One Evening

"Look at what you've done! It's done for!!!! I had it all going so perfectly and now that's gone! GONE! Can't have it back now. Oh dear god!"

She sat there looking at him calmly while he burst out like that, studying him, not feeling indignant, defensive or angry in the least. For the briefest moment she tried to imagine what it was like for him and then gave up because it was out of the reach of her fathoming, of even her rather ample imaginative and cognitive powers.

While he stood there, his face a mix of equal parts of exasperation, panic, loss, anxiety, bewilderment, amazement and wonder.

Still looking over at him calmly, she said "Yes."

"What's that?" he asked her unable to at once apprehend. And then went from looking puzzled to rather relieved to sheepish and finally embarassed as he said "Sorry dear, it came to me all at once and I guess it still hasn't quite sunk in but I assure you, I fully intended to ask you properly. Will you do me the honour of marrying me?"

Not too long later.

She: "We really should get going or we'll be late."

He: "Oh yeah. What did you say we were going to see, again?"

"The Taming of the Shrew". Heh

The Tale of Genji — The Beginning

Right then, by popular demand.

For actual information on the book and its publication, go here.

There are of course other editions and versions... and given how they all seem to be translations or interpretations, they will have rather major differences between them. I picked up this one because it seemed the longest, had been around for a while, appeared to be keeping to the original better than the older translation by Waley and just somehow more appealing than the other long translation published by Penguin. Its hardback edition versus the paperback by Penguin also tilted decision in its favour.

I did read the introduction (I know, how many people do that really?! But this is what working in publishing does to you. You really do get hooked to the smallest thing about books) — I shall be referring to the introduction in between because it gives an overlay of the book and I feel it would be better to refer to it in relevant places than finish it off at once. Oh btw, the introduction is a very well-written one. Next they have Note on Topography, Note on the Text, Select Bibliography followed by the Chronology.

I loved how they've done the layout for the Chronology. They've spread it across two pages and alongside the date, they have a section for Author's Life, then a Literary Context and finally a Historical Events section. They've used small caps for the headings and it is very appealing to the eye. The one thing that puzzles me is, this is the second instance I have seen of the beginning of things being measured against the spread of Islam. As in, they take the spread of Islam as the starting point of anything... can anyone throw any light on this? Why is it that important? Wasn't Hinduism in existence long before that?

In the 50 pages that I have finished, I have covered two chapters (I'm taking this slowly because this is a book that demands to be read at ease, at leisure. It's literature, to be savoured. Not a thriller to be finished soon as you can so you know the end).

The basic premise is that this is a book about the life of Genji, who is a prince by birth but leads the life of a commoner. The first chapter describes how his father, the emperor is so deeply in love with one of the women at his court, someone not of a very high rank, that he comes dangerously close to throwing off his imperial status and duties for her sake. The lady meanwhile suffers much at the hands of the other courtiers for being so favoured. In all fairness, she isn't a woman who uses her wiles to attract the attention of the emperor but someone very virtuous and beautiful and deserving of such devotion — sadly only not in a position that would silence her adversaries. She has a son by the emperor but slowly falls victim to an illness that makes it very difficult for her to perform her duties at court and removes to her mother's house, away from the court. After a while she succumbs to her illness and the emperor is left heart broken and grieving.

The boy meantime, is being raised by his grandmother and when the emperor recovers somewhat from his loss, he begs with the lady to send his son to court so that he may give the child the advantages an emperor is capable of and because having the son near him alleviates his pain in some measure. And thus our hero comes to live at the court. Being the son of a woman thus despised, one would expect him to be shunned by one and all. But being possessed of a countenance so pleasing and charming, he is much adored by everyone present. The empress, mother to the heir apparent, too softens somewhat on encountering this beautiful child, setting aside her worries about the child usurping her son's position as heir apparent.

Meanwhile, the emperor summons to court the relation of another woman at court who is said to very closely resemble the love he lost. Genji takes to her immediately — one cannot say if this is due to her countenance or because she reminds him of his dead mother. Yearning to be near her always, Genji has to eventually learn that there cannot exist free interaction between them as he grows up and she is obliged to use the screen used for conducting meetings between members of opposite sexes.

As he grows older, Genji's initiation ceremony is performed by the emperor with much splendour, just as if it were the heir apparents. And yet, realising that Genji cannot be promised the life of someone born nobly, the emperor decides to make him a commoner and appoint him at the court, and hus gives him the name 'Genji'.

