Jane Austen's Happy Endings

So, just finished with Pride and Prejudice - the second time I took up the book; but the first time that I couldnt help but enjoy it.
I'd blame my own poor understanding for finding it a dreadful bore when I first tried to read it - at 13 years of age.
Well, its everything but a dreadful bore! Often when authors or even movie makers try to combine all of comedy, drama and suspense into one, the result is a mess.
Jane Austen, however, manages that successfully and effortlessly. The secret to this success, I believe, is her trademark 'superficiality'. Not going deep into the characters' emotions and staying away from all bad feelings that may result from bad happenings in the plot.
What is described in details is trivial, and stuff which you would expect other authors to fill pages and pages with - is lightly brushed upon, all condensed (at times), into just one paragraph.

The story is about a mother whose sole object in life is to get her 5 daughters married to well-off husbands, though that is only the secondary/tertiary focus of the author. It is also about how the heroine, Elizabeth Bennet overcomes her prejudices and looks at certain people in a new way. Throughout the book, the first time reader might keep wondering if the heroine and the hero are going to end up together, and when and how?
The hero, by the way, is Mr. Darcy - he has all the hero qualities too. He is super rich and handsome and generous and has a fantastic house and though you might not think it in the beginning - he does a lot of charitable stuff.
Elizabeth Bennet's character is supposed to be complex and there are a lot of people who'd sit and spend hours analyzing it. I found it to be a very readable character though. She is ahead of her times, no doubt, but she is all too fallible. She mis-reads, mis-constructs, mis-represents almost till the very end.
She represents Prejudice.
On the other hand, Mr. Darcy represents Pride. Too proud to even dance with someone he considers beneath him, he goes on giving these airs and building a reputation which has him pinned as unpleasant, proud and repulsive.
All, of course, is solved in the end, where both realize their faults and make due amends. A certain happy ending is hastily described where all members of the family settle down after a book-full of chaos and unnecessary emotional uprisings.
Jane Austen, it seems, loves cheesy happy endings and so do I.

Romantic Remedies

After the utter failure of a group with the same name (as the title of this blogpost) that I had started, at Orkut (several years back), Im now thinking of resuming dissemination of romantic advice.
This is because some people, for god only knows what reason, think I should do some service to the society by distributing what I have too much of in my head - romantic ideas and solutions.

Lately, (though its an age-old tragedy) , I have been hearing of/seeing for myself girls unfortunately trapped in destructive relationships. Now the definition of a destructive relatinship may or may not include actual violence. Oh by the way, there is a class of mentally challenged (as I'd like to call them) girls who continue to claim to love their guys even though these guys hit them (and unspeakable more stuff) repeatedly.

A destructive relationship can also be one wherein a person (not necessarily the guy) plays football with your heart and self-esteem. Though victims abound of both the sexes, you'll most certainly find the number of female victims to be higher. Women are emotional fools - lots of wise men have repeatedly been saying that, and I'll agree.

These women victims obviously dont realize that the simple fact of them being a woman - a much more complex (hence advanced) , a much more prettier (who can deny that?) , and a much more feeling (ok - debatable) human, than man - automatically gives them a sort of power our poor men folk can never claim.

Call it the Girl Power if you will. Because we girls tend to deposit every single feeling, every single resource we have in the hands of a guy our foolish hearts fall for. All this depositing is OKAY - but only for a guy who ATLEAST realizes that you are a woman, and just being that, you deserve all that you've always wanted!

Realize when hes no good for you and likewise, dont ever let him go if he is.

When I learnt the science of Reiki

I went to attend this 2 day course with loads of cynicism and some genuine curiosity. How can they possibly teach this 'ancient Japanese art of healing using just hands' in two days?!
Had to be bogus. Well the just 2 days part actually is. Because it doesn't work that way.

Reiki uses focus of the mind to call energy into the palm of your hands. And how is that done? Extremely simply to my utter surprise. By just asking these energies to appear.
 Since they are present all around you, all the time, they do not take long in manifesting themselves. It requires that kind of focus and that kind of deliberate awareness in the beginning to feel it in your palms. Gradually, though, when you have practiced enough, it comes to you even more quickly.
Thats where the catch is. Nothing of this sort is learnt in 2 days. It takes a very long time and long hours of practice to reach that level where you'd be amazed at what reiki can do. I myself am only beginning to understand it.

The science requires thorough understanding of the chakras in the human body, disorders of the human body, and human emotions. And that energy that you feel in your palms..can actually 'heal'.
I haven't healed anybody yet. But I have felt the energy between my palms, and thus, have no doubts about its potential.
Lots of people have said lots of wise words about all the cosmos being yours if you chose to have it, or, there being some part of God in every one, or even something as simple as the power of prayer healing and making wishes come true. And by God, I have started believing in all this. I am quite surprised at myself.

