Divine comedy

A post related to the title tag-line of this blog. A million problems and issues ride our minds at every second - some real, some more important than that. Our big escape from that can be some form of stimulation – sports, meditation, arts or maybe cinema. Since I have a very poor relationship with the first three, I will talk of my only option - the last one. I am not an avid television person but I am crazy about cinema. It may probably be a small side effect of a Mumbai existence but it could be a general human feature.

In cinema, I subscribe to what the typical Indian movie maker sells, but I have a major craving for good comedy. It gives me all the high that I miss out from not using drugs. But of course, not all attempts at comedy are funny. The Hindi film industry had been starved for good comedy for close to two decades until the Dil Chahta Hai’s and the Lagaans came out. Though it has still not fully gotten back to the magic that prevailed in the times of Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Basu Chatterjee, there are at least the odd movies like ‘Kal ho na ho’, ‘Waqt’ and ‘Khosla ka Ghosla’ that weave in some really tingling bits into their script. The comedy tracks that prevailed until then were never good enough to be called lackluster (with the exception of some brilliant bits by Paresh Rawal and Johnny Lever in the movie ‘Judaai’ and a couple of Aamir Khan movies that could make you smile).

The other Indian cinema industry that I follow – the Tamil industry - fared and is still faring a lot better. What was started off by Thangavelu and Nagesh in the sixties and seventies was carried through the eighties and nineties by Goundamani, Janakaraj and Senthil and finally the torch still is held high by Vivek, Vadivelu and the recent Ganja Karupan, each of the stars adding their own colors to it. Of course there are people who never found any of them funny enough but they are not authors on this blog article. Comedy in this industry is so good that despite the current infection of the industry by some people who should have joined some other industry totally unrelated to entertainment, (someone please burn their D.F. Tech. degrees) the finances are still being held stable in many production houses single handedly by the comedy tracks that these greats graciously keep doling out.

Of course there is this whole parallel store of comic cinema that actually did not intend to be so, but nevertheless provides as much entertainment as a quality comedy track would. I talk of the Mithuns, the TRs, the recent Sam Andersons and even Shivaji Ganeshan from the seventies. These movies are meant to be taken in a serious nature (and there are the target audiences that does too) but some others like me take it as a different form of entertainment (hey, after all it is an entertainment industry!).

What makes these movies funny? Is it the excessive jingoistic overacting, is it the bloopers, is it the unbelievable nature of the cinema or is it the fact that the cinema refuses to accept its mediocrity? Jingoism, in my opinion is there in all cinema and some excessively jingoistic movies like Border were big hits not because they were taken to be funny. Second, bloopers exist in all movies and it just takes a keen eye to find them. Third, cinema is allowed to have unbelievable moments and larger than life elements because that is what makes it so fantastic and different and entertaining in comparison to real life. Though of course it is quite funny that a girl that is a third of his age goes weak on the knees for Vijaykanth, (as in that being unbelievably gross even in cinema) and a hundred people spontaneously combust by his very stare, it does not cover the entire spectrum of this parallel industry. There are some other grandpas who still are superstars. In fact such an extreme larger than life effect is taken very serious by most of the movie makers and a large fraction of the public. That leaves just mediocrity.

What defines mediocre cinema? Everyone comes to watch movies with a different mindset and look for different elements in it. Most often the quality of the cinema is based on the element(s) that they looked at but does not always cover everything. Then how can we call a movie mediocre in a general sense? Would it be by a majority of public opinion? In that case, what does the majority of the public call mediocre?

