It is said that books are humans’best friends, where and how did they come from is a mystery to many. The journey from the stone tablet to electronic tablet is largely unknown, especially the shape shifting nature of books. Imagine time traveling to 800BCE and asking for a book and getting a stone thrown at you. Provided that one is still alive, the stone will reveal whether it is a book with inscriptions, or just an angry homo sapiens irritated by literacy. Or perceive asking for a book in 21st century and getting a downloaded file to read or listen from the literacy agnostic computer, but this time at a less danger of losing one’s life! The journey has many facets from the forms the books had to the way they were produced and stored to what was written on them to how they survived so many centuries. Despite periodical censorships, the staying power of books have proven resilient.

On the materials the books arewritten define their purpose, too. Writing on stone is hard, so is removing it. They serve an excellent source for storing information, mostly accounting facts in limited space. The reader has to come to the book, so the information better be valuable! Compare this with scrolls used in the pre-modern era, where one can write several things from announcements to treasury matters to poetry, but they can easily be destroyed, recall the famous burning of Alexandria library. It was also painstaking to reproduce them, requiring hand written copying. The materials required to produce them, from paper to cloth to animal skin were scarce, too. Hence, the mass production was not the norm until the advent of printing press and mass production of paper.

The books were commissioned byindividual owners and private collection reflected wealth and social status. Library system rarely existed, and in the cases when they did, can only be maintained by the state resources. Think about cataloguing the books and searching them without any cover! Bookstore were the place for commissioning the books, similar to walking on a tailor's shop to make clothes.

Literary was the luxury few canafford, so reading the book aloud was the best way to communicate the information. Like politicians and the media persons of today, one had to believe what the speaker said. Fact checking of book contents was possible, but rarely used due to the minor inconvenience of illiteracy (and physical strength to snatch the scroll from the speaker!) Copying was fine, as intellectual property didn't exist back in those days.

Fast forward, the physical books, e-books and audiobooks seem novel concepts, but in reality, they are combinations of the features evolved through centuries. It is difficult to burn a library today, but the e-books can do the same removing them or denying access. Romans would be unimpressed by the modern technology of audiobooks, as it was part of their daily life, expect for the fact that voice came from a man rather the computer. Physical books, while changed from scroll to codex format with hardcover, title and table of contents, still have few percentages of population reading them. Transporting them is still a problem; try switching apartments or home!

Irene Vallejo brings to light thejourney of books in this must-read book "Papyrus". The anecdotes and storytelling are mesmerizing and calling it is a page-turner would be an understatement. Some content is revealing: Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, both were avid readers of books, and also the biggest supporters of censorships. Some is hilarious: the trial went ahead according to the independent judiciary of the time, despite the minor inconvenience of the death of the accused. The book contains endless number of other book recommendations.

The book belongs to the classics.

While all economists are wrong, someare useful and entertaining. Such is the case with the book "Edible Economics". It gives a primer of various economic concepts and justifies them with selective facts. However, the justification is well-reasoned and respectable. Coming from a left leaning perspective, it favors government intervention, and at the current time of high inflation, the arguments does seem compelling.

More than the topics, it is theauthor Ha-Joon Chang and how he narrates each story is where the fascination of the book lies. Picking an edible vegetable, fruit or condiment, the author describes its history and its relation to a culture; sometimes its commercial value and trade association. One learns a lot about these edible items and subsequently an economic trait or policy that resembles a similar life.

Who thought that term "Banana Republic" is actually linked to banana trade in the Central and South America. Or strawberry is not a berry, but tomato is! Chicken is neither loved or hated, but still is omnipresent, revealing the sustainable power of remaining non-controversial. Or varieties of noodles and pastas that are unheard of; going viral doesn't seem to be their strong suit!

The stories are narrated in shortchapters, which makes the book easily readable and a definite page turner. One may not agree with each economic argument presented, but it definitely provides food for thought!

A person unfamiliar with basiceconomics will find it useful for gaining valuable insights with nice anecdotes. One may also surprise friends and family with newly gained knowledge, especially if one doesn't currently belong to the elite club of economic discourse at the family table.

Is hierarchy embedded in thesocial fabric where one segment of society dominates others? Or is it possible to have equality in principle? More importantly, what is equality? Is it in the freedom of expression, equal income or equal access to resources? There is a saying that everyone can be equally poor, but not equally rich.

