World of Words

वागर्थाविवसंपृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये|

जगत: पितरौ वन्दे पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ||

vaagarthaaviva samprktau vaagarthapratipattaye

jagatah.pitarau vande parvatiiparameshvarau

In the opening verse of his Raghuvamsha quoted above, the famous poet Kalidasa invokes the universal parents Goddess Parvathi and Lord Shiva whom he describes as being inseparable as a word and its meaning and asks them to bless him. He prays to them for clear understanding of words and their meanings. This verse is commonly recited by students of Sanskrit even today. A word and its meaning are indeed inseparable. When does a word come to be associated with its meaning? When was the first time someone used 'cow' to denote the animal we now know as cow? Did the word exist before that? Can a word exist without its associated meaning? Without meaning, it will not be a word but gibberish. If you think of any word, its associated meaning simultaneously flashes in your mind. 

I wonder what it is that made speech and language possible in humans. Other species communicate by sound too but none of them come anywhere near the complexity of human language. The evolution of language must have given a real impetus to the growth of civilization. It is hard even to think now without words. Our entire life is dominated by words. They are the primary means of communication and expression that we have. We have constitutions, laws, textbooks, etc. where interpreting the words is very important. This is not to ignore the vast world of literature and scriptures where there is more scope for subjective interpretation.  

Words serve to record current knowledge and pass it on. New research constantly draws upon previously established theories. All our learning is facilitated by words - spoken and written. Before printing made it possible for books to be widely available, knowledge had to be orally transmitted. In traditional schools in India, people had to first memorize a text before they were taught the meaning. In this manner, India managed to preserve the vast scriptures and other books and pass them on from generation to generation.  

Learning a language starts with gaining some basic vocabulary in that language. Although we were taught the alphabet first, at least in one's mother tongue, this starts only after we have already learned to speak it. I feel the way I was taught English stressed the written over the spoken. As a result I got to know the rules and grammar before I tried to speak English. I think starting with the spoken version would have been far more effective.

Although all books are made of words, I believe that the dictionary alone can be called a book of words. A dictionary is essential when studying a language. I remember using one to look up unfamiliar words when I was in school. We had English dictionaries at home - small and large. One of them was the extremely useful English-English-Tamil dictionary published by LIFCO. The curious thing is we only had dictionaries for English. I cannot recall ever referring to a Tamil dictionary. As we advanced in Tamil through high school, we somehow learned new words and their meanings without a dictionary. The texts would sometimes include a list of unfamiliar words with their meanings but usually the teacher explained them. It was the same when I later learned Sanskrit.

Speaking of dictionaries, I recently read the charming novel The Great Passage by Shion Miura. It is about the creation of a Japanese dictionary and follows the life of the people involved in this. Working on it changes them in many ways and in some cases provides them with insight into their own selves. But the dictionary actually does occupy a central place in the story. The whole process of making the dictionary takes fifteen years in this story. The level of details regarding the process of editing the dictionary is sure to appeal to your inner geek. 

Compiling a dictionary is a stupendous task. With the online dictionaries one cannot appreciate the scale of the thing at all. The  print version of the Oxford English Dictionary has twenty volumes and includes some 600,000 words according to its official website. Dictionaries pack a lot of information but the print must be legible and the paper must be thin to keep the volume from being too heavy and at the same time easy to turn without sticking or tearing easily. As the dictionary has a long shelf life, the paper must be durable. But all these details are secondary to the task of compiling the contents. How the editors must agonize over what to include and how to explain the meanings precisely are things we never think about. For example, if you look at the meaning of the word 'Right' (as in the direction) in the dictionary, you will see this:

"of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right)

If a very commonplace word like 'right' has to be defined like this, you can appreciate how hard the editors have to think to come up with definitions. No wonder even Kalidasa prayed for the clear understanding of words and their meaning.

Languages grow with new words and word usage changes over time. A dictionary has to keep up with this. English has borrowed many words from other languages. For instance, the words cash, catamaran, coir and curry are all from Tamil to cite just a few examples (and just in the C's). The British spent about three centuries in India and they took many words back with them along with all the wealth. They left the English language as a legacy to Indians. And naturally, we have made it our own with unique twists and tweaks.

