It has been a long time since I blogged. I am sure you all noticed it, missed me and furiously and duly protested. Or perhaps you were just plain simple grateful to God or Simon for not being offered trivial trash as quality reading material.
My co-blogger asked me, or rather mercilessly convinced me, to talk nineteen to the dozen about seven random “things”. The good news is that you would not have to struggle very hard to find the seven random things in this post. I shall get on with it immediately.
Number One: I have a problem with the word Blog. I want to blog about the blog-ish use of it as a verb, a noun, and an adjective etcetera. The only word I was confident that could be used as all of the above was the famous F word. I do not want to deal with blog. Additionally, the term blog ungraciously looks down upon a piece of writing. I feel I am being compared with the poets, the authors and the journalists of the world, and am being told that “you are not quite there yet”. It makes me feel like an aspiring and frail intellectual. I do not like it. Though, by having a blog of my own, I am learning to live with it.
Number Two: I also have a problem with people’s nick-names on my msn messenger list. I have names like Dynamite on the list, and I cannot recall becoming an acquaintance to Dynamite in real life. I also receive messages from “.”. The other day “..” also messaged me. Just yesterday in fact “…” also broke the ice and asked how I am doing. “The Power of Orange Knickers” has not gotten in touch with me for ages, and I am wondering if it is beginning to annoy “Humph”… I have fond memories of my endless chats with “Love like you have never been hurt”. Someone called “Flavors of Love” seems to be online all the time. When is the 3rd world war?
Number Three: Pakistan’s President Pervaiz Musharaf’s way of handling media in the country has been troubling me a lot lately. Since I am almost on the verge of leaving my short-lived career in media, I will not offer any words of wisdom to him. There are plenty on offer I am sure. All I would say is keep at it Mushy- it will eventually turn out to be great for the country. I am told he has a long-term vision.
Number Four: Apple’s new TV Box has been on my mind. I want to get it. But I can not play any of my pirated video material on I-tunes. Also, why can’t I rip my DVDs and store them on my hard-drive, just like I do my CDs? Also, Apple is not selling movies to us in the UK. Why would I want to wirelessly listen to music on my TV or play music videos that inundate me on fifteen thousand music channels? Shame on you Bill Gates.
Number Five: I have been thinking about Bob Woolmer.
Number Six: Why hasn’t Umberto Eco written a new book yet?
Number Seven: Why did India lose to Bangladesh in cricket? I think we should immediately extend an invite to the Indian cricket team to come over for a few friendly matches in Pakistan. I want the entire world’s attention away from the World Cup.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Just 5 you say?
FYI: Below a modified version of a post that was over on another blog that I'm migrating to LTLWI - I'll be deleting that blog shortly since I no longer post there but wanted to retain some of the posts. Here's the first of those.
Tagged by Jen so here are "five idiosyncracies that I have and am willing to own up to". Of course, like all fellow-neurotics the list is probably longer but these were the first 5 I could think of that *really* matter to yours truly and that I don't mind putting out there. So here goes:
1. Heinous, putrid body odors. When I was younger I could camouflage it but for the last few years, let's say since I turned 25ish, my responses range from a gesture that looks unmistakably like I need to throw up to feeling compelled to take a shower the instant I come back home because I'm convinced I can still smell the smell and that if I don't shower it's going to take control of every cell of my being...okay or something less drastic although the Seinfeld episode on B.O. does resonate with me.
2. It doesn't matter if the dinnerware, glassware, or cutlery that was taken out for a meal is unused and, thus, clean. I simply have to put it in the dishwasher.
4. I won't sit on my bed during the day. And if someone else does, it's next to impossible for me to resist the urge to pull my sheets taut. I just hate a bed that looks unkempt. I also deal badly with clutter in general.
5. I've been known to organize my closet to the point where clothes are color coded and the hangers simply h-a-v-e to face in the same direction. So all the white shirts/blouses/twinsets/sweaters go together organized by length of sleeve. Then I transition into eggshell and beige-y variants and it keeps going till I go through all the way into the pinks, reds, etc. etc until I hit black. Trying to break free of that one - it's just too time-consuming.
Who am I to break with tradition? Carrying on with the tag and sticking with '5' just like in this meme I posted: Asad, Imran, PTJ, Elizabeth, Zainab.
