Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and Mahabharata

There could be better things to discuss, in these days of degenerating tolerance or intolerance. However, for the fear of not being able to save this topic for later discussion, I am posting this now. After all, that is what my blog, a thought repository, is all about.

The Game of Thrones is the cult fiction of the decade, it is such a craze among people. It is not a cult in terms of fashion, however, it is in terms of which series to watch. George R. R. Martin's plot and the script are simply amazing - unpredictable twists and turns in the plot take most of the credits. The characters and their development are amazing too. Each character is detailed in depth in a completely different dimension - this is something that is not seen in many other series, in my opinion. (I have not watched many other series, so my evaluation may not be the best.) I am not picking any character in particular - that is material for another blog post.

Without much digress, let me present the topic of discussion here - how would the Mahabharata (or the Ramayana - I have not read the Bible or the Koran, so I am not mentioning them here for comparison) fair in terms of literary merits when compared to the Game of Thrones or the Lord of the Rings? This thought occurred recently to me as I was thinking how can creativity be measured, after attending a talk at the University at Buffalo, on 'Creativity and decision making in architecture' by Ms. Ming Hu, Director of Academic Engagement at the American Institute of Architects (AIA). I continued my thoughts along the line of creativity and quality in literature, and then ended up on Lord of the Rings, a contemporary classic work of fiction. Not that there are better works - but this one is the best among the contemporaries in terms of creativity - J.R.R Tolkien's imagination and creativity in creating the 'middle earth' is beyond praise. No, the Harry Potter series is not better because J. K. Rowling followed  J.R.R Tolkien in many ways. The best possible example is the similarity between Rowling's Dobby and Tolkien's Gollum. 

The point is that the Mahabharata has lost its appeal among contemporary youth - the reasons are primarily: (1) westernization: most people prefer western culture to eastern - this trend is seen in fashion, history, mythology, culture, and everything else; and (2) the dragging serials based on mythology which were and are aired in India get no sympathy from youth. I think Mahabharata would be much more popular if it is shot in James Cameron's Avatar-like setting.  No, not as powerful as the Game of Thrones, for the Game of Thrones takes advantage of two of the three whims of mankind - sex and violence. The third one, for a consolation, is comedy.

I stop here by requesting the mankind - to make merry, but live and let live. And picking the Mahabharata was completely random. 

Without a mobile phone - two weeks and counting

My laziness in buying a new mobile phone (after my old one fell from my hand, and then ceased to switch on) taught me a lesson - that I should never set out for places without a phone in hand.
At first, the idea of not having a phone when I traveled to Philadelphia from Buffalo and back seemed adventurous to me. I felt like I was going back to one of those days we see being cherished for on Facebook walls (I feel not many actually cherish those days anymore) - those days when there were no mobile phones to take away our time. I felt like I was facing the world unarmed - the mobile phone is a weapon of the common man - the weapon which he uses to conquer a world of his own - where he gets to see, listen, speak, and touch - a unique taste of these sensory feelings. Without the phone, I felt weak and depleted; yet I tried to be strong.
As I was used to having a battery-drained mobile phone, I didn't miss anything much during the flight to Philly except for some selfies that could have been taken at the airport. The difficulties started when at Philly airport, for every single word of communication with my cousin who would pick me up from the airport, I had to open my laptop, check for free wifi at the airport, and headaches of that sort. None of these difficulties were unexpected - I deserved all that.
Another interesting part was that in Philadelphia city, for free wifi I crashed into the nearest Starbucks coffee. This happened 3-4 times during my 5-day stint in Philly, and each time I ordered a Frappuccino, which I would term as luxury-turned-necessity. Philly happened last week and since then I have not been using a mobile. I would this month pay a mobile bill for mobile services I never used, and I spend now a good amount on hangout calls to India. It might seem weird to account each penny saved or lost, however, I felt that all the extra money that I spent due to not having a phone could have, if saved, been used to add a 50$ to the budget I have set aside to buy a new phone. I find this very interesting because of the monetary quantification of the disutility of not having a mobile phone.
Another upward jump in my learning curve was related to the taking-on-the-world-unarmed adventure. This whole idea was revolutionary, but it was not as pleasant as I thought because without the mobile phone, navigation became difficult and taking advice from random passers-by, I often ended up taking long walking tunnels from one subway station to the next. Those tunnels and even the stations were so vacant that I got scared at times. The fright that creeps in at such times are really chilly. I was of the idea that having a little bit of courage is good. However, as a friend of mine pointed out, people who want to attack others for various reasons would have nothing to lose, whereas we have a lot to lose. I had to agree - all my strength and courage felt suddenly out of place when my friend said that.
I admit that the adventurous in me got the better of myself, but I would never take the risk again of making important travels without a mobile phone. Nevertheless, I would recommend everyone to experience a short stint without a mobile phone. You would lose many things but after all "you win when you lose" is a philosophy to be experienced. An analogy that I can think of is taken from a random Facebook post - that "silence can sometimes be addictive". 

Why do Indian names tend to be longer than Western names?

Picture courtesy: www.pinterest.com

This is a follow-up on a discussion I had with an American friend, after he asked me the question why do Indians have longer names. I didn't have an answer ready, however, as I went on to beat around the bush and to give a vague explanation, this thought came into my mind. It makes sense to me, although I am not very confident partly because of I am not proficient in any Indian language, including my mother tongue, Malayalam. Let me try to explain for this lack of proficiency before you judge me - I have had no formal training in Malayalam, because my school never had Malayalam as a course. I know to speak very well, and to write well, and to listen very well. However, my literary skills are poor.
Getting back to the topic of interest here - I feel that the reason why Indians have longer names and Westerners have shorter names is due to differences in what I would call the "letters-to-syllables ratio". I would illustrate this in an example here. In Malayalam, my name "Vineet" has 3 main letters (forms of the English letters "v", "n", and "t", pronouced "va", "na", and "tta" respectively) and 3 syllables (pronounced "vi", "nee", and "tt" respectively). In contrast, you already know that the same name in English has 6 letters (v, i, n, e, e, and t) and 2 syllables ("vi" and "neet". note that the final "t" is not emphasized). In this example, Malayalam has a letters-to-syllables ratio of 3/3 = 1, whereas English has a letters-to-syllables ratio of 6/2 = 3. This is a form of compression ratio, as it is evident from the example. In a general sense, the English language is able to compress more letters, and hence the information content (information density) is higher for an English name when compared to that of an Indian name.
Now that you have seen the difference using an Indian name ("Vineet") as an example, I will explain the same concept using an English name as an example. The English name Shakespeare has 11 letters and 2 syllables, whereas when written in Malayalam, the same name has 6 letters (the main letters are pronounced "sha", "ka", "sa", "pa", "ya", and "ra") and 4 syllables (pronounced as "shay", "kku", "spee", and "yer"). The letters-to-syllables ratio for this example is 11/2 = 5.5 in English and 6/4 = 1.5 in Malayalam.
The key point that you would see from these two examples is that the higher is letters-to-syllables ratio (the information density), the less is the number of syllables that needs to be used; and the number of syllables is what decides the length of a name.
However, there are two other important notes to be made before concluding this article. First, it should be noted that new-generation Indian names are shorter than older names. Hence Westerners would not find many young Indians who have shorter names. Second, there are Westerners with longer names. For example Arnold Schwarzenegger!
So I believe it is not the length of the name that bothers the Westerners; instead, it is the structure of the Indian names that makes those hard for the Westerners to pronounce. In any case, what's in a name?
PS: This idea is only an opinion. Any reader who feels has different thoughts or who has suggestions, please feel free to comment. Thanks!