Only when I am quiet can I realize the sounds I fill my life with. For someone that craves silence like a drug, I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time speaking of irrelevant things. How do I decide what is relevant,worth an investment of time, emotion and effort?
My usual way is to shortlist people. These are important, the rest aren't. The important ones I invest in without thought, and the rest are casual conversations. But would I do that with other assets? Say I were to choose a company to invest my money in. Would I continue to pump my savings in if the company started making obviously foolish choices and squandering my hard-earned cash? I doubt it.
It's simple enough to say: People aren't companies, relationships are worth far more than money and such parallels are inaccurate. Of course they are inaccurate, and relationships and emotion are far more important. So it stands to reason that I must find an even better metric, does it not?
This is where I lose my footing. How do I find a single (or a few) measures that I can apply simply to my relationships, without having to constantly evaluate each move and the necessity of it? There are only so many hours in the day, and my heart goes flying to each of these people I deem important, for every little thing.
I want to yell in response to drama- queen tantrums from one. I want another to learn to be truly quiet and realize the importance of inner peace- there is a difference between not saying anything and being quiet. I want the third to stop yelling at me and his mother every time he is upset. I want another to be more involved with her choices and less with the gossip of others. And the other, who I wish would stop cribbing and realize that if she worked, she would achieve all the happiness she craves. I want _ to be kinder, gentler and more open. I want to pick up the phone and demand answers from _ that no one has had for the last 20 years. The list is endless.
For each of these people on my list I know what I want. I see their lives so clearly and wish they had my crystal clarity to solve their problems. And each time they cry out, I don my wings of sympathy and hope and solution to plonk myself into their lives. But what does it do for them or for me? I'm fairly sure the answer is either 'Not much' or 'Absolutely nothing'.
And these are just the important people, the conversations I choose to get involved in. So how do I evaluate when to invest how much in a relationship? And how do I find the silence I crave when I am so smothered in these voices I invite into my life?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Thoughts on being/ becoming- II
When I was thirteen, I had a serious crush on a married man. My best friend at the time and I spent months on end collecting every single bit of information we could about him and his wife. In pre-internet times, that meant literally combing every bit of information in his books and the scattered mentions of him in other people's books and drawing timelines of his life. We loved him as much for his mystery as for his writing.
Now, there is this-
"__ is a science writer and a professional dancer and mountain climber."
"__ is a writer who has been bitten by tarantulas, lived inside a volcano and jumps off planes to make the rent money."
Suddenly, I am overwhelmed by proofs of diversity and uniqueness. Why is passion and talent insufficient? How is the curiousness of their experiences relevant to the quality of these people's writing?
Why does it matter, whether they moonlight as street performers or astronauts? No two people that go through the same experiences come out quite the same as one another. What one learns from watching a candle flame the other may be oblivious to after racing through a forest fire. So why decide that the one who lived through the forest fire is the more 'interesting' writer? And why must the scars from the fire serve as proof of the conviction behind the words? The words are convincing, and that should be enough.
I miss the days when people were mysterious. When I didn't know where the people I looked up to had acquired their perspectives. When a piece of writing had to move me enough that I was willing to spend hours hunting down the story behind it- "Where did he learn this? What sort of person was this?"
Writing is a lot like a first date. First touch my heart. Then tell me about yourself. Otherwise, spare me the bio.
Now, there is this-
"__ is a science writer and a professional dancer and mountain climber."
"__ is a writer who has been bitten by tarantulas, lived inside a volcano and jumps off planes to make the rent money."
Suddenly, I am overwhelmed by proofs of diversity and uniqueness. Why is passion and talent insufficient? How is the curiousness of their experiences relevant to the quality of these people's writing?
Why does it matter, whether they moonlight as street performers or astronauts? No two people that go through the same experiences come out quite the same as one another. What one learns from watching a candle flame the other may be oblivious to after racing through a forest fire. So why decide that the one who lived through the forest fire is the more 'interesting' writer? And why must the scars from the fire serve as proof of the conviction behind the words? The words are convincing, and that should be enough.
I miss the days when people were mysterious. When I didn't know where the people I looked up to had acquired their perspectives. When a piece of writing had to move me enough that I was willing to spend hours hunting down the story behind it- "Where did he learn this? What sort of person was this?"
