Sharpening The Resolution

I've always scoffed philosophy and non-fiction. As a sarcasm loving un-serious indivisual who revels in slapstick humour and it's derivatives, i seriously under appreciate these things (Philosophy and non-fiction). I've always perceived them as boring and uninteresting albeit useful for old ladies and mid life crisis sufferers. More importantly, i've always considered myself as not the target audience to which these things are advertised to/portrayed towards.

I now realize and understand firstly, the semi-truthfulness of my beliefs and secondly, the narrow viewpoint with which i look at things. With my now broadened perspective, i have come to realize that although most non-fiction is hypocritical, sleazy and a business for money laundering (in my opinion), to change the way one looks at it, one must change one's personal viewpoint. I see non-fiction and philosophy writers not as those eager to spread their views and learnings but as those who choose to make a profit out of it. Both of these facts may be true, or they may be false. These writers may choose to eagerly spread their acquired knowledge, but the true purpose isn't an altruistic one. In fact, reward doesn't even feature in the cognitive process involved.

Non-fiction, as i now see it is a form of self-clarification. With philosophy, one can essentially create the ground rules based on which the new thought pattern/knowledge application will be based. It is nothing more or less than a rule book of your 'philosophy'. It is not meant to be read by anyone else, and the experience of writing about it, of clarifying the thoughts in your own head, of putting your thoughts cohesively on paper is equal to increasing the sharpness on ones TV from 10 to 100. You may be quite clear about your so called 'philosophy' at level 10, but once level 100 is reached, it is concrete.

Of course, i still very much hate non-fiction, philosophy and their derivatives, but i understand the writer's point of view. Just for clarification (!), when i say writer, i mean author.

I just saw Episode 8 of Season 4 of Heroes, and it sparked off a chain of thought in my head that i cannot seem to comprehend right now. All i know is that my new found understanding is directly related to the way that Heroes is made, and for this, i am grateful. From the point of view of the Heroes audience, the last episode took us back to Season 1, but made it more like Season 1 5000. I'm pretty sure the viewer ship will drop after this episode, and i'm even more positive that critics will pan it for choosing the particular story arc. Heroes, from the very beginning has shown it's roots not in superpowers and their display, but the relation of all events to two things at different levels:

1. At a lower level, the relation of all events to the time-space continuum, as 'we humans' choose to call it.

2. At a higher level, the relation of all events to destiny; and the influence of destiny on peoples life patterns and choices.

For me, this is what differentiates Heroes from X-Men or any other superhero tripe that the world can throw at us.

PS: I love the 'tripe'. Really, i do.

Heroes Vs Lost

This is the question isn't it? The ultimate question. Douglas Adams had it all wrong. No one cares about life and suchshite. It's all about sci-fi, man. Sci-fucking-fi. Heroes Vs Lost. The Ultimate Question.

Before i delve any deeper into this topic, let me first state that i care not whether they are in different time slots, or if they are both NBC shows, or if they aren't really competitors, or even if they have 'totally different Target Audiences'. I say what i see, and i dig no further.

The Perception: (Disclaimer-this may not be true)

Heroes is more childish, and definitely has more youngster appeal. Kids (12 up) can comprehend it with relative ease, non-linear time frames notwithstanding. It was fucking kickass initially, but it lost (heh) steam halfway through the second season, and most fans simply stopped watching due to pure boredom. Most of the characters, though well built, are shown to be too confused about priorites. The resemblance to x-men is too uncanny. The most powerful people are the biggest panzees.

Lost is complex, mature, and an acquired taste (unless you see the thriller parts of the episodes). It's really fucking confusing, and has intense character work. Very original plot line, expect the unexpected (sheesh).

Ishaan's Opinion:

I wasn't too fond of Lost till i saw 'The Constant', and later episodes. I'm a sucker for time-travel, and Lost depicted something that i had never even considered. My interest was revitalised, till the season finale (Season 4). I've heard that there's much more time travel in the coming season, and i'll have to wait and see. I don't have high hopes, though. As opposed to Heroes, where i have HUGE hopes. Heroes always revolves around saving the world, the battle to be recognized and the struggle against being pushed into the background. Quite simple, but the depiction of the superpowers/abilities is what i feel differentiates it from other such concepts. Each power has it's own theme (as in, musical score), and this is the constant every time an ability is shown. I quite like this.

You know, i'd like to leave this post with an open ending. Something like: 'i leave you with the facts, deduce for yourselves', or 'i will now let you draw your own conclusions', or 'i leave you with the opinions, make up your own mind'. But i have to say this: To me, it's just superpowers with time travel Vs confusion about whether time travel exists ot not/and a whole lotta other shite.

And Heroes wins. FUCK Lost.

PS: I will admit, however, that i've seen each and every Heroes episode, as opposed to just 4 seasons of Lost. However, just as knowing 2 chords can qualify you to be a lead guitarist in a punk rock band, this qualifies me to do this comparision.

PPS: I do love punk rock.

PPPS: What the fuck is Prison Break?