Vivacia is torn between her needs as a young liveship and her growing knowledge of the world.
And in the meantime Althea must fight society's disapproval of women on ships which has deprived her of her inheritance. Its nice to see a fantasy book with an out and out feminist heroine- in most fantasies the heroine simply sits and waits to be rescued, or is effectively a prize for the hero at the end of his travails. Althea and her mother are both in their own way, action characters.
It says a good deal for the book that after finishing its 700+ pages, I feel the need to read the rest of the series- not tired of reading at all.
The story is set in Bingtown, where the old Trader families own ships that come alive. One such family is the Vestrits, and the plot takes off with the death of the patriarch and the passing of the legacy to the son-in-law Kyle Haven, instead of the younger daughter Althea. Althea must prove that being female is no impediment to becoming an effective trader. In the meantime, Kyle is faced with his recalcitrant elder son, who was forced to join his father aboard the ship, while he wishes to join the priesthood. Althea's mother must find a way to keep the family from losing their lands to debtors until they are able to raise money to pay them back, and also keep her young granddaughter out of trouble. In the meantime, the pirate Kennit is determined to win himself a liveship and become King of the Pirates, and finally there are the serpents who are looking for some destiny of their own. All these lives and stories come together to form the plot of this book.
The most interesting thing is that Robin Hobb is able to separate means and ends and keep the characters, their actions and the results separate- Kennit who's only looking for power ends up the unlikely savior of slaves, Wintrow, once a non-violent priest ends up enslaved by his own father, then leads to the capture of his own ship, and death of his ex-coworkers. Vivacia is torn between her needs as a young liveship and her growing knowledge of the world.
And in the meantime Althea must fight society's disapproval of women on ships which has deprived her of her inheritance. Its nice to see a fantasy book with an out and out feminist heroine- in most fantasies the heroine simply sits and waits to be rescued, or is effectively a prize for the hero at the end of his travails. Althea and her mother are both in their own way, action characters.
It says a good deal for the book that after finishing its 700+ pages, I feel the need to read the rest of the series- not tired of reading at all.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Safety only in Death
.... is the conclusion of Hilary Mantel's 'A Place of Greater Safety', , a novel of the French Revolution, focusing on three of its initiators- Camille Desmoulins, Danton and Robespierre. With rapidly moving events, multiple points of view and a vast cast of characters that enter and leave the story at various points, Mantel makes no compromises. Everything is meticulously researched, every person given their due.
Her story focusses on the growth and change in these three men, and the relationships between them - Danton- to whom the Revolution was the means to greater fortune, Robespierre- Tyrant or Incorruptible, depending on how you perceived him- to him the Revolution was the end in itself, and the man caught between the two- charming, passionate Camille.
It was Camille whose reckless enthusiasm led to the storming of the Bastille; his newspapers that incited the people to revolt; he who encouraged the use of violence to further the aims of the revolution- and it was he who looked into the abyss and recoiled to see it staring back at him. And then not even his friendship with Robespierre could save him from the heirs of the Revolution- the men to whom dissent was equal to treachery- who replaced the tyranny of monarchy with the mechanical mercilessness of the Committee.
Robespierre himself- who started off hating violence, but would in fact, do anything for his principles- except his principles vacillated between the end and the means, his friends and his ethics. He changes from a man who deplores violence to one who condones it- in the supposed interest of the state.
And Danton- who seems initially to be only an opportunist- no idealist like Camille or Robespierre- who finds in himself a core of idealism - to protect his friends and the Revolution he set off.
And there are the supporting characters, many of whom could have books based on themselves- Marat, Lafayette, the King and Queen of France, Lucile, Saint-Just, and on and on, and even a brief mention of Bonaparte.
For all the size of the book, its the last pages that help you realize just how much you've been drawn in to the lives of these characters- as Camille protests the depths the Revolution has sunk to, as Danton finds himself facing off against his enemies, and Robespierre reaches the limits of his personal power. As they each find that the avalanche they set off is going to bury them in it- then you come to sympathise- to see that they had each dreamed of a Utopia, but had only succeeded in creating a hell.
Her story focusses on the growth and change in these three men, and the relationships between them - Danton- to whom the Revolution was the means to greater fortune, Robespierre- Tyrant or Incorruptible, depending on how you perceived him- to him the Revolution was the end in itself, and the man caught between the two- charming, passionate Camille.
It was Camille whose reckless enthusiasm led to the storming of the Bastille; his newspapers that incited the people to revolt; he who encouraged the use of violence to further the aims of the revolution- and it was he who looked into the abyss and recoiled to see it staring back at him. And then not even his friendship with Robespierre could save him from the heirs of the Revolution- the men to whom dissent was equal to treachery- who replaced the tyranny of monarchy with the mechanical mercilessness of the Committee.
Robespierre himself- who started off hating violence, but would in fact, do anything for his principles- except his principles vacillated between the end and the means, his friends and his ethics. He changes from a man who deplores violence to one who condones it- in the supposed interest of the state.
And Danton- who seems initially to be only an opportunist- no idealist like Camille or Robespierre- who finds in himself a core of idealism - to protect his friends and the Revolution he set off.
And there are the supporting characters, many of whom could have books based on themselves- Marat, Lafayette, the King and Queen of France, Lucile, Saint-Just, and on and on, and even a brief mention of Bonaparte.
For all the size of the book, its the last pages that help you realize just how much you've been drawn in to the lives of these characters- as Camille protests the depths the Revolution has sunk to, as Danton finds himself facing off against his enemies, and Robespierre reaches the limits of his personal power. As they each find that the avalanche they set off is going to bury them in it- then you come to sympathise- to see that they had each dreamed of a Utopia, but had only succeeded in creating a hell.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Long Flight Home
15 hours, then 10 in Bombay, then another two... and with the time change that's two days lost- and likely two more to sleep it off.
I like Continental and Kingfisher both. Continental, to my delight, has On Demand movies even for the Economy seats. Precisely what my neighbors made of the fact that I watched three animated ones in a row, I'm not sure. I suppose I should be relieved that no one sent me to the room for Unaccompanied Minors.
I like Continental and Kingfisher both. Continental, to my delight, has On Demand movies even for the Economy seats. Precisely what my neighbors made of the fact that I watched three animated ones in a row, I'm not sure. I suppose I should be relieved that no one sent me to the room for Unaccompanied Minors.
I watched 'How to Tame your Dragon' first. It had come highly recommended, and I did like it- best of all, the dragon looked just like Nuggy!
The others that I watched were 'Moster's Inc' - cute but too long, and The Incredibles- which actually reminded me a good deal of Spy Kids, and so in spite of the excellent reviews, I wasn't too impressed. None of them came close, in my opinion, to 'Wall-E' or Up- which set a whole different standard for animated movies.
Monday, June 14, 2010
A Reason to Believe
- Foucault's Pendulum- the intellectual's Da Vinci Code- though that description doesn't do it justice. The story is based on those elements of historical and mythological motifs, but the subject addressed is much deeper- going into what it means to believe- religion and magic and mystery- mystery which has more meaning when still left unresolved than when it reaches that final solution when it becomes comprehensible to all- the power that mystery gives- to the person with the so called solution, as he shares it with the select- what happens to that person when the solution bursts into light, no longer requiring a teacher or a priest to initiate others into it?
What if there was no mystery? Only a made up fantasy- put together as a prank and then took life of its own- the elementary plot of an Enid Blyton maybe - but bringing together disparate people determined to destroy those who would bring their secrets- or lack thereof- to light.
And all of it addressing that deepest mystery of all- is there a God? What is God? How does he reveal himself? Or is God- and the questions surrounding him- the invention of a fevered imagination? If God did reveal himself- would we believe? Or has he already done so- if he did, do we know? Do we believe the things we do because we know them to be true- or because to believe otherwise would shake the foundations of our world? If enough people believe in something, does that qualify as proof... how far will people go to prevent their beliefs from being upended?
