The Desert-River in a Sinister Spring

I kneel-bent am, in a gorge, in a desert parched perennially

And see you running towards me—a stream of humming happiness.

In your waters, myriad colours, they mingle madly.

I see around; a desert dances in its green grace.

The spring’s here, and it’s here to stay, to myself I say.

My hands fold and bow down in a thirsty desperate dip,

But your (river’s) drops, by distances unseen, but felt, keep away.

The drops do drown down my sight, but sans settling in a single sip.

Each dancing drop passing in its leap, ever ecstatic

Greets my green grace (desert)-grazing gaze, and I surmise

That the happiness face-to-face is a fantasy far fantastic.

And away you meander leaving moist only one trace- that in my eyes.

I then faint in that gorge, in a green garden parched as ever

And see you running away from me—a stream of pampered pain.

In your waters mocking at me is a mob of colors, clever,

Which was invigorating, variegated, vibrant, and now—VANISHING and VAIN.



(A poem on what happens when love means too much to you, and loving, too much for the one you love)

Time Table

Yes, true it is, however much be I bored,

that I’ve to keep walking on this road.

But, how can I not stop and gaze,

smiling by the road, a beautiful red rose?

Its petals spread in full expanse

catch my attention in complete trance.

“You’re so beautiful”, to the rose I say,

and that “thanks for being on my way”

I forget that the hurrying sun,

desperately is headed for the horizon.

Someone a friend of mine says,

“Throw as many a gaze as you can,

when you reach your destination.”

Someone a fiend of mine says,

“Not everyone under the sun can

for that rose’s beauty have such an appreciation.”

I know that latter is nothing, but sarcasm.

So, I ponder and like my friend and fiend choose to move on.

***

Yes, true it is, however much be I bored

that I’ve to keep walking on this road.

But, how can I not stop and trace

ignominy bleeding out of injuries on a stranger’s face?

His downcast eyes bathed in tears of defeat and shame

catch my sympathy in midst of a worldly game.

To him I say, “Cry not and let dreams in your eyes shine,

For the path to your dreams is his, mine and also thine.”

I forget that the hands of clock, swift and slim

incessantly are dancing within the clock’s round rim.

Someone a friend of mine says,

“Wipe many a tear as you can

once you reach your destination.”

Someone a fiend of mine says,

“Not everyone in this world can

for that face have same compassion.”

But, I know that the latter is truth’s great aberration.

So, annoyed, like my friend and fiend unwillingly, I move on.

***

Yes, true it is however much be I bored

that I’ve to keep walking on this road.

But, how can I not stop and bend down

to pick from the surface a sadistic thorn?

The thorn giving the journeymen nothing, but trouble,

would have not broken, been it less egoistic and more flexible.

To the thorn I say, “I’m very sorry for that,

but for your deeds that was your fate.”

I forget through how many chimes have passed the winds of time,

and sonority been thrown about without any rhythm nor any rhyme.

Someone a friend of mine says,

“Pick as many a thorn as you can,

but that’s once you’ve reached your destination.”

Someone a fiend of mine says.

“Not everyone always can

for such trivia, as a thorn have an observation.”

I know the latter is nothing, but mockery’s euphemistic culmination.

So, I spare the broken thorn, and like my friend and fiend, move on.

***

But I see:

That the hurrying sun

drowns into the horizon.

That the hour-hands of clocks

dance twice and at me mock.

And that winds of time

have not left untouched a single chime.

So, a day is finally over,

and on this endless road have moved just a bit, moreover.

So, I close my eyes before sleep in the hope

that tomorrow, rather than walking I’ll gallop,

and to not see any rose, any face or pick any thorn

so as to invite this world’s ever so concealed scorn.

So, to myself I say,

“Yes, true it is, however much be I bored

that I’ve to keep walking on the very same road.”

But, How can I not stop and …

(Written in the first year, when I’ was torn between what I thought was "living" the life--reflecting, observing, influencing, and academics, something that would have amounted to postponing "living").

A Journey called Life

Every one has dreams, ambitions. I am no different. If an ambition can be likened to reaching the peak of a mountain, then yes, there were times when I wanted to climb atop a mountain that would have brought me glory, and may be, also given me satisfaction. But then, that was the past. I used to see the mountain through my limited vision. It is only the peak that was visible. Not visible was the path that led to that top-  or rather, what I thought to be the path. When we' are young with equally narrow visions, we think straight. We think it is simple - start walking in the direction of the peak, climb where the turf is steep, and don't stop.

