While the reviews of the latest Holmes movie didn’t make me go see it, quite the opposite in fact, even though I like Downey as an actor, I don’t care for his rendition of one of the world’s favourite character and one of my personal role models, it did get me thinking.
I looked at the way he portrayed Holmes, and then I looked back at this series that was aired on The History Channel and the old one I used to watch on DD back in the 80s. I feel that even this change in the depiction of a fictional character is a sign of our social zeitgeist. In the 80s series, Holmes was the way I pictured him, intelligent, aloof, with a supercilious air about him, a trifle egoistic perhaps, but eminently logical and methodical almost to the point of inhumanity. Watson was a little dense perhaps, but loyal, true and always in acceptance of Holmes’ intellectual superiority. The THC series showed Holmes as more petulant and vain, more emotional, more impatient and almost brash. Watson was shown as more intrusive, more irreverent, almost jealous and more eager to score a point against Holmes. I guess the director wanted to equalize the relationship between the two, and he even showed Holmes being proven wrong once or twice with Watson displaying a smug smile. The latest Holmes, of course, is a muscle bound hunk who uses his fists as often as his brains, quite the opposite of Doyles’ hero.
I guess that is the key word, hero. Our society has over time become more and more disbelieving of heroes. The Supermen, as it were. People who transcended their circumstances, even in fiction, are no longer looked upon with admiration and as examples worthy of emulation. No, they must be brought down to our level for us to relate to them. So all heroes have perforce to become less heroic as it were, to stay popular. So Spock today shows more emotion in Star Trek than Nimoy ever did, Spiderman has to be helped by the common public in the third edition, even Superman is rushed to the hospital. James Bond gets broken, hurt, and bleeds. We don’t want supermen anymore. We don’t want to believe that anything better than us can exist, that we can be better than we are today.

When I was younger, I always saw the world as this wide, open space, with so much to see and learn form at every turn, at every angle. Now as I grow older, I find my world constricting around me. There was so much I wanted to learn and see and experience, and now I only find myself able to taste a little bit of it. Whenever I turn to one of my hobbies I find another thing I’d like to do. And now things keep piling on things and I don’t think I’ll ever find enough time in my life to do it all. Tons of songs I’ve never had the time to really sit back and listen, movies I’ve yet to see, serials I’ve got but haven’t come round to yet, books I’ve bought but haven’t read, magazines and journals stacking up. Amid this huge jumble, I’ve realised I’ll never find the time to write poetry, or read about the arts, or even the classics I’ve always wanted to.
Instead of the broad range of topics I indulged myself in even a decade ago, I find myself limiting myself to only a few that I have a chance to enjoy fully. So no more sketching or listening to new singers or reading Plato or even new poets, new in the sense that I haven’t read them, that is.
Instead of being a tech guru on top of everything computer-linked, I now have a broad idea of the trends and innovations. Instead of being a cricket expert, I’m hard-pressed to put a name to some new Indian players. Byron’s longer works I’ve abandoned to old age, when I shall presumably, have more time. Ditto Donne, Plato, Russel, and so much more.
The downside is that when I do get the time to try something new, I enjoy it so much! The first time I listened to internet radio, I found two country artistes I liked a lot. And the few books I’ve bought the last couple of months are a revelation. But where do I find the time to do all that?

The Bible has always fascinated me. I enjoyed reading it, esp. the Old Testament (never got round to the New), which I went through as a kind of novel. I had no doubt in my mind that most, if not all of it was based on some kernel of truth, sort of like the Mahabharat might have been based on clan warfare sometime in the past. But recently, this opinion of mine has been called in question. The more I read about biblical history and archaeology, I find that each and every chapter of the OT has been called in question. From Genesis to Kings to the Temple of Solomon, there isn’t much proof of what the Bible talks about. No mention of the Jews in Egyptian history, apart from some obscure reference in one text, no sign of the massive migration of such a large population across Arabia, no sign of the works of David, nothing. Even some of the major landmarks mentioned in there, Ararat where Noah’s ark landed, Moriah where Moses received the Commandments etc. are not known. A lot is just inferred and a greater lot assumed. I actually thought there might have been someone called Abraham, but even that seems a fantasy. The flood and the garden of Eden I always assumed to be fairy tales, though it was a shock to know that 40% of adult Americans firmly believe in Creation as set out in Genesis. I mean, seriously! The link between Eden and the Banishment and the actual agricultural revolution in the Turkey-Iraq area I’ve already talked about before. I always thought of these stories as allegory and now I find that people actually believe that as actual truth! I thought even fundamentalist Muslims, some of the most Medieval of people in their mindsets would know better. But no, 4 out of every 10 Americans believes the earth is only 10000 years old.
Add to that the fact that the OT was put together in its present form only in the AD era. And it was written down by people who didn’t properly understand the old Aramaic script. Plus the latest extant version is even newer. Add all this together and I wonder if any part of the original has even survived, and what, if anything did the actual OT say?
Looking back, I wonder why I accepted stories like the Ten Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea as at least partly truth. What part could be true? Which of those events might actually have happened? And if such miracles did occur, where is the historical record? I guess I never took things to their logical conclusion, which was that even if Moses did exist and the Jews were freed by him from the clutches of the Egyptians, he must have done it in some other fashion than by invoking miracles such as three day eclipses and fire falling from the sky and killing the first born of Egypt etc. not a very good thing for God to do by the way! Now of course, I wonder if Moses actually lived. I guess Dawkins is right. We are taught from infancy to accept whatever religion teaches us without much questioning. Even for someone like me, brought up in a very liberal family, where I was free to believe or disbelieve pretty much anything I wanted to, I never looked at the Bible critically, even less than I did the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. Of course, the latter are not religious texts like the Bible is, and I’m thankful that there is no such Canon in Hinduism, leaving every Hindu free to believe whatever or whoever he likes.
Dawkins book, “The God Delusion” fights at two levels. He tries to disprove God, and does a commendable job at it. I am an agnostic and have been for ages. Even when I prayed, I found it odd to believe there was someone listening in, but it was a soothing experience and had its run. The other thing Dawkins fights against in organized religion and does a much better job of it. Of course that could be because he had a more sympathetic ear in me in the letter argument. I’ve seen and read about the great injustices and genocides and misery and barbarism and utter inhumanity that organized religion has brought about and even encouraged, and have always been against it. Dawkins has just strengthened my opinions on both counts. I have to talk about what I think of his book soon.