Harry Potter And A Little Bit Of Magic

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. I must confess that when I first heard the title, my reaction was more along the lines of 'huh?' rather than the 'Wow!' that should be expected of a proud Potter fan. I didn't even know what 'hallows' meant, for crying out loud. For the kind information of those of you who have been living in some kind of woeful netherland and have no idea what I am talking about, J K Rowling has just declared the title of the seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series, which is, you guessed it right (I'm trying very hard not to roll my eyes right now) - 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. So 'deathly' and 'hallows', right? It's an odd pair of words to put together in a phrase, if you ask me. And 'hallow', as I found out after a thorough attack on the dictionary, is used most often as a verb and not as a noun; I presume the 'hallows' in the title is a noun. Moreover, the word 'hallow' is almost never used in its plural form. I was left quite a bit confused by all of these mysterious nuances, and I desperately needed to clear the air around the whole thing, so I turned to the best source for Harry Potter explanations on the planet - the Potter fansites.

The best theory about the title that I could find (and I must confess that I didn't go through all of the theories that were on show - past experience has told me that once you decide to check out all the theories in the discussion forum of even a single site, you remain glued to your computer for a minimum of twenty-three hours and eventually emerge thoroughly confused about every little harmless detail in the books) is that the hallows refer to the places where Voldemort has hidden his Horcruxes. They're hallowed, at least to Voldemort, because they hold his very life within them, and they're obviously deathly, as was the case with the cave and the Gaunt house. Plausible? You bet. Likely? I don't quite think so, because Rowling has made it rather a habit of surprising her readers with the unexpected and the unpredictable. So all we can really do until the release of the book (and when oh when is that going to be?) is passionately comb through the discussion threads of every fansite and hope to stumble upon the right theory somewhere.

I've always been very amused and also a little impressed with the imaginative flair of the fans who give posts in the discussion forums. Some of the theories that are put up are so amazingly ingenious that I sometimes wonder whether Rowling doesn't orchestrate the forums herself. One of my all-time favourite theories was the one about the possiblity of Ron really being Dumbledore, who presumably turns back time somewhere in the future to come and protect Harry as a friend. It was well-explained, mind you; it didn't sound nearly as batty as it does now when I read it for the first time. The debate about Lily Potter being a Seer has raged on for ages, at least on the site www.hpana.com, which I personally feel is the best among the hordes of fansites if you want to dig up some really interesting theories. Kreacher, Trelawney and even Stubby Boardman have all been given very creative destinies by the inspired fans, much to my delighted interest.

Of course, most threads deal with the more basic points. Snape's loyalty or otherwise has often dominated forums, and this is one debate in which there are always very convincing points in favour of both the sides. Dumbledore's death was another hotly debated topic. Heck, there was an entire site started, 'www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com' in dedication of the solemn subject. Rowling, of course, had the good sense to put the matter to an end by announcing some time back that Dumbledore really IS dead and that she actually is cruel enough to kill off the most beloved character of the series. Sirius's death in book 5 was also very fervently talked about. For three years people insisted that Sirius isn't really dead and that he'd make a heroic comeback to help Harry in his Herculean quest to defeat Voldemort, because, after all, a very elaborate death scene involving a mysterious veil and a hundred little suspicious things had to be fake. Thankfully, Half Blood Prince shot down that bit of silliness, and emphatically at that.

I suppose I could go on and on about the magical world of Harry Potter and painstakingly describe every pointless aspect of every little insignigicant detail of the books. And yet, I don't think I'd be able to cover half of how much I really want to say about Potterverse. In the process, of course, I'd also be ignoring my dear sister's stern advice to keep my posts 'SHORT!' So no, I won't go on discussing forever, in my opinion, the best set of books ever written. Instead, I'll end with a refrain that I think is an appropriate tribute to the astounding genius of the creator of the world that has brought so much joy to our unimaginative little lives - 'Long live J K Rowling!'