The answer may not be very simple but can be illustrated to make it quite clear. Rajnikanth’s movies are not called mediocre in the Tamil industry because they are taken seriously and his extreme acts and punch elements are called entertaining. The very same act by T Rajendar would be heavily laughed at. One could argue – T Rajendar looks like a Neanderthal’s poor clone and Rajnikanth has a better style. But his son Simbu does look more human than Rajnikanth does and can be made to act well in some situations too. Why did his attempts at heroic dialogue in his debut movie get laughed at, while his later Vallavan (that did not show better acting/screenplay/dialogue/direction in any way) was called a serious hit? Vijaykanth looks like the same species that T Rajendar is claimed to be. But the former is still taken more seriously (not wholly but still substantially, to quote Pt. Nehru). Does Vijakanth offer a better quality in his movies (at least currently)?

One more element to add before I discuss the above - the Hindi movie industry does not seem to offer any extra quality in their acting, dialogue, comedy (already established above) or cinematography. In fact, cinematographers are drawn from the south. Then why is it so that in Bombay, Delhi and Jamshedpur, south Indian cinema (read Tamil cinema. Most people north of the state of Karnataka are not aware of the other south industries. Except for maybe the Malayalam industry but that is thought to entirely be a soft porn industry) is hugely made fun of and the same godly Rajnikanth is mocked openly with the mind-its and the quick-gun Murugans? The answer probably is – budget. The recent ‘Shivaji' by the same person was actually taken seriously in these provinces because of it record – India’s most expensive movie yet. One may scroll back to the previous paragraph to see it sound a bit clearer now.

This argument could sound specious but there is more to stimulate the thinking mind. The bollywood industry, as the Indian industry is popularly called abroad, is called so because it was made in Hollywood’s image – a rip off. Of course the aware world citizen would laud the bollywood industry as ‘full of color and masala’ but it is never treated in the same level of seriousness as a Hollywood or a British production. That is not a result of lack of reach as Indians have migrated to even El Dorado. It is similar to how the Hindi industry treats the Tamil industry.

Big budget is the new brand word. Big budgets mean quality – that is what is sold. The media is worried more about the budget of the movie than what its USP is. And that has carried over to the consumer as well. ‘Taare Zameen Par’ was a big hit; ‘revolutionary children’s movie’ – it was hailed. But the same public never even knew an even more revolutionary ‘Halo’ by Santosh Sivan because it was low budget. There are a million better examples of this but the point driven is the same.

However the purpose is not to promote sensible cinema watching or cut down on excessive expenses in cinema. As stated before, it is an entertainment industry and we draw what we choose from it.

I am a big fan of the Mithuns and the T Rajendars. Not just because of some comedy involved but because of the other thing that they are doing. Though they are not getting great movies out, they provide jobs to so many people who entirely depend on it for their frugal existence. Why is it so important to have a great fight in the movie even though it doesn’t add to the story in any way? The stuntmen and the doubles depend on it for their bread. Technology has pretty much limited the roles of extras, spot boys, doubles, make-up artists, art persons, set designers and makers, stunt men and such. You can be waving your hand in front of a blue screen and the final movie can show you as a great knight slapping an army of dragons. Low tech pavilions that remain – the Bhojpuri industry and the b-grade industries, T Rajendar, Joe Stanley and so many other grass root production houses are their last hope.

To conclude a post that could have taken lesser words to get across, I have always wondered why Kamal Hassan always had to have a car stunt in every one of his movies after the eighties (with the exception of a bare few) even though it never helped the plot. It provides employment. I have even heard that during the 1997-1998 Tamil industry strike, when a lot of the lower rung industry workers faced unemployment and poverty with nowhere to go to, he brought together a team to make a movie called ‘Kadhala Kadhala’ when went on to become one of his best comedy movies and gave a lot of jobs to these people while the actors’ guild refused to do something about the situation. Most of the actors and the top rung members of the movie did not draw anything for their work but passed on the entire sum to the ones who really depended on it. That’s probably why the movie had large numbers of extras going around doing nothing and most of the movie involved sets. Kamal Hassan has his heart in the industry. Mithunda and TR fall in the same league.

To be precise...

