26 December 2009

Maugham said, "...that's why I couldn't read PostColonial Drama so much!"

errm... well, Maugham did NOT say that. Not even close. But he actually did say something which is a significant part of this blorticle. If not the most vital part if it, certainly the definitive moment of the piece. But I get ahead of myself. Let me start with a story about a kid. An average schoolkid who still has left in her/him, all the illusory promises of greatness that the future promises to offer. Being the ever enthusiastic participant in every inter-school competition, (s)he ends up winning one. A debate, quiz or poetry recitation; does not matter. Our objective is that (s)he wins a gift-certificate of, say, one hundred rupees to some bookstore. It does not matter if it is a traditional piles of books on top of books kind of store or the new places where you have to cross a sea of CDs/DVDs/accessories/crockery/chocolates/perfumes/PC games/PSP games/PS1,2,3 games/toys-stuffed and otherwise, to finally reach some of the good books. Either place would work for our story.

The child decides, out of sheer boredom and overexposure, the (s)he would not buy anything else but some books. Perhaps it is a selfrighteous fit of overenthusiasm, a bout of sincere inclination towards knowing more of "literature" or even a simple curiosity of the unknown (read: parental pressure to do something that they never did). Anywhichway, this kid, whose age I have forgotten to mention (is about twelve, by the way), steps into the books section. Let us skip to the point of the story; Too many options described in an aloof/borderline funny way, a lot of derision towards self-help and biographies, a moment of self-indulgent ogling at the awesomeness of the comics section and a little more venom spat towards self-help books later, we are at the drama section, where our little friend (if you snigger, you shall die a death by reading self-help) has stopped. Why has (s)he decided to have a look at this section is a different blorticle; whose essence I am giving out in the next line for the certain uncertainty of never getting down to write it. It could be because (s)he felt the inner, natural pull towards the most ancient form of worship, or it could be the natural spidey-smarts that alerted the kid that shorter than a novel, simpler than poetry; a play is all that you could read in minutes ninety. I don't know. But ya, either way, there (s)he stands, looking, staring, judging at playwrights from Aeschylus to me (boink! wishful-thinking, redalert!). Read closely folks, for this is the point of the piece. (S)he invariably buys a simple-Shakespeare edition and goes back home, living happily ever after. Well, at least until that second divorce and that bizarre double murder-suicide. But that is not part of our story. Our story has ended. Get out. Go out and play in the rain. If you read the previous line, you did not listen to the one before that and so I can say whatever which you will not pay the slightest attention to... Okay, I cannot understand what I am saying but let me quickly put down in bullet form, what I intend you to infer from the above story.

  • There is a general, often unnoticed trend in the pricing of the books which "encourage" us, from a very young age, towards buying books which are touted to be "them, Classics". For a hundred bucks, there are only 'n' number of books that you may buy, particularly when you are not willing to shell out extra cash. And despite a revision of gift-certificate values in mid-range city schools makes a real and present representation; it ain't my battle and I shall stick to the pricing.
  • Let's face it, Shakespeare will always be cheaper than Beckett or Ngugi. And let us not even GO to Pinter or Shaffer. As a writer, you are saved as long as you are being taught as a part of a syllabus; thanks to some friendly neighborhood professor-assissted publication which makes some of the books relatively affordable. GOD FORBID, if you are a standalone, popular enough to be shunned by the academics and not popular enough to be blessed with a paperback edition. You are doomed to be one of those names that are oft-mentioned but never read.
  • Playwrights who are affected most by this tendancy, are the postcolonial ones. Sometimes I wonder, is this a way by which the Empire prevents us from striking back? It is as if one of those Harv-grad business execs got up and said, "Here's a good strategy to keep these dissenting voices under a tab. Let us sign them all on good figure deals, no matter how good/bad they are and overprice their books, so that nobody would ever read them!" Who am I kidding? Those kids cannot even say dissenting. But somebody's doing something which makes certain books more/less accessible than the others, aren't they?
  • Before I go on about it, let me drop another term, most probably self-invented, the indeterminacy of Classicability factor. Simpler put, it is the who/what decides a book to be a Classic, a.k.a, must-read. It is almost like a transitive verb (all students of Franco-German languages, gimme a hell yeah!), but only it is not. Who says, that despite from being the same age, Sean O'Casey should be more expensive than Shaw or Strindberg's Dream Play alone should be unavailable online in translation when all his other plays are non-dime-a-dozen (if you are not counting the internet/current/initial investment of purchasing a computer charge). Does that mean, that these books (plays, in this context) are so revolutionary that THEY are doing everything to prevent us from even getting hold of a copy? So, to conclude in the same fashion of my previous paragraph, somebody must be doing this, who are they?
  • Okay, lemme ground myself back-to-reality (Peace! 2 Eminem), and accept facts. Fact is, newer IS dearer. Given that the authors are not dead yet in a more literal plane, it makes it that much tougher to bring out low-price editions. Between royalty and copyrights, most works seal their fates. And works by themselves are non-living things which only accomplish, or try-to, the intentions of the author behind the book. Fact of the matter is, (all those waiting for the moment of a piece where I make a preposterous accusation, this is it!) AUTHORS DO NOT WANT TO TAKE A CUT IN THEIR PAYCHECK.

