Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams

Careless is a mild word you can use describing your friends, family or the people you know mostly in personal capacity.

Which is why is struck like a very safe word to use because the rest of the title (A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism) doesn't really go with the word careless. But the people in the book are shown in the the light of power and greed. There was never an idealism from the beginning.

If anyone is aware of the case, and the latest testimonies, the book doesn't offer much apart from the inside gossip. Of course, with a lot of money around the parties go crazy, people get in the power dynamics, harassment is a norm, and revenue is the holy grail.

The writer shows herself like she was on a mission to change the world but it was just a hustle for getting a job. A job which she eventually lost not.

But reading this is not about her experience but to understand how she saw other people around her. For everything else there are better written books.

Peace

Knife by Salman Rushdie

How the thoughts and imagination can cause the havoc in ones life without signing up for it?

It took such a long time sine the book was published when he spent a large part of his life waiting for this moment to happen. The worst part is that the perpetrator never tried to see it for himself and followed a decade old word from someone he has never met.

Thoughts are ageless, and can never be destroyed but that is not true for humans. Any attack on the choice of life is not justified by any reasons but reason had left the discussion long back.

It was a moment which shows what a blind following can drive people to do. And it changed him forever bodily and otherwise. His words are as good as ever but with a missing eye and nearly missing hand, how much of a man is left?

Law will take its course but will there be any point in time when the people will be liable for their actions and not their thoughts?

Peace

Invention and Innovation by Vaclav Smil

The gap between the invention and its widespread application is something that only time can fill or leave empty.

History is full of innovations which never felt like one until it reached at an adoption level that it became a part of civilization or changed the human perception. This book has the example of innovations which were amazing in the beginning and claimed to be bringing a new world order but couldn't stand the test of time. Other innovations which just failed, and the last which are still in progress and may or may not succeed to deliver what they promise now.

There is no point in listing these innovations here but the one thing that was missing in this book was the affect of these innovations on the environment and human behaviour. One can easily see that some of the innovations which eventually became successful were not successful for all, and it wrecked havoc on the ecology. The benefits of these innovations were limited to a set of people, and were cashed out blatantly in the name of innovation.

The whole idea of competition deriving the innovation was used so crudely while it actually meant that anything that could make the human life better was monetised. And if that was not enough there has been regular outcry against the regulations which define the ownership or responsibility of some innovations gone wrong.

There is nothing wrong in innovation. In fact, this is something that life forms, human or otherwise, thrive upon. But what do we do when the innovations do more harm than being beneficial. And the onus is not only on the innovators but also on the stakeholders who monetise it.

The book doesn't really provide a lot apart from the writer's own views on innovations. Nothing much to be missed here.

Peace

Talking Zen by Alan Watts

This is a compilation of talks by Alan Watts about the elements of Zen.

It is difficult to understand from a book because it needs to be taught in practice. So, if you read this and not interested enough to read more or practice maybe read again, and decide.

Peace

The Big Myth by Naomi Oreskes

Telling a lie ten times doesn't make it truth but it can definitely get you enough people who wish/believe it to be true even if they don't see the wider implications of such beliefs.

In a political and business nexus it is difficult to know who is getting what to say or do something. It takes time for the truth to come out from such arrangements but there is always space to deny the truth or add more narrative to make it irrelevant. Yes, making the truth irrelevant on the expanses of something which can never be paid.

We know that business and politics are not the same thing but no one knows where one ends and the other begins. How come politics became the business? Something which was meant to work for social good end up being an instrument for driving business agendas. Business says that everything has a price but it never tells you what anyone is paying beyond the monetary value of anything. Not because it can't see because it chooses to unsee it and make others believe it doesn't exist.

People have always been manipulated by labels and slogans, and it is not going to change. We hear the words equality, climate change, right to a hundred things but what was the last thing that changed by these discussions. We just end up chasing another loose end generated or thrust upon.

Peace

The Anglo-Saxons by Marc Morris

The history of England is as complex as history can be. But based on this book, it doesn't look very old for the current form it evolved to.

It has all those wars, religions, ego clashes, family, murders and all the possible combinations of the aforementioned which makes it not very interesting read. It is boring unless you are not even initiated in the history of any country.

The only interesting part is when you're done reading it, and contemplate how the current identity politics work in UK.