This book Animal Farm brings thequestion of equality at the forefront. Set Imperialism against Communism, the book reveals how hierarchal structures evolve from an equal one. More importantly, though a bit subtle, the book illustrates that courage of some and silence of others play an essential role in developing such structure. Lack of education and fear also contributes.

Further Hidden in this classicbook by George Orwell is the fact whether equality is fair. What is one works harder than others, or is more productive, yet receives same remuneration? The cat in the book always evade work but still gets unrestricted access to food, while the horse labors all day with no privilege access.

This question is more importantthan it initially seems. It is not restricted to the type of government one pursues, i.e. democratic, imperialistic and communist, but expands its footprint to economic structure from capitalism to socialism to communism. It also encompasses modern businesses. Should there be managers, CEOs and shareholders in a company? Or cooperative model or other non-hierarchal structure can equally deliver job growth and profits?

Written in a satirical form, the book shows that merely ousting a dictatorial regime is not enough, the rebellion needs an alternative form of structure that can be sustained with checks and balances. As in the end the book amusingly states “All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Or as a French saying goes, “More things change, more they remain the same.”

George Orwell’s novel have a habit of being real to every generation, despite being written decades ago. This short novel is a page turner. Not sure why it was rejected several times before eventually being published. I guess that is the story of all great novels.

I couldn’t have read this book at better location: during a flight from New Delhi, India to Tokyo, Japan, via flying over China. Three different countries, three different systems, and one hell of a reading.

Albert Einstein once allegedly said,"If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?" While jury is still out if Einstein ever uttered these words, but if he did, Marie Kondo and Scott Sonenshein would not approve of it. In this book, duo precisely argue the opposite, and they seem to be right. Organizing office has always been a challenge, not because it cannot be done or occupant doesn't want to, but because it is a functional space. Unlike Presidents and Governors, whose job seems to be posting pictures of signing papers on their desks, common mortals actually have to use their office space to get work done. And unlike leaders of the free and not-so free world, one can only wish the luxury of well-dressed staff who can clean or organize the workspace during and after work hours.

The challenges of functionalworkspace are plenty. There is a constant inflow and outflow of files, people, and sometimes food. With changing priorities and timelines, the importance of tasks continuously varies, making organization of workplace herculean. No wonder many people who start with a well-organized office struggle to maintain it. And once files and other materials start piling up, there is no going back. The question then remains is it worth reorganizing if messiness will reemerge, that too within a short duration. The answer to that question is "yes". Untidy workspace affects motivation that eventually results in poor work productivity. People spend a substantial amount of time in their office and with colleagues, and being miserable during that time is not a good idea. Nobody has ever said that untidy workspace brings them joy and they feel inspired to do quality and productive work. Even Einstein have to be well organized to carry out several pages of mathematical proofs for his "General Theory of Relativity", and by relativity he didn't mean relative cleanliness!

Now the question becomes"how" to get it done and maintain it. This is where the book "Joy at Work" comes into the picture and provides good strategies. For example, it is best to organize workspace when colleagues are not present, by either coming early to work or spending extra time in office in the evening. Tidying things up in the morning is the better option, as it leads to the feel-good factor that can really make your day at work. However, the mood-boosting effects of cleaning in the evening may lead to reenergizing romantic life and/or better sleep, an age-old problem faced by many. What to keep and what to throw depends on upon their utility and happiness that comes in having them. Unlike home, some things in office may not spark joy, but are still essential for day-to-day activities and should be kept at safe distance. These may range from paper weight to the current boss.

While traditional desk-related workis diminishing, digital workspace and scheduling online meetings are playing increasing role. The book rightfully delves on it and translates decluttering to digital domain, which may be a bigger problem nowadays. This is because the physical space has definitive storage limit, after which things need to be let go. No such situation exists on digital space in the era of cloud computing, especially if employer is covering all the costs. It becomes essential to appropriately store and catalogue files, as well as manage tasks in the world of emails, online meetings, and digital communication and file sharing.

The best strategy seems to be the reorganization of the office space at regular intervals, such as weekly, monthly or even quarterly, and have functioning plan to maintain the workflow within the organized space. Some decluttering will bring adrenaline rush, others may seem like changing diapers, necessary but of no immediate or future value.

In the world of hybrid work wherelaptop sits in the kitchen table next to snacks and where one has to simultaneously meet demands of both boss and spouse, the strategies mentioned in the book may need some improvisation, but the underlying concepts remain the same. When working from home, breaks between meetings may be an opportune time for activities related to family planning. But the desired outcome will bring trouble of its own with toddler constantly distracting and creating mess. Changing diaper may then look like a relief. Merging tidying strategies for home and work may yield some helpful solutions.