As I "grew up" I realized that it is not only me who wished to reach the mountain top, and however hard one tries, one's path is going to be crisscrossed by others' paths. What was unknown to me was the fact that what our limited vision shows us is only the mountain top, and many times not even where we are standing at that time. Even if a lucky few among us can make out where they are standing, it does not guarantee that they could see THAT path that could actually lead them to the top.

Somehow it is so incorporated in the ways of the world, that what others can see is: from where a (successful) person starts, and where is he now (that is, the top of the mountain), but not how he got there. Maybe he might have pushed a few people down on his way to the top. May be, a few people who could not make it were equally or more capable, but tried to climb from the wrong side of the mountain as their vision did not give them a panoramic view; may be they would have reached had it not been for bad weather which no one could predict; may be they missed it all because of one wrong footing; may be they reached there when that mountain was not discovered and no one attached glory to actually "conquer" it; may be when they reached, no one actually saw them reach there and so no praises were sung; may be... And then, a few very lucky ones could take a chopper up there. No such luck with me.

With realization of a few of these facts I began to ponder what is the fun in trying to climb atop a mountain where factors other than sheer talent and determination could play major roles? Is it really worth? I have a limited life; is it really worth climbing up and to be remembered for a day or two, in highly amnestic public memory? No. Does it mean I will never climb up a mountain? No, I will, if situation demands, but the mountain would have to be a "check point" to reach somewhere; that "somewhere", which would be more interesting, irrespective of whether or not reaching there would be a matter of pride, or if laurels would be showered upon me on reaching there.

I realized that "success" as we know it, is different for everyone. Just because climbing atop a mountain is difficult, does not mean I have to try reaching there. Neither just because everyone thinks that those who are able to reach there are "successful". Eventually success, just like life, has to be a journey. One should feel content at the end. If a lake with scenic beauty impresses me more, there is nothing wrong in sitting there, taking in all the beauty that its environs have to offer. Who knows if the mountain peak could be quite barren! To make sure one would have to climb up to the top. So, why take chances...


Alas! Even when was I decided I liked the lake more than the mountain peak, I was still young, with a wider vision, but yet not wide enough. To simply survive is not life, but definitely to be alive one needs to survive. The demands of life extend beyond: where one wants to reach at the end. To tread the path also one requires "resources" - food, clothing, shelter, and what not. Unfortunately, like fruits hung on trees, these resources are not always available on the path we take - at least not on the trees that border the path we wish to take. You may have to go a bit deep into the wilderness that flanks your path. And, even there you realize it is not only you who wants those fruits. Others have already plucked quite a few of them. You end up spending most of the time plucking fruits rather than walking on your path.

And then there are some, who choose a path that has fruit-laden trees everywhere - not really thinking where the path leads. Rather, it is not some, but the majority.
Well, that is what life is like. I think the happiest are those, who, as is obviously stated by many, are able to enjoy the journey, pluck fruits when needed, and not try to hoard too much out of their paranoia, or sadistic pleasure of not letting others have them; nor are those happy who totally forget about the fruits they have to collect, and get lost in their way, and perish - unknown to any one...

Communalism

Nowadays, we hear so much about violence, terror, and any kind of “planned calamity” that makes one wonder where the human race is headed. Well, I do not think I am in position to really answer that. But all this destruction had made me think, too, as to why do people resort to violence to prove a point, when there is may be, nothing really to be proven. Okay, I think everyone knows that the root-cause of all this is what everyone calls “communalism”.

What is communalism? Is it being Hindu, Christian, or may be, Muslim, and to be proud of all that? If you think this is a rhetoric question, then it is NOT! Yes, that is communalism — to be proud to be a part of certain community, at least that is the cause of most of the destruction that we see all around us. And so is being proud to be some caste, or gender, or speaking certain language; or, belonging to a certain school, graduating from certain college, living in a certain city; and even to be proud of being born in a given country.

