http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/an-old-debate.html
Sigh.
Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Andrew can talk as much as he wishes about paradoxes, suffering being a part of fallen creation, or of recognizing one's mortality, but I doubt he has an answer to Epicurus.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Argumentum Ad Populum
As someone who has been asked on multiple occasions whether I think I'm smarter than all the religious folks out there, this is hilarious
(From Jesus And Mo)
(From Jesus And Mo)
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
An interesting question
came across an interesting post along with comments
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/i_get_email_40.php#comments
Note that while most religious people say they want to have a discussion what they mean is Let me try to convince you , but there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind.
But before I attempt to answer the question , lets draw some boundaries. Does God exist is a different question than Does the God of my religion exist. The former is a difficult question to answer. To paraphrase Carl Sagan , it all depends on what you mean by God, if for e.g. God is love then of course God exists. The latter God of religion is an easier question to answer because we do have a definition of the God and some of his or her properties. The God of religion also makes some in theory testable assertions. The God of religion also makes some demands of us , so it is easier to examine them. Of course some religions make this harder than others. Its easier to analyze Judaism, Christianity or Islam because there are fixed doctrines. Its more difficult to analyze Hindusim or Buddhism because the doctrines aren't that fixed. Don't believe in Vishnu? Thats ok, you can still call yourself a Hindu. Don't like Shiva? Worship Kali and your fine.
Back to Nikki's question and comments. various posters in the comments have all pointed out the contradictions, the inaccuracies , the errors and the problems in religion. So I wont reiterate those here, Ill just look at the things that don't seem to be covered
She makes a common request , Why should I not believe? - Thats the wrong question (People don't need a reason to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Bertrand Russel's Flying teapot analogy proving that the onus is on the believer. The question is why should you believe? What benefits do you get.?
Lets take a look at the common answers to the what benefits does religion provide? (And Ill look at only the positive reasons , not the You'll go to hell if you don't follow my religions instructions, which are really so pathetic that I can only shake my head)
a. It either provides a set of rules or a set of guidelines that help me determine what's right and whats wrong.
b. It makes me a better person
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet
a. Religion provides us a set of guidelines and rules to determine right from wrong
Suppose Religion has a guideline that after consideration you find feels wrong. What should you do? Its clear that most of us would follow what our brain decides is the right thing. In which case how is religion any different from Aesop's fables
b. It makes me a better person
If the religion is conclusively proven false(somehow) then do you lose the betterness?
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet
Well other social tools exist, the social bit that religion promotes is normally divisive. Meet people like you, be with people like you, marry people like you, let your children play with children whose parents are like you. I'm not sure how this is a positive.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/i_get_email_40.php#comments
Note that while most religious people say they want to have a discussion what they mean is Let me try to convince you , but there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind.
But before I attempt to answer the question , lets draw some boundaries. Does God exist is a different question than Does the God of my religion exist. The former is a difficult question to answer. To paraphrase Carl Sagan , it all depends on what you mean by God, if for e.g. God is love then of course God exists. The latter God of religion is an easier question to answer because we do have a definition of the God and some of his or her properties. The God of religion also makes some in theory testable assertions. The God of religion also makes some demands of us , so it is easier to examine them. Of course some religions make this harder than others. Its easier to analyze Judaism, Christianity or Islam because there are fixed doctrines. Its more difficult to analyze Hindusim or Buddhism because the doctrines aren't that fixed. Don't believe in Vishnu? Thats ok, you can still call yourself a Hindu. Don't like Shiva? Worship Kali and your fine.
Back to Nikki's question and comments. various posters in the comments have all pointed out the contradictions, the inaccuracies , the errors and the problems in religion. So I wont reiterate those here, Ill just look at the things that don't seem to be covered
She makes a common request , Why should I not believe? - Thats the wrong question (People don't need a reason to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Bertrand Russel's Flying teapot analogy proving that the onus is on the believer. The question is why should you believe? What benefits do you get.?
Lets take a look at the common answers to the what benefits does religion provide? (And Ill look at only the positive reasons , not the You'll go to hell if you don't follow my religions instructions, which are really so pathetic that I can only shake my head)
a. It either provides a set of rules or a set of guidelines that help me determine what's right and whats wrong.
b. It makes me a better person
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet
a. Religion provides us a set of guidelines and rules to determine right from wrong
Suppose Religion has a guideline that after consideration you find feels wrong. What should you do? Its clear that most of us would follow what our brain decides is the right thing. In which case how is religion any different from Aesop's fables
b. It makes me a better person
If the religion is conclusively proven false(somehow) then do you lose the betterness?