There are several online productsthat can help in organizing work so that decluttering is minimized or eliminated, altogether. Calendly for scheduling meetings, Trello for task planning and management, and Canva for making presentations and storing relevant content next to the slides. Something like Slack can be both boon and bane. While the list can go on, reader can search on Google to find their relevant poison.

While tools can help organize thephysical and digital workspace, wisdom and experience of others can go a long way in having joy at work. President Eisenhower divided each task to a matrix: Important and Urgent, Important but not urgent, Urgent but not important, and neither important nor urgent. He catered to Important and Urgent, whereas delegated rest to others. Oregon's governor has two offices: one to sign papers in front of media with smiling face and other to actually work (or pretend to work). Eventually, anything that brings peace of mind will work.

The problem of cluttered officespace is widespread, so much that Marie Kondo left her regular job to follow a career as full-time consultant on tidying home and office space. She is making a fortune teaching people how to manage their mess. The book is worth the read, even though one has to pay for it for an eye-opening revelation of their messiness. For those looking for cheaper options, just look around.

PS: While some brave hearts can read this book during work hours, the best results can be achieved without getting fired is during morning or weekend.

John Dutton, a ranch owner and the family patriarch, runs a loss making enterprise of raising and selling cows for beef in the State of Montana, next to the Yellowstone National Park. The ranch spans several miles with beautiful landscapes and without any modern amenities, including roads. Needless to stay, it gets attention of the California and New York businesses for opening resorts and airports, with the future same as Breckenridge, Colorado. The problem is John Dutton doesn't want anyone entering his ranch, let alone sell it, but the wealthy are determined to acquire it by any means. There is also another problem, an Indian nation, who wants the ranch back to its fold, before the Dutton family arrived 150 years ago. So the drama unravels with guns, politics, kidnapping, deaths, and legal maneuvers. Honorable crime is the name of the game. One can kill but it doesn't mean one is guilty. There is a difference between killing and murdering! Not made for a faint heart, the show is gripping despite plenty of violence, including the sexual one.

The key that makes the show unique in not the Dutton family's fight with the outside world, but its struggle within it, which adds to the complexity. No one is spared, not even the dining table where no mean if ever finished. But the person who steals the show is Beth Dutton, the daughter of John, and an insane person yet lovable. No women likes to be her but admire her, and men don't even bother coming close. She will shame you to the death. She is the only person who lives in modernity and prefers riding Bentley and Mercedez over horses. Her boyfriend-turned-husband, Rip, is the only one she rides more! Rip strangly is a cowboy.

Although Beth is a show stopper, other characters are no less important and plays there role to perfection. They all have their fans, even Tait, the grandson of John Dutton. Jokes are plenty, and dark humor is the underdog.

The show is streamed on Peacock as of 2025 and runs for five seasons. It is not for self-moralizing environmentalists or vegans. Beth will beat you to the hell, like she did to Summer, her father's part-time girlfriend who complained how can one eat "Dove", the bird of peace! If that humiliation was not good enough, Beth sarcastically suggested to her father, John, that if you want to have a hooker, at least have a better and expensive one!

If you think John Dutton was badass, then you haven't met his great-granduncle Jacob Dutton, played by Harrison Ford. Jacob Dutton is the family patriarch in 1923 TV Series, where he has two seasons to protect the ranch from a wealthy banker, who wants to convert the ranch to a tourist resort.

Jacob is shot multiple times in an ambush, but survives. He is loosing men and cows to maintain his land and has no source of income. His wife tries best, but they are running out of time.

There is one hope. Their estranged nephew, Spencer Dutton, who is roaming in the jungles of Africa, killing tigers and protecting British tourists. He left the ranch a while ago, but needs to return to it to save the family and the family property. The struggles of return are real, considering its 1923 and there are no airplanes. Only way is ships, boats, trains and horses; a several months of journey. The return is further complicated as Spencer is separated from his newly wed wife from a Royal family of England, which disapproves the wedding

The wife and husband separately chart their path to Montana, and finally meet in Bozemann. But they are not alone; gunmen from the banker is waiting to kill them, and the rest of the Dutton family.

An orgy of shootout happens. Who wins is not in question, after all it is the show on the Dutton family. How they win is more important and breathtaking.