There are some six billion people on this Earth, and a few less some time back, but in any analysis, it is ultimately, the ratios and proportions that matter. So out of this billions of people, how many had actually felt that they were successful; that their lives were meaningful; that they mattered to someone; that they were indispensable; or, that they could change the course of history in a significant way? I am sure very few — absolutely, as well as, in terms of fraction and percentage. But is that not what everyone sets out to do when they are young, and planning (rather, fantasizing about) their lives ahead? Everyone wants to feel special, indispensable, and influential; as a corollary, no one wants to feel, redundant, irrelevant, and uninfluential.

What happens in the process is that each and everyone among us starts identifying with a certain community, a fold. And since, any large-enough community is obviously not so small to have been redundant, or irrelevant, and most definitely unifluential, identifying with it is the best option left to “feel good” about oneself. Over (very short) time, we start identifying more strongly with the community than even ourselves, especially when it comes to the "ego issues". That is because subconsciously we want all the good qualities, admiration, and importance that comes with being part of a community attributed to ourselves, too. But, unfortunately, what the attributes of a community are, is a most subjective matter - open to conscious as well as subconscious manipulations. That is why it is so easy to believe that the country one lives in is the best one. And, that is what almost everyone living in all the countries of the world feel, and all of them are right (and wrong); because it is subjective! What criteria can one apply to consider a country the best — affluence, military might, richness of culture (which again is subjective), performance in sporting events, longevity of people? It is not a problem if one is fixed about one’s criteria, and then concludes: “Okay, my country is the best”, with the objective honesty intact to concede that some other country could be best if it proves to be better by the chosen criteria. The problem comes when one thinks like “Okay, my country controls half the world-economy, so what if half the population is disgruntled with the government! It’s the affluence that matters, not governance.” Clearly, latter is a case of deluding oneself, only to “feel good” about belonging to a certain country.

Why does one resort to manipulating one’s own thoughts to “feel good”?

As I somewhat explained, that is to partially compensate for not feeling important enough as an individual in the first place. Let me give another example to explain. You try telling a person who knows you somewhat that:

“Once, I was walking down a street, and suddenly I was attacked by half a dozen armed goons, but I fought most gallantly and killed them all.”

The other person would be most impressed and you would feel important, unique and basically “good” about it, but that is, if the other person would believe you! But, instead, you try telling about some God/historic warrior, that that you (or your community) revere, had once slain (“slayed”) half a dozen THOUSAND of enemies, and when you see the glint in other person’s eye, or a raised eyebrow, you know the other person is impressed, and you feel happy knowing (subconsciously, of course) that you yourself too must be in possession of that gallantry. The problem comes when it so happens that of those half a dozen thousand enemies that were killed by YOUR hero, even if one happens to be the one that the other person’s community reveres, for according to him (and, his community), it is THEIR hero who had killed TWO (and not a meagerly HALF) dozen thousand enemies, of course, including the hero that YOU worship. So much for subjectivity! And then it boils down to either you feel good, or he feels good.

So, that is the problem with being proud of things that are hypothetical, mythical, and most important, open to manipulation. And, if one looks closely, most of the affiliations that we are proud of are not the ones chosen by us — it is usually, only out of luck, destiny, etc, that we become part of most of the above communities — country, religion, language, etc., are all determined by circumstances of our birth. Even other things like one’s profession, alma mater, city to live in - are not chosen with complete knowledge of what it would be like to be a part of that (community). You want your college, for instance to be considered good, not because you thought and still think it is good, but because YOU graduated from it. If your college is (considered) good, you are (a) good (student), if not, you are bad.

I would thus conclude that:

Communalism is a form of mass hypocrisy only to stoke our individual egos.

But, what is the remedy to this all? I was not here to answer all this, may be this was just one of the pet musings, and consequent constant peeve that I hold against many for making this world less beautiful a place to live in than it is possible. But then I would still like to state that the answer to this misery is:

To be satisfied with what one is, not be desperate to convince others and even oneself that we are relevant, and influential. It is important to enjoy life — we all get to live it only once, rather than waste it in trying to prove our points that simply do not exist.

Everyone needs to question themselves is there any point in being proud of a community that they never got a chance to CHOOSE consciously? Okay, if one is proud of one’s friends for what they are and obviously, for CHOOSING them, it might be justified to an extent. But, what is important in judging affiliations of any kind is to not lose one’s OBJECTIVITY. That is the most important thing. If I never concede that the governance of my country needs improvement so as to make every one happier, I would never really think of improving where there is a margin to.

