NOTE: To anyone who objects to my not calling Bangalore by its correct name: simply adjust maadi.
One of my dad's friends is in Bangalore for a visit. There's been talk of many of them meeting up, and apparently one of the venues suggested was a pub in Bangalore Central mall. My dad was immediately drawn into refusal mode(when he heard this suggestion), and the following chain of mails resulted, letting them know why he objected to Bangalore Central:
Initial Mail from my dad:
Hi Deepak
Leave it to the other Bengaluru dakoos to choose the venue - BUT with one clear proviso: I think Bangalore Central cropped up as one option; sorry, but under no circumstances ie even to meet you, Deepak, will I step into Bangalore Central ever. Its built on the grave of my favouritest place, the old Victoria Hotel. And, Iam serious about this, so please everyone don't think Iam joking about this!
Friend's reply:
Hey Cad
No panic - its going to be an apparently sensible place called the Windsor Pub.
What is Bangalore Central exactly? A shopping mall?
Dad's reply:
Deepak,
Yeah, Bangalore Central is one of the many malls that have sprouted up all over.
The Victoria Hotel, which was razed to allow B Central to come up, was an incredible place; it started (in the late 19th Century) as some sort of club for the Brits; then became a (small)hotel, with large rooms and almost as large attached bathrooms. Plus a restaurant with stained glass windows, a verandah where you could sit on cane chairs and have beer and food; also a large garden area, where you could sit in the evenings (under massive, really massive 300 year old trees)and spend several leisurely hours over whiskies or rums, and food. The food was a mixture of Western (actually Anglo Indian, like cutlets, masala fish fries, etc) and South Indian non veg (like muton pepper fry, etc). On Sundays,they had a terrific breakfast, including spiced Goan sausages + paav. or Appams and mutton stew, and of course bacon and eggs.
I remember a time around 1992, when a close friend of mine was relocating to Hong Kong, and we decided to spend his last evening here, just the two of us, at the lawn of the Victoria, which we had haunted thru the previous 5 years. We started off on our rums around 8pm, along with snacks... and continued thru till past 11pm, when the waiter said it was time to close - BUT, that if we could tell us how many more rums we wanted, and what food we would eat after that (incl suggestions as to what would taste ok even if it was cold), he would put all that on another table next to us. We told him, he brought the stuff, we paid the bill (incl of course a hefty tip), and continued; just the two of us, just one light burning in the entire hotel, under those incredible trees, till 2.30am! Post which, we cleared the plates, left them neatly piled up and covered, woke up the watchman to have the gate opened, and he saw us off with an exhortation to drive carefully!!
Many times I asked the owner (a Malyalee who had grown up in Sri Lanka) whether he would sell his hotel to me, and to name his price (if he had, I swear I would have moved heaven and earth to raise the money); the answer was always a polite no.
And then, suddenly, the hotel closed down; the owner and my waiter friends all disappeared; the trees started being chopped off; and this horrible glitzy irrelevant monstrosity started coming up. I took an oath that I would never ever go there; my son understood perfectly, my daughter thought it was sentimental nonsense and that I would certainly go to Bangalore Central after perhaps a couple of years. Today, I think she too appreciates the strength of my conviction!!!
So, see you at Windsor Pub!!!
End of chain. Time for me to go into partial-internal-reflection mode:
I had been to the Victoria Hotel two or three times as far as I can remember. It was indeed a classy place - not 'classy' as in the garish concrete splendour of the Leela, but with a green leafy old-world charm - the sort you'd associate with a hill station retreat. It was incongruously located at that Mg Road-Residency Road Junction, a nightmare these days given the volume of traffic. While I was there, I was probably too preoccupied with other things in my head to take in every detail, but I have fond memories of the garden area my dad mentioned above. It had an earthy feel to it which felt miles away from MG road. And the food was kickass as well as unpretentious - I remember trying spicy Vindaloo and Goan sausages there for the first time, finding them too hot to handle. So too mutton pepper fry and the rest. (Of course, I wasn't allowed any beer - I suspect that would've helped!) I discovered, among other things, there's more to South Indian food than idly-vada-dosa. What would I give now, to be able to sit and have a beer there with the right company and all that spicy food, amidst all the greenery, so hard to find in the rest of Bangalore!
