Sunday, 1 November 2009
WORDS FOR THE FIRE
The creative process that spurs from a moment’s inspiration is ever so demanding. Once its call is answered the response to it must be one of sheer commitment. Perfection is its one request. Like a lover it demands endless hours of your time and your complete devotion. Only after pouring his entire being into the craft will it be satisfied, never settling for anything less. And only then will the creator and seeker of perfection feel whole again.
Writers, the creators of fiction, masters of the perfectly tailored sentence and rulers of their conjured up worlds relish this creative process. No matter how gruelling and sadistic it may be. No matter how much time and how many people it asks them to give up, they remain faithful to it until the very end.
Vladimir Nabokov was a writer and a slave to this creative process. An author whose imagination saw no boundaries and whose pen gave us novels like Ada, Pale Fire and the bestselling violator of social acceptability, Lolita. Thirty years ago from his deathbed Nabokov worked on his 18th and what was to be his last novel named The Opposite of Laura.
Amidst his delirium and fleeting consciousness he managed to organise his plot, create his characters, and arrange his words on what totalled to 138 index cards. Nabokov died in 1977, his last wish was for his wife Vera to destroy The Opposite of Laura. His wish was partially granted for his transcripts entered a vault in a Swiss bank, where they lay untouched and unseen for thirty years, until now.
Dimitri, Nabokov’s only son recently decided to put together his father’s last novel and gift it to the world. He confessed that it was a great struggle for him whether or not to honour his father’s dying wish. Ultimately he found that it would be an immense loss for the literary world to keep The Opposite of Laura from seeing the light of day.
Dimitri’s dilemma is understandable for what should one do when he is requested by one of the most influential writers of the 20th century to destroy a piece of his work? At the onset one would be inclined to object, to speak on behalf of the art form and fight for its survival. For where would The Aeneid be if Virgil’s heirs respected his wishes to destroy it and how much would we have known of Kafka had his friend Max Brod burned The Trial and The Castle as instructed? Yet one issue remains, and as a writer I must say that I bend ever so slightly towards it. Honouring an artist’s wishes seems to me the right thing to do. For after his death the writer is painfully denied of his inherent right to discuss his work. If the creator was able to utter the words “destroy it,” referring to his own creation, then he fully believes that his creative process has not been completed and without perfection. Without full satisfaction the work is just not quite there yet, and probably never will be.
Nabokov could have understood that or maybe in his hallucinatory state uttered these words unaware of their consequences. Nevertheless his request posed the question and pushed the doors of debate wide open.
Does a writer have more of an obligation to the literary world than to his work? Does the fact that he was generous enough to share his gift with the masses mean he should be robbed of his final wishes? And why is it that the more you offer yourself the more people expect from you? A writer, at the very core, is a person and a person should always have the right to choose.
This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on Nov. 1st, 2009.

Saturday, 17 October 2009
LUXURY HAS LOST ITS LUSTRE

Sunday, 11 October 2009
REALITY, GIVE ME A SUPERHERO
This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 11th October, 2009.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
THE KING IS DEAD
Michael Jackson’s heart stopped beating last night. Michael Jackson is no longer with us. After being there for me throughout my entire life I must say I feel like I have lost someone close to my heart. His beats where the background music to my life, as far as I can remember Michael was there with me as I am sure he was there for many of you. Who can’t remember their jaws dropping after watching Thriller? Practicing the moonwalk for hours in front of the mirror? Asking everyone to Beat It and proclaiming to the world that we are Bad?
We have called Michael by many a name; sometimes we were kind and called him the ‘King’, other times we settled for ‘Wacko Jacko.’ After rocking to his music for years we were quick to judge his person. We witnessed his face deteriorate before our eyes, we gawked at him dangling his baby from a hotel balcony, we stood divided when he was on trial and were shocked to see his beloved Neverland Ranch being sold. Michael Jackson’s music brought worlds together, but he was a lonely man, one could even say a lonely child. I say that with conviction because when one is gifted enough to reach such heights, he will always remain there alone.
