A Legacy Of Hope Get Your Table Or Tickets Reserve Now: Fill & Download for Free

I will give you the short answer, the story, the logical argument and the ethical argument. Feel free to skip to whichever appeals to you.Short answerI never believed in God.The storyI grew up in Finland, a predominantly Lutheran (i.e. protestant Christian) country, but also among the most secular countries in the world. Growing up, virtually everyone belonged to the national church and virtually no one went more than once a year. The term habitual Christianity was widely used - it's more of a cultural codex than a faith in any traditional sense. The way I've interpreted my parents, they both have a degree of belief in a higher power of sorts, but have their reservations about the Christian gospel. In their developing agnosticism they were reluctant to impregnate my young mind with religious beliefs and hence religion was mostly off the table at home.In day care and elementary school, however, religion was very much on the table. Back in the 80s there were no restrictions to bringing religion into the class room: the first book we received upon learning to read was the Children's Bible, we drew biblical stories in art class, sang religious songs in music class and said prayers together before lunch. All this religious content felt very foreign to me, but I couldn't voice my doubts without the fear of being ostracised. I remember how bad I felt for the two Jehova's witnesses who were always asked to leave the room while the rest of us prayed - having to stand in the hallway was usually a punishment for bad behaviour and it didn't seem like they had done anything. I used to clasp my hands together and move my lips, but I wouldn't interlace my fingers or produce sound - I feared that I, too, would be thrown to the hallway if I was caught cheating on my prayers, but I felt I had to do what I could to rebel against the brainwashing.I drew most of my youthful disbelief from Santa Claus. He's much more plausible in Finland than, say, most English speaking countries, because he doesn't just drop off the gifts; he shows up on Christmas Eve to spend time with the family. That is, a man in a costume shows up, usually a family friend, a relative or a paid actor. One year I recognised the man in the costume was my father, who had just vanished to "purchase some cream from the store". I held my tongue, because the show seemed to mean so much to the rest of the family. Some years later my older brother began making fun of me for "still believing in Santa" - I felt such relief to be able to "come out" and admit I already knew. Pretending to pray in elementary school class room, I always wished that there was a similar "coming of age" for God, when people stopped believing in the hoax.In junior high school we learned more about history as well as other religions and for the first time I was told that our concept of God was just one of the theories floating out there. In fact, even Finland had its own set of gods, as did our Norse neighbours. And not only historically, but in present day you only had to go to a different part of the globe and people would pray to all sorts of gods. Religion was bound to time and place, or culture more specifically - to me this was a ray of hope that one day I could be completely open in my disbelief.Of course by no coincidence this is the age when kids are sent to a 10-day bible camp preceding Confirmation. It's very challenging for a 14-year-old to exclude himself from a summer camp that absolutely everyone he knows is going to - especially knowing that Confirmation means all of your relatives bring you money and gifts. So, I was going to go for all the wrong reasons, but my mother actually sat me down and made me promise I would use those 10 days to genuinely explore the possibility of God. For one last time I really tried to believe in God but the Christian gospel was too damn implausible for me. I went through with the Confirmation ceremony at the church, pretty much hating myself for selling out. I got enough money to buy a brand new 18-speed bike.In high school I learned about philosophy. I was absolutely captivated by the idea that there was a rational way of looking at the unknown - that the immaterial wasn't outside critical discourse. I got really into science as well and began learning about the origin of the universe and the evolution of species. At this point the quaint notion of a Christian God began to fade into oblivion much like Santa - a ridiculous children's tale. I still maintained a stance of agnosticism, because claiming to know there is no God felt audacious - I had no proof of His absence.Just when I thought I had cleared God from my life, I began my student exchange in United States - in Idaho of all places. My host family demanded that I go to church with them every Sunday. There I was, having already learned the rational, logical, philosophical way of looking at reality, listening to inane indoctrination week after week. Eventually, I had to speak my mind and express my disbelief. The word spread like wildfire in the community: they had a disbeliever in their midst. Naturally they feared I was out to corrupt their youth with my wicked ways. Meetings were held to decide how to manage this calamity. The elders of the community finally decided that I was a challenger of their conviction and their mission was to convert me into Christianity. But I was already out of reach for their flawed Christian rhetoric. Thereafter, I