The Genius of Mark Twain.

A friend of mine asked today, “Brief about Mark Twain and that’ll kinda give an insight about him to those who haven’t read him”. And I thought why not! And if I were to do it, what would be a better place than Internet. So here it is. In this post/essay, I’m not going to talk about Twain the American superstar, or Twain the greatest humorist. I am only going to talk about the influence he’s had on us, even 101 years after he bid adieu to us. So what is it about Mark Twain really? I’m no pundit to do an accurate meta-physical dissection on, The Twain Realism. However, I’m going to talk about what Twain managed to do uniquely that others couldn’t.

1. What is so fascinating about Mark Twain really?

Most people take up to reading when they are around 10 and to serious reading, when they are 14-ish. And to a young boy, the fascinating things in life are the alignment of stars in the sky, the dark caves in a far away land, the river ripples and some magic realism (usually). And this is where Twain gets a nod convincingly head and shoulders above his contemporaries. He was the first of his kind, the writing style so relaxed, the characters you could relate to and incidents with a touch of magic realism and happy endings honey-coated with wit and sarcasm which is good enough to have a 14 year old hooked to it.

2. So Twain’s just that? A humorist and genial chronicler of childhood?

It is unfortunate that most people who have read Twain or claim to have, talk about his humour and how his writings shaped their childhood and stop at that. No doubt, his fame rests on the nostalgic boyhood stories about the river, and the humour. What most people inevitably miss out or choose to ignore is the near-nihilism in his later works, the dark side of his humour. But apparently, it has never been eye catchy to anyone partly due to the fact that, we have always had writers in abundance to talk about sedate stuff without any vernacular language. So would you be remembering Twain if it wasn’t for his humour? If you liked his Joan of Arc, then you would, otherwise not.

3. Fine he was funny. But we have had so many other funny writers, so what is the big deal about Twain’s humour?

The simplicity of it and the subtle pokes at the world around him. Quote – “Jim Smiley, in his most famous story (“The Notorious Jumping Frog of Calaveras County”), jolts you with his incongruity, his willingness to gamble about anything, even the death of the Parson’s wife. With Huck Finn, there’s all the hypocrisy he sees along the river“. His humour has transcended eras, simply because he talked about the world around him and applied the concept of magic realism to set things alright at the end, instead of neatly having things coiffed for the protagonist from the beginning.

4. So the style of his writing?

I am going to quote Earnest Hemingway here, “All American Literature comes from Mark Twain”. He was the Walt Whitman of prose. And what is eye catchy for a 21st century reader in Mark Twain is that you can read(“hear”) how people spoke in his day, since he sort of writes dialogue phonetically. (I’m thinking Huckleberry Finn). Our language today is so different, and its just plain interesting to see the change. And isn’t it fun to be living in another generation? All of us would have wanted to do so, at some point or other in our life. And Twain through his works, just manages to do that.

5. So what? There are so many other heroes, starting from the Alexander and the Romeo for the purists to Spiderman and Superman for the young age readers, no?

Well, there are. But to me personally, the most fascinating thing about being a hero is being normal. You want your hero to be like you and do greater and awesomer things making you feel, “Aah, I could’ve done exactly the same if I was him”. And that’s precisely what sets apart Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn or for that matter, Herge’s Tintin or Peter Parker (not Spiderman) from the rest. They are just like us, only more intellectual. And that’s just good enough for you to be wanting to be like ‘em. They never cease to inspire you and push you a notch further, because they never let go off their most powerful weapon, ‘common sense’. And of course, the joy of living and experiencing life.

6. What did Mark Twain teach me anyway?

Mark twain taught me my sense of what it means to be a friend, the value of courage, and to expect common sense from others is to exhibit a lack oneself.

And on Samuel Langhorne Clemens’s 176th today, lets all relive all the moments again. I sign off with one my most favourite lines ever written, “The elastic heart of youth cannot be compressed into one constrained shape long at a time“. Mark Twain, FTW!

Great Expectations – The connect!

It’s never really that I’ve posted something on my blog that’s not written by me. I have just finished reading Great Expectations for – I don’t know like 20th time or so. Up until last time, I read it like I had read any other book. Well, the last time I had picked it up was 2 years ago. Now that, I have read it again, I seem to relate to the book more than I did before. It’s the phase in the book, where the protagonist was a kid that I’m able to relate to. Also,to the phase when all the characters attain some sort of a stability. These are the two phases I’m able to relate to more than the phase I should ideally be relating to, the growing up phase. Ironic? I don’t know what it is. But, I’m definitely smitten by the following lines.

