Me: So, your Egypt trip…
Friend: Hmmm?
Me: Will you guys be hitting Memphis?
Friend: Dude, Memphis is in the US :P LOL You don’t even know this??
Me: o_O erm dude...
(after consulting Wikipedia)
Friend: So what! I was talking about the Memphis in the US!
Sometimes, it helps to do the research. Or at least not offer an opinion on something you haven’t got the slightest clue about. The best part about the internet is that it is a treasure trove of knowledge. Knowledge on the Internet is not just condensed onto sites like Wikipedia, but it is also available on blogs, online magazines and other such websites. Usually, when I am looking for something on the internet (the history of a particular book, lets say), I browse around, and usually, I find something that is quite interesting and relevant. And sometimes, I find stuff written by an idiot.
The great tragedy of the internet is that any idiot with an opinion can create a blog and spew mindless crap. Now, I am not talking about opinion pieces or blogs that are low on content quality, but still make an effort. I am also not talking about people offering incorrect facts and interpretations of something of which they would not be qualified for anyways, for theirs is an error of ignorance, and who hasn’t been guilty of that? No, I am talking about blogs and websites that claim to be experts in an area, and then post something erroneous and inflammatory without doing any of the research (which in this day and age is basically typing stuff into a google search bar anyways). THEN, when their errors are pointed out, they still stand their ground and defend every single silly thing they said and claim that the readers did not get them.
I pride myself on being a ‘know it all’. Ever since I was a kid, I have been into books of all kinds, and that has given me a thirst for learning and knowledge that I will cherish all throughout my life. That has also left me socially awkward and adept at shaking trees, but that is beside the point here. I pride myself on my knowledge, and I take every pain to show it off as much as I can. However, what I really pride myself on is the ability to keep my mouth shut when I don’t know anything about what is being discussed, and to admit that I am wrong when I am wrong (which happens far more often than I would like). It’s a tough pill to swallow and I always wish I wouldn’t have to do it, but its something that I have to do. Most of us are the same, we make mistakes and we admit it. Its no big deal and everyone gets on with their lives. These things are brought up at times when we are amongst friends and everyone has a good laugh and all seems right with the world.
Then, you come across people who make incorrect and inflammatory comments and judgments, and when called out on it, defend their own stance and cite i) freedom of speech ii) the sanctity and unassailability of opinions iii) their credentials as experts, even though they might have made a rookie mistake, and iv) offer an apology that is no better than a ‘screw you’. There are, of course, other ways that people respond, but in my experience, these are the top four.
People do tend to get uncomfortable and defensive when they are called out on their errors, and that is perfectly fine for that is how we are built. What is not fine is turning the whole thing into a shouting match or a ‘holier than thou’ competition. What makes it worse is that a lot of people are using this tactic to gain cheap publicity and to portray themselves as different, and hence, cooler. It is not uncommon on the various social media, to come across someone like this, someone who will make an inflammatory and/or ill-informed comment, and then defend themselves by saying that because going against popular opinion is tougher, they are the ones who are right.
Seriously, how tough is it to say ‘I was wrong, I didn’t know any better’. Its not like saying ‘whoops, my bad!’ on the internet will get you a lifetime ban. If anything, you might get a few admirers for having the balls to say that you made a mistake. Similarly, how much of a wannabe do you have to be for you to want to be contrary just for the sake of being cool. The chasm between ‘cool’ and ‘weird’ isn’t very wide, and it is called ‘pretentious’, and sadly, that is where a lot of people end up, both in real life and on the internet. On almost all major forums or online discussions, there will be at least some who will try to appear more knowledgeable and flame bait. When you find a poster who uses extreme straw logic or even insane troll logic to defend their points, who resorts to claiming everyone else is a moron for citing facts etc, well, congratulations, you have found someone who is perhaps the most annoying-self-righteous-pretentious-little…
Sorry, got carried away a bit there. Anyway, to summarize, if you meet someone like this, assume that this is a test to judge your character, and quietly ignoring these people will net you just as many points with the god of your choice as laying the smackdown on them in the most awesome way possible.