was even named a demon and my best friend my messenger of evil; I was 16.In my adult years I've had little contact with religion aside from their occasional intrusions into science discourse. Every now and then the religious community reminds us of their existence, usually opposing progress like stem cell research or LGBTQI+ rights, but for the most part I feel religion is slowly fading away. Regardless, whenever I do hear from the religious community, somehow I always find myself in opposition of what they are saying. I am an atheist.The logical argumentFirstly, I want to dispel the stigma of extremism from atheism. For this purpose, let’s expand the scale from “yes/no” to a more descriptive 7-step scale. On this scale 1 signifies certainty in disbelief and 7 stands for certainty in belief, with 4 representing true agnostisism. Many modern secularists label themselves as agnostics, because they understand there can be no certainty. They will, however, often lean one way or the other. It may be safe to call the middleground of 3 to 5 agnosticism, but there needs to be another word for level 2. Level 2 is someone, who knows he could never provide proof for the inexistence of god, but finds the argument against god very compelling. I believe it is fair to call these people atheists.Secondly, I need to clear a pesky misconception: atheism is not a religion. Modern atheism has a very close tie with modern science, with which it shares both its origin and method of thinking. As noted by Ancient Greek philosophers, our best chance of approximating the truths comes from making as few presumptions (axioms) as possible, and using rigorous logic to develop our argument from this base. Atheists, much like scientists, always aim to have the most objective proof attainable for their arguments. Every religion requires a breach of that logical argument, a leap of faith. Different religions vary in what their supernatural claim is. Atheism is unwillingness to make such a claim. To quote Sam Harris: Atheism is a religion like “off” is a TV channel.Obviously there has to be something as the foundation of truth – something to build on. My personal axiom is causality. I take it on faith, as well as an overwhelming amount of proof, that every event has an objective cause and an effect. The astounding success of science has led me to believe that our observations and theories about the world have some truth to them. There appears to be a rigorous logic to the universe that we are slowly beginning to understand and exploit. Deists believe a supernatural creator set the observable laws of physics in place; theists believe this creator is still around managing the universe and intervening with the process. Theists will often believe their personal prayers have an impact on the universe, which would clearly demand a violation of the laws of physics.Science boils down to the expectation that the laws of the universe are, in fact, constant. In this sense it is the literal antithesis of theism. This is probably the reason the religious often hold such animosity toward science. I want to address here the most inane of anti-science arguments: Science does not know everything. This obvious truth is often feebly exploited by the religious who demand only god could fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. This is a sad failure to understand what science is. Science is not a body of knowledge or a compilation of facts – it is a method for gathering credible information. Science exists specifically for those gaps in our knowledge and if the gaps were ever completely filled, science would no longer be necessary and cease to exist. The failure to acknowledge science as a process rather than a body of knowledge is why we see the religious people celebrate every time science corrects its course. Paradoxically, the correction of views in light of newer, better information is somehow perceived as proof of unreliability. But if intransigence would be proof of validity, then shouldn't we replace modern medicine with ayurveda or some other ancient form of healing that hasn't bothered to keep up with the advances in science?The “god of the gaps” –theory is probably the reason why scientists hold animosity toward religion. Religion will fill the existing gaps in our knowledge with nonsense and restrict science’s access to them. Particularly the United States of America has become a battleground between scientific enquiry and religious conservativism. Important secular issues are argued with quotations of scripture instead of solid evidence. There is still very active opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools – a scientific theory as solid as our notions on gravity, but in direct contradiction of biblical claims. What angers scientists even more, religious activists hold back the stem cell research that could save hundreds of thousands of children from dying of leukemia - all for the preservation of two-millenia-old dogma. The problem is, there is no supreme judge or an unbiased jury on this topic. We are stuck in a perpetual debate with mismatching arguments.Over time the religious have tried to adopt scientific / philosophically sustainable terminology to convert scientific minds to support their ideas. None, however, stand the test of rigorous analysis. I will address some of the key deist views here. In the 13th century, a monk called St. Thomas Aquinas came up with the famous 5 logical proofs for god’s existence, which were all