Out of my thoughts! You are part of my existence, part of myself. You have been in every line I have ever read, since I first came here, the rough common boy whose poor heart you wounded even then. You have been in every prospect I have ever seen since – on the river, on the sails of the ships, on the marshes, in the clouds, in the light, in the darkness, in the wind, in the woods, in the sea, in the streets. You have been the embodiment of every graceful fancy that my mind has ever become acquainted with. The stones of which the strongest London buildings are made, are not more real, or more impossible to be displaced by your hands, than your presence and influence have been to me, there and everywhere, and will be. Estella , to the last hour of my life, you cannot choose but remain part of my character, part of the little good in me, part of the evil. But, in this separation I associate you only with the good, and I will faithfully hold you to that always, for you must have done me far more good than harm, let me feel now what sharp distress I may. O God bless you, God forgive you!

I don’t see Pip’s love for Estella there. I see Pip’s state of mind; balanced, complacent and quite at equilibrium which is so [un]common for someone who’s been through a lot in their life? I don’t see any desire in him. All I see is vacantness, understandable of course. I see how to get to equilibrium, I see how to see things in the idealistic way possible and boy! I couldn’t be more happier. Have I started to grow up eventually? I don’t know.

Post-Modernity Theory

I have never understood the concept of post modernity. Modern means contemporary if you are talking about “post”modern you are necessarily talking about future.it sounds an oxymoron to me. But these terms are much existent and are widely used. Does this mean that literary theories are like astrology and faith healing- a bogus concept that people should just give up? Or is it some kind of an abstract art which we have to accept in our stride and pretend like, we have understood it, even if we haven’t? But look at it, the term “post-modern”. In the desperation to bring “post-modern” into literary existence, are we heading towards the theory of the theories? Are we overlooking story telling potential in pursuit of modernist soliloquies?

If you think about theory of theories, it’s pretty cynical, isn’t it? We first read authors in their social contexts (historical criticism), then in their personal (psychological criticism), then someone comes along and proclaims the demise of the author, then someone “de”constructs the text to smithereens, then a new historicist comes marching in, on their post-modern horses, and soon tiring of all these “scientific” critics, we decide to go back to reading authors in their social and historical contexts. Aah, what fun!

Is “deconstructing” texts as good as the simple pleasure of reading a good story? Isn’t parsing structure instead of meaning ultimately defeating? What is the point? Should we not be glad that we are going back to old times? If we are, Is there any chance of Shakespeare getting back the credit of authoring the work? I think there is. My impression is that every new theory on earth generates some excessive enthusiasm at first, only to cool down some time later. A case in point is the demise of the author. Several modern theoretical strands recognized the role of the reader in ascribing meaning to a text. This is a very useful realization. But the enthusiast response was to overturn the table and deny any importance to the author. We got from one extreme, where the author was the sole provider of meaning, to another, where the reader inherits the place. But this is not an easy position to maintain, since the natural reaction of readers is to suppose an intended meaning and to react according to how well it seems to have been achieved. The author will get back his/her due.

Actually I think it is already happening. I haven’t read much modern criticism in “demise” lines. Critics are working from several ends at once, evaluating both what the author might have wished to say (even though we can never be sure on that point), what the text effectively manages to say and the way readers respond. A parallel case may be seen in the case of the novel. Modernist thinking tried to make away with mere narrative interest, which didn’t seem worthy of true artists. We had then our crop of experimental novels which sound nice in a review but are a torture to read. Now that stream of consciousness and other technique cannot compete on the basis of their novelty, traditional narratives are back with a vengeance. The classics of our time (García Márquez, Günter Grass, Salman Rushdie, Coetzee, Saramago) are tellers of tales.

So what’s the conclusion? Simple ain’t it? Readers can live without modernist soliloquies, but it is difficult to live without stories. Also, I would like to add that there is no such a thing as thinking “apart of a theory”. When people say that they don’t buy into any theory, what they are really saying is that they read according to a nameless theory of their own, even when its parameters are not duly spelled out.