Yes Bangalore has its malls, and for those of us who like to believe we want something older, there's always Pecos, Lakeview, koshy's and the like. But I have a feeling I've missed out on something here, by not being able to revisit the Victoria. Another jewel of the 'old' city brushed away in favour of the demands of commercialism. The Garden city tag may have long disappeared, but if you still want to know why, look no further than the Victoria as an example.However it feels futile and hollow, keying this in all the way from Austin (with the benefit of hindsight). Oh well...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Paint it, Black: Preview of the tri series
NOTE: By the time this is published, the tri-series would have got underway. Had to rush it in, nevertheless.
There are as many as eight survivors in the kiwi side for the CB series from the one that last competed in the same tournament five years ago (if Scott Styris joins the side later, that'll make it nine). While it does show the reliance of New Zealand on a core group of players, the squad will be hard pressed to emulate the class of 2002, when Fleming had studied the Aussies all season long and worked out their vulnerable areas. Inspired by the rookie Shane Bond, with support from Chris Cairns and Chris Harris, that team subjected Australia to three consecutive defeats and nearly a fourth, playing an unfamiliar brand of streetsmart cricket which caught their opponents napping. This time, the Aussies aren't likely to be off the ball and it will take much more than imaginative captaincy to beat them. Three victories over the Aussies may be a bit optimistic but a place in the finals would be the very least of the team's expectations. Bracewell and Fleming both pride themselves on having worked out a versatile one day outfit, though there must be worries at the back of their minds after the lukewarm series against Sri Lanka. The batting is quite underdone and (as usual) needs either Fleming or Astle to run into a rich vein of form. To do that straightaway in Australia is a tough ask. The bowling perhaps lacks a key ingredient in Kyle Mills, the most improved kiwi player in the last couple of years, and depends too much on Bond. It'll be interesting to see how Fleming uses and shuffles his attack. For instance, a case could be made for using Daniel Vettori in the slog overs, as the Aussies have generally been happy to play out his overs in the middle of the innings. The absence of Scott Styris and Jacob Oram seems to have affected the balance of the side, and the kiwis will be hoping for their return midway through the series. If they are to reach the final, (and I'm sure they will), attacking would be the way to go. NZ have already signaled this intent by using Brendom McCullum as opener. The likes of Ross Taylor and Peter Fulton should enjoy Australian wickets, and Mark Gillespie looks to be a reasonable foil for Bond though the Aussies will be more than happy to test his nerve under pressure. The main worry for me, though is the bench strength or lack of it. With eight games to get through, it looks like Bracewell could have chosen a later moment to unveil his rotation policy!
On to the Aussies, who've won eight out of the last nine triangular tournaments at home. While they look set to make that nine, if there's any weakness on their part it's probably their predicatbility, or so I like to believe; strong men but with a familiar approach. The kiwis have played them so many times in the last couple of years there should be no surprises, really. Yet Fleming and co have totally lost the edge over them, unable to seize vital opportunities each time. As an example, the spin duo of Brad Hogg and Cameron White shouldn't strike terror into the hearts of too many batsmen - I mean, NZ's duo of Vettori and Patel, and even Monty Panesar should really be able to outbowl them. But every time they're able to capitalize on the pressure created by the quickies and prise out a few important wickets. It usually takes outstanding individual performances (Bond in 2002, Jerome Taylor in the Champions Trophy preliminary round this year) to beat the Aussies, simply because they demand the very best of the opposition.
England are something of an unknown entity, beacuse they don't play either Australia or New Zealand regularly in One Day Cricket. Despite their woeful track record of late, this relative anonymity might suit them just fine. What they do have in their ranks which the kiwis don't is proven explosive quality in the batting - Kevin Pietersen and Flintoff, who might understand what Chris Cairns would have felt like as the allround star in an otherwise average lineup. How the kiwi bowlers deal with Pietersen is something I'd be interested to see. Their batting looks a bit more accomplished than New Zealand's at the moment. Add to this a couple of hard nuts in Jamie Dalrymple and Jon Lewis and the side looks decent on paper. I'm backing the kiwis' superior fielding and overall know-how in ODIs to give them the edge. If England do pip them for a place in the final, I may well be tearing my hair out. And if the Aussies are then displaced, I might just buy myself a wig.
