Showing posts with label Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Analysis. Show all posts

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

12 Types Of People That Turn Up For Every Live Music Event, And How To Spot Them


The Expert


He knows more about music than any other person on the planet. He can provide you with a short description of every music genre, the name of every musician, every group that they played in, every album they released, and the middle names of their stalkers, without being asked. He tends to make people around him feel inadequate.


How to spot him: He’s usually standing off to one side of a club, carefully observing, analysing and memorising every detail of a live performance.


The Entitled One


He was a frequent visitor here when the paint on the walls of this club was still wet. He thinks he knows more about this venue than anyone else, and has a connection to it that no one else does. On a first name basis with both the owners and service staff, he’s proud to have been the first person to see a certain band play at this venue, even though they play here every month.


How to spot him: He has a really smug look on his face when something goes wrong, the expression on his face being “I knew that was going to happen.”


The Wide Eyed Noob


She has spent her whole clueless, protected life hanging out with close friends at pubs around her home, listening to remixes on loop. She doesn’t really know what type of music she likes, but she thinks The Black Eyed Peas are ‘kind of cool’. She doesn’t really care about the band playing tonight. She’s only here because a friend thought it would be a good idea for them to come, and she didn’t have any other plans.


How to spot her: She’s restless; her eyes keep wandering around, looking for interesting things to discuss with her girlfriend, who’s side she doesn’t plan on leaving for the next 2 hours.


The Event-Goer


He doesn’t really care about who’s playing. He’s only here because he’s starved for live entertainment. He’s from out-of-town, earns a respectable income at an IT firm, working long 6 day weeks. He spends Saturday nights at home with his 3 flatmates, eating Indian-Chinese take-out and drinking Fosters, wondering when something interesting is going to happen. He’s usually the first one to buy those Iron Maiden/Bryan Adams tickets.


How to spot him: He’s usually jumping up and down in the middle of the crowd at a live gig, high-fiving strangers.


The Corporate Guy


He doesn’t really get this type of music. Never did. Not even when batch mates tried introducing him to Pink Floyd back in engineering college. He’s been brought up to appreciate a very different kind of music, and this stuff is just noise. He’s only here for appearances sake.


His company just won a major contract, and all the senior executives have decided to come here tonight to celebrate. He can’t say no, though he’d have preferred a more prestigious venue, like a 5 star hotel.


How to spot him: He’s usually sharing a table with other corporate types, laughing a little too loudly at their jokes, and trying to ignore the music.


The Spouse


She’s pushing 40, and is only here because her husband brought her. He said he’d take her someplace nice. She thinks they might have done better, but she’s willing to give this place a try. 


She doesn’t really follow music, or anything else for that matter. She’d never come here on her own, and doesn’t have any friends who’d come with her if she wanted to. She sneaks glances at the other people around her, wondering what their lives are like.


How to spot her: She’s usually in a private VIP booth, sipping a drink, a glazed look on her face.


The Headbanger


He lives to rock, has been waiting weeks for this gig, and plans to start a mosh pit at some point tonight. He has come prepared, and is even wearing a cup. He doesn’t need to eat, but will tank up on alcohol or weed or both, by the end of the night, even though he has little or no money. He wants to immerse himself in the music, and shows disdain for anyone not taking this as seriously as he does, branding them pseudo fans.


How to spot him: The one near the stage, wearing a black rock tee and denims or khaki 3/4ths, along with 500 other people who look just like him.


The Photographer


He’s spent half his annual salary on his photography equipment - camera, lenses and accessories, and is constantly worried that someone may damage them. He’s gotten used to the weird self conscious poses that he gets into for each shot. He checks out other photographers’ equipment to see if it’s better than his.


He has no idea how he’s going to make a living off of this, but he consoles himself with the fact that the perks are good.


How to spot him: He’s the only one closer to the stage than the headbangers.


The Music Journalist


He’s trying to find a balance between working and enjoying the performance. He’s done his research. He knows a bit about this band already. And he can write well. He’s attended gigs before, and he recognises a few familiar faces here - other regulars, fans of the band, people who like his articles, suck-ups who want his job. But for now, he’s more interested in the freebies.


How to spot him: He’s busy taking notes and talking to ‘The Expert’.