How people criticize the NOT so proper translation of Books into Films…

I am here in a Literary activity now, listening to people talk about how books really do NOT translate into films and how film directors/producers try to jot in commercial elements to give it the sense of “non-existent” aesthetics, according to the detractors. I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the lack of understanding people actually have about the whole metamorphosis. While films are mainly made for a rather commercial set of Audience, Books are for everyone and they transcend geographical boundaries and even socio-cultural-affairs (at least the majority of times). But, how fair or unfair is to compare them both? If books can’t be translated appropriately, why do they make an attempt? Should they be appreciated for the effort they put in? Or should they just bear the wounds because they made an attempt, terrific or otherwise? Here’s my take on it. Read on .. .

I remember Alfonso Cuaron’s interview in 1998 after he had made the film, “Great Expectations” – an attempt (perhaps futile) to project Dickens’ Great Expectations where in he retorted, “I haven’t made this film because it’s a famous book or because it’s got commercial value. But I have made this because I love the book and I simply adore what was told in it”. It only comes to us as a surprise that Fransesco Clemente offered his paintings or sketches for free. Don’t these guys deserve to be respected a bit more than what they are? It’s not commercialization after all, it’s beyond it. It’s the purity they fell for and worked for. It’s very unfortunate to impose the elitist values of canonical literature on a film, because they’re two different things. Movies cater to a general audience while books are for sections and communities. I am not in support of every producer/director who tries to make a film outta every goddamn book. Neither, I’m in total support of the detractors who criticize them till hell freezes over.

The problem doesn’t lie in either of them. The problem lies within us. We tend to receive or contemplate an artistic piece in a single minded perspective. We tend to put in all of our expectations into it, in fact read/watch/see too much into it. I think that’s the problem. We tend to forget that the grassroots of Art lies in creativity. So, what is the problem if a director/producer changes the script by a bit to make it acceptable? Why should that not be respected? If you don’t like it, keep it to yourself. How can anyone on this face of Earth, do some kind of Hasty generalization putting everyone into the same bracket saying no one appreciates this film that was translated from some “xxxxx” book? How right is that?

Art is always relative, even Literature. The plurality of the concept is beyond debate. Not everything could be bracketed along the similar lines as “The Monalisa” or “The Hamlet”. We have to come out of the zone and understand or rather ‘super’vent (or circumvent?) the behavioral troubles we have in conceptualizing an artistic piece. Perhaps, that would help us a little in understanding the major difference. In fact, the difference is more cultural than social. Perhaps, movies should be made immediately after the book is released. The waiting time is directly proportional to the quality “perceivable” by the audience. Movies traditionally have been the symbolic exemplifiers of commercialization while books are different. It’s very important to understand this difference.

However, with out I sounding like an imposer, I would be glad to see people clearly dissect the difference between both the genres of Art and appreciate them the way they should be, more than correlating them (which we can’t help of course) and doing a meta-physical dissection on it.

Beyond Humanism

Humanism as we all know is a philosophical outlook that became predominant after the Renaissance ( Man replaces God as the center of universe) and it is based on the idea that there is something like ` essential human nature’ or `essential self’ which is eternal, transcendental and universal.  I was most recently reading about French authors and their works, where some certain things stuck me real hard.

The post modern thinkers choose to see Man as a “subject” instead of a “Person”. These thinkers prefer to see human beings as situated and located within network of these relationships instead of seeing them as metaphysical entities outside of these worldly relationships which I feel results in `decentering’ of the human. I think what has to be sought out is the fact that, humans are not material form, they’re beyond it. The term ‘Humans’ means  no objects. They are outside these earthly relationships. They are not influenced by these, rather they influence those relationship tallies. I strongly refute the argument that, there’s no human-centric way of doing things. If it was to be argued, I would then be saying, the concept of “Godliness” just doesn’t exist. It’s all written to make the literature look good and polish. Mine has got more base than theirs, but who will buy? Oh yea, people might buy, there’s actually some controversy to it, as we know, it sells.

It appears to me that, all these philosophers have had a common line of thinking. Perhaps, they dint want to break a tradition and get humiliated. All of them argued, centuries between the fall of Rome and early 1900s had been the age of darkness. I find it rather baseless for humans were given a good deal even in that era. At least, in India the approach was more human-centric, yes we worshiped idols, yes we did trust in God, and we still do, but we  also cared about others, and that’s how our civilizations were built. How could you imagine building a whole Harappa or Mohenjadaro without collaboration and without rewarding each others’ effort at it? A civilization is no joke and you need a lot of values and respect flowing into each other, more than anything. Does that not prove the fact that the concept could be viewed in a superior way than the current value it bores? Yet, people tend to disagree with it. Reason? They don’t want to be scrutinized.