It is not that we don't learn from history, the case is that most of the people are ahistorical.

Peace

Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman

It is not called an idiot box because it serves stupid content but it is so non-interactive, short on serious discussion and as brief as profitably possible.

This may sound a bit harsh on TV, or any screen for that matter apart from a book reader in the evolution of media since it began with printing but this is true. And this book even being really old (published in 1985) puts all the right arguments forward. If only he had a chance to rewrite this today he'd have more arsenal in his attack.

TV as a medium could have been a better compared to what it is today only if it had been invented in a different time. It grew to what it is today in the time when everything was expected to be commercialised, and it lost the opportunity of being as meaningful as a book. The commercial aspect moulded its content to be short, fuzzy, entertaining, and eventually serving the wrong sides of business, religion and politics.

A different observation from my side was that all the modern studies show that the TV doesn't have a quality of holding anyone's attention for long unlike books. Which led to the further technological developments of recording, OTT, and what not. But this is still a proven fact that TV doesn't have people's attention for long which we attribute to its non-interactivity. All the stories that we've ever heard are cherished because they were read by us to told to us. And, even when the books don't have the interaction built-in it, it has the higher engagement quotient and depending on the writer's excellence they can stick for real long time.

All the digital mediums don't suffer the same attention span problem. Think of video games which keep the people hooked for days at a stretch but they latch on to a different hook in the brain.

This is worth a read for anyone, and hopefully if you're big on any screens (not just TV) it will give you some pointers on why it is the way it is.

Peace

Stay True by Hua Hsu

This is such an amazing memoir specially after the recent memoir which left a distaste.

It doesn't talk about the author's whole life but more focused on one person of author's young age. A friend who was loved, respected, and valued but unfortunately end up dead in a petty crime.

Do we over think our pain or is it something that an incident out of the blue completely changes your perception about people, life and everything involved? Loss, specially of our loved ones - related or not, changes us at a deeper level. It leaves a void that can't be filled, an unfulfilled emotion which nobody else can evoke.

If anyone who knew him picks a pen and write about him, it is going to be a similar account but it will have a different take on how that incident changed their life.

But how long does it take to get over this loss? Can it take a lifetime, and make you think that you have your best days behind you? This is a question with no one answer.

Only the love, support, and time can heal this. It will heal but it is not possible to wipe those ordinary moments which in the hindsight makes the best of the memories that we can cherish.

Love

A Brief History of Equality by Thomas Piketty

Equality is a bit of abstract idea. And it is defined differently by different people based on their achievements and lifestyle. So, if a billionaire thinks that his wealth is well deserved due to what he created and the others are not there because they lack something (nobody knows what). Or, a man being the highest earning member of a family can treat others as a lesser being.

Piketty is an amazing writer and I didn't read the other two books just because of the sheer number of pages :) and I'm glad I found this one. And, yes, most of his arguments are based on the data.

The unequal ownership of wealth, real estate and what not vs the contribution to the taxes. Sharing with the larger society vs the philanthropy facade. Speaking of equal rights for all, irrespective of gender, class, colour, citizenship, but lacking the action. Being on the top of consumption chain (maximum contribution to Carbon emission, indirectly to global warming) but reluctant to the take responsibility for the plans. And, yes, the repatriation.

They are all forms of inequality. And even after seeing the march towards equality progressing, it still sounds like a utopia.

Can a world with inequality will function as it does now? Most likely yes. But the larger problem is that anything that brings us closer to the equality hurts the vested interests of the people who are responsible for this inequality. Its more of a personal barrier that needs to be overcome here by the larger wealth holders. Top 10% people holding 70% of the wealth (in US but other countries have the similar ratios) are the biggest levers to make it happen but vested interest is a big word and a bigger idea which needs different understanding/treatment.

Unfortunately, inequality is going to stay.

Peace

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus

Camus is a different kind of writer. He goes from philosophy to myth and back in a lyrical writing style. It is sometimes so fluent to read that only going through those complicated phrases amazes you with the beauty of it.

The title comes from the story for Sisyphus but he doesn't really appear until the end where the whole thought around the idea of staying alive in the face of absurdity of life comes to a full circle.