Also, when one gets too obsessed with their communities their OWN life gets neglected. Is it difficult to understand that all those who resort to violence to prove a (communal) point, apart from harming others, are wasting their OWN lives? Who will be able to explain this to them?

I think, the solution, if at all there is one, cannot be implemented in one generation. It will have to start from our education-system. It is important to recognize the individual talents of every student, to make them feel worthy of what they are. Then only would they grow up to be confident adults, and not insecure individuals who would want to bask in communal glory rather than their own individual worth. Then only would they learn that it is they themselves and their present that matters, and not mythological past of their community, or hypothetical (nonexistent) deeds that their deity had come to be associated with. If you read a nice poem written in your mother-tongue, is it necessary to feel PROUD of it and its poet? Is it not more important to enjoy its beauty and feel happy and lucky to have read in this one given lifetime? This way one would be equally happy on reading a poem written in some other language or by some other author.

But the the solution though simple in concept, would be hard to actually implement. Firstly, it will have to win the conviction of the present generation, which itself has been brought up to be proud of one affiliation or the other, and by extension, be prejudiced. Secondly, and more obviously, does every single child have access to education, let alone “reformed” education?

Does this mean end of all affiliations? I am not sure. May be, affiliations have their roots in evolution. Most of the physically weak species (animals) would not have survived had it not been for their roaming in herds. Likewise, being part of a certain family/group/tribe, must have helped the human race in surviving the various adversities that they must have faced. And, this cohesion would not have been possible without a feeling of oneness. But, there was a difference — there would be only one (or very few) families and tribes. And, that one tribe would not be placed against the others. But, now of course, things are different. I think today, we need cooperation (between individuals across the globe), and not affiliations that would needlessly pitch one group against the other.

I do not know who or how many people are going to read this, but this is what I have been feeling for quite some time. I just find the whole situation so unfortunate as, as it is so difficult to satisfy the basic human needs (at least for the vast majority of the “developing nations”), and that, to all that this communalism that more often than not fuels fanaticism, nepotism, violence, and so much of totally avoidable harm, compounds the problem. I feel desperate, and helpless about the situation. For, the problem is grave, and, I feel I know the solution, but only if someone (no, in fact the entire human race) would listen…

A few responses to criticism of atheism

This is a very impulsive blog, really. I was just going through the article on Wikipedia “Criticism of atheism”. There was one point that particularly struck me. I had the impulse to reply then and there (in the article, itself!), but remembered Wikipedia is only supposed to describe and not opine.

The point that got me started with this blog goes like:

“Catholic and some secular intellectuals attribute the perceived post-war decadence of Europe to the displacement of absolute values by moral relativism. Pope Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera and others have argued that after about 1960, Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and replaced them with continuously-evolving relative moral rules. In this view, sexual activity has become separated from procreation, which led to a decline in the importance of families and to depopulation. As a result, currently the population vacuum in Europe is filled by immigrants, often from Islamic countries, who attempt to reestablish absolute values which stand at odds with moral relativism. The most authoritative response to moral relativism from the Roman Catholic perspective can be found in Veritatis Splendor, an encyclical by Pope John Paul II.”—Wikipedia.

Now, I don’t want to get into statistics and support or disprove what has been stated above, particularly with regard to atheism (relative morality) resulting in negative population growth, and subsequent immigration. Its veracity, simply on sound logical grounds, isn’t really worthy of contesting. My point is about how in an argument, like the one above, a very important idea has been missed—the idea of truth—the one of being truthful to oneself and wanting to know the truth. More clearly, can one “start” or “continue” to believe in God, merely because it makes one more moral. Can truth be chosen? And, chosen—not because of inherent merits of assertions—but on the consequences of believing or disbelieving it? No, the issue is not WHAT the truth is; the issue how the truth is “arrived” (if indeed there is such a thing as that) at? Is it not hypocrisy a person would indulge in if he/she CHOSE to believe as facts certain propositions only because they’d have certain “benefits” or “advantages”? How could a person delude and shortchange one’s consciousness in matters that are most fundamental to one’s existence—questions like where did I come from, or who created me, or what is the purpose of life; or alternatively, if you’re an atheist, how was my existence brought about, or how my existence is going to affect the state of affairs of this Universe in general? Such a chosen truth would rather be self-deception.