What is a nerd and what is a geek? Often I have observed the use of these terms interchangeably and sometimes I have seen one term being used to cover elements that conform to both terms. I wouldn’t say it is wrong; I support colloquial definitions (not very ethically, but yet quite clearly) in English and other languages partly due to my own ineptness in living up to the standards of Victorian English. But the thoughtless misuse of the terms creates quite a degree of confusion and misinterpretation in many circles.

Both terms are American (anti-British if I may) and have specific characteristics and differ in many senses and many of them are not just subtle. Doubtless, there are similarities – both are characterized by a certain degree of academic drive, social ineptness and a certain lack of focus on appearance. But both terms have evolved over time with continuous tampering and refining to their present positions where a clear distinction may be made.

The first point of difference is the origin – the word geek actually has an English (meaning fool) source though the meaning has been corrupted and evolved with time and use. The term nerd has no English origin (though it may be a derivative of certain known words but that is not clear). This may not be a very consequential difference and so it will not demand attention beyond this.

A more embodied difference is the appearance. Though both may be thought to lack focus on appearance, often once can see a nerd being very conventionally unsightly. The geeks of the current timeline are not so easily identifiable. They may have a pretty smile and may still retain the geek gene. A nerd would typically have untended oily hair, glasses that were a trend when glasses were invented, pants that were a in vogue more recently in the 1920s, a shirt that would be slightly too big or slightly too small, a very noticeable lack of fat and a certain dental aberration. A geek can manage to escape that to a fair extent but may not to the point where the pay attention to how they look and match their pants to their shirts. Often they wear only t-shirts (primarily because they are easier to live with and don’t have buttons that require painful attention but it could also be that geeks have a liking for messages on their shirts and very few of such condition lack the t- element). Nevertheless, a geek is not so likely to win a date by his/her allure quotient as the focus lies in a different direction.

A geek is characterized primarily by a passionate drive for certain things like academics (though not at all limited to), technology, gadgetry, music, movies and such. In fact, such a tendency is the very definitive factor of a geek. A geek may conform to all or some of these conventions. So a non-academic person may still be a geek if he is crazy about electronics and his favorite outings are to best buy and circuit city. Such drives are often prioritized over social needs and hence there is a certain lack of real friends (though geeks may be very socially active in the virtual world) and social participation. A geek may be really cool in his/her own perspective and in the perspectives of his peers making him a success in some circles but not in general ones. Their train of thought also runs along the same lines and that limits the extent to with others may relate to them or vice versa.

A nerd on the other hand is driven towards only academics and its allies. The books read are science-fiction. The social circles are math and physics club. Nerds may not have the choice of rejecting social calls; they are often excluded before that. They have a resultant social hunger that drives them to do some very silly things and nerds are often found approaching the other sex in quite a sloppy manner. Nerds may not always be the best people to talk everything with, though they may be very good for academic discussions. A nerd friend is not a conventional social asset unless you are a nerd too (though it may be observed that nerds often watch each others’ backs and make good friends within their own kin so it is not all hope lost to be one). Nerds are generally thought to end up very successful due to their academic motivation and may often be found dating supermodels after they make their first few millions, though a geeky habit may not always be a very productive or vocationally viable one.

Both terms have evolved from extreme to extreme through time. In the past, the n-word carried a milder tag while the g-word was often used for offense. In their current avatars however, being a nerd may conventionally be less desirable than being a geek.

Being a geek has evolved to such a positive state that often geeks proclaim their condition out loud and strong. There is a certain ego and arrogance that goes with the tag and they chose to retain all of that. It feels good to be someone who’s rejected society for technology. It feels good to be a competent geek in geek circles; you are respected by that circle for it. It feels good to hit out on the world for being unable to see what you see, from your weblog.

Of course nerds also follow suit for similar reasons. You can be a reject through your childhood and college life but once you have salvaged your academic potential for professional success, you can hire many conventionally popular individuals to do your bidding at will. Definitely that fosters a dormant ego that does not wish to stay quiet about it.

