Tom Hiddleston and Shakespeare's Coriolanus

I am not much into plays and can at max boast of having watched Zangoora thrice and a small scale student led Comedy play once. That's all!

But then I wouldn't miss a chance to watch Tom Hiddleston on stage now, would I? National Theater UK is broadcasting it's most popular plays on YouTube. They are free for all to view for a week. I came to know that Coriolanus would be one of them and I managed to catch up the play online late night on Wednesday.

I don't know much about plays; nor have I read the original Coriolanus (I've only read a summary). So, this is not really a review. But, there are a few things that I liked which I would love to explain. First and foremost, I had expected a play being shown on National Theater to be grand in terms of sets, costumes, props etc. After all, National Theater is one of the United Kingdom's three most prominent publicly funded performing arts venues, alongside the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House. It is actually known as the National Theatre of Great Britain or the Royal National Theater. But Coriolanus had none of that. The stage too was fairly small in size. The lighting was dark (and very apt for the play); the costumes were all in the shades of browns, greys and black and looked nothing like Roman and were probably the individual personal belongings of the actors; and the only props/furniture used were basic wooden chairs and a ladder. In fact, the space was so ingeniously used that the small stage looked big enough for all characters to fit in. Not just that, the lead starcast and all the well-known actors were moving around the props themselves (well, all except Tom Hiddleston).

I read somewhere that the written play describes the war in fair detail. Here in stage production, although the play very smartly tackled the part where Caius Martius single-handedly conquered the city of Corioli (thus earning the name Coriolanus); but it does away with the elaborate war scenes which for some people might have been a dampener. This ensured a smaller cast too. Also, a smaller cast meant that even the plebiscite uprising was just shown as indistinct chatter. Now, as I mentioned, I have not read the original play, so I didn't miss these things in the first place. But, I was impressed with the way a lot of symbolism was used here. Caius Martius climbing a ladder as he entered Corioli was a sign of him rising to the challenge even while all others held back. Torn red ballots signifying people's shattered trust in him. The graffiti-sprayed walls demanding: "Grain at our own price." signify discontent of the Roman people. Coriolanus first kneels in obeisance to his mother and later watches her bend a suppliant knee to him; which to me signified a change of tide.

Coming to the actors, I obviously watched the play for Tom Hiddleston who I have loved since The Night Manager and whose love for Shakespeare is just so well-known. He makes a fine Coriolanus. Whether Coriolanus was a "tragic hero" or not is in itself debatable, but Tom Hiddleston brings out the nuances of a character who is raised to be a patriotic hero amply guided by his mother's hero worshiping. He, at the same time, detests the plebiscites and the common people because they contribute nothing to the war (another symbol of one's pride and allegiance towards one's nation) and still demand grains as their right. He also feels cheated because despite heeding to his unwilling attempts to appease the people, he is banished. I particularly loved him in the climax where he cries after listening to his mother pleading him not to destroy Rome. I could actually see tears run down his face... Like really flow down and him having to wipe his nose to stop them. It was a long act and it's not like in the middle of the scene he went backstage to apply glycerin or anything; so they have got to be real tears. It's mind-blowing how an actor can do that at will. Not just that, Tom Hiddleston was hanging upside down being tied to a chain on one foot. I think that's also not something that is easy to do on a stage in front of a live audience.

Among other actors, I enjoyed the performances of Mark Gatiss as Menenius, the "humorous patrician" and Deborah Findlay as Volumnia, Coriolanus' mother.

And last but not least, I write this only because a friend asked me to confirm this... Tom Hiddleston does go topless and under a shower on live stage. It wasn't very much sensual (he was supposed to be injured and in pain), but he did. 

And the men we SHOULDN'T love!

In continuation with the list of romantic literary heroes that I shared the day before, I also want to list down a few which feature time and again in the articles about most loved male protagonists in literature but which for some reason are NOT my favourites. But to maintain parity with the previous article, I would stick to the most loved characters written by female authors: 

1. Howard Roark – The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

Without any reference to the debate surrounding hypocrisy in Ayn Rand’s writing, Howard Roark from The Fountainhead, her most famous and most loved character, is an amalgamation of contrasts. To call him polarizing is the understatement of the century. Most people credit him with having a boatload of artistic talent, but he could be as much of a sinister dirtbag as he could be an enigmatic charmer. Roark is fiercely independent. He believes in the merit of his revolutionary designs and has the courage to stand for them in the face of an antagonistic society. He is presented as the author's version of an ideal man. Roark is the antithesis of contemporary belief that an individual is molded by social forces. He is not the product of his upbringing, his economic class, his family, his religious training, or his social background. He is a product of the choices he has made. Roark is an example of free will — the theory that an individual has the power, by virtue of the choices he makes, to control the outcome of his own life. A man's thinking and values are not controlled by God or the fates or society or any external factor — but solely by his own choice. Others (like Keating) may choose to submit, but Roark will not. He is his own man. And all this sounds so foolishly attractive when he is portrayed as the perfect man – strong, bold, and confident and someone with a very high sense of integrity. But one cannot deny that Roark is a selfish man. He is true to his values, to his convictions, to his thinking, to his mind, to his self – and only to himself. He is an individualist and someone essentially born into the role of explosives-wielding freethinker. But even if all this is acceptable, there is one big flaw in his character that will never allow me to succumb to his charms. He forcibly enters Dominique’s room and rapes her. Whatever way it was projected in the book, at the end of the day, he is a RAPIST. Period. 