There are others who believe that one SHOULD continue to believe in God only so that they have a shoulder to lean on in times of difficulties, or a stingy hand to blame for all the deficiencies in their lives are being dishonest, and dishonest with THEMSELVES, which may or may not be immoral depending upon the consequences, but when such people “think” on such matters, their doing so (thinking on such personal matters) seems entirely besides the point. This can be simply termed as “autobrainwashing”.

Returning to morality: it can be loosely defined as “the sense of what (thoughts, words and acts) are right or wrong in a given circumstance.” And, I do believe that for a great deal of common men with as an end, a harmonious existence within a society, morality when enshrined in a carrot-and-stick principle like religion, works best. I don’t know if it is alright to try to make those who remain moral—only because of fear of punishment upon leading immoral life, and temptation of a “good afterlife” after a moral one—doubt the existence of or believe in the nonexistence of God. For, such people, who are plenty in number in my humble opinion, are likely to become “freewill-upstarts”—not knowing the responsibility that comes with the liberty of not being: under the constant scrutiny of an omniscient vigilante; subject to rules of a supreme judge; and, recipients of punishments or rewards meted out as verdicts. Let’s call this religious morality. But, what about those who choose to be moral only because they “feel good” about it? Morality, as has been pointed out by a few, evolved out of a necessity of leading a social life; the need to have a pattern of behavior that would be most conducive to coexisting with others despite lacking a feeling of solidarity, and since coexisting would be the best option available. This can be called social morality. Morality is most effective when viewed as a collective shrewdness—how does this sound for an incentive to lead a moral life: you don’t harm others, so that (when the same dictum if heeded by everyone), ultimately no one harms others, and as a consequence, no one harms YOU? Or alternatively, help whenever opportunity comes and circumstances permit, so that everyone would help someone else, and occasionally, YOU would be at the receiving end of someone’s helpfulness when in need. I’m no anthropologist, but, this seems to be the very likely way morality would have begun its “career”. I know to some moral puritans might be petrified by this cunning commerce of acts becoming a social norm—a “cheap” way of leading one’s life, but then it’s no different from the carrot and stick religion-hijacked-morality (I was inspired by this phrasing [and not the idea per se] by “religion has arrogated morality” in the preface of “The Fountainhead”). At least, it (the practicality in morality) brings the responsibility of morality to where it rightly belongs—in the individual. Okay, but, we all know that this “chain of custody” of goodness and badness, doesn’t work, the reason for which, is maybe the impatience in individuals. People think like, “if I help someone, and that someone, or for that matter, someone else, doesn’t help me in need, would I not be deceived. Would that not be unfairness to me?” Or of course, logically, “if I am nice with everyone, and what if someone else sabotages my interests? Again that would be unfairness, as well.” Such doubts are difficult to remove, for they are valid, actually. That’s why to play it safe, everyone should be nice! And as it is, religious morality has not been absolutely successful in curbing immoral acts (crime, as a simple example).

So, I come to a question of “how people who believe in afterlife (or consequences of one’s acts that come into effect after one’s life) come to act in an immoral way?” In simple words, how a God-fearing (and paradise-loving) man acts wrongly? Of the many, one reason for this is that religious morality (morality as demanded by one’s religious beliefs) is quite relative. What might be undoubtedly moral to you, might be immoral to someone else. Take for instance, bride and groom kissing each other in a Christian marriage ceremony. Such a thing would be unthinkable in a traditional Hindu or Muslim ceremony! My merely trying to point out how it is NOT immoral just because it does NO HARM to any one might be construed as immoral assertion, and invite such passionate rage! Also, this relativity has a lot to do with an inherent absence of a guiding principle. The only guiding principle is “because someone said so”. Okay, who that someone is, could again be quite variable. Within the same religion, there can be various sects, the leaders of which exhort different behaviors. And, there’s no guarantee that that someone doesn’t exhort a few things only out of self-interest, right? Now, if one goes back to the roots of embracing a religion, and the bundled morality that came along with it, one would realize that there is one thing that is common between the two (the act of CHOOSING to believe [in God] and morality)—a certain kind of opportunism. If one could choose to believe in God, only because it SUITED one’s purpose, one can CERTAINLY choose to be quite elective about what is right and what is wrong—DEPENDING UPON CIRCUMSTANCES.

