From Books & Book-Worms to Conservatives & Liberals

Contrary to popular perception, I am not a particularly well-read guy. I am very nitpicky about books and don't have the patience to devote a chunk of time on any one cause at any point of time. Now this has been a source of much embarrassment for me, because for some reason (probably because I talk a lot or because I somehow successfully portray that I'm knowledgeable-because-I'm-well-read or both) people tend to assume I've read many books. On many occasions, I've not even heard of the book or the author. Enough of narcissism, onto the actual topic - despite being badly-read, I've always held books in high regard and well-read people in higher regard (don’t ask me why. Is that a bad premise to start off with – Probably. But indulge me for a bit). Sadly though, though I still swear by books and continue to try to have “reading books” in my “must-do” list, I can’t say the same about the latter. Now generalization is something we Indians love to do (for example . . . :D). But in the recent past, I’ve come across a lot of well-read people who have deeply disappointed me. As an individual, I place a lot of premium on attitude and behaviour – and I guess I can even go on to say that building both these constitute one of the essential goals of life. Which is probably why my attitude towards reading is – though reading in itself is a pleasurable and a quite praise-worthy activity, if your reading doesn’t help enhance your attitude and/or behaviour, it’s really a shame. Over the past many months, I’ve come across many well-read folks/book-worms who have exhibited one or more of the following –

• Air of superiority – I don’t know how this comes about - whether it is because of the knowledge acquired by reading books or the conscious feeling of having read many books, but it is there.
• Utter Conviction about their point of view – They are so convinced about the opinion they hold that there will not even be any seeds of doubt that will make them entertain or even consider a contrary point of view.
• Contempt for people who are not well-read but who venture to voice their opinion on issues they might otherwise have knowledge on/exposure to.
• Mad Obsession – I’m by-and-large a moderate in most spheres of life (*wink wink*) and a strong believer in balance and not being overly taken in or consumed by any one particular person, cause or event. So I find it a little disconcerting when I see folks reading their books with complete disregard for other potentially important things. For instance, I’ve seen folks immersed in books on deep philosophical/existential issues when there’s a poor Commissioner who’s travelled hundreds of kilometers just to handle a class on how to issue show-cause notices, how to stay honest, etc.

Initially I thought these were just outliers, but pretty much every well-read person I have come across unfailingly exhibited one or more of the afore-mentioned characteristics (Ok the sample-size is so small I won’t disclose it, but take my word for it, will you? :D).

*bias alert* Another interesting observation/hypothesis I have is that these well-read folks invariably tend to be liberal. Now I’m not sure if this liberal streak is a conscious or sub-conscious development. While it is a pretty agreeable generalization that conservatives are usually not well-read (Internet Trolls for example) and liberals are well-read, it’s also a shame because there is so much literature conservatives can lay their hands on, without fear of having their political orientation changed (this fear, I am told, is one of the many factors hindering conservatives from reading up). This also probably explains how/why though the “senior” conservatives are comparably (to “senior” liberals) well-read, your average-Joe conservative isn’t anywhere as well-read as your average-Joe lib.

[On a side-note, this is also probably why I tend to lean on the conservative side slightly more often than not. ;-)]

Now we get to another interesting observation – that of how the number of articles/blogs/social media posts by average-Joe liberals on contemporary issues is more than those by average-Joe conservatives (who are more comfortable sharing the few articles written supporting their point of view. Oh how convenient!) – Yakub Memon’s hanging being a case in point. What’s interesting about this is that online social activism costs but a few pennies and a few books/articles. A software engineer-by-day becomes an expert on Yakub Memon’s hanging by night because he’s read a few articles by “investigative” journalists about how Yakub bhai turned himself in voluntarily, RAW had a deal with him, etc. The only time you spend is on reading books/articles. You don’t need to spend valuable time doing research, collecting data or learning the nuances of law. Classic example for this being Shashi Tharoor’s fantastic conclusion that – given that from 1990-2000 there were more hangings as well as a higher incidence of murder while from 2000-2010, there was just one hanging and the murder rate had substantially reduced – hence capital punishment is *not* a deterrent for murder. QED.

I realize I have digressed. To an alarming extent at that. But let that not take away my fundamental grouse with the “well-read”, which is what I had wanted my post to be about when I started. :D

Confession: For a change, I’ll de-generalize and say that this attitude towards books I have talked about here is purely personal – that a direct outcome of reading books should be to improve one’s attitude/behaviour towards the world/people. I completely agree that people’s motivations to read voraciously might range from “acquiring knowledge for the heck of it” to “getting a high for no specific reason” to “acquiring knowledge to acquire an air of superiority” to “personality development”. Given this, each person is completely justified in being arrogant, supercilious, condescending, etc.

But UPSC clear kiya hoon yaar, well-read or not, opinion to rahega na!

Raavanan Tweets

I'm not a regular movie critic or anything, but since being opinionated is ingrained in me, there will inevitably be some movies I dissect completely - whether it's being for or against or it's being confused. However strong I may be in having an opinion or voicing it and however controversial the subject might be, I have always been concerned about how offensive/distasteful what I say might sound. Which is why I sometimes feel like an old mama when I shudder at some of the offensive language folks today use, simply to convey an opinion. And irrespective of how it appears, I try my best to have a balanced opinion on issues, with minimal prejudice being instrumental in the opinion-formation process.
Anyway, the point here is, I watched Raavanan yesterday and during the movie and after watching it, I tweeted some opinions, which are, presumably, strong. Yup, I did tweet some PG-13 stuff (but wouldn't be surprised if today's 13's are used to such stuff), but I really don't think they were offensive or distasteful. What surprised me most was when a very good friend told me to stop my Raavanan "rants" else he would stop following me, since my tweets were apparently "distasteful" and showed prejudice. He was obviously not kidding and I was quite intrigued. I am not too worried about a drop in my follower-count (Hey...followers come today go tomorrow yaa... :D), but since I respect this guy's opinions a lot, I wanted to really know if my tweets were that distasteful & biased to warrant such a strong quasi-telling-off from a good friend.

