University!

I'm not sure how I'm feeling right now. Excited, definitely, because college is an adventure. Scared because it all seems so vast. In a strange land and missing home and my mom and dad. Wishing my friends were with me, that that would be all it would take to make these four years perfect. Confused, and sleepy, because I've been getting up early everyday in excitement, anticipation, and today, fear that I would be late for my first class.

College is where you bury your outdated dreams and dig up impossible ones. Where you take impractical but wildly interesting courses while assuring your parents that you're filling your 'General education' requirements. These promise to be the four most fulfilling and important years of my life.


I began writing that yesterday, but had no time to finish and post it. Mondays are the busiest days of my schedule. I have classes from 9 am to 7.50 pm, which will become 8.50 pm when my Economics 'Recitation' class starts. Crazy, right? But I have exactly one class on Friday, so I gain a three-day weekend, every weekend.

I go to every class excited about the course content, and so far nothing has disappointed. Some have even surprised. I walk about campus, from class to class, with a dreamy smile on my face, thinking of what I've learned in the last class, thinking I must look funny in the head, but unable to stop, because I am just so happy. I feel like this is what I expected learning to be like. The great freedom of picking of your own classes, picking useful and practical classes, and interesting and impractical classes, and classes you don't know about but pick because the name and course description sound interesting and you've got space on your schedule. Being able to skip classes but not doing it because it will impact your grade and the class is too interesting to want to skip. Feeling for the first time in two and a half years that there is not a single class in which I will have to fight sleep.

I've liked all my classes so far, but I found World Civilization and Reading Shakespeare particularly interesting today. The professor who taught World Civilization today (I forget his name) was old and experienced and very interesting because he had so many anecdotes to share. I will share a humorous one here.
On a trip to Mexico, the Professor (I don't think he was a professor then, and he was far younger), was assisting someone in a survey. He'd finished surveying all the tenants in a piece of land, when he finally met the owner. The owner was very friendly, and invited him in. He then asked the Prof to share a glass of pulque, a Mexican drink (made from some vegetable or fruit and non-alcoholic), which he described to us as 'baby food gone bad - an acquired taste.' To his horror, he saw black bugs all over the overflowing, foaming surface. Live bugs, to boot. But it would be unforgivably rude to refuse the drink. Another visitor had come in and was talking to the landlord, and the Prof welcomed the distraction, glad to put off having to drink the pulque (I hope I'm spelling it right). But towards the conclusion of his conversation the landlord said something to the effect of 'Salud!' or 'Cheers!' - "to which the only thing to do is drink" (the professor's words). So the Prof bravely decided to empty the whole thing in one gulp so as to get it over with. He poured it into his mouth, and the two Mexican gentlemen stared at him. They then said "Crazy American," in a baffled tone, shook the bugs off the surface, and emptied their drinks.

The Great Gatsby: The movie

First, I am indebted to bookssnob (a book blogger, whose review you can find here) because I read a positive review on her blog that inspired to watch this movie despite all the negative, scornful reviews.

I love this shot. Particularly Leonardo DiCaprio in it.

On another note, does anyone else despise Daisy as much as I do? It's very un-subjective and un-analytical of me, but I can't help it. Especially with DiCaprio as Gatsby.

I saw the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby recently (my review of the book can be found here). This seems to be one of those movies people love or hate. Despite whatever flaws I think the movie had, I think I fall squarely in the love category.

Let me start with Leonardo DiCaprio's performance as Gastby. I read some reviews where the critics where not of that opinion, but personally, I can hardly see what he could've done better. Maybe say 'old sport' a little less, because that definitely felt slightly overdone, even if it was in the book, and is one of Gatsby's (only) trademarks. I understood Gatsby through DiCaprio's interpretation in a way I never understood it through the book. I don't know how close his portrayal is to Fitzgerald's idea, but to me it seemed pretty damned close. If another director, with completely different sensibilities were to make The Great Gatsby, and cast DiCaprio in the same role again, I would watch it, as long as his interpretation stayed similar. I felt the tragedy, the irony, the pathos, the true emptiness that Gatsby's death leaves, because I was captivated by his performance. If Daisy (played by Carey Mulligan) were real - I could truthfully say she'd probably be one of the people I most hated on the planet, because to me, almost nothing could justify a betrayal of a love so total and so magnificent. For some reason, although there is actually very little similarity, I was reminded of Dhanush (Kundan) in Rhanjanaa, a recent Hindi movie. Maybe it's the level of devotion to an ideal that only they see. But in Rhanjanaa, Dhanush is something of a stalker. I can understand, even forgive Sonam (Zoya) for what she does. Gatsby's passion, while being a similar level of infatuation, is less stalker-ish, less possessive... I can understand how such a passion could be too much for someone to handle (particularly someone who maybe doesn't reciprocate that passion with the same level of intensity). I can perhaps understand - if I try really hard - Daisy's cowardly disrespect of Gatsby's memory (by not acknowledging his death), but I cannot, as reader or a viewer, forgive it.

