ഗൾഫിന്റെ കഥ ..

“കഴിഞ്ഞ എത്രയോ വർഷമായി ഗൾഫിലെ എഴുത്തുകാരൻ നാട്ടിൽനിന്നും കേൾക്കുന്ന പഴിയും ശകാരവുമാണ്‌ നിങ്ങളുടെ ഗൃഹാതുരത്വം നിറഞ്ഞ കഥകൾ വായിച്ച്‌ ഞങ്ങൾക്കു ഛർദ്ദിക്കാൻ വരുന്നുവെന്നത്‌. ഗൾഫിലെത്തുന്ന ഓരോ സാഹിത്യകാരനും നിരന്തരം ഇവിടുത്തെ എഴുത്തുകാരോട്‌ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നത്‌ നിങ്ങളുടെ ഇടയിൽനിന്ന് ഒരു കഥ നിങ്ങൾ ലോകത്തിനു പറഞ്ഞുകൊടുക്കൂ എന്നാണ്‌ “

-       ബെന്യാമിൻ

Step Across this Line

Title: Step Across this Line
Author: Salman Rushdie
Publ: Random House

This is a collection of essays, columns and speech transcripts by Rushdie published or occurred at various points of time during 1992-2002. This is an exciting mix of widely varying topics, from fairy tales to Islamic extremism, and from Soccer games to International politics.

Even to an avid reader who has read all of the novels of Rushdie will get a new insight about him from this non-fiction collection. In fact, if someone has thought he/she has understood enough of Rushdie from his fictional works, he/she is utterly mistaken. His non-fictional writings show us the real person behind all those novels. While the themes and topics of all his novels, however serious they might be, finally acquire a comical form by the time they tumble down as words from his fingertips on the keyboard, travelling all the way from the vastness of the intellectual space inside his head,  present before our eyes a nihilistic and frivolous-looking baldy as their author, his works of non-fiction show us how deeply he feels for and is affected by the things going on around him and how thoughtful he is about matters that have serious implications for humanity. If you have not read Rushdie’s essays and columns, your knowledge about the author is imperfect and incomplete. I have also read one of his other similar collection Imaginary Homelands which was when I realized how different Rushdie is from what I have understood about him through his novels. This book is to be read by all those who have shouted out slogans to get him killed over his book The Satanic Verses, most of them without even reading the book. For it will give them a different picture of the human being that he is, who is disturbed  even by the suffering of Muslims themselves and the atrocities and denial of rights they face every day in different parts of the world as much as similar groups belonging to other communities.

The book starts with a piece on The Wizard of Oz, perhaps his first ever love among tales that has never lost its luster for him and has been an interesting topic that pops up now and then in his intellect even to the present day. He makes an in-depth analysis of this story that has been a source of inspiration and an object of love since the childhood of this teller of colourful tales.

He talks at length about his love for India, his first home, in a way that clearly shows how much it all means to him, with all its filth and starving bellies as well as its majesty and glory, sincerely lamenting one while taking pride in the other. He voices out his concern for the people of India and the hardships they face in their own land as well as in the international scenario. Perhaps there is no Indian author contemporary to Rushdie who talks so much for the cause of India, the country that was the first to ban his book. This is well conspicuous in Imaginary Homelands too. He also talks in this book about Babur, Baburnama, the Mughals and Indian history, not forgetting to put emphasis on Babri Masjid and the Ayodhya issue. 

He gives a fairly good account of his life in exile, living under cover during the fatwa issued on his head by late Ayatollah Khomeini following the publication of The Satanic Verses, and all the difficulties he has been facing in moving around since then. His piece on how he travelled to India to his old house, too nostalgic to him, after the fatwa had faded off more or less with the passage of a few years, with his teenage son, is a really touching one. He describes how he still travelled around various places in India in disguise, always trying to hide his face under the hat and wearing sunglasses etc. and how he was still spotted by the media persons. To him, it was a very special homecoming, more so with a father’s emotional attempt at introducing the land and places and its cultures that mean his life itself to his son Zafar. He is driven by memory to the scene of an earlier trip to the same land years before that he made with his western wife with the small sum he had received as advance for his first novel while he was hardly known and during which he stayed in cheap hotels and travelled by buses to make the most of the money in hand. 