Writing is a lot like a first date. First touch my heart. Then tell me about yourself. Otherwise, spare me the bio.
Thoughts on being/becoming - I
"I'd always been writing, but I didn't know whether I knew how to write."
Someone who has been writing for the last 10 years used these words, and I had to pause to think. Is it possible to do something but be completely unaware of whether you are doing it correctly or not?
On the one hand, I can understand the viewpoint, having experienced similar self-doubt with dancing and writing and cooking. One can write from the time you learn to use a word and a pen, and one can hold dance like a secret lover, in whispered confidence and moonlight trysts. But are either of those- unrelenting practice or a cherished idea- enough to make one a writer or a dancer? I am easily annoyed by people who use words carelessly, who think of themselves as writers but have not learned to cast a sentence effectively. People that claim to love words (or dance) but have no clue what power they hold are to me like children left in charge of power plants- Seriously dangerous to the plant and to themselves.
On the other hand, I believe self-aware confidence and work can make anyone achieve anything. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be doing what I do. Believe in your heart that you know nothing about writing and have much to learn, but believe also in your limitless potential to learn. There are all shades of writers and dancers in the world. The writer who has stopped learning is the one who does not know whether they know how to write. I think that applies to most professions.
Someone who has been writing for the last 10 years used these words, and I had to pause to think. Is it possible to do something but be completely unaware of whether you are doing it correctly or not?
On the one hand, I can understand the viewpoint, having experienced similar self-doubt with dancing and writing and cooking. One can write from the time you learn to use a word and a pen, and one can hold dance like a secret lover, in whispered confidence and moonlight trysts. But are either of those- unrelenting practice or a cherished idea- enough to make one a writer or a dancer? I am easily annoyed by people who use words carelessly, who think of themselves as writers but have not learned to cast a sentence effectively. People that claim to love words (or dance) but have no clue what power they hold are to me like children left in charge of power plants- Seriously dangerous to the plant and to themselves.
On the other hand, I believe self-aware confidence and work can make anyone achieve anything. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be doing what I do. Believe in your heart that you know nothing about writing and have much to learn, but believe also in your limitless potential to learn. There are all shades of writers and dancers in the world. The writer who has stopped learning is the one who does not know whether they know how to write. I think that applies to most professions.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What is a poem?
Someone recently claimed my writing was too metaphoric and vague to be comprehensible, and hence termed it 'poetic'. I am not a trained literary critic, so the opinions here and in the pieces that will follow are obviously not those of an experienced observer. They are just impressions of what I like and dislike about certain poems. (And hopefully they will explain why I don't agree with calling a vague, incomprehensible piece of writing 'poetic'!)
In trying to answer the "What is a poem?" question the way I see it, I found it easier to begin with what I think is NOT a poem. I don't think a poem is a string of rhyming words. Likening your girlfriend or lover to a blooming springtime in an ABAB rhyme scheme does not always qualify as poetry. Unless you're Tennyson or Keats, that usually ends up being a string of pretty words held together by vague sentiment. (According to me, it works for them for different reasons, and I'll get to that later).
I am also not a fan of overly confessional poems. Grim reality and the underside of life can be portrayed effectively, if not beautifully. Teenage thoughts of suicide and how the world sucks are better left to people who have grown past them enough to articulate effectively. (Paul Simon in 'I am a rock', for example).
For a poem to be effective, it must be:
Strong: Strong images, a single (or few) emotions. It has only a few words, so each one must stand for something.
Bright: Sharp, bright words that stand out are essential. A poem that squanders its breath on decision-making is dead. "I was looking at this gorgeous sunset, it reminded me of my ephemeral youth which will dissolve into the world's apocalyptic end" - A good poem picks ONE thread there, not all three.
And true: Any poem worth sharing is true. It may be a fantasy of princesses and dragons or it may be the tale of an Auschwitz survivor, but a good poem believes it is real. And it has something vitally important to share, and the words it uses were the most effective ones it could find to say that one thing.
And what doesn't (always) make a poem, and often breaks it?
Metaphors.
Being vague.
Stylistic tenses.