In the Yellowstone TV Series, the Indians frequently claim the Dutton ranch belong them generations ago, before John Dutton's great-grandfather took it from them. The question may have arisen, who are Duttons and where they came from. The pne-season 10-episode 1883 answers that question.

The Duttons came from Texas, when James Dutton (Jacob Dutton's younger brother), decided to move to Portland, Oregon, with his family. He had his wife, his sister, her daughter, and his own daughter and a son. While initially planning to move alone with his family, he is persuaded to travel with an European caravan who has the same destination. The journey is arduous, and on the way he looses his sister and her daughter, and many other caravan companions.

But it not the show about James Dutton, but his daughter Elsa Dutton, who comes off her age and aid her father in the journey. She becomes the first cow-girl, dates another cow-boy (before he dies) and eventually marries an Indian.

But she also undone by an Indian tribe, who mistakenly attacks the caravan, fatally injuring Elsa. She has limited time, and Portland is far away. While most of the caravan disintegrates, the Dutton family ends up in Montana, and with the help of an Indian tribe, gets a piece of land next a river to restart their life. This is the place where Elsa decides to die, and this is the place that becomes the Dutton Ranch.

There was only one thing about the gifted land. That after five generations, the tribeman will come and reclaim the land. James Dutton agreed, but everyone else forgot. But fate had it in the last episode of Yellowstone that the land went back the Indian tribe.

Truth is stranger than fiction. It is also unpredictable. While there have been many nuclear disasters, none have been like Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. It occurred at the peak of the cold war and could have destroyed a continent. The story of the disaster is essential to be told to the general public. What happened? How did it happen? How was it contained? And more importantly, what was the human cost? Both in terms of population effect and the people involved in the containment zone. There is no better way to tell the story than via cinema.

The 5-part TV series “Chernobyl” produced by HBO is a must watch masterpiece. It is bingeworthy. It is both suspenseful and factual. It covers the accident in detail, action taken by politicians (aka Soviet comrades) and role of scientists in determining the cause. The characters are real and the situation they face is unprecedented. Watching the series is like observing it in real time from a distant view. Whether it is the worry in the face of Mikhail Gorbachev, or the wife of a firefighter caring for her radiation infected husband, it is deeply personal. And deeply factual.

Killing of animals because they were contaminated is cruel and scientific at the same time. Ordered not by a politician but a scientist who cared for the future generation. The lives of people changed overnight, and they have to find a new home for the rest of their lives. An old woman who didn't leave her village since birth, despite living the fears of the two world wars, Nazi occupation and Soviet capture, had to succumb to the radiation to find a new home.

And finally, the culprit: Was it a human error or the faulty rods? While the TV series ends blaming the system and faulty rods, the answer is more profound. Shouldn't scientists consider human error when designing a reactor? Especially when the stake is high, like in the case of a nuclear power plant. These are the questions one is left wondering at the end of the series. And the thing that makes it so real and thought-provoking are the characters and the actors portraying them. I am glad that HBO made the TV series and I watched it.

Indian Soap Operas are famous for their glamour, lack of content, unrealitic drama, and kitchen politics. They are primarily focused on women fighting among themselves, for reasons nobody knows; while men stand next their spouses or mothers making all kinds of wierd faces. It is still a mystery what men do for their living and why they spend most of their time at home. More importantly, how the family is so rich without anyone having a real job.

Panchayat, luckily, is the Black Swan among the Indian TV. A story of an aspirant graduate who is preparing for MBA at the Indian Institutes of Management, a group of elite Indian Institutions. As happens to many aspirants, the man takes a side job as a government secretary. Work during the day, study during the night. But unfortunately, he is posted to a remote village called "Phulera" in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh, where things move at an extremely slow pace. Electricity is unreliable and roads barely exists. And then there is village politics.

Fustrated as he is, the show goes through authentic life of villagers and their issues, which may seem remote to urbanties, but are so real for the rural populations. How to enforce government policies when villagers' are against them. For example, limiting a family to two children may seem a good policy. But do you convince a man with five children that government is interfering in his personal choices.

Not all is bad for "Sachiv ji", as the man is referred to by the villagers. He apparantly has crush on the daughter of the "Pradhan", village's elected chief. Subtle romance and local politics, with small group of friends and enemies, keep "Sachiv Ji" entertained in the village. He has a chance to leave, but chooses against it.

Each episode caters to unique problems of Indian villages, and the show reflects them in its utmost raw form. Finally, a true Indian drama that the world can peek into.