Names

Everything was okay till he mentioned his name.

As they lay on a tired bed on an early morning of frenzied passion - her face on his chest looking window-wards, he almost lost in the mists of sleep - she spoke as if in a dream, or so it seemed to him, "Samar, where do we go from here?"
"Anand. Anand it is."

They say madness is a manifestation of the unconscious. Freud called the unconscious a monster, an evil within us. It didn't matter if Anand agreed or not. It also didn't matter if Jung had corrected the theory or not. Anand had let off to slip something so trivial yet so devilish that his conscious had ever feared to confront.

"I don't know why marriage is so important for sex. Vice versa and that's fact. Marriage is man's one stop solution for his need of companionship. It should be above sex. Sex, outside of marriage, is a state of mind. A shallow one. I think if you are being cared for, are understood and you know . . . I don't think one should dissolve a marriage solely on sexual grounds. But then, you can't just ignore your libido forever too. "
"Hmm."

Boy, was he charming and confusing, in a charming kind of way.
It isn't difficult to get a lady, a married lady, to bed. You should be enticing and young, younger than her and talk and talk and talk. These, coincidentally are also a few things which get lost in the process of growing up in a marriage. Did I mention name?

Names don't really matter. Unless you are lying about it. And if you are, oh, don't let your unconscious play with your tongue. Anand was Samar to her till then. He was a bastard after that. For him, she was good.

P.S: This is fiction. THIS IS FICTION.

Vacation

Girl: You bloody whore.

Boy: Yeah...a bloody expensive one.

Girl: Hah!

Boy: You are boring. I thought you would ask my price.

Girl: I know your price. 23 thousand, nai?

Boy: And what’s the calculation there? 1 thousand per year?

Girl: Neah. That’s what you earn.

Boy: Shesh! Anything. You know what? Let’s fix a price now. Suppose its 1 thousand per year.

Girl: Ookay? Now, that’s too low a price for you my prince.

Boy: Well, its 1 thousand per year till 18. But after that it’s a young boy’s innocence that I’m taking care of. Very wanton, very unscrupulous. So 5 thousand per year after that. 18 thousand and 30 thousand makes it 48 thousand. That’s my price.

Girl: Nice. Is this what you do at The Firm? Think up loony logic for pricing otherwise cheap objects? What are you so thinking about, eh?

Boy: Your rate, ofcourse.

Girl: Yeah, right. Scamp!

Boy: Supposing the 1 grand price for you too till the cherry starts assuming real value. When does that happen to you guys? 16? 10? 13? Not 18. That’s old.

Girl: Scamp!

Boy: What would you sell for? Don’t give jazz like my cherry. Priceless.

Girl: Why don’t you tell me, then?

Boy: Never really thought about it. And even if I knew, I wouldn’t tell. I want to hear it from you.

Girl: Ah, bull. Though it’s not priceless. A diamond necklace? A ring maybe. Diamond.

Boy: Wow! That’s nowhere near priceless. Although I’ll have to sell myself twice over for even that ring. Implies I could never have your misuage, that holy cherry.

Girl: No, but if it’s you I could go a little cheap. A solitaire ring should do.

Boy: I’ll still have to sell myself, you see.

Girl: Dirt.

9 Seconds.

A click, a shot,

Bang, Pang!

Smoke.

Recoil, shear,

Sigh. Period.

Math !

How to have fun while travelling in a jam packed local train.

1) Stand at the door. Let the breeze hit your face.

2) Hum your favorite song.

3) Take the most fundamental mathematical formulae ( MF2 ), dress them up into some hypothetical situation and see if it stands.

So (+) * (+) = (+) , (+) * ( - ) = ( - ) and ( - ) * ( - ) = ( + ), eh? Fundamental indeed. For dressing them up into a neat hypothetical something, I introduce a buyer, (B) and a seller (S). BullShit? *Grin* I know. *Grin* . Anyways, a ( + ) for a buyer or a seller would be a profit in terms of money, good product or the outcome of the business, nai? And the ( - ) for both B & S would be a loss in terms of all those above mentioned. Suppose B & S does this business one day and someone ( L ) with no life at all but armed with all those mighty formulae ( conventions ? ) sits between them, picking teeth, and applying them to their dealings. B is a nice, old, honest B and sells goods exactly worth the money he gets. So far so good, the picking continues and the formulae rests. Then B gives S x amount of money to buy y kg of some good and the picking stops. Since B gave S x Rs, it could either be a ( - ) for B or a ( + ) for S considering that the good has not been exchanged yet. But the moment the good is exchanged, it is a ( + ) for B in terms of a good product ( and ofcourse ( - ) in terms of the money and hence considering only either one of the possibilities ) and a corresponding ( + ) for S in terms of the money he gained for the exchange. Thats the LHS. ( + ) and ( + ). The RHS or the outcome of the dealing would be a satisfied B for the good ( + ? ) and a satisfied S for the business he got ( + ? ) and hence a ( + ) eitherways on the RHS.
Very simple, straightwforward and non-revolting. So damn far and still so good.
So now, L , the guy with no life at all decides to try something which he then didn't realize would drive revolt up his ass. He very simply goes to S and buys a product which comes with a free something, F. S, honest and ambitious as he is, sells F alongwith the product with a logical expectation that the outcome of the dealing would be a ( + ) even if that amounts to a ( - ) in the actual dealing which is in the LHS. For L, the LHS is an obvious ( + ) and so is the outcome or the RHS. This means that when the LHS is a certain ( + ) * ( - ), the RHS can be ( - ) but according to business logic, it has a high possibility of being ( + ) too. Which then disproves MF2 atleast in one microcase and blows off L because he had read somewhere ( Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance ? ) that even if a formula stands in a million cases but fails in just one, it is a failed formula.
Ok, so I am L and I'm of course wrong. What I'd love is an argument good enough to disprove the disproved and re-prove the original convention.

Talking about conventions, conventions of orthography says that a curved anything would appear as a straight line in the front view. Does that apply for a person with a squint?