Category: Miscellany

Why do we need to lie about a book that we’ve half read, quarter understood and that’s given us zero enjoyment?

Many years ago, I did an online writing course with Oxford University. In order to encourage all the participants to get to know each other better, the course instructor asked us to draw up a list of the five best works of fiction we had ever read. Remembering all the good books that ‘we had ever read’ was an almost impossible task, made doubly difficult, if I recollect correctly, by the fact that we were given just 24 hours. The idea of giving us such a short time was that we would remember only the books that had had the greatest impact on us. For me, and presumably some others, there was another consideration: like with films, there were many books I had read two or three decades earlier, that I no longer felt the same way about.

From the lists drawn up by the sixteen of us – spanning five continents- mine was distinctly low-to-mid brow. I had long since passed out of that phase when I read a book because a critic had declared ‘If there’s one book that you read this year, this must be it’. On the list there were several that I had never even heard of, not even the authors. For somebody who thought he was very well-read, on a variety of genres and a wide range of topics, the realization that I was so unschooled, pricked my ego.

In the forum though, I admitted to my ignorance and pointed out that there were books and authors I was hearing of for the first time. I also wrote that there were several – Ulysses, for example – which after two or three attempts, I had decided to try again only in the after-life. One by one, several of the others started admitting to the same. A few even ‘delisted’ books they had mentioned earlier, while two of them said that they had inadvertently included books that they hoped to read sometime in the future. With a degree of smugness, I patted myself on the back for puncturing some pretentiousness.

I remember once leaving a novel written by a friend on my desk in the school staffroom. The resident scholar picked it up, looked at the front and back covers, flipped through it and then said, ‘I haven’t read this one. His other books are OK. How do you pronounce his name?’ I looked at him in disbelief. The publisher’s blurbs, front and back, clearly stated that it was a debut novel.

So if reading, fiction at least, is supposed to be a very private pleasure why do so many of us get caught up in name dropping, or should I say title dropping?  Why do we need to lie about a book that we’ve half read, quarter understood and that’s given us zero enjoyment? Why do we need to persist with a book on the NYT bestseller list or a Booker Prize winner, when we are struggling through every page? Why even pick up one of a genre that we detest?

Remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes and the little boy innocent enough to exclaim that the man was naked? I suppose it’s the same with books. Who among us would be daring enough to openly say that a book is unreadable when it’s made it to the bestseller list of a leading newspaper or magazine? Who would be brave, or is it naive, enough to declare a Booker – White Tiger, for example – or Pulitzer Prize winner ordinary, even as we wonder at the political and financial reasons behind the nomination?

And do the reviewers get it right? Have they properly understood a book they are touting or ripping to shreds? Does it make sense to let a critic decide our reading tastes? Some months ago, I watched a Nobel laureate being interviewed on a well-known news channel. Its book critic, in discussing the author’s oeuvre, made a reference to the message of one of his works. The author replied that was not the message of the book. With a very straight face, the interviewer let that gaffe pass. Remember the people who claimed that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was a Beatles’ ode to LSD, despite composer John Lennon repeatedly stating it was a response to a painting by his four-old son.

Talking about the Booker Prize, I once read an article by one of its judges that she had read the 145 novels on the long list in seven months. That’s 145 books in 210 days. Or an average of 1.4 books per day! This person wrote that she had read every page of every book in the selection process that year. Was her declaration also a work of fiction? In the comments section, I posted that question, but unsurprisingly never received a reply.

Another wrote, ‘and it ate up all my free time: during every bus journey, every moment sitting waiting for a film to start, every interval of whatever play I was reviewing, I’d whip out a book and cram a few more pages in’. Was she doing justice to the play or to the book?

Still another wrote that she would even read a few pages before a dental appointment. Admittedly, reading ‘a book a day’ because it’s a job, can numb the mind. I didn’t realize that it has similar effects on the gums.  Maybe, dentists should consider books for their patients instead of anesthesia. The critic didn’t say whether she read while swimming or bungee jumping, or checking her Facebook and Instagram accounts, though I’d bet she tweeted between paragraphs.

In the past there have been leaks about judges, skipping large sections of books they were passing judgement on, and in some cases not even reading all the ones that had been allocated to them. Even the most diligent of us sometimes slips up on the job and we should keep this in mind when allowing a reviewer or a judge, to determine our tastes.

I read about 5-10 books at a time (on a variety of subjects) and admittedly that slows me down. But even as a voracious reader, I still manage to finish just about 4-5 a month. It took me almost a month to finish Ma Jian’s, The Dark Road, as I was unfamiliar with Chinese names and settings. Despite having read a lot of Russian literature, about eleven months had passed before I sorted through the numerous characters, each with several variations to their names, not counting the diminutives, in Simon Sebag Montefiore’s brilliant three-part biography of Joseph Stalin.