Indian English is actually recognized as a regional variant. I would argue that we have further variants within that! Some of the words Indians use may not pass muster grammatically ('updation' for example) but I think we have some good suggestions for inclusion as legitimate words, not just Indian English. A good example is 'prepone' as the opposite of  'postpone'. There is no equivalent in English. To say that the date has been advanced or brought forward is not only cumbersome but also not very clear. So 'prepone' fills a felt need. I was happy to see that it is on the watch list of Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepone)  But why on the watch list? What are they waiting for? 

English can do with more such words in my opinion. I need hardly tell you that it is a confounding language. 'Fat chance' and 'slim chance' mean almost the same thing. Actually, 'slim chance' is a little better than 'fat chance', I think. While 'awful' and 'awesome' are totally different, 'flammable' and 'inflammable' mean the same thing. Our heads are often left spinning. If Merriam-Webster knows what's good for English, they would prepone the inclusion of 'prepone'. 

Anatomy Of A Puzzle

During these last few months of staying home or sheltering in place or being in lock down I have been looking at all the puzzles, riddles and such making their rounds in social media. They always show up every now and then but their frequency has definitely increased after the COVID outbreak. I am guilty of posting some myself, I confess. They do provide some diversion and are welcome in general if you like solving puzzles.

Let me get something out of the way first. I don't like certain type of problems. They involve different figures and basic arithmetic but they are just eye tests. The figures are combinations of objects, animals, and human beings - shoes, hats, glasses, coats, or whatever, and persons wearing them. In these cases, you should always consider your first answer to be wrong and go over the pictures again very carefully. Zoom in if you have to. You can easily overlook the fact that the coat has a button missing or the man is holding two batons instead of one or is/is not wearing shoes. Watch out, the girl is wearing an earring in one ear but not the other. I don't know about you but by this time, I have lost interest in it. 

Fortunately, there is a whole lot of other puzzles involving word play, logic, etc. which are more satisfying. I do enjoy solving them, but sometimes they send me off on a tangent. Take this story of the five marooned men and and a monkey and coconuts that came my way recently. It's not new. In fact, it has been around for a long time. I will state the problem for you and let you have the satisfaction of working out the answer or googling it if you prefer. I will just share the little journey which this sent me on.

Five men and a monkey were shipwrecked on an island. They spent the first day gathering coconuts. During the night, one man woke up and decided to take his share of the coconuts. He divided them into five piles. One coconut was left over so he gave it to the monkey, then hid his share, put the rest back together, and went back to sleep.

Soon a second man woke up and did the same thing. After dividing the coconuts into five piles, one coconut was left over which he gave to the monkey. He then hid his share, put the rest back together, and went back to bed. The third, fourth, and fifth man followed exactly the same procedure. The next morning, after they all woke up, they divided the remaining coconuts into five equal shares. Again there was one left which they gave to the monkey

How many coconuts were there in the original pile? To be precise, what is the smallest possible number of coconuts they would have had at the beginning (because there is no unique answer)?

Now you may have seen this problem before but if you have not do not worry. I am not going to reveal the solution here. The solution is a little involved and takes some effort to get to but the reason it set me thinking has nothing to do with the actual solution. In any case, solving it is not a requirement to read further. The real puzzle for me is the whole story which I think is a harder nut to crack (all right, I will admit that was a cheap pun).

When I realized how many coconuts were involved, I started down a proverbial rabbit hole or up on a flight of imagination. Firstly, I noted that they would have had to spend a long time collecting all those coconuts. There is no way that they could have done it all in one day. It also seemed strange that they would spend all their time on day one picking up coconuts (I am assuming that they were not climbing the trees and getting them). Not the first priority, I would think, when you find yourself cast away on a deserted island. But let us move on.   

The evident abundance of coconuts perhaps made for an easy way to pass time by collecting them. If they were all collecting them, and pooling them rather than keeping the individual shares separate shows there was a level of trust. So why try to appropriate one's share in the middle of the night without telling the others? Even in this there is a strange discipline with a robotic similarity. They wake up one at a time to do essentially the same thing. Not only that, they only take what is their share, one-fifth. Talk about honor among thieves. Well, not quite, I guess. Otherwise the piles could have been left separate.

In all seriousness, do you think any of them would have had the energy to keep awake that night (much less wake up one after another taking turns), especially after spending the day collecting an enormous cache of coconuts? Even ignoring that, I am trying hard to picture the mountain of coconuts being divided. Given their quantity, and their size and odd shape, it will take hours to count them. Maybe they were super efficient in counting and separating the piles. In passing, you will note that they would also have given their arms a fantastic workout. But the sheer number still boggles the mind. Where would you hide your share of a few thousand coconuts? The whole thing makes me wonder if the author of the riddle had even seen a coconut.