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet
Well other social tools exist, the social bit that religion promotes is normally divisive. Meet people like you, be with people like you, marry people like you, let your children play with children whose parents are like you. I'm not sure how this is a positive.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Bachelors Recipe - Challenge
Use 1 tsp chilli powder, 1/2 tsp turmeric powder, 1 tsp cumin cumin powder, 1 tbsp coriander powder, 1/2 tsp tamarind concentrate, 1 1/4 tsp salt, and any other ingredient in normal quantities along with any vegetable of your choice and come up with a totally bland and tasteless curry.
Go!
Go!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Grant Morrison
Just finished reading Batman : R.I.P. by Morrison. I have read most of morrison's stuff , the notable exception being Invisibles and SeaGuy. Invisibles isn't available in any library and it doesn't seem to be something I want to own. R.I.P. left me with the same feeling I have when I read most of Morrison works, brilliant for the most part but ultimately there isn't a satisfying conclusion. However there are almost always moments of such excellence that make the whole experience worth the time and money. In R.I.P. there is a moment when Batman (of zur en arrh) asks Batmite "Are you really a magical imp from the 5th dimension or are you a figment of my imagination" . Batmite replies "Imagination is the 5th dimension. Some world's greatest detective you are' . For a line like that , I'd buy the entire book. Elegant and new.
A common feature of most of Morrison's work is that there is always something new , some experiment or the other. Not all work , Not all I understand, but I'm happy he tries.
A common feature of most of Morrison's work is that there is always something new , some experiment or the other. Not all work , Not all I understand, but I'm happy he tries.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Bits and Pieces
via cricinfo regarding the IPL
Amar from India faces a conundrum. "My dad (an army officer) is from Rajasthan, my
mother is from punjab. I was born in Hyderabad, grew up in Chennai and Bangalore. Went to college in Kolkota and work in Mumbai.
Who do i support? Delhi?"
which summarises both the diversity and the love of cricket in India.
Watched Star Trek, loved seeing Nimoy even in his two bit role and wished that Kirk and McCoy could have both made cameos, except that McCoy has passed away. Didnt like Sylar's portrayal of Spock even though he looked like the spitting image of Spock, he played the role with too much arrogance and contempt. Whereas Spock was only logical. Spock had both impassivity and the hint of amusement in his eyes when he wished to display arrogance. Ah well maybe this is the start and Sylar intended to play Spock this well , and we will see the journey of Spock becoming Spock.
Chris Pine has none of the charm and the swashbuckling looks that Shatner had, nor does he ham as badly as Shatner, but what the heck i miss shatner hamming it too. And yeah Bones is sorely missed. But I still liked the movie as a start and I hope the next one is better, which reminds me , its time to put a hold on the wrath of khan!.
A lot of talk about Miss California having the right to her opinion. Ofcourse she does and ofcourse we have the right to laugh at her stupidity and judge her it. Wanton ignorance combined with prejudice , ah well, nature compensates.
And the Congress wins in India , hopefully will have some young uncorrupt folks who will do some good. One can hope
And more examples against a personal God, but the tragedy is not mine , so I will not mention it here. Suffice to say I wish all the remaining happiness in the world to a dear friend of mine, and I hope it doesnt happen to anyone else in this world.
Amar from India faces a conundrum. "My dad (an army officer) is from Rajasthan, my
mother is from punjab. I was born in Hyderabad, grew up in Chennai and Bangalore. Went to college in Kolkota and work in Mumbai.
Who do i support? Delhi?"
which summarises both the diversity and the love of cricket in India.
Watched Star Trek, loved seeing Nimoy even in his two bit role and wished that Kirk and McCoy could have both made cameos, except that McCoy has passed away. Didnt like Sylar's portrayal of Spock even though he looked like the spitting image of Spock, he played the role with too much arrogance and contempt. Whereas Spock was only logical. Spock had both impassivity and the hint of amusement in his eyes when he wished to display arrogance. Ah well maybe this is the start and Sylar intended to play Spock this well , and we will see the journey of Spock becoming Spock.
Chris Pine has none of the charm and the swashbuckling looks that Shatner had, nor does he ham as badly as Shatner, but what the heck i miss shatner hamming it too. And yeah Bones is sorely missed. But I still liked the movie as a start and I hope the next one is better, which reminds me , its time to put a hold on the wrath of khan!.
A lot of talk about Miss California having the right to her opinion. Ofcourse she does and ofcourse we have the right to laugh at her stupidity and judge her it. Wanton ignorance combined with prejudice , ah well, nature compensates.
And the Congress wins in India , hopefully will have some young uncorrupt folks who will do some good. One can hope
And more examples against a personal God, but the tragedy is not mine , so I will not mention it here. Suffice to say I wish all the remaining happiness in the world to a dear friend of mine, and I hope it doesnt happen to anyone else in this world.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The things God could do...
All religion (well almost all of them) involve God interfering umm interacting with humans in some form or the other. All religion also uniformly assert God is good and cares about you.
So note the video below applies to all religion's not just the one its targetted to.
