Come let's talk...

A friend of mine posed some questioning thoughts to me and i quote her:-

"if u were a few steps ahead...and turned back to see
in retrospect of years in life uve lived..
nd der r tears in ur eyes...
not for what has happend..
but for urself...
what wud u tell urself..
to help u go on..."


i consider her worthy of spending some thought to write for, so here goes. it is important to look back once in a while in retrospect at your past days. it makes a person wiser.

one way to look back is with emotion. that is how i earlier used to look back. like what all stupid things i did in the past, the way i lived my life. why i was not doing all that i should have been doing, why i was the person i was. and if you're not too pleased with the picture you gather, it may sadden you. obviously, this perspective is unproductive and one would be better off not thinking back with this perspective.

now consider an objective and detached way of looking back at your past. when i think of all the things that i feel i should have been doing, i get to identify what i now want to be doing. when i think of the responses i gave to various situations i found myself in from time to time, a lot of them make me feel how stupid i was! but then that also tells me how i should now be dealing with situations in future - having done things the stupid ways, i can only get better. noting sequences of instances in your past, one can actually discover patterns in the ways events have been unfolding. these make you suddently question yourself, as to how a presumably "unpredictable" and "random" life can have so much correlation in events. it makes you think whether they really are brought about by chance or whether you, your thinking and your actions more than anything else are making them manifest as if some script is being played out. you suddenly then look deep within yourself with a critical view. the benefit of it all is that one tends to understand oneself better. it makes one realize that what one is "feeling" might not necessarily be anything absolute. it might simply be an involuntarily response brought about by habit, as a result of a long time of getting conditioned. eventually, one learns to manage oneself better, and live the present in more smart ways. and look forward with an eagerness at the future.

because, to put it very simply, what after all is the point of having been through so much and not using all that experience to live the future in a smart way? the past will surely have times that make you damned proud of yourself. these things are what you should remind yourself of and what should become the reason to base your confidence and belief in life on. other instances that you'd rather not think about, should be left where they lie - in the past. they're not something to be identified yourself with too much, either in your present or future. because if you do, then tomorrow again you're likely to be thinking back at the present day the way you are thinking back at the past today.

experience offers wisdom. but one has to also allow it to benefit oneself. it's a choice, as everything else is:).

i ain't a movie buff. i mean, if it's a really good one, i'd give it a shot...especially if i have nice company, if you know what i mean;). but otherwise, especially when it comes to bollywood, far from being a mode of entertainment, it's really a turn off for me!

i'm notorious among my friends for not going to the movies and being a 'spoilt sport'. and quite expectedly, i got a shocked face from CB when i told him that i went for a movie last weekend...but jokes apart, the fact is that i'm not a spoilt sport, i'm just much more selective in the modes of entertainment i choose. and when it comes to the attribute of humor, frankly, i think bollywood sucks big-time, no offense meant to my fellow enthusiasts.

let me try to explain, to defend myself against any accusations of throwing baseless criticisms. and let's just confine the critique to the element of humor...or rather, the lack of it herein. i think it's been quite a while now since bollywood came out with a release that really made me "laugh my head off". i think, and woefully so, that the general "level" of sense of humor portrayed in indian movies, leaving out a few exceptions, is quite pathetic. the goofy/slapstick genre of humor so often resorted to by the humor-illiterate movie creators might amuse a 10-year old, but that's besides the point.

and important digression that i'd like to talk about is what constitutes media, and in particular, movies or even television. media, as i proposed in an earlier post, is basically a platform for exchange of ideas among members of public in any community. again, let's narrow down the discussion to the humor element. the kind of humor presented in the movies or TV, is basically a reflection of the humor that the author understands and wants to present to the audience. now i use "author" here as a generic term to mean whosoever is responsible for creating and directing the humor in a movie - it could be the director or some other person. so basically, the humor presented by the author is * his perception of the humor understood and enjoyed by the mainstream audience * (no, i'm not sexist, so please interpret "his" to mean "his/her" at all points of mention herein). it is his understanding of what would appeal to and tickle the average movie-goer. now here comes the crucial point that needs to be further understood. if the author hopes to produce a hit performance - in this case a comedy that will make the audience laugh their heads off - then the critical thing for him to ensure is that he * understands well-enough the "humor language" most spoken by his target audience *, failing which, he risks producing a piece of "humor" that simply won't make the mainstream audience laugh enough for being qualified a hit.

