Books

I have started reading a number of non-fiction books over the last 2-3 years. Some of them do make a lasting impact on how you perceive things regarding different countries, cultures and lifestyles. For example, I read "Reading Lolita in Tehran" and created a mental image of how Iran exists with so many of the women under pressure and so on. Then today I started "Iran: A People Interrupted" and the author introduces the book saying how he wants to counter the argument made by neocons (or America appeasers) regarding Iran. The first book he wants to contest is the "Reading Lolita in Tehran" one. Well, this puts me in a bind. I mean I am no expert. The only way I learn is from reading books that are critically acclaimed. However, critically acclaimed is so subjective you read books based on what you want to believe in at that time of your life. So, now how do you really know if you ever get a real picture of history? I mean I read a Nehru fan's version of history and Patel fan's version of Indian history it is surely bound to paint a different picture. Is there a way to understand what is the true version? Are we really seeking the true version? Do you really want to get the true version? Is it at all possible for anybody to get a true version of history uncolored/unaffected by the author's life and experience? How many accounts of the same history does one have to read to remove these biases? These are some of the questions that are bombarding me currently. Well, all I can do is read whatever I come across and learn not be judgmental about it. There is always another side to the story. There always is! This is unnerving for a person like me who believed life can be viewed as "right" or "wrong". Lets try to open our eyes wider to accept the possibility of being somewhere in the middle. Somebody does not have to be wrong! The sooner the world (that includes me) accept this the sooner the world will be a better place!

Well, where did I start and where did I end!