There are as many as eight survivors in the kiwi side for the CB series from the one that last competed in the same tournament five years ago (if Scott Styris joins the side later, that'll make it nine). While it does show the reliance of New Zealand on a core group of players, the squad will be hard pressed to emulate the class of 2002, when Fleming had studied the Aussies all season long and worked out their vulnerable areas. Inspired by the rookie Shane Bond, with support from Chris Cairns and Chris Harris, that team subjected Australia to three consecutive defeats and nearly a fourth, playing an unfamiliar brand of streetsmart cricket which caught their opponents napping. This time, the Aussies aren't likely to be off the ball and it will take much more than imaginative captaincy to beat them. Three victories over the Aussies may be a bit optimistic but a place in the finals would be the very least of the team's expectations. Bracewell and Fleming both pride themselves on having worked out a versatile one day outfit, though there must be worries at the back of their minds after the lukewarm series against Sri Lanka. The batting is quite underdone and (as usual) needs either Fleming or Astle to run into a rich vein of form. To do that straightaway in Australia is a tough ask. The bowling perhaps lacks a key ingredient in Kyle Mills, the most improved kiwi player in the last couple of years, and depends too much on Bond. It'll be interesting to see how Fleming uses and shuffles his attack. For instance, a case could be made for using Daniel Vettori in the slog overs, as the Aussies have generally been happy to play out his overs in the middle of the innings. The absence of Scott Styris and Jacob Oram seems to have affected the balance of the side, and the kiwis will be hoping for their return midway through the series. If they are to reach the final, (and I'm sure they will), attacking would be the way to go. NZ have already signaled this intent by using Brendom McCullum as opener. The likes of Ross Taylor and Peter Fulton should enjoy Australian wickets, and Mark Gillespie looks to be a reasonable foil for Bond though the Aussies will be more than happy to test his nerve under pressure. The main worry for me, though is the bench strength or lack of it. With eight games to get through, it looks like Bracewell could have chosen a later moment to unveil his rotation policy!
On to the Aussies, who've won eight out of the last nine triangular tournaments at home. While they look set to make that nine, if there's any weakness on their part it's probably their predicatbility, or so I like to believe; strong men but with a familiar approach. The kiwis have played them so many times in the last couple of years there should be no surprises, really. Yet Fleming and co have totally lost the edge over them, unable to seize vital opportunities each time. As an example, the spin duo of Brad Hogg and Cameron White shouldn't strike terror into the hearts of too many batsmen - I mean, NZ's duo of Vettori and Patel, and even Monty Panesar should really be able to outbowl them. But every time they're able to capitalize on the pressure created by the quickies and prise out a few important wickets. It usually takes outstanding individual performances (Bond in 2002, Jerome Taylor in the Champions Trophy preliminary round this year) to beat the Aussies, simply because they demand the very best of the opposition.
England are something of an unknown entity, beacuse they don't play either Australia or New Zealand regularly in One Day Cricket. Despite their woeful track record of late, this relative anonymity might suit them just fine. What they do have in their ranks which the kiwis don't is proven explosive quality in the batting - Kevin Pietersen and Flintoff, who might understand what Chris Cairns would have felt like as the allround star in an otherwise average lineup. How the kiwi bowlers deal with Pietersen is something I'd be interested to see. Their batting looks a bit more accomplished than New Zealand's at the moment. Add to this a couple of hard nuts in Jamie Dalrymple and Jon Lewis and the side looks decent on paper. I'm backing the kiwis' superior fielding and overall know-how in ODIs to give them the edge. If England do pip them for a place in the final, I may well be tearing my hair out. And if the Aussies are then displaced, I might just buy myself a wig.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Paint it, Black: Plumbing the Depths
Every now and then comes along a game you're better off forgetting. Given the lukewarm nature of the current NZ-Sri lanka series, that shouldn't be a problem (for kiwi fans, at any rate) when you consider the kiwis' defeat in the fourth one-dayer which is their heaviest in history. It so happened I didn't catch the game on streaming online video or on cricinfo (which has become the norm these days), to my supposed good fortune. When I did eventually see the final scorecard, rather than shock me outright it seemed to confirm a couple of truths which have been lying beneath all series long. They have eventually surfaced, it appears.