In some versions of the story, the five men were waiting to be rescued after being spotted. While waiting, one by one they divided the collected coconuts during the night in the said manner. Were they really expecting to take all the thousands of coconuts with them into the ship? Did they think that their free ride included limitless baggage allowance? Or maybe they wanted to compensate their saviours for the rescue with coconuts (if so, then why bother with counting and dividing?). But this would surely have led to 'the proverbial coconut that sank the boat'. A nice way to thank the rescuers, wouldn't you say?

News Break

News used to be staid for the most part. Yes, we have always had the tabloids but we mostly encountered them at supermarket checkouts. We got our news from newspapers or from evening news broadcast on the radio and TV. What happened between those times did not occupy our minds. Unless there was a truly big event, no one thought it was important to know things as they happened. But this seems so long ago. Nowadays you cannot go even a few minutes without some 'breaking news' thrown your way. 

I use the term 'News' loosely. There is news and then there is NEWS. I use the latter to describe the non-stop broadcasting of analysis, opinions, reactions, or outrage over every tidbit, controversial or not, that happens in the world put out by the 'News Channels'. Soundbites and video clips are repeated ad nauseam with the so called experts weighing in. When you have to fill 24 hours of air time, items that were not even worth mentioning in a news broadcast, become 'breaking news'.

It's easy to get addicted to watching the news channels all the time. One has only to stop and think a little and one will realize what little value addition they bring. The hosts of the show don't even try to get people with different viewpoints to the discussion anymore. Even if you agree with the political slant of the particular channel, you can still get outraged depending on the story. And if you don't agree, you will stop watching the channel and switch to one more attuned to your views. Either way you may eventually end up becoming deaf to differing viewpoints. 

I wish we could go back to reading the news in the morning and listening to the news at the end of the day, going about our business the rest of the time. But the rise of digital media has meant death to print media. Many fine dailies have gone out of business. Those that are still around find it hard to compete without resorting to the same tactics used by the online and TV channels. At the same time, going online to get the news is also fraught. The search engines have accumulated all kinds of details about the users and the results that you see when you simply search for news are not guaranteed to be some unbiased collection of news stories. They are 'tailored' to you. By following them, you further reinforce the selection algorithm. Once again, you could end up in a bubble. No wonder there is so much polarization around.

You just have to read the comments from readers on the news stories to see this polarization. Of course, it is possible that only those with strong views post comments and they don't reflect a representative sample (at least I would like to think that way). The thing is digital medium allows for instant reactions. It is not like writing a letter to the editor which among other things actually requires a modicum of writing skills. The sheer effort of putting things down on paper and mailing the letter would deter most. And then there's the waiting. Who wants to wait days to see their letter printed? What's the guarantee that people will still be interested in the topic by then? Online, there are no such obstacles. You can remain anonymous too. Since you are talking to total strangers, there are no restraints either. 

Strong negative comments could indicate that the reader has stepped out of his bubble and one may think that it's a good thing. But often it just means that they are so immune to changing their mind that they feel they are ready to tackle the enemy. And they are not trying to convince anyone. It is just about scoring a point. You sometimes see long exchanges like a rally in tennis with comments flying back and forth increasing in vitriol, put downs and insults, verbal punches and counter-punches. What a sad way to spend time dueling with people you most likely don't even know. 

Even if there is no controversy, the news media love to cook up one. The more inflammatory or extreme the headline, the more clicks it gets and possibly more reactions. So now you have the sites highlighting what is trending, what has gotten more reactions, etc. and clicking on these contributes to the stories becoming even more popular. What more incentive is required for media to look for the most outrageous stories, or to sensationalize even normal news.

The language used by news media, especially online ones is calculated to entice you to click on the headlines. It is also a lesson on how words can be used to create really violent imagery - 'smacks down', 'annihilated', etc. When you read that so and so was 'eviscerated', it sounds scary but don't be alarmed. It is only in a figurative sense.  And then you have these - 'the internet is not having it', 'Twitter is on fire', etc. meaning just an amorphous set of people whose opinions likely do not  matter to anyone are posting about it among themselves. 