Also, if the description above seems to apply to you, then I would offer you the same advise that The Rock has given countless times:
KNOW YOU ROLE, AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!
(Note: This incoherent rant was inspired by this post. Please read it for some further context)
Monday, May 30, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Why Superman will lose to Nagraaj
I recently downloaded Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe on my Xbox, and me and my flatmates proceeded to set up and engage in awesome and improbable duels including, but not limited to, Batman vs Liu Kang, Kitana vs Catwoman, Sonya Blade vs Flash, Raiden vs Captain Marvel etc. While it was nice to see my flat mates engage in virtual combat, err, kombat with a childlike glee as they hacked, slashed, burned, gouged, strangled and tried to otherwise severely inconvenience each other’s characters, as a regular follower of DC comics, it was jarring for me to see stuff happen that would be impossible in the real world, or rather, the real world of the comics. (THERE IS NOWAY SHANG TSUNG COULD BEAT THE FLASH! NO WAY! NO WAY AT ALL!!!)
While it was understandable that the power levels of some characters would have to be changed to make the game balanced, case in point, a fully powered Captain Marvel could probably defeat the entire Mortal Kombat contingent ex Raiden by just flexing his muscles and yawning, but at the same time, it was slightly disconcerting to see someone like Catwoman actually go toe to toe with Superman. Of course, the fact that one of my flatmates was a rabid fan of Mortal Kombat and refused to listen to my well reasoned arguments on why Captain Marvel could easily defeat even Raiden, was infuriating as well, mostly because most of his arguments were based on his assertion that “Liu Kang phodu hai!”
While it is easy and correct to dismiss a person who argues for the superiority of Liu Kang over a character who is basically Superman with Magic as a charlatan with questionable morals, yet at times, some of the questions and arguments raise cannot be answered easily, simply because no one has tried to answer these questions before, and I, as a follower of both the John Constantine and Gendo Ikari school of thought, cannot let it stand. Therefore, I shall now demonstrate why Superman will lose to Nagraaj in a fight.
While it is easy and correct to dismiss a person who argues for the superiority of Liu Kang over a character who is basically Superman with Magic as a charlatan with questionable morals, yet at times, some of the questions and arguments raise cannot be answered easily, simply because no one has tried to answer these questions before, and I, as a follower of both the John Constantine and Gendo Ikari school of thought, cannot let it stand. Therefore, I shall now demonstrate why Superman will lose to Nagraaj in a fight.
I shall approach this problem rationally. Nagraaj is more awesome than Superman, that is a fact. Therefore, Nagraaj has a starting advantage. Secondly, and more importantly, Nagraaj has a counter to each and every move that Superman has, and he has the one thing on his side that Superman has no defense again. Thirdly, and most importantly, I am a jingoistic elitist jerk and India won the world cup this year, therefore, Nagraaj deserves to win.
Anyway, onto the contest. For this brawl, I shall propose a barrier/barrier buster approach, whereby Superman uses his abilities for offensive purposes, while Nagraaj does the same for defense. I could, theoretically, have a more complete scenario, where both Nagraaj and Superman take turns to attack and defend, or they both battle it out in real time. Sadly, due to time constraints and me feeling really sleepy, I shall touch upon only the Supes-attacks scenario. Now, on to the main fight.
Round 1: The Heat Vision
Superman starts off by his most famous ranged attack, the heat vision. Bursts of concentrated solar power speed towards Nagraaj and strike his body. On a normal human being, the effect would be deadly, and even on a superhuman like Nagraaj, it would wreak much havoc. Steam and other hot surfaces have scalded him in the past, but this time, he stands resolute, smiling serenely. Sheetnagkumar’s ice based powers have effectively nullified the heat, and Superman’s first attack has failed without even harming a single scale on Nagraaj’s Body.
Round 2: Freeze Breath
Round two has the man of steel using his famed freeze breath, knowing that as person with reptilian powers, Nagraaj would have reptilian weaknesses as well, and low temperatures would quite effectively screw up his metabolism. Of course, Sheetnagkumar counter this attack as well, simply by absorbing the cold.