The pieces of our history- of religion (which is inseparable from history)- that we put together as well as we can- and believe in them. That we are good, god-fearing (loving) people- that what we believe, we know- that what we know is right. And these pieces could so easily be put another way- like some three dimensional object seen from a different point of view- and come to mean something entirely different.
What if there was no mystery? Only a made up fantasy- put together as a prank and then took life of its own- the elementary plot of an Enid Blyton maybe - but bringing together disparate people determined to destroy those who would bring their secrets- or lack thereof- to light.
And all of it addressing that deepest mystery of all- is there a God? What is God? How does he reveal himself? Or is God- and the questions surrounding him- the invention of a fevered imagination? If God did reveal himself- would we believe? Or has he already done so- if he did, do we know? Do we believe the things we do because we know them to be true- or because to believe otherwise would shake the foundations of our world? If enough people believe in something, does that qualify as proof... how far will people go to prevent their beliefs from being upended?
The pieces of our history- of religion (which is inseparable from history)- that we put together as well as we can- and believe in them. That we are good, god-fearing (loving) people- that what we believe, we know- that what we know is right. And these pieces could so easily be put another way- like some three dimensional object seen from a different point of view- and come to mean something entirely different.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Spun with threads of Gold- History turned fairytale
Jai Sen's lovely 'The Golden Vine' , another Alexander story- this time a graphic novel. I was slightly startled and somewhat impressed that an Indian-origin guy had come up with this - then I was reminded of Amar Chitra Katha and went... "Oh wait..." Still, on the side of art, its simply gorgeous. The story deviates from history at many points - the most important result being that Alexander Lives (!) and discovers the Americas(!). That may sound a bit far-fetched, but I wonder if the whole discovering the America's wouldn't have happened sooner if the Dark Ages hadn't been there? And Alexander was definitely an explorer type person... But the important message in the book is an eternal question - as important in his era as it is today- the role of religion in the state.
Another AU- memorable mainly for being another Alexander book- was Judith Tarr's 'Lord of the Two Lands'. Certainly Alexander seems to have had an easy time of it there, and of course there's the mystery of his meeting with the oracle there, and Alexandria where he was immortalized... a good deal of magic and mystery and egyptian gods woven in. The story follows Meriammon - daughter of the late Pharoah- who wants the conquering Persians thrown out, and invites Alexander in as a liberator. There's a bit of the romance angle there with Meriammon and a brother of Ptolemy- who would later become pharoah.
One thing I was struck by, was how much Alexander used religion and the gods to make his claims- he followed all the ceremonies, celebrated all the gods wherever he went- and the other thing that struck me was how little politics has changed in that sense- through the years- the Holy Wars of course, Henry VIII, but even in the democracies of today- with all the talk of Obama's church - in some ways we haven't come very far in 2000 years.
Then came with 'Stealing Fire' by Jo Graham, which is not so much about Alexander, as the events after his death- the stealing of his body from Persia to Egypt by Ptolemy- both books make much of the Egyptian connection.
Another AU- memorable mainly for being another Alexander book- was Judith Tarr's 'Lord of the Two Lands'. Certainly Alexander seems to have had an easy time of it there, and of course there's the mystery of his meeting with the oracle there, and Alexandria where he was immortalized... a good deal of magic and mystery and egyptian gods woven in. The story follows Meriammon - daughter of the late Pharoah- who wants the conquering Persians thrown out, and invites Alexander in as a liberator. There's a bit of the romance angle there with Meriammon and a brother of Ptolemy- who would later become pharoah.
One thing I was struck by, was how much Alexander used religion and the gods to make his claims- he followed all the ceremonies, celebrated all the gods wherever he went- and the other thing that struck me was how little politics has changed in that sense- through the years- the Holy Wars of course, Henry VIII, but even in the democracies of today- with all the talk of Obama's church - in some ways we haven't come very far in 2000 years.
Then came with 'Stealing Fire' by Jo Graham, which is not so much about Alexander, as the events after his death- the stealing of his body from Persia to Egypt by Ptolemy- both books make much of the Egyptian connection.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
... Leaving New York... City of Food
... or at least that seems to be the best thing about it. Appa even swears that there's a vegetarian Korean place, though I haven't yet been there. There are excellent dessert places though... my favorites being...
1. Magnolia Bakery - There's one at Rockerfeller Center, and one in Grand Central, both of which I frequent.
2. Crumbs- where the Raspberry cupcake is simply delicious.
3. Pinkberry- I realize that this is hardly unique to NY, but this is where I discovered it so...
5. The roadside Dosa- which is absolutely awesome!
1. Magnolia Bakery - There's one at Rockerfeller Center, and one in Grand Central, both of which I frequent.
2. Crumbs- where the Raspberry cupcake is simply delicious.
3. Pinkberry- I realize that this is hardly unique to NY, but this is where I discovered it so...
4. Cafeteria- not exclusively dessert, but their lemon ricotta pancakes are smashing!
5. The roadside Dosa- which is absolutely awesome!
And of course there's my regular- Kati Roll....
Of course food isn't all I'll miss about NYC... there are the plays and the places to see... and Strand, with its 18 miles of books...
The lives of Great Men...
... may remind us/ we can make our lives sublime/ and depaarting/leave behind us/footprints in the sands of time...
Continuing on with my quest in following the lives of great men, I picked Churchill- the book ' The Last Lion' by William Manchester, which talks about the years that Churchill spent before the war, years spent fruitlessly warning the world about Hitler. The only man who recognized the truth in Churchill's words was Hitler himself, who saw him as the enemy, even when he was descredited and out of power.
The writer is a fairly obvious Churchill partisan. He makes much of Churchill's many virtues- his incredible grasp of language, his loyalty, his perspicacity, his interest in modern warfare; and glosses over his many flaws- his lack of understanding of how the rules of warfare would be modified, his tendency to use people and forget about them, his backing of a king who was clearly too self-involved to be an effective ruler- in many ways, Churchill was an anachronism- even in his time, he was a man from an earlier time- a man who still owed the sovereign his loyalty, who in some ways still held to an older code.
Reading the book though, I realized so much that our history books left untouched - how many ways the war could have been prevented, if only people had acted sooner, acted differently- how easily Hitler could have been defeated if only he'd been taken care of earlier- before Czechoslovakia and before Poland. But the men in power saw visions of eternal peace- and were not willing to fight for it- and listened to their sycophants and not their rivals, and paid for it- in the eternal eyes of history, if not then and there.
It seems like Hitler changed the rules of both warfare and politics- before him, war was declared and then fought, he fought and then declared. I don't know if he was the first to instigate riots and enter to 'bring peace to the German people in the area', but those are tactics we see so frequently today- what was so shocking then, as to be virtually unbelievable, is now a matter taken for granted.
Churchill's solution - to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler- though the government was too slow to act on it- and as a result, in the early days of the war- it was Stalin and Hitler who were allies- makes me wonder, if in seeing Hitler as his enemy, Churchill lost sight of the fact that Stalin was no angel either- maybe if things had gone differently, and Hitler had been squashed in the early days, we would have spoken of a second world war with Russia and her allies- and Churchill would have been the fool who brought us there.
There are so many lessons for us from the events leading up to the war- the reluctance of the states to go into another war, following the horrors inflicted by the previous one- its a similar fear that keeps us from going into great wars now- I wonder if it will last forever- it didn't, after all, the first time round. I wonder also, if we're seeing something similar to the desperate compromises reached to keep Germany from going to war- if we're doing something similar, unknowingly- to reach clarity only when no other path remains- the truth is, for all we talk of learning from history, its fairly hard to learn while we're living it.
Continuing on with my quest in following the lives of great men, I picked Churchill- the book ' The Last Lion' by William Manchester, which talks about the years that Churchill spent before the war, years spent fruitlessly warning the world about Hitler. The only man who recognized the truth in Churchill's words was Hitler himself, who saw him as the enemy, even when he was descredited and out of power.