I would think that such appeal (or the lack of it) can be bred or avoided by personal choice. One definitely can be what one chooses to be if one does carry a true motivation and genuineness for it. Some things are skin deep and others can be purchased for a small fee. It is the mindset that makes the individual that the social pundits pass judgment on.

Structural wars

A computational biologist, an NMR spectroscopist and a crystallographer went to the races. The computational biologist whipped out his laptop, opened a couple of program windows and exclaimed, " i've found out the outcome of this race! The horse named gonio stat will win. I have run a simple simulation of the entire thing with all variables taken in good account. Gonio stat will win by many lengths."

Needless to say, the NMR spectroscopist and the crystallographer disapproved and questioned.

The NMR spectroscopist narrowed his eyes and said, "how can you say you have everything accounted for? Did you account for the track conditions? what if the track is muddy?"

"Thats a good point". said the computational biologist. he quickly modified his codes and parameters and observed the results. Gonio stat's position in the race was negligably changed. He still seemed to win by many lengths.

The assured NMR spectroscopist quitely placed a 50 buck bet on the horse and went away.

The crystallographer persisted. In his traditional crystallographic worries he stated, " i am still not convinced. have you accounted for wind currents and humidity and rain?"

"Hmmm. thats a good point too." said the computational biologist. He modified his codes and parameters and rechecked his results. The position of the horse barely changed and he still seemed to win the race by many lengths.

The crystallographer was still reluctant. however he placed a 100 buck bed on gonio stat and hoped that it worked.

All the calculations were now done and the bets were in place and the race began. Needless to say, gonio stat had an impressive start but as the race went on he lagged and slowed and fell far behind every one of the other horses. He was behind all of them by many lengths. The race ended with gonio stat on an obvious last place.

The the crystallographer and the NMR spectroscopist were furious. "we believed in you! you said you had taken everything into account including the track and weather conditions! how did this happen?!!!" They demanded to see his logic.

The computational biologist began with a smug smile, "first assume a spherical horse...."


-posted on my lab entrance

Of Worms...

Killing cannot be a sport but "bumping" someone off can be addictive. The fun of blasting the enemy off with a holy hand-grenade or the extremely pleasing prospect of insulting the enemy by merely pushing him off a ledge in the water, allowing him to swim like a brick can give an enslaving high.

Gaming was never an obsession for me until I encountered the worms series. As always, I saw it late enough to say that I wish I had seen it from its very first versions. I first played a demo version of 'Worms: Armageddon' It was unlike anything I had seen so far - starting at its turn-based nature. It was a new concept, a new genre to me. The playable characters - the worms were like typical worms in their movement and jumping (even swimming) abilities, but they were different in other ways - their eyes, clothes and arsenal of weapons were not so worm-like or even humanoid-like. It was that crazy idea from someone in Team 17 that just worked. and how!The first DOS based Worms game brought in that new concept - turn based strategy warfare in a full destructible island map, with an arsenal of weapons - ranging from the usual shotguns, grenades and bazookas to homing missiles, kamikaze worms and even insane exploding sheep. The deal was to bump off all of your enemy's worms and at the same time save yours in your turn time. It was an instant hit and within a year, an expansion pack - worms reinforcements was out, followed by a Director's Cut edition that brought in more bigger/crazier guns and more maps and editors.