The Networker


Some people just want to be where all the popular people are. The Networker will scan the city’s event’s websites, Facebook walls, and Twitter timelines, for upcoming gigs. He was planning to organise a tweetup, but realised attending this gig would be a better idea, since everyone he wants to meet is going to be here. The live music is just incidental.


How to spot him: He’s busy handing out business cards, exchanging numbers, & trying to be funny during breaks in a set.


The Old-timer


Someone who’s clearly in the wrong place. He hoped he’d get a dose of some old school music, something he enjoyed when he was younger, but he can’t understand the music being played in front of him, and realises with a jolt that he doesn’t really belong here. This place is for his kids. So much for that nostalgia trip.


How to spot him: He’s the old guy who leaves after the first song.


The Observer


He appreciates good music, even though he doesn’t always get it. He likes listening to new types of music, but isn’t a fanboy. He’s here to experience something new, so he can cross it off his list. He feels the need to record everything he sees around him, for an invisible audience to appreciate.


He likes making lists, and uses what he thinks is dry, disassociative humour. Other people irritate him, so he doesn’t bother engaging in pointless conversation with them. That doesn’t stop him from hoping they read his tweets anyway.


How to spot him: He’s continually tweeting his feelings about the gig. He might even blog about it later.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Night Clubs - An Anthropological Viewpoint


While at a club recently, a psychologist friend pointed out that since I was bored, it wouldn't hurt to treat the experience as an anthropological exercise, prompting me to indulge in a little people watching, and take notes.

I observed certain phenomena in the club that are common to other clubs I've been to.

1. Loud music and cramped spaces - these force people to stand/lean closer together, especially when they talk, to make themselves heard, building some form of intimacy or bond between strangers that would normally take longer to build. This is because every person has a personal space, and normal conversations do not require people to intrude on each other's personal spaces, unless associations between people are already of an intimate nature, which usually takes a longer time to form. Hence, clubs bring people close together quicker.

However, one could also argue that the situation with proximity in a club is akin to that of strangers sharing a secret or travelling in a crowded train, i.e it involves a commonly accepted social norm of invading a personal space when the situation demands it. But while the norm may be socially acceptable, and may lead to nothing, social behaviour-wise, it opens up opportunities that would not normally exist in more discreet settings. Therefore, while invading someone's personal space in a club might be looked upon as a common occurrence, the opportunities that arise from this occurrence cannot be overlooked, like hooking up.

The loud music also tends to create a very tribal atmosphere. A group of people in one room, listening, singing, dancing and being affected in similar ways by the same music, tend to grow closer together. Imagine a tribal dance. Participants automatically feel a sense of camaraderie, of belonging.

2. Need for Affiliation - many people come here only because of a need for affiliation. It beats sitting alone at home. Some people come in groups, so they don't feel alone in a crowded room. Also, being in a group is a great way to get people to notice you. Being with someone else also instills jealousy in someone else who knows you.

3. Dim Lighting - this helps create more privacy, and encourages people to exhibit behaviour that they normally wouldn't display in brighter lighting. Also, there is a thrill in experimenting with or exhibiting relatively private behaviour in a crowded room with dim lighting, elements that would otherwise not have the same effect, individually.

4. Warm Temperature - The temperature is kept reasonably warm so that people are encouraged to dress down, wear what they wouldn't wear elsewhere, which leads to physical attraction, which is one of the objectives of going to a club to begin with.

5. Limited Seating - Related to cramped spaces, it maintains high physical proximity among the group by ensuring people are mostly standing close together, instead of sitting. Seating is usually only used on a rotational basis by individuals looking for rest.

6. Alcohol is usually available to give people a feeling of pleasure, suppress inhibitions, and encourage new behaviours.

