The daily prinz

 The dawn of everything is a book which promises to give us a new story of human history. Why is there a need to tell a new story? What has been the narration which has primarily evolved in the process of telling the story of human kind?     Here the author clearly says that this book is not a story of inequality or the origin of inequality. Was there really a time when there was no inequality in the name of race, religion and language and did an egalitarian society really exist?  A vivid comparison between Rousseau's discourse on the origin and foundation of inequality among mankind (1754) and Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) in this chapter is hard to ignore. While Rousseau claimed that humans were originally egalitarian and became corrupted after the advent of agriculture, Hobbes asserted that Human's were brutish and chaotic, only after mechanisms like state, governments and courts we have become civilized. Rousseau would call these civil bodies a repressive...

    Though this chapter is about the war between Harsha and Pulikeshin 2 along the banks of the river Narmada, it dwells more on the origins of Chalukyas as this book is about the medieval south Indian history. The author Anirudh Kanisetti compares Harsha and Pulikeshin 2 in all their capacities from their age to physical appearances. The two main themes in this chapter are "how a king gets legitimacy" and "why wars are fought"  Comparison of the two kings:      The author portrays Harsha to be an established war lord in all in his glory hailing from a prosperous kingdom while Pulikeshin 2's Deccan is portrayed as dry and less populated. Pulikeshin 2 is mentioned to be more duskier and shorter than his counterpart. The author almost makes him look like an underdog in this battle.  Rituals and ceremonies:    Anirudh highlights the need for rituals to proclaim the legitimacy of the king. The ashvamedha sacrifice is depicted in detai...

  Martin Scorsese has made a visually stunning adaptation of the book killers of the flower moon which is so compelling to watch and feels too long at the same time.  Let's talk about the director's approach first and keep the spoilers to a minimum. Marty juggles the genre of the movie between a western, a drama and a courtroom procedural with ease. The ability of the director in visual story telling is seen throughout the movie. In his interviews Marty clearly told us that this movie is not going to be in the perspective of the Osage and he did not want to portray the FBI as the Messiah. The time the director has spent in universe building in the first 30 minutes of the movie is an example of artistic excellence. There is no unnecessary exposition or voice overs or texts on the screen which Marty probably felt too old for the modern audience. Usually his movies are characterised by continuous play of nostalgic songs in the background (then he kissed me in Goodfellas, In the s...