The second generation of worms focussed on its inherent comic nature, with a more cartoon look to the entire game, pink cute worms and comment boxes, more crazy weapons, watery graves and explosive (or lung-bursting) results. The graphics were really cool and the voice effects added to the charm. The worms ranged from shy mumblers to full fledged alien motormouths that kept insisting that their kills were personal. Armageddon and World party came out later with more enhancements, sheep and multiplayer support. Added weapons now included prion-infected mad cows, super sheeps (that could fly and even snorkel underwater!) and some most unfortunate old women. As in most games, multiplayer gaming was the real element of worms. The addictive fun of delivering a fire punch to your pals and knocking them into the next world or ushering their early ascension with a bouncy banana bomb pitched it out for Worms.
Worms 3D - the next edition was a blast! It had added new dimensions and not just in graphical display. The gameplay had changed to suit its 3D nature but there were also new weapons. Newer strategies were needed to get the enemy and the weapons had a different catch. A first person shooting ability made it a lot more appealing. But it still felt like a prototype. Some controls were buggy. Land pixels were cubes that showed that the graphics were good but not smooth enough. Worms 4: Mayhem made up for all of that. It had all of 3D's excellence and made additions in the controls and the graphics department. Maps were also a lot bigger than before and drowning the worms wasn't as easy as it was in 3D (there were complaints that the worms seemed to be drowning all the. New, more deranged weapons included the inflatable scouser that did exactly what the name says - it releases a scouser who walks upto your enemy (can be controlled) and inflates into a sort of balloon with the enemy inside and moves with the wind for about 10 seconds. A good wind could see the enemy far out at sea just to drop in for a swim to heaven (though the worms now preferred to just float on the surface and burst their way out of the world instead of glugging their way to the bottom and complaining about how they're supposed to be the superior bunch here).The spinoffs - worms blast and pinball were a fine addition to the games and so was the forts edition which included building forts, factories and science labs in the 3D edition adding to the strategy involved in the games.

Worms has created the genre of comedy in computer games and has still succeeded in making sure that the gamer takes it seriously enough to spend sleepless nights on. The idea of a bunch of soft and cute worms that were serious about killing each other with the same weapons from the typical first person shooter and more, enthralls. Not loving it would be a court-marshal offense soldier!

Weigh it...

The average description of the average libran would start with "balanced". Probably because of the scales, I'm guessing. But most often than not, the average libran does not have a totally balanced way of looking at everything. He/She does not stay in control and equilibrium and is not the person one would want around to solve an issue by balancing matters, or to give a totally unbiased opinion. However he/she'd be the perfect person to ask for a well thought and backed opinion (however skewed it may be).

The point to be driven is that a libran is a confused person in a lot of internal turmoil. He(assume the /she from here on please) breaks his head over non-issues and petty matters to achieve a well-balanced opinion on it. He seeks that equilibrium state but most often is in only a trying-to-get-there position. And his growing turmoil spills all around, irritating most around him; the people around do manage to see that he's not normal but they fail to understand his conflicts and associated trauma. A libran is not a calm or composed person by nature. He does of course, feel at some points that he's got the solution to his problem in hand and a well-weighed perspective on the matter - at which time he'd be serene (or so he thinks). He now has enough reason to battle out his policy with the universe. But the rest of the world does not see this as a tranquil state; it is a state of unbearably heavy stubbornness and a stone-like coldness to other opinions - an indifference that is not well-liked.

However, all the above non-positives and positives (as the relative case may be) are supposedly neutralized by what is called the libran charm - which we will not make any ground on.

We will observe some of my personal confusions and conflicts (that be a joy. To me).

I am a person of south Indian origin but my current (and past!) memory starts only from the age of 4, an age where I had already been in Bombay for some years. The cosmopolitan really helped me grew - in awareness of variant lifestyles and cultures, at the same time allowed me retain my south Indian roots; I could at least speak my mother tongue and know of some practices. But, naturally, I was different from the average south Indian. I wasn't aware of south Indian movies (a major culture drive factor in my opinion) nor was I fully aware of how it is to live like one. In strict senses (and some less strict ones as well), I was not south Indian. But at the same time, I was not a total...anything else (there is a lot more outside south India than just the so-called stereotype "north Indian"!). I was not a full Bombay person either. I was unacceptable in most circles - there was always a certain rule that I could never live up to.