2. Mr. Rochester – Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë 

Image source: Google search

Mr. Rochester in “Jane Eyre” is a stern-featured, heavy-browed, craggy-faced, rude, abrupt, horny man always on the edge of violence who likes to order people around and keeps his wife locked in the attic. In fact, he is a character closest to the Beast in “Beauty and the Beast” and yet he is far worse than the Beast. Unlike Beast, who had a soft heart inside, Mr. Rochester is a typical Byronic hero, moody, arrogant, cynical and jaded, and like all Byronic heros he is attracted by Jane's innocence, her chastity. But he is also clinically mad, a manic depressive, living in an unreal world, understandably perhaps, he cannot deal with the reality of his own situation. It is undeniable that he seduces and seeks to deceive Jane by effectively making Jane his mistress. He is the opposite of Jane. She is easily deceived because she is incredibly naïve and innocent, and alone, she has no one to turn to for advice, Mrs Fairfax herself admits to finding Rochester an enigma and so would offer little help. He is the first of the opposite sex, unmarried (as Jane believes) to look on Jane kindly, to smile, to talk to her as an equal (when in fact Rochester knows full well that he is taking advantage of her position and character, abusing his position as her employee). In fact in today’s terms he is grooming Jane for sexual conquest. Byronic heroes are sexual predators, 'mad, bad and dangerous to know'. Particularly, chaste, married, or otherwise 'unavailable', women are regarded as a challenge, as legitimate targets to be seduced and then left. 

3. Henry DeTamble – The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger

In various passages in “The Times Traveler's Wife”, Henry explains that the inevitable cause of his time travels is stress. He has zero tolerance for stress. And, boy, Henry is stressed out by a lot: by watching TV, by loud noises, by blinding lights, by drinking too much, by getting married, by having kids, by conflict… He only relaxes during sex. So the big question here is, are Henry’s disappearing acts actually a male conspiracy to have an excuse to leave marital responsibilities behind and just go out womanizing, drinking, getting high, causing trouble – living the bachelor life. Because that's pretty much what Henry does with his time away from Clare. Also interesting is that right after he meets Clare in the present – unmarried, no children, and no responsibilities – Clare remarks to Henry that he hasn't been traveling much which is kind of suspicious. And then there's the whole "I need more sex to stay in the present" thing. So maybe “The Times” is right. Maybe Henry is just a big flake. A coward who can't handle life and so keeps slipping through its cracks. What an unreliable jerk! 

4. Heathcliff – Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë

Forget most of the romantic nonsense you have heard about Heathcliff from “Wuthering Heights”. Sure he's in love with Catherine, and you can't question his loyalty, but he has a serious mean streak. To put it bluntly: he acts like a sociopath. Traditionally, romance novel heroes appear dangerous, brooding, and cold at first, only later to emerge as fiercely devoted and loving. One hundred years before Emily Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights, the notion that “a reformed rake makes the best husband” was already a cliché of romantic literature, and romance novels center around the same cliché to this day. However, Heathcliff does not reform, and his malevolence proves so great and long-lasting that it cannot be adequately explained even as a desire for revenge against Hindley, Catherine, Edgar, etc. As he himself points out, his abuse of Isabella is purely sadistic, as he amuses himself by seeing how much abuse she can take and still come cringing back for more. Heathcliff can be a real beast, which comes across through his numerous threats, violent acts, and symbolic association with that unruly pack of dogs. A powerful, fierce, and often cruel man, Heathcliff often falls back on violence as a means of expression, both of love and hate. Having been abused by Hindley for most of his childhood, Heathcliff is the classic victim-turned-perpetrator. His rage is tied to the revenge he so passionately seeks, but he also undertakes small "extracurricular" acts of violence, like hanging Isabella Linton's dog. These lines in the book pretty much sum up his attitude: "I have no pity! I have no pity! The more the worms writhe, the more I yearn to crush out their entrails! It is a moral teething; and I grind with greater energy in proportion to the increase of pain."

And to think of it, these disdainful characters were also written by women and despite their serious flaws are also unequivocally loved by women across the world even to this day. If only women knew their own worth better!

The Men We Love!

I was recently reading an article online where the writer had shared how some of the literary male protagonists had ruined her romantic life because they are “Oh, so perfect!” The article was fun and so I googled more on the topic where favourite male characters from novels were shared. There were some names that were appearing more commonly as against others. A prime example was Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy from the Pride and Prejudice who was not only part of every single list but was almost always occupying the No. 1 spot. And then there were others who appeared more than often. Here when I listed them down, there was a very interesting observation that cropped up. But, first let me share the ones that I am talking about:

1. Mr. Darcy – Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

Image source: Google Search

The quintessential and undoubtedly most loved male character ever from a novel is Mr. Darcy from the “Pride and Prejudice”. Mr. Darcy exhibits all the good and bad qualities of the ideal English aristocrat — snobbish and arrogant, he is also completely honest and sure of himself. Initially described as someone vain and too proud for our dear Elizabeth Bennet, he backs off when she rejects him and yet is mature and good-natured enough to help her out where he can without any expectations in return. When Elizabeth flatly turns down his marriage proposal and tells him that it was ungentlemanly, Darcy is startled into realizing just how arrogant and assuming he had been. He accepts his folly and goes all out to correct what he had done wrong. Darcy's humbling makes him more sensitive to what other people feel. If he wins our dear Lizzy’s heart in the process, it’s all too obvious. The fact that he is extremely handsome and rich is just icing on the cake.

2. Captain Wentworth – Persuasion by Jane Austen

Much on the lines of Mr. Darcy, Jane Austen also wrote the character of the good-looking Captain Wentworth in “Persuasion”. Although he could never reach the desirability quotient of Mr. Darcy, he wasn’t much behind either, heralding very similar qualities as Mr. Darcy. Again, choosing to walk away when rejected by Anne and yet holding an undying love for her in his heart for years; he doesn’t impose himself or his feelings on her unless he himself is sure of her own feelings. In fact, he felt responsible for Louisa's condition, having pursued her to make Anne jealous and would have taken her as his wife. However, when Louisa turned her affections to James Benwick, he let her go without making it an ego issue. Eventually, getting similar undying love from Anne could only have been the best reward possible.

3. Atticus Finch – To kill a mockingbird by Harper Lee 

Bold, heroic, noble, honourable, confident and optimistic, Atticus Finch from “To kill a mockingbird” is a vision of idealised masculinity. He is a true role model in every sense of the word. A man holding forth a fight for justice against all odds; and yet a very even-keeled type of guy who does not get too worked up about stressful situations. He is not affected by what other people say or think. He is consistent and rooted in his beliefs. A man of great wisdom and character; he is a good single parent too trying to fill his kids with a sense of righteousness.