The essays also show how an avid reader and an incurable movie buff he is. In fact, the entire book is littered with mentions of great titles and authors, movies and plays. His erudite discussions on the idea of the novel and generally about writing and writers are valuable to anyone who loves literature. We also discover that he is a fan of soccer and has sweet memories of the game. He reminisces the first time he watched a game when his father took him to a tournament between two of the greatest soccer clubs. Discussion on international politics is one of his interesting topics too. I have read elsewhere that he could never think about writing sans politics. 

The book also contains writings about topics which are about very personal matters of his, apparently unimportant or even silly to the reader, like the one titled On Being Photographed, which looks into the moments inside moments and stories inside stories. It is about the intricacies involved in his photo sessions and their photographers and how he feels about them all. 

The final pages try to find explanation and definitions for topics of borders and what it really means to cross them, alienage, exilehood, freedom and discovering oneself, all raising a load of burning, tumultuous questions in the minds of the readers as it has been for the author, a person in exile himself, all his life. He draws wonderful anecdotes from the Sufic works of Fariduddin Attar and Doris Lessing in the process. The book owes to this piece for the title.

I truly believe a book as this definitely adds value to my bookshelf.

ആതിഥ്യമര്യാദ..

"ഞാൻ ആദ്യമായിട്ടാണ്‌ ഗൾഫിൽ വരുന്നതെന്ന് നിങ്ങൾക്കറിയാതെയാണോ? നീ ആഹാരം കഴിച്ചതാണോ? നിനക്ക്‌ ദാഹിക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ? നിനക്ക്‌ വിശക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ? എന്തെങ്കിലും ഒരുവാക്ക്‌ നിങ്ങളെന്നോട്‌ ചോദിക്കേണ്ടിയിരുന്നതല്ലേ? എനിക്കെന്റെ താമസസ്ഥലം കാണിച്ചുതരികയും എന്നെ എന്റെ സഹപ്രവർത്തകർക്കു പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തിത്തരികയും ചെയ്യേണ്ടിയിരുന്നതല്ലേ? ഇതാണോ ഞാൻ പണ്ടേ കേട്ടറിഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ള അറബികളുടെ ആതിഥ്യമര്യാദ?"

- (ആടുജീവിതം)

Life of Pi

Title: Life of Pi
Author: Yann Martel

I guess it's time that we redefined what is widely known as 'indian Writing in English'. Wikipedia states that Indian Writing in English

"refers to the body of work by writers in India who write in the English language and whose native or co-native language could be one of the numerous languages of India. It is also associated with the works of members of the Indian diaspora, such as V.S. Naipaul, Kiran Desai, Jhumpa Lahiri and Salman Rushdie, who are of Indian descent."

And we know that Indian writing in English, with its hybridism of style and language, is naturally pregnant with rich Indianness (what else?). And this book, Life of Pi, gives you a feeling that you are reading someone like Aravind Adiga, Salman Rushdie or Arundhati Roy. In fact, if the book is stripped of its title and author's name and given to any Indian reader, he/she would never have the tiniest inkling that it's written by a non- Indian writer. But that's the truth anyway. Yann Martel is not an Indian. He was not born an Indian. Neither is he a person of Indian descent. But he has, by and large, succeeded in thinking and talking like an Indian through a novel that has such colourful and vivid expressions of Indianness. To borrow Salman Rushdie's expression, he has 'gotten under the skin' of an Indian and viewed Indian life, culture and society through those Indian eyes. Nevertheless, a keen Indian can easily find out instances that show that that getting-under-the-skin has not been entirely perfect, but then, they are minute, and after all, how Indian can a non-Indian get, for that matter?

Talking about Yann Martel and Life of Pi, one cannot help reflecting momentarily on the two categories of writers as far as the material for writing is concerned. The first one is where the author is so full of experiences and knowledge accummulated over the years of one or more particular spheres of life, the world, human behaviour and interaction and so on that he only needs the literary acumen and perhaps a little digging here and there to brush up his knowledge of things or to collect some minor amount of details to convert his ideas and concepts into quality words that eventually put on paper gives shape to a piece in the beautiful form of art called the novel.