Face it, they might pretend to care about the third-world-ness of the third-world, they might cry you a river or lie down in front of a steamrolling roadroller charging at 5 kmph in a rainforest (oddly, almost often near the release of their next books) or even pay in obscene number of dollars to get that, oh-so-unfashionable! look befitting an author who fights for the CAUSE! But bottomline is, they have bills to pay, possibly a bit more than what you and I have to and acquired tastes, be it caviar or cocaine, is the hardest to kick and dearest in the world too. That is why dead authors make more benevolent souls.

And that is why Maugham's words come back to me, for its startling inaccuracy. "Writers write, not because they want to; but because they must!" Bollocks to you my Maughaman! They write, because they MUST BE PAID! Remember, I am not your usual geek who remembers quotes, so there is a source besides the source. Couple of days ago, I read a piece by my favorite author, Paulo Coelho where he adds his own third line to Maugham (everybody's after this guy to add another line, poor dude!), saying, "because they want to be read!" Coelho walks the talk and puts up, get ready to do the double take, PIRATED E-VERSIONS of his OWN WORKS! He started this way back in the early nineties, putting up the Russian version of The Alchemist on a fan's request and has gone on to put up books in any language where he is not bound by a contract to do so. This shockingly self-defeatist attitude which seems to be a sure way to bury one's self has, au contraire, helped the writer. He has sold in millions and is still counting.

What all could be achieved if only a creator wills to put the creation ahead of her/himself, has no bounds! It is a fact that most, if not all, writers have a "day-job" which contributes to their writing not insignificantly. By making their works available to the world, writers guarantee a wider reach of audience without necessarily putting themselves in a corner, eating the I-am-not-getting-paid-for-this pie. Time is money, and the more interesting your work is, the more money you make, without imposing a toll on the audience for experiencing your work. What more, other fields would also benefit from such a policy. Already, the principle has been verified with in the movie-business in the days of P2P sharing. Have we not, in the past three years, seen more Global-grossers than before, when the audience were "protected"? With a little innovation from the creators, movies would simply become two different realms; one, where good stories are told with non-existent budgets and the other, which would be a pure spectacle industry; both extremely successful!

But I get ahead of myself, again! Let me start the change, by being the change. Henceforth, all my works shall be considered public domain. Do not let the current absence of a publisher make you take me lightly. I am considered to be a man of my word; more or less. To read any of my works, simply write to me at thesaruaon23@gmail.com. I shall soon upload a detailed catalogue of my completed works, few though they maybe. So, until then, think, write and be cool!

22 December 2009

வேட்டைக்காரன் (2009)

வணக்கம் தலைவா!

இன்னைக்கு நாம பேச போரது நான் பாத்த படத்தை பத்தி தான். எம்.ஜி.ஆர் நடிச்ச படமில்லை, நம்ம 'இளயதளபதி' விஜய் நடிச்சு வெளி வ்ந்திருக்கே அது. நான் கல்கத்தால இருக்கறத இப்பொதான் ரொம்ப உணரமுடியுது. நிச்சயமா விஜய் படதுக்கெல்லாம் தீயேட்டர் போய் பாப்பேன்னு நெனைக்கலை... என்ன கொடும சரவணன் இது! வோகே! சொந்த கதை சோக கதையெல்லாம் வாணாம். படம் எப்படி இருக்கு?