Tagged by Jen so here are "five idiosyncracies that I have and am willing to own up to". Of course, like all fellow-neurotics the list is probably longer but these were the first 5 I could think of that *really* matter to yours truly and that I don't mind putting out there. So here goes:
1. Heinous, putrid body odors. When I was younger I could camouflage it but for the last few years, let's say since I turned 25ish, my responses range from a gesture that looks unmistakably like I need to throw up to feeling compelled to take a shower the instant I come back home because I'm convinced I can still smell the smell and that if I don't shower it's going to take control of every cell of my being...okay or something less drastic although the Seinfeld episode on B.O. does resonate with me.
2. It doesn't matter if the dinnerware, glassware, or cutlery that was taken out for a meal is unused and, thus, clean. I simply have to put it in the dishwasher.
4. I won't sit on my bed during the day. And if someone else does, it's next to impossible for me to resist the urge to pull my sheets taut. I just hate a bed that looks unkempt. I also deal badly with clutter in general.
5. I've been known to organize my closet to the point where clothes are color coded and the hangers simply h-a-v-e to face in the same direction. So all the white shirts/blouses/twinsets/sweaters go together organized by length of sleeve. Then I transition into eggshell and beige-y variants and it keeps going till I go through all the way into the pinks, reds, etc. etc until I hit black. Trying to break free of that one - it's just too time-consuming.
Who am I to break with tradition? Carrying on with the tag and sticking with '5' just like in this meme I posted: Asad, Imran, PTJ, Elizabeth, Zainab.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
7 Random Thoughts: The Bionic-Woman Edition
On Friday, Asad and I decided that each of us would post the first 5 completely random things that popped into our heads. Here are my 7. Cut me some slack - it took a while to put these together because my mind suddenly went completely blank so it was somewhat of an effort to have 5 thoughts and then, before I knew it, I had 7 things to say:
1. Between the two, I think I'm more impatient about the release of Leopard than I am about iPhone even if the latter is the only piece of mobile technology in recent times that hits the US market before other parts of the world.
2. Too soon to call "Seinfeld" a classic? Or maybe it's just my sense of humor that leaves much to be desired?
3. I agree that the recent spate of protests in Pakistan over the dismissal of the chief justice is perhaps a sign that civil society is alive and kicking. But I wonder how hard they're kicking? Even if this is reminiscent of the widespread political protests against President Ayub Khan in the late 1960s, they're hardly as widespread to warrant comparison. Not that I want to be a pessimist but IMHO as heartening as this might be to some of us, including myself, celebrating the return of political conscience is still a ways away.
4. Since when does the combination of "31, single/never married, and pursuing a graduate degree" equal "man-hating, liberal feminist with no interest in marriage or kids"?
5. Don't you just love summery spring days? I sure do.
6. I need (okay more like want) to chop off about 5 inches off the length of my hair. Because it's spring and because every time I feel like I've evolved and/or life is heading in a different direction I have this insane urge to look different and fit the new part.
7. Anyone else a complete bitch on less than 8 hours of sleep or is that just me?
Besides Asad, I'm tagging Imran, Saad, Elizabeth, Jenny, and Misbah. Othe readers feel free to join the party o' randomness.
1. Between the two, I think I'm more impatient about the release of Leopard than I am about iPhone even if the latter is the only piece of mobile technology in recent times that hits the US market before other parts of the world.
2. Too soon to call "Seinfeld" a classic? Or maybe it's just my sense of humor that leaves much to be desired?
3. I agree that the recent spate of protests in Pakistan over the dismissal of the chief justice is perhaps a sign that civil society is alive and kicking. But I wonder how hard they're kicking? Even if this is reminiscent of the widespread political protests against President Ayub Khan in the late 1960s, they're hardly as widespread to warrant comparison. Not that I want to be a pessimist but IMHO as heartening as this might be to some of us, including myself, celebrating the return of political conscience is still a ways away.
4. Since when does the combination of "31, single/never married, and pursuing a graduate degree" equal "man-hating, liberal feminist with no interest in marriage or kids"?
5. Don't you just love summery spring days? I sure do.
6. I need (okay more like want) to chop off about 5 inches off the length of my hair. Because it's spring and because every time I feel like I've evolved and/or life is heading in a different direction I have this insane urge to look different and fit the new part.