Round 3: Super Breath
With his two thermal attacks failing to have any effect, Superman switches to his super breath, attempting blow Nagraaj off his feet and finish him off. Nagraaj reacts by calling out his Nagfani Sarps and switching to his snake form. By the time the first gust of wind hits, Nagraaj is safely buried underground.
Round 4: Up close and personal
With all his long ranged attacks spent, Superman shifts gears and flies towards Nagraaj at great speed, intending to strike Nagraaj with great force to knock him out and incapacitate him. Superman is one of the fastest beings on earth, and is certainly faster than all the Indian superheroes. However, Nagraaj waits for him and uses his Ikchhadhaari power to turn into small particles. Superman passes through him without causing any damage, and manages to stop and turn around fast enough to turn the fight into a melee, a fight where Superman’s legendary super strength comes into play.
Unfortunately, this is where Superman’s legendary vulnerability to magic comes into play as well. Nagraaj blows out a small burst of his vish funkaar and Superman falls victim to his own super olfaction, and is momentary disoriented. In the time it takes Superman to recover, Nagraaj unleashes his two most destructive ikchhadhaari naags, Saudangi and Naagu. Saudangi attacks Superman’s body with her magic, while Naagu attacks his mind. Nagraaj’s own strength is of course no match for the man of steel, but Saudangi and Naagu distract Superman enough for Nagraaj to get one bite on Superman. While his Kryptonian DNA and the solar energy stored in his skin cells allows Superman to fight off the worst effects of the poison, the fact that the posion is the posion of a god means that it is still enough to incapacitate Superman. With Superman incapacitated, Saudangi easily starts channeling out Superman’s stored solar energy while Nagraaj creates a canopy of his snakes to prevent any light to reach Superman’s body, thereby depowering him.
Game, set and match.
(EDIT: I haven’t explained all the powers and their nuances in great detail as they are all canon, and anyone who reads comic books should be familiar with them. Also, I am a geek and tired and sleepy, therefore my logic makes sense. Etc.
Also, the formatting in some places is horrible, and I will, at some point of time, correct them, and more add images)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Inner Beauty - It is what meets the eye
Wikipedia describes beauty as a characteristic of a person, place, object or idea that provides a perceptual feeling of pleasure, meaning or satisfaction. Beauty is an abstract concept, and therefore, is bound to mean different things to different people. To a mathematician, an elegant proof, or to a software engineer, an elegant code, can be as beautiful as Mona Lisa. Also, different people have different ideas about what they find beautiful, for instance, to me, Dev D was a beautiful film, but for some of my best friends, it was a crass, gritty update of a classic, and the ruining of a romantic archetype that casts its shadow over Indian Cinema and Psyche. It’s a fact that different people have different standards and look for different things. Given this, is it any surprise that the idea of beauty, or for the purpose of this blog, ‘inner beauty’, means so many different things to different people.
In my childhood, I had heard time and again from preachy movies, songs and TV soaps, that real beauty is within, that it does not require make up or fancy clothes, that real beauty is skin deep, and all the female protagonist has to do to get the hero is be a good person, and eventually, the shallow lipstick wearing and cigarette smoking vamp would let go of the hero, or the hero would find her cigarette smoking utterly reprehensible and he would come to the Plain Jane heroine and the movie will end with an appropriate happily ever after. On a certain level, it does make sense that the story would take this turn. We all love rooting for the underdog, and the woman who puts hours of effort into her appearance and deportment is obviously a shallow and conniving hussy who is unworthy of our support. Plus, she smokes cigarettes, and that means she is pure evil. Therefore, we should all root for the simple girl next door whose redeeming qualities include a) being a fundamentally good person b) does not care about her looks because she is beautiful inside and c) is usually played by an actress who looks stunning even without make up.
