It is an interesting exercise to read books you adored in your early life. One such book for me was Heinlein’s “A door into summer”, a light sci-fi/thriller/mystery with some romance in it. I would have given it a five star rating when I first read it, mainly for its tight plot that Carl Sagan thought to be perfect, for its courage in terms of prediction of technology and a sweet tale of protagonists quest to get even. How does it fare now? I read it last week and here is my report.
Heinlein was my favorite among the ultimate sci-fi trio of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein. Though Clarke was perceived to be more meticulous researcher, Asimov was the master storyteller at the grand scale, Heinlein was the funny one who balanced the serious with the comic. Even within his work, I thought A door into summer is a better work than his others, mainly because of the plot and the intrigue built into it. It can stand on its feet in terms of the suspense it builds and the thrilling elements it has in the excellent plot.
Even starting to talk about the plot would mean some spoilers, so I will stay away from it. The main characters are Danny – a technical whiz-kid, Miles – the marketing brain of the company, Belle – Danny’s love interest and many other folks they meet during the roller coaster ride of the book. These three own a company called Hired Girl that manufactures robots that carry out the household work. The only thing I can safely say is that time travel is involved(it is a Heinlein book, okay?) There are issues of trust, betrayal and romance too. The time travel creates some intricate complications that the plot navigates through adroitly and this is the aspect of the book that keeps the reader engaged.
Heinlein’s characters are remarkably flat. They lack depth and I do not understand much about Danny even at the end of the book. He is a tech whiz for sure, but what is Danny as a person? Why does he behave in the way he does. Heinlein is not interested in really telling us that. There is a big controversy regarding Danny’s character, but telling what it is would be a major spoiler so I will avoid that. But I agree with people who want other to boycott Heinlein’s books because of that controversial aspect. If Heinlein treats the protagonist in such a callous way, just imagine how underdeveloped the other characters would be. They hardly get any space to express themselves. They are just some pawns in the intricate plot Heinlein is trying to build. The strategy would work for certain type of readers who seek their thrills in the the plot and not the depth of the characters.
The science in the book is flaky to say the least. It overstates development of certain technology, like robots and automatons that do household work. We still do not have the devices that Heinlein predicted for the year 2000. On the other hand, Heinlein misses some obvious technological developments like the personal computer and the internet. Heinlein spends far too much time in explaining the science behind the technological predictions that he makes, and while sometimes they are pretty good(They would be right? Carl Sagan is not easily impressed.) but sometimes they are outright ridiculous.
So, in the end, did it leave the same impression as it did when I first read it? No. I still like the plot, but am totally underwhelmed with the character development. I feel the science is a little shaky too. As a result, It gets 3/5 and a selective recommendation. I recommend it only to sci-fi and fantasy fans and probably thriller/mystery fans. People who like elaborate character development would be disappointed reading the book.
Chloe Jhao is an enigma. A self confessed Manga, fantasy and sci-fi fan, her earlier movies are anything but fantasy. Though she seems to be changing that with Eternals for Marvel, the first movies, including Nomadland, are grounded in gritty reality. Nomadland is so real, it feels like a documentary at times. And it is by design. Jhao even chose real nomads to act in the movie and made them act as good as real actors. There is another reason Nomadland seems so real. It is based on a non-fiction book unlike most movies based on fiction books. The way Nomadland builds a script that marries the real aspects of things with imaginary aspects is the work of a skilled director. It reminded me of the skilled work of Arthur Penn, a pioneer in the American New Wave.
Nomadland belongs to Frances McDormand, who is the protagonist Fern. Fern is in her sixties and has lost her job in United States Gypsum. She chooses a van bound life working for Amazon’s camperforce. She is fiercely independent and proud of her nomadic life. It was McDormand who optioned the book, and described to Jhao what she wants Fern to be. As a result, Fern is in a way an extension of McDormand’s dreams of an alternate nomadic life. Fern seems to be perfectly at peace, is highly literate and self aware and faces all the difficulties of the nomadic life with the right attitude.
The movie stars some real nomads, including Linda May, Swankie and the iconic thought leader of the nomad movement, Bob Wells. Surprisingly, the amateur actors are very professional in their acting and the characters they play are really endearing. Swankie is especially very cool and stays with you.