based on the aforementioned causality. Three of these so-called proofs are, however, essentially the same exact argument: something had to start all that we see. Be it the first motion (1), the first cause (2) or the first reason (3), there is a claim that a beginning needs a beginner. The claim is simply void. The scientific worldview agrees there must have been a singularity, a common origin for all of time and space – but nothing suggests intention on the part of the “beginner.” St Thomas probably foresaw this argument, because his next proof (5) is the claim that only a conscious designer could instill the apparent goal-oriented function into forms of life – an angle later adopted by the Intelligent Design –movement. Evolution is the obvious counter-argument to this claim. I will attempt to summarize this great idea in the next paragraph. The last of St Thomas’ proofs (4) relates to standards. He claims that every scale needs an extreme, and the extreme of good should be called god. To me, this essentially reads: if we can imagine it, it must exist. What is the extreme of tall? Infinitely tall? Does it mean there has to be an infinitely tall structure somewhere?Creationists of today will claim, as St Thomas Aquinus did, that anything serving a complex function needs a designer. There are no more people without a god, than there are machines without humans. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has written several books and documentaries about evolution – most notably The Blind Watchmaker – where he skillfully explains Charles Darwin’s complicated theory in layman terms. His book is a beautifully constructed rebuttal of Intelligent Design. The key element to understanding evolution is to realize, that the process was not random. The constant mutations in our genetic material do happen at random, but the natural selection will only favor the mutations that provide the new individual with a competitive advantage. Thus, each generation will be an incremental improvement on the previous.The counter-argument for incremental evolution is the notion of indivisible complexity: that only the peak of the evolution is useful and having rudimentary parts of something that would later be complex, would not by itself have provided a competitive advantage. The human eye is probably the most commonly used example of indivisible complexity: something built of elements that serve no purpose except as parts of the final construction. However, the statement is false. The eye could certainly evolve step-by-step, with each step providing the new individual with an advantage. A light-sensing node is better than no such node (day-night awareness), a plate is better than a node (more sensitive), concave surface is better than flat (sense of direction), narrow opening is better than wide (pin-hole camera –type focus) and a primitive lens is better than no lense (sharper focus). All of these stages of evolution can still be found today in more primitive species.The argument, however, needs not be contested on biological minutiae. Bottom line, creationists claim that anything complex needs to be designed by something even more complex. But how does this solve the question of origin? Who designed god? Someone even more complex? Then who designed him? The only way to avoid this senseless regress is to start from the idea, that simplicity came first. This is a clean case of the Occam’s razor: we should avoid adding complex assumptions, such as an omniscient being, to a theory that holds its own without one. There is no simpler description for our beginning than the minimum of complexity.The next religious argument was to turn the scientific thirst for proof on itself. You cannot disprove god. As obvious as his/her/its absence may be and as unnecessary as his/her/its presence would be, there is absolutely no way to prove that he/she/it does not exist. However, the same can be stated for Thor, Baal or Osiris – yet, no Christian seems too preoccupied with worshipping them. Actually, we have not even disproven unicorns. Perhaps we should all be called unicorn-agnostics. As Bertrand Russell postulated in the early 20th century: you cannot disprove the claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, but this is no reason to believe that there is. The burden of proof lies with the claim. And as the (Carl) Sagan Standard states clearly: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".Evidence is often the final word in the debate on the existence of god. There is none. When you apply on this question all the philosophical tools humanity has at its disposal, not a shred of tangible evidence comes up in support of a deity. The religious have learned to shrug this off by blaming this on the innate limitations of human perception. Our natural tools will not apply in the realm of the supernatural. I must ask, however, why is it that this one corner of our discourse is left outside reason? Not even the most devout Christians will believe the moon is a sentient being without some sort of evidence. We use philosophical tools to assess the credibility of every other claim – why not religion? Why choose to believe in something that cannot be proven true?Some claim that the overwhelming popularity of a theist worldview is proof in itself - that billions of people could not be wrong. But the truth is not a voting matter. Imagine an empty box and a skillful orator trying to convince an audience it contains a rabbit. Will a good response from the