4. Gilbert Blythe – Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery

Gilbert Blythe from “Anne of Green Gables” is literally literature’s most beloved boy-next-door. He lets Anne be Anne, a wonderful mess of imagination, goof-ups, temper, drive, and dreams – and Gilbert loves all of that about her. He never tries to make her something she isn’t. Also, he doesn’t let obstacles throw him and he pursues excellence. He works hard for what he has and isn’t showy about his successes. And boy! Is he patient? He fell in love with Anne long before the thought ever occurred to her that he could. And he waited. And waited. He waited until Anne herself was ready and all this while without even being imposing. Like all romantic male protagonists, he loved Anne and they both supported each other throughout the series. All the while, Gilbert was never threatened when Anne succeeded. He was secure in who he was and happily rejoiced in Anne’s success even if he was the one who had lost out to her.

5. Rhett Butler – Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

On the surface, Rhett Butler from “Gone with the Wind” is a textbook example of the charming rogue. His dark, good looks and supposedly wild behavior are the source of considerable gossip among the ladies. However, he is loved not for his Casanova image but for his undaunting love for Scarlett. Rhett has no dearth of physical courage which can be seen in the fact that he starts off the war as a blockade runner (which takes some courage, even if he insists it doesn't), but at the siege of Atlanta he decides to go off and join the army. Moreover, he helps Scarlett escape from Atlanta during the siege and after he murders a black man, he faces his sentence of death by hanging with seeming equanimity. And yet some call Rhett a coward because he's afraid to tell his own wife that he loves her. Rhett's afraid of Scarlett; deathly afraid, shamefully afraid. Even though he declares his love for her when he is about to leave Scarlett to go into the army and perhaps die, she misunderstands him because he had never really expressed his sentiments till then. He just lets her be herself and gave her all the space she needed while remaining by her side as the anchor she may hook herself on. He is also an excellent father to Bonnie; never once entangled by the gender roles in the said period and taking upon himself the parental duties as he must. The one flaw that holds out as a sore eye is Rhett Butler putting the blame of every flaw in him (his act of indifference or his sleeping with Belle) on Scarlett and he eventually comes across as someone willing to cheat on her and lie to her and treat her as a punching bag for his own insecurities. A bit of put downer there. 

Having listed down the most loved male characters across the world in the English novels, there is one thing noteworthy about the list… One common factor that runs across all these characters is the trait that they are utterly and unwittingly feminist in their conduct. They do not impose on the women they love; give them space to be themselves; and support them in their pursuits. Is it a surprise? Well, not if you see the reason why. 

ALL THESE CHARACTERS WERE CREATED AND WRITTEN BY WOMEN.

Confessions of an insufferable know-it-all

Harry Potter books have made the term 'insufferable know-it-all' very famous when at least on two occasions Prof. Snape uses it for Hermione Granger. Hermione goes out of the way in preparing for each class and each subject and her hand was always the first one to shoot up in class for every single question asked. If anything could upset her, it was the cancellation of exams. Nothing could please her more than being acknowledged for her correct answers and if they gain points for her house, all the more better.

Well, guess what? I can relate to her because I have often found myself in her situation when in school. Honestly, I wasn't as careened to the characteristics as Hermione was but I was still close enough. I didn't depress in exams being postponed (unlike Hogwarts where this was close to an annual ritual, they have never been cancelled in my student days). I also didn't get vexed whenever a teacher didn't show up or a class / lecture got cancelled. But I definitely was the one whose hand shot up the fastest in any class on any question. I did take pride in making the best of the notes in class. My motive was always to try and get the best seats - read first row in my case. And I was beaming and happy whenever a teacher was impressed with me.

And I did feel the same kind of stares behind my back, even prickling my skin sometimes as the realisation dawned; and I know how Hermione might have felt. I have often been shushed by my classmates when I have asked questions at a time when everyone is just praying for the lessons to get over. And I have never really paid any heed to them and gone ahead and asked anyway. I have at times been even booed or catcalled after class for dragging the discussions on when everybody else wanted out, but my only quest had always been gathering of as much knowledge as I could.

Even after school, I have faced terms like 'Ms. Encyclopaedia' and 'Lady Google' at work places or friend circles and I have simply laughed them off. I still cannot restrain myself from finding out information about something that might interest me randomly. Thanks heaven that technological advancements have brought in Google and Wikipedia to come to my rescue and the task has become pretty easier.

Well, to all those people who have ever conferred me with such names and titles, I would like to say, "Sorry, but I couldn't care less, for none of these tags have ever deterred me. I have never given two hoots about what people have had to say about me trying to make myself smart. And honestly, the fact that by God's grace, I have made a decent life for myself only proves that I was never wrong about not giving a damn."

My Top Fifteen Favourite Authors

I was tagged by a friend on Facebook to name 15 authors who have captured my imagination, shaped my intellect and consequently influenced how I live my life.

Well, 15 is such a number that I'm even forced to think whether I qualify to call reading as my hobby. But, here it goes:

1. Enid Blyton: Enid Blyton was my first favourite and Noddy my first love as a child. I used to fish out Noddy books from our junior school library. A little bit grown up, I loved the 'Famous Five' and the 'Secret Seven' series.

2. Jane Austen: She is my most favourite author as an adult. When I was in my teens and early-twenties, she introduced me to romance and I set foot in my thirties, she introduced me to feminism.

3. Erich Segal: I have read a few of his books but nothing has ever moved me the way Love Story did. I still cry even after having read it multiple times before.

4. J.K. Rowling: I am unabashedly and unapologetically a Harry Potter fan and have read each of the seven books multiple times.

5. Khaled Hosseini: I have read two of his books and the rest are in my to-read list. But those two were enough to redefine my reading list - somehow I could never again go back to Danielle Steel style romance.