I wonder how the religious justify a loving , caring God
So note the video below applies to all religion's not just the one its targetted to.
I wonder how the religious justify a loving , caring God
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Everybody has a Broken Link
True story
Tester : I need to get a report of broken links on the site
Lead : The report is available on WebTrends.
Tester : Ok, I need to verify the report is correct, Can I have a list of broken links?
Me : Umm , you can just type any url that doesn't exist like dev/web/XYZ and you should get a broken link that you can see on the report.
Tester : Ok, I see. So do you have a list of all the urls like /XYZ that I can use?
Tester : I need to get a report of broken links on the site
Lead : The report is available on WebTrends.
Tester : Ok, I need to verify the report is correct, Can I have a list of broken links?
Me : Umm , you can just type any url that doesn't exist like dev/web/XYZ and you should get a broken link that you can see on the report.
Tester : Ok, I see. So do you have a list of all the urls like /XYZ that I can use?
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Who watches the watchmen
So I watched the movie, and even though it is a faithful reproduction of the book , it's nowhere near as great as the book. Also watched Hugh Laurie/Stephen Fry in Jeeves and Wooster which is also faithful and well enacted , but nowhere near as good as the P.G. Wodehouse book it has adapted and I wonder whats the difference?
And I guess, for me atleast , its because of the innate superiority of the book medium over the movie medium, which in no particular order are
1) You have to use your imagination. No matter how good a director or actor is, no matter how good the special effects are , your imagination can always beat them. And the visual drawn form will always be better than the real life actors. Ozymandias in the comics looked as he should. In the movie , he just looks weird/funny. They say in comics, whats not shown between the panels has to be as good as what is shown , because the reader fills in those gaps. However in a movie you are normally shown most of it. Some directors like Hitchcock excelled in what a good comic does so beautifully, what is not shown can be as terrifying or as beautiful as what is.
2) You can read at your own speed. You can read it again immediately, you can flip back anytime. Perhaps you can do this with a recorded movie but its not the same (and everyone knows to get the real experience , you have to go to a theatre). While reading watchmen , I had to pause and reread multiple pages. I didn't the significance of the Reverse symmetry chapter till I read the annotations online. I had to reread the Ozymandias dialog at the end. I had to reread the rorshachs origin. I had to reread Rorshachs death. Everytime I read a P.G. Wodehouse book, I would pause and laugh before continuing to read. Some of the scene descriptions are hilarious which are ofcourse absent from the serial.
3) Some books are serialized and continue for years, and are multilayered (like Sandman, Lucifer). While some movies can make the same claim , they rarely have the same scope. The multilayering aspect too is pretty much limited. TV series could have made the same claim , but there are precious few. Truthfully there are few books that do the above though.
And I guess, for me atleast , its because of the innate superiority of the book medium over the movie medium, which in no particular order are
1) You have to use your imagination. No matter how good a director or actor is, no matter how good the special effects are , your imagination can always beat them. And the visual drawn form will always be better than the real life actors. Ozymandias in the comics looked as he should. In the movie , he just looks weird/funny. They say in comics, whats not shown between the panels has to be as good as what is shown , because the reader fills in those gaps. However in a movie you are normally shown most of it. Some directors like Hitchcock excelled in what a good comic does so beautifully, what is not shown can be as terrifying or as beautiful as what is.
2) You can read at your own speed. You can read it again immediately, you can flip back anytime. Perhaps you can do this with a recorded movie but its not the same (and everyone knows to get the real experience , you have to go to a theatre). While reading watchmen , I had to pause and reread multiple pages. I didn't the significance of the Reverse symmetry chapter till I read the annotations online. I had to reread the Ozymandias dialog at the end. I had to reread the rorshachs origin. I had to reread Rorshachs death. Everytime I read a P.G. Wodehouse book, I would pause and laugh before continuing to read. Some of the scene descriptions are hilarious which are ofcourse absent from the serial.
3) Some books are serialized and continue for years, and are multilayered (like Sandman, Lucifer). While some movies can make the same claim , they rarely have the same scope. The multilayering aspect too is pretty much limited. TV series could have made the same claim , but there are precious few. Truthfully there are few books that do the above though.
Monday, February 16, 2009
100
(Not a sequel to Frank Miller's book)
And so a landmark post, which was meant to represent a new writing beginning. This blog originated as a way to write (based on Neil Gaiman's recommendation that the first thing any budding writer should do is actuall write) anything, so that I could see what I liked and disliked about my own writing. If I read the earlier posts , I find them much funnier than the latter ones (or atleast attempt to be funny). I see that most of time is spent writing about
a. Books especially Comics
b. Religion
c. Sports
d. Politics.
So a summary of what has been so far
Books! The only place where we get to see dialogue like
Monk : Seek not revenge, Seek the Buddha instead
Fox : the monk told me to seek the Buddha instead of vengeance
Dream King: That is good advice. Vengeance is a never ending path. And..?