audience be enough to produce a rabbit in the box or will the box remain empty regardless of popular opinion?Granted, our universe represents complexity beyond our comprehension. Humanity is a relatively new addition to all of existence and we are very unlikely to ever truly understand our history. Nonetheless, our efforts have yielded us invaluable information and will undoubtedly continue to do so. The high predictive value of our mathematical equations is confirmation that the logic we have developed over generations is a fair approximation of the true nature of things. We ought not to give up now and label the rest supernatural, because clearly much of what we might perceive supernatural is actually just a scientific advancement we are yet to make. If you question this, just take a look at your internet-browsing smartphone and imagine yourself explaining the technology to someone from a century ago.The ethical argumentChristians will often claim that the Bible is the foundation of western morality. This statement is as solid as claiming that arithmetic and algebra are based on math books. Obviously the book is based on 3rd century moral standards and not the other way around. If all that we knew of morality came from the Bible, we should be unable to cherrypick teachings from it. Teachings like “Love thy neighbor” and “Stone thy adulterers” get equal representation in the “good book”, but it is our innate morality, that lets us choose which teachings to follow.Fundamentalists will not bother distinguishing between the two – they will do as the book commands regardless of their own moral compass. This is commonly acknowledged as the foundation for the atrocities committed in the name of one god or another. Even most Christians will agree that fundamentalism is dangerous. What they fail too see, however, is that free interpretation is not much safer. The ambiguous writings of the Bible could be given most dubious interpretations. Bad ideas themselves can be produced without the aid of holy books, but the justifications for actions are harder to come by. But when you manage to convince yourself that god ordains your actions, you will suddenly have much less regard for human opinion.The religious will often claim that scientists are arrogant in denying the existence of god, because without a supreme being they are effectively claiming humans to be the supreme minds in the universe. However, where scientists will attempt to minimize subjectivity by pooling their results and having their peers assess the credibility of their data, a religious zealot believes the only support he needs for his argument is his personal relationship with god. They are essentially consulting their own personal feelings on the matter and claiming their opinion is enough to overrule scientific evidence gathered by an organized network of well educated, dedicated individuals. If that is not arrogant, then what is?There is some truth to the claim that the absence of god will elevate humans: we have no one to answer to but ourselves. Yet, it will not make us all kings. When none of us can claim to be any closer to a deity, we arrive at a very humanist notion: we are all worth the same. Without god we lose the means to elevate ourselves above each other. We are not responsible to a higher power, but to each other.The past two millenia have taught the humanity numerous valuable lessons in morality. We have abolished slavery, condemned genocide, relinquished the death sentence and denounced the superiority of the heterosexual male. I am struggling to understand why we should adhere to ancient books that encourage all these shameful chapters of history. None of the better teachings of the Bible or Koran require a religious backdrop. I am convinced we can formulate the “Golden Rule” without fairytales of a crucified messiah or a virgin-teeming paradise. Some will claim that these fantastical tales will better instill the ideas in people, but I must say these are not the greatest stories ever written. We have proven we can be better, morally and literarily.Quite commonly Christians refer to a final judgment that will set the record straight. This is thought to be a great incentive to behave well. Along these lines it is also commonly thought that the atheists’ disregard for afterlife will lead to a propensity for evil. Contradictorily, statistics repeatedly show the opposite to be true: In United States the highest violent crime rates are always found in the most religious states. This correlation is not proof of a causal connection, but certainly religion does not prevent crime. Perhaps the American criminals have read their Bible: Damnation is not the punishment for sin, but for disbelief. Even the worst serial killer is welcome in Christian Heaven if he believes that Jesus was the Son of God. The saint-like Buddhist monk, on the other hand, is holding a one-way ticket to Hell.There is comfort for some in the religious routine, regardless of the truth behind it. False hope, however, is not an entirely harmless phenomenon. Time spent on prayer could often be better spent on action that will have a genuine impact. When people pray (wish) their children better instead of seeking professional help, they are neglecting their duties as parents in favor of performing useless rituals. False faith can cloud one’s judgement in detrimental ways.Some people claim they need their faith to get through the day. They enjoy the idea of having a father-like imaginary friend watching