Back After A Break (involuntary, of course)

Okay, so I'm back from the wilderness. This is my first post in over two weeks. I'd like to imagine that I'm making a smashing comeback and am about to dazzle my readers with the incandescent brilliance of my writing, but I strongly suspect that this isn't the place for some ill-advised narcsissism. And I think this isn't the ideal time for it either, specially since I've only had a very measly bunch of visitors to my blog, most of whom seemed to find a hundred little things in the blog to disapprove of. So no, I don't quite think I'm ready to begin electrifying my readers just yet. Maybe tomorrow.

My extended break, of course, wasn't at all voluntary. My dear internet service provider decided it'd be a good idea to deprive me (and my sister, who was so badly hit by the stoppage that she almost went into depression) of the internet connection for a week, so I told him to go to hell and switched over to another provider. The new provider, of course, couldn't conceivably get his thing done before a whole week (and a hundred desperate phone calls). So all in all, not a very happy week for me (and a very miserable one for my sister).

A lot of things have happened in these two weeks. India won a monumental Test match in South Africa when for once most of the major stars in the lineup contributed their bit and pulled off an astonishing performance. England got pummelled once again in Perth, in the process meekly surrendering the Ashes back to Australia after just 15 months of gloried possession. Shane Warne and Glenn Mcgrath announced that they'd retire from Test cricket after the Ashes, bringing to an end two stunning careers. Rather unexpectedly, and to some very unsympathetic guffaws, Steve Harmison announced his retirement from one-day cricket. Of course, there were plenty of less important happenings too. The Indo-US nuclear deal was finally approved by the US Congress, and Jessica Lall's killer was convicted of his much-publicised crime, thus allowing the media to give themselves a few indulgent pats on their backs for what they saw as a revolutionary cry for justice voiced through their admirable avenues . The real scorching news, however, didn't come until two days ago, when J K Rowling announced the title of Book 7-'Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows'! Wow, isn't that a marvellously confusing title! I can almost feel the thoroughly excited threads on the innumerable Potter fan sites propounding a dozen crazy theories about what exactly is deathly about the hallows, assuming they've gotten round to explaining in painstaking detail what the 'hallows' actually are.

Talking about Book 7, I've just realized that I haven't written a single post wholly dedicated to Harry Potter yet. And considering how totally batty I am about the books, that's a real shocker. So maybe my next post will be about the wonderful, magical world of Harry Potter. Alright then, I think I'll stop here before another power cut makes me write all of this all over again (yeah, a power cut has already made me rewrite the whole thing once). A sad little place I live in, don't I?

English Sports Media - How Amusing Thy Wrath!

I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of Ashley Giles right now. Just about everything that can go wrong with anyone seems to be going wrong for him. Personally, I've always thought that he's rather a rubbish bowler, and have always assumed that the English selectors' continued fondness for him was a situation that arose only out of necessity (I'm not very good with cricket stats, but exactly how many quality slow bowlers have England produced over the years? Thank God for Jim Laker-that question would have had precious few answers if not for him). Now, however, it seems plain that the only reason why he has been in the team for so long is that the English selectors have sawdust in their heads. They're barmy-it's as plain as that. If you're starting to think that I'm being a little excessive here, I'm sure you wouldn't even dream of thinking so if you heard what the English media had to say about the second Ashes Test, which, for the uninformed (I seem to use this phrase far too often, don't I?), ended in utter devastation for England.

I don't know when exactly people really started to rub their eyes in disbelief at the possibility of England losing the match, me being a very late sleeper (the match begins at 6 a.m., you know), but I suppose Kevin Pietersen's dismissal might have been the trigger. As England tumbled from one miserable moment to another, the wonderful media persons began unleashing their fury, and believe me, they're right effective when they get down to doing that. Giles, in particular, had the misfortune of being unanimously chosen as the whipping boy. After Geraint Jones and Giles were dismissed, one commentator spoke up, "Remind me please, what exactly are Jones and Giles in the team for?" Andrew Flintoff was repeatedly described as "being close to tears", and some commentators even confessed to being in tears themselves at the appalling show put up by their country's heroes. Giles's dropped catch of Ricky Ponting in the first innings, who went on to make a gritty 142, was brought into the spotlight again, and Steve Waugh's famous line to Herschelle Gibbs when he dropped Waugh in the 1999 World Cup semi-final was tweaked to read something like "Giles has dropped the Ashes". England's unbearably sluggish pace didn't find too many fans either, and Paul Collingwood, who I personally thought did his very best to lend some respectability to England's total, was handed plenty of razor-sharp comments for his slow batting. When the unfortunate Giles came on to bowl, one commentator piped up, "It is my duty, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you that Ashley Giles is not turning the ball." Another commentator came up with perhaps the most priceless of them all-"the statisticians tell me that Ashley Giles has improved his batting average in this match." Was this the most utterly savage piece of sarcasm ever heard? Ah well, this was just a wretched phase for the admirable Giles.