to illustrate my point, let me, without loss of generality, talk about hindi movies running in the metros. it doesn't require a public survey to assume that the average viewer is likely to be in the age group of 20-35. i admit this is my personal estimate but i'm pretty sure i won't be much off the mark even if i'm wrong. the average person of this age group, living in a metro, in today's time, is pretty much smart. he has a decent educational background, is well-read and has a productive social and professional life. he watches "friends", has read english fiction, and in many cases might have had chance to interact with people from the west. in summary, my hypothesis is that this average individual has a sense of humor that is quite mature, and which i fear is significantly "higher" than the average level of humor present in bollywood. this is what the "author" has to realize. the hopeless level of humor so often portrayed in hindi movies is testimony to the fact that the author is either not aware of the above mismatch, or he is simply not being creative/competent enough to match up to it.

i might be criticized for using a notion of "level" of sense of humor that is not clearly defined. well i have read a modest bit of american and english fiction (including p g wodehouse), have watched "friends", "sienfeld", seen a few hollywood comedies etc. even with my limited exposure, i am certain that there exists humor that is intellectually stimulating, and then there exists one that would amuse no more than a highschool kid. the humor that a person understands, jokes about, enjoys with friends etc., is basically a reflection of his intellectual and educational level. and for the age group mentioned in the previous paragraph, i think it's a pretty decent level...at least to the extent of being underestimated by the bollywood author.

what pisses me off big-time in the average bollywood movie is this. firstly, as i suggested earlier, the author doesn't do enough of homework to investigate what humor language his mass audience speaks. with the hopeless kind of humor that he then presents in most of the productions, it also appears that he doesn't even care to educate himself upto a decent humor "level", so that he can impress the audience - who have come with such high expectations, only to be put off by a damp squib. the author seems to continue to hold on to his arbitrary sense of what constitutes the "popular humor", and then goes on to portray to the viewer that this is what your humor is! i mean, come to think of it, it makes me feel as if my own sense of humor has been somehow hijacked!

i don't know whether people would agree with me on this or not, but this is where my standing is as regards the present bollywood. i do have a love for my country, and believe me, i feel almost ashamed to speak in these terms for the indian film industry in general. but i'd rather speak a self-derogatory truth if i am to make a point. that said, i'd be most willing to catch a movie if it doesn't make me feel all the same...like to come along? ^_^

well if i've put some effort into writing something, i'd like to preserve it...won't you? even if it's just a response to a discussion thread originating on a different platform somewhere else...a thread that discusses literary fiction vs popular fiction; and in some arbitrary sense, the respectability of one over the other! for all the heated debate and the scholarly debaters, here's what i have...

media is a platform for public communication, expression of ideology and sharing of ideas. at the content source, it satisfies the human desire of expressing oneself; at the audience end, it satisfies the human desire to educate oneself, be well-informed, obtain intellectual stimulation and also, to get entertained.

the forms of media are simply determined by the 5 human faculties. for sight, we have the visual arts. the various sub-categories range from fine arts and paintings, popular paintings and murals to less serious types like caricatures, comics etc (should i hazard porno..?)

for hearing, we have music. again, one doesn't need to be a connoisseur to recognize gradations ranging from classical music to the fast numbers played on the dance floor.