Fox : I shall seek the Buddha....But first, I shall seek revenge!
And she does ofcourse.
Though in someways there are fewer good books and a lot more mediocre ones than what I remember. Perhaps I have read all the great ones already.
And there is no thrill of the hunt. When we had no money and had to raid the various raddi shops, a single book gave a lot of happiness (and rereads). But now when I can afford most books, the thrill of the search is gone , as are the rereads. There was a time I knew the number and cover of every comic I had, and now I cant remember which friend has my books.
But there is hope, I've introduced Lucifer to a new comics reader, which thrilled me.
Religion
I think the headline of my blog sums this up
while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
Ive often been asked (by the same person) why I dwell so much on religion if I dislike it so. And the answer has always been because it affects me!. And among the major problems faced by society , religion is probably in the top 10.
Perhaps the thing that irritates me the most about religion is the hypocrisy. (e.g. oh our religion teaches us to be humble, but you'll are all wrong only my religion is correct, or oh you need religion to tell you what is moral, you disbelievers are immoral, and the followers of my religion who are immoral, well they aren't real followers,or oh look at that religion , its so funny , how could people believe in something so stupid, oh my religion? all of the funny unbelievable things are miracles. or oh look at all the violent stuff in that religion? the violent stuff in my religion? thats only descriptive/thats a metaphor/ dont take everything literally or...) That was meant to be one example.
Its also that some conclusions are inescapable. If your religious God is Good(any commonly accepted definition of good), and is capable of making a difference or a change and chooses not to (and we know from all the religious tomes that he is capable of making differences) , then he can't be Good. Whenever Im told of how some God actually healed the sick, Im reminded of a comment, So you have this omnipotent God, who can cure, actually cure people with a touch but chooses to do so only to a select few people, how good could he be?
Any road (thanks Robbo) to conclude with an anecdote
When Captain Sullenberger was asked whether he prayed during the Hudson river landing,he said something to the effect of "I was busy taking care of the plane. I was pretty sure that the passengers were taking care of the praying."
Sports
Being in a country obsessed more with the show then with the sport and with one of the absolute worst sports in the history of mankind, has dampened the enthusiasm for sports. Oh for the days of watching cricket and a little english premier league football, some golf, some NBA, and look there's even a kabbadi match, some tennis, some hockey .. sigh.. Im down to why the heck does cricinfo not refresh faster! how about some AJAX,you useless developer!!!
Politics
The only thing that leaves a worse taste in your mouth than religion (hey we aren't discussing my cooking so it doesnt count). It's sad to see that American politicians are as bad and in some cases worse than their Indian counterparts. If I ever approve of the death penalty, it will be because some politician is on trial.
And so a landmark post, which was meant to represent a new writing beginning. This blog originated as a way to write (based on Neil Gaiman's recommendation that the first thing any budding writer should do is actuall write) anything, so that I could see what I liked and disliked about my own writing. If I read the earlier posts , I find them much funnier than the latter ones (or atleast attempt to be funny). I see that most of time is spent writing about
a. Books especially Comics
b. Religion
c. Sports
d. Politics.
So a summary of what has been so far
Books! The only place where we get to see dialogue like
Monk : Seek not revenge, Seek the Buddha instead
Fox : the monk told me to seek the Buddha instead of vengeance
Dream King: That is good advice. Vengeance is a never ending path. And..?
Fox : I shall seek the Buddha....But first, I shall seek revenge!
And she does ofcourse.
Though in someways there are fewer good books and a lot more mediocre ones than what I remember. Perhaps I have read all the great ones already.
And there is no thrill of the hunt. When we had no money and had to raid the various raddi shops, a single book gave a lot of happiness (and rereads). But now when I can afford most books, the thrill of the search is gone , as are the rereads. There was a time I knew the number and cover of every comic I had, and now I cant remember which friend has my books.
But there is hope, I've introduced Lucifer to a new comics reader, which thrilled me.
Religion
I think the headline of my blog sums this up
while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
Ive often been asked (by the same person) why I dwell so much on religion if I dislike it so. And the answer has always been because it affects me!. And among the major problems faced by society , religion is probably in the top 10.
Perhaps the thing that irritates me the most about religion is the hypocrisy. (e.g. oh our religion teaches us to be humble, but you'll are all wrong only my religion is correct, or oh you need religion to tell you what is moral, you disbelievers are immoral, and the followers of my religion who are immoral, well they aren't real followers,or oh look at that religion , its so funny , how could people believe in something so stupid, oh my religion? all of the funny unbelievable things are miracles. or oh look at all the violent stuff in that religion? the violent stuff in my religion? thats only descriptive/thats a metaphor/ dont take everything literally or...) That was meant to be one example.