Camus starts with the idea of suicide (why people do it) and moves from one character to the other (Don Juan may not be the right choice) explaining what should be idea of life for any person. What keeps us going through the monotony of life and what happens when one sees the absurdity of this rhythmic living. Does this evoke a question of why life exists or what is the point in being alive while you are destined to roll your own stone daily like Sisyphus?

There is no simple answer to existential doubts but here we can read what Camus has to suggest. The problem with such questions is that they are all unique and there is no general answer which fits all, and that is the beauty of it.

This is a quick read until you start contemplating on these thoughts, which is a chore for lifetime.

Peace

The Viking Heart: How Scandinavians Conquered the World Arthur Herman

Let's start with correction in the title Scandinavians 'did not' conquered the world.

This the problem with writing popular history. You take some pointers from history, and try to make them popular. And, how do you make them popular? You cherry pick and sensationalise the events. And the second thing is the imagination, which you use in absence of a concrete evidence/narrative.

It might be quite a pressure to keep writing the bestsellers but after reading the 484 pages (cover to cover) I can say that this sounds more of a propaganda then an actual book which has anything to do with actual history. The book starts with the history of vikings (Scandinavians) which was dominantly blood and raids (can call it pirates), followed by the political unrest (kings, queens, princes like everywhere else), and lastly the new age people (inventors, generals, scientists and daredevils).

The writer has picked the people to paint a picture of a clan of people who come with a special heart (what is a viking heart??) and did unimaginable things. There is a brief mention of the very first acts of barbarism which has been glossed over with tough living conditions (slaves, decimated cities, brutally killed people and what not).

It will not be an exaggeration to say that any person who has not been exposed to the world history will end up thinking that the Scandinavians built the world we see today. This can give an artificial sense of pride for belonging to such an inheritance. Which in turn results into the superiority complex which has been proved catastrophic historically. And there is no point in arguing that the history can't repeat itself.

Lastly, it quotes a lot of great people who have been phenomenal in different fields but the larger point is that, were they able to do it because they come from a particular lineage. Unfortunately, the book ends up pressing this point too much. It ends up labelling all the great achievements to one thing, the lineage.

These amazing people did change the course of history and world can't thank them enough but this has nothing to do with their lineage. It is always the circumstances which brings the best or the worst out of a person. And it is an injustice to attribute their feats to a single lineage because once they reach the pinnacle of their lives they stopped belonging to anything apart from humanity. Any effort to prove otherwise is dubious and should be looked at cautiously.

This is too big a book (obviously given the scope) but should be seen in a larger context of history, and the popular part should be read carefully before it starts putting the wrong ideas.

Peace

Islamic Fascism Hamed Abdel-Samad

First thing, not all the things in this book can be agreed upon.

This is a good book when it comes to the references and the citations it has used but this doesn't provide a  solution, not even in directional terms. But the plus point is that some of the points made here can be the starting point.

Religion is a sensitive matter irrespective of which one we are talking about. It gets more complicated where this is less about religion but more about the power equations. The complications involved are very difficult to understand for a well trained mind (academically or otherwise) forget about the people who have surrendered their critical faculty and open to take orders from others. These orders are well crafted in terms of promising something which goes beyond this life. A bait for the people who are in a vulnerable situation in their lives.

Afterlife is an absurd thought to analyse rationally. It is beyond comprehension which makes it more abstract and lucrative for the people who are dependent only on trust/faith. But this is where the the shortcoming lies.

Education is the only way forward which can enable people to look at things from an independent point of view and debate about it. Till then, keep the hopes high.

Peace

Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment by Francis Fukuyama

What exactly does an identity mean? Is this is a common trait found among different people or is this is an idea that brings the like minded people together?

Identity has always been an abstract thought which has generally been defined as a post event analysis. It is very frequently the case that after an incident the analysts go after a trait and end up zeroing on one characteristics which fits the bill. This is more of a generalisation of uniqueness.

Race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, political views, nationality, religion and a hundred other factors can be used to label people in a single cohort. But apart from the physical traits everything else is a choice. A choice that you are not born with but prefer against everything else. And the sad part of these identities are the push for the approval of it.

The moment you start contemplating on the influence of an identity it is seen as a sign of opposition to it. So, does it matter what other recognise as long as you are comfortable with your choices? No. But is it going to be easy to live your choices? Depends, but you don't make these choices on the basis of level of comfort.

It is a bit complex to put your thoughts around it here but this one was a good read.