i won't deliberate on the other faculties of taste, smell and touch, since most of the "art" forms and other public expression is present in the previous two domains. though one can certainly identify such levels of expression in these faculties too, if one really wants. just to site an instance, imagine the distinctive smell exuding from the ground just after the first few drops of rain - (ohh...i just remembered, there is actually a word for it: petrichor!) you could actually identify this as the analogue of an "art" form, while at the entertainment end are all the commercially manufactured frangrances and perfumes.

the point i'm trying to put across is that every channel of expression has within it the presence of "levels". just to prevent any misinterpretation, this term is not intented to put anyderogatory/appreciative judgement. now this level is essentially dictated by the basic motivation that the content producer has when he/she produces the creation in the first place. it could be a genuine desire to arouse a subjective emotional response in the audience, or it could be to simply titillate the senses and create excitation to achieve popularity among the populace.

having explained the above in a media-independent sense, let me now hit upon the channel that is the subject of this discussion. "literary fiction" then is essentially an art form, while "popular fiction" falls at the other end. let me also acknowledge and affirm that only a very few works of writing fall neatly into one category - literature and creative writing is by definition subjective. most of the works, especially of more recent times include a mixture of elements from multiple "levels" and can only be said to "predominantly" pertain to one level.

finally, "looking down upon" an audience of "popular fiction" is then a non-issue. it is simply a matter of what the reader is looking to achieve by reading the particular piece of writing.

having said that, i would also like to mention one last thing that is known and taught by the learned. it is a sign of education and intellectual elevation when, after continued reading of the popular reading and the mid-levels, the individual starts to slowly transcend the need for entertainment and moves towards the "artistic" side.

any comments/disagreements would be welcome...

i just happened to come across a discussion - a debate on whether "sms language" and in general any kind of modification or customization constitutes an "improper" use of language. that "purity" of language must be observed. that "correct" use of language is sacred. i drafted out my response initially as a reply to the discussion, but of course, as it always happens, it over-ran the length limit of a reply! and well, i thought a better platform for my views would be a personal blog.

so there, well, let me hit upon the basics.

what is the meaning of language? it's a symbology - spoken or written or using any kind of medium - whose purpose is communication. obviously, communication between two or more people.

allow me to picture a simple scenario. a man and a woman. they enter into a relationship. maybe they get married...etc etc. over their interaction right from the beginning, they discover several commonalities in their pattern of thinking and the way they express things through language. they develop sweet personal ways of saying things to each other. ways that only they know and use. new and short words that they take pleasure in using - in their personal talks. they "develop a language of their own".

this is not a hypothetical scenario, it's world reality. the point i'm trying to put across is, *natural* language is essentially a system of communication between two people, that they learn and then "develop" amongst them according to how their "chemistry" or relationship proceeds.

two things here. firstly, it's natural language that we're talking about. a computer programming language or a formal language must not be what you're trying to confirm your natural language to. they are formal systems. humans are not. a natural language is thus, subject to nurturing and maturing under the influence of cultural, personal and relationship aspects. secondly, the meaning of the word "develop" used above must be carefully understood. development of a natural language in the context of interaction between two people is really a natural process of inventing higher level constructs that enable them to express their thoughts/feelings/ideas more and more concisely and with a more "personal" touch that is basically a reflection of the relationship they share. by this meaning, even sms language might, depending on the people involved in communication, lead to "development" of language.

so then keeping in mind the above meaning of language that i've attempted to describe, all the negative connotations that people associate with modifying and "personalizing" language is obviously a non-issue. it is, at most, an invariable response but expected from "language nerds" and compulsive puritans. i'll admit, sometimes i myself get irate of stupid short-cuts used in sms language. but then that is simply a matter of the other person over-estimating the level to which the language between us has developed. as for purity of language, i myself am a fan of beautiful use of language; one of my favourite authors is p g wodehouse. but i'm sure a woman would throw a fit if i were to make the following proposal in the hope of fixing up a date with her: "with the all-intoxicating beautiful pleasant weather and the sweet romance that i smell in the air tonight, it would be my most desired pleasure on this delightful evening to have your time and your lovely company for a dinner my dearest lady..." ^_^