Its also that some conclusions are inescapable. If your religious God is Good(any commonly accepted definition of good), and is capable of making a difference or a change and chooses not to (and we know from all the religious tomes that he is capable of making differences) , then he can't be Good. Whenever Im told of how some God actually healed the sick, Im reminded of a comment, So you have this omnipotent God, who can cure, actually cure people with a touch but chooses to do so only to a select few people, how good could he be?
Any road (thanks Robbo) to conclude with an anecdote
When Captain Sullenberger was asked whether he prayed during the Hudson river landing,he said something to the effect of "I was busy taking care of the plane. I was pretty sure that the passengers were taking care of the praying."
Sports
Being in a country obsessed more with the show then with the sport and with one of the absolute worst sports in the history of mankind, has dampened the enthusiasm for sports. Oh for the days of watching cricket and a little english premier league football, some golf, some NBA, and look there's even a kabbadi match, some tennis, some hockey .. sigh.. Im down to why the heck does cricinfo not refresh faster! how about some AJAX,you useless developer!!!
Politics
The only thing that leaves a worse taste in your mouth than religion (hey we aren't discussing my cooking so it doesnt count). It's sad to see that American politicians are as bad and in some cases worse than their Indian counterparts. If I ever approve of the death penalty, it will be because some politician is on trial.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Bachelors Recipe - 2 - Barbecue Flavored Aloo Bhindis
a) Step 1 Find a suitable recipe invoving aloo and bhindi using google. Bonus points for entries with terms like 'no recipes that require a lot of effort and hardwork' (http://thelaidbackcook.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/aloo-bhindi/)
b) Follow the steps in the recipe to the letter except use less oil and a slightly screwed up non stick pan.
c) Keep cooking till a thick black layer forms at the bottom. This will give the Bhindi its smoky barbecue flavor.
Enjoy!
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Reviews
For a change the movies I have watched and the books that i have bought and read have turned out to be surprisingly very good beginning with
Mumbai Meri Jaan : A typical slice of life movie woven around the serial train blasts in Mumbai. Typical characters , cliched even but not completely typical or cliched. Sickeningly sweet in bits , the movie is still acted out very well and has a semi realistic story. And of course to hear at the end yeh hain BOMBAY meri jaan still pleases me.
Rock On : A movie that tries very hard to be Dil Chahta hain and doesn't succeed but is still very watchable and has a new look cast which has acted decently. Completely predictable but a polished execution and a friends apart coming back together for a competition story keeps your attention. Th music with its silly lyrics(kyon aasman hain neela , paani kyon lagta hain gila??) has a very authentic feel to it and you cant help but sing along. And it looks like Farhan Akhtar is always associated with quality products (I also just saw Positive on youtube).
Oh and I almost forgot , a first in Hindi movies(well except for Ardh Satya), there is a character who is named Shetty and who isn't a gangster. Will wonders never cease?
Star Trek : The Original Series : Season 1 : I remember Star Trek as this action packed , ultra cool sci fi adventure series that we eagerly looked to watch every week on doordarshan. It comes as a surprise then to see almost no action, William Shatner hamming all the time, great special effects which consist of tilting the camera to show the enterprise shaking, and a toy model of the starship every time it goes through space. Spock is not Spock yet. But the episodes are still charming and I still love seeing them because it's still better than the stuff that gets put out these days.
Jon Stewart on Comedy Central : It is a statement about America, that the best political reporting is coming out on a humor show. Watch Jon Stewart demolish Karl Rove, Bill O 'Reilly among other republican partisans and also the reformed maverick John McCain. And wonder why these aren't Democratric ad's on TV.
Hitman/ JLA : I remember reading the first Hitman / Bloodlines event and it being ho hum , till Hitman got his own series , and we got a copy of the first hitman collection through vicky. And oh wow, it was simply great. I picked up the other collections when I could and Garth Ennis easily tops Preacher in Hitman. And he returns to Hitman in this two parter and it has Action/Humor/Sentiment and all done very very well. What can I say , except , Tommy was here too!.
Mumbai Meri Jaan : A typical slice of life movie woven around the serial train blasts in Mumbai. Typical characters , cliched even but not completely typical or cliched. Sickeningly sweet in bits , the movie is still acted out very well and has a semi realistic story. And of course to hear at the end yeh hain BOMBAY meri jaan still pleases me.
Rock On : A movie that tries very hard to be Dil Chahta hain and doesn't succeed but is still very watchable and has a new look cast which has acted decently. Completely predictable but a polished execution and a friends apart coming back together for a competition story keeps your attention. Th music with its silly lyrics(kyon aasman hain neela , paani kyon lagta hain gila??) has a very authentic feel to it and you cant help but sing along. And it looks like Farhan Akhtar is always associated with quality products (I also just saw Positive on youtube).
Oh and I almost forgot , a first in Hindi movies(well except for Ardh Satya), there is a character who is named Shetty and who isn't a gangster. Will wonders never cease?
