The following article of mine was published on December 9, 2006 in the Editorial Page of the Times of India
Worlds without end-Editorial-OPINION-The Times of India
Looking at stars on a clear night somewhere away from the city, one is amazed at how many are visible. The hazy band of the Milky Way stretches across the night sky and contains millions of stars, thousands of light years away, but still part of our own Galaxy.
Late astronomer Carl Sagan put the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy at 400,000,000,000 (400 billion). There are a little more than six billion people on our planet — so a rough estimate puts it at about 60 stars in the Milky Way per human being on Earth. Imagine that, each one of us could have 60 solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy.
Since 1995, we have discovered around 200 extrasolar planets or planets revolving around other stars. Some of these stars like 47 Ursae Majoris, only 46 light years away (a stone's throw in terms of stellar distances), even have a system of planets like our sun has. So far we have only been able to discover larger Jupiter-like worlds because the current method of finding planets makes it difficult to find smaller Earth-like worlds. However, NASA is planning to launch the terrestrial planet finder project in 2014. This project will be able to detect smaller Earth-like extrasolar planets. Chances are good that we are soon going to find other planets with liquid water and an Earth-like atmosphere. These other worlds will become targets for human colonisation. Going back to our 60 stars per human formula, even if we take a very modest figure of two planets per star system, this means there are 120 planets per human being and over 800 billion planets in our Galaxy alone. That is a lot of potential real estate.
As mysteries of the Universe unfold, it is important that we realise our place in the larger scheme of things. Just as we talk about being a part of the world, we need to remember that the world is only a part of a much larger Galaxy, which in itself is part of a much larger Universe (there are more than 100 billion known galaxies and an estimate made in 2003 by Australian astronomers puts the total number of stars in the known universe at 70 sextillion or 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). There are now theories that even the Universe is only one out of many universes that make the multiverse — the supreme collection of universes. These other universes would exist in some other frequency or dimension and inter-dimensional travel could someday take us there. Where does it end?
Are we the only planet with life or is the multiverse teaming with life? While we have not yet found life anywhere other than planet Earth, we still have 70 sextillion stars multiplied by the number of universes to explore before we can conclusively prove that Earth is the only inhabited planet. However, even if we find a tiny microbe on Mars, we have proved the other alternative — that we are, in fact, not alone.
Either way, exploration and colonisation of space is necessary. If ours is indeed (however unlikely) the only inhabited planet in the multiverse, then we have a great responsibility. We have been given the gift of life and we need to preserve that. This would mean that we need to carry the torch of life to the stars and colonise other planets. The Earth could be destroyed in so many ways and it would be our duty to spread the fire of life throughout the multiverse.
If the other alternative is correct and there is an abundance of life, wouldn't we want to find it and interact with it? How long can we earthlings be alone? There would then be an endless opportunity to exchange our culture, commerce, science, techno-logy, beliefs and art. What a wonderful thing it would be to find intelligent and friendly life elsewhere. Clearly, we are just in our infancy. We humans have only reached our own moon so far. Humans have not visited even Mars yet, though our probes have criss-crossed the surfaces of Venus, Mars and Titan.
But our focus is too earth-centric. We need to stop abusing our planet and think of its preservation, just as we need to seriously start planning the further exploration and colonisation of space as physicist Stephen Hawking has advised.
The writer is a Delhi-based freelancer.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Still the Mind and See the Light
The following article of mine was published in the Speaking Tree column of The Times of India on October 19, 2006
(link to the article, text below)
Still the Mind and See the Light-Editorial-OPINION-The Times of India
Stillness of mind is necessary for us to realise who we really are. "Be still and know that I am God", says Psalm 46:10, a clear advice in the Bible by the Lord to meditate.
When a stone is dropped into a pond of water, it creates ripples, which prevent a person from seeing his own reflection in the pond. It is only when the ripples subside and the water is still that you can see your own reflection. Our consciousness is like the pond; if thoughts enter into our mind, they create ripples in our consciousness and these ripples prevent us from seeing our own self in the pond of our consciousness. Stubborn thoughts need to be stopped if true knowledge of Self is to be gained.
This must happen smoothly. A thought is like a fire, which is fuelled by attention. By not paying attention to a stubborn thought, it can be made to pass through the mind unattended. Do not try to wrestle with your unwanted thoughts. Wrestling with them is giving attention to them. A person can only truly concentrate on one thing at a time.
Focusing on our own breath is a good way to divert attention away from stray thoughts. Breathe in deeply through your nose and while breathing in, pay attention to your breath. Hold the breath inside you for just a few seconds, maybe five or six seconds, and exhale slowly paying attention to your breath as you exhale. This technique will relax you as well as help in stilling the mind. After repeating this exercise about 10 times, say the word, 'Om', 'Amen' or 'Amin' — depending on your choice, they basically all refer to the creative word of God — three times. Now focus your attention to the point between the eyebrows about one inch above the eyebrow level. This is the centre of Christ Consciousness, which is called the Kutastha Centre by Paramahansa Yogananda.