Peace

The Mathematics of the Breath and the Way: On Writers and Writing by Charles Bukowski

How does a writer write or what inspires a writer to write?

These questions are not answered in this book but if you are looking for a personal account of a prolific writer like Bukowski than this is going to help.

To be a good writer you need to be a writer first. Which means writing a lot even if not all of it sees the light. Also, be prepared to not making a lot of money from writing. It is not that people don't pay for the good books but the answer lies in the fact when was the last time you actually bought a book.

Second thing is don't be to harsh on yourself and better lean on to a good editor. Not all the good writers are good editors so if you're not the later (which you will know soon if you are open to listening) find one.

Lastly, there is nothing like a great thought. I believe that you start with very basic ones and one of them will eventually with become big and by that I don't mean complicated. In fact, it is going to be so simple that it wouldn't require any interpretation from the writer. Most likely everyone will connect to it on their own terms and that is the best writing.

On a lighter note I never really understood too much of a poetry but that doesn't mean that you can't. Most of the times it is going to be like if you ever tried. 

Caution - don't get carried away with the alcoholic episodes and start thinking that it is some sort of shortcut to get to good writing. It is not, no matter how many times you hear it.

Love!

Maps by Nuruddin Farah

 This is the first one in the trilogy but I'm not sure if I'm going to read the other two.

What I gather is that the whole trilogy is around the people who are searching for an answer to the question "who am I".

For quite some time I used to think that this is more of a thought gymnastic, and I've not changed my thoughts much. I still think that these thoughts are amusing and even entertaining depending on what you're going through in your life but if you look closer these questions sound non-consequential. Which means you're going to answer it as per your current mind set. Most probably your answer will differ (if you're giving it a serious thought) at different point of time. And this is not a bad thing because we are mostly wired to react and not respond.

I'll not be looking for the other two books in the trilogy but if you're looking for a different narrative on life and interested in hearing a different version of somebody's take on life, this might be a bit different in terms of treatment from anything you've read/seen/heard earlier.

Peace

Power by Bertrand Russell

Here is another from the philosophy section.

I can't really call it philosophy but more like thoughts on power. And the power is sliced from all the possible angles.

This is really good to give you some food for thoughts as this talks about the wide range of powers that are exercised in the society. Some are good but most of them are unproductive or bad when left untamed. Also, the idea here is to identify when the power is pseudo. It may not be the power but an idea of a person or thought being projected as powerful.

However, the power is a very local or you can say a relative thing. Different things, ideas or people gain power in relative terms. Which means that they are not powerful in isolation but in comparison. And this comparison actually drives how the power is going to used and pursued.

Charlie Chaplin's quote can be added to bring another dimension to power "You need Power, only when you want to do something harmful otherwise Love is enough to get everything done" but we're free to choose what we accept it to be as long as we don't forget that its always relative.

Peace

Faith, Science and Understanding by John C. Polkinghorne

 Don't fall for the title. It sounds so broad but in the first ten pages you can see how narrow this whole book is.

The religion is going downhill, and it is difficult for the preachers (not the practitioners) to keep the people. Finding the new one is relatively easier by casting a wider net but the problem is with the keeping the people who are believed to be the worthy followers(?).

There is also some larger attempts to dilute the vocabulary and replace the more conventional words to something more obscure like faith. Since, religion can't stand a reasonable argument so it hides behind the idea of god (yes, small g is not a typo) which is projected as something which is not conceivable by human faculties.

There is whole new narrative which is hellbent (choice of word because of hell) to put the religion on top of science and reasoning. Their simple argument is that since science can't give all the answers, religion is the right place to be. They summarily reject the idea of rationality that science never claimed to be the last word unlike religion. Science was always open to scrutiny, challenge, proof, and advancement. While the religious texts were the soul truth for such followers. And yes, science will have to prove everything. Remember, Copernicus waited for 400 years to be accepted.

I never heard of this author, and after reading first ten pages I knew why I didn't. One thing which is very evident from the whole narrative is that the author was trying to nullify the scientific theories, and was actually taking the ammunition from the other scientific discoveries to prove that some didn't stand for long. While he completely overlooked the fact that the science was always open for these changes and challenges. Another thing is how frequently he quotes himself to the man of science. Well, it looked like all the science has put to the efforts of justifying a pointless argument. It all goes down to create new words which look scientific or rational like Theology, Natural theology, Revealed theology. And yes the whole science is well written off as vicissitude. Brilliant!