6. Dan Brown: I loved 'Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels and Demons' and found the 'Deception Point' and 'Digital Fortress' too predictable. I am yet to read the rest and 'The Lost Symbol' is definitely on my list. But, why I include him here is that after having literally grown up in a convent school, my entire connection with the Bible stories I had heard as a child was ripped apart by his books and somehow I can never listen / read any bible story the same way ever again without being reminded of 'Da Vinci Code'.

7. John Grisham: All his books have similar names, similar story lines even and I often find it difficult to recall whether I have read his particular book or not. But, he is such an effortless writer that I can pick any of his book and read it at a stretch and even enjoy the same.

8. Jeffrey Archer: I loved the Kane and Able trilogy, especially 'The Prodigal daughter' thanks to its feminist storyline. The books were not at all connected in terms of the plot but were equally capable of hooking one. I didn't however enjoy his short stories, 'A Quiver full of Arrows'.

9. Carolyn Keene (Nancy Drew series): Another book series I loved as a kid, after outgrowing Noddy, was the Nancy Drew series. They were a part of growing up as well.

10. Ayn Rand: Let me be honest, I have only read her 'The Fountainhead' as of now. It was a painfully difficult novel to read but so representative of our society today even though the novel itself was based in 1920s and 30s in US. 'Atlas shrugged' is waiting to be picked.

11. Sidney Sheldon: He was my first introduction to thrillers and the day I picked up a Sidney Sheldon (I even remember it was 'The Best Laid Plans'), I never again picked up another Danielle Steel. I was totally done away with romance.

12. Danielle Steele: Well, the entries above would make it sound like I detest Danielle Steel but in reality she and her books had introduced the idea of romance in my head in my early twenties. Only, she set the standard too high for real life people to be able to meet the criteria. *wink*

13. Robert Ludlum: This should actually have been much above in the list but I am not in the mood to redo the numbering (wish it worked like MS Word). The Jason Bourne series will always be my favourite (even the Matt Damon movie series which was radically different from the books) and he will remain my eternal Superhero - more human than any superhero stories in the world.

14. Margaret Mitchell: The only book she has ever written in her lifetime is also one of my all-time favourites, 'Gone with the Wind'. This book made the summer of 1996 beautiful for me.

15. Louisa May Alcott and Johanna Spyri: I am including these two for the only books of theirs that I have read till date: 'Little women' by Alcott, my introduction to classics and 'Heidi' by Spyri, my introduction to novels; both of which sowed the seeds to importance of being a good human beings.

Similar post: My Top Ten Favourite Books

Giving the gift of knowledge!

There are some issues I feel very strongly about. My friends know that I talk about women’s issues and child abuse. But, only my very close friends and family know how strongly I feel about education. I have been extremely privileged to get a very good education thanks to my parents’ efforts. I went to a top convent school in Delhi; I went to the top most commerce college in Asia; I was blessed by God to sail through Chartered Accountancy at the young age of 22 and then I also topped a private university in Germany during my Masters. At the risk of sounding immodest, that’s an academic record I’m really proud of. But, the importance of it all actually dawned on me when after a failed marriage including a sabbatical from a happening career, I was struggling to get back on my feet. If there was a single most important factor that got me back on my career path (apart from my family’s undaunting support), it had to be my education. Moreover, I also see my education as much more than just academic records for me. My schooling had shaped my personality, developed my character and taught me the skills required to be a proud self-reliant girl. This education goes far beyond curriculum books. It is shaped through immersing yourself in experiences of others that you only get to know through their written words, namely, books (primarily other than course books) and through your own mind which knows how to think. They both coupled together take you to a world which is far beyond your limited four walls – a world where imagination soars and the learning is limitless. This is all-round development and certainly the kind of all-round development that I wish all children in our country and in our world are able to get.


My previous company was very active in terms of corporate social responsibility. Apart from volunteering activities, there was an initiative called “Give as you earn” (GAYE) in which we committed to part with a portion of our salary every month – could be as little as Rs. 100 without any upper limit – for transfer to our chosen charities (out of a long list of charities). Apart from the occasional guilt of it being ‘too easy’ and not needing any effort from your side, it was a convenient way to give back to the society. When I changed jobs, my current company did not and still does not have too much of corporate social responsibility initiatives on its platter. To be fair to the company, it is a new set-up and a growing one right now. But, despite off and on monetary contributions to some charities, I had this on my mind as to figure out a way to give back to the society, preferably to help in spread of knowledge to the next generation.


Then as part of casual conversation, a friend suggested that lets open an NGO and do something for the society. I liked the idea but was a little sceptical. An NGO is a huge responsibility. So, I suggested that why don’t we start with baby steps and if we are able to sustain and grow, we can think of forming an NGO as well. And just impulsively I had an idea: there are many charitable schools running for the underprivileged but they are only able to fulfil their basic needs. Why not provide them with something extra? Why not start contributing books per month – even if just two books per month – to the school other than the course books? With six people (that was the strength of our core group of friends), with two books per month, we can have a total of 144 books in a year and actually they will have a kind of library. Eventually it isn’t even about money because you get to choose the books that fit into your budget.


I even remembered a school for underprivileged students in my neighbourhood called Vishwas Vidyalaya and made it a point to check it out. A basic Google search, a phone call and a short visit later, the initiative which we now call “Mission Vishwas” was born. Apart from the six of us, I managed to get two more people on board and we not only donated books but we even donated sports equipment to the school (cricket set, pairs of badminton rackets, footballs, Frisbee). Today I’m visiting the school for yet another monthly contribution of books. Actually, these small visits have slowly become the highlight of my month as I always make it a point to come myself (often with my daughter and sometimes with a friend and a fellow contributor).

But I’ll be honest. I’m slightly concerned about the direction this little initiative is going into. The contributions have been dwindling slightly even though its just the start. And though that troubles me, I feel that one cannot force charity. So, I have ended up increasing my own contributions to at least keep up the pace. I’ve gone from 3 books to 6 books and now to 18 books this month. I’m extremely proud that we have – in a short span of barely four months – been able to add 99 books to the empty room they called a Library and added quite a few sports equipment to the other empty room they called Sports centre. Actually, this whole initiative is so close to my heart now that I just know I will continue as long as I can even if I’m the only one contributing to the school. But now me and a friend of mine are taking it upon ourselves to mobilize more people to contribute.