Nevertheless, today we should remember Michael Jackson for all the times he inspired us with his art and be forever grateful to him for shaping the face of music. We should keep dancing to his beats as long as we can in honour of his devotion to us, his fans. The King’s heart gave out last night and tragically, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put MJ together again. Farewell Michael you were gone to soon.
This piece was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on June 27, 2009.

Political Prophet
His immense contribution to the English language continues to inspire and school writers. What young writer has not come across Orwell’s six rules of effective writing, used them and never looked back? I sure have. The lexicon he developed for his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four has entered the English language and become a part of our everyday speech. It is said that Orwell was the first to use the term ‘cold war’ in his essay You and the Atomic Bomb.
Eric Arthur Blair’s persona was quite the opposite of what his books and essays portrayed. His alter ego, the one he named George Orwell and unleashed onto the world was the most outspoken critic of the Second World War. Who believed in bringing the truth to the people no matter how harsh it may be and set out to do it. But the person behind this tough, injustice-fighting machine was a shy man. Eric Arthur Blair was a man who although spent most of his short-lived life fighting for the common man he didn’t really mix with any and always kept to himself.
He contracted tuberculosis, which forced him to write from the confinement of his hospital room. The most vivid memory the hospital staff recall of Orwell is the sound of typewriter keys resonating in the hallways all through the night. While his body was fighting for survival, his mind was engaged in an image of the future. A bleak image that he managed to paint using innovative word choice and unparalleled imagination. At first glance Nineteen Eighty-Four may seem like a science fiction novel but the political satire and Orwell’s message to future generations is unmistakable. Although it was published in 1949 many of its elements are still relevant to this day, people take head of growing government powers for you will be the ultimate sacrifice.
Orwell wrote from a hospital bed, Blair got married in one. Two very different people living in the same body. This body took its last breath on the 21st of January 1950. One soul lives on through its passionate, influential work and the other lives on in the heart of the son it left behind. And although Orwell was gone too the tombstone carries an epitaph that simply reads: "Here lies Eric Arthur Blair, born 25 June 1903, died 21 January 1950" as if to say he never really left us.
This piece was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on June 27, 2009.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Killing for Honour, Honoured for Killing
Agony thy name is woman. A sentence that commanded my attention as a 16-year-old. I had no real background knowledge or experiences to speak of that would lead me to believe in such a bold and definite sentence. Yet after stumbling across it through the pages I carefully cut it out and pinned it on the already busy board above my desk.
Women have forever been viewed as the Other: the other sex, the other half, the other option. Always the next best thing, always another part of. Yes indeed we have come far as women from the dark ages of silence, suffering and self-blame. We have broken through and taken our rightful role in society. But when I write the word ‘we’ I hesitate, because ‘we’ is all- encompassing. And that would not be fair to the thousands of women around the world who are still forced to dwell in the darkest of ages that we lucky ones have left behind.
It is hard to imagine that even today while many of us go about our lives freely, hundreds of women cannot fathom the concept of being free. Bound, gagged and suffocating from the cruel societal chains they fight for survival on a daily basis, some succumbing to it, others rebelling against it and paying for it with their lives.
The rusty metal links that make up these chains are many, but one in particular has shaken me to the core and continues to do so every time I come across an image of it reflected in the news. It is the horrific crime that seems to be accepted among many Arab societies, conveniently coined ‘honour killing.’ This must be the most contradictory term I have ever come across for what is honourable about cold-blooded murder? Just like the heinous crime the term itself is gravely flawed.
Honour killings allow families to murder any member of their family who they feel has dishonoured them one way or another. And although this definition constitutes any member interestingly enough it is only practiced on female members. Since the dishonourable conduct is not clearly specified the women could be hunted down and murdered for as petty a reason as refusing a marriage arrangement.