சர்ப்ரைசிங்க்லி, நல்லா ஜாலியா தான் போச்சு. மக்களே, நீங்க் கோப படும் முன்பு, சற்று பொருமையுடன் பழசை நெனச்சு பாருங்க! அழுகிய தமிழ் மகன், அப்புறம் குருவி, பொரவு வில்லுன்னு ரெம்ப நாளாவே விஜய்-ய வச்சி காமெடி பன்னிடிருக்காங்க... சொ, இந்த படங்கள மனசுல வச்சி அந்தோ பரிதாபம்ன்னு நாம நம்மளை நெனச்சு தீயேட்டர் சென்றால், பரவால்ல-ன்னு சொல்ல வச்சிருக்கும் விஜய் குழுவுக்கு, ஹாட்ஸ் ஆஃப்.

எவ்ளோ காஸு வாங்கின தலைவா-ன்னு நீங்க கேட்கும் குறல் என் காதில் படுகிறது மக்களே! நான் உங்களை ஏமாற்ற மாட்டேன்! மேட்டரை கேளுங்கோ! விஜய், இன்னும் காலேஜ் ஸ்டுடண்ட். அது கூடவே அவரு ஆட்டோ ஓட்டுரார். மூனு ரீலுக்கு மட்டும் கூட ஒரு ஃபிகரையும் ஓட்டுரார். சரி, அவரோட மொடிவேஷன் என்னன்னு பாருங்க, he wants to be a cop! யாரு மாதிரி? Like this other cop he's got a great crush on. இப்படி ஆரம்பிச்சு, படம் எங்கங்கோ போகுது. அப்புரம், குவார்டர் ஃபைனல்ஸ், செமி ஃபைனல்ஸ், அண்ட் ஃபைனல்ஸ்-ன்னு ஒரு ஒரு வில்லனா தீர்து கட்டுரார் விஜய். கொஞ்ச காலமா English படதிலிருந்து காபி அடிச்ச விஜய்-க்கு போர் அடிதுவிட்டது போலும். திரும, பட்ஷா, தில், தூள்-ன்னு அவருக்கு செட் ஆன ஃபார்முலாவுக்கு இந்த படம் ஒரு revisitation!!!

21 December 2009

FFRicket!

Yes folks! Thanx to my last big breakthrough idea for sports-entertainment being stolen by (albeit pre-datedly) the beach cricket boys from Australia, I am back with another mindblowing (okay, maybe not so much) innovation that could take cricket to a whole 'nutha fricking level! Move over Twenty20, this is fricking fast forward cricket or... Wait for it, FFRicket! (exclamation mark is a part of the trademark.) Let me briefly explain the rules of the game.


The pitch is an equilateral triangle with a batsman in each corner.

The team with the most runs with loss of least wickets wins the match.

The bowling side is given a maximum of ninety minutes to bowl their twenty overs. If they fail to complete their 20 within time, then a punitive extra minutes will be added to the team playing second. If the team bowling second makes such an offence, the extra time will grant the batting side bonus runs calculated according to their current run rate. There will be a break of five minutes after every session.

Twenty-overs a side; a ball is counted as one successful delivery. No extras counted.

Umpiring is computerized.

The members of the bowling side are all over the field. Opening bowler bowls to one of the batsmen.

The batsman’s object is to run to the next position of the triangle without getting out.

One run is calculated when all three batsmen cross the starting point. Traditional sixes/fours allowed.

The fielder on stopping the ball can either choose to bowl to any of the three batsmen, or pass it on to another fielder (which is not considered as a bowled ball) who will bowl.

There should be a gap of 3 seconds minimum and 6 seconds maximum between two consecutive balls.

Wickets are taken by, catches, run-outs, bowled, stumpings, lbw (pitch in line, impact in line).

The bowler's runup is minimum 3 yards to maximum 15 yards. The ball should reach the batsman in under one bounce. On a second bounce, the batsmen can run one point and cannot be runout.