P.S. Like I said, we have decided to mobilize more people to join in. I personally would like to reach out to my fellow pacters and use the pact to mobilize generous people with similar thought process who would like to join in the cause. In case anyone is interested to know more about it and help this little school, please feel free to get in touch with me directly or join my Facebook Group created for this initiative by the name of “Mission Vishwas” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/783414818407522/?ref=bookmarks). We DO NOT take any monetary contributions and / or fix any min. limit or value of your contributions. It is only books – and any books other than curriculum books – appropriate for students of a Hindi Medium school from class Nursery to Eighth. Moreover, if anyone in Gurgaon / NCR can devote time and volunteer to help slow / new students come up the curve with existing class, it would be very helpful. Even if you choose to contribute directly, it is equally welcome and appreciable. Please feel free to check out the website: http://www.vishwasindia.org/index.html.

My Top Ten Favourite Books

I am not a book fanatic but I do like to read and often enjoy the best me time with a book. I am also not a fast reader and I delve upon my books for weeks if not months. So, I don’t really have many friends with whom I end up discussing the books I have read or what they are reading.

Thus, when this trend started on Facebook about people listing their 'Top Ten favourite books' and then nominating others to do so too, I did not expect to be nominated. However, it sure was fun reading everyone’s list. What intrigued me was how at least one or two books in each person’s list would have featured in my favourites too.

Then, I literally got myself nominated by a friend to do my list when I commented on her list. So, here I am with my list. I will not go into the cliché where everyone tells how it was so difficult to pin down ten books and how they love so many more, because I know not how to hate a book I read till the end and to be honest there are very few books that I have read wholly and I hadn’t liked. But, I often read by authors or series and one author’s multiple books might hold the same value for me. Hence, you may find some clubbing of books in my list. Please accommodate with me for the same.

Here we go in no particular order:

1. Jane Austen Classics – I am a true blue fan of Jane Austen and have read all her books multiple times with ‘Pride and Prejudice’, ‘Emma’ and ‘Persuasion’ being my absolute favourites. I can pick up a Jane Austen book anytime anywhere and read it. What I love in her books is how all her characters are absolutely real and so perfect in their imperfections.
2. Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling – There are two kinds of book lovers in the world – those who absolutely love Harry Potter books and those who absolutely don’t. I belong to the former category and I too have read Harry Potter books multiple times, despite the fact that when you re-read a thriller or a mystery, you already know the end. Yet, it never allows me to lose interest. Thanks to the brilliant writing style of Rowling. I remember being heart-broken and depressed for at least 2 days after I finished the last Harry Potter book (the only book till date which I have completed within a week) just thinking that there isn’t going to be another Harry Potter book ever now. I even wrote a review of the book where I mentioned a little about my state of mind. (Read the review at 'Book Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows').
3. Jason Bourne series by Robert Ludlum – I have only read the trilogy by Robert Ludlum and although I found the writing style very descriptive yet engaging – every fight read in the book seems like a movie happening in front of you – I found Bourne / Webb’s character extremely engaging and nothing short of a superhero. (Read 'Why Jason Bourne is more of a Superhero' for the reasons).
4. Gone with the wind by Margaret Mitchell – I loved this book for two very strong reasons: (1) Scarlett O’Hara for being a very strong woman with a never-say-die attitude; and (2) Rhett Butler for being the rugged but perfect match to Scarlett and yet being her antithesis.
5. To kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee – Not only is this a touching story but also a very brave one especially considering the era in which this book was written. It’s also a true lesson in humility.
6. Books by Khaled Hosseini – I have till date read ‘The Kite Runner’ and ‘A Thousand Splendid Suns’ by Khaled Hosseini and ‘And the mountains echoed’ is on top of my list of ‘Books to read’. Not only are his books a very touching account of how life was / is in war stricken Afghanistan but it’s an absolute emotional account of the interplay of feelings. I cannot read two of his books one after the other; it’s just too much of an emotional drain. I have cried at nights when I have sat with his books unable to get the characters out of my mind. But, I have loved them nevertheless.
7. Books by Dan Brown – Although I have read four books by Dan Brown (all but ‘The Lost Symbol’ and ‘Inferno’) but ‘Angels and Demons’ and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ are my particular favourites. Not only did I find the thrills, suspense and twists and turns in the story very engaging but I found Robert Langdon a very interesting character and what is generally referred to as “intellectually stimulating”. I would love to meet him someday if he ever exists, even if just to have some interesting chats over coffee. That reminds me, I also have ‘The Lost Symbol’ and ‘Inferno’ on my list of ‘Books to read’.
8. Love Story by Erich Segal – I first read ‘Love Story’ when I was in school. It was a very short and sweet book and yet it tickles your heart strings (and your tear glands too). As a grown up, I picked it up again, only to see whether I was still moved in the same way as in my teenage years. I was. (Read my ode to Erich Segal on his death here 'The eternal love story'. It has all the references to the book.)
9. ‘Kane and Able’, ‘The Prodigal Daughter’ and ‘Shall we tell the President’ Trilogy by Jeffrey Archer – It’s not really a trilogy. They are actually three different books (especially the last one where the old characters appear very briefly), very intelligently woven with common characters and some references to previous books by Jeffrey Archer. This in itself is truly remarkable – to have three absolutely different stories told with different settings and different plots having common characters. And yet all of them engage you equally. I especially loved the first two books.
10. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand – I must confess that I did not find it a very easy and comfortable book to read. It took me a lot of time to read it (second only to probably ‘Gone with the wind’) and it needed a lot of focus to understand the so very complex characters (multiple times I re-read various sections of the book). And, therefore, for this very reasons I did not even feature it in my list (was confused between this and the three mentioned below) but then I remembered that after having completed the book, I had a very good feeling about the book and I reflected on the characters for days. Also, I was truly mesmerized by the thought that the book was written in 1943 America and yet it was so very contemporary. Again, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is also on my list of of ‘Books to read’ but then I need to first have the time to delve and focus on Ayn's style of writing and her characterization.