Then there is this second category of writers who, all of a sudden, get a revelation about a certain story idea revolving around a certain concept, but don't have enough knowledge or experience that help them go about it. But nevertheless, they are on fire with the tiny spark that has descended upon them which is capable of taking them to any length to convert the idea into a story worth reading. Extensive research and deep digging is done by them, not to mention long distance travels to collect information. Martel is of this second kind of writer, at least as far as Life of Pi is concerned.

He was struck with the idea of an earlier story written by a different author about a castaway who survives in the sea on a boat with a wild beast. And soon he found himself spending years travelling, researching and collecting information for his story. Quoting Wikipedia again,

"Martel spent 13 months in India visiting masjids, churches, temples and zoos, and spent two years reading religious texts and castaway stories." (Citation: How I Wrote Life of Pi ).

As is obvious from the above statement, it's the knowledge of animals - animal psychology to be precise - and religions that he needed for the book. Hence the two major themes of the book are religion and behavioural psychology of animals. And I would like to assert that while the latter is the core of the book the former has nothing whatsoever, so to say, to do with the book.

As one of the characters in the story, Francis Adirubaswamy, says, this story was supposed to make you believe in God. That's the only reason for religion - religions, rather - to find a place in this book. But if it is so, then I guess the author has been an utter failure in the respect. I don't think anyone who is not a believer in God already would believe in God just because he/she has read this book. At least I didn't find the thing so convincing as to make me believe in God. But at the same time, it could well be the statement of that character alone and not of the author. However there is no way to clarify it. Perhaps Adirubaswamy preferred attributing the survival of the teenager protagonist Pi, the son of a zoo owner in Pondicherry, in the middle of the ocean to his staunch belief in God and the religions Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, all three of which he practised devoutly. Pi believed that all the three religions led to the same God. However, stripping the book entirely of the religion part would do no harm at all to the story irrespective of whether Pi was a believer or not. It wouldn't make any difference at all to the story, because it is the other prominent theme, namely, animal psychology which is the core idea that drives the story. And if the book is stripped of the animal behaviour part, the book ceases to exist. However, I must admit the religion part made for a really enjoyable read, especially for me to whom it has always been an interesting subject.

Coming to the theory of animal behaviour, no doubt, it has been a superb idea to base a story on the subject. Pi, with his father Santhosh Patel who ran a zoo gets a good opportunity to observe and learn a great deal about the behaviour of a wide variety of animals and birds. This knowledge greatly helped him deal with the wild beasts he was trapped with in the middle of the ocean when the ship carrying the zoo animals sank and the people in it, including his family members, drowned. The animals were supposed to be shipped to the U.S. as they had sold the zoo and wanted to dispose of them, and Pi and his family were moving to Canada leaving India for good. The ship sank in the Indian Ocean on its way, and Pi finds himself alone in a lifeboat in the water with a few of the animals, namely a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an orangutan and a zebra. And sooner or later, the small ecosystem was bound to follow its natural life cycle. One was supposed to eat the other. The stronger was supposed to consume the weaker. (Telling anything more about the plot would be a huge spoiler. I respect the feelings of someone who is yet to read the book.)

The structure of the entire book is wonderful in its little, silent way. It can be thought to be divided into two parts. The first part creates a good backdrop for the story. And the second part is the story itself. The first part again deals with roughly three aspects - Pi's family, his acquaintance with animal behavioural patterns and his experiences with various religions. These aspects are narrated marvellously and they form a solid ground-work for the smooth flow of the rest of the story. The book is an enjoyable read, I would say. And of course, one that has to be read twice if anyone has to savour the real essence.