Firstly, and most importantly, the tactics carried out in the name of rotation have left the top order in a mess, pretty much where it was at the end of the Champions Trophy. As I mentioned in the previous article, the Rotation Policy does seem to have brought a few positive changes - Brendon McCullum as opener, for one. However, in his apparent eagerness to juggle the batsmen around, John Bracewell seems to have only brought chaos into the ranks, when it needn't have been that way. I think he would do well to realise that the kiwis still depend largely on their most experienced pair, Fleming and Astle and to have them match-fit for the series in Australia should have been top priority. I'm sure the players themselves have no idea what the batting order for the next game will be. In Astle's case, he is much better suited to opening the innings and batting right through. The presence of McCullum and Taylor would enable him to go along at his own pace without worrying about the run-rate. Given that he was barely convincing in the tests, Fleming should have figured right from the beginning of the series. The Aussies would be extremely interested to note that he's been nailed leg-before by Chaminda Vaas quite regularly of late (as were Taylor and Marshall on Saturday); a certain Nathan Bracken might well be taking note.
Secondly, the kiwis' (or Bracewell's) refusal to field their strongest side must come as a bit of an insult to the Lankans, a better team than we sometimes give them credit for. It's all very well to use a five match series as preparation for a decidedly longer, tougher one - but when you're up against an explosive batting team and an attack which boasts Vaas, Murali and Malinga you can't expect a run of victories without your best lineup. The Lankan batsmen have blown hot and cold on this tour like most subcontinental sides, but the strong bowling unit has more often than not kept their kiwi counterparts in check. They do look a better side than New Zealand at the moment, and a 3-2 victory in this series would be a just result for the entertaining cricket they've played.
Lastly, I do think the selectors may have missed a couple of tricks as far as the squad for Australia is concerned. Michael Mason may be a stout hearted trier, but looks to be cannon fodder for Ricky Ponting and co - if Chris Martin were to join forces with Bond and Gillespie instead, the Aussies might have a bit to think about. Not too sure about Andre Adams either - the selectors might have done better to bolster the batting by adding Mathew Sinclair or Lou Vincent. Or, if they really wanted someone with allround skills, I would have gone back to Chris Harris (still performing reliably for Cantebury). In the previous article, I had talked about how 'utility' players were a constant fixture in the Australian side adopting the rotation policy. There seems to be a parallel here of packing the side with too many bowling allrounders, such as Adams, Franklin and Vettori, in the hope they may strengthen the batting. The latter two may be indispensible, but specialists are the need of the hour. Which is why Vettori should go back to being a number 8 or 9.
Firstly, and most importantly, the tactics carried out in the name of rotation have left the top order in a mess, pretty much where it was at the end of the Champions Trophy. As I mentioned in the previous article, the Rotation Policy does seem to have brought a few positive changes - Brendon McCullum as opener, for one. However, in his apparent eagerness to juggle the batsmen around, John Bracewell seems to have only brought chaos into the ranks, when it needn't have been that way. I think he would do well to realise that the kiwis still depend largely on their most experienced pair, Fleming and Astle and to have them match-fit for the series in Australia should have been top priority. I'm sure the players themselves have no idea what the batting order for the next game will be. In Astle's case, he is much better suited to opening the innings and batting right through. The presence of McCullum and Taylor would enable him to go along at his own pace without worrying about the run-rate. Given that he was barely convincing in the tests, Fleming should have figured right from the beginning of the series. The Aussies would be extremely interested to note that he's been nailed leg-before by Chaminda Vaas quite regularly of late (as were Taylor and Marshall on Saturday); a certain Nathan Bracken might well be taking note.
Secondly, the kiwis' (or Bracewell's) refusal to field their strongest side must come as a bit of an insult to the Lankans, a better team than we sometimes give them credit for. It's all very well to use a five match series as preparation for a decidedly longer, tougher one - but when you're up against an explosive batting team and an attack which boasts Vaas, Murali and Malinga you can't expect a run of victories without your best lineup. The Lankan batsmen have blown hot and cold on this tour like most subcontinental sides, but the strong bowling unit has more often than not kept their kiwi counterparts in check. They do look a better side than New Zealand at the moment, and a 3-2 victory in this series would be a just result for the entertaining cricket they've played.