The books that almost made it to the list but finally didn’t are as follows: ‘The Immortals of Meluha’ by Amish Tripathy (I purposefully didn’t mention the trilogy because somehow the sequels did not live up to the expectation and by the third book it was more of a mechanical exercise to bring the story to a logical conclusion; and that’s the reason I didn’t include this book in my list) and ‘The Pelican Brief’ and ‘The Testament’ by John Grisham (I have read quite a few of the books by John Grisham and I kind of find all of them more or less same, so much so that when I pick up any of his book, I fail to remember whether I have already read it or not; but these two books of his have lingered on in my memory and I remember liking them a lot when I read them, former for the way the suspense unfolds and latter for no particular reason).

Last, as a note I also want to mention two books that I had loved as a kid: ‘Heidi’ by Johanna Spyri and ‘Little Women’ by Louisa May Alcott. Not only did I love them and I laughed and cried with the protagonists, but they hooked me on to books for life. A big thanks to them!

The eternal Love Story

Erich Segal’s death came as a shocker. I read about it in the morning newspaper, a small news item put in one corner of the front page in the Entertainment supplement. I didn’t recognize him by face, and the photo attached to the article was a bit strange – a pale looking man with sunken cheeks and slightly protruding eyes. I wondered who that could be when I picked up the paper. Then, I read the name “Erich Segal” and instant recognition struck me.

I may not be a great Erich Segal fan because I haven’t read many of his works. But, I have read his most famous work, “Love Story” a number of times over and two other books, namely, “Oliver’s Story”, the sequel to “Love Story” and “Doctors”, which my sister who is studying to be a doctor gave me. Trust me, nothing ever will beat “Love Story”. Anyone who is even remotely prone to reading a ‘Romance fiction’ will swear by it.

As simple as it was, it was a truly heart-wrenching tale of happiness, togetherness and sadness. A rich boy meets a poor girl, marry against his parents’ wishes, live together on the sole foundation of love all the while struggling to make things work and in the end, the girl dies leaving the boy’s as well as the reader’s hearts filled with love and sadness. Surely, no story could have been simpler than this. Not only is the book a small readable one, it is written in the simplest manner possible. In fact, ‘SIMPLE’ is written all over it. It reaches out to its readers, even those who are not much into reading, and embraces them with feelings people only dream about but never experience – the feeling of pure romance, mush and the feeling of being in love for the sake of love.

I don’t remember how many times I have read “Love Story” but I do remember that every time I have, I have cried my heart out. I have cried my heart out for Jenny who found love against the sacrifice of a good education and career and yet couldn’t keep it long enough. I have cried my heart out for Oliver who gave up his family and its traditions for love but couldn’t make it last a lifetime. I have cried my heart out for both of them, who found love in togetherness and togetherness in sorrow. And, I have cried my heart out for myself for I wish I find a soul-mate who would love me so but I never wish the fairytale to end like this. Every time I have read “Love Story”, I have cried; and my heart has felt lighter and my belief in love stronger.

I may not be a big fan of Erich Segal, but I felt sorry for his death because for me Erich Segal was the true owner of “Love Story” as it came out of his heart and who knows may be out of his experiences as well. Now, with him gone, there may not be another eternal love story ever written. And as a small obituary, I would just dedicate one line from “Love Story” for Segal, “I don’t just love you [Oliver], I love you very much.”

Technical Errors in the Digital Fortress by Dan Brown

Reading books is one of my favourite activities and although I stick to Fiction in general, I like to read Thrillers in particular. After reading Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, I was almost a Dan Brown fan until I read Angels and Demons, Deception Point and Digital Fortress, in that order, and I liked them in the same order too. When it comes to Digital Fortress, it did not spring up as many twists and turns as compared to the Da Vinci Dode or say, Angels and Demons and the password that the seemingly brilliant female protagonist with an IQ of 170 took so long to guess had already been guessed by me about 40 pages before her.

Anyway, I was just browsing through some articles on the internet when I stumbled upon this article which very plausibly describes the technical errors in the Digital Fortress. It kind of made me feel that my dislike for the book is not without reason and there may be quite a few people who share my view. Read on and you may like this too.

Technical Errors in the Digital Fortress by Dan Brown

Although the book's website cites reviews lauding Digital Fortress for being extremely realistic, the book contains a number of technical errors and misunderstandings in computers, math, technology, and language.

• Brown mentions a Hungarian mathematician, Josef Harne, who in 1987 proposed an encryption algorithm that, in addition to encrypting, shifted decrypted cleartext over a time variant. However, neither Harne nor the concept of rotating-cleartext ever existed.
• Brown also inaccurately portrays the leadership of the NSA. As part of the Department of Defense, the NSA director - by law - must be a three-star Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral.
• Brown confuses bits with bytes, describing a 64bit string as containing 64 alphanumeric characters. In fact it would be just 8 assuming the most basic 8bit character encoding, each character being a byte or 8 bits.
• Brown suggests that TRANSLTR, a machine capable of breaking a 64bit key in 10 minutes would take just an hour to break a 10,000 bit key. This is a gross misunderstanding of the relationship between key lengths and the time required to brute force them. Such a machine would take over 80,000 years to break a 96-bit key and over 350,000 billion years (nearly 30,000 times the current age of the universe) to break a 128-bit key. The number of years it would take to break a 10,000 bit key isn't even practical to write down - it has 2,987 digits.
• Brown repeatedly confuses storage or processing of data with execution. For example, TRANSLTR is threatened because it has tried to crack Digital Fortress, which is actually a virus, and the database is similarly threatened because Digital Fortress is sent to it by TRANSLTR. Databases and password crackers do not execute the information presented to them, so it wouldn't matter that Digital Fortress contains harmful instructions.
• Characters who are supposedly experts in cryptography seem to think there is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption scheme.
• Brown talks about characters being encoded "Mandarin", or "the Kanji language". Mandarin is a spoken dialect of Chinese, and kanji are part of the Japanese writing system that typically cannot be sensically read alone "out of sequence". In neither case would it be possible to translate character-by-character out of context, due to both Chinese and Japanese having many characters that are used in compounds or have multiple meanings.
  