7. Anyone else a complete bitch on less than 8 hours of sleep or is that just me?
Besides Asad, I'm tagging Imran, Saad, Elizabeth, Jenny, and Misbah. Othe readers feel free to join the party o' randomness.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly: Some Impressions After Watching Mira Nair's "The Namesake"
Some thoughts after watching "The Namesake" this past week-end. I started off with the desire to write a coherent review-y post separating all my thoughts neatly into 'good', 'bad', and 'ugly' containers as the title says but I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together hence the numbered list that wanders all over the place as it were. Make of it what you will :-).
[Warning: spoilers ahead so if you're like me and relish being surprised come back and read this post once you've watched the film.]
1. Thoroughly enjoyed the novel by Jhumpa Lahiri. [Comes a close second to my absolute favorite novel for some time now - Kartography by Kamila Shamsie.] The movie? Not so much. That doesn't mean I hated it. I wish I was ambivalent because that would be better than being underwhelmed, which is what I am.
2. Sometimes comparing literary adaptations on film to their sources seems like the apples and oranges adage. After all, novels have a lot more space in which to tell their story. Films have a couple of hours to tell their story. On the other hand, I've always felt that film, as a medium, enjoys, in some respects, greater power over the audiences' interpretive process. Films have room to maneuver and appeal to their viewers' imaginations through visual images and sound. Personally, I find that films have more resonance in that sense - as a viewer I don't have to imagine what a space-time particularity looks like or sounds like. The work is done for me. I have to react to it. Hmm that sounds lazy. Perhaps it is. But there is something about an average film that I find more enjoyable than an average book - the former holds my attention far longer than the latter. But I digress...well only a bit. Perhaps I had greater expectations of the movie because I'd read the book version. The novel has an unfair advantage in that it enjoys greater luxury in terms of being given more space to tell its story, to resonate with the reader. The film is constrained that way but then again it can convey a whole lot more through visual imagery (including facial expressions, locations, etc) and sound that the book will inevitably fall short of. [This is not to say that I can't imagine it but the role of the author in assisting that imagination is limited compared to the medium of film.] So I can give the film the benefit of doubt for not having the space to deal in-depth with the complicated emotions the novel explores. However, I do think it had more avenues to be able to tell the story in a limited amount of time. The screenplay is too sketchy. It seems to keep wandering trying to tell the story of three protagonists - which is what the novel accomplishes despite being focused on Gogol - but failing to develop any of the characters or their perspectives. I'm just not a big fan of films that don't give enough screen time to certain ideas or characters so that when things heat up the emotions portrayed by the characters seem misplaced, unjustified, etc.
3. It certainly has moments that I, as someone who has immigrated to another country, recognize and, to some extent, identify with. But the weaving of those moments into the larger narrative seems almost like Nair is trying to pander too hard to the formulae of commercial success. Don't get me wrong. This move is not something I'd register even mild complaints against for the most part because I find a lot of those entertaining just like anybody else and also because I agree that despite their hyperfantasized avatar they do bear a certain resonance for the intended audience. What happens though is Nair's adoption of these formulae inhibits and compromises the proper development of a narrative. It's almost like she picked up her favorite bits from the novel and used certain visual collages to bind them together. That's an interesting tactic cinematically speaking but sans the support of a screenplay that speaks to those subtleties the effect remains muted.
4. In the publicity blitz that accompanied the release of "The Namesake", I caught Nair on one of the news shows talking about how she picked up this book and read it on the plane after burying a loved one and knew she just had to make the film. I don't remember all the details of what she said but watching this interview after having watched the film I began to see why she picked the scenes she did. I just love biographical confessions (don't know what else to call it so this will have to suffice) like these. They provide ways of seeing why the author of a text constructed it a particular way. I like knowing that because I think it's unfair to judge arguments on the basis of one's assumptions as opposed to those of the author. This doesn't mean I comport myself into the author's perspective and withhold all opinion. But I do like knowing what s/he was thinking, feeling, reacting to in mounting a particular argument/narrative/what have you. In that respect, "The Namesake" made more sense to me after hearing this interview. Still I remain underwhelmed because I thought it was too sketchy despite the fact that it had room to provide certain connections and linkages that it just doesn't. The imagery and sounds she makes a lot of in this interview sounds interesting but I don't think she conveyed what she saw effectively - or perhaps I wasn't the intended audience for those subtle communications? Even so, since she does proclaim most of the time that she makes movies with a "universal appeal" perhaps an alternative way of bringing those subtleties to light for those on the "outside" was in order. I think it wouldn't have been plagued by this problem (i.e. forced connections and lack of development) if Nair would have pledged less fidelity to the original text perhaps. The sketchiness of the scenes and the lack of a tighter narrative to weave it all together makes it look too little and too much like the novel all at once.