This, of course, caused a severe dissonance when I became a young man and started observing and appreciating female beauty. Most of the girls, if not all, would put some effort into their looks and appearances. While my childhood conditioning made me search desperately and without success for a girl who eschewed the concept of applies beauty altogether, another part of me was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the girls around were putting in conscious efforts to appear easy to the eye. It could just be a case of my male gaze bias, but most of the times, I got the feeling that these girls did not consider the use of artificial beautification a crime, and the world was a better place for it. Now, granted that not all of them were as beautiful as the super hot actresses in the movies who did not wear make up, but these girls did make the effort to make themselves attractive, to make themselves beautiful, and they were beautiful because of it. They weren’t beautiful because they wore fashionable dresses, but they were beautiful because they tried to better themselves in a certain way through hard work.
Now, this might sound shallow on my part, that I appreciated the people around me solely on their physical appearances and not on the kind of person they were on the inside, and I disagree with that. I’d argue that real beauty does come from within, but in its strictest and narrowest sense, it manifests itself in the physical appearance of the person. I would argue that true inner beauty comes from a desire to be attractive, to be beautiful, not just to the outside world, but to one’s own self as well, and that includes a desire to appear pleasing to one’s own self. When a person is strong, confident and beautiful on the inside, they invariably try and make themselves appear more pleasing, not out of their own vanity, but because they want to appear pleasing to themselves. It comes from a universal desire to better yourself, to uplift yourself that all of us have, and which manifests itself stronger in some of us than the rest. These are the people who better themselves both physically, mentally and emotionally through their own will and drive for excellence, and these are the people who exhibit true inner beauty, even in their external appearances. True inner beauty is not about looking pretty without wearing make up etc. A person who looks good effortlessly is a person who just won big time at the genetic lottery, but a person who takes the effort to look good, well, hats off to them.
Coco Chanel once famously said that fashion fades, while style remains the same throughout the ages. Fashion is the outer beauty, the dresses and the makeup and the grooming and the hair-styling, while style is something that we carry within, the inner beauty that makes us who we are, no matter what we wear. Mother Teresa was beautiful, not just because she had a good heart and she worked tirelessly for the needy, but because her calmness and serenity was an aura that she carried with herself, in her walk, in her voice and in her clothes. She who took great care of other who could not fend for themselves, took great care of herself as well. Nietzsche argued that we lived in a nihilistic world, a world where reality was unkind, and that the strongest rose from amongst us on the strength of their wills, and that applies to all aspects of the human experience, including beauty. We live in an ugly, horrendous world, and people make themselves beautiful by their hard work. A person might be born with a pretty face, but he or she will attain true inner beauty only if they work on it. True inner beauty comes with hard work and great willpower and a hunger to better yourself. A person who is not born as a model or a hunk, but still tries to better themselves is a beautiful person, and appreciating a person’s effort to better themselves never made someone shallow.
Net, I’m not shallow, and girls who take the effort to make themselves look good, on behalf of all the men, we appreciate you. In the movies, you might be the vamps, but in real life, we salute you.
In my childhood, I had heard time and again from preachy movies, songs and TV soaps, that real beauty is within, that it does not require make up or fancy clothes, that real beauty is skin deep, and all the female protagonist has to do to get the hero is be a good person, and eventually, the shallow lipstick wearing and cigarette smoking vamp would let go of the hero, or the hero would find her cigarette smoking utterly reprehensible and he would come to the Plain Jane heroine and the movie will end with an appropriate happily ever after. On a certain level, it does make sense that the story would take this turn. We all love rooting for the underdog, and the woman who puts hours of effort into her appearance and deportment is obviously a shallow and conniving hussy who is unworthy of our support. Plus, she smokes cigarettes, and that means she is pure evil. Therefore, we should all root for the simple girl next door whose redeeming qualities include a) being a fundamentally good person b) does not care about her looks because she is beautiful inside and c) is usually played by an actress who looks stunning even without make up.
This, of course, caused a severe dissonance when I became a young man and started observing and appreciating female beauty. Most of the girls, if not all, would put some effort into their looks and appearances. While my childhood conditioning made me search desperately and without success for a girl who eschewed the concept of applies beauty altogether, another part of me was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the girls around were putting in conscious efforts to appear easy to the eye. It could just be a case of my male gaze bias, but most of the times, I got the feeling that these girls did not consider the use of artificial beautification a crime, and the world was a better place for it. Now, granted that not all of them were as beautiful as the super hot actresses in the movies who did not wear make up, but these girls did make the effort to make themselves attractive, to make themselves beautiful, and they were beautiful because of it. They weren’t beautiful because they wore fashionable dresses, but they were beautiful because they tried to better themselves in a certain way through hard work.