Only one batsman can be out during one delivery. When a wicket falls, a gap of 30 seconds is allowed, exceeding which, he is declared out.

The batsman can turn to the face the bowler in whichever manner; i.e., left-handed, right-handed.

Since one run is completed only when all three batsmen cover all the three points of the triangle, there are no individual scores.

If a batsman gets runout after having cleared two points of the triangle, then the coverage of the two points will be disqualified. They start from point zero with the new batsman at the place. However, if a batsman gets out by any other manner, the new batsman can continue in the run.

A batsman can decide to retire for rest/substitution after having crossed 30 runs withe the given two partners. Such a rest/substitution to rest will deduct five runs.

A series contains of even number of matches with both teams starting innings equally.

Do let me knw what you think about this.!

14 December 2009

Step Up

I like dance movies. They have a sense of timeless enjoyment about them without cluttering up your space with any of the debatable ideological points. You don't really care about WHAT they are saying, as long as they are coherent with good bits of dancing. A story arc cannot be more predictable than in a dance movie, still it manages to entertain you. Step Up was all of this and what more, there were some really cliched, yet important facets of teenage life brought to one's attention without being too preachy. I enjoyed the movie, except for one logical flaw or just a huge bit of stuck-up-ness on the part of the story-tellers. This girl, Nora, takes Tyler for her dance partner as a REPLACEMENT for the REHEARSALS, but goes on to encourage hopes of him using that showcase performance as his audition. She goes to bite down her exboyfriend when he screws his best friend to get ahead with his career. When she turns around and does the same thing to Tyler, by saying that "he doesn't understand" after having the original guy back in his position, it kinda comes unstuck for me. We get really pissed with the kid Tyler when he decides to call it quits the first time but he puts in effort to make it happen the second time. But when Nora fucks things up with Tyler, and calls him back ONLY WHEN ANDREW CANNOT DANCE ANYMORE, WHY IN FRICKENS SHOULD THIS KID GO BACK AND APOLOGIZE AT THE END OF THE MOVIE??!?!?! Please, anyone, gimme a clue about this whole weird scenario. This infuriates me enough to wanna bang that girl's head through a door over and over again, particluarly for the oh-so-fake moment where she FORGIVES him?!?! Maybe, you know what? Such a LOSER doesn't deserve any better.

13 December 2009

First things First; lets go hunting...

Long absence, will try to make it up, yatti yatti yatta!

You wanna know why people are so up for hunting these days? (Brace urself for a really bad pun), because there is a Tiger in the Woods. When the going gets tough for a sports-hero, that is when (s)he needs your support the most. This is my turn to come out and pledge my allegiance to the Tiger.

I can talk about how he is an easy target because he is a celebrity and how others screw around with their personal relationships and get away with it and that the man is paying the price of fame. The fact that the media is making a huge three ring circus out of this hardworking man's life is also not my point of interest. I am a simpler man. I make politically incorrect statements and am not hesitant to change them if situation demands it to change; not because I am a person with a flip-flop kinda temperament but I believe that being consistent is over-rated as opposed to being right. Today, I am gonna make a statement and it is one of those times where I am pretty positive that I will not change my mind about this one. Here it goes... A genius is bound by the political laws of the land as is any other citizen; but never have an illusion that you have a control over his ethics. Your ethical laws are nowhere close to his zone of mental/spiritual activity. And still, as silly mortals who presume to know everything about everythign despite having had only about four hundred years of continuous history, they would still pretend to know what goes on in the mind of a person whose perspective of things are entirely otherworldly compared to the rest. Tiger Woods is a man on the top of the golfing world, because he can think in a way that all the other losers of the world put together cannot think in. It is the same mind that makes him feel inadequately satisfied with one woman. That he takes in a harem of a dozen, is just as solid a fact and nothing more than the fact that he has won every major title in the world to be won and he is still going strong. You cannot change a fact by wishing it away. You cannot pretend that one fact about a person changes everything else about the person. So as long as the world pretends everything to be in black/white with its media as its blanket, it can only keep growing frustrated knowing how impotent it is. So sayeth this SaravananMan!