Politicians with 'foot-in-the mouth' disease are of course contributing to such stories all the time. They may get 'hilariously trolled' or even 'destroyed' but they will be talked about for a few hours or may be a day depending on how strong the reaction is. But I guess they enjoy any exposure because they have managed to grab a few news cycles. This is certainly very important. One who knows how to manipulate the news can consume all the oxygen in the air waves and crowd out others from getting coverage, a big advantage in today's world.

Apart from politicians, celebrities tend to thrive on media coverage. Even if they don't, the media loves to cover them. They cannot escape the paparazzi. God help them if they step out wearing a mismatched shirt or without make up on (men seem to get away with such infractions though). The fashion police are quick to pounce on them, Twitteratti are all atwitter, and the 'internet will not have it'. 

In these challenging times (to borrow a phrase from every other TV ad now), with the lock down, there is a temptation to watch a lot of TV. All the news channels are convinced that it is important for us to know the latest count of COVID-19 cases and deaths (many have a running real-time counter on constant display). I think we can use a break from the news (how strange and sad - from taking a news break we have moved to taking a break from the news) and enjoy the little things around us. I go out and watch the butterflies that are out in full force now in the backyard flitting from flower to flower. I see little birds enjoying a morning shower when the lawn sprinklers go off. It seems all the animals and creatures are going about their business as usual and unconcerned about the 'News'. Maybe you too can focus on the little picture and choose to enjoy the moment every now and then.

Breaking the Paper Trail

The past few days I have been staying home or 'sheltering in place' like most. I can continue to work from home and I do. It is certainly convenient not to have to dress up or even shave for work. Meetings are done online but without video. But I have found that I don't move around as much when I am sitting at my home computer. In the office, I practice 'Management by Wandering Around'. I conduct most of my work by going around to my team. I also need to walk a couple of hundred steps every time I use the restroom. At home, I am chained to the PC and the bathroom is pretty much adjacent to my home office which is nothing fancy, essentially the landing at the top of the stairs - the office I mean, not the bathroom.

In the midst of this, I have been asked to reduce my vacation balance or lose any excess. So I have had to take time off now but that has been frustrating in the current situation where I really cannot go anywhere. I do manage to go walking and that's a blessing for sure. Still the last few days have been creating a feeling of being under house arrest. The news is a constant source of anxiety and social media keeps bringing posts from people who seem to be petrified. I have been reducing my consumption of both to retain some sanity. Writing a blog about the whole thing seemed a good way to take a somewhat distanced look at the whole thing. What I am trying to say is whether you find this distracting or not, I do. And if it provides you with a break too, all the better.

* * *

'Paper or plastic?' - this was a common question we faced at the supermarket what seems a long time ago. Paper bags were more expensive and grocery stores were switching to plastic then. Now we have moved on to reusable bags. 'Bring your own bags' is the mantra. But another concern has been injected into this whole question with the threat of Corona virus. In fact, there are YouTube videos  on how to do grocery shopping and handle the bags amidst the threat of infection. While not exactly advocating for hazmat suits, these are enough to cause a nervous breakdown or make you a candidate for OCD. Obviously that's not what I want to dwell upon but something more fundamental and serious.

When the public sensed that there was going to be some kind of a 'lock down', panicky consumers rushed to the stores to stock up on necessities. Surprisingly toilet paper was the first item to run out leaving gaping empty shelves. Some experts (!) have said that the rush to grab toilet paper is due to irrationality and fear. Seriously, I am not sure if this is an explanation or mere restating of the event.

Anyway, many were caught by surprise and now may be facing a real shortage of the essential item in their homes. To them I say, 'How about water?'. After all, a large part of the world uses water for the purpose of cleaning rather than paper. In the US, there is only a tiny section that has embraced the liquid solution. I understand there is an increased demand for bidets of all kinds now. I have seen articles even promoting the superiority of these pop up online.

Growing up in India where we use water instead of paper, I remember the older generation mention with not a little disgust how strange it was that the British ('white people' was the term then) used paper for cleaning. Our household had all kinds of rules about personal hygiene and cleanliness in general. Every time you went out and came back, you were expected to wash your hands and feet. The same rule applied after every time one used the bathroom.

We ate with our hands and obviously it was important to keep them clean. Serving oneself while eating was strictly prohibited to avoid any contamination. The plates used for eating from were never to be mixed up with cooking utensils when washing. They were stored separately too. Or better still plantain leaves were used instead of plates. I could go on but you get the idea.