Now, this might sound shallow on my part, that I appreciated the people around me solely on their physical appearances and not on the kind of person they were on the inside, and I disagree with that. I’d argue that real beauty does come from within, but in its strictest and narrowest sense, it manifests itself in the physical appearance of the person. I would argue that true inner beauty comes from a desire to be attractive, to be beautiful, not just to the outside world, but to one’s own self as well, and that includes a desire to appear pleasing to one’s own self. When a person is strong, confident and beautiful on the inside, they invariably try and make themselves appear more pleasing, not out of their own vanity, but because they want to appear pleasing to themselves. It comes from a universal desire to better yourself, to uplift yourself that all of us have, and which manifests itself stronger in some of us than the rest. These are the people who better themselves both physically, mentally and emotionally through their own will and drive for excellence, and these are the people who exhibit true inner beauty, even in their external appearances. True inner beauty is not about looking pretty without wearing make up etc. A person who looks good effortlessly is a person who just won big time at the genetic lottery, but a person who takes the effort to look good, well, hats off to them.
Coco Chanel once famously said that fashion fades, while style remains the same throughout the ages. Fashion is the outer beauty, the dresses and the makeup and the grooming and the hair-styling, while style is something that we carry within, the inner beauty that makes us who we are, no matter what we wear. Mother Teresa was beautiful, not just because she had a good heart and she worked tirelessly for the needy, but because her calmness and serenity was an aura that she carried with herself, in her walk, in her voice and in her clothes. She who took great care of other who could not fend for themselves, took great care of herself as well. Nietzsche argued that we lived in a nihilistic world, a world where reality was unkind, and that the strongest rose from amongst us on the strength of their wills, and that applies to all aspects of the human experience, including beauty. We live in an ugly, horrendous world, and people make themselves beautiful by their hard work. A person might be born with a pretty face, but he or she will attain true inner beauty only if they work on it. True inner beauty comes with hard work and great willpower and a hunger to better yourself. A person who is not born as a model or a hunk, but still tries to better themselves is a beautiful person, and appreciating a person’s effort to better themselves never made someone shallow.
Net, I’m not shallow, and girls who take the effort to make themselves look good, on behalf of all the men, we appreciate you. In the movies, you might be the vamps, but in real life, we salute you.
Monday, May 16, 2011
What makes a monster?
I just finished reading Monster, a really long, twisted and riveting manga by Naoki Urasawa. Drawing heavily from Osaku Tezuma’s MW and The Book of Revelations from the Bible, the story follows Dr. Kenzo Tenma, a Japanese neurosurgeon living in Germany. On the surface, he has a perfect life, but his disagreements with the people around him force him to re-examine his approach as a doctor and make a fateful decision one dark, story night. As is common, nay, required in such stories, that decision comes back to bite him in the ass, in the form of the titular Monster.
On the face of it, Monster starts off like any other psychological thriller, but soon spirals into an ever-darkening sordid tale of death and malice, or rather, the complete lack of malice. The Monster is swift and many faceted, and seduces, tortures, kills and brainwashes tens, if not hundreds, of people all throughout his life, and this story is as much about stopping the Monster, as it is about uncovering his past and finding out what drives him. I won’t spoil the story, and I recommend you to read it if you can (if you thought the Joker was cool, then wait till you see the destruction and utter bedlam the Monster causes).