Middlesex

Title: Middlesex
Author: Jeffrey Eugenides

It's not a boring book. I must say it's interseting. But nevertheless not fully satisfying. That is because somewhere down the line I started comparing him with Salman Rushdie. It's very clear that he follows a style of writing similar to that of Rushdie. Further research confirmed that he was indeed very interested in Rushdie and his style. I happened to read a transcript of a conversation between him and Rushdie. Also about his visit to India and how he became fascinated with Rushdie's Midnight's Children etc. This book has almost all the elements of a Rushdian novel. And his fancy for the orient, the Islamic culture, India etc. like Rushdie is clearly reflected in this work. I'm sure he is a person with an Indian soul trapped in an English body. With all these features, how could someone not compare him with Rushdie? And the result is that, in spite of all these ingredients, he doesn't do it as good as Rushdie.

hands..

"The first time I went to an Indian restaurant in Canada I used my fingers. The waiter looked at me
critically and said, "Fresh off the boat, are you?" I blanched. My fingers, which a second before had
been taste buds savouring the food a little ahead of my mouth, became dirty under his gaze. They
froze like criminals caught in the act. I didn't dare lick them. I wiped them guiltily on my napkin.
He had no idea how deeply those words wounded me. They were like nails being driven into my
flesh. I picked up the knife and fork. I had hardly ever used such instruments. My hands trembled.
My sambar lost its taste."

- (Life of Pi)

War and Peace

Title: War and Peace
Author: Leo Tolstoy
Publ: Wordsworth Editions ltd. (1993)
ISBN: 1 85326 062 2

War and Peace. Not my kind of book. It is an epic size historical novel. It is about Napolean's invasion of Russia. Perhaps I have a basic dislike towards historic novels. As it is a novel, there are numerous fictional characters and the story of their relationships and family affairs. And since it is an account of an episode from history as well, there are real historic characters such as Napolean and Tsar and historic events and dates and stuff. Alas, I missed the novel for the history, and the history for the novel. Perhaps that's why I dislike historical fiction. Apart from the history and fiction, there is scattered here and there real non-fictional philosophy of Tolstoy on war, history, humanity and the world. I guess this is the part I liked more than the history and fiction. But this too needs a bit of trimming as it is extensively repetitive and lengthy in places and even dull at times.

As it is a novel, the narrative of war and related events from history looked kind of out of place. And since it is a report on history, the fictional part didn't look like a fully blown novel.

However, the author's sharp insight into human nature and characteristics and their clear depiction are commendable. The same was the feeling I had when I read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. That story seemed not that great to me, but her power of observation deep into human hearts and minds was greatly reflected in the book. That said, I now know that I love Charles Dickens's style far more than the plain straightforward style of realistic narration of Tolstoy and Austen.

Atlas Shrugged

Title: Atlas Shrugged

Author: Ayn Rand

I have read that Ayn Rand has written four books. And that Atlas Shrugged is her last book. She is considered to be the proponent of the philosophical theory called Objectivism. And it is said that it is in this last book of hers that she has presented her theory most extensively which has resulted in a culmination of all that she tried to tell the reader through her previous books. I have also read that it is through this book that she has been successful in concretely establishing her philosophical theory unlike her other books, and came to be well reputed to be a philosopher more than a writer. She has lived around a quarter of a century after this book was published, but didn't write another book. I guess she would have written more books had she not been known as a philosopher with the release of this work. Whatever, if she is a philosopher, then I would like to believe that she is a very immature one.