*Warning: May contain a few spoilers*

• I know why Aish shows a hint of cleavage throughout. It's to distract us from her pathetic lip-sync & below-avg emoting.
• What's particularly unnerving abt watchin a Maoist-sympathetic movie is watchin it when the nation's in a state of near-anarchy.
•  What's sad is not the fact that Aish exposes, but that Mani seems to have made her "show" simply because of his inability to include his usually-mandatory item number.
• And yes. She shouts. A lot. And "shows". Quite somewhat. And acts. Well, at least tries to. A little.
• For me, the most exciting parts of Raavanan were all the scenes in which Ranjitha appeared. Skewed sense of excitement, I know, still. :P
• Raavanan may not be a very good movie, but in the context of the Singams & the Suras, it definitely is good cinema.
• Oh yes, I too choked in that final scene when Raagini says "Buck Buck Buck...". :D
• Friend on Facebook after watching Raavan(an): "Aishwarya Rai has transformed from a beautiful woman to a sexy aunty". :P
• While Prithviraj's character was not fully sketched, Priya Mani's choice makes me wonder if it was a practical joke on her.
• Very curious how Raavan(an) would be rated by folks (incl me) if we ignore that it's a Mani movie or that it released around Suraa/Singam.
• And to be fair to myself, I did NOT go to Raavanan trying to compare with the actual Ramayana. Mani thrust it on me. Really did.
• Which explains why I didnt realize then but felt Karthik's initial tree-top antics were dumb, but realized later on the liken-to-Hanuman. :(
• I think we need to establish two specific standards of measurement of a film's "success" - 1."Feel" during & after the movie and 2.What the director intends to convey/the way he wants his movie to be perceived and how it actually comes out.
• Raavan, on 1, is fail. On 2, need to know what exactly Mani Ratnam has/had in mind.
  
  

-

My problem with this Overdose of Social Networking...

A friend quoted 'The Greatest Comedian of All Times' (in her words. I'm guessing Seinfeld, but not sure) - "You've got to give people a chance to miss you a little bit" in the context of Google Buzz. Hilarious though the statement is, it drips with truth all over. Still... though I totally agree with it, this isn't my problem. Or wait, it might be.

Cliched phrases like "The world is getting smaller" and "It's the communication age" often take into account only the technological capability for the world to be more networked & connected. What's more important is whether this increased connectivity leads to more interpersonal communication (which, IMHO, should be the actual meaning of "improved connectivity" wrt humans).

A new social networking site immediately kindles hopes. Hopes of reconnecting with people we've lost touch with. And make no mistake, it's amazing how, with every such new social n/w option, we somehow "reconnect" with a someone we've lost touch with. Logically speaking, if we're in the "Connected" age now, then it automatically implies we should only make "new" social contacts, and not "renew" older ones, right? Sadly, Not the case. And herein lies my complaint.

Now this might be a totally personal issue, but I've steadily noticed this happening ever since my first mega-"separation from friends" happened, when I came to the US for grad studies. First, we had email & chat (ok technically not social networking, but networking nevertheless), which we somehow seemed to use with friends in college. Then orkut happened, and I remained devoted to it even when Facebook came. And then twitter happened. For me, twitter was/is awesome in that I got to meet a lot of new like-minded folks (apart from getting to see some serious humour from the usual suspects). That's another story.

That Expectation kills, is realized in all its true glory with every new social networking site. 2 unrelated cases -

• A very dear friend from college who shockingly fell wide outside the radar ever since I came here. Chat happened for a few months after I came here. Then it became email once-a-year or when there was a necessity, which is how it is now. Screw emails, screw chat, screw orkut, screw FB, screw twitter. And now, she's following me in Buzz. Am I to expect some "renewal" now and be disappointed?

• Another good friend who followed me in twitter. The more I tweeted, the more I was rudely shocked as to how little she reacted/interacted with me via tweets. And it wasn't the case that we were in spectacular touch over phone/chat. Where twitter gave us an excellent opportunity to interact, broadcast thoughts, I got this feeling of gross neglect. After a point I was so frustrated (paranoid?) I ended up blocking her. Can you believe it? Immaturity/childishness at its glorious best alright, but it wasn't without reason. It's like Eve's reasoning in "Paradise Lost" - I'm better off knowing fully well she doesn't follow me and not expecting any communication than vice versa.

You see, I am egoistic alright, but there is a threshold in friendship beyond which I absolutely shed all ego. All the people above had very much crossed this threshold, and there is no cause for any of my ego with them. You see, a friend NOT RT'ing me in twitter isn't an issue. That someone who is so close to me fails to react to something I have to say (which, in most cases, happens to be "important", "contentious", "reaction-provoking", etc. which is exactly stuff good friends are supposed to talk about, and which we do talk about, day in and day out) really gives me this enormous "conscious" (as naive users of English would say). Neglect? Dumbness? Idiocy?

• Doesn't (s)he have anything to say about what I just tweeted?
• Did I say something that's so dumb it failed to evoke any reaction from him/her?
• If (s)he responds to/RT's someone else's, why didn't (s)he do so for mine, which was very similar.
  and so on...

After all, what is good friendship without your "friend" having something to say on whatever (at least most of it) you say, and reacting to/understanding whatever you say the way your statement was meant by you. Sadly, in my case, 95 % of the times, at least one of the two was true (not reacting/misunderstanding what I said).
(Please don't give me weak/dumb suppositions that my friend was busy/didn't see what I said. I have said all this only because the supposition isn't strong enough as a fact or is simply not relevant.)

Another thing I noticed is that newer social networking sites are being used by people to keep in touch with current contacts, and not old ones, which is how it should be.

Social networking today has pretty much been reduced to "rich getting richer & poor getting poorer" - huge egos becoming more bloated & small hearts made smaller.

A simple look at the number of people following more than 250 somewhat-regular-tweeters will prove my point. If you have a job & a life, there is NO WAY in this wide world that you will be able to sincerely follow more than 250 folks. I follow 50 and this pretty much takes a huge chunk of my non-work, non-sleep time. Which means people follow others just so they will re-follow you? How sad!

And that, again manifests itself when there's yet another new social networking enabler. Buzz is great, no questions about it, but it is, no doubt, poised to create a buzz in the minds of the buzzer about whether his buzz is actually creating any buzz.

Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya Rants

• Beautiful translation + Commentary on Mannippaaya - http://g-rulz.blogspot.com/2010/03/mannippaya-translation-commentary.html
• During 1st yr, I wore black & was silent all day coz I'd learnt that Trisha's fav food was Chicken Curry & Brown Rice. #confession #EpicFail
• I'm a Devadas who found my Paro's bathroom video many years back, but have now found her petitely clad in Chiffon sarees & chudidhars.
• Everyone's talking abt the hero's Mech Engg connexn, but no one says abt heroine's Math bg. Kaakha Kaakha Maya also Math major.
• Naasama Poga. I cant believe the fleeting thought of asking my employers NOT to file my H1-B (courtesy #VTV/Jessie) just crossed my mind. :O Such a thing would be #EpicFail because "Kadhala thedi nambo poga koodadhu. Adhuva nambala adikkanum." :D #FailedLogicForEpicFailFeelings
• Aana onnu da. Jessie maadhiri oru ponnoda enakku loves irundhu b/u aagi 3 yrs later avo enna paathuttu pesaama pona naan avlo dhan. :( #VTV 
• #VTV tweet of the day: Affected so much that I feel like falling in love, being loved back, then breaking up, and fin. feeling the Pain. :| Correction: Not Breaking Up, but inexplicably being unable to continue the relationship because of my girl's complicated confusion.
• Movies like #VTV that employ "novel" proposal strategies should realize they are eroding guys' options with every such depiction. Not saying the shock-and-awe in #VTV is "novel", but once this technique hits the big screen, its usability peaks & fades away.
• Sigh. Seems I HAVE to like #VTV now. But happy KB felt best prfrmnces by Simbu & Trish RT @bbthots KB to Gautham Menon http://bit.ly/abVGFD.
• Ridiculous/Dumb I know, but I prayed today morning while coming to work (to God) that I should get over #VTV/Jessie. Seri illa.
• I cannot believe I am this obsessed with a movie I was/am quite disappointed with, esp with the key element of the movie.  
• @cowmaaa It would also help to keep in mind Shakti ~= Shalini is truer than Jessie ~= Trisha. But yes, foresight-vindication is sweet.
• Dear @cowmaaa, the sooner you realize Trisha != Jessie, the better for you, the justification of 9 years of your craze notwithstanding. #VTV
• Whether the girl ditches the guy or the guy ditches the girl, it's the guy who stays single longest. #VTV #inspirationaltuesdays
• #VTV is probably the 1st movie I'm very polarized abt (not new), but the polarization being both for AND against [really :-(]. :|
• Sigh. I guess I'll have to reconcile to the fact that #VTV does indeed have highly polarized opinions. And that totally totally beats me. :(
• One thing I hated abt #VTV - kindling false hopes of seeing girls in Indian IT companies wearing sarees and churidhars. :(
• Wonder if the saree-wearing-style in #VTV was to suit Trisha's image or Jessie's. Esp considering KK_Jo, VV_Kamalinee & PKCM (in that order)
• And I repeat, Trisha & Simbu will make a great pair in real-life too. Celebrity-wise, you cant think of a better match for either. :-)
• At the risk of sounding contradictory, though I felt the "romance" bit left much to be desired, Trish & Simbu share great chemistry.
• So in case anyone felt bad about what happens bet. Trish & Simbu in Tamil, watch the Telugu version. :-) #VTV
• #VTV Trivia: The guy & girl that act in Karthik's movie are the lead pair in Telugu. Likewise, Trish-Simbu are the "stars" in Telugu.
• Totally loved the Central Park scene in #VTV. Brilliant emoting by Trisha & Simbu. So so loved it! :-) How I wish... If only...
• Must say special mention needs to be made of the cinematographer - surely has had a part to play in Trisha's resplendence. :-)
• But yes, after a log time, I ogled at Trisha unabashedly/guiltlessly. Like Simbu says, First Love is indeed unforgettable+lovely. ;-)
• #VTV - Def. disappointing. Great Chem., awesome Trish, pleasantly diff Simbu + Vintage Rahman wasted. Wud've said fail if not for these.             

Oosi Pona Chutney and all that...

Enough has been said about the "outrageous act of plagiarism" by bloggers bigger, older and a zillion times more famous than me. In any case, though Chutney was well within her rights to do whatever she did (which she did quite rightly too, IMHO), I don't want to add more publicity to an already oversized issue.

Nevertheless, I was particularly perturbed by one specific aspect of the plagiarizer's mindset, which, I believe, is more pressing than the actual act of plagiarism per se.

I am shooting my mouth off here (as is wont of me), but I think it's time we Indians admitted that the average creativity of our population ends waaay lower than the supremely creative beings we've been known to produce. Which obviously implies that a large number of us are quite non-creative souls when it concerns intellectual output, but compensate for this via our creative methods of copying/ripping off stuff - be it Lalit Modi's IPL or Ram Laxman's Mere Rang Mein or Harris Jayaraj's June Pona or Kamal's undoubtedly brilliant Anbe Sivam or yet another term paper which we Indian grad students in the US routinely rip from a zillion sources courtesy Google (is it time to Bing yet?). Well, with regard to what I am trying to say here, the last example might be the most easily-relatable, but with a little creative thinking, you'll realize the others too are.

So then, we must admit we do rip stuff to do usual things. When a desi grad student tries to do a term paper, it's just a term paper. It's not like he's going to send it to IEEE or ACM as part of personal work/research (of course, he'd be screwed mightily enough if he did try to do that, but that's a different issue). So what we understand is that the guy that's doing whatever little/much ripping/plagiarizing is doing so just to get done with some basic requirements. It's not like he seeks some elite glory or recognition for the ripped work. This is also probably an indicator of a bigger problem - the flawed system, but that's beside the point, and besides, a flawed system is, by no means, a valid enough justification for whatever small act of plagiarism a grad student (or anyone else) indulges. But this is....ummm...overlook'able.

Which is where what our dear friend did with Chutney's post is especially condemnable. He picked a winner (that's the creative bit) and plagiarized it (the dumb bit). One read of Chutney's post in question is enough for any half-current_state_of_the_urban_Indian-aware person to realize that the piece is brilliant (though I confess that's definitely not my cup of humour, but this is again irrelevant). The girl is right up there, as far as wit and eloquence of language is concerned and her piece is as original as it is entertaining. The dude who ripped it obviously knew if this was made into a short film, it would definitely make some good noise, and no doubt, enhance his prospects. This is where the Epic Fail bit kicks in. You make use of someone else's work for something to ensure your survival or help you achieve something ordinary - no it isn't acceptable, but it isn't at least condemn-worthy and spit-worthy. But you make use of someone else's creative gift, pass it off as your own AND try to make good mileage of it, even the average desi grad student who used a zillion different journals for his term paper will put his thumbs on his nose at you.
Get Original. Respect Creativity.