In the Bible this place is mentioned by Christ when he says in Matthew 6:22: "The light of the body is the eye: If therefore thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light". The idea is to concentrate on this point without thinking or allowing thoughts to enter the mind.
True meditation is the complete stillness of mind. Though thinking about God is a good thing and can be helpful in raising the levels of positive energy around you, while meditating try not to think of anything — not even God. Remember what the Bible says, "Be still and know that I am God".
Knowing something does not come by thinking about it, but by realising and experiencing it. When the mind is stilled completely and concentration and attention is at the Kutastha Centre, then gradually, the veil separating your own awareness from cosmic awareness is pierced. A feeling of complete relaxation and tranquillity is soon followed by joyous bliss that is all-pervading. When the eye is single — the single eye of intuition or the Kutastha Centre becomes the focus of attention — then the body shall be full of light. When the attention is focused like a magnifying glass at the Kutastha Centre, the eye of intuition will see the divine light of God and the body shall be bathed by the Divine and Glorious light.
It is a wonderful feeling to still the mind and see your own true blissful self in the reflection of your own pond of consciousness. Seek God within you now.
(link to the article, text below)
Still the Mind and See the Light-Editorial-OPINION-The Times of India
Stillness of mind is necessary for us to realise who we really are. "Be still and know that I am God", says Psalm 46:10, a clear advice in the Bible by the Lord to meditate.
When a stone is dropped into a pond of water, it creates ripples, which prevent a person from seeing his own reflection in the pond. It is only when the ripples subside and the water is still that you can see your own reflection. Our consciousness is like the pond; if thoughts enter into our mind, they create ripples in our consciousness and these ripples prevent us from seeing our own self in the pond of our consciousness. Stubborn thoughts need to be stopped if true knowledge of Self is to be gained.
This must happen smoothly. A thought is like a fire, which is fuelled by attention. By not paying attention to a stubborn thought, it can be made to pass through the mind unattended. Do not try to wrestle with your unwanted thoughts. Wrestling with them is giving attention to them. A person can only truly concentrate on one thing at a time.
Focusing on our own breath is a good way to divert attention away from stray thoughts. Breathe in deeply through your nose and while breathing in, pay attention to your breath. Hold the breath inside you for just a few seconds, maybe five or six seconds, and exhale slowly paying attention to your breath as you exhale. This technique will relax you as well as help in stilling the mind. After repeating this exercise about 10 times, say the word, 'Om', 'Amen' or 'Amin' — depending on your choice, they basically all refer to the creative word of God — three times. Now focus your attention to the point between the eyebrows about one inch above the eyebrow level. This is the centre of Christ Consciousness, which is called the Kutastha Centre by Paramahansa Yogananda.
In the Bible this place is mentioned by Christ when he says in Matthew 6:22: "The light of the body is the eye: If therefore thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light". The idea is to concentrate on this point without thinking or allowing thoughts to enter the mind.
True meditation is the complete stillness of mind. Though thinking about God is a good thing and can be helpful in raising the levels of positive energy around you, while meditating try not to think of anything — not even God. Remember what the Bible says, "Be still and know that I am God".
Knowing something does not come by thinking about it, but by realising and experiencing it. When the mind is stilled completely and concentration and attention is at the Kutastha Centre, then gradually, the veil separating your own awareness from cosmic awareness is pierced. A feeling of complete relaxation and tranquillity is soon followed by joyous bliss that is all-pervading. When the eye is single — the single eye of intuition or the Kutastha Centre becomes the focus of attention — then the body shall be full of light. When the attention is focused like a magnifying glass at the Kutastha Centre, the eye of intuition will see the divine light of God and the body shall be bathed by the Divine and Glorious light.
It is a wonderful feeling to still the mind and see your own true blissful self in the reflection of your own pond of consciousness. Seek God within you now.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Did You Know?
I found this interesting article at the site DailyFutures.com and have reproduced it below with a link to the original site:
_____________________________
Did you know that:
What does this have to do with trading, you say? A lot.
Did you wake up today and realize that you were millions of miles away from where you were yesterday? Probably not. If you are like me, you probably woke up in the same house that you always do, looked out and saw the same neighborhood that you always see, and spent your day in the same community that you always do. You probably did not pull out your telescope and calculator, make a few notations, and notice how far you travelled. As far as you can tell, you are in the same spot today that you were in yesterday, but that is not really true. You are literally millions of miles away from yesterday.