Thoughts?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, 23 March 2011

Music I Listen To


Music I enjoy listening to:


3 Doors Down
Air Supply
Audioslave
Ben Folds
Black Strat Blues
Blue Oyster Cult
Breaking Benjamin
Bryan Adams
Carbon Leaf
Dashboard Confessional
Daughtry
David Lee Roth
Digital Summer
Dire Straits
Evanescence
Finger Eleven
Firehouse
Foo Fighters
Fountains of Wayne
Gary Moore
Goo Goo Dolls
Hinder
Indus Creed
Iron and Wine
Joe Satriani
Judas Priest
Keb' Mo'
Kenny G
Kid Rock
Krypteria
Lemur Voice
Lifehouse
Linkin Park
Live
Machine Head
Mark Knopfler
Matchbox Twenty
Meat Loaf
Miles Davis
Millencolin
Mr. Big
Mr. Mister
Mumford and Sons
My Chemical Romance
Nickelback
Nightingale
Nightwish
Oasis
Owl City
Ozzy Osbourne
P.O.D
Pantera
Peter Cetera
Poets of the Fall
Poison
Queen
Rascall Flats
Richard Marx
Rush
Santana
Savage Garden
Scorpions
Secondhand Serenade
Seven Mary Three
Silverchair
Skillet
Sonic Syndicate
Soul Asylum
Staind
Steve Vai
Sting
Story of the Year
Sum 41
Survivor
Switchfoot
The Animals
The Calling
The Corrs
The Cranberries
The Grateful Dead
The Killers
The Police
The Rasmus
The Wallflowers
Third Eye Blind
Three Days Grace
Toad the Wet Sprocket
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Train
Translantic
Vertical Horizon
Weezer
Wheatus
White Lion
Whitesnake
Yngwie Malmsteen
Zero

Music I don't care much for either way:


A Perfect Circle
After Forever
Athlete
Billy Sheehan
Bullet for my Valentine
Canto Nono
Children of Bodom
Chris Isaak
Coldplay
Creed
DC Talk
Deep Purple
Depeche Mode
Disturbed
Dream Theater
Duran Duran
Eagle-Eye Cherry
Echo & The Bunnymen
Eddie Vedder
Entheogenic
Epica
Eric Clapton
Fall Out Boy
Foster The People
Freddie King
Godsmack
Goldspot
Green Day
Hoobastank
Incubus
James LaBrie
Jamiroquai
John McLaughlin
Johnny Cash
Lamb of God
Lenny Kravitz
Limp Bizkit
Mad at Gravity
Maroon 5
Megadeth
Metallica
Michael Jackson
Midival Punditz
Motley Crue
Motorhead
Muse
Nirvana
Opeth
Paradise Lost
Pearl Jam
Pin Drop Violence
Pinetop Perkins
Pink Floyd
Placebo
Platypus
Porcupine Tree
R.E.M
Radiohead
Rage Against The Machine
Rainbow
Rammstein
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Rob Zombie
Robert Miles
Sepultura
Sex Pistols
SHAAI'R + FUNC
Sinead O'Connor
Soundgarden
Stone Temple Pilots
Stratovarius
System of a Down
Temple of the Dog
The Cardigans
The Doors
The Magic Numbers
The Prodigy
The Ramones
Them Clones
Tonic
Travis
U2
Van Halen
Wolfmother

Music I don't enjoy listening to: 

Astrix
Cannibal Corpse
Cradle of Filth
Cryptopsy
Cynic
Cypress Hill
Deftones
Enslaved
Erykah Badu
House of Pain
Insane Clown Posse
Mahavishnu Orchestra
Slayer
The Cure
Tool
Vengaboys


Expect further revisions & updates.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Assorted Film Articles


Writer Mark Harris discusses the declining quality of art in Hollywood, beginning with Top Gun.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris?printable=true

Natalie Angier on Natalie Portman and other smart people in Hollywood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/science/01angier.html?_r=2&ref=science

Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Why I am presently an atheist


Why am I an atheist?

I'm not exactly opposed to the idea of God. It's just that I haven't seen any proof that God exists. And in the absence of proof, I see no reason to believe in something on faith alone, just for the sake of believing in something.

Let me put it this way.

There is no conclusive proof that God is real. This fact equates the theory of God's existence with any number of other theories dealing with our origin. For example, I could say that the universe and everything in it was created by a race of supernatural space monkeys and there would be no way for you to either prove, or more importantly, to disprove this theory. And so it is with God. There is no way to either prove or disprove God's existence. Why then are we so ready to have faith in God's existence, and not in the existence of a race of supernatural space monkeys, when we really can't disprove the existence of either?