One might think that this book is about glorifying capitalism, greed, blind profit-making, selfishness or egotism, and is anti-communist, anti-socialist etc. But as mentioned above it is a new theory called Objectivism which is a foolish combination of all the above. The protagonist of this story, Dagny Taggart is an individual with great intellectual brilliance and self confidence coupled with enormous capability to undertake industrial ventures and make them a success. In her view, the fruit of one's hard work is to be enjoyed by one alone. It need not be shared with anyone. Not even with the government in the form of payment of taxes. It looks so stupid when we live in a democracy. Because in a democracy, the government is not an external agent; it is formed by people and its funds come from what people contribute to it. Apparently Rand is trying to say that there is no need to help others in any way with one's earnings and there is no need of dependance of anyone on anyone else. And the underprivileged are looked upon with hatred. Even indifference could be justified in the case, but not hatred and contempt. Rand seems to say that if someone has not got enough, it is because he/she has not worked hard enough. If this is true, the contempt could be justified, but I guess it is not always true. And how is it justified that a big manager in the steel industry cannot give some money to his old mother to buy the grocery just because she doesn't earn anything? Does the author mean to say that she also has to work hard and become some manager in some industry so that she can buy her grocery? It is very clear that the author has an axe to grind and is very prejudiced. It seems that she doesn't like some characters and tries to portray them negative solely because of it. I strongly have  a feeling that there must have existed some people similar to them among her own family members or close relatives and she is trying to vent the hatred for them through the portrayal of those characters. A great example is Jim, the brother of the protagonist Dagny Taggart. To the reader, he must look like a person with a very good heart, because he has a lot of good characteristics that people generally feel proud of. Despite being a manager of a great organization, he is humble to all and free from any tendency to discriminate people on stupid grounds. And Rand wants to portray him as negative. But she employs very weak and silly reasons to prove him bad. And I guess she has utterly failed in the endeavour. He never looked negative to me. And I loved Dr. Pritchett very much too whom she has considered negative for his words that the aim of philosophy is not to explain the meaning of life but to prove that it hasn't any. But I have loved him for these words. His dialogues are very stimulating to me.

Even though Rand seems to oppose dependance of one person on another without paying for it, Dagny Taggart falls in love with people now and then at the drop of a hat. And when it happens she is so childish and stupid and becomes obsessed and overdependant on the male for satisfying her desire. In the moments of love there is no thought of business or Objectivism or profit-making or the industry. The depiction of the love scenes looks too bollywoodish. It all looks so silly and not suitable for the theme of the plot. It all looks so out of place. Which again brings to me the feeling that she is stupidly trying to live her unfulfilled life through the book. Perhaps she has never been satisfied enough sexually in her own life the way she wanted. In the story, Dagny has three love affairs which is too much for a book like this.

In general the book contains characters which can be easily grouped into two. Good characters and bad characters. But all in the view of the author. All characters that the author supports are strong in character and the ones opposed are weak. But there is no doubt that the author has been greatly successful in creating figures with great strength in character. It could be considered an ultimate model for writers when creating protagonists with great will power, confidence and mental strength. Among the good characters (according to the author), I have loved Ragnar Danneskjold and John Galt for the uniqueness in their individuality. And among the bad ones (again according to the author), I have greatly loved Dr. Pritchett the philosopher. The book has given me the feeling that Ayn Rand is a writer of great ability with a wide range. I saw three books in this one book. The first one is constituted by all those parts which are so dry, dull, trying and tiring and devoid of much happenings and discussions, which pervades the major bulk of this bulky book of more than one thousand pages of fine print, nevertheless driving the plot in some way. A great bulk from the beginning of the book is nothing but this. Which means an average reader tends to abandon the book without going much far, thinking the entire book is the same dull story. In fact, I had tried reading the book two years ago hearing it was a philosophical book, but abandoned reading after completing a great part and sensing no philosophy at all. But in this second reading, I have discovered that on the sixth chapter, all of a sudden, it becomes very lively. It's the wonderful portrayal of a party scene where many of the great personalities from various realms of society like arts, science, philosophy and industry meet each other and exchange ideas and ignite stimulating discussions. It is where Dr. Pritchett first appears. While reading all those pages, I was really wondering if it is the same author that has written them. But such instances were like occasional oases in the vast dry desert, at least in the first three-fourths of the book. Other two greatly stimulating instances were the portrayal of Dagny embarking upon her new railroad and train service and the discovery of the special motor that has been abandoned and lay rusted in the wilderness. But the last one fourth of the book is the least boring and displays a constancy of style. and it is in this last part that the things in the first three fourths start making sense. In short, the book is interesting towards the end with a lot of happenings and peculiar twists and turns. Apart from these two styles of dull narration and stimulating happenings in the plot, there is this third style, the childish and immature one when it comes to romance and love, which has been already mentioned above. It makes one feel as if the book has been written by three different authors. I have got this feeling while reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are characters in the book. But since the book is mainly about Huck, Tom appears in very few portions. But wherever Tom appears, things get so energetic and exhilarating. Otherwise I didn't find the book very interesting. It is as if even though the same author has created both characters, Tom defies the author himself and goes his lively way to add colours to the pages, and gets out of the control of the author.