Star Trek : The Original Series : Season 1 : I remember Star Trek as this action packed , ultra cool sci fi adventure series that we eagerly looked to watch every week on doordarshan. It comes as a surprise then to see almost no action, William Shatner hamming all the time, great special effects which consist of tilting the camera to show the enterprise shaking, and a toy model of the starship every time it goes through space. Spock is not Spock yet. But the episodes are still charming and I still love seeing them because it's still better than the stuff that gets put out these days.
Jon Stewart on Comedy Central : It is a statement about America, that the best political reporting is coming out on a humor show. Watch Jon Stewart demolish Karl Rove, Bill O 'Reilly among other republican partisans and also the reformed maverick John McCain. And wonder why these aren't Democratric ad's on TV.
Hitman/ JLA : I remember reading the first Hitman / Bloodlines event and it being ho hum , till Hitman got his own series , and we got a copy of the first hitman collection through vicky. And oh wow, it was simply great. I picked up the other collections when I could and Garth Ennis easily tops Preacher in Hitman. And he returns to Hitman in this two parter and it has Action/Humor/Sentiment and all done very very well. What can I say , except , Tommy was here too!.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Married SuperMen
There is a storyline that just finished in the SpiderMan book's where they ret conned his entire marriage , as part of his attempt to save his aunt, Peter Parker cuts a deal with the devil of the marvel universe and is no longer married to M.J. and does not know that he was ever married to her(yes , some comics are still that silly). Anyway some of the fans were in uproar and since this seemed to be an editorial driven story, Joe Quesada said he doesnt like the concept of married super heroes, and that there is no story he can tell with a married superhero that he can't tell with an unmarried one, but there are plenty of stories he can tell with an unmarried superhero that he can't with a married one.
And I think , that he is ofcourse talking rubbish. When Clark Kent married Lois Lane, i had to get Craig's mother , then on a cruise, to stop at a port and buy me the wedding of Superman comic book , and it was too good. It was sentimental, mushy , it had all the writers and artists of the comic book present at the wedding , and it was fun. And now it is tough to imagine an unmarried Superman, and the stories havent suffered much (though there are still bad superman stories as there always were). And if you ever read Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow story, that really is a perfect send off for superman, the way superman should end, and what do you know, in the end he is married to Lois Lane with kids. Some things are just meant to be.
Batman though is a different character. You would never expect or want to see him married and settled down with kids. Batman is an obsessive character and remove the obsession and he no longer is the same character. Batman is the loner.
And so it's not a question of how many different types of stories you can tell (someone has said there are only 7 seven types of unique stories in the word and everything else is a mixture of the 7 in varying degrees) , but it is how well you can tell them. Keith giffen and J.M. de matteis used humour to depict The elongated man and Sue dibny and it worked, till Brad Meltzer , for reason's best known to him killed off Sue. But if you read the next mini by Keith and J.M. written after Identity Crisis but placed before Identity Crisis timewise (yes comics are still that confusing) where you as a reader know that Sue will die but the characters themselves don't , it was both funny and touching and bittersweet , and how many stories can claim to be all of those?
And if you read 52, with a suicidal Ralph, who is finally reunited with Sue, oh wow, what an end , and a new beginning,try telling that story , Mr Quesada, with an unmarried superhero.
the problem with the comics though is that they run for a long long time. and just like any soap opera that has outlived its welcome, the writers try to find new (old) ways to shock the audience and get them interested again. And unfortunately all are cliches (infidelity. misunderstandings over infidelity, death, divorce, memory loss, etc etc.) and all of these solutions taint the characters. Can you imagine clark kent divorcing his wife? No? how about we kill her off then? get a new romantic interest and a new wedding? would sure boost up sales!
and I guess that's why Vertigo with it's mostly finite in time stories which have a beginning middle and end , turn out to be written so much better than the unlimited batman/superman.
And I think , that he is ofcourse talking rubbish. When Clark Kent married Lois Lane, i had to get Craig's mother , then on a cruise, to stop at a port and buy me the wedding of Superman comic book , and it was too good. It was sentimental, mushy , it had all the writers and artists of the comic book present at the wedding , and it was fun. And now it is tough to imagine an unmarried Superman, and the stories havent suffered much (though there are still bad superman stories as there always were). And if you ever read Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow story, that really is a perfect send off for superman, the way superman should end, and what do you know, in the end he is married to Lois Lane with kids. Some things are just meant to be.
Batman though is a different character. You would never expect or want to see him married and settled down with kids. Batman is an obsessive character and remove the obsession and he no longer is the same character. Batman is the loner.