Bad grammar.
Not using capitals.
The list is long, and as with every poem, there are exceptions ;)
In trying to answer the "What is a poem?" question the way I see it, I found it easier to begin with what I think is NOT a poem. I don't think a poem is a string of rhyming words. Likening your girlfriend or lover to a blooming springtime in an ABAB rhyme scheme does not always qualify as poetry. Unless you're Tennyson or Keats, that usually ends up being a string of pretty words held together by vague sentiment. (According to me, it works for them for different reasons, and I'll get to that later).
I am also not a fan of overly confessional poems. Grim reality and the underside of life can be portrayed effectively, if not beautifully. Teenage thoughts of suicide and how the world sucks are better left to people who have grown past them enough to articulate effectively. (Paul Simon in 'I am a rock', for example).
For a poem to be effective, it must be:
Strong: Strong images, a single (or few) emotions. It has only a few words, so each one must stand for something.
Bright: Sharp, bright words that stand out are essential. A poem that squanders its breath on decision-making is dead. "I was looking at this gorgeous sunset, it reminded me of my ephemeral youth which will dissolve into the world's apocalyptic end" - A good poem picks ONE thread there, not all three.
And true: Any poem worth sharing is true. It may be a fantasy of princesses and dragons or it may be the tale of an Auschwitz survivor, but a good poem believes it is real. And it has something vitally important to share, and the words it uses were the most effective ones it could find to say that one thing.
And what doesn't (always) make a poem, and often breaks it?
Metaphors.
Being vague.
Stylistic tenses.
Bad grammar.
Not using capitals.
The list is long, and as with every poem, there are exceptions ;)
Monday, March 14, 2011
Viewpoint
Everywhere I look there is a great wave of shadows. I believe there is a light that casts them, invisible as it seems. And I believe the shadows know they stem from brighter things, even if they run from the light that is their source.
I used to be an idealist, my face always turned towards the brighter side of things. Now I am a realist. I look to the shadows, and remember the light, and enjoy watching them dance together.
I used to be an idealist, my face always turned towards the brighter side of things. Now I am a realist. I look to the shadows, and remember the light, and enjoy watching them dance together.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
You and I
Our bond is almost umbilical. You are the first one I touch when I reach the place I call home. You are the soul in my words, the heart with which I feel my way in foreign spaces. My rose-tinted glasses through which privilege is lovelier, and the mirror that reflects my most helpless self. Anchor and wings, the lodestone to which I return every time I seek my roots.
You, whom I cannot judge with objective vision. When someone lifts a finger to you I must need explain how you became this way. Excuse her, she is old and troubled. If you had been through a past like hers you wouldn't know what to do either. I watch children cast words like stones at you. They are only just learning the depths of words like culture and history. They are idealistic enough to believe there are simple solutions. Each time they choose a label I hasten, in my mind, to explain.
Their word for the day is 'Slavery'. I have walked past enough such 'slaves' on my way to school every day, to know what they're talking about. I agree, conditions are inhuman and children should be in school. It isn't fair. But I cringe at the word 'slave', the way they might if you termed them 'cheat'. The rules are simple, and the same for both. Pay your debts. Play fair. Be kind to your fellow human being. Families stick together. Work hard.
Does the fact that they don't abide by some rules make it more acceptable that you disregard others? No. But who are they to cast words at you, rise up in arms against the crimes they commit themselves? Whether it is a credit card or a loan for 'do bigha zameen', a debt is a debt. Being irresponsible is a choice. How does a country where debt collectors are 'just doing their job' decide that other, possibly more 'useful' forms of debt collection are unacceptable?
Armchair activism is bad enough without the complication of hypocrisy. Sitting at a laptop in a climate-controlled room, flinging labels around is just the click of a few keys. How do they take a heterogenous population of millions and click-clack fit them into the five slots of a homogenous monotheist race? Prejudice and the caste system are bad, they say. Even as they approve racial profiling and draw lines of security and acceptability in their own states. Where are the solutions?