Let me put it another way for the Christians.

A theory is formed around facts. You don't first develop a theory and then pick and choose the facts that most justify this theory and ignore the ones that contradict it. Yet Christian science does this all the time. It's just a bunch of scientific facts twisted to justify Bible stories as being real. Which is why it's unscientific.

I'm not saying the Bible and Christian science are wrong. I have no proof of that. I'm just saying that there's no way to prove or disprove the truth of them either way. And by default, when you hear something that you cannot either prove or disprove (like if I told you the world would end tomorrow), you would simply choose not to blindly believe it until you had proof. Why then is belief in God any different?

You may say you believe in God because there's no other explanation for how we came into this world, and all other theories of our origin are incomplete. It's true that the theory of evolution is incomplete, full of holes and widely debated. That is why it is just a theory. There is no conclusive proof that evolution is real, any more than God is real. But that's no reason to automatically believe in God, is it? Disproving a contradictory theory doesn't make your theory any more real, does it? You'd still be left with having to prove your own theory. 

There's no reason why evolution and God can't both be complete rubbish. The 2 theories are non-dependent. Disproving one of them doesn't make the other true. Disproving the theory of evolution doesn't make God's existence real, just as disproving God's existence doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. The truth is we can't disprove anything, so why bother believing in anything to begin with? Why can't we just let our lives revolve around facts?

This line of reasoning can be applied to any form of belief - Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam Judaism, etc. - where reason is sacrificed to faith in the supernatural, on the basis of lack of alternatives. You can't justify your belief in God on the basis that you don't believe/don't like/can't prove any alternative theories to God. That's no reason to sacrifice your reason and intelligence. Because your theory is equally unproven, you're just believing for the sake of believing. And there's no reason to do that.

Again, I'm not saying that God isn't real. Just that in the absence of proof either way, there's no reason to treat the theory of God any differently to my theory of space monkeys, or any form of imagination or fantasy.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Saturday, 5 March 2011

Loyalties


While getting tipsy with friends at Janata a few nights ago on Wednesday, 2 March, with the Cricket World Cup England-Ireland match playing on a wall T.V. in the background, I couldn't help but notice the way everyone in the room (well, almost everyone) was supporting Ireland.

Why was this? Why do we automatically align ourselves with one particular team each time a cricket match is on? Well, I think a lot of people just like supporting the underdogs. We would of course support India if they were playing, as national affiliations come first in the cheering order of things. And of course if we're neutral towards both parties, the fact that we just like one better as a nation also plays a part in whom we cheer for, the factors contributing towards 'liking' being that we don't hate anyone in that team, common race and historical factors, oppression, etc.

How would these factors play out over other international matches? Here are some examples. We'd generally support:

India in any match involving India.
Ireland, Canada, Kenya or the Netherlands in any match of theirs not involving India, as they haven't pissed us off in any way, and they're the underdogs. And we like the Irish. Something about kinsmanship with people from other occupied territories.
New Zealand in any match not involving the nations mentioned above.
The West Indies in any match not involving the nations mentioned above.
Bangladesh in any match not involving the nations mentioned above.
Sri Lanka in any match not involving the nations mentioned above.
Zimbabwe in any match not involving the nations mentioned above.
England only in matches involving South Africa, Pakistan or Australia.
South Africa only in matches involving Pakistan or Australia.
Pakistan in a Pakistan-Australia match, as watching Australia lose is more fun than watching Pakistan lose.
We don't support Australia in any match.

Do these loyalties carry outside the sport of cricket? I'm sure they do. When it comes to relationship spats, celebrity fights, wars, corporate feuds, etc., I'm sure we all subconsciously support, or at least want to support one side, one team. We want to take sides. Even based on the flimsiest of excuses. It's in our nature.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, 24 June 2010

Bike Travel vs Car Travel



Apart from my two long outstation trips last year, to the extreme South and North of India, and to a number of ATMs, I also did many local day and overnight trips to places around Mumbai, mostly during and after the monsoon.

Though some of these were solo or group trips involving public transport like user-friendly S.T buses, the majority were with travel buddies, pooling our bikes and cars to get to where we were going, which many a time left us pitting our wits against over-friendly S.T bus drivers.