I think that pretty much covers most of what I had to say without writing a full-fledged paper. If any of our blogship have read the book and/or watched the film, we'd love to hear your thoughts.
[Warning: spoilers ahead so if you're like me and relish being surprised come back and read this post once you've watched the film.]
1. Thoroughly enjoyed the novel by Jhumpa Lahiri. [Comes a close second to my absolute favorite novel for some time now - Kartography by Kamila Shamsie.] The movie? Not so much. That doesn't mean I hated it. I wish I was ambivalent because that would be better than being underwhelmed, which is what I am.
2. Sometimes comparing literary adaptations on film to their sources seems like the apples and oranges adage. After all, novels have a lot more space in which to tell their story. Films have a couple of hours to tell their story. On the other hand, I've always felt that film, as a medium, enjoys, in some respects, greater power over the audiences' interpretive process. Films have room to maneuver and appeal to their viewers' imaginations through visual images and sound. Personally, I find that films have more resonance in that sense - as a viewer I don't have to imagine what a space-time particularity looks like or sounds like. The work is done for me. I have to react to it. Hmm that sounds lazy. Perhaps it is. But there is something about an average film that I find more enjoyable than an average book - the former holds my attention far longer than the latter. But I digress...well only a bit. Perhaps I had greater expectations of the movie because I'd read the book version. The novel has an unfair advantage in that it enjoys greater luxury in terms of being given more space to tell its story, to resonate with the reader. The film is constrained that way but then again it can convey a whole lot more through visual imagery (including facial expressions, locations, etc) and sound that the book will inevitably fall short of. [This is not to say that I can't imagine it but the role of the author in assisting that imagination is limited compared to the medium of film.] So I can give the film the benefit of doubt for not having the space to deal in-depth with the complicated emotions the novel explores. However, I do think it had more avenues to be able to tell the story in a limited amount of time. The screenplay is too sketchy. It seems to keep wandering trying to tell the story of three protagonists - which is what the novel accomplishes despite being focused on Gogol - but failing to develop any of the characters or their perspectives. I'm just not a big fan of films that don't give enough screen time to certain ideas or characters so that when things heat up the emotions portrayed by the characters seem misplaced, unjustified, etc.
3. It certainly has moments that I, as someone who has immigrated to another country, recognize and, to some extent, identify with. But the weaving of those moments into the larger narrative seems almost like Nair is trying to pander too hard to the formulae of commercial success. Don't get me wrong. This move is not something I'd register even mild complaints against for the most part because I find a lot of those entertaining just like anybody else and also because I agree that despite their hyperfantasized avatar they do bear a certain resonance for the intended audience. What happens though is Nair's adoption of these formulae inhibits and compromises the proper development of a narrative. It's almost like she picked up her favorite bits from the novel and used certain visual collages to bind them together. That's an interesting tactic cinematically speaking but sans the support of a screenplay that speaks to those subtleties the effect remains muted.