That’s where maybe social morality scores, in being much clear as to what is right or what is wrong—it has a guiding principle—LIVE, LET live, and be happy NOW, and NOT trying to score brownie points in a game with undecided and ever-changing rules for a reward you get after the END of your life. You help me, I help you; you don’t harm me, I don’t harm you, simple! That’s social morality. Of course, there’d be situations of predicaments, but they’d be pertaining to prioritizing between a greater good and a lesser harm, etc. And, mind you, even in such cases, if religious morality gives credence to one decision or the other, it is after all, an individual opinion (imposed upon many). Take for instance, euthanasia—most of the religions state that since you don’t have the ability to give one a life, you don’t have the right to take away one. But, here one forgets the individual concerned. Granted that life is indeed a special thing, but what about whether, the one to who it belongs WANTS it in the form available? If you can’t relieve a person’s pain, don’t impose that pain by taking away the only means of relief available. If one looks carefully at the concept of religious morality, the problem with it is not that it is attached to religion or to a belief in a supremely powerful force, the problem is that, I repeat, it does not have a fundamental guiding principle. The same problems can be encountered with any body of moral principles that are decided arbitrarily, and more importantly, which are not open to time-to-time modifications depending upon the circumstances. Here, by changing with circumstances, I don’t mean opportunistic applying of morals, but they would have to be in keeping with the principles of “live, let live and be happy”. The problem comes because what is moral and what is not is decided by a select few in the society, and others imbibe that morality without questioning it, or trying to understand the guiding principles. So, such problems can also arise with RIGID systems, where certain qualities are extolled, and certain acts disallowed WITHOUT clear bases. It is knowing the basis for moral principles that is of utmost importance. Say, for instance, in a very affluent nation, if leading a simple life would be considered virtuous to an excessive extent, affluence would become redundant, and with it, innovation, and development of technology, as there would be no place for the “good life”.

One more criticism of atheism has been “There are no atheists in foxholes”, which would become clearer with the following context:

“The statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes," is used to imply that many avowed atheists really do believe in God, and that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, the belief will surface, overwhelming the less substantial affectation of atheism.” –Wikipedia.

What can be conceded as possibly a fact is that in times of extreme stress, someone can end up believing in God, but how does that give any credence to theism? A person, who turns theist in times of stress, does not believe in God because he’s convinced about it, but because he WANTS to believe. Now, as everyone would know with a bit of introspection, what one wants to believe, and what is true are not necessarily same things. By this argument, I’m not trying to state that which (atheism or theism) is more sound in epistemological (simply put, the study of knowledge) terms but only that “there are no atheists in foxholes” is at best a personal attack on all atheists, but not a valid one against the principle of atheism per se.

In what all I’ve written in this blog, I’ve not focused on arguments of whether God exists or does not, but only the (few of quite numerous) attendant issues of consequences of belief or nonbelief. The arguments of theism, deism, strong atheism, weak atheism, agnosticism, etc, are too exhaustive, that move roundabout in great circles, and most importantly, cannot be done justice to in a monologue like a blog! Not to mean those are uninteresting ;)

By the way, very coincidentally, I encountered this somewhat pertinent article on Wikipedia about the relativity of religious morality—Euthyphro dilemma, which goes like this: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"—and who other than the (philosophically) naughty Socrates could have come up FIRST with such a dilemma!

Residua - Redirect

Please go to the updated version of this story, here (click).

About this blog

On this blog, you will find the tone of my writing and the issues they touch upon, constantly zipping from one end to the other on the seriousness-frivolity spectrum. Brace yourself against these excursions. Or alternatively, enjoy them!

There are many tags that go with the individual posts. Some are self-explanatory; some might require further elaboration.

Ego. Posts thus labeled are the ones that are centered around me. And unlike what many people confuse the term with, it has nothing to do with arrogance.

Flash fiction. These are fictional posts shorter than 200 words. Many of them are 55-fiction, which entail completing a story within 55 words, and some other criteria, that have been explained in the left sidebar.

Short posts. These are the ones that have been published from my cell phone so, on an average take less than 10 min to read. :)

Story. Though, stories are also actually pieces of fiction, under this category I would only be including those that take substantial amount of time to read (30 min or more).

No doubt, some of the broad categories/labels could share a few posts between them. And some posts may get missed out by my categorizing them thus.

If my posts evoke any reactions in you, I will definitely love to hear. :) Wish you an interesting reading experience!