The writer is a fairly obvious Churchill partisan. He makes much of Churchill's many virtues- his incredible grasp of language, his loyalty, his perspicacity, his interest in modern warfare; and glosses over his many flaws- his lack of understanding of how the rules of warfare would be modified, his tendency to use people and forget about them, his backing of a king who was clearly too self-involved to be an effective ruler- in many ways, Churchill was an anachronism- even in his time, he was a man from an earlier time- a man who still owed the sovereign his loyalty, who in some ways still held to an older code.
Reading the book though, I realized so much that our history books left untouched - how many ways the war could have been prevented, if only people had acted sooner, acted differently- how easily Hitler could have been defeated if only he'd been taken care of earlier- before Czechoslovakia and before Poland. But the men in power saw visions of eternal peace- and were not willing to fight for it- and listened to their sycophants and not their rivals, and paid for it- in the eternal eyes of history, if not then and there.
It seems like Hitler changed the rules of both warfare and politics- before him, war was declared and then fought, he fought and then declared. I don't know if he was the first to instigate riots and enter to 'bring peace to the German people in the area', but those are tactics we see so frequently today- what was so shocking then, as to be virtually unbelievable, is now a matter taken for granted.
Churchill's solution - to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler- though the government was too slow to act on it- and as a result, in the early days of the war- it was Stalin and Hitler who were allies- makes me wonder, if in seeing Hitler as his enemy, Churchill lost sight of the fact that Stalin was no angel either- maybe if things had gone differently, and Hitler had been squashed in the early days, we would have spoken of a second world war with Russia and her allies- and Churchill would have been the fool who brought us there.
There are so many lessons for us from the events leading up to the war- the reluctance of the states to go into another war, following the horrors inflicted by the previous one- its a similar fear that keeps us from going into great wars now- I wonder if it will last forever- it didn't, after all, the first time round. I wonder also, if we're seeing something similar to the desperate compromises reached to keep Germany from going to war- if we're doing something similar, unknowingly- to reach clarity only when no other path remains- the truth is, for all we talk of learning from history, its fairly hard to learn while we're living it.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Pride and Prejudice and Losing Sense and Sensilibility
Have you had that feeling where its like waking up and realising that this book that changed your life, yuor point of view, just about everything about you, is about as real as a Disney movie? It happened to me once before with Ayn Rand, and now, I'm afraid its happened with Pride and Prejudice.
With "Atlas Shrugged", it was a slow awakening, as I shrugged off bits and pieces of the philisophy that had taken hold of so much of my imagination. With Pride and Prejudice, it happened in a flash. Suddenly, Elizabeth and Darcy were no longer who I wanted to be (or meet), and the last(?) of my illusions.
I blame it on Shannon Hale's "Austenland". Now, virtually every woman I know, has a favorite Austen, one to read and re-read, over and over again- i've vacillated, myself, between Persuasion and P&P. So I picked up Austenland- Shannon Hale's young adult stories are cute and funny, and I expected this one to be too.
And it was cute, and funny, and utterly disillusioning. Not because Elizabeth didn't get her Darcy, but because she did. And I wish she hadn't. Not because he wasn't a perfectly nice guy with a veneer of gruffness, that only that special woman could see through- actually, that's precisely why.
So it is a truth now, universally acknowledged that a woman -any woman- must be on the look out for a husband- why is it that Austen two centuries ago was so much more modern than we are now- all of us stuck in the 18th century?
With "Atlas Shrugged", it was a slow awakening, as I shrugged off bits and pieces of the philisophy that had taken hold of so much of my imagination. With Pride and Prejudice, it happened in a flash. Suddenly, Elizabeth and Darcy were no longer who I wanted to be (or meet), and the last(?) of my illusions.
I blame it on Shannon Hale's "Austenland". Now, virtually every woman I know, has a favorite Austen, one to read and re-read, over and over again- i've vacillated, myself, between Persuasion and P&P. So I picked up Austenland- Shannon Hale's young adult stories are cute and funny, and I expected this one to be too.
And it was cute, and funny, and utterly disillusioning. Not because Elizabeth didn't get her Darcy, but because she did. And I wish she hadn't. Not because he wasn't a perfectly nice guy with a veneer of gruffness, that only that special woman could see through- actually, that's precisely why.
So it is a truth now, universally acknowledged that a woman -any woman- must be on the look out for a husband- why is it that Austen two centuries ago was so much more modern than we are now- all of us stuck in the 18th century?
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Tamil movies and women
I don't know the name of the movie that started it. But it was on Sunday evening, and on Sun TV here in the US, and it was absolutely terrible. For those who are interested, here's a brief recap of the story- There's a guy. He's having an extra-marital affair. He marries this woman and orders her to basically put up with it. When she refuses he tries to kill her. The woman's younger brother walks in. He captures evidence on his cell phone showing the hunsband attempting to murder. When the police come, the three of them pretend that nothing happened. The woman tries to walk out. Then her brother makes her go back (says he won't see her on the street.. blah blah). He threatens the husband blah... blah... if you hurt a hair on her head types... long story goes on forever- in the end the husband repents. Goes to jail, promises to return a changed man.
But here's the thing. It was completely revolting to me that it was portrayed that the woman's best shot at life was with her (murderous) husband. What is wrong with these people??? Ok, its just a movie- fine. But don't tell me that people aren't influenced by the stuff they see on screen. And how many families tell their daughters/sisters to go back to their abusive husbands and put up with it, hoping that things will change. And look to stupid movies like these, and tell themselves that someday the guy will repent, he'll become a better person.
Who cares if he becomes a better person! Why on earth should this poor lady suffer until he finds the light. Let him find the light on his own time. She should walk! And when he goes to jail or gets his comeuppance, chortle gleefully and go on with her life.
But here's the thing. It was completely revolting to me that it was portrayed that the woman's best shot at life was with her (murderous) husband. What is wrong with these people??? Ok, its just a movie- fine. But don't tell me that people aren't influenced by the stuff they see on screen. And how many families tell their daughters/sisters to go back to their abusive husbands and put up with it, hoping that things will change. And look to stupid movies like these, and tell themselves that someday the guy will repent, he'll become a better person.
Who cares if he becomes a better person! Why on earth should this poor lady suffer until he finds the light. Let him find the light on his own time. She should walk! And when he goes to jail or gets his comeuppance, chortle gleefully and go on with her life.
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Thought of God
"An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God" said Ramanujan, who may have come as close as anyone ever has to understanding these thoughts. Almost entirely self-taught, failed by the educational system, cut-off from places where cutting edge mathematics was being invented- or discovered, still he persevered, driven by some inner conviction.
Robert Kanigel presents Ramanujan's biography in "The man who knew infinity", the story of Ramanujan and his collaboration with G.H. Hardy. The writing is almost more poetry than prose. Kanigel has taken real pains to understand the lives of these two disparate men, and the work that they are remembered for. Few people can bring any interest to presenting equations in a biography - like Hawking was advised, an equation would cut down the sales of a book by half. But how could a book about mathematicians mean anything if it didn't touch upon their lives work, no matter how obscure to the common public?
Unlike Newton or Edison, whose discoveries were made with utility in mind, Ramanujan and Hardy pursued mathematics as art rather than science. Beautiful for its own sake, not for the purpose it served. Brought up in entirely different cultures- one a devout Hindu, who believed in astrology, the other an atheist and a man of pure reason, it was only maths that brought them together.
Kanigen presents beautifully, the cultures in which they both grew up. I was deeply impressed and not a little nostalgic for the Madras he presented- not the overcrowded Chennai of today, but the sleepy Madras of my childhood. And Hardy's England, removed by both space and culturep; A culture that was less easily bridged by the shy and vegetarian Ramanujan. His difficulties in maintaining his vegetarianism in the face of almost impossibly odds, remind me of my own difficulties- and this in an age where there are Indian stores, where vegan restaurants are in rage. How much worse would it have been a hundred years ago.
And there was the lovely passage in which Kanigel describes the difference between the utterly open Indian society- where a fellow traveller may share with you their life history within an hour's acquaintance, and the taciturn British- after years of working together, hardy knew little of Ramanujan's life at home.