4. In the publicity blitz that accompanied the release of "The Namesake", I caught Nair on one of the news shows talking about how she picked up this book and read it on the plane after burying a loved one and knew she just had to make the film. I don't remember all the details of what she said but watching this interview after having watched the film I began to see why she picked the scenes she did. I just love biographical confessions (don't know what else to call it so this will have to suffice) like these. They provide ways of seeing why the author of a text constructed it a particular way. I like knowing that because I think it's unfair to judge arguments on the basis of one's assumptions as opposed to those of the author. This doesn't mean I comport myself into the author's perspective and withhold all opinion. But I do like knowing what s/he was thinking, feeling, reacting to in mounting a particular argument/narrative/what have you. In that respect, "The Namesake" made more sense to me after hearing this interview. Still I remain underwhelmed because I thought it was too sketchy despite the fact that it had room to provide certain connections and linkages that it just doesn't. The imagery and sounds she makes a lot of in this interview sounds interesting but I don't think she conveyed what she saw effectively - or perhaps I wasn't the intended audience for those subtle communications? Even so, since she does proclaim most of the time that she makes movies with a "universal appeal" perhaps an alternative way of bringing those subtleties to light for those on the "outside" was in order. I think it wouldn't have been plagued by this problem (i.e. forced connections and lack of development) if Nair would have pledged less fidelity to the original text perhaps. The sketchiness of the scenes and the lack of a tighter narrative to weave it all together makes it look too little and too much like the novel all at once.
I think that pretty much covers most of what I had to say without writing a full-fledged paper. If any of our blogship have read the book and/or watched the film, we'd love to hear your thoughts.
Monday, March 26, 2007
A Quiz Or "The Looming Deadline Weighs Heavy"
| Guys Like That You're Charming |
 You're the girl most guys can't get out of their heads Even if they met you on a bad hair day :-) You just seem to "click" with everyone you meet So even if a guy forgets about you for a second... his friends haven't! |
Does anyone else want to take a stab at this? All I could come up with was this:
1. So I'm the voice those schizophrenic cads I've been in relationships with will hear for the rest of their lives? Yikes!
2. Honey, my follicles are perfection. No bad hair days.
3. Click in double-quotes? Huh?
4. So maybe there is something to my theory that I really should be falling in love with a guy's best friend? Somehow they always stick around even after the guy is gone. What's up with that by the way?!
So a quiz that's neither lets me be enthusiastic for 5 seconds or descend into an obsessive fit about my current single status. What was the point in all of this? Probably that it gave me an added minute I spent trying to make sense of something that's neither here nor there - a precious minute away from the abyss that is chapter 4. In other words, thanks for sending this along X...it was the perfect excuse to procrastinate as long as possible. Back to work now!
Saturday, March 24, 2007
On Friendships and Getting Older
Not too long ago, there was a segment one of the morning news shows (sorry don't remember which channel but it was either NBC or ABC or CBS) in which they talked about the inability of adults to form long-lasting friendships as we get older. I don't recall all of the details but the "experts" suggested that our best friendships are formed in the sandbox and all the way through high-school and maybe a couple of years after that but that's it. Everything after that is either part of a phase of our lives or limited in terms of the bonding that the relationship affords. One of the experts even went so far as to say that we just don't even make friends as such once we're past our late teens/early 20s because we're too set in our lives, routines, and identities to make time for new people to whom we have to get used to all over again and vice versa.
Personally, I think that's just plain wrong. Four examples in order of the year in which they occurred starting with the earliest. Why 3? We're told to use 3 examples when trying to make a point and I just wanted to be different. Also 4 because I think you could write off one example as a fluke but 4 seem significant. There's many more where these came from but I'm going with 4.
Example 1 - 1997: Asad and yours truly. I interned for 5 weeks at an ad agency where Asad worked. Asad was gone for 4 of them. He came back during the last week I was there and we hit it off instantly. And that week-long interactions metamorphosed into a lifelong bond. Funny thing is we've never spent as much time together in-person as friends that I'm very close to and have grown up with. But yet he's one of the first phone calls I want to make or e-mails I want to send when I want to share something, vent, or just be plain silly.
Example 2 - 1998/9: My friend, Z, is technically my friend A's wife. Ever since they got married 7 years ago she's become one of my closest friends. Again, don't know her from Adam (relevant aside: how that phrase makes sense is something I have yet to wrap my brains around but I use it all the time) but I love her to death and she's very dear to me. Both she and A are like family. We joke about how I've become her friend as opposed to her friend-in-law over the years.
Example 3 -2006: One of my most favorite gal-pals is M, who I've gotten to know because she attended the same college as one of my best friends in Karachi. We'd probably met maybe 3 or 4 times. But thanks to the wonder that is Orkut we've stayed in regular touch over the past year and seem to have bonded while jesting away about our present singlehoood.