The movie focuses on Fern’s character getting used to the nomad lifestyle, finding that the nomad lifestyle is not really homeless, it can be called “house-less”, nomads have their family, which is the extended family of global nomads. There is an angle of a special relationship Fern builds. She also builds several close relationships, like the one with Swankie.
There is a criticism that focuses on the fact that the movie focuses too much on the bliss of the nomadic life, ignoring some aspects like Amazon’s ill treatment of the camperforce workers. What these critics miss is that the objective of the movie is not to depict nomadic lifestyle transparently. The objective seems to be focused on building the character arc of Fern in the style of almost a coming-of-age movie. That’s why I say in the beginning that the movie belongs to McDormand, and she has done absolute justice to the focus on her. She is a brilliant actress, and she brings the character alive with focusing on all the subtleties of her character. The movie is worth a watch just for McDormand, and she completely deserves her third Oscar. I give the movie a rating of 4/5 and recommend a watch.
On the surface, The Midnight Library is a parallel world or time travel science fiction. It is in the tradition of One by Richard Bach. Even Groundhog Day and Bar Bar Dekho are in a similar format. In these movies, the protagonists keeps on traveling to different worlds through some screw up in the time vector.
At a deep level though, the book reminds me of the Leibniz theory that our existing world is the best world among all the possible worlds. Most of the movies above are in a similar vein(except possibly Groundhog Day that emphasizes one’s efforts to create the best world), and it is very easy to be lead to such a conclusion through the device of parallel worlds.
Nora, the protagonist, is not happy with her life. She is fired from her job, has a broken relationship – a relationship for which she sold her dream short, and considers herself a failure. Through some quirk of quantum mechanical gobbledygook that Haig thankfully leaves ambiguous, she enters a series of parallel worlds where she is living a different life – mostly one about which she has some regrets. There is a recurring cast of characters – her boyfriend Dan, her brother Joe, her friend Izzy and several other people.
Haig’s writing is very interesting. He leaves out most details, under-develops his characters and scenes, but builds a very compelling narrative. Though the book gets repetitive due to the nature of the story, you feel like continuing to read, since the story develops Nora’s self exploration – which is treated as a mystery. The language used is simple and it does help the narrative. He takes pauses when he feels some background is needed. I think it would help people who are reading a plot like this for the first time. His treatment of emotions is neither very shallow, nor very melodramatic. Most emotions are understated and are in the background.
The main plot is the way Nora’s character explores her own personality through her interactions with the world. “The only way to learn is to live” seems to be the underlying message. We do not understand the utility of our current situation unless we live alternate lives that we think maybe better. As everyone has experienced regrets, this is very relatable and proves to be the strongest point of the novel. The characters also break into dialogues that explain the situation and the dilemmas in a very obvious, very verbal way. As we travel this path with Nora, we discover her hidden assumptions about what could have been good in her life. The underlying message seems to be that “Everything happens for a reason.” You may find yourself going back to your own experiences and realizing the same insights that Nora found through her journey.
Where the book fails is to create enough excitement for the entire journey. Several of the arcs are repetitive and you may find yourself skipping some pages – and you do not miss much by that act. The characters are flat in many of the narratives and do not have enough depth for us to empathize with them. Some advice may sound banal and shallow. We have heard some of it(whatever happens to you happens for good) before in many places, some of it is plain optimistic and some would not stand the test of common sense.
But overall, it is a good book. The treatment is fresh and there are insights all over the book. It retains a consistent narrative that keeps you hooked to the book and at the end of it, you would not only know many things about Nora, but you would also know about your own fears, regrets and assumptions. I would rate it 3.5/5 and would recommend a read.
Moxie is a young adult, coming of age, anarchist, feminist romantic comedy. See the problem? Moxie is a well meaning and enjoyable flick that fails to live up to its potential because of the lack of its focus. The movie can not quite decide what it wants to be, though the clear thematic focus of the movie is feminist. Probably Amy Poehler wanted to create a brand of inclusive feminism that credits the good guys. It diffuses the core focus of the movie, which should have been the coming of age of a shy girl to become a full fledged feminist. On the other hand, this very warm and inclusive nature of the movie that is so endearing and makes it an interesting watch.