Equally interesting was the two men's not dissimilar struggles against the established system- for Ramanujan in India against the system that was designed to educate clerks, not scientist- and for Hardy, the Tripos system- one that all of us who had to go through n- entrance exams at the end of school, can appreciate and sympathize with- systems that seem more inclined to sap creativity than encourage it.
In this book, it is as though you live with these men- in their times, share in their struggles, and very nearly, touch infinity.
Robert Kanigel presents Ramanujan's biography in "The man who knew infinity", the story of Ramanujan and his collaboration with G.H. Hardy. The writing is almost more poetry than prose. Kanigel has taken real pains to understand the lives of these two disparate men, and the work that they are remembered for. Few people can bring any interest to presenting equations in a biography - like Hawking was advised, an equation would cut down the sales of a book by half. But how could a book about mathematicians mean anything if it didn't touch upon their lives work, no matter how obscure to the common public?
Unlike Newton or Edison, whose discoveries were made with utility in mind, Ramanujan and Hardy pursued mathematics as art rather than science. Beautiful for its own sake, not for the purpose it served. Brought up in entirely different cultures- one a devout Hindu, who believed in astrology, the other an atheist and a man of pure reason, it was only maths that brought them together.
Kanigen presents beautifully, the cultures in which they both grew up. I was deeply impressed and not a little nostalgic for the Madras he presented- not the overcrowded Chennai of today, but the sleepy Madras of my childhood. And Hardy's England, removed by both space and culturep; A culture that was less easily bridged by the shy and vegetarian Ramanujan. His difficulties in maintaining his vegetarianism in the face of almost impossibly odds, remind me of my own difficulties- and this in an age where there are Indian stores, where vegan restaurants are in rage. How much worse would it have been a hundred years ago.
And there was the lovely passage in which Kanigel describes the difference between the utterly open Indian society- where a fellow traveller may share with you their life history within an hour's acquaintance, and the taciturn British- after years of working together, hardy knew little of Ramanujan's life at home.
Equally interesting was the two men's not dissimilar struggles against the established system- for Ramanujan in India against the system that was designed to educate clerks, not scientist- and for Hardy, the Tripos system- one that all of us who had to go through n- entrance exams at the end of school, can appreciate and sympathize with- systems that seem more inclined to sap creativity than encourage it.
In this book, it is as though you live with these men- in their times, share in their struggles, and very nearly, touch infinity.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
More on the search for Alexander
... in both Fictional and Historical sources. To be fair, I haven't gone all that far down the trail- only as far as Robin Lane Fox's book on Alexander. I liked the book. It didn't push me to re-imagine Greek life like Renault or battle like Pressfield, but it gave the impression of being scrupulously even-handed in the treatment of its subject. It didn't deal all with absolute facts, certainly, but the theories it presented were reasonable, and not terribly far-fetched. Interestingly, this was the first book that brought up the possibility of Alexander being poisoned - though I'd heard the theories before- it didn't really present it as probable- but gave the circumstances that made it look possible.
It was tragic though, to see Alexander's dream empire fall apart after his death. It really brings out the charisma of the man who held all these disparate people, his ambitious advisors together to give his vision shape.
Against that history I read "A Choice of Destinies" by Melissa Scott, which imagines a world in which Alexander didn't go to India but was forced to turn back, to face Rome instead. I enjoyed the postulations of the wars and negitionations- the possibility of alliance with Rome against Carthage- but I think its too far-fetched to suggest that it would have lead to an empire that would rule the world two thousand years later- taking Alexander's dream into the twenty first century. It was a very enjoyable read though.
It was tragic though, to see Alexander's dream empire fall apart after his death. It really brings out the charisma of the man who held all these disparate people, his ambitious advisors together to give his vision shape.
Against that history I read "A Choice of Destinies" by Melissa Scott, which imagines a world in which Alexander didn't go to India but was forced to turn back, to face Rome instead. I enjoyed the postulations of the wars and negitionations- the possibility of alliance with Rome against Carthage- but I think its too far-fetched to suggest that it would have lead to an empire that would rule the world two thousand years later- taking Alexander's dream into the twenty first century. It was a very enjoyable read though.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Murder and Macbeth
Following on the heels of Agatha Christie's "Mousetrap" and "Witness for the Prosecution", I continued with the theme of Murder and Mayhem with Macbeth- at the Julliard school- which seems to have become my permanent entertainment these days.
It was done with a slightly Persian theme, and again, I was struck, by how much more meaning is given to the same lines when they're performed in front of you, as opposed to simply reading them out. There were faces in the performers I recognized from the "Merchant of Venice", Jorge Chacon who played Macduff had played the Duke. Jo Mein who had played Shylock was Lady Macbeth's wife- a bit part in one was a major in the other.
Lady Macbeth and Macbeth himself were particularly good, which was just as well. Lady Macbeth especially seemed made for the part- the only thing I could wish was that she would speak a little slower. Though it may have helped if I had known this one as well as I'd known the Merchant, before I saw it.
In a way though, I'm glad I wasn't so familiar with it. The Merchant of Venice was completely familiar. Macbeth was full of surprises. I'm amazed by how many phrases Shakespeare has added to our vocabulary in this single play- from the infamous "Double, double, toil and trouble...", "Not all perfumes of Arabia...", "Out damned spot!", "Too full of the milk of human kindness..."... Phrases that have lent themselves to the titles of others' books, like "The Sound and the Fury..."
And the world's oldest "Knock, knock" jokes maybe- in the scene where the porter (here a girl rolling on the floor with a servant), is called to open the door for Macduff.
It was done with a slightly Persian theme, and again, I was struck, by how much more meaning is given to the same lines when they're performed in front of you, as opposed to simply reading them out. There were faces in the performers I recognized from the "Merchant of Venice", Jorge Chacon who played Macduff had played the Duke. Jo Mein who had played Shylock was Lady Macbeth's wife- a bit part in one was a major in the other.
Lady Macbeth and Macbeth himself were particularly good, which was just as well. Lady Macbeth especially seemed made for the part- the only thing I could wish was that she would speak a little slower. Though it may have helped if I had known this one as well as I'd known the Merchant, before I saw it.
In a way though, I'm glad I wasn't so familiar with it. The Merchant of Venice was completely familiar. Macbeth was full of surprises. I'm amazed by how many phrases Shakespeare has added to our vocabulary in this single play- from the infamous "Double, double, toil and trouble...", "Not all perfumes of Arabia...", "Out damned spot!", "Too full of the milk of human kindness..."... Phrases that have lent themselves to the titles of others' books, like "The Sound and the Fury..."
And the world's oldest "Knock, knock" jokes maybe- in the scene where the porter (here a girl rolling on the floor with a servant), is called to open the door for Macduff.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Seeing Shakespeare with new eyes
Today, I watched the Julliard School put on "The Merchant of Venice". Nearly 200 people must have been there, at the P.McLelland Theatre to watch the show. It was adapted (at least, the settings were adapted- the dialogues remained the same), to modern times. As they mentioned in the pamphlet, with the financial crisis, a play about a villainous moneylender was particularly apt. But I started off, a little disappointed by the lack of costumes...
My disappointment didn't last long. I was amazed by how well the play fit these modern times. It really brought out the universality of Shakespeare's themes. The other thing that struck me, was how much you can adapt Shakespeare to your own views, how much different it makes, when you see the same lines read with different emotions.
I remember doing the Merchant of Venice in school, a long, long time ago. We didn't perform the play, only read it and tried to understand it. I came out of it feeling utterly unsympathetic for Shylock. Later, I realised, intellectually, that Shylock was as much a victim as Antonio- of the prejudices levelled against him. But it was really brought out to me this time- for example, when Antonio goes to borrow money from Shylock, he is accused of spitting on the money lender. And he says he would do it again. Any wonder, that Shylock is so vengeful?