All those who know me, know I have anger issues, it arrives real quickly.
One of the tenets to be followed when practicing reiki is to take an oath every single day of never allowing yourself to be angry.
Believe it or not, I am trying :)

Puke-worthy education

Zoology is what I'm doing my graduation in. We learn about all kinds of animals - even minuscule little icky creatures which you'd never imagine can be called 'animals'.

We have been dissecting animals right from the initial few days in college - cockroaches, earthworms, prawns, fish, pigeon heads, frogs, rats...
In the final year, in our subject of Physiology, we are supposed to record a frog's heart beat. Now, for the froggy's heart to keep beating - it has to be alive - and the poor little thing's heart has to be removed from the body.

How do you think we manage to do that? In the most brutal, horrifying way. It is the stuff done by psychopath killers to their victims..and worse..
A frog (alive and healthy and kicking) has to be held by its legs and slammed on a flat surface. Twice. Thrice.

All this slamming does the following things to the poor creature :

1. Stuns it.
2. Makes some of its blood splatter.
3. Damages its skull.
4. Makes its tongue hang out in the most heart wrenching way.

Stunning it is what is required for the rest of the experiment procedure. Next it is pinned and/or a pin is pushed through its brain so that it doesn't move about when one is going to tear him up. Then follows a complicated set of steps requiring pushing pins through the heart, ligating the main veins etc.

I absolutely hate doing any of this.. Many others do too..my classmates, students who have been through this already. Nobody has been able to do anything about this outrageous practice of wasting hundreds of frogs' lives.. and all of it for a completely useless purpose of studying a frog's heart beat - something that can be done simply through a text book!

Teachers don't seem to see reason here. Venting out the exasperation regarding the insensitivity and unwillingness of the teachers to understand logic would require another post though.

Till anybody of consequence decides to do anything of consequence about this deplorable physiology experiment, we'll continued to be blackmailed to kill poor froggies.. as it so happens..this particular practical experiment carries a hell lot of marks in the exam. Will be soon posting a video showing some of the above mentioned atrocities on frogs - not for the weak of heart that video.

Why did she die?

Radhika Tanwar,20, was shot on Tuesday, 8th March 2011..right outside her college. She was shot in the back of her neck - not fatal - but she died anyway.

Ok..who shot her? A young guy, possibly a rejected lover, out to take revenge. He had also been stalking the girl for quite some time. Himself stunned for a whole minute, during which he stood utterly still, after pulling the trigger, he made a mad dash for it, losing himself in the crowd. Yeah, there was a crowd present. It took 10 full minutes for them to realize that a gun shot results in bleeding and bleeding can result in death.

Do you think the poor girl could have imagined in her wildest dreams that she'd die that way? Amidst people who had neither common sense nor the balls to do anything except just watch the 'tamasha'.

The police are now REQUESTING witnesses to please come and give specifics about that man. And why should it make me feel indignant, shocked, shameful? Because I am of the exact same age - it could've been any of us. I don't wish to die that way.

I'd like people to pounce on that sonofabitch and tear him to pieces, rush me to hospital immediately and the judiciary to make his remaining life hell.

People, please, get a goddamned sense of duty.

Random, this one.

I am the embodiment of lethargy today. Shouldn't be complaining though - Its just the way I like it. The whole day occupied with lots and lots of things to do. Doesn't leave you with a minute free to dwell on useless things.
For instance, what should I do in the future? It is completely and entirely useless to think anymore about it. No amount of pondering over this extremely tiresome question could lead me to the answer.

I idolize Dagny Taggart, the female protagonist of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. She never had a minute free either. Oh but she knew what she wanted to do.

She could work day and night and morning and evening and noon. Sleep on her desk in her office, not eat, not drink, walk miles, fly more miles. But when she was to appear in a party, say, or in company.. she managed to look jaw-dropping-awesome. Things like these shatter the illusion of idolatry.

Anyhow!! Haven't gotten over this book even after 10 months of reading it. The impact is here to stay, I'd say.

William and Matilda

Georgette Heyer is my favourite author. Its the characters she defines, set against the Regency Period (usually) - the bold, benevolent, evergreen, dashing men, and the women - I want to be like each one of them..

William the Conqueror, though is not quite like the other books I've read by her. It is set in 11th century Europe. William the Bastard as he was popularly known then was the Duke of Normandy. He eventually conquered England in a very unlikely battle against Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon King, becoming the first Norman King of England. Well he was one hell of a man.. An illegitimate child, who grew up to be fearless, ruthless, known for his sudden aggressive behaviour.

Matilda of Flanders was the woman William set his heart upon. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, she was England's smallest queen, with a height of 4'2" ..!