And the characters I hated most are Dagny and Rearden.

Homo Faber

Title: Homo Faber
Author: Max Frisch

Publ: Harvest
ISBN: 0-15-642135-6


Walter Faber has a very simple, rational and individualistic view of life. I am so happy to have read this book. The time spent on reading it has been enjoyable. There  are only a few books with that quality. There are books that are great and yet boring. And there are books which are not enjoyable while reading, but gives a good  feeling in retrospect. This book is not one of them. Thanks to Maja, who calls me Faber, as she acknowledges my resemblance to him in character and idiosyncrasies, I  have discovered a great book and a great author. If it had not been for her, perhaps I would never have known Max Frisch or Homo Faber.

The simple and straightforward style of narration is so captivating. The entire story is a report from Faber about things that happened in the past. Which means that  at any point, the protagonist, who is the narrator too, knows beforehand what he is about to say. The central theme is that Faber, while on a voyage, happens to have a brief affair  with a girl much younger to him, who later turns out to be his own daughter from the relationship with his old girlfriend who he left years ago while she was pregnant, on the  understanding that she would abort it. No, this is not a spoiler. Because the narrator himself reveals it at a very early stage! Which means there is no room for suspense in  the plot. And that's the greatness of this book. Any author would have employed to full capacity the element of suspense to thrill the reader with an engaging read. He could  well have narrated the entire story with his having the affair with the girl and all the events taking place and finally described how he discovers at the last moment that  she was his daughter. The author has shockingly abandoned that possibility. Instead at the very beginning of the encounters with the girl, Faber says how could he have  known that this girl was his daughter. He has killed all the possibilities of the plot. And yet he has managed to create a marvel of story-telling. This is his greatness. It reminds of M. T. Vasudevan Nair's comment about  Basheer that 'great words of Malayalam have ran after him crying and imploring him to take them', but he abandoned them mercilessly and created magic with the simplest of words of the 
language, not pretending to be an intellectual, writing very thin books.

Recently one of my Facebook friends had shared a quotation explaining the criterion to tell a good book from a bad one: 'Strip the book of its story/plot if any. And still if there is anything remaining, it is a good book.' That's exactly true about this book. I remember reading about Khaled Hosseini that he taught creative writing. He must have taught great techniques and tricks to students on how to create an 'unputdownable' book. I am sure he has employed the same in his own books which have been international best sellers. But that's all about producing a book. Homo Faber is about creating awesomeness from thin air..

മത്തങ്ങ..

“സ്വർണ്ണവർണ്ണമാം മത്തങ്ങേ നീപ്പോയ്
കണ്ണു നീലിച്ച പെണ്ണിന്റെ കത്തിയാൽ
കറുകറെ നുറുങ്ങി പയറോടു ചേരൂ
നല്ല നാവുകൾക്കെരിശ്ശേരിയാകൂ”

- എൻ. ജി. ഉണ്ണികൃഷ്ണൻ
(മണ്ണാങ്കട്ട)

പാഠം..

“കുരുവി ഗോപി ബോർഡിലേക്കു നോക്കി. ഗുരു എല്ലാം കഴിഞ്ഞപ്പോൾ എഴുതിയതാണ്‌: പഠിപ്പിക്കേണ്ടത് കഴിഞ്ഞു; ഇനി പഠിക്കേണ്ടതേ ബാക്കിയുള്ളൂ.

അതിന്റെ അർത്ഥമൊന്നും അവനു മനസ്സിലായില്ല. അതും പതിവുപോലെ നോട്ടുബുക്കിൽ കുറിച്ചെടുത്ത് അവൻ ആശ്വസിച്ചു.”

- (കുരുവി ഗോപി)

Arrangements..