Humanism was not an ideological programme but a body of literary knowledge and linguistic skill based on the “revival of good letters”, which was a revival of a late-antique philology and grammar, This is how the word “humanist” was understood by contemporaries, and if scholars would agree to accept the word in this sense rather than in the sense in which it was used in the nineteenth century we might be spared a good deal of useless argument.

Therefore so, the philosophers need to change their agendas. Am I in the state of reprehension? How does it matter? No philosopher is gonna read this and make changes to his amazing repository of knowledge (sometimes, worthless). But hell yes, I’m doing good after this post.

The changing routine of Literature

I was kind of wondering, if the whole resolution for once ‘pure art and literature’ has changed tremendously over the years. Agreed, purists make life a bit knottier but they also provide to the world, what is called the class, be it Art, Literature or anything. Having said that, it doesn’t deem right to me to be picking on someone because of their substandard ability. What is this line between the purest form and the other acceptable form, that is held right by plebeian standards?

Here, I’m mostly talking about how arm-chair critics and the like, impose almost a class divide between you and your fellow man if you happen to be practicing or indulging in Literature that may be deemed as plebiscite by said critics. Is Classic Literature hence implied to be more of Class Literature whereby it’s connoisseurs hope to insulate themselves from the rest of the world on the basis of their so called literacy and their ability to quote the greats whilst not doing that much more? I grew up not so liking, the likes of a Salman Rushdie for I always saw them pretending as if they’re Joyce or William Blake which they’re not. In an attempt to prove their ‘not so existent’ aesthetic endowment, some of these greats get down to that level of pretense, which sometimes is really hard to look off by.

Where are those days where people appreciated Satyajit Ray’s – Pather Panchali despite not knowing Bengali? Where are those days where the purest form of Literature was in the emotion but not in the language? I know people who read Tolstoy and claim that he’s one of the most flamboyant ‘English’ writers ever, where I wonder, is it so? for I can’t remember anything Tolstoy had written in English. As I far as I know, most of his writings were translated into English. And, the same set of people take a dig at Indian writings saying, they’re un-formatted. I even today ‘m very curious to know what formatted writing is?

I’d not be surprised if that were a common practice – something I cannot claim to be true or false, for I lack information. It wouldn’t be any different from the attitude of aristocrats and oligarchs throughout History, who have used art to set them apart from the people in general. How good that is, though, I don’t know. I think it isn’t at all harmful, as soon as it doesn’t hinder the right of other to free speech and to have access to information; it would certainly be selfish, but that doesn’t really mean much, does it? Consider, for example, the behaviour of governments and enterprises, hiding their military and production secrets. Selfish, indeed; but well according to their interests.

Is it the changing routine of Literature or has it always been like this? Whichever way it is, I rigorously play off such an indifference. Thoughts welcome!

On Disliking Amateur English Writers

It is as fashionable these days to dislike amateur writers, as it is to say that one doesn’t watch boring Bollywood films. One of the reasons for disliking is what their detractors call abominable English. These guys, these detractors say, cannot write comely and are artistically very inferior when it comes to things like the plot or characterization or dialogues. I find these charges rather cliquish and elitist.

One reason why I find these amateurs interesting is because they are so very different from academically hyped Indian Writing in English canon comprising mostly of the diasporic writers like Rushdie, Jhumpa Lahiri or Kiran Desai. These guys write about people and world with which the ` Eng. Lit’ academics are not really familiar with. Their novels are about a generation and a nation that is more recognizable than the one you find in The Moor’s Last Sigh or The Midnight’s Children. The Eng Lit. scholars are more conversant with Jhumpa Lahiri’s expatriate NRIs living in New York than with people who work in the call-centre just round the corner or the mental-battle of an engineer.

The way these start-ups write – their world is the contemporary urban upper middle-class world. Their language is the one that you hear in this world. This class emerged largely in the post-nineties era of privatization, liberalization, and globalization. This is the Hinglish speaking generation from the English medium schools from towns and cities. This English is the English of this generation. It may be inelegant and chagrined to some local Brahmins of Good English.