And there is Shylock's daughter- when I was young, it seemed to me, that she was the victim of a cruel and tight-fisted father- now, I felt sorry for poor Shylock- whose daughter had run away with so much of his fortune. I was startled by how much of a part money played in the play, and wonder if it had seemed natural to the people in Shakespeare's day, to marry for money- that seems to be the major motivation for Bassanio courting Portia and his friend Lorenzo and Jessica. Bassanio himself comes off less than heroically- in spite of being wounded (according to his costume anyway...), his initial confession of insolvency, to Antonio- where he pleads with his friend to loan him more money- to throw after the money he's already lost- reads like some Georgette Heyer about wastrel young lords.
But being without costume, it was incredibly relatable- especially the conversations between Nerissa and Portia, which was like so much girl-talk out of any modern TV show.
The other thing that impressed me was that it was actually funny! Let's face it, when you read Shakepeare, you're concentrating so hard, its hard to actually laugh, even when you know that the lines are supposed to be humorous. When you see it on stage though, the witty dialogue of Portia, her annoying suitors, Bassanio's rattlepate friend, Lancelot the not-so-knightly, all come out brilliantly. Shakespeare mixes slapstick with sharp wit in ways I'd never noticed before, and that makes all the difference between seeing a play and reading it.
The last thing of course, is the brilliant quality of mercy scene, where in the end Shylock is forced to give up his bond on Antonio. I can't help but feel now, though, that the 'merciful' punishment of Antonio was at least as cruel to Shylock as cutting out a pound of flesh- converting, losing much of her money, accepting the man who married his daughter for her wealth, as son.... at least in the end, the daughter wasn't celebrating Shylock's loss with the rest... And Antonio- when all the lover's had gone in, Antonio, for a man who had won, looked incredibly alone.
I've got done with Robin Lane Fox's "Alexander the Great" that I had mentioned in the earlier blog, and have come out even more impressed with "Alex" than before. The more I read of him, the more I feel, that as much as his victories can be said to have depended on luck, a lot of it was luck of his own making. He was an absolutely brilliant commander, it wasn't luck that he knew how to lead men from the front. He wasn't just a military man either, but one with a sharp political mind, one who understood that war was politics by other means. The only thing I object to is what I feel is the exagerration of the influence of the Greeks especially in Asia- thanks to Alexander.
I've also restarted on my list of Agatha Christies - just got through the train ride with "Witness for the Prosecution" and other stories. I love it when Christie goes all self-insertion type like in the Second Cucumber story... wish I had a Miss Marple or two with me.
My disappointment didn't last long. I was amazed by how well the play fit these modern times. It really brought out the universality of Shakespeare's themes. The other thing that struck me, was how much you can adapt Shakespeare to your own views, how much different it makes, when you see the same lines read with different emotions.
I remember doing the Merchant of Venice in school, a long, long time ago. We didn't perform the play, only read it and tried to understand it. I came out of it feeling utterly unsympathetic for Shylock. Later, I realised, intellectually, that Shylock was as much a victim as Antonio- of the prejudices levelled against him. But it was really brought out to me this time- for example, when Antonio goes to borrow money from Shylock, he is accused of spitting on the money lender. And he says he would do it again. Any wonder, that Shylock is so vengeful?
And there is Shylock's daughter- when I was young, it seemed to me, that she was the victim of a cruel and tight-fisted father- now, I felt sorry for poor Shylock- whose daughter had run away with so much of his fortune. I was startled by how much of a part money played in the play, and wonder if it had seemed natural to the people in Shakespeare's day, to marry for money- that seems to be the major motivation for Bassanio courting Portia and his friend Lorenzo and Jessica. Bassanio himself comes off less than heroically- in spite of being wounded (according to his costume anyway...), his initial confession of insolvency, to Antonio- where he pleads with his friend to loan him more money- to throw after the money he's already lost- reads like some Georgette Heyer about wastrel young lords.
But being without costume, it was incredibly relatable- especially the conversations between Nerissa and Portia, which was like so much girl-talk out of any modern TV show.
The other thing that impressed me was that it was actually funny! Let's face it, when you read Shakepeare, you're concentrating so hard, its hard to actually laugh, even when you know that the lines are supposed to be humorous. When you see it on stage though, the witty dialogue of Portia, her annoying suitors, Bassanio's rattlepate friend, Lancelot the not-so-knightly, all come out brilliantly. Shakespeare mixes slapstick with sharp wit in ways I'd never noticed before, and that makes all the difference between seeing a play and reading it.
The last thing of course, is the brilliant quality of mercy scene, where in the end Shylock is forced to give up his bond on Antonio. I can't help but feel now, though, that the 'merciful' punishment of Antonio was at least as cruel to Shylock as cutting out a pound of flesh- converting, losing much of her money, accepting the man who married his daughter for her wealth, as son.... at least in the end, the daughter wasn't celebrating Shylock's loss with the rest... And Antonio- when all the lover's had gone in, Antonio, for a man who had won, looked incredibly alone.
I've got done with Robin Lane Fox's "Alexander the Great" that I had mentioned in the earlier blog, and have come out even more impressed with "Alex" than before. The more I read of him, the more I feel, that as much as his victories can be said to have depended on luck, a lot of it was luck of his own making. He was an absolutely brilliant commander, it wasn't luck that he knew how to lead men from the front. He wasn't just a military man either, but one with a sharp political mind, one who understood that war was politics by other means. The only thing I object to is what I feel is the exagerration of the influence of the Greeks especially in Asia- thanks to Alexander.
I've also restarted on my list of Agatha Christies - just got through the train ride with "Witness for the Prosecution" and other stories. I love it when Christie goes all self-insertion type like in the Second Cucumber story... wish I had a Miss Marple or two with me.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Further back in the footsteps of Time
I've become quite fascinated with Alexander the Great - my next obsession, I suppose, after the medieval English Kings.
It started off with Mary Renault's "Fire From Heaven",which covers Alexander's childhood. Renault cover all the legends associated with it- Alexander and Beucephalos, Aristotle - before he became famous- the time spent teaching Alexander, but have been a formative experience for both of them- his parents - Olympias, who creeped me out a little- his father Philip- both an inspiration and a rival. She brings out also, the nature of the Macedonian court- distinctly different from the Greek, wilder, with drunken revels and blood feuds and brawls.
His early friends, many of whom would accompany him in his conquests- Ptolemy- Pharoah of Egypt after Alexander's death, Hephaestion- whose death may have contributed to Alexander's...
The one thing that annoyed me was Alexander's belief in his own divinity. In this day and age, it sounds like madness, though it may have very well been accepted in those days. But it makes just a little harded to take Alexander seriously.
Renault continues with her Alexander saga with"The Persian Boy", Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, as seen through the eyes of his concubine, Bagoas. Again, it may be natural that Bagoas adores Alexander, and sees all that he does as right, but to an outside viewer, the lack of perspective is a little annoying. There is no excuse for example, for Alexander's killing of a general in a drunken rage, and the politics of the court is rarely seen with an unbiased eye.
More interesting is Steven Pressfield's "The Virtues of War" which detail Alexander's Persian conquests, as though narrated by himself. It brings out Alexander's military genius, from his use of every weapon given to him, his ability to change tactics to suit the time, his understanding of men, his own and the enemy's, his limitless courage- or maybe, sheer fearlessness is a better word- his unrelenting ambition and utter ruthlessness. What emerges is the portrait of a man who would have been a brilliant leader in any age.
I particularly loved the description of the Bactrian campaign, the unheroic war, which even Alexander could only end by marrying a cheiftains' daughter for an alliance (though there may have been more to Roxanne than that). But the description of unconventional warfare could apply even to the wars in Afghanistan today - over the same terrain- against different tribes, and this passage stands out in its relevance over time. The other thing that came out was how much of war was luck and how much it depended on a commander's ability to turn things to his advantage in moments, as they happened- and that quickness of thought and action Alexander had in full.
In some ways Pressfield's book was a little like a play. It was almost as though I was reading little scenes with peope playing roles. I was unconvinced by the role of Hephaestion though, as conscience to the king. Somehow, rather than admiring his Homeric nobility and gentleness of spirit, I couldn't help but recall Shakespeare's "Thus does conscience make cowards of us all...and enterprises of great pith and moment, with this regard their currents turn awry".