I am slightly more mixed about Carey Mulligan as Daisy. I think she is a good actor, but I'm not quite sure how much she was Fitsgerald's Daisy. I hated her as much - or more - in the movie, but I don't think that's enough of an indication that she matched the idea of Daisy. In the book I was sympathetic to Daisy all the way until Gatsby's funeral, and then I lost it. That is, of course, in a way the point of the story - Gatsby's enormous potential and passion lost on a woman who cannot even decently mourn his passing - it very poignantly brings home the vast hollowness behind the glittery facade and the raucous, hedonistic parties. In the movie, Daisy seems more weak than 'careless' (one of the most famous lines from the book is "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made"). I'm not sure this completely comes through in the movie, although this line is quoted verbatim.

I liked Toby Maguire as Nick Carraway. Carraway was almost completely overshadowed in the movie by Gatsby, but I liked Maguire's performance nevertheless. There was one scene particularly - where after having waited the night, Gatsby is still expectantly awaiting Daisy's call and says something to that effect to Carraway. Carraway murmurs some agreement but you can see in his eyes the knowledge that Daisy will never call. It was a perfect expression - a moment that spoke volumes.

I thought one of the flaws of Luhrmann's Gatsby was the nearly non-existent portrayal of Carraway's and Jordan Baker's relationship, and the complete under-development of Carraway's and Baker's characters. It's unfortunate, because Baker was such a wonderful character in the novel - one of my favourites, in fact. Here she has - or seems to have - a very minor role comparatively.

Luhrmann has been criticized for his lack of subtlety in this movie. I think that there are some scenes - such as the party ones at the Gatsby mansion - where subtlety would be a mistake. Gatsby's parties should be completely over-the-top and overblown. It's fitting. But there are places that I thought his portrayals were childish, literal interpretations - and depictions of certain sentences in the novel. For example, when Carraway goes with Tom to Myrtle's place one night, and they have some sort of party, Carraway says something about being within the scene and without at the same time. In the movie, this is - literally - shown as two Maguires, one within and one without. That is a subtitle that I think viewers could do without. It's a little insulting to their intelligence.

But overall - I came away from the movie somehow moved by the story. It might have had more to do with my finally, actually understanding what I'd earlier read in the novel, than with the actual movie itself. But I'm not quite sure. I think there was some magic in the movie, a life that DiCaprio breathed into Gatsby that showed me his character, and a depiction that helped me understand the undertones and themes of the novel in a new way. If I were a movie critic, I'd find this movie extremely difficult to rate.

You've got to have some guts to meddle with a classic of this stature. And for his guts and vision, I'd give Luhrmann 4 stars out of 5. 

Barack Obama!

By the most wonderful luck, I have seen and heard President Barack Obama speak first-hand within the first month of my landing in the US to pursue my under-graduate education. Perhaps it is a sign that I will be famous and important some day?

I heard a few days back that Obama would be visiting The University at Buffalo (UB) , and signed up for a student lottery for tickets.  I received a confirmation email the day before yesterday stating that I had won a ticket. I couldn't sleep all night for excitement. We were told to reach at 9 am, but by the time I got there, at 9.02, there was a miles-long line (for the Alumni Arena, where the event would take place) extending all over the north campus. I resigned myself to a long wait, chatting with a few friends I'd made in the line, and texting a friend at the College of William and Mary. It was like waiting for darshanam at Tirupati, only, out-of-doors.

When I finally got in, at 11.00 am (and there were still a lot of people behind us) I scrambled to find a good vantage point. All the seating was full, so I sat down on the stairs. There were around 6000 people in an arena with seating for 4000. The speech was due to begin around 11.15, and there was a band playing, a large screen saying 'Welcome, Mr. President' and anticipation in the air.

We heard, first, the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, then a sophomore student giving an introduction, and finally - the president!

The crowd rose and there was a humungous amount of cheering and clapping as Obama entered the arena and got on to the stage. He hugged the sophomore student. The screen entered video mode and after the cheering died down, Obama greeted the crowd, which started them off again. It was a crowd which didn't need much prompting to clap or cheer - I missed many bits and pieces of the speech which were obscured by the boisterousness of the crowd.

The topic was 'Affordable Education', a cause for which UB as starting point made sense, as UB is one of the best 'best-value' colleges in the US. With a good education at nearly half the price of Ivy league or other top universities, UB gives 'bang for the buck' (a phrase Obama used in his speech)!

He made a lot of good points (although I am not very well-informed about American politics and the system, so I cannot really make a qualified judgment), but I thought a lot of it was well-written - or well-spoken - rhetoric. I also found myself more carried away by his oratory skills and the enthusiastic crowd than by the merit of his arguments, which I hadn't had time to consider yet.

The only concrete proposals he made were these:

1. Change the rating system so that universities are rated on how much they provide for how much money, how many students actually graduate, how many of them graduate on time, how successful they are in finding jobs and in their careers, and how much debt they graduate with, rather than what the enrollment and admission rates, and facilities are. This was something I was very much in agreement with, because I do not like the present ratings system followed by agencies such as US News and World Report. It's high time we heard of good universities that more of us can actually get into.
2. Make the environment more competitive so that universities innovate to keep costs low.
3. Make funding aid and colleges a priority for state governments.
4. Shift the focus from profits from student loans to helping with student loans.
5. Make the 'Pay as you earn' program - where the student only has to pay back 10% of his/her income (as loan repayment) every month more accessible and widespread by spreading awareness and widening and increasing eligibility.