For the inaccuracies in Da Vinci Code please refer the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaccuracies_in_The_Da_Vinci_Code which makes an equally interesting read. However, the inaccuracies reported in this article are not technical and indisputable like those in the Digital Fortress.

Achievement

I feel honoured to bring to your notice that one of my papers has finally been published and is now available as a chapter of a book. The book titled “Finance-led Capitalism? Macroeconomic Effects of Changes in the Financial Sector” by Eckhard Hein, Torsten Niechoj, Peter Spahn, Achim Truger (eds.) has finally gone on sale (kindly refer the link http://www.metropolis-verlag.de/Finance-led-Capitalism%3F/705/book.do).

The chapter, titled “Crisis prevention and capital controls in India: perspectives from capital account in the current scenario“ is an extract from my Thesis during my Master’s studies in the University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany which won me the DAAD Prize 2006. This paper was also invited to be presented at the 11th Workshop of Research Network Macroeconomic Policies, “Finance -led capitalism? Macroeconomic Effects of Changes in the Financial Sector” organised by Hans-Boeckler-Stiftung in Berlin on 26th & 27th October, 2007 whereby I got a chance to interact with world renowned Economists in the field of Macroeconomics. The version of the paper presented in the conference is also available online at the link: http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2007_10_26_khurana.pdf

This paper analyses the capital controls in India and the potential risk of a financial crisis and/or a recession hitting the Indian economy. The paper also looks at the exchange rate regime followed by the RBI in India. Finally, in particular, it looks at two scenarios which may trigger a financial crisis and/or a recession. A look at the booming stock markets in India was undertaken to analyse the possibility of a stock market crash. Last, the paper analysed the banking sector and its reforms to study whether it is capable enough to deal with sudden outflows arising out of a stock market crash or would it succumb to its own weaknesses, further worsening the crisis by initiating a banking crisis and/or a currency crisis.

I am sure the paper would make an interesting read especially in the current scenario where the Indian Economy just might face a recession.

Why Jason Bourne is more of a Superhero than Spiderman, Superman, Krrish et al?

I am fascinated by Jason Bourne. If that’s the beginning of this article, you may expect what is about to follow. I have read the first two books of Jason Bourne back-to-back and the third one almost half way through. Further, I have seen the three Bourne movies twice over. I love Jason Bourne, even with Amnesia. Now, I have also seen Krrish many times, the three Spiderman movies, bits and pieces of Superman Returns and I liked them too, but only for their special effects and cinematic experience. As a kid, I have read Spiderman and Superman comics but I was never addicted to them. So, I am definitely not a big fan of Spiderman, Krrish or Superman for that matter.

If you ask me why, here’s the answer. In my opinion, Jason Bourne is a real Superhero as compared to the others. All the rest, Spiderman, Superman and Krrish have Super-natural powers. If Spiderman acquired his powers from a deadly spider-bite, and Krrish inherited it from his father, Superman does not even belong to the earth having come all the way from planet Kripto. But, Jason Bourne is as human as you and me. He’s sharp and intelligent, no doubt; but, still very much normal. His ‘skills’ (I would like to use this term instead of ‘powers’) are all acquired through training and practice. He has extensively adapted himself and trained himself to rise above the rest and become extra-ordinary.

It definitely cannot be an easy process of the likes of being bitten by a bug, or being born to a father who was granted special powers by an alien. It involved not just physical training, but changing ones entire mindset, thought-process and lifestyle. It definitely is time and effort consuming. Jason Bourne countered trauma, pressure and depression and still triumphed. To summon ones courage, target ones energies and channelize ones thought-process to constantly be on vigil, to do everything with a motive is impossible. How can one train oneself to perform in an organized manner even in a trance? To alter ones sub-conscious mind to always make you do everything confirming to ones motive. Yes, it’s impossible; but, Jason Bourne made it possible. In the movie “The Bourne Supremacy”, Nicky Parsons (played by Julia Stiles) comments, “That’s not a mistake. They don’t make mistakes. Everything they do has an objective.” This dialogue in itself embodies to what extent, the agent Bourne changed his personality. That’s why they are termed as “assets” and not “agents”. The disguises he assumed in the book then seem lot simpler to assume. To live in the dark alleys of the underworld, assuming the entity of a dreaded criminal Cain for three years with no contact whatsoever with the sane world he actually belongs to; requires some guts, stamina and courage. It’s enough to make any person go into depression, go mad and lose sanity. No doubt it took a toll on Bourne. But, the best part is despite the trauma, he’s at his natural best in dealing with the baddies, both from the CIA and the underworld.

Some may argue that the other Superheroes are more of a Superhero because they are working to save the world. But, heck even Bourne is doing all this to kill the world’s biggest criminal, Carlos the Jackal, and/or for self-defense. It is anyway better than flying down the buildings in New York (Spiderman) or Singapore (Krrish). How does the world savior ensure that the biggest of villains conveniently happen to reside in areas where he lives? At least, Jason Bourne is more realistic – a true Hero.

What all is wrong with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows?

Well, I have read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (HP7) again. And this time, I did spot some flaws. May be its not even right to call them flaws after all, but there are rather quite a few diversions from the earlier books. Some people may agree with me and others may not, but this is my perception and I would love to pour them out. So, this might be a kind of late review from my side.

One of the reasons why I liked HP series was that I had a feeling that J K Rowling (JKR) thinks in many ways like I do. In previous books, she laid a lot of stress on the importance of education, on having a career, on friendships, and on tolerance in friendship. Not only that, she tries to propagate that women (females) are not secondary to anyone, and at times they may prove to be smarter than most men (through Hermione, of course). But in HP7, these are the very issues where JKR changes tracks. Or is it that the birth of a third child (a girl) has changed JKR's mindset.