Now I've moved on to Robin Lane Fox's "Alexander the Great". Again, this one starts off at childhood, and really brings out how much Alexander owes his father- it was Philip who ensured that Alexander had the cosmopolitan education that ensured his understanding of the world he was about to conquer, Philip who first created a standing army for Macedonia and perfected the use of infantry and cavarly to balance out the army, and the wedge formation, which allowed him manouverability, that would prove so essential to Alexander.
Still Alexander's brilliance, his sheer adaptability to every circumstance comes out, even as he secures Greece before he marches off to Asia. Alexander thought utterly unconventionally, as seen when he had steps carved into the mountain for his army, rather than take a narrow pass that would leave them defenceless- because this was the sort of man who would move mountains to suit himself.
There is not much news otherwise- I heard a concert a couple of weeks ago in Connecticut- by Susmit Sen, Indian Ocean's lead guitarist, and it was excellent. I also went to a long concert by Sudha Raghunathan here in NJ, which I left after three hours, though I was amused to hear that she was still going strong an hour later. I'm recreating my "youth" now, lying on my bed with a bunch of Agatha Christie's from a Used Book Sale at Wrightstown library...
It started off with Mary Renault's "Fire From Heaven",which covers Alexander's childhood. Renault cover all the legends associated with it- Alexander and Beucephalos, Aristotle - before he became famous- the time spent teaching Alexander, but have been a formative experience for both of them- his parents - Olympias, who creeped me out a little- his father Philip- both an inspiration and a rival. She brings out also, the nature of the Macedonian court- distinctly different from the Greek, wilder, with drunken revels and blood feuds and brawls.
His early friends, many of whom would accompany him in his conquests- Ptolemy- Pharoah of Egypt after Alexander's death, Hephaestion- whose death may have contributed to Alexander's...
The one thing that annoyed me was Alexander's belief in his own divinity. In this day and age, it sounds like madness, though it may have very well been accepted in those days. But it makes just a little harded to take Alexander seriously.
Renault continues with her Alexander saga with"The Persian Boy", Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, as seen through the eyes of his concubine, Bagoas. Again, it may be natural that Bagoas adores Alexander, and sees all that he does as right, but to an outside viewer, the lack of perspective is a little annoying. There is no excuse for example, for Alexander's killing of a general in a drunken rage, and the politics of the court is rarely seen with an unbiased eye.
More interesting is Steven Pressfield's "The Virtues of War" which detail Alexander's Persian conquests, as though narrated by himself. It brings out Alexander's military genius, from his use of every weapon given to him, his ability to change tactics to suit the time, his understanding of men, his own and the enemy's, his limitless courage- or maybe, sheer fearlessness is a better word- his unrelenting ambition and utter ruthlessness. What emerges is the portrait of a man who would have been a brilliant leader in any age.
I particularly loved the description of the Bactrian campaign, the unheroic war, which even Alexander could only end by marrying a cheiftains' daughter for an alliance (though there may have been more to Roxanne than that). But the description of unconventional warfare could apply even to the wars in Afghanistan today - over the same terrain- against different tribes, and this passage stands out in its relevance over time. The other thing that came out was how much of war was luck and how much it depended on a commander's ability to turn things to his advantage in moments, as they happened- and that quickness of thought and action Alexander had in full.
In some ways Pressfield's book was a little like a play. It was almost as though I was reading little scenes with peope playing roles. I was unconvinced by the role of Hephaestion though, as conscience to the king. Somehow, rather than admiring his Homeric nobility and gentleness of spirit, I couldn't help but recall Shakespeare's "Thus does conscience make cowards of us all...and enterprises of great pith and moment, with this regard their currents turn awry".
Now I've moved on to Robin Lane Fox's "Alexander the Great". Again, this one starts off at childhood, and really brings out how much Alexander owes his father- it was Philip who ensured that Alexander had the cosmopolitan education that ensured his understanding of the world he was about to conquer, Philip who first created a standing army for Macedonia and perfected the use of infantry and cavarly to balance out the army, and the wedge formation, which allowed him manouverability, that would prove so essential to Alexander.
Still Alexander's brilliance, his sheer adaptability to every circumstance comes out, even as he secures Greece before he marches off to Asia. Alexander thought utterly unconventionally, as seen when he had steps carved into the mountain for his army, rather than take a narrow pass that would leave them defenceless- because this was the sort of man who would move mountains to suit himself.
There is not much news otherwise- I heard a concert a couple of weeks ago in Connecticut- by Susmit Sen, Indian Ocean's lead guitarist, and it was excellent. I also went to a long concert by Sudha Raghunathan here in NJ, which I left after three hours, though I was amused to hear that she was still going strong an hour later. I'm recreating my "youth" now, lying on my bed with a bunch of Agatha Christie's from a Used Book Sale at Wrightstown library...
Thursday, April 01, 2010
In the time of chivalry...
I'm continuing with Sharon Kay Penman's books Time and Chance - about Henry II and Thomas Becket and Devil's Brood- going on with her narration of the rebellion and civil wars that tore King Henry II and his sons apart. Although, to start with, they don't seem to have been all that close.
As always, what comes out is the absolute fairness with which Penman treats her characters. Though she concedes, on her blog that Henry II is one of her favorite kings, she remains open to his flaws- his need for absolute control, his botched manipulations (what's worse? that he manipulated people or that he did it so badly?), his blindness to his own weaknesses.
In "Time and Chance" we see Thomas Becket- he's the only main character whose thoughts Penman makes no attempt to read- his motives unclear to both those who knew him then, and those who see him now, with the perspective of several hundred years. He's described as a chameleon- changing to meet the needs of his present master, owing nothing to those who helped him before- though I would (charitably) say that he was more loyal to his position than to those who placed him there. And the things he endured show that he was a man of some faith, certainly.
Eleanor remains enigmatic and magnetic. In these books, it becomes clear how she survived so much- two failed marriages, a husband who kept her imprisoned for sixteen years, the deaths of so many children - ever changing- not like Thomas the chameleon- but as one who learns from her experiences, not to make the same mistakes over and over again- a lesson which Henry is doomed never to learn.
Of the sons, I became unwillingly fond of Geoffrey- who I was prepared to dislike at the outset- from vague memories of The Lion in Winter"- his death seemed so unnecessary- and yet changed everything- leaving Richard virtually undisputed- except potentially, by John.
Richard, again is drawn very fairly- even though Penman admits an initial bias against him- as a competant soldier, but not much else. Though he has been famously described as a bad son- he was so only to his father- to his mother, he was incredibly loyal- I think of the lot of their sons, he was the only one to show this particular quality towards anyone.
I'm now reading Elizabeth Chadwick's "The Greatest Knight" which describes the life of William Marshall- who also appears in Penman's books. Its interesting to see how many events are corroborated by both authors- like Henry, the Young King joking that it was no great thing for the son of a count (his father Henry II) to serve the son of a king (himself). Its interesting that they see the same events differently though- Penman's Henry (the father) is amused, while Chadwick's is angered. I think though, that Penman has the clearer (less romanticized) sight, and though her books are far larger, her writing is more crisp and not as flowery. Chadwick's unnecessary flourishes make the story seem artificial, not authentic.
I don't think I'll be reading Chadwick's other books- except maybe, the sequel to this one - "The Scarlet Lion"- which should hopefully keep me satisfied as I wait for Penman's next work on Richard the Lionheart.
What shocked me most though, was when I realized that Penman was an American author... so weird!
The other book I read recently was Markus Zuzak's "The Book Thief", the story of a girl in Nazi Germany, learning to read. This is a young teens sort of book, and I've occasionally wondered that people consider books like these- set in times of war, with themes of torture, death and hard choices, to be suitable children's books. But I remember reading Anne Frank's diary when I was about eleven, and it made such an impression on me at the time. And I realise that children are exposed to more violence everyday- and besides which, if they cannot read the books that will push them to adulthood, how else will they grow?
As always, what comes out is the absolute fairness with which Penman treats her characters. Though she concedes, on her blog that Henry II is one of her favorite kings, she remains open to his flaws- his need for absolute control, his botched manipulations (what's worse? that he manipulated people or that he did it so badly?), his blindness to his own weaknesses.