Interestingly, some of these Brahmins cite Rushdie’s chutnification of English with pride, though his India is a tourist India seen through NRI glasses. These Brahmins don’t seem to complain about absolutely unreadable style of `high-browed’ hyper canonical authors like Joyce of Finnegans Wake or Pynchon of Crying the Lot 49.

While it is incorrect to impose elitist academic grid of canonical literary values on the popular fiction, it is equally incorrect to impose our expectations from the western popular fiction on the emergent Indian popular fiction in English. What is needed is to contextualize this emergent genre historically and analyze its content to understand the class it caters to. We need to place it along with the writers like Rajashree, Anuja Chauhan and Swati Kaushal ( of ` Indian Chick Lit fame).

However, the reading taste of the new generation is very interesting and funny. I find fascination for Dan Brown, JK Rowling, Paulo Cohelo or Stephanie Myer incomprehensible and even silly. I never understand why Indians admire Dan Brown, for instance. While Dan Brown may be saying something shocking for the Western Christian world, Indians have simply too much of ` divine feminine’. We have too much ` divine feminine’ in Baroda, for instance, where the Navratri Garbas are quiet a rage. It is people who have never read Marquez or Borges who find Cohelo `profound’, while he is actually peddling out silly self help stuff under the guise of wisdom.

Too great a lady, Emma 'Lady' Hamilton

This is the book I just finished reading. And, there are a lot of things that are to be re-written into my mind and a lot of them to be significantly penned down. Here I thought, I would jot down all that stuff just in case I might need a re-read when I go low on wits to criticize Emma Hamilton again, which I doubt I would ever do, after reading/knowing about her completely now.

I always thought Horatio Nelson was the most heroic character ever in British History and then I started to dwell deep into the character and then I found a far more interesting, if not a ‘heroic’ character. This character surprisingly is so close to Horatio Nelson, who became really famous with his heroics in the battle of Trafalgar, but then with all due respect to him and what all he had won, there was one lady who ‘conquered’ him. Emma ‘Lady’ Hamilton, too great a lady.

She perhaps is the most controversial figure in British History. Her story is the classic tale of an 18th centry woman’s rise form poverty to power and riches using her wits, talent and determination. Yet lurid tales have been associated with her, thanks to her drunkenness, her alleged lasciviousness and her contrived airs. Her detractors have depicted her as a hanger-on a bore, a melodramatic poseur and a self-seeking opportunist. Interesting caustics these are but I now wonder, how much of it is true? Was she a schemer or was she merely at the right place at the right time, happening to become the princess of the greatest naval hero of all time, Lord Nelson? And, add to it there’s also one never ending debate that run on her – Was her self-sacrificing image based on real generosity of spirit or merely she creating her own image as a career move?

Her admirers point to her artistic learning, her wonderful voice (well I read about it) and her charming personality while others, read as her critics often tend to disagree with me saying she was fat and vulgar. I just point at them saying that the opinion they’ve got about her is rather deprived for they should understand, none could under-estimate her amazing rationale and that brains which even let her survive in the toughest of times in Britain. How many uneducated poor women end up being the most talked about character in any of the History books? She was no Cleopatra to possess a historic family background. She was no Elizabeth to had had everything neatly coiffed by the time she was born. She, Emma Hamilton, infact Amy Lyon, her real name – was the daughter of a blacksmith who made it big in History of Britain. How many blacksmith’s poor daughters had done it before and after her? None.

The affair between Emma and Nelson is one of the most talked about relationships of all time. Nelson saw her as ‘his wife before God’, his ‘Alpha and Omega’ while for Emma, Nelson was the love of her life. All though, they barely spent four wholesome years together, the candid romance they ignited. Just to mention, by then Emma was already married to William Hamilton, known for his glittering diplomatic career and priceless collection of classical antiquities and all this love between Nelson and Emma took place under Willam’s roof and the irony, both Emma and William moved to Nelson’s place where they were called, “Tria Juncta In Uno” . Viewing British history with this new eyelashes opens up a new gate that chintzily shows up the inherent inconsistencies in British relationships, which to a commoner looks rather chagrined, but that was the whole beauty. Behind a very rich heritage, there is some cheapness. And, that tat, when looked in a different perspective offers you a very wonderful dimension to that which one would’ve ideally always perceived.
That other dimension for example could be anything like, What possessed Emma to endanger all she had gained by her marriage to Sir William in order to keep both her husband and her lover? But the most curious question arises when one tries to comprehend, what was that deep affection and respect between Sir William and Horatio Nelson which enabled them to share the woman they both loved? When touched upon these sensibilities, it exposes a wonderful new prerogative of British History that could only be understood and felt if only, one is an ardent pursuer of British history and most importantly, its significant ‘inconsistencies’.