It was an adjustment getting used to toilet paper when I moved to the US. Paper has many disadvantages and I can't go into all of them here. I will just mention one - even the best brand of paper is abrasive to the skin. Enough said. But an alternative was not easily available until recently. I have finally been able to retrofit the toilet with what goes by the fancy name of 'bidet sprayer' but basically just a flexible hose with a nozzle, the kind that is now pretty common in India and elsewhere.

I think COVID-19 is going to permanently redefine how we function in many ways. For instance, if it promotes more Work from Home or WFH to use the new buzzword, we can expect air quality to improve and roads to be less congested. If more people switch to using water in the toilet and less paper, that is a good thing too. So if you ask me 'Paper or Water?', my answer is 'Water most certainly'. At the least, I have reduced my dependence on the now elusive paper. I also have the satisfaction that I have done a little bit for the planet as well. But the bottom line (yes, pun intended) is I just find it more comfortable to use water. I think we can leave it there.

Abstract Distraction

'Forty-Two', said Deep Thought with infinite majesty and calm (from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams)

When it comes to art appreciation, I confess I am a layman. To me, a painting represents something - landscape, people, still life, etc. I should be able to look at the work and recognize what I am seeing and understand what the artist is trying to convey. I can decide whether I like it or not without going through elaborate analysis. Depending on the subject, the work may also evoke certain emotions in me. Seeing a brilliant sunset on canvas may remind me of sunsets I have enjoyed and put me in a calm mood.

Abstract art on the other hand is something of a closed book to me. I am left scratching my head and wondering what exactly the piece represents. It is like being given an answer and having to guess the question. In 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', the computer (Deep Thought) works out the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything to be 'Forty-Two', but there is just one problem. No one knows the exact question to which 'Forty-Two' is the answer. That sums up what abstract art is to me. I have the work in front of me but I can barely guess what it is about.

All this is not to say that I am dismissing abstract paintings or abstract sculptures. Some of them do hold a certain passing interest. They seem to be puzzles to be unlocked. So I turned to that patient online teacher, our version of Deep Thought, wikiHow, to get some pointers on appreciating art (https://www.wikihow.com/Appreciate-Abstract-Art). In a few simple steps it told me how to go about it. In fact, it has three different methods. The first tells you to look at the work from a distance and then up close, clear your head of negative thoughts, take deep breaths, wear headphones to block out exterior noise, etc. It seems to me you must first take a course in meditation before looking at an abstract painting. Maybe, it will make you angry and frustrated otherwise?

Then there is the advice to do some research on the artist and learn his life story to understand where he/she may be coming from. Why not attach a little bio with each painting then if that's relevant? The third way arrogantly recommends that you clear your head of all notions of what you might consider art because an outsider can only have an incomplete view of the art world (then why bother displaying art to the public?). It even challenges you to 'try making one yourself'. At this point, I feel that this is too much work to put into this. I will accept that there is a lot of hard work and thought put into the works by the artists. But does it mean that I have to like it or go to a lot of trouble to learn to 'appreciate' it?

A recent news item made me ask whether there is even a limit to what can be considered art. An art piece called 'The Comedian' by Maurizio Cattelan sold for $120,000. 'The Comedian' was a banana duct-taped to a wall. No, the banana was not made of gold or precious stones. It was just a regular banana. Apparently there were three such pieces displayed and after two of them sold for $120,000 each, the gallery raised the price on the third to $150,000 to be sold to a museum no less. The initial price was fixed so as to not trivialize the work  and at the same not also be outlandishly high (!). And what are you supposed to do when the banana ripens and rots? You just buy a fresh banana and tape it to the wall. All good.

I am truly puzzled. I mean I can get a banana and some duct tape and put it up on my wall any time. But then I did not have the idea to put it up in a gallery and attach a 'non-trivial' price tag to it. This article on the topic really made me roll my eyes. According to the writer, 'Nobody gets to define what isn't art, and "The Comedian" is absolutely art'. Apparently, the fact it generated so much chatter is good enough reason to consider it even 'powerful art'.

It gets better. Someone ate the $120,000 (or was it $150,000?) banana displayed at the gallery saying it was 'art performance' and even named the video 'Hungry Artist'. What did the gallery do? They just replaced the banana, of course. They said, 'He did not destroy the art work. The banana is the idea'. The fact that they did not even charge the guy but just bought another banana and taped it to the wall speaks volumes to me as to how serious this work really is.