I moved to Chennai for my undergrad. Chennai was supposedly my native place - where I had great fun over vacation trips. Naturally I had a great opinion of Chennai when I first arrived. Only, to my dismay, vacation trips and living were two entirely different things. The Chennai I had seen in the past was limited - to my relatives, a few sight-seeing spots and some miscellaneous others. This time it was plain culture shock. I was moving around with people from a different plane, lifestyle, mindset, and other related parameters. It wasn't fun anymore.

But as is every other college experience, this one was...important. I did open my windows to Chennai (to a fair degree at least) and took what I could from it. In other words, I continued (tried), involuntarily, the libran balance-act.

Was this entirely circumstantial? Would anyone else in my shoes feel the same? Probably. But I had conflicts in a lot of other areas too. I was unable to meet the norms back in Bombay as well and that seems to be a life equation (or non-equation!) now. I was not entirely religious but I wasn't a non-believer too. I had my personal practices. I was short-tempered, but not short enough to become THE guy. I like my subjects and have a lot of motivation towards them, but I'm not totally passionate - given a choice, I would probably still read comics for a living (for a sustainable income and medical plan of course). I was(am) not a total good boy, but I am not bad either. I love music and sing and play with a frenetic enthusiasm but I am nowhere near the best one in my house even! I am computer savvy; I use it for a lot of my purposes and can take it apart and put it together, troubleshoot and understand its working. But I cannot write even a print program in any language to save my life! I am not chauvinist and I do respect women, but I do not respect all of their talk and deed just because of the latters' origin. I like a clean house and I do work to keep it that way (at least now!) but it is still not strikingly clean! I do not like to spend a lot of money but I am no thrift worm either! I do not like to get on the wrong side of people and do try to help such situations but I am not a diplomat either! I am not a stereotype person but at the same time I am not driven too much off the average in any direction! I cut the examples here and conclude on them that this brings a lot of confusion and turmoil in my life. But I love living with them.

I will not patronize on how I deal with them (I don't know how I do it myself but I know that I love it like this!) but it probably has something to do with acceptance and subscription to Gandhian thought (but I still like Metallica and rebellious dialogue! - if that can make a striking conflict...sort of...!). And my zodiac persona (I believe in the Zodiac but not entirely!), I guess, helps my take parts of each trait, put them together and make a formative picture - a structure that allows me to rationalize through the chaos. Or is it something else...? I debate...

- A stereotype yet off-center libran

Of Tolkein's realm...

Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo!

(A star shines upon the hour of our meeting!)

Imagination is a talent of which Tolkien had achieved beyond mastery. How would one have thought that a simple tale of a small halfling who had an unexpected tea party would have unfolded (and still unfolding!) into an entire universe of breathtaking detail - with even languages, and lineages and creation and evolution! Tolkien's wizardry (for that indeed it can be called) is still in the process of being understood - as descendants, researchers, purists and fans are doing their best to understand his middle earth and the other realms of that world.

I was, but a boy of eleven, when I first read The Hobbit. It was a simple tale of a short, stocky and content fellow - who suddenly found a bunch of dwarves walk into his house under the instruction of a troublesome, tall, Grey-cloaked old man with a tall staff - and then ended up in an adventurous trip from home to far west and back again. It was surprising - how a small little "thief" like him could evade goblins and curious mountain creatures, slay spiders and even muster a straight conversation with the dreaded Smaug (the Magnificent). He returned rich - not just with experience, tales, songs and friends but also with gifts from the dwarves - gold and more, a mail of moria silver and a helm to go with it, a fine blade of elvish make and a number of other small items....including a simple round ring of invisibility that he found on an encounter of riddles with a curious creature that called itself "my precious" and make a horrible swallowing noise that gave it its name. He made a rich account of his travel - There and back again - and the settled down and lived happily ever after. I shut the book with a smile and went on with life...a nice read it was...I liked it...

But there was more to it than met the eye...