The character of the Monster himself merits a series of blog posts, but for now, I am going to focus on the contribution of both chaos and randomness in the formation of the Monster in the book, and monsters in general. In the book, the titular Monster is a part of two scientific experiments, one devoted to eugenics, and the other to mental conditioning, or rather, brain-washing. The objectives of both the experiments were similar, to produce an ubermensch in order to bring back a golden age, and both the experiments failed terribly. This is a premise that has been covered in many other works in many other media, but interestingly, where Monster differs from them is that here, one of the scientists responsible for a horrifying experiment designed to produce emotionless super soldiers atones, or rather, corrects his mistakes, by running another, similar experiment, only this time, he does not teach the children in his care hate and competitiveness, but compassion and team work. The funny thing is, both of his experiments are equally successful. This, to my knowledge, is one of the few times someone has actually been condition to be a loving and caring person (and that someone doesn’t turn into a villain later into the story) not because of purely moralistic or religious, but as part of scientific experiment.
Both the conditioning experiments relied on two simple premises: i) all humans have capacity for great compassion and great apathy, and ii) with the correct training, it is possible to mould a person into any shape you want. Deriving directly from the above, one of the biggest questions the manga poses is if it is possible for a person whose experiences (both natural experiences in a life of freedom and controlled experiences in an institution) have driven them to a point where it is impossible for them to switch over to the other side, whether it is possible for a true Monster to become a saint, or vice versa. And if such a change is possible, what sort of an event could bring it about. This question is answered time and again in the Manga itself in the form of several primary and secondary characters: a certain Czech author, Grimmer, Pedrov, a certain German cop to name just a few, but with the case of the titular Monster, the question itself changes in a fundamental way. For all the other characters, the a fundamental event changes their way of thinking and they shift from the darkness to light, but the titular Monster, even after experiencing a truth that ordinarily would induce a crippling breakdown, does not change in his Monstrosity. He still manipulates and kills indiscriminately, but his goal changes from bringing about an apocalypse to re-creating his first act of… well read the manga to find out more.
The above in itself raises several different ‘what if’ questions. What if the revelation of the truth was done in a different way, in a different setting, would that have effected a different reaction from the Monster? What if the truth was revealed at a different point in time, would that have made a difference? What if the Monster was so far gone, that no revelation would have redeemed, or even changed him? What if the Monster was so beyond redemption, that the truth revealed could only change him, not redeem him? What if the Monster had not been a part of either, or both of the experiments, would he still have turned out this way? What if the Monster had been part of the experiment based on compassion? What if there was something irredeemable with the Monster since the beginning, and the experiments merely amplified it… etc. etc.
While these speculations are relevant only with the context of the manga, the broader questions are much more relevant in both real life and other works of art. What if Hitler had not been rejected from the art school? Would he still have become a violent megalomaniac, or would he have used art as a means of expressing his internal disquiet? And would Germany not have hurtled towards an extremist society, or would the inertia of history itself have propelled the world to another war? What if Laxman had not mutilated Supa-Nakha thus, would Ravana still have reacted the way he did? What if Narada Muni had not appeared to Kans? What if Sirius and James not tormented Severus? What if Tom Riddle’s father had actually accepted his wife and son?
While a deterministic approach based on causality can answer many of these questions to a largely satisfying extent, or at least allow us to reach a set of conclusions, there does remain a fundamental element of randomness in all these situations and characters, an element which cannot be determined solely using the information given in said situations. Very simply, that element is the question: “was there a basic malice in all these characters, a propensity to do evil, something that could not be deviated or redeemed?”
It is that, that determines what makes a monster.
On the face of it, Monster starts off like any other psychological thriller, but soon spirals into an ever-darkening sordid tale of death and malice, or rather, the complete lack of malice. The Monster is swift and many faceted, and seduces, tortures, kills and brainwashes tens, if not hundreds, of people all throughout his life, and this story is as much about stopping the Monster, as it is about uncovering his past and finding out what drives him. I won’t spoil the story, and I recommend you to read it if you can (if you thought the Joker was cool, then wait till you see the destruction and utter bedlam the Monster causes).
