Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Threes and twos

It’s strange what sleeplessness can do to a person. I was caught in a challenge when I was at my sleepiest. This post forms the crux of the challenge. I’m supposed to write about three people I like most and two people I hate most. Since I have a general rule of never giving out names of people, I take the liberty of changing the challenge into the writing about three types of people I like most and two types of people I hate most. G, this change is allowed under the Rule of Challenges, Article 9A. :)

Ok, here goes the list of people I like, sorry, types of people I like(since I’m more familiar with the world of novels, I base the types on various characters in different novels. If there is a formal way of classifying people, do let me know):
1)“Vandhiya Thevan” type: I like this type of people most. For those who have read Ponniyin selvan, the great novel by Kalki, please move on to the next point. For others, dig in. Vandhiya Thevan was a character in the novel and he was street-smart, humorous, righteous and knew where his loyalty lay. Some of my friends are like this character and with them around, time just flies :) However it is becoming rarer to find such people.
2)“John Galt” type: This is the second type of people I like. John Galt was a character in the novel “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. He is the pinnacle of objectivism and gave me a true taste of work ethics. I’ve seen glimpses of that character in some people I’ve met. But living like John Galt is impossible and is not advisable for the Indian society. Now that I’m in the US of A, I get to see more glimpses of John Galtish behavior.
3)“Michael Scofield” type: This, my friends, is from “Prison Break”(to which I’m currently addicted, as AR put it :)). This is the main character in the series. He comes out as a person who can plan things, execute them under stress and pull out at the right time to give a classy finish. I’m sure everyone would’ve encountered such type of people at some point in life or atleast read about them in the novels. A world favorite example is James Bond. But my favorites are Lord Mountbatten(courtesy “Freedom at Midnight”) and the Greek Heroes.

Now, onto the type of people I hate:
1)Hypocrites: I hate these people to the core. The main reason is, they make me laugh by their ways. I just laugh in their face and have a really hard time explaining what I meant by that laugh. Believe me, that is a hard thing to do with anyone and with hypocrites, it is harder still( K, do you remember the restaurant stuff and how hard I tried(and failed!!) to explain why I laughed? God!! That was a nightmare!). There are a few more reasons to why I hate them. For all of that, look up ‘hypocrites’ in any dictionary. To all the hypocrites out there, get a life!!
2)Liars: Back to class two when we learnt “truth alone triumphs”. I’ve seen that most people don’t give out the truth when asked a direct question. Even worse, they dish out lies easily. Dude, the truth is the truth, no matter where you stand (for or against). So, no one can give a partial truth and a partial lie. Though you may be doing good by telling a white lie now, it would surely come back to hurt in the long run. And in the heart of hearts, people do know when others lie to them. Understandably, there are a few situations when you do not want to tell the truth but are asked about it. In such cases, it is always better to say that you don’t want to say it rather than dish out some untruth. I don’t say that I’m a saint and don’t tell lies at all. I’ve said my share of lies too. But eventually, I’ve come to realize that we are way off better telling the truth rather than covering up something with lies. Believe me, the world has more respect on people who say that they cannot give some information due to some reason rather than the people who readily dish out crap to cover their asses. So, stop lying! Or atleast reduce the frequency!!

Ok! It was easier to write the second list than the first. I guess that is because anyone can easily say what they don’t like than they can say what they like. For example, say we go to a restaurant. We can easily say what dish we DON’T want to eat compared to what dish we WANT to eat. The same goes for shopping too. Come to think of it, it goes for anything at all in life where we have a choice. But it was loads of fun compiling that list. Try it if you would like to. You’ll surprise yourselves with the list that turns up.

PS: The last paragraph was not a part of the original post... just a small observation on my part.

Disclaimer: Though I’ve quoted male characters, I’ve seen the aforementioned traits in both men and women equally, actually more so in women than men. So, it is not a way to glorify men and demean women. It just goes to show that the authors are not doing enough to tell more about the women of the world. Again, my observation strictly!


Superficial Gibbering prater said...

where there is a challenge there is a workaround..and where there is a workaround,there is humour.I expected to see names...am very .very disappointed(to put it mildly)..but I admire the fact tat u exploited the loophole in the bet..Well done


syrals said...

Hmm hmm :P I can relate to your post, totally! The only difference is that the liars and hypocrites over here are just one or two at the max. :P Of course the bearable types.

alpine path said...

superficial gibbering prater, thanks! I have a policy of never giving out names in my blog. Since the challenge conflicted a bit with that policy, I had to tweak it :) But I'm glad you liked it.

syrals, true! I'm seeing lesser number of liars and hypocrites in US of A. However, among the desi crowd, its still rampant :(

Arun said...

good post.
i liked the 3rd character type much. those are my heroes i admire and try to copy.

As with lies or hypocrsy, I dont agree that indians do more than americans or others. not that i want to support indians or anything but infact i think its the other way. these are just human weaknesses, although the americans are relatively more polite(many times in an artificial way) than desis which doesnt make it obvious. thats more dangerous imo.

Ridhus said...


I came across your blog through a link from a friends blog. It is definitely an interesting read.

Vandiya devan and John Galt are worthy of admiration. I don't know any thing about Michael scoffield, but it was your comment about Mountbattent that interested me. Do you think Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins gave him more credit than he deserved?

I have read elsewhere that during the partition, Mountbatten held back large reserves to protect the
British citizens in case they were targeted after independence when they could have been of more use in riot torn places. I have also read that he withheld information during the occupation of Kashmir.

Both Freedom at midnight and Is Paris burning are great books with phenomenal research work behind them,but I am not sure if I should believe their potrayal of Mounbatten.

alpine path said...

Arun, true! Every human being has an equal probability of saying lies and being hypocritical. But the only difference between Indians and others is that, Indians do it even for small stuff while others do it on a larger scale. Both are equally bad and stupid, not to mention dangerous(as you said).

Ridhus, thanks :) I'm not sure if Lapierre and Collins gave more credit to Lord Mountbatten than was due to him as I do understand that no person can be as perfect as they portrayed him to be. But my admiration for him stems from the fact that he came up with a plan to partition India with least bloodshed possible. Bloodshed is inevitable when such a big country is being partitioned and so many millions of people are displaced from their daily lives. But him being a non-Indian need not have bothered to reduce the bloodshed. He could very well have sat back and let the country go to civil war and said that it could not be helped. His actions have created a big difference in the lives of millions of people and all for the positive. And that makes him a hero. I hope my answer is convincing enough :) Do let me know what you think of it. And welcome!! :)

Ridhus said...


I agree, Mountbatten was good at execution,or else he would not have been appointed governor general at such a critical point of time. Just that I am irked by the fact that he withheld troops when they could have been put to better use elsewhere.His actions seem to indicate that he put a higher value to a British life than an Indian life.

Another person who I believe had good execution abilities in the same period, was Vallabhai Patel. If I was forced to find some fault in him,it would be that he lacked certain John Galt qualities.

alpine path said...

ridhus, True! He was put governor general for his skills. But it is natural for any person to put the life of his fellow country men at a higher place than people from some other country. His actions reflect that of a normal human being. Since I've not read a lot about Vallabhai Patel, I cannot comment on that. Do suggest me some good books that tell more about him.

Ridhus said...

Happy new year!

I don't know of any books about him.Most of the information I know about him is from history lessons and magazines. Answers.com has some good information about him.