Vivian is a shy, 16 year old girl who believes in staying out of trouble by keeping her head down. Surprising. Because her mom, played by Amy herself, is someone who cared mainly about smashing the patriarchy when she was sixteen. Vivian is frustrated by the male dominated school culture that humiliates girl students by ranking them in categories like “Most Bangable”. Vivian finds some zines about feminism and a song that is going to change her life. It is the iconic “Rebel Girl” sung by the feminist punk group Bikini Kill. (Plug alert : The other famous feminist punk group was The Raincoats – Remember Nethra Srinivasan’s Chhatris from Brothers Sen Gogh?). Vivian is inspired enough to start the feminist zine Moxie in the school that is going to change the equation between the boys and the girls of the school.
So far so good. But we then have characters like Seth – who forms a love interest for Vivian, Claudia – who is Vivian’s best buddy, and John, Vivian’s mom’s love interest. We have Vivian’s self doubt and coming of age cliches that dominate the narrative. The shy girls are more powerful trope is also recurrent. None of these are overdone though. The main narrative is about Vivian finding her voice and in the process giving voice to all the girls in the school. It is this main narrative that is very inspiring, very real and watchable. The character of Seth is lovely and most other characters come across as real, though a little stereotypical. The depiction of the school culture is also a little melodramatic and the solutions are typical movie-like solutions. The relationship between Vivian and her mom could have been the driving point of the movie. They are good in some scenes, but lack the chemistry in others, making the influence of her mom a little doubtful.
All in all, it is a very good movie if your intention is to have clean and good entertainment for a couple of hours and be educated about the Riot Girrl movement. If you bother about cinematic art – a.k.a. Scorsese – this may not be the movie for you. Teens would love the movie. Feminists may not. I loved it because I love any movie that tries to capture the timeless magic of punk rock. I hope more girls become interested in Kathleen Hanna and her music, not only Bikini Kill, but Le Tigre and The Julie Ruin. If you are interested in Kathleen Hanna, please do watch “The Punk Singer”, a fabulous biopic about an Riot Girrl icon.
I give the movie 3/5 for the magical coming of age moments, the depiction of the magic of friendship, the chemistry between Seth and Vivian, the art of the zines and the overall “Keep you head high” tone of the movie. I am a sucker for coming of age movies, because they can marry ideology and narrative in a way that sounds convincing, and from that perspective Moxie does not disappoint. I also love the theme of using music to find your voice – a.k.a. “Blinded By Light” – and Moxie lives up to that theme as well.
If your interest in girl punk is aroused by this movie, do listen to The Raincoats, L7, The Julie Ruin, Sleater Kinney, X – the band, Blondie, Siouxsie and the Banshees and X-Ray Spex, besides the iconic Bikini Kill the movie mentions.
John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice And Men” is a text book study of the writing maxim, “Show don’t tell”. There is very little description of the characters that Steinbeck engages in, letting the characters be revealed through the situations and dialogues.
The book narrates the story of two migrant laborers, George and Lennie, who arrive at a farm to start a new job. They have apparently run away from an earlier job due to some unpleasant incident related to Lennie’s behavior. George is street-smart and loves Lennie like a brother. It emerges that Lennie is a simpleton who does not understand the ways of the world. That combined with Lennie’s extraordinary strength makes him dangerous to people around him. George tries to protect Lennie by trying to avoid any interactions between him and other people, trying to reply on behalf of Lennie, trying to keep him humored by portraying a positive picture of the future. One of the common images of the future that he paints to Lennie is owning a farm when they earn enough money. At the new farm, they build new relationships, some good some bad, and the story takes some interesting turns with the peculiarities of the two.
Steinbeck is a master storyteller, and this book is a lesson in minimalism in terms of spoon-feeding the readers. The way the characters emerge out of the dialogues is beautiful. The way situations build suspense is masterful. Over the course of the small book, the characters become people you know, and the anticipation of the unavoidable tragedy keeps one hooked to the book. I tried to read the book as an author, and I was successful in doing that many times, but invariably I got sucked into the narrative and became a reader.
Besides the characterization, Steinbeck masterfully creates the era in front of your eyes. The environment at farms, the lazy and laid-back life, the desire of the workers to break free of the slave-life life and the day dreaming that everyone enjoys, Steinbeck creates a concrete picture of each of these things, and makes it universal at the same time. The quirkiness of the supporting characters, especially Curley and his wife, makes the narrative unusual and interesting. The climax is expected and haunting at the same time.
