A comment on a commentary

Reading a friend’s blog made me write this. It’s a kinda blog that you would appreciate if you know the person. Did I say appreciate? Lemme clarify – I don’t appreciate the person for writing the blog, it’s the appreciation of the blog for being an honest reflection of a hopeless effort!

The blog can most certainly be categorized as ‘arbit’ thoughts of an ‘arbit’ person. (Frankly, one really doesn’t expect anything more from the blog). That which defies any sorta categorization is the comments posted on the blog. It’s got as much masala as a typical Bollywood movie! (Is Mumbai growing on me?)

Fights?? – You’ve got war out here, war of words! If words can kill, d blog can claim a few deaths! Nope, they never get tired of it - Saas Bahu would be put to shame!
Life threats? – oh yes! Readers question the blogger’s very existence!
Re-unions? Why not! Perfect strangers bonding on the comments section! Can you beat that?
Songs? If songs = irrelevance, then we have loads of it. None (nearly J )of the comments even remotely relate to the blog posted
Did I miss communal attacks?

Well, in short the comments section add colour to the blog (something that the blog otherwise lacks :P )

P.S. I guess I’ve added another feature of Bollywood to it by actually writing a review on it J

I get to choose who ‘I’ am

Isn’t that wonderful! ‘I’ could be anyone under the sun! I get to chose my name, my nationality, my appearance, my traits, my family, my profession…………‘I’ could be anybody! And, the world… the world…looks at me (and everything else) through my very own eyes! In short, I script my life! (quite literally)

Yup, I’m a writer who uses narrative style of writing. ‘I’ could a little girl in ‘To kill a Mocking Bird’, ‘I’ could be an ungrateful friend in ‘Kite Runner’, ‘I’ could be a telepath (with a dripping nose) in ‘Midnight Children’….. ‘I’could just be anybody!

I (as in I, Nithya) have always been fascinated by the power of writing – the power to penetrate the minds of the readers and tell the world my story. But to get to choose who ‘I’ am is akin to playing God.

And, now on to the ‘I’s of the world of literature. The ‘I’s normally get to play the ‘bad’, the ‘weak’ and the ‘less than perfects’. The ‘I’s generally avoid the ‘greatest’, the strongest’ or the ‘best’. And, this according to me is a very sound strategy. The ‘I’s are normally placed along side the central character. This makes the contrast apparent and tends to magnify the heroics of the latter.

If I claim to be the greatest – chances are that you may not be believe me. And, the more I try to drive my point, the greater would be your resistance. But I claim someone else to be the greatest, and as a display of my sincerity, take you through my thoughts, there is a very high chance that you would be convinced. And, my success as a writer (‘I’ play a writer here! Yes!) depends on my convincing powers – my ability to make the world see what I want them to see.
Irony and satire are other effective tools that writers use (‘I’ am a reader, here).

It should be really exciting to try some of these styles

Men’s tennis – Nothing American about it!

On watching Roddick’s game, made me ponder on the slump of American tennis (men’s tennis, to be specific). Roddick playing the shots from the baseline, reminded me so much of Agassi! Similarities between two players of contrasting styles?? Well, yes.

There’s an old school of thought in tennis which goes “Never aim for hitting the ball on the line. There is no difference between hitting the ball 6-inches of the line and on the line. The former is lot safer.”

That’s the way the Americans play their tennis. Roddick over does it and hits the ball some 2 feet away from the sidelines! Agassi never used to go for the kill (I remember as a kid, sitting in front of the television, routing this charming guy with a beautiful ‘duck walk’, screaming ‘Finish it’!!! but Alas! That was not to be!). Sampras is known for setting up the point (his game anyways is on the verge of extinction - serve & volley. Thanks to the slower courts and heavier balls)

Well, the game as evolved and with the ‘Challenges’ being introduced in the slams, the shots are getting bolder all the time. Depth is the ‘in thing’! Further, the Americans never work on the ‘angles’. ‘Angles’ is the new mantra for scoring points! And, the Germans, Spaniards, Serbs, ….all of them are experimenting with it (well, our own Sania is doing her bit as well).

Well, at the moment the Americans are content winning the Davis Cup!!!

The Incredible third round matches at Australian Open

Well, what an exciting tournament Aus Open 2008 is turning out to be. One couldn’t have asked for a better start. The early rounds witnessed a series of breathtaking 5-setters, with Federer – Tipsarevic match toping the list. Roddick – Kohlschreiber turning out to be a gud one as well.

One cannot forget the incredible shots that Kohlschreiber played when he broke Roddick for one final time in the fifth set. And, on his part Roddick did what he does best (rather, whatever he can). He served at 230 km/hr everytime he was down a break point.

Federer was a bit out of touch. His backhand ‘down the line’ never once failed the net, his forehand lacked the its usual grandeur but his serve helped him keep the match alive. Fedex realizing that he was losing the rallies would serve 4 aces a game and then wait for an opportunity in the Tipsarevic serve. Fedex served some 40 plus aces in the match.

And, when it mattered…when came down to a decisive break in the 5th set, Fedex almost magically raised his game (How many many times have we seen him do that!!). He stepped up the pedal and broke Tipsarevic from a seemingly impossible position. Tips was leading 40-0 on his serve before Fedex spun his magic web, from which Tips never managed to wriggle out. Amazing winners from Fedex’s racquet and an error from Tips’s set the match up for the former. And, one decisive judgment error took the match away from Tips.