Stereotyping the Contemporary Intellectual - 3

Continued from Part 2 here

• Belonging to Vasudaiva Kutumbakam 1 - A direct implication of the example in the Mary/Peter category – Soru. I am not sure how prevalent this habit is, but a lot (a lot, yes, but not all) of these “intellectuals” religiously eat food from everywhere in the world – Ethiopian, Mexican, Chinese, Spanish, etc. I have nothing against any of these cuisines and it is nice to have a wide range of options, but these things irk me –
  
  1. I, who unabashedly, wholly does NOT belong to this group, who is quite content with half-decent Indian food (or absolutely any food which is prepared in a safe [read purely vegetarian, far away from eggs, meat, fish or poultry] location), find myself ridiculously left-out and outvoted when in the company of such folks (on the rare occasions it happens) and
  2. Remember again that a lot of these folks (at least most of the ones I’ve observed) are MCSI-Brahmins? Which means they’ve been vegetarians for most part of their life. Whether these "intellectuals" are (newly-turned) atheists (agnostics, integral humanitarians, etcetera) who continue to be vegetarian (even though they discard god, a few “intellectuals” might continue to stick to vegetarianism and being “intellectuals”, they need to have a strong feeling towards anything => if vegetarian, they believe in it strongly) or (minority) the still-believing-in-Brahminism/religion junta, eating in restaurants overflowing with non-vegetarian food simply reeks of hypocrisy. How, oh how on earth they can bear to see dead animal pieces next to the food they consume, I cannot understand (I am, in this sense, an "antillectual", if you might).
  3. Among the minority that are still-practising-(pseudo)-Brahmins, but anyhow eat with relish in every such (God-forsaken) international restaurant, and then talk (often in a dreamy-eyed manner and/or ethereal tones which is supposed to convey that they are in a Kadavul-induced-trance or state of divine bliss) about what Maha Periyava says about Brahmins or throw at you the 6th stanza of the Soundarya Lahari, asking you to marvel at its beauty or wax eloquence at Dikshitar's krithi and it's profound philosophical/religious inspiration - to me, it simply doesn't fit. I am probably dumb, athi-moorkaha or whatever, for linking two irrelevant issues, but this whole package doesn't come across as genuine/true.
  
  Note here that I am not an Indian fundamentalist promoting Indian food and advocating that Indians eat only Indian food. I love my filter coffee and feast on Paneer, knowing fully well that neither is indigenous to India. But the point here is eating something just because it is another cuisine, and doing so often enough, just to prove that you are a global citizen. It is almost like people who start smoking because they feel cool doing it. And whether the food is nice or not, trying to enjoy it so that you feel good at having eaten international cuisine.
  Which now leads me to another sub-classication of these international-cuisine-folks -
• Never cook at home.
• Eat that Bruschetta at the Italian/Spanish restaurant, come back home and start making it regularly (if married, often with the spouse) and then start a food blog. Include chweet lines like "The husband made some panini bruschetta sprinkled with toasted almonds today. Yay! Love you, dear!" and other corny equivalents. Seriously.
  And no, this is not a whine from a singleton who is calling the grapes sour because he doesn't have a wife to dote foodily on.
  

Intriguing how most of the "intellectual" couples either love cooking together, often multi-cuisine delicacies or not cooking any cuisine at all (hey, didn't you know how healthy the food is at Chipotle's, Subway, Taco Bell, etc.?).

• Philosophical Thanni - Ha, this is one elite group, I tell you. Again, I wouldn't want to hazard a generalization like majority of the "intellectuals" or something (though I won't be surprised if such a generalization is indeed valid), but this much I can be sure - majority in this sub-group is obviously guys (again, it might be my ignorance too, but I can say only as far as I've seen). So then, these "dudes" obviously drink. Fine. No big deal. But the justifications and explanations for their drinking - nothing short of poetry. "Enakku thanni adikka pudichirukku, I derive pleasure from it, though I know it's bad" - apdinu sollittu poinde irundha naan edhukku indha maadhiri oru bullet'a ezhudha poren? Starting with social drinking (which, IMHO, deserves a separate punishment in the Indian Penal Code, by itself), they go on to put all kinds of weird fundae into the heads of ordinary, un"intellectual" folks like me, so much so that after a point of time, we (the un"intellectuals") feel ashamed and philosophically backward for being non-drinkers (or teetotalers, to be more general). Really, I mean it. I've personally gone through this once, the dude in question being the same guy who spoke those priceless words in the Mary/Peter category.
• Belonging to Vasudaiva Kutumbakam 2 - Applies to all types of "intellectuals" - whether atheistic, agnostic, totally-believe-in-Brahminism, currently-believing-in-Brahminism, etc. When it's time for Dum Dum Dum, anybody and everybody will do. Though the still-Brahmin kinds will initially stick to believing in same-caste marriage, they will, in due course of time, come around to trashing it, having moved on to "higher" things and realizing the utter insignificance and childishness in such beliefs.
  A few memorable quotes these "intellectuals" use to justify their inter-caste marriage (these people specifically belong to the born-Brahmin-believed-in-Brahminism-for-almost-all-their-life-and-even-now-selectively-believe-in-Brahminism-but-are-going-to-marry-inter-caste category) -
  a) "i believe its upbringing thats imp and providing the right atmosphere, attitude and opportunities that will promote preserve the culture
  i believe i can do that.
  i knew that h** family and (?)he have the right mindset and background..wrt education/appreciation of arts and culture..apart from that there will be differences.."
  b) "but i realised that brahmin-a eruntha mattum pothaathu... its the personal behaviour which makes u what u are.."
  Quiz: Can you identify the gender of the two characters above? [MP, MM, PM, PP]
  
  In future, I see this attribute being upgraded to a version whose traits will include looking down on same-caste couples; upon seeing a person wearing the Veebuthi or Bottu, staring at the mark for an unnecessarily-long time, intentionally starting a related topic and concluding that wearing such marks is anti-philosophical, anti-spiritual, etc., ending up making you feel like Manohar Parrikar when he lost the confidence vote.

And I shall stop right there. I wanted to include these two categories as well -

• Do Jalsa and show Jilpa via the blogs they write. ;-) [Remember, the "intellectual" isn't necessarily always an Indian in USA]
• Return from USA and direct movies like Hyderabad Blues.

But since I am sure there is a massive group out there that (whether "intellectual" or not) overwhelmingly supports such "intellectuals" and will be after my blood just because I mention them in this list without understanding that my calling them "intellectuals" is more light-hearted satire than derogatory criticism/mockery, I shall digress.

In my observation, I have tried to remain as objective as possible (by me ;), without criticizing or frowning upon the "intellectual" characteristics I observed, something I usually do. I admit there might've been one or two instances where my exasperation got the better of me, but I suppose that is understandable, because of the weight of that issue. I must also admit that I fall under one or more of the categories above, so if you feel I'm pulling your leg, understand that I'm pulling mine too (ok, my knee or foot...leg only for thoroughbred "intellectuals" :D).