Is this what art has come to? Or is this kind of an 'Emperor has no clothes' moment? What do I know? Like I said, I am just a layman. 

Light! Air! Water!

After some good rains in the past month, the hillside is greening once more. The heat of the summer had dried up all the brush and browned the landscape. The plant life is now celebrating the arrival of winter rains with vigour. On this cool morning, I was on my way home after a pleasant stroll enjoying all the shades of green.

When I reached home, something in the porch caught my eye. For weeks I had been looking at the completely dried up potted braided ficus plant with some guilt. Somehow or other, I had neglected it and it had died. All the leaves were dry and brown. One by one they were dropping off. The branches were dry enough to be snapped off. But today I was surprised to see a little green shoot from the bottom of the stem. I thought it was a weed which had found a foothold in the pot but no, incredibly the ficus was reviving. I had seen a couple of big trees being cut down in the neighbourhood in the last two months and that was a sad thing to see. The revival of this little plant seemed a small consolation for that.

In the following days, the plant started putting out more and more leaves and just like that the new shoots covered the main trunk from top to bottom. The ficus is said to be temperamental. I have read that if you move the plant to a new location, the shock could cause it to wither. But I guess this little tree is more resilient than that.

Desert in Bloom

Life is persistent and vigorous. Given the slightest encouragement, plants will sprout anywhere. This past year, we had a good deal of rain. As a result the desert put out a spectacular display of wildflowers in spring as you can see in this picture below where the usual desolate brown earth had been replaced by a yellow carpet. The seeds lie dormant in the desert soil and burst into life every once in a few years when rains are plenty and occur at the right time. 2019 was one such year. The desert super bloom as it was called was quite impressive. The California poppies too had a bumper season and their display simply took one's breath away. If the rainy trend continues, we may be looking at another year of such blooms.

California Poppies

The more I think about plants the more I feel they are magical. I mean,  they convert air, light and water into stalk, trunk, branch, leaves, flowers and fruits. Some trees grow hundreds of feet tall on just air and water. Plants are at the start of the food chain and nourish and sustain everything else. Even a log from a dead tree on the forest floor supports teeming insect colonies.

No wonder Krishna was moved to say (Srimad Bhagavatham 10.22 Verses 33-35), 'Look how these trees support every living entity! Like noble souls, they willingly give to those who seek everything they have - leaves, flowers, fruits, shade, roots, bark and wood. Also, fragrance, sap, shoots, and even ashes. Everyone should emulate their behaviour towards other living beings with one's life, wealth, intelligence and words'.

Trees are some of the oldest living things on earth. Some can live for 3000 years or even longer. The massive redwoods and sequoias in California are a good example. They are also among the largest. They can grow to more than 250 feet with the first branch at 80 feet and can be as thick as 30 feet in diameter.  It can take a day and a half for water to reach the top branches from the roots. All this growth comes from water and air for the earth beneath does not get depleted as the tree grows. Think about it. Just light, air, and water! And you get these giants. What more can I say?

Banyan trees do not grow as tall as the redwoods but a single tree can spread over several acres. It is clearly not a tree for your backyard unless you want your house to be swallowed up! There are examples of banyans growing around structures pretty much covering them. In fact, the tree starts life with its little seed germinating in a crevice on a host tree. And as it grows, it often completely covers the host pretty much smothering it. For this reason, the banyan is also known as the strangler fig.

Yes, the banyan does belong to the ficus family as does the little plant in the pot in my porch. I am going to leave it in the pot just to be safe.

How to Take The Joy Out Of Cooking

"I like work. It fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours" (from Three Men In A Boat by Jerome K. Jerome)

I think this can apply to cooking too if you consider cooking to be work. I suppose cooking can be a joy if you only have to do it occasionally. But either way there is a fascination with the process of cooking as evidenced by the numerous cooking shows on TV with entire channels dedicated to the culinary arts.

I have watched these shows for a number of years now. In the beginning, they did provide instructions and demonstrations and one could learn a thing or two. I even got inspired to attempt some dishes. But it is hard to have a dedicated channel  going all day in this fashion. Soon came the contests and competitions, wars and battles as the shows are billed. And now they have pretty much taken over with each new show trying to become more bizarre than the next. They can still be entertaining at times though.