Genji's somewhat high standing prompts his marital alliance with the daughter of the Minster of the Right. However, as his bride is older than him and he does not have an evident connection to her, this leads to him spending much time at court and, if the rumours are to be believed, having as many affairs as he can be bothered to.

The proof of his infidelity is presented when Genji goes to stay at the house of a court official later and seduced the young step-mother of the official while there. And, the next night, when she refuses his advances, her younger brother.

There is a dialogue between Genji, his brother-in-law and two lesser court appointees in the chapter detaling the kinds of women there are, the perfect woman, and why the said women do not meet the requirement for being the perfect women. A dialogue that would get the goat of feminists all over for being a rather condescending and shallow appraisal of women in those times.

The thing that I found somewhat odd about the period spoken about here is that everyone seemed to be having affairs with everyone else rather openly. Or rather, supposedly secretly. The women seem to be decorative pieces, even when serving at the court and having duties. Also, every character seems rather young. Age referred to in the work is the number of years that the person has seen rather than the actual period of twelve months that is counted as a year. So a child that is said to be of three years is perhaps actually of the age of 18 months or two years.

In the rather short space of two chapters, we see the transformation in the hero that the introduction forewarns us about. Genji goes from being the perfect young protagonist possessing all the virtues imaginable, to a questioning young adult in whose character the cracks are beginning to appear.

What do YOU think of it, thus far?

At the speed of thought

Bliss is the first lick of chocolate-topped cappucino froth in the morning.

Can three years really be defined as a 'long time' to have been in a relationship? It seems reasonably long but not something that should make people go 'Wow how did you stick that long?!'. Isn't that more five-years or seven-years and more sort of thing? I dislike the committment-phobic, non-stick trend that is rampant these days. Whatever happened to longevity and forever-after? Actually, fuhggedit. I needn't care about what other people do.

Committment-phobes. Or 'rubber-bands' as some of them are want to be. I thought it's easy to spot them since they do follow a pattern. But drawing the line between hanging on because there is hope and they will change and cutting-loose because it's not going to change... man, that's a bloody tight-rope walk. Last word? Shouldn't keep someone hanging.

Just in case you're thinking this relates to me, it doesn't. It's stuff the papers have been full of lately.

Friends who are getting hitched? Get done with it already!

'He's not a monster'. Really?! $*&*&$$()()*&^%%$$"£%$£%$£$£$£!!!!!

Torn between ridiculing and treating it with contempt.

Japani

I love Japan.

Old and ancient Japan that is. Or some part of it anyway. Some of its quaint customs and rituals. And I'd love nothing better than to go off gallivanting there given half a chance. No no, I have no intention of going there and singing 'Sayonara Sayonara' while dressed in a Kimono and looking very touristy. I'd probably land there with Dad though, given he's just as mad about the place as I am (Really Dad, what next? First it was the Carpenters and now this. What next I ask you?)

But given I'm not rich enough to actually do that, I do the next best thing I can. Lose myself in descriptions of Japan and its people whenever I can. Yes 'Memoirs of a Geisha' was super, I loved it but it still wasn't enough... something was missing. I'll prolly look up 'Oshin' again.

But right now, I am reading 'The Tale of Genji' — and intend to finish all 1184 pages of it. It's only a translation, wish I could read it in Japanese ... translation doesn't quite cut it you know. It's supposed to be the first ever novel written... should make interesting reading.

What I am getting at however is, should I do short updates/reviews of the book as I finish parts of it? Here? I don't do book reviews here as such. Should I do it with this one? Yes? No?

Tell me.

Hey, Doll!

Every year, in the run up to the day that declares me older, I wonder if I shall finally be given a prettily dressed Barbie as a present. Hasn't happened so far, but I live in hope. And have done so for the last 15 years at least.

Which is not to say I have never had a Barbie. I was given two of them, 1980s versions (Men out there, just in case you didn't know, Barbie is a brand, a legend, that is just like those cars, bikes, what have you that you covet and keep a strict eye on year after year). Long after I had outgrown the stage of playing with dolls, I'd still spend the odd Sunday afternoon lovingly washing their various outfits and going over my collection, taking a break from reading copiously. One afternoon I nearly washed out the strawberry print on this very pretty summer gown and spent the next hour feeling very sad.