In the same way that most of us are not aware of our movement through the universe, we are also not aware of the grand moves of the marketplace. We wake up each day and see that soybeans are up 3 cents or down 8 cents and, as far as we can tell, not much has changed. We get accustomed to seeing certain prices and come to believe that $5 per bushel is "low" and $7 per bushel is "high." Without a calculator and a long-term map, we do not understand the importance of the changes that are happening right in front of us. All we notice is now and all we can compare to is what we remember - which is not very much. Eventually, the day of reckoning comes. Soybeans trade at $5.10 and since we have learned that $5.10 is "low," we buy. When soybeans fall to $4.90, we may even buy some more. At $4.40, we complain that the market is crazy and look for villains to blame. At $4.10, we shake our heads in disbelief and wonder what happened to the world that we knew. At $3.90, we cough up our position, vowing to never trade again.
This tragedy, although fictional, has happened far too often and in too many markets, but it does not have to. One little change in how we look at the world can make a huge difference - literally the difference between winning and losing. All it takes is a calculator, a little research, and a bit of humility. As I see it, life on this tiny, fragile planet is an absolute miracle - far beyond our comprehension. In our day to day living, however, we do not sense the miracle. We fall too easily into the trap of believing that events are somehow stable and predictable. We laugh at our ancestors for believing that the sun revolved around the earth, but our own perspective is not much different. We see the sun rise and set everyday and assume that things are basically the same, unaware that the entire universe is a roaring speedway. Occasionally, we may look back a decade or so and get a sense of the changes around us, but in our daily moments we are mostly numb to it all. For whatever reason, we are not very good at noticing the big picture.
In this numbed state, life is full of surprises. One minute (in 1998), the world is awash in crude oil and the experts say that it will be at least five years before the surplus disappears. The next minute (in 1999 and 2000), crude prices are climbing higher and farther than anyone ever expected. The experts told us not to worry, reminding us that what goes up must come down. Now (in 2004), the world is producing all the oil it can and it still may not be enough. China? Osama bin Laden? Yukos? They were not even on the radar screen of most analysts in 1998. It has only been six years and already the world is drastically different. Did you notice? The market made a quantum leap from 1998 to 2004 and left most of us - including the experts - in the dust. I do not know anyone who could have predicted the past six years, but I do know a trading approach that could have given us a chance to profit from the change.
Why has the Dailyfutures Report been so profitable? I believe that it is because the Report's trading method is designed to identify and follow major market moves - the very ones that we ignore in our daily lives. The old school of investing tries to buy low and sell high. Just as old world astronomers believed that the sun revolved around a stable earth, old world investors believe that prices fluctuate around stable values. Unfortunately, they ignore how rapidly those 'stable values' change over time. After trading with the Dailyfutures Report for over two and a half years, I can tell you that it is not easy to buy high and sell low - it is hard to get rid of those old world beliefs. But I believe that it works because it agrees with the way things really are - dynamic, fluid, constantly changing. All events and indeed, the entire universe is headed somewhere that our little minds cannot foresee. I cannot predict where the markets are going, but I can certainly come along for the ride... and hopefully make a buck along the way.
Best wishes,
Dailyfutures.com. November 3, 2004.
Copyright Daily Futures Inc. 2004 All Rights Reserved.
Did You Know?
_____________________________
Did you know that:
What does this have to do with trading, you say? A lot.
Did you wake up today and realize that you were millions of miles away from where you were yesterday? Probably not. If you are like me, you probably woke up in the same house that you always do, looked out and saw the same neighborhood that you always see, and spent your day in the same community that you always do. You probably did not pull out your telescope and calculator, make a few notations, and notice how far you travelled. As far as you can tell, you are in the same spot today that you were in yesterday, but that is not really true. You are literally millions of miles away from yesterday.
In the same way that most of us are not aware of our movement through the universe, we are also not aware of the grand moves of the marketplace. We wake up each day and see that soybeans are up 3 cents or down 8 cents and, as far as we can tell, not much has changed. We get accustomed to seeing certain prices and come to believe that $5 per bushel is "low" and $7 per bushel is "high." Without a calculator and a long-term map, we do not understand the importance of the changes that are happening right in front of us. All we notice is now and all we can compare to is what we remember - which is not very much. Eventually, the day of reckoning comes. Soybeans trade at $5.10 and since we have learned that $5.10 is "low," we buy. When soybeans fall to $4.90, we may even buy some more. At $4.40, we complain that the market is crazy and look for villains to blame. At $4.10, we shake our heads in disbelief and wonder what happened to the world that we knew. At $3.90, we cough up our position, vowing to never trade again.
This tragedy, although fictional, has happened far too often and in too many markets, but it does not have to. One little change in how we look at the world can make a huge difference - literally the difference between winning and losing. All it takes is a calculator, a little research, and a bit of humility. As I see it, life on this tiny, fragile planet is an absolute miracle - far beyond our comprehension. In our day to day living, however, we do not sense the miracle. We fall too easily into the trap of believing that events are somehow stable and predictable. We laugh at our ancestors for believing that the sun revolved around the earth, but our own perspective is not much different. We see the sun rise and set everyday and assume that things are basically the same, unaware that the entire universe is a roaring speedway. Occasionally, we may look back a decade or so and get a sense of the changes around us, but in our daily moments we are mostly numb to it all. For whatever reason, we are not very good at noticing the big picture.