over them. I have often wondered whether they realize this is just an excuse to remain a child forever. Sure it is comforting to feel someone else is watching over the big picture and us. But as I mentioned before, leaving things in the hands of an imaginary being is leaving them untended. And humanity does need to look at the big picture.The greatest gateway drug to religion is the fear of death. The idea of reuniting with our loved ones after death is very compelling – definitely more pleasant than losing loved ones forever. But I do not believe those are the two options we have. Atheists and most Christians will agree that death ends the production of new earthly events, but it will not erase the memories of the people who were left behind. Survivors of the dead will remember them as they were alive on earth. Thus, the spirit and the ideas of the individual will indeed carry on after death, stored as legacy in the memories of future generations. Einstein will write no more theories, but the theory of relativity will survive him and carry on. My dog may be buried in the ground, but I still know what canine front paw masturbation looks like. And if I die tomorrow, you will still have these arguments against religion, eventhough I am no longer here to express them. People live on in everyone they touched during their lifetimes. There is nothing bleak about that.I made an interesting observation tending to the palliative care for individuals living out their final weeks in a hospital ward. Preoccupation with the impending death was distinctly a concern of the religious. The secular individuals would focus on the lives they had lived, while the religious would worry about what would happen to them next. It did certainly not seem like their religion was providing them comfort and solace in the face of death – in fact, quite the contrary.There is also a bizarre argument that life without afterlife would be meaningless: that our actions would not matter if death would be the end of it all. As I tried to describe in the previous paragraph, our impact on the world will, in fact, outlive us. But leaving a lasting impact is not the only thing to give meaning to a fleeting, one-time life. Unlike Christians, Muslims or Hindus, secular people have no expectation of afterlife and will therefore not waste precious time preparing for it. When you believe the life you have is the only one you will ever get, you are very likely to be more invested in making it the best possible life.Religion is often perceived as a very personal choice and therefore any critique of it is met with downright hostility. People will fail to see any harm in holding on to a handful of unfounded ideas. However, neither religion nor faith is without implications on a larger scale. There is not a single war on this Earth that is not, at least in part, attributable to religion. The death toll of these wars is only rivalled by the mayhem caused by the anti-condom propaganda in AIDS-ridden Africa. Add genital mutilation, honor killing and subjugation of women and you will be grasping at straws finding the advantages of religion that outweigh all the horror.A more personal faith may be exhonerated of these crimes against humanity, but not of other lethal consequences. There's a reason why only 7% of the top scientists in the world believe in a personal god: Blind faith corrupts rational thinking. As long as people consult their personal feelings as a credible source of information, they are unlikely to discover universal facts. There is no evidence-based argument against vaccination and modern medicine; or in favor of faith healing, homeopathy or crystal therapy. These harmful ideas can only be entertained by an individual with insufficient thirst for evidence.Faith and religion are personal in a very similar way as smoking, drinking and overeating. The individual has the final say in the matter, but it is certainly in society's best interest to openly discourage this behavior.Humanity was not born with the knowledge we have today. We have spent millenia gathering information and moral understanding, continually passing our knowledge onto future generations so that they may stand on our shoulders and reach goals we could never dream of. It is comforting and easy to hold on to quaint, simplistic ideas of the past, but it is our moral duty to better ourselves for the sake of the future. It is time to let go of the supernatural explanations of the past and delve bravely into the unknown.

THE GREATEST & MOST MEMORABLE VILLAIN OF BOLLYWOOD :-Though there have been a long list of villains in Bollywood since the inception of Indian Cinema, this particular villain will always stand separate from any other villain ever. He was known for his “compelling and highly stylized performances”. He is the Pre-Eminent Villain of Indian Cinema. He is Bollywood’s most admired, most feared, most hated, most loved & most respected villain. He was the most dreaded Villain of Bollywood. He was the original Badman of Indian Cinema. Screen villainy is a thankless job which he carried out with such a degree of perfection that he became the actor the entire nation loved to hate & hated to love. That indeed was the measure of his extraordinary success. Parents did not want their children to meet him or be named after him. He would even be feared and dreaded at public gatherings.He struck terror in the heart of the audience, assuaging them finally with the moral - “Ladies and Gentlemen, evil does not