As she turns 50 this year, being celebrated with a £ 20 m six-storey departmental-store of pink and crystal fabulousness, questions that go deeper than Barbie's smooth plastic skin are being asked.

One could almost write it off as new age falderal — the aggressive, vehement often acerbic tirade of this doll being the most anti-feminist icon to have ever been seen on the planet, how it is encouraging millions of little girls and women alike to aspire for an impossible figure, doing themselves much harm in the process and how we'd all benefit if it were completely obliterated.

My first reaction to this was 'Balderash!'. Except of course, one can no longer ignore such talk. Simply everything becomes subject to debate as being feminist or anti-feminist, progressive or regressive. Which is why one can almost write such talk off, almost. But not quite.

So before I jump into the discussion, let me first proclaim: It's just a DOLL. A plaything. Why is there a need to turn it into an object of such serious attitude? Sure it's very girlish, in the mien of ideas of the feminine in a patriarchal society: pink, curvaceous, charming, pretty ... but it's still a harmless object that is the source of much fun, joy and fond memories.

Having said that, I wouldn't dream of thinking Barbie as being anti-feminist or regressive or harmful to the female populace. One of the arguments for her was that since she has been just about every sort of woman one can imagine, an astronaut, doctor, veternarian, olympic participant, etc., "Barbie lets the imagination run free ... Barbie is also a brilliant role model." There are those who will say '"Career", of course, is another name for "outfit",' — Both very valid points. Although, I don't think there are many women out there (or even little girls) who decided they wanted to be in such and such profession because they saw Barbie like that. Besides, it would be really confusing considering how many careers she has changed and how fast. So, sure, she's more of a clothes prop. What's so wrong with that then? Being feminist hasn't stopped women from buying outrageously expensive, beautiful clothes, has it? Or wanting to look good?

Logically, the two have no connection. Unless you get into that argument about how all the models are stick thin and they're inspiring a generation of eating-disorder ridden women who are perpetually unaccepting of their natural selves. That still might hold some water. But to declare that a plastic plaything gives rise to the same effect is a bit much. Other real women inspiring inferiority complexes, insecurities and doubts, I can fathom. But an inanimate object? If you're letting something like that be the source of your unhappiness, or thinking it could cause such issues, then maybe you need to have your head examined. That attitude is akin to thinking donning a cape will make you a super-hero. Really. There is something inherently wrong in thinking a real-life individual equal to a fictitious character, or comparing the two. Which is what Barbie is, in the end — fictitious. And if you're going to put forth the argument of why she can't be sown in more realistic light, then let me point you towards those creations known as Russian Dolls. They're still too pretty, wait. A rag-doll then.

Barbie is certainly a feminist, however. Simple because she is every woman. Put aside her role as pilot, rockstar, cyclist, etc., aside. She is every woman out there. She has been an Indian woman in her various avtars, an Irish princess, a Maori princess ... representing 45 nationalities in total. She has successfully united women over the world in her unique way, by just being female. And isn't that feminism in its basic form?

Also, consider the fact that Barbie is not limited to the presence of a man. There is Ken, sure. But Ken is more of 'Oh yeah, Barbie's Ken' figure than being the figure of authority who defines her existence. The expression is 'Barbie and Ken', not, not 'Ken and Barbie'. Anti-feminist? Really?

And as Moira Redmond wrote, "Here are some things I defy you to imagine Barbie doing: housework; sucking up to men; cowering; being bullied or intimidated; being sexually harassed." Okay other than the housework bit, (which I don't think as being anti-feminist, it's just the victim of gender stereotyping, IMHO), if you can actually visualise the rest, something is wrong with you.

Lastly, she was created by a woman. In some measure, that makes her more believable than a similar creation dreamed up by a man wh has only the faintest idea of such a thing. And just how plausible is it that Ruth Handler sat there thinking 'Hmmm... let's see... what can I do to outrage millions of women in the decades to come? I know! Let's make this beautiful doll they will hate for being beautiful!'. Less pretty dolls would have been very popular, pity a majority of the world seems to think Barbie is better. 'sides, I'm not sure any mother out there who loved her daughter would want to put out a doll she named after her little girl if it wasn't the prettiest around. That's what it began as, really.

She's pretty. She's popular. She's rich. And the only point of her, is to have her.