Stereotyping the Contemporary Intellectual - 2

Continued from Part 1 here

• Leaning to the Left: This, I think, is somewhat of a minority, but it seems to be growing. Ironically, such notions tend to develop in the US of A. :D
• The "OMG, that's 150 Calories! That means 10 more minutes on the treadmill"-kind: Fitness is important, no doubt. Daily exercise is important, definitely. But for them, this borders on obsession. Irrespective of whether they are thin or fat (btw, did I tell you, most "intellectuals" are either incredibly lean or pucca figures [purely geometric usage of the word, not to be confused with the generic usage and start wondering about my orientation just because this usage is being applied to guys also, I’m perfectly straight, thanks], whether they are guys or girls?). It especially gets scary when you inadvertently overhear or become part of the said-group for some occasional dinner or something. One session of ordinary soru, and you end up with a feeling that your eating habits apparently hover around the Bakasura and Ghadothkacha mark.
  PS: Guy “intellectuals” can be excused for this one, as it predominantly applies to girl “intellectuals”. Guys, after all, are a trifle less appearance-conscious than girls, so when they see good food, even “intellectual” guys let go. But they would, of course, compensate in the gym, kindly note.
• They are classified not as Male/Female but as Mary/Peter - Ok, before you misunderstand, they are not the kinds that will put Peter for the sake of vetti-scene. They have a strong grasp over the language (mainly English) and more specifically, they suffer from a disease where they simply cannot communicate simple emotions in simple words.

Sample this –
"Since my stream of consciousness veered into food, here is one more update. To all, never go to a Spanish restaurant and order a Paella (Paeya) if you don't know what it is."
Meaning - Since I spoke about food, let me advise you not to go to a Spanish restaurant and order........
(Eh, Payya’va? Karthi Sivakumar padam per maadhiri irukku, idha poi Spain’la saapduvaala?)

Another example -
"Suck it up RK, we finally went to Toro and had "Maiz Asado Con Alioli Y Queso Cotija la especialidad de la casa," alright will cut the crap, corn in butter and cheese was freaking awesome."
Meaning - Saavu da RK, we went to Toro and ate a dish (made of corn in butter and cheese) which was semma tasty.
PS: I'm assuming this is the meaning, as, possibly, the speaker and RK were supposed to go to the said restaurant together, but somehow, the speaker beat RK to it; or some similar equivalent situation.

I confess to having used "freaking awesome" once or twice in my life, but the rest of the stuff, I generally have to read once or twice to understand the words fully, sometimes even Google their meaning/usage. And please, I'm not this English-ignorant-for-the-sake-of-GRE-mug-Baron's or Rapidex-Learn-English-in-20-days aasaaami also. Simply by looking at my blog, my English marks in CBSE school [oh, how naive can you get, Kaushik?] and the fact that I was one of my English teacher's fav students (mainly for academic reasons, but the fact that I also admired Madhubala, the original Bollywood beauty, also helped) in high school (albeit Matric). Plus also the fact that in my blog, almost 99% of my writings are grammatically correct, which is no mean feat, considering I've been blogging for almost 2 years now (albeit, with no significant blog-following :D). Basically, what I want to say is - I know some English, sariya? But I don't know too much English, nowhere near even a quasi-pulavan, like what some of my lesser-inclined-to-English friends complain, about being unable to comprehend my blogs. From what I know and hear from them, the subject content of my blog becomes clearer on 2^nd or 3^rd reading (though I doubt if there's anyone with that much patience :P), sometimes conveying a different message each time. I'm also sure my writings convey a different meaning to people who know me (rather, are acquainted with me for a period of time) and another one to first-time readers or people who aren't acquainted much with me. But the important thing here is that none of this is due to the language, this is (only, if I may add...) due to the content and how I've presented it, as also the topic itself. My blogs would hardly have 2-3 GRE words.
.
But these Mary's and Peter's, their vocabulary is predominantly made up of such GRE words, often reaching above the GRE level also. :D And let me also add, I am sure I will definitely fall into one (or more) of the above categories of "intellectuals", but I surely surely don't belong to this one.

• Kannaadi/Ara-nikkar, etc. – Ok, this is surely not applicable to all “intellectuals” (though it might, I am not sure) and this will highly coincide with the chilrai-pisth-cases whose sole aim in life is to earn money and show the world that, in different forms. Karuppu Kannadi (‘Shades’, they are called) enge ponaalum pottukkanum. Idhula enna koduma’na, Madras’la (referring to MCSI’s mainly from Chennai and also hot places from South India), US’la irukkardhoda 10-madangu jaasthi veyyil, for most of the year, aana US’ukku vandhu dhan “shades”. Note specifically that these people generally don't flaunt wealth back home in India, like the "other" group, which indulges in extra-show on that once-in-two-years India trip.
  Also, going out with friends to the movie or any casual hang-out will invariably have to be in mukka-pant or ara-nikkar (provided the weather is conducive). Really. And this applies to both Mary and Peter. Period.

Update 1:

• "Naan kadaisiya paatha English padam 'Sunset Boulevard'" & VS Naipaul kinds - This is a sure-fire way. Confirmed'unga. They swear by Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is God. Problem is, only he is god (IMHO, he is also God, one among the trinity, but there are others, and there are Indians). Vishal Bhardwaj is just a cheap imitation. Indian movies suck. Period. Mani Ratnam was a good director. Indian cinema died after Nayagan. Variations include moving on to other international-language movies - French, Polish, Italian, etc. and revisiting all English classics from the '40s and '50s.
  As far as readership is concerned, abstract philosophy is the in-thing. Richard Dawkins is widely-read.
• The "NeenGa rOmbo nallavanga" types - Oh yes, another easy one. Since they are fitness conscious and are invariably good runners, they usually associate themselves with some charity fund like Asha and run to raise money. Then forward emails asking us to contribute. Incidentally, this led me to post this. :D
• Forward-phobia - They are utmost forward-thinkers, but hate to forward and hate forwards. The rare forward that they do send will be screaming with "intellectualism". Easily you will be able to recognize it. And that is to show to us that - "Hey dho paaru, naan summa summa indha maadhiri sirippu mootradhukkum, podhu ariva valakkarthukkum forwards'laam anuppara type illa. Naan anupcha adhu unique'a irukkum (just like me)." You must assume you hear the sender say this when you get that once-in-a-blue-moon "intellectual" forward from someone. And foremost among the rare gems they send will include one from the previous category. If not for them, for their "intellectual" friend (obviously!).
  

Go to Part 3

Stereotyping the Contemporary Intellectual - 1

For far too long, we have had stereotypes based only on caste, religion and gender. Though there are substantial reasons (at least) for some of those, we have found more reason to ridicule (rather unfairly) based on the stereotypes, without bothering to verify their accuracy (either way). One exception, though, is the stereotype of pseudo-secularists, which can be completely and wholly justified. So much so that sometimes, the stereotype of pseudo-secularists threatened to be their definitive characteristic, when along came someone to prevent that. Anyhow...

