Reading shall set you free...

 

I love books. I think anyone who knows me, knows that much about me. However, I also have the habit of doing too many things, socializing too many times, and then scolding myself never to do so again, and doing it all over again. But this summer was a good exception, for the simple reason, that I went to my mom's house, which is in Kolkata, India, and got plenty of time to read. 

Anyone who has ever been on a vacation knows that vacations do not go as planned, even if you plan them meticulously. Mine are always meticulously planned and never go the way I want them to go. Well, that is because I rarely stick to the plans I myself make. At this point, if I have managed to irritate you with my flightiness, dear reader, let me irritate you some more. But this time with the books I read. 

So there were two books I finished over the summer. I loved both. 

The first one was "All the Broken Places" by John Boyne, author of the book, "The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas" which has been made into a movie. The second book, which I finished just yesterday, was Rebecca Makkai's "The Hundred Year House". The stories are very different as are the writing. This was my first book for both authors, (I have not read The Boy in Stripped Pajamas).

All the Broken Places is a story of an old English woman who is hiding a scarred past. Kindle informed me that The Broken Places is a sequel to the movie, "The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas". That much was enough for me to download it in my library to read. I was not disappointed. It's a wonderful story. It reminded me of how we humans often run from the horrors of our past only to face them in our present. The writing was articulate and I really liked the story within the story. It was a beautifully somber story. It saddened me the way evenings sometimes do. Not in a deep sad way, but sad in a way something has ended. The prose was funny too in the way that English humor can ever be. I truly enjoyed reading this book. 

The second book, "The Hundred Year House" was supposed to be a haunted/ghost story only it wasn't, not in the sense I was expecting it to be. Now to my credit, I am not entirely familiar with eerie stories, save some Agatha Christie ones and some Indian authors such as Ruskin Bond. My brother and I love eerie stories, and while we were away on our vacation this year, in the Himalayas, there was a book "The Ghost Stories of the Raj" that both of us wanted to read. We compromised and read some stories and discussed them. It was wonderful. Anyhow, The Hundred Year House was billed as a ghost story on Kindle, and my interest in it spurred from that fact. However, as I have pointed out above, it wasn't a ghost story or even an eerie story. 

The Hundred Years House is a story about an old house. It used to be an art colony and now there are four young people who have come to stay there temporarily. I did not quite understand whether the story was told from the perspective of the house or its residents. I felt it was told from the lens of the house as if the house was telling the story, but I  did not sense so. 

Back to the protagonists, there is Zee, a professor of English, whose family house it is, her husband Doug, an out-of-work academic trying to write a book on the poet, Edward Parafitt, Chase, Zee's stepbrother, who has lost his job in Texas and has therefore moved to live at his father's place and Chase's wife who is an artist. Oh, there is also Zee's mother and stepfather. The story is about the house though. In the first part, the story revolves around the six characters, and in the second, it revolves around the residents of the art colony, that the house used to be. I thought the storyline was a bit odd until the twist in the story was introduced. It is pretty cleverly done. I quite liked the book. It did not make me sad like "All the Broken Places" did, but it did leave me longing for the characters. I think Makkai could have done a lot with some of the characters in the second part of the book. 

There it is. My two books over the summer. 

Currently, I have begun this detective series, "Murder on Astor Place" by Victoria Thompson which stars two detectives- Sara Brandt a nurse turned midwife in the turn-of-the-century New York, and New York Police Officer, Sargeant Frank Malloy. The second book, I am listening to, is, Jojo Moyes' The Giver of Stars. It is a fictional story about pack-horse librarians in rural Kentucky. The pack horse librarians were non-fiction. If you want to know more about pack horse librarians, here is a link about them Pack Horse Librarians. I'll be back on my two cents about these two books. 

If you are interested, here is a link to buy the books I reviewed from Amazon. I don't get paid by Amazon, so you can trust this review.

All the Broken Places

The Hundred Year House

Till then, keep reading, for reading shall set you free!! :) :)

The sweet art of compromise

I was in my therapist's office today, trying to make her understand the dynamics of an "Indian, arranged marriage". In trying to make her understand, why, in my opinion, Indian married women 'compromise' more than Indian men, I realized I was misinforming her. While I still think married Indian women compromise more than their husbands, compromises aren't so bad after all. While individualism and collaboration should be  cornerstones of any relationship, compromising or negotiating one's wants and needs in tandem with others is equally important.

Compromise, though, has become a dirty word nowadays, especially regarding marriages or the sacred private space that two individuals in an intimate relationship share. While this post means no disrespect to individuals who believe their wants and needs must come first, I will try showing that compromise can act as an equalizer if used with love, care, and empathy. I know that the best outcome of any communication situation is collaboration. However, collaboration can sometimes be an outcome of a compromise. 

Let me explain why...

Compromise can be an excellent tool in a marriage if practiced within boundaries. Those boundaries may refer to the values one holds or the ideals one holds dearly in life. In marital relationships or relationships of an intimate nature, compromises made out of choice may result in collaboration. But when compromising, one has to ensure they do not hurt the core values they believe in.  

I used to hate going to rock concerts. Well, to be honest, I did not (do not) like heavy metal music. When I married Rahul, he told me he was a fan of this group called Metallica. I did not know who they were (now I do), and I was least interested in going to their concert. Some years later, in Pretoria, after many requests (from Rahul), I went to a Brit Floyd concert. And, I know they are not Metallica, but I loved the experience. So my compromise was just to go to this concert, where I discovered I quite liked going to rock concerts. Since then, we have been to several of them (the Metallica concert, though, is still outstanding...). So it wasn't necessarily a bad compromise. However, I do think, if one is forced to compromise against those boundaries (values, and ideals), that would not necessarily be a good idea. I think in those instances, it's often better to oppose and assert one's voice.

Two of my dear friends, who I value a lot because they are indeed role models when it comes to the modern superwomen, have compromised multiple times in their own marriages. To give due credit to their partners, they, too, have compromised. Whenever it comes to marriages, and successful marriages at that, I do not have to look further than my parents, who will celebrate 45 years of marital bliss this August!!! Along the way, both have made compromises and negotiated with each other for the good of their small family. While it is highly debatable, in their marriage, as to who has compromised more, I do not believe, either has gone to an extent where their original values or voices have been lost. That would be dangerous. That's what I meant when I mentioned earlier, that compromise if used cleverly, can act as a great equalizer.

While my husband and I are still neophytes in the great world of matrimony, we regularly compromise on the restaurants to go to, vacations to take, and how we divide the household chores. I think, from my little experience of marriage, my perception of compromise as evil isn't correct. More than the act of compromise itself, the intent behind the compromise communicates a great deal. So maybe, I did not do a good job of communicating the Indian arranged marriage dynamics to my therapist today. I hope she reads this post someday... :)

So, yes, if you are getting into a relationship, where you genuinely like the other person, do not throw compromises as a relationship tool, out of the window. Compromises can sometimes lead to a great, collaborative relationship. 

I always invite readers to check out scientific findings on topics that I write about. Because, please remember, no matter, who writes it, it's still their opinion. I found the following article from Psychology Today on compromise and it states the same thing that I do above.

To compromise or not to compromise

Here's to compromises and to even sweteer relationships!!! :)