So, a Booker judge reading 1.4 books a day, is a bit difficult to swallow. Writers, with any respect for their craft, spend months, if not years, polishing and re-polishing a manuscript, agonizing over words and sentences till they think that they have a jewel. How do they feel when a so-called judge has read through their book at the speed of pound? Or dollar? How can any reader understand a novel they are speed-reading, if the settings and names are from a land and culture completely alien to them?

Reading and appreciating a well-written work of fiction – like sipping a fine wine – requires time, a certain mood and total concentration. Anything short of that is an injustice to a good writer. And to a good reader too, because reading properly is also a craft.

© Percy Aaron

Warning: Watching the televised debates for the Republican nomination can seriously damage your intelligence.

 The quadrennial circus that is the U.S. election process is upon us once again and the banality, bigotry and buffoonery appear to be higher levels than in the past. Eight years ago, we were treated to the syntax of Simple Sarah and I thought that never again would cartoonists and humorists have a subject that would provide them with such a bonanza of idiocy.

How wrong I was!

Switch on your TV sets, sit on your brains (that’s where most of the candidates have theirs anyway) and forget that these people are seeking, supposedly, the “world’s most powerful job”.

At a time of global uncertainty, politicians with only a rudimentary knowledge of the pressing issues of the day, flaunt their ignorance as they try to convince voters that all will be well if they are elected to the presidency of the United States.

(Published in The Nation, Thailand, 15 March 2016)

© Percy Aaron

When healthcare has become so profit-driven, and many doctors are under pressure to see as many patients as possible, where is the time to ask, to observe and to record?

I know of doctors who won’t spend more than 30 minutes with a patient, and of others who don’t even look at the person in front of them, instead just asking questions and entering the replies into their computers.

As a teenager, our family doctor would ask me about school, books I was reading, etc. and even at that age, I realized that he was using all that information to draw a complete picture of my ailment. Often, no medication would even be prescribed.

Do such doctors exist anymore?

(This comment appeared in the New York Times, in reply to an article by oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee, “What Can Odd, Interesting Medical Case Studies Teach Us?“)

© Percy Aaron

Your article, “In search of a ‘good death’ at home” (The Nation, June 3, 2018) was timely.

Educating most people, not just in Thailand, about the ethical and economic “benefits” of palliative care should be a priority.

Prolonging the life of a terminally ill person robs them of their dignity and affects not just their quality of life but also that of their loved ones.

The Hippocratic Oath aside, doctors are trained to save lives and so are ill-equipped to “help people to die”. In these days of the corporatisation of healthcare, there is also the compelling profit motive to prolong a life, if the patient comes from a wealthy background. For families that cannot afford it, long and futile treatment often results in debt after death.

To change our thinking on how to handle end-of-life situations, we need to change our thinking on health. Perfect health at any age, is almost an impossibility. Most people have something wrong with them, no matter how insignificant. Often treating something minor can lead to other complications as all medications have side effects.

Well-being and quality of life should not mean the absence of illness, but rather the ability to lead a full and happy life.

Finally, as the Chulalongkorn project tries to highlight palliative care, it should also consider propagating the merits of organ donation. Life does not have to end with death.

(Published: The Nation, Thailand, 8 June 2018)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/your_say/30347251

When I pick up a newspaper or magazine, the first section that I go to is the Letters page. It informs me of the issues of the day and also gives me an insight into the quality of the readership and hence the publication.

In this respect, I must say that I find the Nation rather disappointing.

You have about a dozen regular letter writers, presumably farangs retired in Thailand, who probably rush to the letters page each morning, to see whether they have been “published” or not. Sadly, what is written, not only reflects on the smallness of their existence, but also on the poor quality of your sub-editing.

Almost without fail, one letter writer attacks another by name. I can’t remember seeing this in the many, many newspapers and magazines I’ve been reading over the last 50 years.

In a letter, where another writer is referenced derogatorily, why can’t your sub-editors remove the person’s name and replace it with “as another correspondent wrote”? This is the practice in most other newspapers and magazines.

If you did this, about a dozen people will be deprived of their raison d’etre and the Nation’s sales will drop by a similar number but the quality of the discourse on the Letters page, will improve considerably.

(Published in The Nation, Thailand on 15 February 2018)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/your_say/30338874

© Percy Aaron

On Sunday, July 3, Thailand goes to the polls. With both sides all but saying that they will not accept a decision that goes against them, the post-election scene promises to be as fractious as the run-up to the poll. More violence seems a given. The military, which deposed a democratically elected government a few years ago, is meddling again.  The following letter, which was published in one of the country’s leading dailies, remains as relevant to Thailand,  as for the country it originally referred to.

The dictator has gone. Long live the dictatorship!

The revolution in Egypt is only a partial success. The front man will be replaced with another front man. As long as the military is in control, nothing will really change. For the Egyptians to realize their aspirations they will not only have to send the soldiers back to the barracks, but ensure that they stay there.

Beware. When generals promise general elections, only generals get elected.

