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.

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.

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.

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.

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...