win”. His name started meaning “evil/villain/bad person”. Parents stopped naming their children after his name, as his name had generated significant phenomenon in a negative sense, in the Indian scene. People on the streets used to call him “Gunda”, “Badmaash”, ‘Manhus”, “Daku/Lutera” , ‘Lafanga”,etc. , sometimes verbally abused him (for torturing the heroes of the films in which he was the villain). Such indeed was the power of his portrayals !Whether a sadistic despot or a malicious village bully, a dissolute city animal or a wicked anti-national, he portrayed the infinite shades of evil with consummate ease. Such was his impact that, if for millenniums, not a single person has been named ‘Ravana”, then for over 6 decades after independence, almost no male child has been named after his name , becuase he was “branded” as the personification of evil. Just like the Demon King of Lanka - Ravana is the personfication of evil, he was the pure evil re-incarnate & personfication of evil in Indian Cinema. Such was the intensity/power of his portrayals that parents desisted naming their children after his name.For almost 6 decades, there was some sort of magical interaction between him , the cinephiles & the Indian audience. Whatever the role, each performance was suffused with originality & imagination. By his use of highly stylized mannerisms, unusual get-ups, realistic make-ups & different accents, he succeeded in rising even above the extra-ordinary, in turning stereotypes into unforgettable characters & establishing himself as one of the finest actors ever in the Indian Bollywood Industry. Infact, he features in the CNN’s list of top 25 Asian Actors of all time ! (Source : 25 greatest Asian film actors of all time)No other villain is greater than this villain. He was a sensation , a phenomenon. While he perfected the art of portraying evil in all its dimensions, he also immortalized the ‘good’ image in some of the most memorable characterizations ever seen on the Indian screen , like Malang Chacha in Upkar (1967), opposite Manoj Kumar & Prem Chopra , which was the highest grossing Bollywood film of 1967.Bollywood mein jab bhi khalnayako ki ginti hoti hai, toh shuruat humesha iss Maha-Khalnayak se hoti hai.Translation :- “Whenever there is a counting of the villains in Bollywood, the list begins with this super-villain”.He can rightfully say to every other villain :- “Rishte mein toh hum tumhare baap lagte hai”.Translation :- “In relation, I am your father”.Truly speaking , it was him only who gave the definition of a “bad man” & bad characters to Bollywood. If he wouldn’t have existed in Bollywood, then the standards of villainy wouldn’t have been set for the later following generation of villains like Amjad Khan & Amrish Puri, etc. to come. Surprisingly , in the 107 years of Indian cinema (since the first film in Bollywood - Raja Harishchandra , released in 1913) , only this villain has got India’s highest cinematic honour by Government of India - Dadasaheb Phalke Award.He was paid more than the hero, even more than the superstar Amitabh Bachchan in some of the films with him (in the 1970s). He was one among the highest paid actors in the Bollywood Industry. He was always credited in the last, separately, after all the actors, in the opening cast details of the film, to highlight his special significance. Parents didn’t name their kids after his name in the decades of 1950s, 60s, 70s & since then, this name has altogether become unconventional & isn’t adopted as it sounds very unique/abstract. Even today, you will hardly find any person named after that villain.His acting career spanned 6 decades & about 350 films. He played as a villain in 85% of his total films & the rest 15% as a character actor. Throughout his film career, the actor won several accolades, including multiple Filmfare awards, India’s 3rd highest civilian honour - Padma Bhushan (2001) (for his contributions to arts) and India’s highest national film honour, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award (presented by the Government of India) in 2013. His intensity as a villain was such that people hated him from the very core of their heart. Later, when he switched to miscellaneous & positive roles as a renowned character actor in films, and being a senior to every other actor, his name got suffixed with “Sahab” & he became among the most respected & veteran actor in the Bollywood Industry. Regarding his acting skills, no scale can define his calibre. The veteran legendary actor turned the tables with a marvellous sleight of hand. He donned the mantle of a character artist with equal skill and felicity. Versatility became his imprimatur.No wonder, In the year 2000, he was awarded the title “Villain of the Millennium”. By now, many of you must have recognized him. (A major portion of you people still would not have recognized him as he was an actor from the Golden Era of Bollywood & thus very senior). (He had established himself as the Original Villain of Bollywood during your grandparents’ time. ) His most famous ‘takiya kalaam’/catchphrase was the word - BARKHURDAAR ! Yes, he is none other than the legendary PRAN, or PRAN SAHAB !!! - the VILLAIN OF THE MILLENNIUM - the epitome of evil in Indian cinema.The iconic Pran sahab raised villainy to a high art over hundreds of films, practially monopolisng & gaining totalitarian control over that job for 3 decades. He lied, cheated, murdered, tortured & stole in countless craftily-performed roles. His screen