(Published in Bangkok Post, 15 February 2011)

The Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama is bound to be controversial. The early news in the United States must have spoilt many a breakfast on the rabid Right, and the froth and foam would not have been from the morning espressos.

The Nobel Committee in awarding President Obama the prize for his “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples” would have been aware that their decision was not only hasty, but rather premature. It is likely the decision was more for his intentions, and an investment in future efforts. “We gave you the Peace Prize, now don’t backtrack, or cut deals that go against those hoping you deliver.” It is also possible that this was an attempt to give impetus to his peace attempts, keeping in mind how vicious and vociferous his opponents, especially at home, are becoming each time he takes a step.

But will ground realities allow President Obama to be worthy of the prize?

In Afghanistan he seems ready to up the ante in an ill-advised and immoral war.  If terrorist actions by a group of citizens were justification for invading a country, then the deeds of past U.S. governments would have made the United States the most invaded country in the world.

Will Mr Obama be able to stare down a small number of West Bank settlers whose intransigence causes so much unrest in the world as they usurp land they can have no moral justification over?

True, the president’s actions in trying to build bridges to the rest of the world are a welcome change from the Texan gunslinger, and his Mephistophelian ‘pardner’ before him. Some wit has suggested that the award was more an indication of just how bad the previous administration was.

Many of us think that President Barack Obama is the most charismatic and exciting leader on the world stage and desperately want him to succeed.

But Mr Obama might just find out that making peace in the world is as difficult as making peace with the Republican Party.

16 October 2010

© Percy Aaron

The quadrennial circus that is the process of electing a U.S. president is upon us once again. It throws up all kinds of performers long on style, short on substance. Most of them, including the pundits and the press, are as profound as the pancake on their faces.

Two elections ago, with a sleight of hands that would have been the envy of any juggler, a clown was thrust upon the country, a midget in mind and morality. Like any raconteur he told the people many stories: about chatting to God every day and about weapons of mass destruction.

Now as this process marches on to Election Day the theatre of the absurd becomes even more ridiculous.    The office being contested for is often referred to as the most powerful job in the world. Yet, listening to the issues being raised each day, one cannot help wondering whether this is just another episode of Trivial Pursuit.

Two issues regularly referred to, against one candidate, are race and experience.

This candidate is 50% black. So if he’s half black, he’s also half white. Why can’t he be referred to as white? Or biracial?

If being black is a crime, why don’t they come out and say it? Why don’t they come out and say discrimination and prejudice are bad things when practised elsewhere, but it’s O.K. when we do it. Everybody will understand, because most people already know who the world champions in hypocrisy are.

Being black was never an issue when a disproportionate number of black men were asked, or forced, to lay down their lives in the nation’s wars.

So is America ready to vote for a black man? Well if it isn’t, then shame on it. Spit on it!

The other issue being raised is of experience. The answer is simple. Since none of the candidates has been president before, neither has the experience. The incumbent has been president for almost eight years. Eight years later, not even his mother will say he is experienced.

COMMENTS

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:21 pm

You forgot to mention that the 50% “black candidate” is also 50% Muslim!!

Jansan

© Percy Aaron

Sometime ago I watched an interview with a senior, very articulate, Chinese official. At one point, in reply to a lop-sided question, he told the interviewer, “You westerners have the most breath-taking double standards”.

The recent Olympics have brought home to me how alive and kicking, these double standards are.

Remarks by a number of people I’ve met here, and reports in the western media, show how double standards have plunged to new depths of hypocrisy.

Prior to the Games, and during it, there was continuous criticism of Beijing’s security measures and the censorship. Nowhere was there the realization that tight security is inevitable nowadays at large, especially international, gatherings. Obviously, the authoritarian nature of Chinese society and the paranoia of its government, made such arrangements obvious to everybody. I remember reading about the U.S authorities having a tank posted outside one of the stadiums during the 1994 World Cup soccer. Even making allowances for football hooliganism, that was a bit of overkill.

Then there were the constant barbs about the training regimen of Chinese athletes, the use of professional performers for the opening and closing ceremonies (as if Olympic rules precluded these) and any number of other issues. Admiration for the performances of the Chinese sportsmen and women, or the organization and conduct of the Games, was always qualified with caveats about the oppressive nature of the government. The constant sniping about the cost of the Games made me wonder whether they had been asked to contribute to it. The Chinese, it seemed, could not do anything right.

Many articles criticized the lip-synching incident at the opening ceremony when a more ‘acceptable’ face was used instead of that of the little girl with the golden voice.

True, that incident like many other things that the Chinese government did, is doing, and will do, was deplorable. But who thought up playback singing, stage names, etc? In the world of make-believe and deceit few people are blameless.

The hypocrisy and meanness, or should it be madness, astounded me when some people kept hoping for a terrorist ‘incident’ that would disrupt the Games and embarrass the hosts. Shocking, shocking, shocking! Obviously, acts of violence against people one doesn’t like are acceptable.

‘Breath-taking double standards’, did we say? What an understatement!