Countries like Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan see an outstanding number of murdered women as a result of these honour killings. Since many of the crimes are
concealed by the entire family there is no way of acquiring clear statistics. But the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that more than 200 women are murdered yearly in Turkey, over 1000 in Pakistan and gives a total of 5000 women lost worldwide. Tragically, these witch hunts go unpunished because the law books in these countries do not view them as crimes. Basically, the law allows people to act as judge, jury and executioner and is prepared to cast a blind eye no matter how harsh their punishment might be.
In Jordan the law justifies honour killings. Article 340 of its Penal Code states “he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty.” Queen Noor and Queen Rania of Jordan have been fighting to amend this law for years and although it has been put forward it was refused twice by the Lower House of Parliament. Shockingly the law is somewhat similar in over 60 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The West has spoken volumes about these crimes always emphasising that it is a problem which occurs solely in countries governed by Islam. Failing to mention that any law which is interpreted to allow men to kill female relatives in a premeditated effort, crime of passion or in flagrante delicto in the act of committing adultery actually exists in the Napoleonic code (French civil code).
Brazil and Columbia are two non-Muslim countries that considered honour killings noncriminal until the 1990s. It is ironic how when this crime is executed by a Muslim it is named ‘honour killing’ and when the same crime is committed by a non-Muslim it is a ‘crime of passion,’ terminology does make all the difference after all.
This is not Islam’s creed. When Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was approached by a man who suspected his wife’s infidelity, he asked him to procure three additional eye-witnesses to her act before the public authority could judge her. Otherwise, the husband would be lashed for making such an accusation. Being able to find four eye-witnesses to such a matter is near-impossible. Therefore, the evidentiary requirements for conviction are actually there to ensure that punishment will virtually never be carried out.
This is not about religion. This dilemma arises from the concept of shame. Sociology defines it as a family of emotions that arise from viewing the self negatively through the eyes of others. Therefore, it is this fear of judgement that pushes men to murder. A father cannot bear the idea of people viewing him negatively if they found out about his daughter’s disobedience. That heavy sense of self-loathing is enough to make him drive a knife into the flesh that he himself has raised and nurtured. To him this is the only way to win back his so-called honour for she is now a stain that can only be cleansed by death.
This sense of shame is rooted in tribal cultures. Honour killings are one of the many tribal understandings that pre-date Islam and Christianity together. It is as ancient a concept as the crimes of female infanticides. While the former is now extinct, the latter has somehow managed surviving to this day.
This gendercide must be tackled by a revision of all laws. Killing is killing and placing the word ‘honour’ in front of it should never be justification enough for allowing its escalation.
On September 2nd 2008 in Pakistan Hameeda was taken to the desert beaten, shot at and buried alive for wanting to choose the man she was to marry. She was 18 years old.
Banaz Mahmod, 20 years old, disappeared from her home in south London, two years later her body was found stuffed in a suitcase murdered by her father and uncle. Her only crime was standing up to her father’s daily beatings.
Shawbo Ali Rauf, a 19-year-old Iraqi girl, was shot seven times by her in-laws for having an unknown number on her cell phone.
At a time when the world is exhausting all its resources to fight problems like swine flu it seems oblivious to this ongoing gendercide. How can we justify this to Hameeda, Banaz, and Shawbo?
I can’t... can you?
This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on May 22, 2009.
Friday, 1 May 2009
Who Killed The Femme Fatale?
"Picking up a self-help book entitled 10 Easy Steps To Make A Man Fall in Love With You will by no means transform any average woman into a femme fatale”
A couple of nights ago while aimlessly flipping through the channels I came across a scene that suspended my finger in mid-air preventing it from landing once more on the eager remote control button. It was Sharon Stone dressed in red, complete with red nail-polish and red stilettos, blonde hair slicked back, smoking a cigarette. The movie was Diabolique from 1996. I remember seeing it when it first came out, but considering that more than 10 years have passed since, I decided to watch it again with an older, wiser, more critical pair of eyes and laid the remote-control to a well-deserved rest.