In "Time and Chance" we see Thomas Becket- he's the only main character whose thoughts Penman makes no attempt to read- his motives unclear to both those who knew him then, and those who see him now, with the perspective of several hundred years. He's described as a chameleon- changing to meet the needs of his present master, owing nothing to those who helped him before- though I would (charitably) say that he was more loyal to his position than to those who placed him there. And the things he endured show that he was a man of some faith, certainly.
Eleanor remains enigmatic and magnetic. In these books, it becomes clear how she survived so much- two failed marriages, a husband who kept her imprisoned for sixteen years, the deaths of so many children - ever changing- not like Thomas the chameleon- but as one who learns from her experiences, not to make the same mistakes over and over again- a lesson which Henry is doomed never to learn.
Of the sons, I became unwillingly fond of Geoffrey- who I was prepared to dislike at the outset- from vague memories of The Lion in Winter"- his death seemed so unnecessary- and yet changed everything- leaving Richard virtually undisputed- except potentially, by John.
Richard, again is drawn very fairly- even though Penman admits an initial bias against him- as a competant soldier, but not much else. Though he has been famously described as a bad son- he was so only to his father- to his mother, he was incredibly loyal- I think of the lot of their sons, he was the only one to show this particular quality towards anyone.
I'm now reading Elizabeth Chadwick's "The Greatest Knight" which describes the life of William Marshall- who also appears in Penman's books. Its interesting to see how many events are corroborated by both authors- like Henry, the Young King joking that it was no great thing for the son of a count (his father Henry II) to serve the son of a king (himself). Its interesting that they see the same events differently though- Penman's Henry (the father) is amused, while Chadwick's is angered. I think though, that Penman has the clearer (less romanticized) sight, and though her books are far larger, her writing is more crisp and not as flowery. Chadwick's unnecessary flourishes make the story seem artificial, not authentic.
I don't think I'll be reading Chadwick's other books- except maybe, the sequel to this one - "The Scarlet Lion"- which should hopefully keep me satisfied as I wait for Penman's next work on Richard the Lionheart.
What shocked me most though, was when I realized that Penman was an American author... so weird!
The other book I read recently was Markus Zuzak's "The Book Thief", the story of a girl in Nazi Germany, learning to read. This is a young teens sort of book, and I've occasionally wondered that people consider books like these- set in times of war, with themes of torture, death and hard choices, to be suitable children's books. But I remember reading Anne Frank's diary when I was about eleven, and it made such an impression on me at the time. And I realise that children are exposed to more violence everyday- and besides which, if they cannot read the books that will push them to adulthood, how else will they grow?
Monday, March 15, 2010
2 hours and 40 minutes of my life that I'll never get back...
... that I wasted watcing "Avatar". I have to wonder, if there are that many people stuck at approximately 2 years old, that such a simplistic, boring and painfully cliched, derived, and downright stupid story would become the box office sensation of the year... or possibly the decade. The movie is the big screen equivalent of The Real Housewives of Wherever... a pretty surface hiding the fact that the inside has neither mind nor heart.
Look, I'm not railing against the special effects. They were, without doubt gorgeous (and yes, I saw it in 3D, so I got the full effect of it). But it was like a lot of embellishment to make up for the meagre plot. Disney did a better job with "Pocohontas"... and to compare this with any Disney movie, is to deal Disney a serious insult. Man meets "native" woman... falls in love, defeats villains, saves the world, gets the girl. Ta-da!
Nothing against simple stories. Sometimes they can be exquisite. Take any Pixar movie; ostensibly made for children, they are far more intelligent, still working off simple plots, they manage to be incredibly original- and the special effects are actually used to illustrate new ideas.
As for "Pandora", I'd argue that all their effects could have been amalgamated from a few episodes of "Earth"... the jellyfish, the rainforests, even the neon plants... so much for an alien world- looks amazingly like ours.
Look, I'm not railing against the special effects. They were, without doubt gorgeous (and yes, I saw it in 3D, so I got the full effect of it). But it was like a lot of embellishment to make up for the meagre plot. Disney did a better job with "Pocohontas"... and to compare this with any Disney movie, is to deal Disney a serious insult. Man meets "native" woman... falls in love, defeats villains, saves the world, gets the girl. Ta-da!
Nothing against simple stories. Sometimes they can be exquisite. Take any Pixar movie; ostensibly made for children, they are far more intelligent, still working off simple plots, they manage to be incredibly original- and the special effects are actually used to illustrate new ideas.
As for "Pandora", I'd argue that all their effects could have been amalgamated from a few episodes of "Earth"... the jellyfish, the rainforests, even the neon plants... so much for an alien world- looks amazingly like ours.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Back to the Stoneage...
Beacause that's what life without electricity is.
The power went off at around 3 pm yesterday evening thanks the the giant storm that decided to hit the Pennsylvania-New Jersey area. So, there we were, no light, no heat, no internet, no food (no microwave), no WATER!
One game of SCRABBLE later, we couldn't take it any more. The toilets were unusable thanks to the lack of power (because you need the motor to get water...) and we headed off for a movie "Athithi tum kab Jaoge", a slapstick, light mostly forgettable, but bearable comedy.
... we got back home around 9. Still no power. So candle-light dinner. Sweet and fun on any other night.... not on this one. And no heat. So bundled up in comforters, we went off to sleep. Praying desperately that the power would be back the next morning. When I woke up, it still wasn't. Much lying about and hoping for just a minute more brought no salvation, so up I (reluctantly got). And shivered as I emerged out of the cocoon of comforters into the open.
And just as I made plans to head to Starbucks for Breakfast and the Bathroom (I swear, as long as they have free toilets I will never say a bad word about Starbucks again... if only they bring back free wireless.. I would become their lifelong devotee.), the power returned!
And there this saga ends. And so to move on to todays chores and ponder on how on earth people lived before electricity.
The power went off at around 3 pm yesterday evening thanks the the giant storm that decided to hit the Pennsylvania-New Jersey area. So, there we were, no light, no heat, no internet, no food (no microwave), no WATER!
One game of SCRABBLE later, we couldn't take it any more. The toilets were unusable thanks to the lack of power (because you need the motor to get water...) and we headed off for a movie "Athithi tum kab Jaoge", a slapstick, light mostly forgettable, but bearable comedy.
... we got back home around 9. Still no power. So candle-light dinner. Sweet and fun on any other night.... not on this one. And no heat. So bundled up in comforters, we went off to sleep. Praying desperately that the power would be back the next morning. When I woke up, it still wasn't. Much lying about and hoping for just a minute more brought no salvation, so up I (reluctantly got). And shivered as I emerged out of the cocoon of comforters into the open.
And just as I made plans to head to Starbucks for Breakfast and the Bathroom (I swear, as long as they have free toilets I will never say a bad word about Starbucks again... if only they bring back free wireless.. I would become their lifelong devotee.), the power returned!
And there this saga ends. And so to move on to todays chores and ponder on how on earth people lived before electricity.
Friday, February 26, 2010
I feel understood!
I was reading "The Mango Season" on the train over the last couple of days, and I loved it. It was so amazingly easy to relate to, and so reflects my own situation. I loved that I could see people from my own family in the characters there, and myself in the heroine - Priya- as her parents set about trying to get her married.
I also finished Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded", sometime ago, while I was travelling back and forth. Some of what he said does make sense. The world is going haywire climate wise. While its possible that humans aren't entirely responsible for this, one way or the other it is going to have consequences for us. My problem is that none of the solutions he has proposed seem feasible. As an economist, I think he really should have provided an argument based more on rationality rather than hopefulness.