In one show, incongruent ingredients are thrown at the participants who have to make a dish out of them. There was another where the participants could sabotage one another. There is always a time limit along with additional conditions. Dramatic music and side bars with contestants are added to build tension and emotions. Many contestants have some sad back story or a serious challenge they overcame. All in all, the show could be about sewing or cabinet building as much as about cooking. If you hope to learn any recipes from these, they can only be recipes for disaster.

Here's the format for many of the culinary 'battles' and 'wars' that are constantly being fought on television. The contestants are given a random set of ingredients which must be incorporated in a dish they will make for the judges. Sometimes a twist is added in the middle by way of a new ingredient or condition. After three rounds of elimination, a winner emerges.

Let me paint a typical scenario for you (okay, I will admit that this has not actually come up but if it does, do remember that you saw it here first!).

****

'Alright, contestants. You have thirty minutes to wow the judges with your take on a dessert using these ingredients - apples, banana peels, potato chips and castor oil. In addition to these, you have access to our full pantry but these must be incorporated in some way. So get set, on your mark and go!' so saying the host flags off the round.

The participants scurry into the pantry to grab the other items to make their dish sort of edible. Dramatic music fills the speakers and cuts to each contestant with them explaining what they plan to do. 'I am making ice-cream using pureed banana peels and chopped apples. I have no idea what to do with the castor oil', 'I got this. My grandma used to cook banana peels all the time and she used castor oil as a secret ingredient',  'Oh my god, castor oil! Is it even safe to use in cooking? I don't know what I am going to do' and so on. In between, you get to know that one of them was in a serious accident and another beat cancer.

The judges are discussing the ingredients. 'This is tough. Banana peels are bad enough but castor oil? I dread what we are going to be served'. The host of the show joins them and asks, 'Isn't castor oil a laxative? I hope these guys don't go crazy with it'. Interestingly, the host never tastes any of the dishes leading me to think that perhaps he/she has not not signed a waiver indemnifying the producers. I mean I cannot imagine that there are not a few nasty side effects from eating the dishes served up in these competitions. But the judges never tell! I suppose there is also a non-disclosure clause involved.

Half way through, the host calls out, 'Okay, chefs. Come and get the secret ingredient for today. You have to use this in your desserts'. More dramatic music, groans from participants as they hurry to pick up the brown paper bags. 'Wait, my bag is empty!', 'So is mine', 'Is this a joke?' fly the comments. The host with a deadpan expression tells them that the bag itself is the secret ingredient leaving them stunned.

'Now this is a first' comments one judge to the next. 'Well, paper is just cellulose and is not really harmful, you know', assures the host but there is apprehension in the judges' eyes as they wonder if they are biting off more than they can chew (yeah, pun intended).

Finally comes the part for which the host is best trained. He starts the count down in a thundering tone, 'Ten, nine, eight..'  and so on and concludes, 'one, time's up! Step away from your dish!'

'Chef Joe, you are up first. Tell us what you have made' 'I have made an apple pie with fried banana peel strips dipped in chocolate on top. The chips and castor oil have been used in the crust' 'What about the paper bag?' 'I burnt it and added the ash to the filling' 'Wow, what a transformation! But let's taste the pie' 'I am not getting any taste of the ash but the castor oil is not a nice flavour here' says one judge. 'Yes, it could have been toned down', agrees another.

Next up is Chef Molly. She has ground up the peels and some of the paper bag into the ice-cream. 'I perfumed the castor oil with spices and drizzled a few drops on top' 'That's sheer genius! But I cannot really taste the paper bag' (No kidding, I am thinking. What do you expect?) 'Still, I am loving the ice-cream. Well done'

The third chef has made some kind of apple crisp. The topping includes strips of the paper bag that have been dipped in cinnamon sugar and flash fried. Again, great transformation but the paper is somehow still chewy once the sugar melts in the judges' mouths. All in all, a creditable dish still it seems.

The final chef has made a really good dessert but he seems to have left out the peels and the castor oil. As for the paper bag, he has served the dish in the bags. Now, leaving out one ingredient may get a pass but three, come on, you are asking to be eliminated. When quizzed why he left them out, he says, 'Well, someone had to say the emperor has no clothes on. As far as I am concerned, banana peels and paper are not food and castor oil does not belong in a dessert. And I served this in the paper bags so that you can at least take away something edible with you'.