For those who haven’t seen Diabolique here is my brief description: it is a remake of a French film noir named Les Diaboliques meaning ‘The Devils.’ Set in an all-boys boarding school the plot revolves around a love triangle, the three sides of which are the husband and head-master played by Chazz Paliminteri, the ex-nun and wife played by Isabella Adjani, and the sultry mistress and teacher played by none other than Sharon Stone. After having had enough of Paliminteri's abusive character the two women devise a plan to murder him. After thinking they have actually gotten away with it the body disappears and suspicious events start to occur.
I will stop right there because I do not intend on giving away the ending and also the plot is not really what this article is about. What caught my interest was the role that Sharon Stone was playing. Her character conveniently named ‘Nicole Horner’ is that of the cunning, seductively beautiful and sexually forthright woman. She speaks softly, charms her way through man, woman and child, doesn’t take no for an answer and wherever she goes the trail of cigarette smoke follows. Nicole Horner is the classic Hollywood Femme Fatale.
The femme fatale made her appearance in Hollywood in the 1940s in the period where studios were churning out murder mysteries by the dozen. Femme fatale is French for ‘deadly woman’ and just like the word, the character was also conceived in France. The character was created to rebel against the typical-female roles of the time. She was fashioned to be the antithesis of the wholesome woman. Confident, cunning, seductive and adamant on getting what she wants regardless of the consequences. A black widow who does not succumb to societal roles and although threatening to the male psyche, she is absolutely irresistible to him. At the time of her introduction to the world it was liberating for women everywhere to witness such a strong female unabashedly appearing on the silver screen.
Actresses like Anna Savage in Apology for Murder (1945), Rita Hayworth as The Lady of Shanghai (1948), Marilyn Monroe in Niagara (1953) and throughout the 90s Sharon Stone in movies such as Basic Instinct and Diabolique, have introduced and immortalised the image of the femme fatale in cinema. But it pretty much stops there.
The femme fatale has lost her way and has not been seen since. Of course there were and still are many strong female characters in cinema but not quite the femme fatale, not portrayed in all her heavily made-up glory. So where did she go? She was a fantasy that was created to accommodate for a need, she was taboo but that’s just it, she was. The fantasy has become a reality. The femme fatale no longer appears because we no longer need her. The industry might be under the impression that with the likes of Oprah, Madonna and Carla Bruni the world has seen its share of powerful women. There is no mysterious aura about them and as far as I know they don’t even smoke therefore the femme fatale is nothing but an urban legend.
When sex-appeal is being marketed to a target demographic made up of 16 year old boys the package will surely include a cheerleader, a Chihuahua and a hackneyed plot. No mystery, no intrigue, hell not even a hint of the ever alluring smoke. Or maybe, nowadays every woman walks around believing that by showing a bit of flesh she too is a femme fatale? Picking up a self-help book entitled 10 Easy Steps To Make A Man Fall in Love With You will by no means transform any average woman into a femme fatale. Perhaps the only ones to gain from such books are the authors themselves.
The femme fatale has an innate passion and drive and exudes an aura that cannot be learned in 10 steps or even 100, simply because it cannot be taught. Her weapons are her's alone and whether or not I agree with the way she uses them, I have much respect for her presence and will. Because if indeed a man used her same weapons we would label him ambitious, driven and view him in a less darker light than we do our femme fatale. Femme fatale must make a comeback because although women today can achieve what they desire using more direct methods, the world is a less exciting place without her. Therefore, this piece is dedicated to the blonde hair, the red lipstick, the husky voice and the fading flicker of a cigarette.
This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on May 1, 2009.
A young man turned war reporter asks…
A young man turned war reporter asks; why should he continue to bare witness to the atrocities around him when half the world refuses to li...

-
On some days more than others we are subjected to incidents, reactions or even words that rub us the wrong way. The reasons are many bu...
-
"The Emirates prides itself on being a country, which advocates freedom of expression and speech, and that is exactly what Dr. Lamees d...
-
Have you ever looked at certain people and couldn’t help think that they reminded you of a certain animal, a bird maybe? You could see the r...