In this numbed state, life is full of surprises. One minute (in 1998), the world is awash in crude oil and the experts say that it will be at least five years before the surplus disappears. The next minute (in 1999 and 2000), crude prices are climbing higher and farther than anyone ever expected. The experts told us not to worry, reminding us that what goes up must come down. Now (in 2004), the world is producing all the oil it can and it still may not be enough. China? Osama bin Laden? Yukos? They were not even on the radar screen of most analysts in 1998. It has only been six years and already the world is drastically different. Did you notice? The market made a quantum leap from 1998 to 2004 and left most of us - including the experts - in the dust. I do not know anyone who could have predicted the past six years, but I do know a trading approach that could have given us a chance to profit from the change.
Why has the Dailyfutures Report been so profitable? I believe that it is because the Report's trading method is designed to identify and follow major market moves - the very ones that we ignore in our daily lives. The old school of investing tries to buy low and sell high. Just as old world astronomers believed that the sun revolved around a stable earth, old world investors believe that prices fluctuate around stable values. Unfortunately, they ignore how rapidly those 'stable values' change over time. After trading with the Dailyfutures Report for over two and a half years, I can tell you that it is not easy to buy high and sell low - it is hard to get rid of those old world beliefs. But I believe that it works because it agrees with the way things really are - dynamic, fluid, constantly changing. All events and indeed, the entire universe is headed somewhere that our little minds cannot foresee. I cannot predict where the markets are going, but I can certainly come along for the ride... and hopefully make a buck along the way.
Best wishes,
Dailyfutures.com. November 3, 2004.
Copyright Daily Futures Inc. 2004 All Rights Reserved.
Did You Know?
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Larger spheres
If you think Earth is really significant, take a look at this!
Imagine how the Universe is ordered. We think we are huge, but then there is a always a bigger sphere. Even Antares must be a speck compared to something else. Likewise there is also always a smaller sphere even smaller than an electron. Amazing how creation works!
I like the way the author of the blog below has decribed this:
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH | Bryce Zabel: Let's Get Small: Plutonian Edition
Imagine how the Universe is ordered. We think we are huge, but then there is a always a bigger sphere. Even Antares must be a speck compared to something else. Likewise there is also always a smaller sphere even smaller than an electron. Amazing how creation works!
I like the way the author of the blog below has decribed this:
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH | Bryce Zabel: Let's Get Small: Plutonian Edition
Thursday, August 03, 2006
On writers by Asimov
A great piece by the master of science fiction Isaac Asimov about what writers go through.
_______________________
Isaac Asimov: What Writers Go Through
(This editorial first appeared in the December 21, 1981, issue of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine.)
Every once in a while I get a letter that strikes a chord. Jeanne S. King of Marietta, Georgia, suggested that I write an editorial on what writers go through. Her tender heart bled for writers and I think she has a point.
First, let me make it clear what I mean by "writers." I don't want to confine the word only to those who are successful, who have published best-selling books, or who crank out reams of published material every year(if not every day), or who make a lavish living out of their pens, typewriter, or word-processors, or who have gained fame and adulation.
I also mean those writers who just sell an occasional item, who make only a bit of pin money to eke out incomes earned mainly in other fashions, whose names are not household words, and who are not recognized in the street.
In fact, let me go farther and say I even mean those writers who never sell anything, who are writers only in the sense that they work doggedly at it, sending out story after story, and living in a hope that is not yet fulfilled.
We can't dismiss this last classification as "failures" and not "real" writers. For one thing, they are not necessarily failures forever. Almost every writer, before he becomes a success, even a runaway supernova success, goes through an apprentice period when he's a "failure."
Secondly, even if a writer is destined always to be a failure, and even if he is never going to sell, he remains a human being for whom all the difficulties and frustrations of a writer's life exist and, in fact, exist without the palliation of even an occasional and minor triumph.
If we go to the other extreme and consider the writer whose every product is an apparently sure sale, we find that the difficulties and frustrations have not disappeared. For one thing, no number of triumphs, no amount of approval, seems to have any carrying power at the crucial moment.
When even the most successful writer sits down before a blank piece of paper, he is bound to feel that he is starting from scratch and, indeed, that the Damoclean sword of rejection hangs over him. (By the way, when Isay "he" and "him," I mean to ad' "she" and "her" every time.)
If I may use myself as an example, I always wince a little when anyone, however sincerely and honestly, assumes that I am never rejected. I admit that I am rarely rejected, but between "rarely" and "never" is a vast gulf. Even though I no longer work on spec and write only when a particular item is requested, I still run the risk. The year doesn't pass without at least one failure. It was only a couple of months ago that Esquire ordered a specific article from me. I duly delivered it; and they, just as duly, handed it back.