The car & bike trips I did in 2009 were:

Khandala - 1 car - 5 people
Vikramgad - 1 car - 4 people
Lohagad - 1 car - 5 people
Pavana Lake - 1 car - 5 people
Shivneri - 2 bikes - 4 people
Kashid - 1 car - 4 people
Korlai - 3 bikes - 5 people
Diveagar - 2 cars - 5 people
Yeoor Hills - 3 bikes - 6 people

So that was 6 car trips and 3 bike trips in 2009, all to beautiful locales (or wet and cut-off, depending on your point of view) a few hours (or many long boring hours, depending on your point of view) drive or ride from the city. It was at this time that I noticed how different bike and car travel can be. I've noted the differences below, using whatever categories I could quickly rustle up in my mind in order to give this post some semblance of intelligent thought mixed with quality writing drawing on extensive travel experience.

Capacity 

One bike carries 1 or 2 people, while a car can carry 1 to 5, or more. The consequences of this mind-blasting fact (not mind-blowing, mind you) follow below.

Productivity

A bike trip involves at least 100%-50% of your group spending their time riding (note the clever but unnecessary use of percentages). Even pillion riders have little to do apart from pretending that their weight acts as a counter balance that helps the rider control his/her bike at curves, and trying not to fall off.

Driving a car, on the only other available hand, involves 100%-20% (and even less in higher passenger capacity vehicles) of your group driving, at any one point of time. This frees up a lot of time for the rest of the group, giving them a (usually wasted) chance to be more productive.

Driver/Rider recycle rate

If you have two people to a bike, and both take turns riding, your rider to vehicle ratio is going to be 2:1, assuming both have licenses, and I don't mean the two licenses at the front and back of the bike.

A car just needs one driver (surprise!), so with a group of 4 or 5 taking turns to drive, the driver to vehicle ratio is going to be 4:1 or 5:1 respectively (or more in higher passenger capacity vehicles), meaning the group gets to conserve more of their (usually wasted) energy, which leads to the next point.

Driving exhaustion

Bikes leave you relatively more tired than cars. It doesn't matter if you're riding alone or with a pillion rider. Driving a car is less exhausting than riding a bike.

Group interaction

Even with a pillion rider, a bike doesn't allow for a lot of chit chat while travelling, especially with helmets on. Unless you make use of some body/head tapping sign language, you're forced to talk to each other only during breaks or when you reach your destination. 

No such problem in a car, in which you even have the freedom to read each other's tweets. Cars enable you to depend on your group to keep you occupied, especially if the scenery is monotonous and you're more socially inclined.

Storage

A rider & a pillion can both carry medium sized (around 30 litre) backpacks, though this would be somewhat uncomfortable for the bike rider as he/she might have to carry his/her baggage around the front rather than at the back, when carrying a pillion. This lack of baggage space discourages longer biking trips with a pillion, for want of comfort, forcing you to ride solo. And solo or not, you'd have to arrange to keep your bags dry during rainy trips.

In a car, there's room for more baggage, especially the heavier kind, like bottles of alcohol, iceboxes, tripods, U.F.O detection apparatus, etc. Furthermore, this cargo can be stored in a dry space specifically meant for it, and not on your back out in the open.

Speed and Time

On a good wide straight road, cars are generally quicker, safely travelling at over 100 km/hr, though on most other roads, both are more or less the same, travelling at speeds varying between 60 and 80 km/hr.

During rainy trips, cars would make better time, as bikes would be forced to slow down or stop completely if the rider has a case of hydrophobia.

Expense

Bikes are cheaper to run - their mileage is twice that of cars.

Experience

No car trip compares to the feel of a bike ride. The freedom, the world passing you by, the (natural A.C) breeze. A car window is no comparison.

Conclusion

Cars have the upper hand when it comes to most of the factors above. They're better in terms of comfort & luggage space; for trips involving rain & monotonous scenery; and if you don't like extended bouts of solitude.

Bike travel is better for travelling light and saving money; for exploratory trips involving lots of quick stops, detours & U-turns; and when you want the entire journey to be an incredible travel experience like no other and not just a means to an end.