I sit here and watch signs of you in them, and them in you. You who profiled and slotted people centuries ago. You who grew massive enough to evolve culture without thinking about religion and science, creationism and the conflicts of modernity with tradition. They're not even trying to fit the pieces together. The evolution of culture is simple enough- it has little to do with art and 'higher thought', and much more to do with our primitive instincts to keep groups of people insular. How much easier to accept the instinct and learn to live with it, than fight and question cellular urges.
And after my confused attempts to explain the evolution of a society and a country, I still turn to you for answers. I know there are no simple solutions, so I look for the isolated instances. Success stories and positivity, the empowerment of one woman in one village. One laborer's child who owns a mansion like the one across the street from where I live now. One man who sets up a trust fund for his workers after his million-dollar hotel is ripped apart by terrorists. The students that stood by their classmate through medical school after she was raped on the streets of Delhi.
I search your depths for this growing quorum of hope and change to justify my love for you. With a child's faith, I look to your heart and ignore the cracks that mar the surface.
You who work miracles in my life. You whom I love without completely understanding. You are in my every cell, every thought. Infatuation is satiated by a poem, obsession can be burnt out in a book or two. But you, you are the one I turn to when I am filled with words, and they are still never enough. If I could only write about one subject all my life, it would be you. And you I never have the right words to describe. Eternal muse, brimming with words of every imagination, every emotion. I think that is why they use the word 'Motherland'.
You, whom I cannot judge with objective vision. When someone lifts a finger to you I must need explain how you became this way. Excuse her, she is old and troubled. If you had been through a past like hers you wouldn't know what to do either. I watch children cast words like stones at you. They are only just learning the depths of words like culture and history. They are idealistic enough to believe there are simple solutions. Each time they choose a label I hasten, in my mind, to explain.
Their word for the day is 'Slavery'. I have walked past enough such 'slaves' on my way to school every day, to know what they're talking about. I agree, conditions are inhuman and children should be in school. It isn't fair. But I cringe at the word 'slave', the way they might if you termed them 'cheat'. The rules are simple, and the same for both. Pay your debts. Play fair. Be kind to your fellow human being. Families stick together. Work hard.
Does the fact that they don't abide by some rules make it more acceptable that you disregard others? No. But who are they to cast words at you, rise up in arms against the crimes they commit themselves? Whether it is a credit card or a loan for 'do bigha zameen', a debt is a debt. Being irresponsible is a choice. How does a country where debt collectors are 'just doing their job' decide that other, possibly more 'useful' forms of debt collection are unacceptable?
Armchair activism is bad enough without the complication of hypocrisy. Sitting at a laptop in a climate-controlled room, flinging labels around is just the click of a few keys. How do they take a heterogenous population of millions and click-clack fit them into the five slots of a homogenous monotheist race? Prejudice and the caste system are bad, they say. Even as they approve racial profiling and draw lines of security and acceptability in their own states. Where are the solutions?
I sit here and watch signs of you in them, and them in you. You who profiled and slotted people centuries ago. You who grew massive enough to evolve culture without thinking about religion and science, creationism and the conflicts of modernity with tradition. They're not even trying to fit the pieces together. The evolution of culture is simple enough- it has little to do with art and 'higher thought', and much more to do with our primitive instincts to keep groups of people insular. How much easier to accept the instinct and learn to live with it, than fight and question cellular urges.
And after my confused attempts to explain the evolution of a society and a country, I still turn to you for answers. I know there are no simple solutions, so I look for the isolated instances. Success stories and positivity, the empowerment of one woman in one village. One laborer's child who owns a mansion like the one across the street from where I live now. One man who sets up a trust fund for his workers after his million-dollar hotel is ripped apart by terrorists. The students that stood by their classmate through medical school after she was raped on the streets of Delhi.
I search your depths for this growing quorum of hope and change to justify my love for you. With a child's faith, I look to your heart and ignore the cracks that mar the surface.
You who work miracles in my life. You whom I love without completely understanding. You are in my every cell, every thought. Infatuation is satiated by a poem, obsession can be burnt out in a book or two. But you, you are the one I turn to when I am filled with words, and they are still never enough. If I could only write about one subject all my life, it would be you. And you I never have the right words to describe. Eternal muse, brimming with words of every imagination, every emotion. I think that is why they use the word 'Motherland'.