That is the possibility all of us live with. We sit there alone, pounding out the words, with our heart pounding in time. Each sentence brings with it a sickening sensation of not being right. Each page keeps us wondering if we are moving in the wrong direction.
Even if, for some reason, we feel we are getting it right and that the whole thing is singing with operatic clarity, we are going to come back to it the next day and re-read it and hear only a duck's quacking.
It's torture for every one of us.
Then comes the matter of re-writing and polishing; of removing obvious flaws (at least, they seem obvious, but are they really?) and replacing them with improvements (or are we just making things worse?). There's simply no way of telling if the story is being made better or is just being pushed deeper into the muck until the time finally comes when we either tear it up as hopeless, or risk the humiliation of rejection by sending it off to an editor.
Once the story is sent off, no amount of steeling one's self, no amount of telling one's self over and over that it is sure to be rejected, can prevent one from harboring that one wan little spark of hope. Maybe--Maybe--
The period of waiting is refined torture in itself. Is the editor simply not getting round to it, or has he read it and is he suspended in uncertainty? Is he going to read it again and maybe decide to use it--or has it been lost--or has it been tossed aside to be mailed back at some convenient time and has it been forgotten?
How long do you wait before you write a query letter? And if you do write a letter, is it subservient enough? Sycophantic enough? Grovelling enough? After all, you don't want to offend him. He might be just on the point of accepting; and if an offensive letter from you comes along, he may snarl and rip your manuscript in two, sending you the halves.
And when the day comes that the manila envelope appears in the mail, all your mumbling to yourself that it is sure to come will not avail you. The sun will go into eclipse.
It's been over forty years since I've gone through all this in its full hellishness, but I remember it with undiminished clarity.
And then even if you make a sale, you have to withstand the editor's suggestions which, at the very least, mean you have to turn back to the manuscript, work again, add or change or subtract material, and perhaps produce a finished product that will be so much worse than what had gone before that you lose the sale you thought you had made. At the worst, the changes requested are so misbegotten from your standpoint that they ruin the whole story in your eyes; and yet you may be in a position where you dare not refuse, so that you must maim your brainchild rather than see it die. (Or ought you to take back the story haughtily and try another editor? And will the first editor then blacklist you?)
Even after the item is sold and paid for and published, the triumph is rarely unalloyed. The number of miseries that might still take place are countless. A book can be produced in a slipshod manner or it can have a repulsive bookjacket, or blurbs that give away the plot or clearly indicate that the blurb-writer didn't follow the plot.
A book can be non-promoted, treated with indifference by the publisher and therefore found in no bookstores, and sell no more than a few hundred copies. Even if it begins to sell well, that can be aborted when it is reviewed unsympathetically or even viciously by someone with no particular talent or qualifications in criticism.
If you sell a story to a magazine you may feel it is incompetently illustrated, or dislike the blurb, or worry about misprints. You are even liable to face the unsympathetic comments of individual readers who will wax merry, sardonic, or contemptuous at your expense--and what are their qualifications for doing so?
You will bleed as a result. I never met a writer who didn't bleed at the slightest unfavorable comment, and no number of favorable or even ecstatic remarks will serve as a styptic pencil.
In fact, even total success has its discomforts and inconveniences. Thereare, for instance. . . :
People who send you books to autograph and return, but don't bother sending postage or return envelopes, reducing you to impounding their books or (if you can't bring yourself to do that) getting envelopes, making the package, expending stamps, and possibly even going to the postoffice.
People who send you manuscripts to read and criticize (nothing much, just a page-by-page analysis, and if you think it's all right would you get it published with a generous advance, please? Thank you.).
People who dash off two dozen questions, starting with a simple one like: What in your opinion is the function of science fiction and in what ways does it contribute to the welfare of the world, illustrating your thesis with citations from the classic works of various authors. (Please use additional pages, if necessary.)
People who send you a form letter, with your name filled in (misspelled), asking for an autographed photograph, and with no envelope or postage supplied.
Teachers who flog a class of thirty into each sending you a letter telling you how they liked a story of yours, and sending you a sweet letter of her own asking you to send a nice answer to each one of the little dears.
And so on--
Well, then, why write?
A 17th-century German chemist, Johann Joachim Becher, once wrote: "The chemists are a strange class of mortals, impelled by an almost insane impulse to seek their pleasure among smoke and vapor, soot and flame, poisons and poverty; yet among all these evils I seem to live so sweetly, that may I die if I would change places with the Persian King."
Well, what goes for chemistry, goes for writing. I know all the miseries, but somewhere among them is happiness. I can't easily explain where it is or what it consists of, but it is there. I know the happiness and I experience it, and I will not stop writing while I live--and may I die if I would change places with the President of the United States.
Taken from:
Isaac Asimov on writers
_______________________
Isaac Asimov: What Writers Go Through
(This editorial first appeared in the December 21, 1981, issue of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine.)