The language is very simple and functional. Steinbeck avoids ornamental use of language. The simplicity adds to the tone of the story. It becomes the part of the narrative. I am sure this kind of simplicity requires a lot of deliberation and rework.
The morality of the book is at once clear and ambiguous. Is an action without intention morally binding on the agent? Steinbeck does not give an answer of his own. The answer from the perspective of the society is absolutely clear. Was George right in doing what he did? Again, Steinbeck is ambiguous in terms of his position. In that way, again, Steinbeck prefers “Show” vs “Tell”. The reader is left with himself to form an opinion about the actions of the agents and what they mean from a moral standpoint.
In short, it is a great book and deserves a perfect 5/5. It is a must for authors, reading to understand the craft. Your writing will change for better if you read and re-read this book.
Roger Ebert in his review of the movie, says that the movie is for people who still read good novels, care about good films and think occasionally. I would add, the movie is for people who can observe the underlying currents of life, people who are moved by subtleties, and people who know why poetry exists. Eric Rohmer is really a composer of a poem – the whole movie being a single poem – where scenes are like word play that a poet constructs and the meaning of the poem is not defined by the plot twists but observing the unobserved behind the mundane.
Jerome, a difficult role performed adroitly by Jean-Claude Brialy, is a career diplomat who is visiting Lake Annecy for a brief interlude before the execution of a major life event – his marriage. He meets – purely by chance – his old flame and a close friend Aurora, an author. Through her, Jerome gets introduced to the family of Madame Walter and her two daughters, Laura and Claire. Laura, 16, is smitten by Jerome, and Aurora observes it. She treats it as a story being developed and challenges Jerome to play along. Jerome does – observing all the limits of morality and decency. But Jerome himself is smitten by something else – Claire’s knee. It is his objective to caress Claire’s knee.
I thought to myself that every woman has her most vulnerable point. For some, it’s the nape of the neck, the waist, the hands. For Claire, in that position, in that light, it was her knee. It was the magnetic pole of my desire, the precise point where, if I could pursue this desire, I’d have placed my hand. And right there is where her boyfriend had his hand. In all his innocence and insipidness. That hand was above all insipid, and that shocked me. Claire is not the least interested in an elderly Jerome and treats him worse than a piece of furniture.
As you can guess, the plot is non existent, just like most Rohmer movies. What flows though is the character development – especially the young Laura. The interactions between her and Jerome are worth watching on big screen. Beatrice Romand, who plays Laura, is an amazing actress and manifests every emotion that Rohmer possibly had in his mind.
Rohmer plays with the questions of love, lust, fidelity, friendship, loyalty, obsession, infatuation with the help of the amazingly beautiful location with hills and a lake in the background. The dialog, the physical interaction between the characters – everything helps build the background. It is the background that matters in movies like this, the unsaid, the unmanifested. It is like the ethereal beauty of the world which lies beyond the observable world. Art has that power over human beings – it alone can show you what exists beyond the seen and the heard. Rohmer is the master in showing that and he excels leaving you with an emotion that can be described as bliss. I would give this movie a perfect 5/5, but watch it only if you like poetry or subtle stuff, else you will be bored to death. (Running on MUBI)
The Stranger, at its core, is a philosophical novel. It exemplifies Camus’ brand of philosophy, known as absurdism. It counts itself among several nihilistic philosophies that assert that there is no inherent meaning in the world, and all the attempts to seek meaning are absurd. It is when a human being understands this core reality of life, he or she receives their salvation. It is difficult to embed any philosophy in an interesting tale, interesting enough that people would read the book and take away the philosophy. In this way, Camus is similar to Ayn Rand, who also attempted to embed the philosophy of Objectivism in her books. He is equally talented but much more understated writer. Their philosophies are poles apart, but they use similar strategies to get them across to their reader and followers.