She was known to be a beautiful, aloof, cold bitch. Nobody spurned William the Bastard when he proposed for marriage. She did. She insulted and humiliated him instead.
William responded in a very unconventional way to the lady he desired. He barged into her chambers at her father's palace, dragged her by her hair and flogged her in front of her maid servants.

Matilda couldn't resist such a man even though the bruises hurt her for months. She accepted his proposal when asked the second time, soon after the beating.
In truth, she had always been equally attracted to him, she just wanted to see how crazy he'd go, to what extreme end..just to have her.

Women have always been devious it seems.
They made a great couple, were always passionately in love. He is supposed to have remained faithful to her all his life - which is 'wow' considering that time period. She bore him 11 children - some stamina in the woman!

Though the book chronicles William's life, battles and conquests (Matilda being one too), the chapter on his violent way of wooing stood out. I do hope no man tries it out now though - they might not get quite the same reaction.

Panchaali

Also popularly known as Draupadi, daughter of king Drupad, sister of Dhrishtadyumn, wife of the five Pandavs and good friend of Krishna, she is seen by many as the cause of the Mahabharat. Given the name Krishnaa by Krishna himself, she was raised in the manner of a princess in a fortress of a cold, stone palace with little enjoyment or play. She was played into having a swayamvar (a wedding ceremoney wherein the bride has her pick out of many prospective bridegrooms), which wasn't as simple or innocent as it sounded.


The book, The Palace of Illusions, by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni is as fresh in my mind now as it was a month back when I read it. It is the Mahabharat from Draupadi's point of view and it is a brilliant read.

There is no denying that women all over the world have influenced, mainly from behind the scenes, the changing scene of politics.
Draupadi, also named Panchaali (after her father's kingdom, Panchaal) took this influence to another level altogether. She was the driving force behind the vengeful attack of her husbands' army on that of the Kauravs. I hope you people know the story about the enmity of Kauravs and Pandavs, their fathers Dhritrastra and Pandu respectively. All of it to win the seat of power, the throne at Hastinapur.

And what drove her vengeance is only too well known - her humiliation at the court of King Dhritrashtra by the Kauravs. Her fury led her to utter a curse and an oath. The curse was for the men of the Kaurav clan. She told him that their women would cry harder than she had that day, on their dead bodies.
And she vowed that she wouldn't comb her hair till they were washed in Kaurav blood. And she didn't.. for 14 years.

There was more to this woman than just blind desire for revenge. Although she was married to five men (against her original wishes), she loved yet another - Karna, but had to hide her feelings throughout her life.

Now Karna WAS extremely lovable. Too handsome, too talented, too sincere, too loyal and too tragic. He was the son of Surya, the Sun God. But his whole life was a succession of one big tragedy after another.
Only a day before his death does she get to know that he had loved her back all those years (a few decades).

The book's name, The Palace of Illusions refers to Draupadi's own palace made of glass, water, air and magic by a Rakshasa. It was famous for its beauty, tricks and illusions. It was infamous for Duryodhan's fall into a pond that he couldn't see which implicated Draupadi and made him hate her.

Unbelievable, unnatural events abound in the book, right before or after the most believable and common daily happenings.
The original Mahabharat was written by Vyasa, an ugly, intimidating but wise sage, who himself plays a smallish role in the story, in 400 B.C.

I have always seen the Mahabharat as a sad story, with an ending which doesn't give you much satisfaction. Well they all die in the end.
Panchaali dies alone; her husbands leave her behind in a final honor and duty-bound act. All thanks to the eldest brother of the five - Yudhishtir. The epitome of morality himself. I somehow can't bring myself to admire that trait. Not if that makes you leave your spouse behind when s/he is dying.

There is an interesting, somewhat infuriating anecdote about Vyasa. But that I'll share some other time.

Sense and Sensibility

By Jane Austen of course. She was perhaps herself like Mrs. Jennings, (a character in the book), good naturedly nosy, loved prying into others' social and love lives, loved hooking people up.

Now Mrs. Jennings is not the protagonist, she is just a pleasantly animated sidekick. The main characters are two sisters - Elinor and Marianne. For those who have read the book, I'd like to tell them that I am somewhere midway between those two characters.

Marianne (younger) is quick of emotion, extreme in expression, indifferent to social protocols when it doesn't quite suit her.
Elinor is much more stable, calm and collected. She can't help being a people-pleaser most of the time.

So I've read better classics, and this is not the best by Jane Austen either. But this lady's insight into people's minds, what causes them to be what they are is surprising. Can a Mrs. Jennings type of person see so clearly into people? And still be so dedicated to their social cause and status?

Because I always thought, the more you know people, the farther away you'd like to be from them.