Lastly, I do think the selectors may have missed a couple of tricks as far as the squad for Australia is concerned. Michael Mason may be a stout hearted trier, but looks to be cannon fodder for Ricky Ponting and co - if Chris Martin were to join forces with Bond and Gillespie instead, the Aussies might have a bit to think about. Not too sure about Andre Adams either - the selectors might have done better to bolster the batting by adding Mathew Sinclair or Lou Vincent. Or, if they really wanted someone with allround skills, I would have gone back to Chris Harris (still performing reliably for Cantebury). In the previous article, I had talked about how 'utility' players were a constant fixture in the Australian side adopting the rotation policy. There seems to be a parallel here of packing the side with too many bowling allrounders, such as Adams, Franklin and Vettori, in the hope they may strengthen the batting. The latter two may be indispensible, but specialists are the need of the hour. Which is why Vettori should go back to being a number 8 or 9.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Paint it, Black: Dissecting the Rotation Policy
The phrase "Rotation Policy" was most famously drummed about during the ODI campaigns of Steve Waugh's Australian side during their peak, in 2000 and 2001. It essentially comprised of two strategies: slotting individual players into definite roles, and resting the incumbents at various times during a series so as to give the second-choice player a chance. While Gilchrist and Mark Waugh were regular openers, Waugh was often rested to give Matthew Hayden a chance. Such tactics apparently kept the side fresh and the competition healthy, and all along Australia's success was attributed to their flexibility. Central to this policy was a middle order of 'utility' players which included Andrew Symonds, Ian Harvey, Shane Lee and Damien Martyn (yes, he was thought of as a bits and pieces player).
But, in January 2002, when New Zealand and South Africa arrived for the annual VB series, the same rotation policy was shown up for being too, yes, inflexible. As New Zealand fans will fondly remember, Australia lost three and almost a fourth game to the kiwis chasing, and failed to make the finals in their own backyard. The press criticised the complacency that had been bred as a result of Rotation, and the Waugh twins were jettisoned for good. To cite an example of how the policy failed at the time, it dictated that Mark Waugh,Gilchrist and Hayden could not play together in the playing XI because their role as openers was cleary defined; thus Australia would not field their strongest (or, shall we say, in-form) side. The same set of utility players I mentioned were shaken up and forced to reinvent themselves; Harvey as a specialist death or changeup bowler and Martyn as an authoritative no.4, while Symonds found his feet in the World Cup after a prolonged struggle. Since then, it's fair to say Australia have been practising a restrained form of rotation under Ricky Ponting. Except, it's no longer a compulsive strategy - Ricky Ponting refuses to leave anything to chance. The word 'rotation' is something you'll never hear from the Aussie Camp these days.
Now, kiwi coach John Bracwell has adopted the tactic with a view to building depth in the side before the World Cup. It may be partly justified given New Zealand's problems with injuries, and at the same time may leave players confused as to what exactly their role in the side is. At the moment, it has certainly brought in changes that look promising - Brendon McCulum as an attacking opener, Hamish Marshall down to a more comfortable number 6 and Michael Mason establishing himself at a World Cup contender. There have been a couple of perplexing moments too, such as Daniel Vettori's promotion to the middle order, which I hope will be discontinued. Before the all important tri-series in Australia, however, you would have to wonder if New Zealand's premier batsmen are better off having some time in the middle - particularly Stephen Fleming and Nathan Astle. The batting failures during the Champions Trophy were attributed to lack of match practice, so I'd much rather see a settled batting lineup for the time being. New Zealand go into the fourth game of the series with a 2-1 lead, with the additional bonus of Ross Taylor and Mark Gillespie proving their worth, at least on favourable surfaces. They could well end up winning 4-1, but I would have thought the objective of this series was to find out their best combination or unit, going into the Australia series rather than juggling the players about. You really can't afford to use elimination games against Australia and England to figure out who your best XI is, even if certain key players are missing. James Marshall scores a half-century as opener but is not required for the upcoming games, while Craig McMillan has suddenly been handed a lifeline and a ticket to Australia. Mind you, McMillan looks a better bet than Marshall, but his inclusion feels a bit unjustified. Bracewell has conveniently decided he will be slotted into Brendon McCullum's role at number7, but this again smells of the inflexibility which as I mentioned could be a side-effect of the Rotation policy. Surely there must be a better position for McMillan? It also means there is a certain sameness to the bowling. Mason has done well in conditions that suit him but I don't see him troubling the Australians - having him, Adams and Franklin in the same lineup is a bit of a worry. Jeetan Patel hasn't been given a game and it looks like Chris Martin will not figure in the selector's plans at all. All this places too much responsibility on Shane Bond, although there seems to be some cover for him at least.