There were a few more I think that I cannot remember, but a good summary can be found here :
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/erie-county/obama-trip-to-buffalo-emphasizes-ambitious-plan-to-control-college-costs-20130822

There's also a transcript here:
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/193653/transcript-obamas-ub-speech/

Somewhere in the middle of the speech a spectator shouted something I couldn't hear as it was drowned by roaring from the crowd. I later found out that it was "Traitor, Obama! Traitor, Obama!" Obama just said "thank you" and moved on as if nothing had happened!

There was also a point where he said "I love you too," which exponentially increased the crowd's already extremely raucous cheering.

It was wonderful seeing a man of such importance speak in so informal and apparently extempore a manner. I kept waiting for him to refer to a sheet, but he never did.

The excitement wore off only when I realized I had gotten on the wrong bus back (the routes changed as the some roads had to be closed off), and had to travel all the way to the South campus and back to the North Campus (12 km overall), walk to a bus stop, get off at the right stop, and walk again to my hotel, having crossed the road three times. Then I collapsed in a chair, exhausted, with no thoughts but of food and the bed.

Atlas Shrugged part 2

I wrote this post a long time back (around a month back), but somehow never got to post it (I've been travelling a lot):


Besides the fact that I've been very busy preparing to leave for the US for my undergraduate studies, and also preparing for a vocal music program I had yesterday, I've been avoiding this post because I don't know how to put what I've now got to say about Atlas Shrugged, having (finally) finished it a few days back. I'm not sure how to justify my complete change in opinion from beginning to end. Reading my last, awe-filled post convinces me that it is impossible, but I will try.

Since I have now finished reading the book, for anyone who hasn't, there will be spoilers here.

Atlas Shrugged is not a novel. It is a vehicle for Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. As a friend put it, 'full of Objectivist claptrap.' I found myself less convinced by and less in agreement with this philosophy as I progressed through the book. I understand Rand's objections to Communism, but I do not think that Capitalism is, by any means, the perfect solution. Rand seems to suffer from the delusion that resources are endless. Perhaps I am biased by my environmental perspective- perhaps I misunderstood? - but I found it ridiculous that Francisco d'Anconia and Ellis Wyatt think that, having destroyed their copper mines and oil fields, respectively, they can miraculously conjure up further sufficient amounts of copper and oil. Seems to me that Rand had a very selective perception of reality. I also suffered very heavily towards the end of the book because I began to find the long, preachy monologues given by many of the characters quite unbearable. The 50-something page speech by John Galt in particular. After 19 pages, I gave up in despair and skipped right past it. Since that is a pivotal moment in the novel, it was unfortunate that I couldn't bring myself to sit through it. However, I felt that Rand was just repeating what she'd been saying throughout the book in an unnecessarily verbose manner. And her 'heroes' are just as convinced of the superiority and infallibility of their arguments as the 'looters' and 'moochers.'

Speaking of 'heroes,' I liked Rearden the best. John Galt felt unreal, harsh and distant. I liked Rearden better before he switches to Galt's side, and I liked Francisco better before he met Galt. I did not quite understand why Galt is superior to Rearden or Francisco. I really liked Dagny, but it seemed funny to me (not in an amusing sense) that four men would fall in love with her. While reading of her relationship with Rearden, I was convinced that she was in love with him - she certainly acted as if she was. I wasn't in the least convinced by the switch of her affections to John Galt. I'll say it again: What makes John Galt so wonderful?? Francisco seemed to have the same convictions, use the same language and was far more martyry and saint-like, if you want a hero to worship...

One scene that really jarred me was the first intimate encounter (euphemism!) between Dagny and Hank. It was so violently described that it seemed more like an assault to me. It made me - literally - flinch - because Rand seemed to be under the assumption that she was describing something pleasurable. Right - to a masochist. Also, if a person is only sexually attracted to her highest ideal, why is Dagny attracted to three men? Or did I misunderstand it? Couldn't Rand atleast have made a few women fall in love with the same man to balance things a bit? Four men in love with the same women? What is she, a siren?

I also thought that portrayals of those who didn't agree with the Objectivist philosophy were extremely one-sided. All the characters who are not for a free-market, competition and capitalism, are made to sound weak, fickle, greedy, and villainous. Surely it's not always that black and white?

The dialogue really suffered as the novel moved along and Rand tried to expound her philosophy, as all the characters began to sound much the same. Plus they never seem to have any light or 'normal' conversation. It's a little irritating. I've never been fond of books where the main characters are perennially having weighty or profound conversation, because that doesn't happen in real-life, and it isn't the least bit plausible.

I don't really know how to end this post. I have quite a few things to say about Objectivism, some points of which I greatly object to, but I'm a bit cowardly when it comes to anything that could be that controversial. I don't know if there still are die-hard followers of Rand, but if there are, I'd probably receive threats.