But then, there is more to talk about Emma than her relationships. It was she, who played an important part in diplomatic affair at Naples, helping to influence the Queen to support the British in the Mediterranean at the height of French revolution. Resolute and ambitious, she yearned for glory, much as Nelson himself did. Despite her fondness for melo-dramatics , it was observed by her contemporaries that she stood firm in the face of danger. She was able to intercept secret letters and pass them on to the British govt. and also helped organize the escape of Royal family from Naples, so that Maria Carolina avoided the fate of her unfortunate sister, Marie Antoinette of France. The piece she wrote to Nelson at the beginning of their relationship signifies it all, “I would not be a lukewarm friend for the world. I cannot make friends with all but the few friends I have, I would die for them”.

Yes, she was not the best of characters in the history but definitely one of the most significant ones. She could have easily ended up as another discarded mistress, descending the well-worn path to destitution and disease. Yet, she was able to recover much of her reputation and achieve wealth and the chance of fame through her marriage to Sir William, only to jeopardize the entire thing for her love, Nelson.

Here is a woman, who cared a blooming darn to what people thought about her but always adhered to what she felt was right. Here is a lady, who was very independent and possibly the most influential character in British History ever. Here is a woman, who exactly knew where to let what out and symbolized, defined and produced a chapter, infact a platinum one in the English history books that would be hard to erase for. She was sure controversial but she was influential and most importantly, first ‘heroine’ in British History. Emma, ‘Lady’ Hamilton – Too great a lady.

Hermione Granger – A Mystery

About two years ago, I was asked by one of the local news-papers to pen down an article on Hermione Granger, the most talked about character by the critics and my reply was acute, I retorted I couldn’t do that because at that point in time, it was nearly next to impossible to contemplate and comprehend a character like that for I was a big fan of it (perhaps, the movies had something to do with it) or I was too much in love with the entire Harry Potter series. Now 24 months later, when I sit and re-read the last couple of books. I kind of notice there’s this certain dark streak in the character and it all rolled out as a mystery to me. To the plebeian point of view, or to commoners, Hermione Granger is still a girl of their dreams. But here I’m going to come up with some things to think about, and it might turn out violent but it wont be booby. Hope those newspaper guys are reading it. *sigh*

Hermione, the character suffers from certain inherent inconsistencies and literary troubles:-

1. It is not normal, in the sense common for eleven year old boys to be friends with girls.There are certain things you can do with guys and there are certain things you can do with girls.So the dynamics of girl-guy and guy-guy are different.Hermione in effect relates to Harry and Ron like one of the boys.She is not Tomboy mind you.This is unusual.
2. The problem with guy-girl friendships is that they have to evolve or they break up. No matter how old they are , who they marry Harry and Ron can always remain the friends in ways they were at school.It shall not be possible for Hermione to remain friends with them after a certain period, at least not the same way as before. There will be so many issues.
3. However Rowling did not want to break the set so she fixes Hermione with Ron, the most unequal match. What does Ron say to Hermione on his wedding night?:-” Darling be gentle with me, now and forever?”
4. Hermione is intelligent.Not in the sense of academic performance but in real terms. She, it would seem has the brain power of a ‘wizarding’ genius.Such people tend to be little withdrawn and weird (like Ms. Luna Lovegood)Yet she has the behavior of a typical bossy, snooty, head girl.She is extremely competitive for trifling matters like when Harry became best student in potions.She tends to show off.So she is neither the typical academic, frantic over achiever nor the typical genius. Rowling in effect has given her certain negative aspects of both types.
5. She has a tinge of darkness about her
   • She cannot do patronus charms very well.This in wizarding terms shows a certain sadness about her.
   • She tends to get physically violent at times (PA attacked Draco), (HBP set birds on Ron), (hits Ron when he arrives back DH).This character is not typical of Harry potter mould. Remember Harry and ron got violent only once , in (OP) when Mrs Weasley was insulted.
   • She by nature is a compassionate person ( House Elves) but can be very thoughtless and brutal with people (remember lavender’s rabbit?)