Example 4 - 2007: Last month, a friend of mine, MR, put me in touch with a friend of his, Im, to discuss a book project that Asad and I are hoping to start. I've never met Im and last week was the first time we spoke. It wasn't even a face-to-face conversation but a phone chat that followed on the heels of e-mail exchanges. And it was one of the easiest, most familiar-feeling conversations that I've ever had in my life that didn't just talk about the project. As Im said, we were probably trying to "map" each other. Unlike initial conversations with people you're meeting for the first time where things feel slightly laborious - like a tennis match where you know it's over if you miss the ball - I felt right at home. And I already feel like Im is someone I'd consider a friend. I know I only hung up because I had to make dinner! It was like talking to a friend who has been part of my life for ages.
So what I'm getting at is this. Based on my experience, which might well be anomalous, I think the "experts" are completely wrong. I'm a relatively private person. I'm fairly outgoing but I draw the boundaries before interactions happen. Of course these boundaries are flexible and change as the dynamics change between myself and another person. But even with my closer friends, I do hold on to a line. Others might disagree because they mistake my friendliness - which I generally am - for 'friendship'; IMHO the two are different. In these three instances, the boundaries I tend to hold on to seemed to have given way instantly. So it's not that I'm more gregarious which alters my experiences and, hence, my opinion about this news segment. I've encountered the four people I spoke of above at an age when we're clearly not playing in the sandbox and there isn't any teenage angst to bond over. Yet we seem to have conquered the odds of the rigidity of lifestyle and personality that supposedly and inevitably accompanies aging according to these experts. I'm not sure why some people hit it off and why people bond. I think they just do. I do think that there's a certain resonance and comfort level that draws people together...an overlap of experiences, ideas, thoughts, feelings, circumstances, what have you. But I don't have a more profound explanation to offer. Still, the idea that we can't form meaningful friendships after a certain age strikes me as absurd to say the very least. What do you all think?
Personally, I think that's just plain wrong. Four examples in order of the year in which they occurred starting with the earliest. Why 3? We're told to use 3 examples when trying to make a point and I just wanted to be different. Also 4 because I think you could write off one example as a fluke but 4 seem significant. There's many more where these came from but I'm going with 4.
Example 1 - 1997: Asad and yours truly. I interned for 5 weeks at an ad agency where Asad worked. Asad was gone for 4 of them. He came back during the last week I was there and we hit it off instantly. And that week-long interactions metamorphosed into a lifelong bond. Funny thing is we've never spent as much time together in-person as friends that I'm very close to and have grown up with. But yet he's one of the first phone calls I want to make or e-mails I want to send when I want to share something, vent, or just be plain silly.
Example 2 - 1998/9: My friend, Z, is technically my friend A's wife. Ever since they got married 7 years ago she's become one of my closest friends. Again, don't know her from Adam (relevant aside: how that phrase makes sense is something I have yet to wrap my brains around but I use it all the time) but I love her to death and she's very dear to me. Both she and A are like family. We joke about how I've become her friend as opposed to her friend-in-law over the years.
Example 3 -2006: One of my most favorite gal-pals is M, who I've gotten to know because she attended the same college as one of my best friends in Karachi. We'd probably met maybe 3 or 4 times. But thanks to the wonder that is Orkut we've stayed in regular touch over the past year and seem to have bonded while jesting away about our present singlehoood.
Example 4 - 2007: Last month, a friend of mine, MR, put me in touch with a friend of his, Im, to discuss a book project that Asad and I are hoping to start. I've never met Im and last week was the first time we spoke. It wasn't even a face-to-face conversation but a phone chat that followed on the heels of e-mail exchanges. And it was one of the easiest, most familiar-feeling conversations that I've ever had in my life that didn't just talk about the project. As Im said, we were probably trying to "map" each other. Unlike initial conversations with people you're meeting for the first time where things feel slightly laborious - like a tennis match where you know it's over if you miss the ball - I felt right at home. And I already feel like Im is someone I'd consider a friend. I know I only hung up because I had to make dinner! It was like talking to a friend who has been part of my life for ages.