New Zealand have two more games against Sri lanka to get into their stride, but they are in danger of a potential mess during the tri-series if they don't identify their best side on form. The Rotation policy may be here to stay, but Bracwell must be careful it doesn't inhibit any flexibility on his part during the all important build up to the World Cup.
But, in January 2002, when New Zealand and South Africa arrived for the annual VB series, the same rotation policy was shown up for being too, yes, inflexible. As New Zealand fans will fondly remember, Australia lost three and almost a fourth game to the kiwis chasing, and failed to make the finals in their own backyard. The press criticised the complacency that had been bred as a result of Rotation, and the Waugh twins were jettisoned for good. To cite an example of how the policy failed at the time, it dictated that Mark Waugh,Gilchrist and Hayden could not play together in the playing XI because their role as openers was cleary defined; thus Australia would not field their strongest (or, shall we say, in-form) side. The same set of utility players I mentioned were shaken up and forced to reinvent themselves; Harvey as a specialist death or changeup bowler and Martyn as an authoritative no.4, while Symonds found his feet in the World Cup after a prolonged struggle. Since then, it's fair to say Australia have been practising a restrained form of rotation under Ricky Ponting. Except, it's no longer a compulsive strategy - Ricky Ponting refuses to leave anything to chance. The word 'rotation' is something you'll never hear from the Aussie Camp these days.
Now, kiwi coach John Bracwell has adopted the tactic with a view to building depth in the side before the World Cup. It may be partly justified given New Zealand's problems with injuries, and at the same time may leave players confused as to what exactly their role in the side is. At the moment, it has certainly brought in changes that look promising - Brendon McCulum as an attacking opener, Hamish Marshall down to a more comfortable number 6 and Michael Mason establishing himself at a World Cup contender. There have been a couple of perplexing moments too, such as Daniel Vettori's promotion to the middle order, which I hope will be discontinued. Before the all important tri-series in Australia, however, you would have to wonder if New Zealand's premier batsmen are better off having some time in the middle - particularly Stephen Fleming and Nathan Astle. The batting failures during the Champions Trophy were attributed to lack of match practice, so I'd much rather see a settled batting lineup for the time being. New Zealand go into the fourth game of the series with a 2-1 lead, with the additional bonus of Ross Taylor and Mark Gillespie proving their worth, at least on favourable surfaces. They could well end up winning 4-1, but I would have thought the objective of this series was to find out their best combination or unit, going into the Australia series rather than juggling the players about. You really can't afford to use elimination games against Australia and England to figure out who your best XI is, even if certain key players are missing. James Marshall scores a half-century as opener but is not required for the upcoming games, while Craig McMillan has suddenly been handed a lifeline and a ticket to Australia. Mind you, McMillan looks a better bet than Marshall, but his inclusion feels a bit unjustified. Bracewell has conveniently decided he will be slotted into Brendon McCullum's role at number7, but this again smells of the inflexibility which as I mentioned could be a side-effect of the Rotation policy. Surely there must be a better position for McMillan? It also means there is a certain sameness to the bowling. Mason has done well in conditions that suit him but I don't see him troubling the Australians - having him, Adams and Franklin in the same lineup is a bit of a worry. Jeetan Patel hasn't been given a game and it looks like Chris Martin will not figure in the selector's plans at all. All this places too much responsibility on Shane Bond, although there seems to be some cover for him at least.
New Zealand have two more games against Sri lanka to get into their stride, but they are in danger of a potential mess during the tri-series if they don't identify their best side on form. The Rotation policy may be here to stay, but Bracwell must be careful it doesn't inhibit any flexibility on his part during the all important build up to the World Cup.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Ash to Ash: Thoughts on Smoking
The title of the post is itself a bit contradictory as I have hardly any 'thoughts' or anything to say on the subject. If I was slotted in one of those Group Discussion Rounds which have become the norm in most job or b-school selection procedures, and the topic was simply 'Smoking', chances are I'd draw a blank. What actually pricks me though, is my apparent indifference to the whole smoking thing. I guess this post was an attempt to look within and find out why I've never even slid a cigarette through my lips. But some exercises are futile, and I just don't have an answer.