presence & grating voice filled Indian audiences with such terror, the name “Pran” became meaning evil. He was a brilliant character artist and a consummate & thorough professional. He is the original perfectionist of Hindi Cinema, with no apologies to Aamir Khan.He would spend days with art directors and make-up artists - usually over scotch & cigarettes - going over granular details of his role, costumes, wigs and make-up. Then he would go beyond the garb & find subtle mannerisms to sharpen his villainy. In Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai (1960), he played the dreaded dacoit Raaka, who constanly rubbed a finger across his throat, bringing out his deep-seated fear of the noose. Whatever the complexities & challenges of a role, film-makers were confident that Pran will prepare will & pull it off with ease. He was safe as a government bond. He was often abused in public by people who thought him to be a real-life bad man. Some of his female co-stars feared for their modesty around him. (Search about Aruna Irani-Pran incident on net.) This was unfortunate since Pran in real life was everything a villain is not - an impeccably mannered-gentleman, loyal friend, courteous to his fans, never one to impose his views, and very modest despite his phenomenal huge success as an actor (villain).(Pran receiving award from 2nd President of India , Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan )(Pran receiving India’s 3rd highest national civilian honour - the Padma Bhushan, from 10th President of India K.R. Narayanan , for his contribution to arts)(Pran receiving the highest national award for cinema artists - the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, presented by Government of India, in 2013)Pran infused fear and respect in equal measure in the minds of Indian cinephiles. Though most famous for his convincingly powerful negative roles, Pran Sahab rarely let himself be a caricature/stereotype on screen. A mutifaceted actor, his persona was too larger-than-life to fit into any single template. His skills were too diverse to be caged in any single narrative. And his screen presence was too impressionistic to be confined to cinema libraries or web graveyards after paying a handful of perfunctory tributes.Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand were the first “Trimurti”/the triumvirate or three top actors (as heroes) of Bollywood in the 1950s & 60s. They were the ruling heroes/superstars of Indian cinema. Be it any of them three heroes, the villain was one & only quint-essentially, PRAN. Pran had a majestic & commanding screen presence. He had a powerful dialogue delivery. He always over-shadowed the screen presence of the heroes or the triumvirate, barring one. [Only Dilip Kumar among the three could match his powerful screen presence & synchronized with him]. Pran’s acting was convincingly dominative & powerful. Those 3 actors enjoyed their super-stardom as heroes while PRAN enjoyed super-stardom as the Mega-Star Villain of Indian Cinema. And Pran was paid roughly the same as them, sometimes more.In the 1950s and 60s he was regularly offered the role of the main villain in films with Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Raj Kapoor as lead heroes. Who can forget him as the tormentor of Dilip Kumar in Ram aur Shyam (1967) & in Madhumati (1958); as the tormentor & dreaded dacoit Raaka in Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai (1960) opposite Raj Kapoor ; and as the tormentor of Dev Anand in Jab Pyar Kisi Se Hota Hai (1961) , Ziddi (1948), Munimji (1955), Yeh Gulistan Humara (1972).(Yeh Gulistan Humara (1972))He worked in several Bollywood biggies of the time like Azaad, Madhumati (1958), Devdas(1955), Dil Diya Dard Liya, Ram Aur Shyam (1967), Ziddi (1948), Munimji (1955), Jab Pyar Kisise Hota Hai (1961), Chori Chori, Jagte Raho, Chhalia and Jis Desh Men Ganga Behti Hai (1960).He proved his versatility in the 50s by playing the swashbuckling pirate in Sindbad the Sailor (1952) and Daughter of Sindbad (1958).Besides, he also worked in action thrillers like Azad (1955), historicals such as Aan (1952) and Raj Tilak (1958), movies themed on social issues such as Baradari (1955) and light romances like Munimji (1955) and Asha (1957).Interestingly, in the 1960s and early 1970s, despite Pran being in his forties & early fifties, he was always in demand. He played pivotal roles with Shammi Kapoor, Joy Mukherjee, Rajendra Kumar and Dharmendra. In this period, Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor’s careers as heroes started to decline but Pran’s association with Dev Anand which began in 1948 continued even during the 70s and the 80s with Johny Mera Naam, Yeh Gulistan Hamara, Joshila, Warrant and Des Pardes. Pran’s career never slumped. He was always in demand as the top character artist.During the late 1960s, with Manoj Kumar’s Upkaar (1967), he turned towards positive roles. Later, Kumar cast Pran in pivotal roles in his films where Manoj played leading roles like Shaheed, Purab Aur Pachhim, Be-Imaan, Sanyasi, Dus Numbri and Patthar Ke Sanam.After playing many roles including those of a supporting actor to those of being a lead hero, he reinvented himself as a character actor from being the main villain, like before. As even a character actor, he was paid more than the hero (excepting Rajesh Khanna in the early 1970s & Amitabh Bachchan post Sholay (in some films only of the late 1970s)), being a very veteran & experienced actor. Even Rajesh Khanna’s