Friday, March 04, 2011
The hunger games
To skim the surface, a stone must be very flat, and very light. The angle at which its cast is critical, of course. Nearly the same as the water, but just a little higher. When you cast a stone correctly, it skitters and skips and lands in the shallows at the other end of the pond. And when the sun comes out and dries up the edges, the stone ceases to be a part of the water. Much of the young-adult fiction I read is like this. It skips and skims, resonates in part and casts a few ripples, and then is cast on the other end of my awareness, to slip away forgotten.
And then there are books like The Hunger Games. Small and dense, they sink to the bottom of the water, rippling out unsettling questions as they settle into my world-view. On the surface, the story is a simple one- A girl with two boyfriends, a contest and heroic acts and victory. Sparking a rebellion that changes her country forever, battling danger and death and remembering to save the pet cat as she runs from her annihilated family home. And to add to the fun, there is fashion and drama, reality TV and romantic conflict.
Though I skimmed through the first book and was a little disappointed with the second, the finale of the trilogy is what made me want to write this. The girl who was on fire is burning out, and the book captures the hero's conflict more truly than the magical worlds of Harry Potter. What happens when you take teenagers and throw them into a battle-field? Are children really resilient enough to bounce back from killing and destruction to the innocent playgrounds of their childhood?
The protagonists of the book are no heroes, perhaps. Un-magical and ordinary people, who break down with torture and the constant killing that surrounds them. They wake up screaming every night. The sound of sirens sends them hiding behind warm pipes in laundry rooms, holding themselves together until it is gone. They are lost, and vengeful, and entirely human in their attempts to live. They hold up fragmented memories and question "Real, or not real"?
As teenagers, they question the nature of love. They question government policies and parental choices and popular opinion. And they cast both youthful glow and grim shadow, as they reflect on inane game shows, the price of war and the reality of heroism. It's not just the girl who is on fire. They all shine equally, even as they move towards the end of burning.
(The books: The Hunger Games trilogy, by Suzanne Collins)
And then there are books like The Hunger Games. Small and dense, they sink to the bottom of the water, rippling out unsettling questions as they settle into my world-view. On the surface, the story is a simple one- A girl with two boyfriends, a contest and heroic acts and victory. Sparking a rebellion that changes her country forever, battling danger and death and remembering to save the pet cat as she runs from her annihilated family home. And to add to the fun, there is fashion and drama, reality TV and romantic conflict.
Though I skimmed through the first book and was a little disappointed with the second, the finale of the trilogy is what made me want to write this. The girl who was on fire is burning out, and the book captures the hero's conflict more truly than the magical worlds of Harry Potter. What happens when you take teenagers and throw them into a battle-field? Are children really resilient enough to bounce back from killing and destruction to the innocent playgrounds of their childhood?
The protagonists of the book are no heroes, perhaps. Un-magical and ordinary people, who break down with torture and the constant killing that surrounds them. They wake up screaming every night. The sound of sirens sends them hiding behind warm pipes in laundry rooms, holding themselves together until it is gone. They are lost, and vengeful, and entirely human in their attempts to live. They hold up fragmented memories and question "Real, or not real"?
As teenagers, they question the nature of love. They question government policies and parental choices and popular opinion. And they cast both youthful glow and grim shadow, as they reflect on inane game shows, the price of war and the reality of heroism. It's not just the girl who is on fire. They all shine equally, even as they move towards the end of burning.
(The books: The Hunger Games trilogy, by Suzanne Collins)
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Why, who makes much of a miracle?
One of the advantages of a nature-based religion is that miracles are everywhere. Religious symbols based on the universal geometry of fractals and Fibonacci patterns mean we can always find a sign from the universe. Attributing meaning to geological and climate phenomena such as the turning of the winds keeps us attuned to as yet poorly understood physiology and biochemistry. Perhaps such faith is a placebo. Perhaps it is the simple means of directing attention to the harder to perceive changes in ourselves that makes these faiths seem more powerful than they are.
But it is hard to be unimpressed by the minds that created religions where faith is omnipresent and the mundane is a constant reminder of the miraculous.
But it is hard to be unimpressed by the minds that created religions where faith is omnipresent and the mundane is a constant reminder of the miraculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)