In my early teen years, I stumbled upon a book - The Lord of the Rings. Catchy title, I thought. What was more - it was a Tolkien story. Hoping to relive the simple pleasure of that adventure from the eyes of a small hobbit (There And Back Again), I started reading it. The first page surprised me. This book was starting again, where the Hobbit had stopped - I was taken... The first chapter came with elements that relived the joy of meeting old friends, the content of an adventure far behind and the sarcastic and dry humour that I was so familiar with from 'There and Back Again'. But then it shifted...

The world was bigger, more cruel than before, there were orcs - not simple goblins - and more fell beasts. Evil was afoot and the dark tower was stretching its evil hand over the world. The race of men had failed and the world as we knew it was coming to an end. The elves were leaving Middle Earth for the undying lands. All old alliances were lost and the fate of the world hung in the hands of young Frodo Baggins of Bag End and the ring in his possession...

This book was like a travelogue, similar to The Hobbit on that, and yet it was different. A lot of people I knew then and I know now, still are unable to get past the initial chapters of the book - not because it was complicated or difficult to read - but just because it was a travelogue that could get tiresome after a certain point. But then, I was familiar with Tolkien's narration and sustained that patience; I slowly got lost in the book. When I finally finished the book, appendices and all, I had seen the book for what it was - a sacred monumental saga of more sorts than one. It had become my Bible and Geeta.

I read it thrice more in the subsequent weeks; I had to know everything. It was but a peephole into middle earth and a lot more trespassed in Tolkien's world than it spoke about. I had to learn the languages of the high elves (and men and dwarves and orcs and the black speech!); to speak a fairer speech in fell days. I had to know the history of middle earth and all its unspoken and unfinished tales. I had to live it.

I picked up more of his work and devoured them wholly. 'Tales of the Perilous Realm', 'The Silmarillion', 'Lost tales of Middle Earth'. Tolkien's world was exploding in my head like a brilliant fiery sun. I finally was satiated to a good extent by Peter Jackson's epic (I use a poor word here) work. I would laugh at every movie and I cried for these. Subbu still recollects the day I walked into class after watching The Return Of The King in a maniacal stupor. I was way beyond 'in love'... It was not the cinematography or the effects and graphics or the stunts that were the achievement. It was Jackson's ability to understand Tolkien's world and also the minds of the purists that made him produce a heavenly vision of the trials of the second and third age.

Jackson had shown Tolkien's mind and its elements -

It was the sadness of the end of the third age and the final establishment of mortality in middle earth, yet the joy of the end of darkness; the fear of the ever consuming evil, yet the courage of the weak who stood against it; the sorrows of the evils that had eroded and scarred the past, yet the inspiring memories of alliances and courage and songs and purity of heart and spirit; of planning, hard battle, strategy and survival, yet of innocence and simple needs and humor. There were tales of malice and hatred and yet of a friendship and a love that survived it.

I still quiver and tremble when I hear lines from Tolkien's works and verses from his songs. Tolkien's narration, to me, has become the voice of Eru. I have felt god many times over...

NamaarieAa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenleLissenen ar' maska'lalaith tenna' lye omentuva!

(Farewell

May your paths be green and the breeze on your backSweet water and light laughter till next we meet!)

Good Music

Taste, in music and probably anything else for the matter, has to be one of the most personal things that one would have. So personal that it would be easy to ruin your mood by just saying that THAT thing you like sucks, and I would be no exception to that rule. Music is my best friend - the one that selflessly yet perfectly turns me right up when I am down and amplifies my good mood to euphoric levels. Just like everyone's next door neighbor's tomcat, my taste in music also happens to be unique (forehead-wrinkling-unique to quote an old classmate of mine). Though I do really enjoy heavy metal (a very strict sense heavy metal that would NOT include death metal but would include thrash, grunge and their related variants), my first love is Indian light music and classical music - both Hindustani and Carnatic.