Every once in a while I get a letter that strikes a chord. Jeanne S. King of Marietta, Georgia, suggested that I write an editorial on what writers go through. Her tender heart bled for writers and I think she has a point.
First, let me make it clear what I mean by "writers." I don't want to confine the word only to those who are successful, who have published best-selling books, or who crank out reams of published material every year(if not every day), or who make a lavish living out of their pens, typewriter, or word-processors, or who have gained fame and adulation.
I also mean those writers who just sell an occasional item, who make only a bit of pin money to eke out incomes earned mainly in other fashions, whose names are not household words, and who are not recognized in the street.
In fact, let me go farther and say I even mean those writers who never sell anything, who are writers only in the sense that they work doggedly at it, sending out story after story, and living in a hope that is not yet fulfilled.
We can't dismiss this last classification as "failures" and not "real" writers. For one thing, they are not necessarily failures forever. Almost every writer, before he becomes a success, even a runaway supernova success, goes through an apprentice period when he's a "failure."
Secondly, even if a writer is destined always to be a failure, and even if he is never going to sell, he remains a human being for whom all the difficulties and frustrations of a writer's life exist and, in fact, exist without the palliation of even an occasional and minor triumph.
If we go to the other extreme and consider the writer whose every product is an apparently sure sale, we find that the difficulties and frustrations have not disappeared. For one thing, no number of triumphs, no amount of approval, seems to have any carrying power at the crucial moment.
When even the most successful writer sits down before a blank piece of paper, he is bound to feel that he is starting from scratch and, indeed, that the Damoclean sword of rejection hangs over him. (By the way, when Isay "he" and "him," I mean to ad' "she" and "her" every time.)
If I may use myself as an example, I always wince a little when anyone, however sincerely and honestly, assumes that I am never rejected. I admit that I am rarely rejected, but between "rarely" and "never" is a vast gulf. Even though I no longer work on spec and write only when a particular item is requested, I still run the risk. The year doesn't pass without at least one failure. It was only a couple of months ago that Esquire ordered a specific article from me. I duly delivered it; and they, just as duly, handed it back.
That is the possibility all of us live with. We sit there alone, pounding out the words, with our heart pounding in time. Each sentence brings with it a sickening sensation of not being right. Each page keeps us wondering if we are moving in the wrong direction.
Even if, for some reason, we feel we are getting it right and that the whole thing is singing with operatic clarity, we are going to come back to it the next day and re-read it and hear only a duck's quacking.
It's torture for every one of us.
Then comes the matter of re-writing and polishing; of removing obvious flaws (at least, they seem obvious, but are they really?) and replacing them with improvements (or are we just making things worse?). There's simply no way of telling if the story is being made better or is just being pushed deeper into the muck until the time finally comes when we either tear it up as hopeless, or risk the humiliation of rejection by sending it off to an editor.
Once the story is sent off, no amount of steeling one's self, no amount of telling one's self over and over that it is sure to be rejected, can prevent one from harboring that one wan little spark of hope. Maybe--Maybe--
The period of waiting is refined torture in itself. Is the editor simply not getting round to it, or has he read it and is he suspended in uncertainty? Is he going to read it again and maybe decide to use it--or has it been lost--or has it been tossed aside to be mailed back at some convenient time and has it been forgotten?
How long do you wait before you write a query letter? And if you do write a letter, is it subservient enough? Sycophantic enough? Grovelling enough? After all, you don't want to offend him. He might be just on the point of accepting; and if an offensive letter from you comes along, he may snarl and rip your manuscript in two, sending you the halves.
And when the day comes that the manila envelope appears in the mail, all your mumbling to yourself that it is sure to come will not avail you. The sun will go into eclipse.
It's been over forty years since I've gone through all this in its full hellishness, but I remember it with undiminished clarity.
And then even if you make a sale, you have to withstand the editor's suggestions which, at the very least, mean you have to turn back to the manuscript, work again, add or change or subtract material, and perhaps produce a finished product that will be so much worse than what had gone before that you lose the sale you thought you had made. At the worst, the changes requested are so misbegotten from your standpoint that they ruin the whole story in your eyes; and yet you may be in a position where you dare not refuse, so that you must maim your brainchild rather than see it die. (Or ought you to take back the story haughtily and try another editor? And will the first editor then blacklist you?)
Even after the item is sold and paid for and published, the triumph is rarely unalloyed. The number of miseries that might still take place are countless. A book can be produced in a slipshod manner or it can have a repulsive bookjacket, or blurbs that give away the plot or clearly indicate that the blurb-writer didn't follow the plot.
A book can be non-promoted, treated with indifference by the publisher and therefore found in no bookstores, and sell no more than a few hundred copies. Even if it begins to sell well, that can be aborted when it is reviewed unsympathetically or even viciously by someone with no particular talent or qualifications in criticism.