This post is definitely NOT meant to ridicule or offend the "intellectual" of today. Probably a satire, well...more a humorous observation by yours truly of some aspects which have been strikingly obvious...in "intellectuals", to me (of course). So whoever reads this, please take it with a pinch of salt (as with most of my other posts :D) and a generous dose of light-heartedness.

Since I am a middle-class South-Indian (MCSI), my observations predominantly pertain to middle-class South-Indian "intellectuals".However, a lot of these characteristics might as well be applicable to "intellectuals" from North India too.

Note: Henceforth, I will be referring to contemporary intellectuals as "intellectuals". ;-)
All set? Then let's go . . .

• No longer middle class - The first thing that should strike you about them is that they are no longer middle class. Having been brought up in an essentially savings-based environment, where we used to think about each and every item before buying, that thought process no longer exists. Yes of course, they do opt for their Honda Civics and Mazda 3's compared to more expensive versions, but their concept of savings gets reduced to big expenses alone (unintentional irony). $1.99 milk ceases to hold relevance once they graduate and get a decent-paying job. Dollars, after all, start speaking, not Rupees. When you go for the $2.99 milk, you are paying just 1 dollar more, but that's a difference of 2 dollars effectively (saving one + losing one). What they lose sight of is the fact that saving the cents might not save much, but losing the savings will count.

• Rejection of Religion: This, I have especially noticed in MCSI Brahmins. Well, probably educated Indians are moving towards atheism en masse, but nowhere can you observe this trait more prominently than in MCSI Brahmins in the USA. Accepted that there is more exposure to free thinking today, and more of us see more of what the world has and is made of, coming out of our closet. But that should encourage us to think inward, the more outward we go. Alas, our enlightenment is just outward. "Integral humanism" and "agnosticism" are other supplementary adjectives to describe their current mental set-up.

• Photography Pultography: Yes, a must-have characteristic. Either they own an SLR camera or they talk about shooting brilliant pictures with varying angles of light, etc. Whether they really do take good pictures is a discussion best left for another time.

• Lingo: I think a separate Urban Dictionary can be created for the words used by Intellectuals. Prominent among these words are - Dude, Junta, F***, No kiddin, Preeshiyet it, Honey, More F***, etc.

• Kambeni: They generally surround themselves with studs from top schools. Agreed that most of the "intellectuals" are, themselves, from top schools, but in case they don't happen to be from one, they immediately catch hold of some who are and jab all mostly hi-funda stuff which generally falls under any one of the categories mentioned here.
  

Go to Part 2

HELP!

Help me, God! My obsession with correctness and righteousness is driving me mad. I used to think that we ought to help only those people who are correct and/or righteous and/or good. I then realized I would use up all my time in first judging if someone was good/correct/righteous, and by the time I realized if they were indeed good/correct/righteous, they were beyond me helping them. Add to this my abysmal record at judging people.
Who am I to judge people anyway? What authority do I have?
Hence, I have decided that I am going to help anyone who needs help, as long as -
a. He/She is not Osama Bin Laden wanting to plant a bomb in WTC.
(Note: This means I am willing to help Osama Bin Laden do some good deed like planting trees and helping stray dogs :D, assuming, of course, that planting a bomb in WTC is bad ;-)
b. I don't know that the helpee (correct usage'a?) is someone bad AND I am helping them to do something that is not bad even if it is for their good.
I am wondering if I need to include any more categories. Let me know if you think I need to.
If my faith in God is anything to go by, I should reason that He knows who I will eventually help and if my faith is true, let the purpose of my help to the person be for a good cause. After all, I consider it a privilege and an honour to be of help to someone. If I were to keep trying to judge everyone who comes to me for help, I lose a valuable opportunity.
Quandary - What if someone not-so-good who has helped me in the past comes to me for help? Naturally, I am driven by gratitude to help them. But what if they, as mentioned, are not-so-good and/or the purpose I am helping them for is not-good-not-bad?
Orey Koshtamappa.

---
Update
---
A few more things to keep in mind -
There are two aspects to helping -
a) The cause/person you are helping and
b) The help itself that you are rendering.

The act of helping needs to be as objectively done as possible, and objectivity needs to address the two points above. You might be passionate about helping, but that passion should not override the above objectivity.

Trying *too* hard to help is a strict no-no. You will especially be confronted with this situation when you have a close friend or someone you badly want to help, but since the opportunity doesnt present itself, you try to create opportunities to help.

To Shoot Oneself in the Foot

This phrase has intrigued me for quite some time. Though, initially, it was quite obvious in its meaning - to act against one's own interest or to foolishly harm one's own cause...effectively a person screwing himself/herself. However, there was something not right...a kind of lingering "this-doesn't-feel-entirely-right" feel to what the phrase meant. My computer science oriented brain somehow tried hard to decipher the logic behind the statement and I have a case to argue against this phrase referring to what it currently does.
Consider this - if you are going to shoot yourself in your foot, it obviously means that the initial premise is of you having a gun at hand. Fine. The next thing we need to consider is that we are not attempting to commit suicide, because if we were, we wouldn't be shooting ourselves in our foot. Now we know the world is not short of dumb people, and in the rare case that someone tried to commit suicide by shooting {him/her}self in the foot, they at least didn't die, which is a positive*.
There is another possibility - of you having accidentally shot yourself. In this case, we can safely assume that having a gun at hand, there was always the possibility of it going off. So, even though a person with no gunshot wound on his body is supposed to be better off than someone with his foot shot, we will remove the comfort of no gunshot wound because of the former reasoning. Now that we have reconciled to the fact that there is a high possibility of us having a gunshot wound (if we have a gun in hand), I really cannot think of many better places than the leg for taking the shot. I mean, your head is a bad place for you to get shot...ditto for your heart or abdomen. Getting shot in the face will definitely be fatal - either to your life or your appearance, so it's a no-no there. The stomach too, I am told, is not a very convenient place. That leaves us with the arms and legs, broadly speaking. Since (I think) we use our arms, on an average, for more duration and more purposes than our legs, getting shot in the arms is not a better option. Which leaves us with the legs. Now, if you consider the legs, it is highly unlikely for us to shoot ourselves in our thighs because of the ergonomics of the gun in our hand. A gunshot wound in the knee is bound to have relatively serious medical implications, hence that too, is ruled out. Which effectively means we have just the foot. And hey, it isn't that bad to limp and walk. On the contrary, we might get a couple of compassionate glances from the other sex - a guy limping might be mistaken for a war hero (for some reason, most war heroes in cinema limp), a girl limping will always be offered ready help (remember Vivek's gospel in Minnale about a girl falling down and guys rushing to help?).
Hence, I safely conclude that getting shot in the foot is actually not that bad a thing to happen.
So, the next time you had a close shave with something because of something you did, you'll know you just shot yourself in the foot.