All this would suggest there is some bitterness in her. But why?

Hermione in the end of the day remains a positive character in the sense someone to sympathize with but the fact remains that the author has her forced her into the story at the cost of some inconsistencies in the plot.

These inconsistencies would not be there if Harry’s set would be like his dad’s James, Sirius, Lupin and Peter.Lily joins in later but in a different capacity.

The main reason why the author has introduced her is to make the book MORE ACCEPTABLE TO FEMALE READERS AND MODERN SENSIBILITIES.

While I was putting in these, I always had in mind about the “great arguers” who might as well say, even Severus Snape was not perfect or forget about it, even the great man, Albus Dumbledore was not perfect.

I can understand the flaws of a character that are explained by the story. Snape, Dumbledore, James all have dark and bright sides. But Hermione’s flaws are sometimes difficult to comprehend. Add to it, in HP almost all the major characters are 16 or below.Hermione’s troubles do not flow from her young age ( at least not all of them).

As a matter of sociological observation boys do not form close friendship with girls before they are a little mature say around 16 yrs old. 11 years boys and girls usually go in separate packs. Also all male and all female or mixed groups interact in different ways. In many ways Hermione reacts as if one of the boys. However she does not show the signs of an Amazon or Tomboy.This is unusual.

I certainly do not deny her role in the story. It is true that all characters have flaws but such flaws shall have to flow from the needs of the story.They should not be something left unexplained or worse purposeless. Therefore, the conduct of Snape’s sarcastic, humiliating attitude towards Harry is understandable. Voldermort’s failure to understand love is understandable but I am afraid I do not see the rationale why Hermione has been made so.

Why does she have this moody, dark and violent streak in her?

And yes, one more thing left out on green. There could be another set that might say, Hermione could’ve been violent but she never intended any malice.

People who get violent most often see themselves as morally correct.So ” no malice” is neither here nor there.Remember physical malice like any physical action that do not involve magic is looked down upon as “muggle” in the wizard world and it is not normal for wizards/witches to act in that way.And magically speaking curses, jinxes and hexes are strictly dealt with by the authorities. This is definitely a dark streak of her character.It remains an open question whether this is temporary phenomenon or a permanent feature.

As for each person being unique that is perfectly true but that does NOT mean everything is right with Hermione.

Learned opinions are welcome…

Bad Openings

It’s been so long since I’ve been critical on or about something. Of late, I hardly find time to read. But, today is the day. I, at a stretch downloaded 3 books and dropped them after reading the first paragraph. Bad openings really cuss me off.

Have got really no clue what these writers think of, when they pen down their stuff. Anyway, I dint want to be the only sufferer, so I thought I’ll share those 3 paragraphs and perhaps feel happy that I rebelled on those dead men.

Here you go,

Ah, yes, it was a beautiful face with skin smoother than pumice and breath fresher than a twenty-five-day-old tuna sandwich stored for safe keeping in a Wichita schoolgirl’s lunchbox, and I found myself beset, nay, overcome, with twin urges: to ravish her there and then on the cash register, or to slough off the skin of my calloused feet on the stubble of her chin.

How could you get hungry and horny at once?

The day was like any other, except that this was a Wednesday so it was really only like 1/7th of the other days.

I wonder, if the author thought it was funny.

I saw her from across the room and knew I had to meet her, not because of her ample bosom, or her full lips, or her beautiful creamy skin, or the way her hair was twisted into a nice tight bun, or the buttoned-up blouse that begged to be torn off her body, or the skirt that was perhaps a size too small, but because she was my kid’s teacher and I was here for the parent-teacher conference.

This would have been an “exclusively-for-guys” writeup, if the author missed out on the last line. The so-called romantic writers should understand that the days are gone, where men used to get erection after reading a book, time has changed.

With all due respect, I would dare say I blame Victorian novelist Edward George Earl Bulwer-Lytton for this. It was he, who originated the phrases “the pen is mightier than the sword,” and “pursuit of the almighty dollar.” He also opened a novel with those ‘now’ famous words that Snoopy plagiarized for years, “It was a dark and stormy night.”