Got an opinion on the subject? Share it.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Saturday, 22 May 2010

Two Kinds of Employees


There are two kinds of employees in any organisation:

Those who play it safe

Their job role is defined around a list of fixed responsibilities and tasks, which they will follow to the letter and not change. They will do everything that is within their agreed purview, and will do it efficiently. They carry out fixed and routine tasks. They follow set rules. They do what they are told. They will not take initiative. They will wait for orders. They play safe. They follow the straight path with no diversions. Diverging from a process means more work, independent thought and accountability. 

This is a comfortable, no risk, CYA work ethic. They cannot be held responsible for something they are told to do. They will enjoy stable jobs but will always be seen as followers. There is a limit to how much responsibility they will be given in an organisation. They will be used well, but not relied upon for bigger things.

Those who show initiative

They define themselves by their goals, not by a fixed list of tasks or responsibilities, which can constantly change. They are ready for change. They will go out of their purview to get something done. They not only follow the rules but change them and break them if necessary, and set new rules. They do what they are told, and more. They think for themselves, and do what they should have been told to do. 

They constantly take initiative, and not wait for orders, but do what they think is right. More importantly, they take responsibility for everything they do, because their actions are theirs alone, and not necessarily group mandated, but actions that they believe will help the group at large. This contains an element of risk, as bad decisions are occasionally made, and consequences follow. But in the long run, they are trusted with larger projects that require independent thought.

What do you think? Which group are you in?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

Why We Hate Chetan Bhagat


Why do so many people love to hate Chetan Bhagat? Is it snobbery? Jealousy? Sour grapes? A case of Indians pulling their own down? His comments on Twitter? Displaced anger at ourselves? What is it about CB that makes people hate him so? 

Twitter

The Twitter incidents don't count, for the very reason that people disliked CB before #Chetanblocks, and used that as an excuse to vent their feelings. Of course, Chetan's initial reaction to the instigators i.e acting like he was doing people a favour by letting them read his tweets, and arbitrary blocking, didn't help in the 'garnering sympathy' department.

We love to pull down our own

For some reason, a large section of Indian society likes holding those Indians whom we see as being gifted or intellectually or culturally superior to ourselves up on a pedestal and showing them off to the world. We love to bask in the achievements of those whom we consider to be greater to ourselves (inferiority complex?). But when it comes to mediocre stuff created by one of our own ordinary kind, we are quick to put that person down. Because for us, that person has no business achieving success.

I don't know why we feel this way. Maybe it's because of snobbery, where we feel we need to patronise only 'upper class' creations, and put down what we perceive as mediocrity? Because it invalidates our sense of fairness and we need to restore order in the universe? Because it forces us to question why we aren't as successful too, and what we might need to do to change this? Because it forces us to realise that we will never be able to do what he/she has done, no matter how seemingly ordinary, and this leads to jealousy or resentment?

Resentment

The fact is, we see Chetan Bhagat as one of us. A regular ordinary non-gifted Indian. We do not see him as a gifted writer and a contributor to what this country should be known for. His books prove this. CB is not a good writer in the literary sense. He is no Vikram Seth or Arundhati Roy. He does not write flowery beautiful prose. But he does write simple to the point short books that tell stories that millions of Indian youth enjoy reading.

We hate him for this. We hate him and are bitter at the fact that one of our own, someone destined to wallow in middle class mediocrity, has suddenly achieved so much that he doesn't (in our minds) deserve. We seethe at the realisation that other people might think he's better than us, which we feel he isn't. We feel he doesn't deserve the fame, the celebrity status, the money and everything else his writing has got him. We resent it.

Snobbery

Forget of course that Chetan haters can't even produce the ordinary work they accuse him of creating. That isn't the point. The point is, no matter how un-literary like we are as a large population, we still expect greatness to be bestowed only on those who seem to deserve it. One could argue that this is snobbishness (see this post), which is debatable.

CB's work is mediocre. Mediocrity is mediocrity. This is non debatable. Also, it isn't snobbishness to find a piece of work mediocre and reject it for being so. But as to the question of holding the creators and their fans in contempt for patronising mediocrity, and denying them any form of attention, that's just wrong, and could well be snobbishness.