My passion for Indian light music, probably, has developed over 18 years of a nothing-but-bollywood childhood. However, my liking for classical music has taken form quite late and evolved a lot over the years. Same for metal - I discovered Metallica (who dragged me into metal heaven) very late (not until mission impossible 2 came out) and until then I could see only Jatin-Lalit, Anu Malik, Ismail Durbar, Uttam Singh, Nadeem-Shrawan, a fair host of indipop people, Strings, Euphoria (though I had not yet fallen for them entirely) and of course, A.R. Rahman (probably all the tamil music I had heard until my undergrad started were of his creation).

Carnatic music, however, was on a parallel track because of my formal education in it - though it was barely anything more than a subject. But, somewhere in 1999, I started treating it with a little more of respect and started actually listening to it properly. I think my mom (she liked carnatic more than heavy metal then... and it has pretty much stayed that way) was responsible for it - every morning, as I used to leave for school at 6 a.m., she'd be watching a performance on TV and would often make me guess the raga. I always went wrong at the start but I picked up in a while and actually managed to atleast hum the right swaras of the raga and sometimes an aalap even if I could not remember or place the name.

That slight bit of seriousness grew on me. I heard more and more and liked it more and more. It was finally topped by the realization of a whole host of unlikely Indian movie songs that subscribed to ragas. Rahman and Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy seemed to top that list of music makers with a lot of classical effects and seamless fusion. The fusion did a lot to me, but I loved pure carnatic too!

A few months down the line I finally realized my ideal music store:
shelves of metal gods - metallica, AC/DC, Nirvana, Black Sabbath
others - U2, Nickelback, Black Lab, Seal, John Williams, R.E.M., Oasis
Indirock - Euphoria, Strings, Fuzon, Kailasa
fusion - Rahman, Durbar, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, Prasanna
Carnatic - Kunnakodi, Santhanam, Mandolin Srinivas

There were some generally loved music pieces and artists in all of these genres that I could not bring myself to appreciate but that did not concern me either. I had found enough and more to relate every emotion to. Sometimes lyrics did something but it generally was the music that entered and electrified every nerve of the body. Each form had its own unique effect and relation.

I am sure that most of those effects are known to all of us, so I'll mention just two of my favorites.

The first one is the effect of the reethi gowla raga. A very simple yet powerful raga it is, with a lot of unique notes. It had a sense of deep confidence and conviction and positive thought in it - an effect that would make me take its notes and meaning very seriously. It was the Aahadaha - the contentment factor, that spoke of a deep belief, a love, a heritage in its extremely convincing Gandharams, Madhyamams and Nishadhams. It was the raga that would open me up, and draw me to express the insides of the blue. The effect I needed when I was bottling up or when I felt shut to the rest of the world. An effect that would bring a smile; a smile that would read - equilibrium, peace and fulfillment. An example of this raga is this beautiful piece on the guitar. Another, very popular example of this amazing raga is a scarecrow song from the movie Mudhalvan. The music of the Rohirrim from the Lord of the Rings movies overlaps heavily with this raga.

The second effect is quite different but yet powerful. The desh raga is what I would use to relate to home and a lot of its associated elements. Desh was the music of patriotism, of a magical sense of belonging, of national integration, of inspiration, of peace, of past sacrifice and yet, of promise, of hope. This raga hosts, what is probably THE most popular song in India and still, all people may not know its name. It is the raga of the 'Vande Mataram' (the original classical one; not the versions from Rahman's album, or Lata Mangeshkar's or Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Ghum or Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani ) - a raga that transcends all lines of classical, folk and regional music. It was the music of purity - a highly concentrated form of the effect that touching ethanol has, i would call it. It was the music of rejuvenation and spirit. My favorite bhajan is my favorite probably because it is in this raga. Rahman's work on it in 'The Legend of Bhagat Singh' was beyond genius. In one form, it was energetic, with a power infusing beat, and spirit and courage. In the other form, joined by a host of other ragas including Suddha Bangala, Abhogi and Arabhi, it was of hope at a time of despair, of sadness, yet of an assurance for the future. Here is a titular example.

To quote Krishna - "Hail good Music...!"