“Arrangements in case of death: all written evidence such as reports, letters, loose-leaf notebooks, are to be destroyed, none of it is true. To be alive: to be in the light. Driving donkeys around somewhere (like that old man in Corinth)—that’s all our jobs amount to! The main thing is to stand up to the light, to joy (like our child) in the knowledge that I shall be extinguished in the light over gorse, asphalt, and sea, to stand up to time, or rather to eternity in the instant. To be eternal means to have existed.”

- (Homo Faber)

കുരുവിഗോപി

പുസ്തകം: കുരുവി ഗോപി
ഗ്രന്ഥകാരൻ: എ. വിജയൻ
പ്രസാ: സാഹിത്യപ്രവർത്തക സഹകരണസംഘം

കുരുവി ഗോപി. ഞാൻ വായിച്ച ആദ്യത്തെ പുസ്തകം. ഇപ്പോൾ വർഷങ്ങൾക്കുശേഷം രണ്ടാമതും വായിക്കാൻ അവസരം ലഭിച്ചു.

പ്രദേശത്തെ കുഞ്ഞുലൈബ്രറിയിൽനിന്ന് നവാബ്‌ മാമാക്കു പുസ്തകം എടുത്തുകൊണ്ടുപോയി കൊടുക്കുന്നത്‌ എന്റെ പതിവായിരുന്നു.വായിച്ചുകഴിഞ്ഞ പുസ്തകം അദ്ദേഹം എന്നെ ഏൽപ്പിക്കും. അതുമായി ലൈബ്രറിയിൽ പോയി അതവിടെ ഏൽപ്പിച്ചാൽ ലൈബ്രേറിയൻ മറ്റൊരു പുസ്തകം തരുന്നു. എന്നിട്ട്‌ എന്നെക്കൊണ്ട്‌ ഒരു റെജിസ്റ്റെറിൽ ഒപ്പിടീക്കുന്നു. ഇതായിരുന്നു രീതി. ഇത്‌ അനുകരിച്ച്‌ ഞാനും വീട്ടിൽ കൂട്ടുകാരൊത്ത്‌ ലൈബ്രറി കളിച്ചു. പക്കലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന പൂമ്പാറ്റ, ബാലരമ, മലർവാടി എന്നിവയെല്ലാം ഒന്നിച്ചുകൂട്ടി ആവശ്യക്കാർക്ക്‌ നൽകി ഒരു നോട്ടുബുക്കിൽ ഒപ്പിടീച്ചു. അപ്പോഴാണ്‌ "ഇന്നാ, നിന്റെ ലൈബ്രറിയിലേക്ക്‌ എന്റെ വക ഒരു പുസ്തകം." എന്നും പറഞ്ഞ്‌ ഒരു പുസ്തകം നീട്ടിക്കൊണ്ട്‌ ഉപ്പ കടന്നുവന്നത്‌. പൂമ്പാറ്റയും ബാലരമയും വായിച്ചുനടന്ന എനിക്ക്‌ അങ്ങനെ ഒരു 'ശരിയായ' പുസ്തകം വായിക്കാനൊത്തു. പിന്നീടെപ്പോഴോ ആ പുസ്തകം എന്റെ പക്കൽനിന്ന് നഷ്ടമായി. കുറച്ചുവർഷങ്ങൾക്കുശേഷം അതിന്റെ ഒരു കോപ്പിക്കായി വളരെ അന്വേഷിച്ചെങ്കിലും എവിടെയും ലഭിച്ചില്ല. അവസാനം ഇപ്പോൾ ലഭിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു.