Indifference is all I can recall during school and it seems to have stayed with me. I remember being selected along with a few others to present a set of essays on cancer, with a particular accent on the dangers of cigarette smoking. Seemingly, the more dramatic you made it sound the more points you got. What material we came up with would probably be enough to dissuade the biggest addict, but it certainly didn't make any deep meaningful socially-moral impression on me; nor did it bring out any curiosity and cocky scepticism. In another episode, one of my classmates was discovered to have a cigarette pack in his bag, which he claimed had been planted on him. He became a chain smoker much later on, and people remembering the incident wonder whether he had in fact started off all those years ago. I really couldn't have cared less; and still don't. Which is a little scary, if I think about it.
People often wonder why I've never tried smoking even once in my life, as if I'm missing out on a thrill (of trying something for the first time), or just being a 'good boy'. And it's quite amusing, because I don't have a rational explanation for it. To me, it's almost as if smoking doesn't exist and (to borrow a line) is like a road accident - something that seems to happen only to other people. If that was a poor analogy in arrogant bad taste, it shows how lost I am for an explanation. What could be the real reason? It could be because I wasn't in a friend circle of smokers, but then again I had enough friends in college who did smoke. Why I declined everytime I was offered a cigarette i don't know, but I have no regrets. Perhaps I had passed the impressionable age, but looking back practically everyone started off in college. I didn't consider it taboo either - I'm guessing there are more unpleasant ways to ruin one's health - and don't find the idea disgusting or anything. And I'm really not bothered by smoke and smokers around me. In my year of work at CTS, I frequently accompanied colleagues to the smoking zone (which was actually quite a nice area) and wasn't put off in the least by the haze around me. Seems like I've done a fair bit of passive smoking!
(To top it all, cigarettes have been lying all over the house since God knows when. Curiosity, far from getting the better off me, never even knocked once. It's as if we had this peaceful coexistence pact running, the cigarettes and I, so that we weren't even aware that the other was around. So I was never drawn to the pack, and the pack didn't 'call out to me' either - and a lot of sentimental smokers apparently like to believe the cigarette calls out to them.)
Since I can't arrive at any explanation, the only conclusion is indifference, as I've stated above. And that's exactly the itch I needed to scratch when keying in all this, pointless as it was. It begs the question, 'Am I better off not caring at all?' I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
Indifference is all I can recall during school and it seems to have stayed with me. I remember being selected along with a few others to present a set of essays on cancer, with a particular accent on the dangers of cigarette smoking. Seemingly, the more dramatic you made it sound the more points you got. What material we came up with would probably be enough to dissuade the biggest addict, but it certainly didn't make any deep meaningful socially-moral impression on me; nor did it bring out any curiosity and cocky scepticism. In another episode, one of my classmates was discovered to have a cigarette pack in his bag, which he claimed had been planted on him. He became a chain smoker much later on, and people remembering the incident wonder whether he had in fact started off all those years ago. I really couldn't have cared less; and still don't. Which is a little scary, if I think about it.
People often wonder why I've never tried smoking even once in my life, as if I'm missing out on a thrill (of trying something for the first time), or just being a 'good boy'. And it's quite amusing, because I don't have a rational explanation for it. To me, it's almost as if smoking doesn't exist and (to borrow a line) is like a road accident - something that seems to happen only to other people. If that was a poor analogy in arrogant bad taste, it shows how lost I am for an explanation. What could be the real reason? It could be because I wasn't in a friend circle of smokers, but then again I had enough friends in college who did smoke. Why I declined everytime I was offered a cigarette i don't know, but I have no regrets. Perhaps I had passed the impressionable age, but looking back practically everyone started off in college. I didn't consider it taboo either - I'm guessing there are more unpleasant ways to ruin one's health - and don't find the idea disgusting or anything. And I'm really not bothered by smoke and smokers around me. In my year of work at CTS, I frequently accompanied colleagues to the smoking zone (which was actually quite a nice area) and wasn't put off in the least by the haze around me. Seems like I've done a fair bit of passive smoking!
(To top it all, cigarettes have been lying all over the house since God knows when. Curiosity, far from getting the better off me, never even knocked once. It's as if we had this peaceful coexistence pact running, the cigarettes and I, so that we weren't even aware that the other was around. So I was never drawn to the pack, and the pack didn't 'call out to me' either - and a lot of sentimental smokers apparently like to believe the cigarette calls out to them.)
Since I can't arrive at any explanation, the only conclusion is indifference, as I've stated above. And that's exactly the itch I needed to scratch when keying in all this, pointless as it was. It begs the question, 'Am I better off not caring at all?' I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)