The character of the Monster himself merits a series of blog posts, but for now, I am going to focus on the contribution of both chaos and randomness in the formation of the Monster in the book, and monsters in general. In the book, the titular Monster is a part of two scientific experiments, one devoted to eugenics, and the other to mental conditioning, or rather, brain-washing. The objectives of both the experiments were similar, to produce an ubermensch in order to bring back a golden age, and both the experiments failed terribly. This is a premise that has been covered in many other works in many other media, but interestingly, where Monster differs from them is that here, one of the scientists responsible for a horrifying experiment designed to produce emotionless super soldiers atones, or rather, corrects his mistakes, by running another, similar experiment, only this time, he does not teach the children in his care hate and competitiveness, but compassion and team work. The funny thing is, both of his experiments are equally successful. This, to my knowledge, is one of the few times someone has actually been condition to be a loving and caring person (and that someone doesn’t turn into a villain later into the story) not because of purely moralistic or religious, but as part of scientific experiment.
Both the conditioning experiments relied on two simple premises: i) all humans have capacity for great compassion and great apathy, and ii) with the correct training, it is possible to mould a person into any shape you want. Deriving directly from the above, one of the biggest questions the manga poses is if it is possible for a person whose experiences (both natural experiences in a life of freedom and controlled experiences in an institution) have driven them to a point where it is impossible for them to switch over to the other side, whether it is possible for a true Monster to become a saint, or vice versa. And if such a change is possible, what sort of an event could bring it about. This question is answered time and again in the Manga itself in the form of several primary and secondary characters: a certain Czech author, Grimmer, Pedrov, a certain German cop to name just a few, but with the case of the titular Monster, the question itself changes in a fundamental way. For all the other characters, the a fundamental event changes their way of thinking and they shift from the darkness to light, but the titular Monster, even after experiencing a truth that ordinarily would induce a crippling breakdown, does not change in his Monstrosity. He still manipulates and kills indiscriminately, but his goal changes from bringing about an apocalypse to re-creating his first act of… well read the manga to find out more.
The above in itself raises several different ‘what if’ questions. What if the revelation of the truth was done in a different way, in a different setting, would that have effected a different reaction from the Monster? What if the truth was revealed at a different point in time, would that have made a difference? What if the Monster was so far gone, that no revelation would have redeemed, or even changed him? What if the Monster was so beyond redemption, that the truth revealed could only change him, not redeem him? What if the Monster had not been a part of either, or both of the experiments, would he still have turned out this way? What if the Monster had been part of the experiment based on compassion? What if there was something irredeemable with the Monster since the beginning, and the experiments merely amplified it… etc. etc.
While these speculations are relevant only with the context of the manga, the broader questions are much more relevant in both real life and other works of art. What if Hitler had not been rejected from the art school? Would he still have become a violent megalomaniac, or would he have used art as a means of expressing his internal disquiet? And would Germany not have hurtled towards an extremist society, or would the inertia of history itself have propelled the world to another war? What if Laxman had not mutilated Supa-Nakha thus, would Ravana still have reacted the way he did? What if Narada Muni had not appeared to Kans? What if Sirius and James not tormented Severus? What if Tom Riddle’s father had actually accepted his wife and son?
While a deterministic approach based on causality can answer many of these questions to a largely satisfying extent, or at least allow us to reach a set of conclusions, there does remain a fundamental element of randomness in all these situations and characters, an element which cannot be determined solely using the information given in said situations. Very simply, that element is the question: “was there a basic malice in all these characters, a propensity to do evil, something that could not be deviated or redeemed?”
It is that, that determines what makes a monster.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Warmth and comfort
Sometimes, all it takes for a person to understand they have everything within their hands is the realization that all life is fleeting. Death is the great equalizer, and the our reaction to the moment when we finally get it, when we finally understand that life is a one way street, that reaction defines who we are as a person.
I'm not talking about how we react to the fun-fact that we are but brittle building blocksfor future generations, but rather, how we react to an experience that really opens our eyes and shows us the vast, inky black infinite and our own insignificance in the grand picture. That moment comes to us all sooner or later. It may come to us on our death beds, or the first time we really, truly fall sick, or the time when we witness the death of a loved one, and it is different for us all and we all react differently to it, but the fact remains, that we all go through it.