One interesting thing I saw for the first time is the Templeton Prize. It is GBP 1.1 Million which is awarded for - "Outstanding contributions in affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". Digest it!

Well, I'll avoid reading anything else from him.

The Lost Executioner by Nic Dunlop

 This one I picked after reading the news of death of Duch in September.

I was not aware of such a trial earlier, and when this news came to public I looked for something about him or Cambodia in general, and ended up with this.

I read this, and this left the same impression of anger and despair. This book largely covers the Cambodian situation during Khmer but it is largely focused on the infamous Tuol Sleng prison. 20,000 people entered it, and nobody left alive. The mass graves were found later, and they were found when nobody was looking for them. Like they were having some sort of solitary existence of their own until an outsider disturbed them.

The details of torture and the common condition of prisoners is difficult to go through. It also tries to recreate the situations how the guards, and the people working there handled it. The worst part is how they treated the children just for the sake of saving themselves some trouble.

Duch was always of the opinion that he did wrong but he was merely following the order. This was not surprising as this is the most common line of defence in such cases. The narration always gets shifted from the crime to helplessness of the perpetrators of these crimes. The whole thing is projected as a doing of an organisation where anyone caught is innocent.

Survival is the most basic of the instincts because it is same in animal and human. This is one of the most quoted point to describe animal behaviour from migration, food chain, to be alpha, marking the territory or even monopolising the whole chain of offsprings. However, when it comes to human a lot of these are considered to be off limit. There is a whole cognition in process which defines how we behave. No doubt humans are also genetically designed to have that survival instinct but what separates us from the animals is that cognitive ability to assess the consequences of our actions.

If we're talking about the kind of execution that happened in Tuol Sleng, than you can argue that you were just the cog in the wheel. But unfortunately, you're cog of a wrong wheel and bear the same responsibility as wheel. And, by any definition Duch was not just a cog.

Peace

The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe by Patrick J. Geary

 This is such an amazing account of historical Europe. And more than that it gives you some new thoughts.

If you're interested in the facts than this has a lot of details. However, the more important thought which is rightly emphasised is that the history of countries is not a fixed idea. It's evolving and keep changing. Anybody who puts it in just one perspective is most probably trying to gain something by its improper projection.

A larger thought is that the people who are trying to write the historical account for a country or culture etc have a grave responsibility of staying neutral and recording only the facts or hypothesis which can be proved independently. However, the sorry state is that a larger chunk of such exercises were completed based on half truths and rest on imagination. This was a dangerous mix because this gave the people a fake sense of belonging or being biased against others who were or could be left out of it.

This thought corruption in the records lead to so many conflicts that there was a whole army of such writers who were/are hellbent to provide people with the wrong/imagined detail. And once this was out, it was difficult to disprove it. Not because this was right but because this was repeated and realigned so many times that it become a truth in itself which was a dangerous situation.

Unfortunately, it's not easy to judge between real and imaginary accounts, and eventually it lands on the consciousness of the people to decide. It is not an easier task but can be done with some proper training of faculties. The key is that you look at everything with an open mind and filter out the undesirable elements.

Definitely a great read, and yes a quick one.

Peace

1984 by George Orwell

 There is a reason why some works outlast others. One of them may be that they survived but the major reason is that they hit a chord. This one hits you all over.

I always wanted to read the Animal Farm first but this was never off the list. So, when I saw this one on the aisle, the immediate thought was "Yeah, why not!".

I read it fast as it was too absorbing, and somewhere it echoed the thoughts.

There is no Big Brother or is there. We may never know but the process of changing the past keeps on going. You may not be a part of it but that doesn't mean you're not affected by it.

These day when we see a lot of noise around fake news, changed names, unscrupulous officials/politicians you can easily hear yourself saying what Winston said. And the bigger problem is that the only thing you can do is to survive it. You can't fight the fight but you can survive the fighting. And one day when the truth is out there in full force, nobody will be able to alter or cover it.

They can never enter your head, you just have to give a closer look to keep your sanity, and stay strong in what you believe.

Alas, it never end there and you prepare yourself for the next wave. This is a cycle we're part of. It may change it's flavour but it can't change it's nature.

Peace