Displaced Anger

Or our anger at Chetan could be displaced anger at ourselves. We know that his work is mediocre. And none of us are reading his books anymore. But millions of Indians are. They love his books, and it's not Chetan's fault. It's his fans' fault for liking them. Some of them read his books because they don't know any better or they don't enjoy reading good Indian fiction or contemporary international literature, or even the classics. Some of these people consider Dan Brown and Sidney Sheldon great novelists. No wonder then that they worship Chetan Bhagat. 

Is this Chetan's fault? Of course not. He didn't force all these millions of Indians to buy or read his books. He simply used his natural talent to write within his capacity, and the masses happened to love his work. Why blame Chetan for the reading habits of the masses? Our anger at Chetan Bhagat's success could actually be our displaced anger at the masses.

Dealing with it

If you're a CB lover, then you've probably not gained much from this post. But if you're a lover of good literature, and are amazed by the constant attention CB gets, my advice is to ignore it. That's right. We are an evolving society. Until we all evolve to a point we we appreciate good literature, we should realise that there will always be some people who will enjoy reading CB. What's more, no one's forcing you to read his books.

Like I said, don't begrudge CB for the doing what he loves. It's not his fault so many people enjoy his work. If you don't, just ignore it and concentrate on doing what you love, and hope that someday people will like your work as much. Do you see thousands of Americans getting together on Twitter to berate Dan Brown? No? Do you know why? Point taken, I hope.

Or you could exploit the system and write like CB i.e mediocre books written in a way that makes the average not-well-read-Indian love you.

As for making fun of him, I don't see anything wrong in the occasional quip at his expense. And I don't see why Chetan himself shouldn't be able to join in and laugh at himself, given the quality of his writing. People shouldn't take themselves or their work too seriously. Doing so only makes people hate you more.

What I don't get are the folks who waste their time twisting his tweets out of context to use as an excuse to be evil for no reason at all. A joke here or there is fine, but people who go out of their way to squeeze a rude joke or snide remark out of a celebrity's innocent tweet, when it's unwarranted, do themselves a disservice.

Comments are welcome as always.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, 31 December 2009

The Best Movies I Saw In 2008 & 2009


I originally thought of doing a summary of all the best movies I'd seen in 2009, then realised that I hadn't done one for 2008, so I did a two year summary instead. Please note that most of the movies on this list are older than two years. That's because not all the movies I've seen in the last two years have also been made in the last two years. Most are older.

What I looked for when compiling this list is perfection, or movies that are as close to perfection as possible. I had to exclude movies with noticeable flaws, be they popular or unpopular, award winners or not. I chose those movies that didn't seem to have a single line of their script out of place, a movie for which I couldn't possibly conceive of any improvements like additional editing, better acting or changes in narration. Only a few made the cut. I've also included a second list below of films that, while maybe not perfect, are still worth your time.

My top films for 2008 & 2009

1. Central Station (1998)

2. Persepolis (2007)

3. Rear Window (1954)


5. Into the Wild (2007)

6. The Visitor (2007)

7. Papillon (1973)


9. In Bruges (2008)

10. Machuca (2004)


12. Thumbsucker (2005)


14. Since Otar Left (2003)

15. Princess Mononoke (1997)


Special Mentions


2. Wall E (2008)

3. Midnight Cowboy (1969)

4. Nine Queens (2000)


6. Heat (1995)


8. Michael Clayton (2007)



11. Stray Dog (1949)



14. Ratatouille (2007)

15. Himalaya (1999)

16. The Deer Hunter (1978)



19. Wings of Desire (1987)

20. City of God (2002)

21. The Duchess (2008)


23. Secret Ballot (2001)


25. Dr. Strangelove (1964)


27. Dust to Dust (2000)


I realise that, ironically, my best of 2008 & 2009 film list has no films from 2009 on it and just a few from 2008. But like I said earlier, it's about when I watch them, not when they were made. That being said, 2007 was a really good year for movies.

Also, I tend to depend more on DVD's for most of my films, and the problem with DVD clubs is that they never have the most recent films on DVD. Not the good ones at least. Furthermore, I try to catch up with older releases, ones that have already got good reviews.

Try to see the films I've mentioned in the lists above if you haven't already done so. I'm sure you won't regret the experience.


Share/Save/Bookmark