That understanding can lead to many different reactions. Some people freak out, some people turn to a life of hedonism, some people start tallying up their punya points and take appropriate next steps in order to ensure a satisfactory end-life review. And then, some people decide to let go of all cares and enjoy life to the fullest. There have been many movies, stories, comics etc featuring one of the above reactions as a premise (Dasvidaniya was a brilliant execution of the last one, for example) , to the point where such reactions have become a cliche. But then again, things become a cliche only because they are popular.
Soldiers in the field often have what is called 'The thousand yard star'. It is said that only battle hardened soldiers who have truly experienced the horrors of warfare have that look (for an excellent example, see Full Metal Jacket, or google Marlboro Marine). That look comes as much from physical exhaustion, as it does from phsycological trauma, and it is said that it stays with the soldiers for the rest of their lives. It is a haunting, frightening gaze, the look of a man who has seen the horrors men are willing to commit on each other in the name of the larger picture.
A mustachioed dude once said that one death is a tragedy, and a million deaths are but a statistic. People have debated on this again and again, but the fact remains, all the deaths and torture and sadness that occured in the past is something that most of us will never experience in our lifetimes, although millions right now are going through tragedies and violent abuses that would send a shudder down the spines of some of history's most bloodthirsty warlords. You who read this blog or tweet from the comfort of your homes, you probably don't know what real sadness and horror is, and neither do I. There are things that no human being should have to go through, and people go through those things day in and day out without respite. We all know that the world is fucked up place and that we are all truly lucky, but we don't know just how fucked up this world is.
A person who I knew from the internet died in Libya a few months ago. He wanted to write a blog and travel the world. He will never be able to write a popular blog or share it on twitter. I, on the other hand, started at least three blogs that died after less than ten posts because I am lazy. That was all the perspective I needed for me to have my own moment. All of us have one life, but not all of us are lucky enough to be able to do what we want.
I'm not talking about how we react to the fun-fact that we are but brittle building blocksfor future generations, but rather, how we react to an experience that really opens our eyes and shows us the vast, inky black infinite and our own insignificance in the grand picture. That moment comes to us all sooner or later. It may come to us on our death beds, or the first time we really, truly fall sick, or the time when we witness the death of a loved one, and it is different for us all and we all react differently to it, but the fact remains, that we all go through it.
That understanding can lead to many different reactions. Some people freak out, some people turn to a life of hedonism, some people start tallying up their punya points and take appropriate next steps in order to ensure a satisfactory end-life review. And then, some people decide to let go of all cares and enjoy life to the fullest. There have been many movies, stories, comics etc featuring one of the above reactions as a premise (Dasvidaniya was a brilliant execution of the last one, for example) , to the point where such reactions have become a cliche. But then again, things become a cliche only because they are popular.
Soldiers in the field often have what is called 'The thousand yard star'. It is said that only battle hardened soldiers who have truly experienced the horrors of warfare have that look (for an excellent example, see Full Metal Jacket, or google Marlboro Marine). That look comes as much from physical exhaustion, as it does from phsycological trauma, and it is said that it stays with the soldiers for the rest of their lives. It is a haunting, frightening gaze, the look of a man who has seen the horrors men are willing to commit on each other in the name of the larger picture.
A mustachioed dude once said that one death is a tragedy, and a million deaths are but a statistic. People have debated on this again and again, but the fact remains, all the deaths and torture and sadness that occured in the past is something that most of us will never experience in our lifetimes, although millions right now are going through tragedies and violent abuses that would send a shudder down the spines of some of history's most bloodthirsty warlords. You who read this blog or tweet from the comfort of your homes, you probably don't know what real sadness and horror is, and neither do I. There are things that no human being should have to go through, and people go through those things day in and day out without respite. We all know that the world is fucked up place and that we are all truly lucky, but we don't know just how fucked up this world is.
A person who I knew from the internet died in Libya a few months ago. He wanted to write a blog and travel the world. He will never be able to write a popular blog or share it on twitter. I, on the other hand, started at least three blogs that died after less than ten posts because I am lazy. That was all the perspective I needed for me to have my own moment. All of us have one life, but not all of us are lucky enough to be able to do what we want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)