And so it's not a question of how many different types of stories you can tell (someone has said there are only 7 seven types of unique stories in the word and everything else is a mixture of the 7 in varying degrees) , but it is how well you can tell them. Keith giffen and J.M. de matteis used humour to depict The elongated man and Sue dibny and it worked, till Brad Meltzer , for reason's best known to him killed off Sue. But if you read the next mini by Keith and J.M. written after Identity Crisis but placed before Identity Crisis timewise (yes comics are still that confusing) where you as a reader know that Sue will die but the characters themselves don't , it was both funny and touching and bittersweet , and how many stories can claim to be all of those?
And if you read 52, with a suicidal Ralph, who is finally reunited with Sue, oh wow, what an end , and a new beginning,try telling that story , Mr Quesada, with an unmarried superhero.
the problem with the comics though is that they run for a long long time. and just like any soap opera that has outlived its welcome, the writers try to find new (old) ways to shock the audience and get them interested again. And unfortunately all are cliches (infidelity. misunderstandings over infidelity, death, divorce, memory loss, etc etc.) and all of these solutions taint the characters. Can you imagine clark kent divorcing his wife? No? how about we kill her off then? get a new romantic interest and a new wedding? would sure boost up sales!
and I guess that's why Vertigo with it's mostly finite in time stories which have a beginning middle and end , turn out to be written so much better than the unlimited batman/superman.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Kingdom Come
For those who have read Kingdom Come and marvelled(!) at the art , only to realise on subsequent readings that what made this book great was not (just) the artwork , but the writing and the story, here's a tale for us
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17538
Expect this article to make sense only after you've read Kingdom Come.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17538
Expect this article to make sense only after you've read Kingdom Come.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Identity
We had a conversation a few days back, all the desi's about a certain gentleman , born and raised in America, to Indian parents who disliked being mistaken for an Indian. Anecdotes were recounted when people thought him to be Indian , and they were brusquely put into their place. He wears his Americanism on his sleeve , or should we say he wears his star's and striped chaddis!. And then we wondered why this is so. Various explanations were given. For us who have lived the first part of their life in India, we probably never will give that up even if some take up American citizenship. But for those born here its different? Perhaps its the parents fault , they force their child to experience Indian culture whatever it means. Children grow up to be confused - ABCD's. Perhaps its the fact that being Indian has a negative image here (poverty, dirty, illiteracy, corruption, etc.) Perhaps its the fact that your peers shun you as different. Even children are sometimes surprisingly cruel (perhaps unintentionally) to children who differ from them. Who knows. And one guy went so far as to say , that we are discussing this about someone , one day it will be our kid who is like this or if not perhaps our grandchildren. I laughed and said that I'm like this guy if anyone asks me from where i am , I always say Bombay! and if they say your manglorean , I always say nah my parents are from there, I'm from Bombay!
But I wonder about this culture thing. What is one's culture? Where do you draw the line ? 1 generation? A 100 years? Like everything else ( ideals, values, ethics) , people are selective about what they perceive as their culture. Things they want to do or they want the their children to do , culture. Things they don't , well times were backward and we've progressed now, what to do times are like that only any reason will do , any excuse. Reminds me of traditional day in college, people wearing clothes a couple of generations old and asking me why I'm still in jeans an formal shirt. Always said , that's always been my tradition, if i go back far enough to find out what my ancestors wore traditionally , I wont be able to wear anything. but that always got me the this guys so weird look.
And whats Identity? Why do we identify ourselves as Indian, American or whatever?
Does the place in the infinite universe where I was born due to pure luck define my identity?
Does being an Indian define me? or my views or my values? I doubt it. Or only to the extent the environment around you influences you. Why is it that people see nationalism as a good thing?
It isn't and you only have to see , that like religion and race, nationality can be used to justify any sin, any violent activity, any war. Your nation is at war , you have to support your soldier's everything else is secondary. Right and wrong? who cares.
What comprises identity? And why isn't it sufficient to say my views, my values, my ideals , my deeds? Why do we have to add my gender , or my race, or my religion or my country or my sexual orientation?
As a side note this is the signature from an email from an American(heh)
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American,and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also,isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'Theodore Roosevelt 1907
And it is tempting to ask , why did you'll not practise what you'll preached? I'm sure the native American would have appreciated it!. And it's funny to see the definition of an American.
The flag, the language and the loyalty.
Maybe some day we will understand that the earth is far bigger than a country and the universe is far bigger than the earth. And all of this , culture, country is far too small for beings with imagination.
But I wonder about this culture thing. What is one's culture? Where do you draw the line ? 1 generation? A 100 years? Like everything else ( ideals, values, ethics) , people are selective about what they perceive as their culture. Things they want to do or they want the their children to do , culture. Things they don't , well times were backward and we've progressed now, what to do times are like that only any reason will do , any excuse. Reminds me of traditional day in college, people wearing clothes a couple of generations old and asking me why I'm still in jeans an formal shirt. Always said , that's always been my tradition, if i go back far enough to find out what my ancestors wore traditionally , I wont be able to wear anything. but that always got me the this guys so weird look.