Former England players joined in the slaughter the next day, with Duncan Fletcher's selection methods coming in for the most scathing criticism. Ian Botham confessed to being very confused about Monty Panesar's situation, and I suppose he could be speaking for every single person on earth apart from Mr. Fletcher in saying that. Fletcher's remark earlier in the year which said something to the effect that Panesar was "the best finger spinner in the world" has only made the current situation all the more bewildering. However, England's selection tangles did not arouse the most spirited reactions as Australia romped home to a comfortable six-wicket victory. No - right then, the thing that distressed all Englishmen most was the horrific performance of Flintoff's team. And the commentators certainly employed very effective words to show their anguish-from mourning England's complete lack of fight to declaring that they would never watch cricket again. Amusing, amusing.

Say 'NO' to Alcohol

Uh-huh. I can't seem to find any half-decent topic to write about today. It's been a pretty uneventful couple of days, there just isn't anything worthwhile to talk about. Well, I suppose I could talk about India's yet another dismal performance against South Africa, but that's too sordid a topic to be touching upon. On an entirely different subject, I've always been more than a bit surprised at the phenomenal support given by celebrities and ALL important people to AIDS awareness as was evident quite vividly on 1 December, World AIDS Day. Now I'm not saying this is not a terrific thing, but I do believe that if celebs contributed just a fraction of their efforts to other, slightly more pertinent causes, the world, and especially India, would be a lot better place to live in.

Perhaps the biggest disease faced by mankind is not cancer or AIDS, but alcoholism. Considering the very diffusive consequences of drinking, boozing or whatever cooler term you wish to use for the disgusting habit, it is very surprising that hardly any attention is paid to this malaise. No sir, all the celebs in the world will willingly spend their very abundant time fervently urging anyone and everyone to quit smoking, but when it comes to alcohol, a cursory glance does the job, quite like an indulgent parent would view his child getting dirty in the rain. And seeing as how any 'philanthropic' work is almost always done for the sake of PR anyway, I often wonder whether there is any point at all to the existence of celebrities. But this is getting beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that attitudes towards alcohol have been going along a very dangerous course, with drinking now having become so acceptable that hardly anyone considers it even remotely close to being a vice anymore. Heck, we have now come to a stage when a person who doesn't drink is held to be a wimp!

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with us? Can't we SEE the spectacularly disastrous effects of drinking? Family problems, accidents, crimes, the complete and clinical messing up of lives, isn't it all so obvious? Some people argue that it's all a matter of control-if you can control the amount of alcohol you consume, you've got no problems at all. However, it's a known fact that no alcoholic starts off as one. It always starts off with drinking socially, a couple of drinks a day, or drinking only when 'in the mood'. One can never know for sure just what staggering incident can act as the trigger to the descent into the murky depths of alcoholism. And once there, it's hard to get out of it, no matter how efficient the rehab centre is.

Personally, I think alcohol is just as bad as drugs, possibly even worse, considering the lenient attitudes towards it. I'm sorry, but drinking, whether socially or out of habit, is uncouth, disgusting and loutish. If it were up to me, I would ban alcohol from the face of the earth, and live to see the truly wonderful effects of the ban. Sadly, however, it is NOT 'up to me', so all I can really do is twiddle my thumbs and lament at the great catastrophe unfolding before my very eyes. And, of course, keep as far away from alcohol as Mr. Virender Sehwag is from dazzling form (which, for the uninitiated, is very very very far away). I owe that much to my conscience.