The Stranger is a tale of someone who is absolutely unaffected by most emotional incidents that life throws at him, incidents that would normally upset ordinary people. Death of a grandmother, proposal by a girlfriend or facing death. It is a designed persona, or else, who can imagine someone who faces death not only with indifference, but with glee? Camus seems to be questioning the binary that pervades the common belief – you either have good reasons for your behavior, or you are insane. He seems to be saying through his protagonist’s behavior that you are not obliged to provide reasons for your behavior to anybody. In fact, the reasons provided by people are not actual reasons – they are only the pathetic facade that one puts on the inherent vacuum of existence, the absurd nature of things. It is designated meaning by people and it comes across as a logically layered description of reality, or people’s behaviors and actions – but is absurd when you peek closely into it.
The plot and narrative style is mundane. There is no melodrama and even the most melodramatic scenes are described nonchalantly, as if the protagonist – and since the protagonist narrates the story in first person, the author is looking at things nonchalantly. Things like death of close ones, murder, love, friendship and law. Things that most people hold close to their heart. It is as if Camus is laughing at people who take the meaning of things seriously – the meaning that lies at the fabric of the society itself. It does not go to as much of an extreme as Sartre’s “Hell is other people”, but treats community and society as inherently vacuous and redundant.
The supporting characters are diverse and interesting, and though they are looked at from the perspective of the protagonist, they surprise you at times. Raymond comes across as unlikable but very interesting. Marie lacks depth but probably Camus intended her to.
The protagonists internal monologues are not only designed to give a glimpse into Camus’s philosophy but are also used as literary devices that give a little ambiguity to the character. They refuse to tell you a lot about the protagonist while giving huge amount of information about his thoughts.
Overall, it is a great read for someone who believes in nihilistic line of thought. I find the whole exercise unconvincing, hence I give it 4/5. Worth a read definitely, even if you do not care about Camus’ philosophy. It is a must read for the sake of completion of the canon of great books of 20th century.
Poets want to express the inexpressible. Yes, the real poets seek the challenge of putting in words stuff that can not be put in words. No poet wants to write about the red flask in front of you. That is the task of a painter or photographer.
Poets want to write about the emotion that red flask may be generating in you that you yourself do not clearly know about. Maybe the colour red reminds you of the red saree your sister wore in her marriage, maybe it is the colour red that you saw when your finger was cut or the red bindi your mom wore when you were a small kid. The emotions can be love, fear, compassion or a mix of all.
The reason why you feel so good after writing a poem is that you know the feeling a little better after putting it on the paper. It is this process of manifesting the unmanifested also puts poet in the forefront of human consciousness, and in the old times being a poet was the height of wisdom and the old literature is mostly written as poetry.
(If you want to ask Manik a question about creativity, writing, poetry, fiction or general life advice, please use the contact details.
After the warm reception for my first book, I am pleased that readers like “Brothers Sen Gogh” too. Admitted that it is a smaller audience, unlike the romance or thriller genres, but it is an audience that every writer would like to have. An audience that craves for something different, something stimulating, something that enriches one’s thinking mind.
Thank you readers, for the warm reception of the book, and providing me motivation to keep writing.
Now a bestseller on Amazon, Brother Sen Gogh is a journey into the nature of talent, creativity, mental health and most importantly, familial relationships. Available at an introductory price of just INR 49/- in India and at USD .99 in the US.
Inspired by the brotherly love of Vincent and Theo Van Gogh, Brothers Sen Gogh ruminates about the pains of a sensitive soul, the inability of society to identify artistic talent and the heartbreaking tragedy of a flawed brotherly relationship.
Soubhik Sengupta is an indie musician with emotional fragility.
Sourav Sengupta is an indie music producer who is unable to launch his brother.
Will their life follow the script of the life of Van Gogh brothers? Will Soubhik be appreciated for his talent? Will he find his lady love? Will Sourav be able to convince people of Soubhik’s talent? Who is Prashant, who calls himself the modern Gauguin? Will Indrani be able to leave her checkered past to lead a family life with Soubhik?
With their life script following the brothers separated by one and half centuries, Brothers Sen Gogh is a journey into the real nature of artistic freedom, the intricate relationship between talent and destructive sensitivity, struggle of the life of an indie musician and the perils of an alternate life. Traveling in the bylanes of Mumbai, the story tracks the tragic lives of the Sengupta brothers as they try and build an alternate life following their passions.
Manik Bal’s short story collection, “Her Revenge” is available now. With this diverse collection of short stories, Manik Bal continues to explore the, and the mundane in the bizarre.