It would be very interesting to know how much can he actually be pushed! It’s very unfortunate that Fedex doesn’t really have a competitor who can push him to his limits. A competitor who can match him for shots, serve and the ‘mental toughness’!! Wishful thinking!

Coming back to the Australian Open, an important question is how long can the dark horses keep up the momentum…..well, Kohlschreiber had already run out of steam in the fourth round.

The top seeds (Roddick excluded) struggling in the early rounds should not be construed as lack of form. The early rounds are a bit tricky, but the top seeds would find their feet soon. I’m sure we would get to see the best of Fedex in the semis and the finals.

Are Revolutions Justified...........

Are Revolutions justified? I mean the very event. Is History justified in glorifying these revolutions?

Well, to answer the second question, glorification in History needs no justification. Anything that creates an impact is sufficient reason to be glorified. Causes and reasons (howsoever remote) are superimposed on the event to portray a holistic picture and passed on from one generation to another.

Coming back to the first one, are revolutions justified? Let’s take the instance of French Revolution. The overthrow of monarchy resulted in as much as 800 Frenchmen were guillotined in a day! And, around 15,000 people were executed under the Guillotine for mere political actions or opinions. Riots and violence continued unabated for two long years. The Girondin-led National Convention, Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety and the Thermidorian Reaction had all resulted in abuse of power. It was indeed a ‘reign of terror’. Can a ‘reign of terror’ be preferred over monarchy?

And, the French Revolution served no purpose since the reign of terror was followed by 15 years of military regime under Napoleon Bonaparte.

May be, but for the French Revolution, France would have had a much smoother transition. Revolutions are mere evolutions. In most cases, its simply transfer of power. Revolutions are overrated.

A Battle with many a difference

Scene: 22nd Nov’07 Malawati Stadium, Shah Alam, Malaysia

It was a battle with many a difference. It was fought between the king and the prince of Tennis. The score lines that normally, ‘call the shots’ was reduced to a time machine required to ‘call it a day’. And, it made the audience travel back in time to witness the genius of a bygone era!

The titans share amongst themselves 26 slams, more than a hundred career titles and almost 500 weeks of absolute domination. Do these define the legends? Nope.

Some aspects of the game can never be separated from the player and these aspects define the player. Strip a match of its glamour and excitement and you’ll find those. Neither the occasion nor retirement can take it away from the player.

And, this match had a bountiful display of such finer aspects of the game. Fedex’s whipping forehand, Sampras’s volley, the disguise in his serves, their footwork, their anticipation, on the rise shots, their court coverage! Oh my god! These aspects of the game are far more exciting than the score lines and titles.

In short, it had everything a tennis fan could ask for! A dream come true.
Next Stop: Wimbledon Final (still dreaming J )
(Hope I make it when Christian Sampra s and Jaden Gil Agassi are still in the stands and not at the centre court)

P.S. Well, for everybody who thought it was a lopsided contest
# There were no breaks of serve during the match

# Sampras came up with back to back thundering serves @ 214km/hr and @208 km/hr when he was down at 15-40
# Sampras went on to win the ensuing match at Macau

On Rand's Ouvre

Books are an effective and time tested means of coercion. They provide the authors the superior platform to penetrate through the unsuspecting minds of the readers and Ayn Rand has heavily capitalized on this

Her conceptualization of work is sheer brilliance – the 'power of creation' is irrefutable. An ingenious piece of work

Some of her creations are really far sighted. The anti- dog eat dog rule which she talks about in the 1957, is nothing but the competition Act passed in 2002. (Although competition act was actually MRTP act, given a new look – still this anti- dog eat dog rule is more on competition act lines)

The single minded devotion, where everything else loses its significance is amazing – so many a time, we r caught in something so irrelevant or hang on to something very insignificant and lose focus.

But in the midst of all these is a strong coercion targeted at the minds of readers. The alluring add ontheories are by far too many…………………..

'The truth' is offered only as a package – packaged with theories justifying individual shortcomings – in effect making these falsities appear the whole truth.

The merits of capitalism have been blown out of proportion – Atlas Shrugged is studded with extreme examples of capitalism. C'mon, there is another side to the story as well.

Alright smoking is an individual's choice but glorifying it – 'When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind – and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression' is gibberish.
Boy! This is mass coercion!!! Large scale promotion of cigarettes!

Rand's conceptualization of love is rotten and that of family is absurd. Why can't work andfamily co-exist???? They can and quite peacefully too.

Influx of moral values would do a world of good because the means is as important (if not more) as the ends.If you actually strip the book of its add on theories and then look at its core idea then u r a smart customer but it could so easily be otherwise…….

Rand is seriously a Toohey in every sense of the word!!! And, she was as successful as Toohey too.Rand calling her personal life to be a postscript of her novels is hogwash, to say the least. Surely notwith NBI controversy……………..
Further, justifying her affair with her student under the pretext of self esteem is absolute nonsense -'Man will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself whose surrenderpermits him to experience a sense of self-esteem.'

Rand's works are no bible - no religion. I would trust the Gita more, for it has the same concept of work and more importantly Gita does not have any traceable vested interests (Am not denying a Da Vince Code in Hinduism but still Gita is worth it)