So what I'm getting at is this. Based on my experience, which might well be anomalous, I think the "experts" are completely wrong. I'm a relatively private person. I'm fairly outgoing but I draw the boundaries before interactions happen. Of course these boundaries are flexible and change as the dynamics change between myself and another person. But even with my closer friends, I do hold on to a line. Others might disagree because they mistake my friendliness - which I generally am - for 'friendship'; IMHO the two are different. In these three instances, the boundaries I tend to hold on to seemed to have given way instantly. So it's not that I'm more gregarious which alters my experiences and, hence, my opinion about this news segment. I've encountered the four people I spoke of above at an age when we're clearly not playing in the sandbox and there isn't any teenage angst to bond over. Yet we seem to have conquered the odds of the rigidity of lifestyle and personality that supposedly and inevitably accompanies aging according to these experts. I'm not sure why some people hit it off and why people bond. I think they just do. I do think that there's a certain resonance and comfort level that draws people together...an overlap of experiences, ideas, thoughts, feelings, circumstances, what have you. But I don't have a more profound explanation to offer. Still, the idea that we can't form meaningful friendships after a certain age strikes me as absurd to say the very least. What do you all think?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Tuesday morning quiz-blogging
| You Are Apple Green |
 You are almost super-humanly upbeat. You have a very positive energy that surrounds you. And while you are happy go lucky, you're also charmingly assertive. You get what you want, even if you have to persuade those against you to see things your way. Reflective and thoughtful, you know yourself well - and you know that you want out of life. |
I do like them apples so this worked out just fine!
Monday, March 19, 2007
Why a Ph.D?
Since Saad D asked....
To be honest, I wish I had a more profound answer with movie-like charm but Ph.Ding was a happy accident for me. You know one of those stories where you know you always wanted to do something and then battled all odds and reached all your goals and then some. There might be sparks of it in my account (more on that below) but it wasn't like I knew I wanted to get a Ph.D. when I was 5 years old. Okay I did enjoy pretending to be a teacher while I got my homework done - my family members gladly obliged and played students. In fact, I actually taught my mother's mamu ( mother's mother's - my grandmother's -brother...irrelevant aside: what I find immensely fascinating is how in the Urdu language we have a specific name for each blood relationship that within 4-7 or however many letters spells out your relationship with someone with more precision than the generic "aunt" or "uncle" affords) how to read and write in Urdu since he didn't know how. His English was impeccable but since he grew up in British India he never actually h-a-d to learn Urdu. But I digress.
What I wanted to write was that teaching was something I was drawn to and I knew I always wanted to teach but I never claimed it as what I wanted to become. Because there was something more I was looking for. When I lived in Pakistan, advertising seemed to speak to that "something" I was in search of for the longest time until I moved to the US. Two years of liberal arts courses pushed me out of the all-too-popular MBA into media studies. Grad school came and I taught at a number of colleges. It reminded me of my love for teaching. But more so, grad school, specifically working on my MA thesis, helped me see how much I enjoy finding better arguments.
Some might use the "making jigsaw puzzles" metaphor to describe the experience. But I think that's inaccurate. Why? Because someone else defines the picture. You, as the puzzle solver, simply fill it in. Puzzle maker is probably closer but I just don't like the connotation that puzzle might carry here - I don't get excited by the thought of puzzling other people or having them follow the exact contours of the picture I see. I'd much rather they engage in a conversation with me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
I'm not the biggest fan of one part of the process of writing in that it forces me to spend huge amounts of time all by myself. But I do like being able to use words to unravel that which bewilders me. And that's back to my decision to go for a Ph.D.
I love the idea of delving into something that bothers me, hurts me, bewilders me, puzzles me. I like questioning it, diving into it, breathing it, existing in it. Till I can fill those spaces that I think are missing in others' accounts of it. Doing that doesn't make my account definitive - it only fills the gaps that I feel (notice I wrote feel and not think because I truly believe that what we write about is stuff that makes its way into our lives as our guts notice it before we can begin to rationalize it) are problematic or that I think are plain and simple important enough to merit greater attention than they have now. Basically, unmuting the silences that aren't spoken but they are definitely out of our reach given our present ways of thinking about stuff. It's a lot like artistry. You figure out what to represent and how to represent it and you hope it resonates with people - not in the sense that they agree with it but that they grapple with it. To me, this is the better argument...and it's an interest in better arguments about specific things about the social world that lead me to Ph.Ding.
I'm reminded of something Nietzsche wrote in "Genealogy of Morals": "There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowledge”; and the more affects that we allow to speak about a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we know ourselves to deploy for the same thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing—and our “objectivity”—be."