After the sixth book when Harry, Ron and Hermione decided not to return to Hogwarts, I had apprehensions about the seventh book. And although the book is interesting for the whole of the plot, I feel she should at least have mentioned that after the war is over, all these people went back to complete their education. That they had a proper education and made their careers, etc. After telling us all how much Harry wanted to be an Auror, JKR simply omits telling us what career Harry and the others choose. Ron wanted to be an Auror too and Hermione had all the options open for her.

Then again, in all the earlier books (unlike HP movies), Ron and Hermione had almost equivalent parts to play. Though I admit that the climax usually belonged to Harry, but in HP7 they are almost reduced to sidekicks for the most part of the book. I had a feeling when Dumbledore left them bequests in his will that JKR envisaged a bigger participation for them. But alas it didn’t happen to be so. What a sheer waste of Hermione's intelligence and brilliance, and Ron’s loyalty and faithfulness. Even Ginny in the sixth book had become almost a part of the gang, but she is completely left out in the seventh book. We don’t even know whether she even fought in the war or not, as all of a sudden we are reminded that she is underage. Was she not underage, and all the others including Harry, in the fifth and the sixth book? But, there they all conveniently fought the death eaters.

Last, the biggest flaw in the book – the Epilogue. It was just so sugary sweet as to give us all Diabetes. It was as if all JKR was trying to do was to wrap up things so that she doesn’t have to write another HP book. After all those years we came to love Hermione for her intelligence, brilliance and sharp mind. Her future is highlighted as "Ok, she got married and had kids...." Now come on, she could have gone places. Even Ginny was seemingly intelligent what with Slughorn trying to induct her in his club. But she too was entitled to the same fate. In fact, apart from Neville, who becomes a Professor of Herbology at Hogwarts, JKR didn’t care to show what careers or basically the kind of life anyone chooses. When James comes and tells his parents that Ted Lupin is kissing his cousin Victoire (I assume she is Bill and Fleur’s daughter because of the French name but there’s no mention about it), all Ginny could manage to say was “Oh, it would be wonderful if they get married”. Seems like its Jane Austen writing the epilogue not JKR. Harry talks about his home. What home? Does he go back to live in Grimauld Place or some place else. May be not Grimauld Place because that is huge; and Harry’s home is not huge. If Ted comes over to live with them then both his sons would have to share a room. Then where did Harry go on to live really? It’s all guesswork here.

Further, some answers I expected in the book were left unanswered. What was the potion in the cave that Dumbledore drank in HP6? Why did it not affect Kreacher in the way it affected Dumbledore and Regalus? Before HP7 was released people were doing research telling us it was draught of death which is a very strong sleep inducing potion but doesn’t lead to death. Well, I never believed it and always thought Dumbledore was dead but expected to find out how. Besides, at the end of HP6 when Harry decided to go to Godric's Hollow, I thought finally I'll have answer to the one question that has been there in my mind since the initial chapters of the first book. What kind of work did Harry's parents do to amass such wealth for Harry? I couldn’t find out.

Further, who was the baby whom Dumbledore said that they can’t help in the Kings Cross Station? What was really the significance of having the baby there? Then again, what happened to Colin Creevy? Did he survive? JKR could have talked a bit about how life changed for the people who lost their loved ones, sad for their losses and yet happy about the end of dark days. We don’t even get any reaction from George on Fred's death. Come on, they were inseparable, partners in everything.

So as is evident, the biggest hitch I find in the book is to digest the Epilogue. If only she could have written a better one telling that they completed their education, are doing something worthwhile in life and how life became so normal for them as they achieved all their dreams; it would have been an exemplary book. After all, many kids idolize Harry Potter and love the books. They would have had something to emulate. Overall, I stick to my earlier review but somehow do not find myself connecting to the epilogue.

I still think that HP7 is an exciting book, way beyond my expectations. But a few complaints remain. In short, HP7 is an extraordinary escapist fiction with a few drawbacks. But then, books like humans can never be perfect.

I am not one of those you find in HP communities/groups on social networking sites and fan sites who do analysis on Harry Potter. I sometimes read them for the fun of it. Further, I am not here to criticize HP7. One can see that I am not finding any petty mistakes here like spells backfiring, etc. I am talking about JKR's change in ideology. It’s just that I thought that HP7 is different from other HP books in terms of morals it propagates.

Book Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

N.B. This review was written on 03-Aug-07 and after almost a year since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (HP7) released, it may not be so relevant after all. However, I am still posting it here so as to supplement my upcoming post.

I have finally just finished HP7, and am so overwhelmed, I think it deserves a proper review; without revealing the plot, that is. So, don’t expect a spoiler here.

At the end of book 6, we came to know that Harry did not plan to go to Hogwarts and finish his education. I wondered then that whether a HP book without Hogwarts as its backdrop would be as exciting as the others. All my doubts are laid to rest as Hogwarts is not entirely ignored. The book is as exciting as it can be. It holds your interest right from the beginning till the end. J K Rowling (JKR) keeps peeling the wrapper off the surprises and all the unanswered questions piled up inside you over the last few years while reading the first 6 books. The book answers all the questions, raises many new ones and answers them all too.

I usually judge a thriller by the climax whether it raises excitement inside you or not; excitement to the level of not wanting to put the book down. Here, there is no "climax" as such because the whole book itself is a climax. You just don’t want to put it down right from the word go. I hated the book to keep me so engrossed so as to not wanting to put it down when I had to tend to my infant daughter and my household chores. Then again, now that I have completed it, it seems to have left an empty space behind, which I doubt any other book will be able to fill, at least for a while.

It actually breaks my heart to think that's it. That's the end. No more Harry Potter books. I wonder what JKR herself is feeling: relieved? empty? free? And no more excitement and hysteria surrounding a book release. My husband, who is not much of a book reader as such, is almost thankful that it’s the last HP book and that I am done with it. Sometimes I think, how often does it happen that half the book lovers in the world are reading the same book at the same time? Very rare, I think.

To sum up, the book is enthralling, enchanting and exhilarating. It’s simply superb and unmissable. As for the rating, I know some people have rated it 5/5. But, I don’t agree with them. I would at least rate it 7/5.