And whats Identity? Why do we identify ourselves as Indian, American or whatever?
Does the place in the infinite universe where I was born due to pure luck define my identity?
Does being an Indian define me? or my views or my values? I doubt it. Or only to the extent the environment around you influences you. Why is it that people see nationalism as a good thing?
It isn't and you only have to see , that like religion and race, nationality can be used to justify any sin, any violent activity, any war. Your nation is at war , you have to support your soldier's everything else is secondary. Right and wrong? who cares.
What comprises identity? And why isn't it sufficient to say my views, my values, my ideals , my deeds? Why do we have to add my gender , or my race, or my religion or my country or my sexual orientation?
As a side note this is the signature from an email from an American(heh)
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American,and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also,isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'Theodore Roosevelt 1907
And it is tempting to ask , why did you'll not practise what you'll preached? I'm sure the native American would have appreciated it!. And it's funny to see the definition of an American.
The flag, the language and the loyalty.
Maybe some day we will understand that the earth is far bigger than a country and the universe is far bigger than the earth. And all of this , culture, country is far too small for beings with imagination.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
On writing
I finished reading Fables , The Good Prince and like all the fables volumes so far , what an amazing read. After reading the story about the tragic Christmas gift given to the Frog Prince, what a followup. The story has this underlying sorrow running through it, you know things are not going to end well, but there will be a brief period of sunshine and everything about this tale is done correctly , and that includes the ending as well. And it makes me think what makes a story great? Or rather what about a story's telling makes it great? If i look at frog prince lets see , A good guy's family is tragically killed and he embarks on a quest to make it right, his way (and no , fable's is not an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie). Seen this multiple times and in various ways, but fable's rises above all of them. I guess it is the ability of the writer to make us care about the characters. And I think the best guys are able to no matter what character they write. Bill Willingham did it in Fables. Mike Carey is another writer who was able to make the readers care about Lucifer , while not changing the character in any way at all. And Carey is able to do it , no matter what characters he writes. Whether its Frankie in my Faith in Frankie, Or Jen in Re-gifters or Tash in Confessions of a Blabbermouth or Constantine in Hellblazer, when you read the story you care about them (Did I just admit to liking the lead characters in two chic-lits?)
Greg Rucka is another such writer, i can't remember ever bothering about wonder woman , except when Rucka was doing the writing. Same character , same powers, but when Rucka writes you care. Surprisingly If I take a look back at the previous buy on sight Author's (Moore, Gaiman, Miller) they don't share this quality as much. Gaiman and Moore both wrote interesting concepts and idea's which were new/original. Miller was always tough guys being tough, which gets a bit old after a while. I wonder if my reading tastes are changing to preferring character driven stories instead of plot driven?
But anyway this was meant to be about writing. Oh and I would so like to write characters that people would care about , but I think I can't, because I can't invent any, I usually have to base them on people I know (An elf named ... !). At which time it is difficult to change their personality, because that would be in some ways cheating . I think it was Moore who said that you should always write what you would like to read, because that way you are at least guaranteed one satisfied reader. which reminds me I have to complete a story , well not complete, update!
Greg Rucka is another such writer, i can't remember ever bothering about wonder woman , except when Rucka was doing the writing. Same character , same powers, but when Rucka writes you care. Surprisingly If I take a look back at the previous buy on sight Author's (Moore, Gaiman, Miller) they don't share this quality as much. Gaiman and Moore both wrote interesting concepts and idea's which were new/original. Miller was always tough guys being tough, which gets a bit old after a while. I wonder if my reading tastes are changing to preferring character driven stories instead of plot driven?
But anyway this was meant to be about writing. Oh and I would so like to write characters that people would care about , but I think I can't, because I can't invent any, I usually have to base them on people I know (An elf named ... !). At which time it is difficult to change their personality, because that would be in some ways cheating . I think it was Moore who said that you should always write what you would like to read, because that way you are at least guaranteed one satisfied reader. which reminds me I have to complete a story , well not complete, update!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A religious anecdote
From A History of God
There is a story that in Auschwitz(during the Holocaust) a group of jews enacted out a trial, accusing God of cruelty and betrayal. They found no consolation in the normal explanations of pain and suffering. They found no extenuating circumstances for God and so they found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The Rabbi pronounced the verdict, then looked up and said the trial was over : It was time for the evening prayer.
I wonder what would differ in the lessons people(religious v/s non religious) would learn from this anecdote.
There is a story that in Auschwitz(during the Holocaust) a group of jews enacted out a trial, accusing God of cruelty and betrayal. They found no consolation in the normal explanations of pain and suffering. They found no extenuating circumstances for God and so they found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The Rabbi pronounced the verdict, then looked up and said the trial was over : It was time for the evening prayer.
I wonder what would differ in the lessons people(religious v/s non religious) would learn from this anecdote.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)