I also finished Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded", sometime ago, while I was travelling back and forth. Some of what he said does make sense. The world is going haywire climate wise. While its possible that humans aren't entirely responsible for this, one way or the other it is going to have consequences for us. My problem is that none of the solutions he has proposed seem feasible. As an economist, I think he really should have provided an argument based more on rationality rather than hopefulness.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Ponniyin Selvan
So... while in India I, at long last, managed to get my hands on the translated 'Ponniyin Selvan' books- bu Kalki... and read through them obsessive compulsively. Somehow, it happens that I've never reall studied Indian history... and CBSE seems to just skim over South Indian history, focussing only on the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, and the British role... so most of the Pallavas,Cheras, Cholas etc were completely beyond me.
This one is set in the time of the Cholas, a tale of the coming to power of Rajaraja Chola- born Arulmozhivarman. The story however, actually focusses on Vandiyathevan, a prince whose family has lost their lands, who falls in love with Arulmozhivarman's elder sister, Kundavai.
The villain of the piece is Nandini (haha!)- whether she is the daughter or lover of the Pandya king Veerapandyan, who was killed by the crown prince,Adityakarikalan is not clear- but Adityakarikalan loved her- but because she was believed to be only a servant's daughter, could not move their relationship forward. When he next sees her she is protecting Veerapandyan much to his fury, and before her eyes, he kills him.
This one is set in the time of the Cholas, a tale of the coming to power of Rajaraja Chola- born Arulmozhivarman. The story however, actually focusses on Vandiyathevan, a prince whose family has lost their lands, who falls in love with Arulmozhivarman's elder sister, Kundavai.
The villain of the piece is Nandini (haha!)- whether she is the daughter or lover of the Pandya king Veerapandyan, who was killed by the crown prince,Adityakarikalan is not clear- but Adityakarikalan loved her- but because she was believed to be only a servant's daughter, could not move their relationship forward. When he next sees her she is protecting Veerapandyan much to his fury, and before her eyes, he kills him.
In the meantime, the king is sick, the younger son in Sri Lanka, his sister plotting for him to win the Sri Lankan throne and marry her friend. There's a fisherman's daughter Poonkuzhali (who is really my favorite character)- who goes from hero worship to true love. There is the son of the old king who seeks his throne (not entirely without right), and his mother, who has secrets of her own. And still, there are others- the Pazhuvettarayars, who have been chief ministers to the kings for ages, the Prime Minister and his spies- the intrigues at the court are never ending.
It was literally one of those unputdownable things. The story moves rapidly as new people, situations and plots are revealed. I wish I could have read it in Tamil! Next on my agenda is a book of short stories by Kalki.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Thoughts from my vacation- History of the Mughal Empire
I got back some time ago from my India vacation, and just realised that I hadn't blogged on it for a while. I've said it before and I'll say it again... when there is something interesting and bloggable going on I don't have the time, and when there is time, I don't have anything to write about.
Anyway, so India was full of concerts, good food and shopping. Am stunned by the number of shops and restaurants that have opened in Chennai. The place is simply booming. And also hideously expensive. Even if you convert from dollars. Or especially if you convert from dollars.
I read a lot while I was there (naturally). Started off with "Flowers for Algernon". A book that could be described as sad, but not really- if only in that it seems to ... take joy in those moments of discovery and learning, and brings out the value in every life, no matter the intelligence. Or at least that was the lesson I took from it.
Then I sat down with "India since 1526" I read only the rise and fall of the Mughals- always interesting. I was surprised by how much I hadn't learnt (or have forgotten) in History at school. For example, the number of power plays, the contradiction in the characters of each Emperor- Babur who conquered a land that he had no love for. Humayun who lost it all and never really won it again. Akbar- who came to the throne so young. The contradictions that plagued his life- in some ways the problems he faced resonate even now- in trying to forge a bi-partisan consensus (in modern parlance), he very nearly alienated his own people.
Then there was his marriage of Rajput princesses- romanticized in Jodhaa -Akbar- not so much a matter of romance as a political negotitation. His conflict with Rana Pratap- the Rana too proud to accept help, or even show respect for those who had accepted the Mughal Empire- so determined to keep his freedom, that in his pride he alienated those who would have helped him (he refused to meet with those who had married their daughters to Akbar).
Its amazing, the amount of intrigue and treachery that went on in these Mughal courts. Not one Mughal emperor seems to have made it through without his son(s) rebelling against him. Aurangazeb was probably the most famous- actually a younger son, he managed to kill and imprison his father and three brothers as he took the throne. Shockingly, as cruel as Aurangazeb was to the public, he was an absolutely virtuous man in his private life. On the other hand, Shah Jahan- known for his one great love- was actually a dissolute character- before his famous marriage and after his wife's death, he was an utter hedonist.
There were so many great loves it seems, in the Mughal court. The book also talks about Prince Salim (Jahangir's) love for Nur Jahan (who is not Shah Jahan's mother- confusingly- theere are so many wives)... Jahangir himself rebelled against Akbar, and was almost replaced by his son Khusrau- who later rebelled against J. and was killed off by his brother- who became Shah Jahan... thus continuing the line of fratricide and patricide.
Aurangazeb stretched the Mughal Empire as far as it would go. But in his intolerance he lost the trust of the Rajputs- whom the Mughals needed to govern the kingdom.... and shortly after the Mughal Empire slowly declined.
It was such a series of ups and downs - more like a novel than a history book, so full of heroes, and anti-heroes- sometimes both one and the same- their battles, their loves, their achievements- Akbar's strength- apparently enough to subdue wild elephants- Jahangir and Shah Jahan's loves, Aurangazeb's victories- which were also his failures.
Anyway, so India was full of concerts, good food and shopping. Am stunned by the number of shops and restaurants that have opened in Chennai. The place is simply booming. And also hideously expensive. Even if you convert from dollars. Or especially if you convert from dollars.
I read a lot while I was there (naturally). Started off with "Flowers for Algernon". A book that could be described as sad, but not really- if only in that it seems to ... take joy in those moments of discovery and learning, and brings out the value in every life, no matter the intelligence. Or at least that was the lesson I took from it.
Then I sat down with "India since 1526" I read only the rise and fall of the Mughals- always interesting. I was surprised by how much I hadn't learnt (or have forgotten) in History at school. For example, the number of power plays, the contradiction in the characters of each Emperor- Babur who conquered a land that he had no love for. Humayun who lost it all and never really won it again. Akbar- who came to the throne so young. The contradictions that plagued his life- in some ways the problems he faced resonate even now- in trying to forge a bi-partisan consensus (in modern parlance), he very nearly alienated his own people.
Then there was his marriage of Rajput princesses- romanticized in Jodhaa -Akbar- not so much a matter of romance as a political negotitation. His conflict with Rana Pratap- the Rana too proud to accept help, or even show respect for those who had accepted the Mughal Empire- so determined to keep his freedom, that in his pride he alienated those who would have helped him (he refused to meet with those who had married their daughters to Akbar).
Its amazing, the amount of intrigue and treachery that went on in these Mughal courts. Not one Mughal emperor seems to have made it through without his son(s) rebelling against him. Aurangazeb was probably the most famous- actually a younger son, he managed to kill and imprison his father and three brothers as he took the throne. Shockingly, as cruel as Aurangazeb was to the public, he was an absolutely virtuous man in his private life. On the other hand, Shah Jahan- known for his one great love- was actually a dissolute character- before his famous marriage and after his wife's death, he was an utter hedonist.
There were so many great loves it seems, in the Mughal court. The book also talks about Prince Salim (Jahangir's) love for Nur Jahan (who is not Shah Jahan's mother- confusingly- theere are so many wives)... Jahangir himself rebelled against Akbar, and was almost replaced by his son Khusrau- who later rebelled against J. and was killed off by his brother- who became Shah Jahan... thus continuing the line of fratricide and patricide.
Aurangazeb stretched the Mughal Empire as far as it would go. But in his intolerance he lost the trust of the Rajputs- whom the Mughals needed to govern the kingdom.... and shortly after the Mughal Empire slowly declined.
It was such a series of ups and downs - more like a novel than a history book, so full of heroes, and anti-heroes- sometimes both one and the same- their battles, their loves, their achievements- Akbar's strength- apparently enough to subdue wild elephants- Jahangir and Shah Jahan's loves, Aurangazeb's victories- which were also his failures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)