If you sell a story to a magazine you may feel it is incompetently illustrated, or dislike the blurb, or worry about misprints. You are even liable to face the unsympathetic comments of individual readers who will wax merry, sardonic, or contemptuous at your expense--and what are their qualifications for doing so?
You will bleed as a result. I never met a writer who didn't bleed at the slightest unfavorable comment, and no number of favorable or even ecstatic remarks will serve as a styptic pencil.
In fact, even total success has its discomforts and inconveniences. Thereare, for instance. . . :
People who send you books to autograph and return, but don't bother sending postage or return envelopes, reducing you to impounding their books or (if you can't bring yourself to do that) getting envelopes, making the package, expending stamps, and possibly even going to the postoffice.
People who send you manuscripts to read and criticize (nothing much, just a page-by-page analysis, and if you think it's all right would you get it published with a generous advance, please? Thank you.).
People who dash off two dozen questions, starting with a simple one like: What in your opinion is the function of science fiction and in what ways does it contribute to the welfare of the world, illustrating your thesis with citations from the classic works of various authors. (Please use additional pages, if necessary.)
People who send you a form letter, with your name filled in (misspelled), asking for an autographed photograph, and with no envelope or postage supplied.
Teachers who flog a class of thirty into each sending you a letter telling you how they liked a story of yours, and sending you a sweet letter of her own asking you to send a nice answer to each one of the little dears.
And so on--
Well, then, why write?
A 17th-century German chemist, Johann Joachim Becher, once wrote: "The chemists are a strange class of mortals, impelled by an almost insane impulse to seek their pleasure among smoke and vapor, soot and flame, poisons and poverty; yet among all these evils I seem to live so sweetly, that may I die if I would change places with the Persian King."
Well, what goes for chemistry, goes for writing. I know all the miseries, but somewhere among them is happiness. I can't easily explain where it is or what it consists of, but it is there. I know the happiness and I experience it, and I will not stop writing while I live--and may I die if I would change places with the President of the United States.
Taken from:
Isaac Asimov on writers
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Da Vinci Code
As a Christian Indian myself I fail to understand the fuss about 'The Da Vinci Code' being screened across India. First of all, it is fiction. Secondly, why should people always be afraid of new ideas? If one has so much faith in their own religion, why fear when there are some sort of new questions raised. After all if religion is all about finding the truth, then why should truth be afraid of questions?
Jesus Christ himself asked people to change the way they thought. He replaced an old ideology in the form of the Old Testament with a New Testament. He was against hypocrisy and judging people. He was against the established religious leadership. He was against imposing his will upon others. Christ was about freedom, not bondage. One must remember that God never imposes His will on anyone. If He did, this would be a sinless world.
I fail to understand what is so bad about the book and the movie. It is a cleverly weaved action thriller and is super interesting to say the least. India is a free country and the Freedom of Speech and Expression is enshrined in our Constitution under Article 19. So I think it is time that our religious leaders should stop trying to impose their views on the rest of the people. If someone finds the film offensive, don't watch it. But let others watch it! Here it will be logical to quote the French philosopher Voltaire: "I disagree with everything you say, but I will until my death defend your right to say it". Freedom of Speech and Expression goes beyond a legal right. As far as I'm concerned, it's a divine right.
Jesus Christ himself asked people to change the way they thought. He replaced an old ideology in the form of the Old Testament with a New Testament. He was against hypocrisy and judging people. He was against the established religious leadership. He was against imposing his will upon others. Christ was about freedom, not bondage. One must remember that God never imposes His will on anyone. If He did, this would be a sinless world.
I fail to understand what is so bad about the book and the movie. It is a cleverly weaved action thriller and is super interesting to say the least. India is a free country and the Freedom of Speech and Expression is enshrined in our Constitution under Article 19. So I think it is time that our religious leaders should stop trying to impose their views on the rest of the people. If someone finds the film offensive, don't watch it. But let others watch it! Here it will be logical to quote the French philosopher Voltaire: "I disagree with everything you say, but I will until my death defend your right to say it". Freedom of Speech and Expression goes beyond a legal right. As far as I'm concerned, it's a divine right.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Tonga
The Pacific tsunami warning system needs to be checked thoroughly and improvised. Just a few days ago there was a massive earthquake in the Pacific Ocean next to the island nation of Tonga and despite a warning being issued to New Zealand and Fiji, Tonga - the closest island to the quake which would have seen the maximum devastation in case a tsunami actually formed after the quake did not receive the warning. This needs to be looked into and improvised to help in stopping a catastrophe like the Tsunami of 2004 which took over 200,000 lives.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Mahajan
The death of Pramod Mahajan after a 12 day long battle with wounds suffered by bullet wounds is a sad moment in our nation's history. It is also a sad thing that his death comes at the hands of his own younger brother. This act of fraticide will go down in history as one of India's darker moments. Brother has killed brother for unknown reasons and India has suffered the loss of one of its most promising leaders. Our heartfelt prayers and condolences go out to the family of Pramod Mahajan and we pray for peace to the departed soul.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Judas
Judas Iscariot has always been condemned as the traitor who betrayed Jesus Christ. But there are some questions that need to be answered about Judas Iscariot. First of all, isn't that what Jesus was sent to Earth for - to die on the cross. Wasn't Judas just doing his bit in the divine plan? Remember in Matthew 16:21-23 where Peter tries to discourage Jesus from going to Jerusalem and Jesus says unto Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan."
