[Lt_Apple]

Somehow wasn't too impressed with JeMo's sci fi collection.

Actually those were the first stories I read and I liked a couple of them like உ.நோ.ப and the controversial நம்பிக்கையாளன்

To be honest I read the first three or four stories and somehow I thot they weren't interesting enough or intense enough.To me it shows a person not very familiar with science dealing in it. Though his idea is not sci per se lack of knowledge shows. Not as factual errors but when consequences of sci are discussed Sometimes it is too simplistic Been a while since I read them.His 'nizhal veli kathaigal' on the other hand was outstanding

He wrote to prove a point that sci-fi is not abt techno dazzle

i.e. not just about new technology, innovation etc. In many stories he tied it to his strong points - mystical, historical stories, unknowns with cultural roots etc.

பித்தம் for instance, is about alchemy. But it is pretty much about throwing oneself behind an idea. More than the dogged perserverence that is science (or for that matter any knowing) and the twist what impressed me was that the story was very 'general'. The poignance of letting the pursuit of a concept wreck oneself. What motivates the patron?
What if the whole life has been expended on misinterpreting a couplet. Aren't we all, in some small way, walking on thin ice when trotting through lives with certain beliefs. The youngster as an EVR follower is perhaps at the start of his own journey where unbelief is itself going to be solid dogma.

One charge that can be made quite fairly is that many stories are wordy. ஐந்தாவது மருந்து is just people talking to make a point. The characters are just talking heads. Same forஇங்கே இங்கேயே

But despite some wordy parts உற்றுநோக்கும் பறவை is my favorite story. It makes for a thrilling read.

In that story it looks pretty much like 'home turf' for him (if I may presume to know what that is!) than 'stepping out' to write a science fiction story. If 'Jekyll and Hyde' can be called Sci-Fi why not this

And to persist with this line of thought, I particularly liked நம்பிக்கையாளன், which has since become controversial. It portrays a survivor of a (nuclear) attack who perceives the reality to be perfectly tallying with the apocalypse as mentioned in his holy book. It is easy to read it as a story as the reading of a clouded mind. But who is to say which perceptions are right?

Scientific temper - for the lay man - is the quest for logic and perception based demonstration. What does one default when the perception itself shown to be shaky. Why is evolutionary conditioning an acceptable prior but not social conditioning?


There is one other story (not part of this series) about an old man trying to reconcile (or refudiate, I don't recall) Nietsche's 'Theory of Eternal Return' with his own theory and wants to present it at a univerity science conference. He is a rabid, arrogant old man out of step with the time. Each time he is rebuffed by the narrator he comes back with an absurd reconciliation by claiming he has tweaked his theory to accommodate the past contradictions.

Now on the face of it, this is 'the scientific method' but the story would portray excellently well how he is just spinning out of control making a fool of himself. The story ends on a poignant note where he has driven himself to destruction and the narrator gives him an ego massage.

That appealed to me a whole lot because one can see that all quest for truth, scientific knowledge, dedicating one's best years etc. primarily motivated not by a 'thirst for understanding' but rather by the consciousness of 'being the one with the thirst for knowledge'.