*Note: The underlying assumption in this article is that death is bad. If you don't believe in that, I suggest you read some of my other posts. Ah well, you've read this one anyway.

Of Blood and Water

Something Tejaswi, Keshav and I have talked a lot about. Tejaswi always kept telling us that "Blood was thicker than water" - about relatives and friends. Well, I've thought quite a lot about this, pretty interesting actually, if you think. Lots of experiences, many interesting, some disheartening. Let me play a smart ass and not say my opinion explicitly, but these are some "quotes" which I chanced to say, during another of our discussions. Quite obvious, actually, what they mean, still, I'm not saying the words exactly :P.

• Blood may be thicker than water and have a greater stain, but it is water which washes off all wounds (including the stain of blood from the body).
• Blood always comes out only when there is an injury. Water is always there for us.
• We dont get to choose the blood that flows in us, but we get to choose the water that we drink. If we drink impure water, that's our mistake, we should have been more careful, no point in blaming the water or saying Blood is thicker.

Even my dad actually supports blood...But yes, the water definitely needs to be pure.

The Self-Importance of Ego

For quite a while, a major part of the usage of the word "ego" has come to be associated with interaction between the sexes, as opposed to interaction between human beings. "The guy has too much ego to go and talk to girls", "she has an attitude problem, the peacock" - read a proud and haughty girl filled to the brim with ego. But reading "The Fountainhead" brought a welcome and refreshing discussion about what Ego actually is, as opposed to trivial boy-girl interactions (lack of it, more like). {Incidentally, I think I am quite egoistic as far as talking to girls is concerned, fear of rejection and proper response being the main reason, (fuelled by a strong sense of self-respect, misplaced, I don’t know)}.

Ayn Rand is definitely a profound thinker. Whether or not objectivism is an acceptable philosophy (I, for one, definitely cannot accept Objectivism, despite just about a lot of sense and correctness in its ideology), the way she portrays the character of Howard Roark, characterised by a distinct ego, pride and self-respect/belief, and how she goes on to insist that Ego is the Fountainhead of human progress are quite remarkable and wonderfully insightful. Ayn Rand-level
thinker, though I may not be, I was quite struck by the importance of ego in a guy's relationship with girls. I, for one, thoroughly dislike ego with the same sex. That being said, it is important to try to understand the actual context in which the term "ego" is used, and its implications/usage.
Ego, in a sense, is pretty broad - ranging from petty 'you-say-hi-to-me-I-respond' connotations to far-reaching managerial decisions in the industry to issues of national importance. There again, the question of individual correctness crops up - "Yaar periyavan, naana neeya" and allied stuff. But what prompted me to write this piece is quite petty and trivial, in the sense that it is quite predominantly related to personal relationships, not exactly a singular issue, but somewhat similar ones, such as friendship and love, pertaining to different people and different circumstances. I, for one, definitely feel, Ego has to be totally avoided in friendships. Well, the previous statement actually seems quite pathetic to me, as it seems akin to all those Orkut about-me's and display-names, as in, giving free advice and opinion, but, sorry, I just had to say it, irrespective of my earnest endeavour to want my statement to sound profound, meaningful and truthful. But, there's a catch that people seldom realise. (Well, in case they do, people don’t actually bother to speak it out, as opposed to 'free advice'). The catch being that it is absolutely imperative that the "friendship" is correctly estimated and the person, properly estimated for his or her true worth. Now that's again a sick statement, and I'm reminded of an analogy to a police search warrant issued to check a person's guilt - the search is complete and nothing is found, well, let's just say the person is innocent and the search proves it, but the damage has been done - in a way, that's what happens inside you, if you actually strip a person's character within you to analyse them correctly, end up establishing their innocence/trueness (hoping you're correct), but feel nauseated at yourself for having performed the "check" on such a true person. Sadly, it's better to be safe than sorry, i.e., ensuring that someone is being true to you rather than you being taken for a ride under some guise, in this shit yuga for trueness and
innocence of individuals. Now, that seemed to me to be a major deviation from the topic, but no, that's precisely what has to be done to know which of your "friends" you've to avoid showing any semblance of ego to.

That's as far as friendships are concerned. I actually hope I was successful in communicating the part about which "friendships" to leave out ego, because, someone who is totally devoid of it, is totally misread. Take, for example, the case of this extra-nice guy totally devoid of ego, who goes out of his way to be nice to people, greets everybody everyday, irrespective of whether the person responds in kind or not.
Note that "people" here is a broader set compared to "friends". Now, in another Yuga, such a person would be respected, loved, adored globally, in his area, at least. Today, such a person would be individually adored and loved, but not really respected on the large scale, if you get what I mean. In such circumstances, it is essential for an individual to possess a certain amount of ego. Then again, if you are the sort of person who easily wins over people with the above-mentioned habit, then, it is not necessary for you to be egoistic to maintain your self respect. Understand that in this context, egoism is practised as a means to maintaining self respect and dignity. As always, there will be differences of opinion to this point – I do not claim it is correct, I believe it is valid. (Diplomatic egotism ;)

Now boy-girl egoism is kind of interesting, and I rather feel I relish it, of what "egotism" I exhibit to girls, in the sense of not going all out, being very hesitant, and not so friendly or nice to girls I am not yet well acquainted with. (That might, in part or whole, explain the miserable feminine contacts I have, quantity-wise [Not quality-wise]). Here, the context is this rather sickening habit of most girls to judge guys based on how 'friendly' (aka easy-going) they are. Now, that's a totally baffling issue which I've mastered in flopping - girls and what they think. On the one hand, I maintain a certain level of introvertedness (if I may use the liberty to coin such a term, as long as it conveys the message) with girls to ensure I am not mistaken as trying to be flirtatious, and I end up being thought of as snobbish. Thanks to this wonderful category of girls who really adore guys that are totally extroverted and go out with no holds barred (which, I am totally absolutely incapable of), and succeed in charming their way into those girls' hearts. And on the other hand, there’s this awesome talent I have, of trying to be ‘extroverted’ and ‘jolly’ (read charming) to God-forsaken totally uninterested girls (who have totally rejected the idea of any acquaintance with me before I even start). People, I suck. Time and again, and with unfailing regularity, especially when it comes to girls. And why do I then evince interest in befriending girls, you may ask. People, I’m not quite a misogynist. Among my aspirations is also this desire to be a normal guy who’s got some good friends from both sexes, “Oru punidhagaraama natpu”, as Sidharth says to Trisha in Ayudha Ezhuthu while asking her out to a cup of coffee. But anyways, that's trans-gender ego, with no romantic angle.