Why would Jesus call Peter 'Satan' if he really did not want to die? Even in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus asks God if he could somehow have "this cup pass over" him, but in the end says "Not my will, but thy will be done" it is obvious that even though Jesus was afraid of dying, it was essential to his mission that he die. So Judas actually played an important part in the mission of Jesus.
Judas also committed suicide after he accepted the thirty coins of silver. This could only mean that he was deeply distressed by the fact that he was the one who had to identify Jesus to the Jewish temple soldiers. Remember that if Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied Jesus - not once but three times that same night!
While I am not trying to put down Peter in any way. I am simply saying that maybe Judas was not such a creep after all. Maybe he has been demonized wrongly by the church throughout the history of Christendom. Maybe it is time to take a fresh look at the Gospel of Judas and the other Nag Hammadi scrolls. Why should knowledge of any kind be harmful if the so-called "truth" is so infallible? Why should the Gnostics be demonized and ridiculed if the church is so confident that it knows and professes the absolute truth. As a great man called Paramahansa Yogananda once said and said very well -- 'Truth is never afraid of questions.'
Why would Jesus call Peter 'Satan' if he really did not want to die? Even in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus asks God if he could somehow have "this cup pass over" him, but in the end says "Not my will, but thy will be done" it is obvious that even though Jesus was afraid of dying, it was essential to his mission that he die. So Judas actually played an important part in the mission of Jesus.
Judas also committed suicide after he accepted the thirty coins of silver. This could only mean that he was deeply distressed by the fact that he was the one who had to identify Jesus to the Jewish temple soldiers. Remember that if Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied Jesus - not once but three times that same night!
While I am not trying to put down Peter in any way. I am simply saying that maybe Judas was not such a creep after all. Maybe he has been demonized wrongly by the church throughout the history of Christendom. Maybe it is time to take a fresh look at the Gospel of Judas and the other Nag Hammadi scrolls. Why should knowledge of any kind be harmful if the so-called "truth" is so infallible? Why should the Gnostics be demonized and ridiculed if the church is so confident that it knows and professes the absolute truth. As a great man called Paramahansa Yogananda once said and said very well -- 'Truth is never afraid of questions.'
Barbelo
Barbelo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The recently found Gospel of Judas mentions that Jesus is from the immortal realm of Barbelo. I found that Barbelo has also been mentioned in some other Nag Hammadi literature like the Apocryphon of John. The link above is interesting and sheds more light on the immortal realm of Barbelo that Jesus is supposedly a resident of.
The recently found Gospel of Judas mentions that Jesus is from the immortal realm of Barbelo. I found that Barbelo has also been mentioned in some other Nag Hammadi literature like the Apocryphon of John. The link above is interesting and sheds more light on the immortal realm of Barbelo that Jesus is supposedly a resident of.
Suryanarayana
Today's murder of Indian engineer K Suryanarayana by the Taliban is a shameless and cowardly act of violence. It is time for the Indian government to step in and do something about the wretched Taliban. How many more Indian citizens will have to die in Afghanistan? The Indian government needs to be more firm with the Government of Afghanistan and make sure that proper security arrangements are made for Indians working in that nation and helping it develop.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Reservations
The proposed reservations in IITs and IIMs being done by the Indian HRD ministry is like going back into the days of V.P. Singh and the Mandal commission back in 1990 when I was just in first year college. It is very discouraging to millions of young and qualified students who are not in the reserved category.
If one recalls watching 'India's Rajiv' by Simi Garewal you will recall the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi calling the Mandalisation of Indian politics as very "unfortunate". It is indeed a shame that the UPA government headed by the Congress party is doing virtually the same thing now as it opposed back in 1990.
I applaud the Indian science and technology minister Kapil Sibal for being vocal in his opposition to these proposed reservations even if he has broken his party's protocol. Politics in India need vocal leaders and not mute sycophants.
If one recalls watching 'India's Rajiv' by Simi Garewal you will recall the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi calling the Mandalisation of Indian politics as very "unfortunate". It is indeed a shame that the UPA government headed by the Congress party is doing virtually the same thing now as it opposed back in 1990.
I applaud the Indian science and technology minister Kapil Sibal for being vocal in his opposition to these proposed reservations even if he has broken his party's protocol. Politics in India need vocal leaders and not mute sycophants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)