Which brings me back to my last post. Thanks Saad for making me put my finger on it publicly...but it still comes back to what I said earlier...it's pretty darn entertaining. It's being part of the process that Nietzsche talks about in the excerpt I included above that I thrive on.
What am I going to do with it? That question is not irrelevant [although if somebody wants to ask me about that, well e-mail me or call me and I'll share because it's I feel it's too personal to blog about...at least until I make the decision and things fall into place] but the more important one for me is: "what have you done with it?" My answer: I've become a more educated being in that I've gotten a wonderful opportunity to spend time to read, think, percolate, and write.
To be honest, I wish I had a more profound answer with movie-like charm but Ph.Ding was a happy accident for me. You know one of those stories where you know you always wanted to do something and then battled all odds and reached all your goals and then some. There might be sparks of it in my account (more on that below) but it wasn't like I knew I wanted to get a Ph.D. when I was 5 years old. Okay I did enjoy pretending to be a teacher while I got my homework done - my family members gladly obliged and played students. In fact, I actually taught my mother's mamu ( mother's mother's - my grandmother's -brother...irrelevant aside: what I find immensely fascinating is how in the Urdu language we have a specific name for each blood relationship that within 4-7 or however many letters spells out your relationship with someone with more precision than the generic "aunt" or "uncle" affords) how to read and write in Urdu since he didn't know how. His English was impeccable but since he grew up in British India he never actually h-a-d to learn Urdu. But I digress.
What I wanted to write was that teaching was something I was drawn to and I knew I always wanted to teach but I never claimed it as what I wanted to become. Because there was something more I was looking for. When I lived in Pakistan, advertising seemed to speak to that "something" I was in search of for the longest time until I moved to the US. Two years of liberal arts courses pushed me out of the all-too-popular MBA into media studies. Grad school came and I taught at a number of colleges. It reminded me of my love for teaching. But more so, grad school, specifically working on my MA thesis, helped me see how much I enjoy finding better arguments.
Some might use the "making jigsaw puzzles" metaphor to describe the experience. But I think that's inaccurate. Why? Because someone else defines the picture. You, as the puzzle solver, simply fill it in. Puzzle maker is probably closer but I just don't like the connotation that puzzle might carry here - I don't get excited by the thought of puzzling other people or having them follow the exact contours of the picture I see. I'd much rather they engage in a conversation with me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
I'm not the biggest fan of one part of the process of writing in that it forces me to spend huge amounts of time all by myself. But I do like being able to use words to unravel that which bewilders me. And that's back to my decision to go for a Ph.D.
I love the idea of delving into something that bothers me, hurts me, bewilders me, puzzles me. I like questioning it, diving into it, breathing it, existing in it. Till I can fill those spaces that I think are missing in others' accounts of it. Doing that doesn't make my account definitive - it only fills the gaps that I feel (notice I wrote feel and not think because I truly believe that what we write about is stuff that makes its way into our lives as our guts notice it before we can begin to rationalize it) are problematic or that I think are plain and simple important enough to merit greater attention than they have now. Basically, unmuting the silences that aren't spoken but they are definitely out of our reach given our present ways of thinking about stuff. It's a lot like artistry. You figure out what to represent and how to represent it and you hope it resonates with people - not in the sense that they agree with it but that they grapple with it. To me, this is the better argument...and it's an interest in better arguments about specific things about the social world that lead me to Ph.Ding.
I'm reminded of something Nietzsche wrote in "Genealogy of Morals": "There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowledge”; and the more affects that we allow to speak about a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we know ourselves to deploy for the same thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing—and our “objectivity”—be."
Which brings me back to my last post. Thanks Saad for making me put my finger on it publicly...but it still comes back to what I said earlier...it's pretty darn entertaining. It's being part of the process that Nietzsche talks about in the excerpt I included above that I thrive on.
What am I going to do with it? That question is not irrelevant [although if somebody wants to ask me about that, well e-mail me or call me and I'll share because it's I feel it's too personal to blog about...at least until I make the decision and things fall into place] but the more important one for me is: "what have you done with it?" My answer: I've become a more educated being in that I've gotten a wonderful opportunity to spend time to read, think, percolate, and write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