പക്ഷെ, വർഷങ്ങൾക്കുമുൻപ്‌ ആദ്യമായി വായിച്ചപ്പോൾ എനിക്ക്‌ വളരെയൊന്നും മനസ്സിലായില്ല. എന്നുവെച്ചാൽ കുരുവികളോടും പക്ഷിമൃഗാദികളോടും ചങ്ങാത്തകാരനായ കുരുവിഗോപിയുടെ കഥ ഇഷ്ടമായെങ്കിലും എഴുത്തുകാരൻ അതിലൂടെ നൽകാനുദ്ദേശിച്ച സന്ദേശമൊന്നും മനസ്സിലാക്കാനുള്ള പ്രായവും പക്വതയും അന്നില്ലായിരുന്നു. കുരുവിഗോപി 'കാകാ' എന്നുവിളിക്കുമ്പോൾ കാക്ക വരുന്നതും, 'കൂകൂ' എന്നുവിളിക്കുമ്പ്പോൾ കുരുവി വരുന്നതും, ഗുരുകുലത്തിൽ ഗുരുവിന്റെ നരച്ച താടിമീശകളിൽ പുരട്ടാൻ കറുത്ത മശി തയ്യാറാക്കുന്ന കുരുവിഗോപിയും എല്ലാം ഓർമ്മയുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. എങ്കിലും ഇന്നിപ്പോൾ വായിച്ചപ്പോഴാണ്‌ ആ പ്രായത്തിൽ വയിക്കേണ്ട പുസ്തകമേ അല്ലായിരുന്നു അത്‌ എന്ന് മനസ്സിലായത്‌. കുറഞ്ഞപക്ഷം മുതിർന്ന കുട്ടികൾക്കുള്ളതാണ്‌ അത്‌. കുട്ടികളല്ലാത്തവർക്കാണ്‌ അത്‌ പൂർണ്ണമായും ഉൾക്കൊള്ളാൻ കഴിയുക. ഹാരിപോട്ടറുടെ കഥകൾ കുട്ടികൾക്കുള്ളതാണെങ്കിലും അവ മുതിർന്നവർ അത്രതന്നെ ആസ്വദിക്കുന്നു എന്ന് പലരും എന്നോട്‌ പറഞ്ഞതോർക്കുന്നു.

പാവം അനാഥനായ കുരുവിഗോപിക്ക്‌ ഗുരുകുലവിദ്യാഭ്യാസം കഴിയുന്ന ദിവസത്തിൽ പോകാനൊരിടമില്ല. കൂട്ടുകാരൊക്കെ വീട്ടിൽ തിരിച്ചെത്താനുള്ള പ്രതീക്ഷയിൽ ആഹ്ലാദിക്കുമ്പോൾ കുരുവിഗോപിക്ക്‌ അവന്റെ ജീവിതയാത്ര ഏകനായി തുടങ്ങേണ്ടിവരുന്നു. കയ്പ്പു നിറഞ്ഞ വ്യത്യസ്ത ജീവിതാനുഭവങ്ങളിലൂടെ അവൻ പ്രയാണം തുടരുന്നു.

മുതിർന്നവർ കുട്ടികൾക്ക്‌ വായിച്ചുകൊടുക്കേണ്ട കഥ.

You..

"You, whom I have always loved and never found"
- (Atlas Shrugged)

You and me..

"

"You are going back to the outer world because I will be there."

"Yes."

"I do not want you to go."

"You have no choice about it."

"You are going for my sake."

"No, for mine."

"Will you allow me to see you there?"

"No."

"I am not to see you?"

"No."

"I am not to know where you are or what you do?"

"You're not."

"Will you be watching me, as you did before?"

"More so."

"Is your purpose to protect me?"

"No."

"What is it, then?"

"To be there on the day when you decide to join us." 

                                                                                   "

- (Atlas Shrugged)

Nature...

"We must begin by giving man land and plenty of it. No matter what the excuse, a civilization that deprives man of land is wrong. But suppose in a future civilization every man is able to own an acre of land, then he has got something to start with. He can have trees, his own trees, and rocks, his own rocks. He will be careful to choose a site where there are already full grown trees, and if there are not already full-grown trees, he will plant trees that grow fast enough for him, such as bamboos and willows. Then he will not have to keep birds in cages, for birds will come to him and he will see to it that there are frogs in the neighborhood, and preferably also some lizards and spiders. His children will then be able to study nature in Nature and not study nature in a glass case. At least his children will be able to watch how chickens hatch from their eggs and they need not be woefully ignorant about sex and reproduction as the children of "good" Boston families often are. And they will have the pleasure of watching a fight between lizards and spiders. And they will have the pleasure also of getting comfortably dirty."

- Lin Yutang, 1937

(The Importance of Living)