But when it’s ego in love, that’s when it really has the tendency to screw up big time, or save you the blushes, big time too. I don’t have any major romantic experiences (save one, and that too was not truly/totally romantic). Yeah, I’ve seen a few interesting girls and thought for the briefest of instants about how it would be to have them as a life-partner (a little because of their background & character, definitely a little because of their looks, but mostly because of my increasing anxiety and fear of eternal singularity), but none even remotely close enough to even think about having a long-term marital relationship, let alone proposing. That’s my case.

But coming to this oftportrayed scenario in most movies: Boy-loves-girl; Girl-loves-boy; Both-know-the-other-loves-him/her; Each-wants-the-other-to-make-the-move aka Ego; Family-problem; Train/Flight/Car/Kalyana Mandapam-ending. Well, not all Indian/Tamil movies, but most ego-based movies loosely follow the above story line. Which, in my humble opinion, is crass bull-puke. Going by the basic axioms of logic, why the hell would I want to show my ego to someone I’m going to live the rest of my life (which, incidentally, I am told, is going to be quite long [:(]) with, if I am convinced and have sufficient knowledge to figure out that the other party, too, is reciprocating my feelings. The main issue of ego in romantic relationships arises when neither party is confident or knows that the other party is also inclined romantically to the self. If there is no such reciprocation, the ego-induced-hesitation in conveying the feeling of love may actually be a backhand down the line for you. Why, because if you are not sure if either the relationship truly exists, or the other party is the ‘correct’ person to go ahead and make the move, then there is no point in doing it. Well of course, you have the category of I-don’t-care-what-happens-I-will-attain her(most likely)/him(least likely)-come-what-may people who really care a damn about ego. Doesn’t mean they don’t have self-respect, but quite close. Basically, I am not someone who subscribes to this ideology, irrespective of my past action (singular), which may be viewed on similar lines, primarily because I consider ‘it’ to be a major aberration in my twenty three year slightly-pathetic-majorly-enjoyable-definitely-interesting life. And why I say that ego comes as a solid rescue is because of this society’s convoluted ideology of viewing a guy who loves a girl without the girl having anything for the guy, as someone close to a criminal. But again, there are numerous clichés associated, many such guys generally *do* create quite a scene embarrassing themselves (which they don’t care about), and embarrassing the girl in question (the bad part). Simply to love a girl, not propose to her because of ego/hesitation, then come to know that she too had no feelings, let the matter rest – wonderful, seriously. In such a case, if, later on, people come to know that this guy did have feelings for the girl, then they’d make a criminal out of him, irrespective of the fact that he played a perfect gentleman in not bothering the girl after knowing the absence of her feelings for him. But alas, this is a very specific case, and ego plays, but a minor part. I have seldom (if any) come across the case where a girl loves a guy, but ego prevents her from making the move, hence, I have conveniently neglected that case. Nevertheless, I feel very broad-minded after my above reasoning wrt guys with one-way-feelings, because I’m someone who finds every single chance to find fault with real-life love stories, and seeing the ones around me to be quite so full of sham, I probably have toned down a bit, and opened up a wee bit. But that doesn’t change my opinion of girls loving guys and making the first move, for some reason, I always feel it’s guys who should initiate. But then again, that’s way off topic.

Ego, thus, is a necessary weapon in man’s armoury. It has some far-reaching connotations, yes, but with correct understanding and judicious usage, ego would definitely prove to be an asset. I have, by no means, done an Ayn Rand here. I still look up to Howard Roark and feel jealous and bad that such a character was not my thought, but again, small matters and petty issues constitute the essential difference between great men. Even if I do not possess any of those big things that one’s greatness would be ascribed to, I can, in one small part, claim to have some understanding of an oft-used yet poorly-understood facet of the modern man. It’s ego at its petty best, but ego at its most directly relatable and understandable best.
It’s not earth-shattering, it’s not far-reaching, but it sure is individual-making, and isn’t making a precursor to breaking?

From Chennai Kaapi to Chicago Coffee

This blog was more a provocative inspiration or an inspiring provocation from another blog called "From Chukku Kaapi to Cappuccino", and also partly because I am not totally jobless, and I believe blogs are written by people who have something to say and are articulate enough to give words to their thoughts, and read by people interested in hearing others' experiences.

My Cafe Coffee Days have been few, by far, mostly, to attend PSBB reunions where I would, most often, be somewhat of an odd-man out, feeling not so in the place which is definitely supposed to be a place where "high class kamnaattis" spend money they had, simply because they had to. And despite my change from my school days to college, I haven't changed a wee bit from college to here, in fact, I've probably become more of myself.
I've talked English for most part of my life, well, also English, would be more apt. We talked English in school not for girls, but due to a wonderful school called Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan and its wonderful teachers who inculcated in us a sense of global belonging while firmly ingraining in us our roots, history and culture. (That my generation is quite screwed up is a different issue altogether.) I've read "The Hindu" all my life, and despite its communist ideology and predominantly anti-Hindu sentiments, I've relished it with my morning cup of soodaana filter coffee made by amma. I knew Sidney Sheldon, but didn't read his romantic crap. I loved Enid Blyton, and devoured Famous Five, Secret Seven and quite a few of her other novels. Then I became addicted to Five Find-outers, then Hardy Boys. I saw a few English movies. I've talked to girls all my life, and I'm somewhere near the lowest part of girl-interaction all my life right here right now.
Born in Visakhapatnam, a famous town in Andhra Pradesh, and having grown up in Chennai, things were quite okay for me. Chennai is hot, and theaters are quite expensive, but ok. Food is great. Chennai rocks as far as good food is concerned. Girls have started wearing T-shirts and Jeans, the churidhar is becoming a relic nowadays. Half-sarees probably in temples if you are lucky. Cool did not mean Pizza. Cool did not mean a branded watch. Cool was Marina. Cool was the evening breeze at the end of a hot summer afternoon.
My first pizza was probably around 7th-8th standard. Pizza Corner, I guess. The fork wasn't exactly difficult.
The only time I had black coffee in a "high-class coffee pub" was in Qwiky's, when I had gone with my college classmates Surendran and Harini to ask for sponsorship for my symposium.
And that was my last attempt at black coffee too. I drink ready-made Bru coffee here. Yeah, it doesn't have the aroma of filter kaapi, but what the hell. Compared to crappy black coffee, it's way better.
And that's probably one of the few things that have changed.
Change is good. Change is part of life. Change is inevitable (sigh). But change for change's sake isn't cool. Resisting change probably is. I'm happy I haven't changed much, thus far, at least. And I hope it's for good.
PS: No offence intended to the author of the original blog, just a straightforward from-the-heart-reaction at how things need not actually change, once in the US. Ultimately, To Each, His Own. :)