career slumped from 1980 onwards, but Pran always remained in high demand. Producers seldom casted Rajesh Khanna & Pran together in a film, to reduce the hike in the cost of film production, due to their huge fees ! (Infact the two have acted together only in 4 films, practically 3 because in one film, Rajesh Khanna had a special appearance only.)From 1967 till 1997, he became a well-known character actor with films such as Humjoli, Parichay, Aankhon Aankhon Mein, Jheel Ke Us Paar, Zinda Dil, Hatyara, Chor Ho To Aisa, Dhan Daulat, Jaanwar (1983), Raaj Tilak, Bewafai, Imaandaar, Sanam Bewafa, 1942: A Love Story and Tere Mere Sapne.Pran switched to character actor roles from 1970s onwards, after monotonously repeatedly playing villain roles. Pran occasionally accepted the role of a bad man in the 70s, 80s and 90s. He played villain only in 13 films from 1971 like Maryada, Naya Zamana, Jawan Muhabat, Aan Baan, Yeh Gulistan Hamara, Gaddar, Andhaa Kanoon, Duniya and Insaaf Kaun Karega.However, one of the leitmotifs when it came to his characters - right from very early in his career (1940) - was songs picturised on him. They were written, specially keeping his character in mind, certainly not as distractions or as ‘item numbers’, but as an indispensable part of the overall narrative. Surely not the ones for which you could leave the theatre for smoke or a cup of tea.PRAN’S ASSOCIATION WITH AMITABH BACHCHAN :-It was actor Pran only, due to whom Amitabh Bachchan got a big jump in his career & later emerged as the superstar during the late 70s & 80s decade. Amitabh Bachchan (AB) started his film career in 1969 & delivered 12 flops till 1973. No one knew AB at that time. But Pran realised that Amitabh had hidden potential & the main reasons for his films faring unsuccessfully was that he was casted by wrong directors with average scripts. He recommended Amitabh’s name to Prakash Mehra - the Director of Zanjeer (1973) for Zanjeer & this is how AB got a role in Zanjeer.In the words of Amitabh Bachchan :“After all, it was largely because of Pran saab that I had been cast in Zanjeer. Om Prakashji who had good words for my performance in Parwana had generously recommended me to producers in Chennai and also to Pran saab. In turn, Pran saab backed me to the hilt when the cast of Zanjeer was being finalised. This was my first film with Prakash Mehra and Salim-Javed. I was relatively new to the film industry, I did feel apprehensive. Pran saab was very helpful, he set me at ease. In fact, he was the biggest selling point of the film. I marvelled at the manner in which he took tremendous care over his look. Right from the hennaed wig and beard to his costume and make-up, he ensured that every element was flawless. All my scenes in Zanjeer with him were tough. Often during the action sequences, I kept hoping I wouldn't miss my punch cue and end up hurting him. For one of the sequences, we had to climb up a wall with a rope. He was the first man up. Irrespective of the long and arduous process of getting into his make-up and costumes, he was also the first one on the set. Infallibly. Even if his shot was over, he would remain on the set, watching the proceedings. with a keen eye. Certainly one of the high-points of the film was the Yaari hai imaan set piece which he performed with imcomparable agility and vigour. ”Since AB was relatively new & was unknown to everybody then, Pran was the main reason of the film’s commercial success which in turn proved beneficial to AB & it was his first solid hit in his career. After this, AB started getting better offers. In Majboor(1974) (AB & Pran), moving at a lethargic pace till that point, his ' Michael daroo peekar danga karta hai' infused pace and there on, Pran is the one driving it forward.Pran & Bachchan formed a hit partnership & then acted in 14 films together, majority of them being commercial superhits/blockbusters like Amar Akbar Anthony, Don, Kaalia, Ganga Ki Saugandh, Sharaabi, Shahenshah, etc. Sometimes, Pran would play the role of Bachchan’s friend or sometime as his father (as in Amar Akbar Anthony & in Sharaabi). Infact, there was an Amul cartoon dedicated to Pran : "Big B ko big banaane ke peeche inka haath tha." (Translation : He played a significant role in making the Big B big).(Amitabh Bachchan greeting Pran at Pran’s 90th birthday party (2010))(Dilip Kumar greeting Pran at Pran’s 90th birthday party (2010))(Shatrughan Sinha greeting Pran at Pran’s 90th birthday party (2010))In 2000, Bunny Reuben, a film journalist, authored a biography on the legendary veteran actor Pran, titled “…….and Pran” (his style of being credited in the films) in which he paid tribute to the 250 of his about 350 films of his career. Its foreword was written by none other than the Sadi Ka Mahanayak - Amitabh Bachchan. Bunny Reuben, author of Pran’s biography, ' …and Pran', chose to include in his book's prologue not description of the scene in Badi bahen - his first appreciated negative role - where he makes an entry after blowing a smoke ring at Geeta Bali; nor any scene from Halaku - with Pran in the tile role of Genghis/Changez Khan's grandson - which the veteran himself considered one of his most important roles. He didn’t even opt for scenes from films like Madhumati; Ram aur Shyam; Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai or Dil Diya Dard Liya , where Pran was the epitome of evil. Reuben, instead, chose a song sequence, his jugalbandi with Bindu - the qawaali song ‘Raaz ki baat keh doon toh' from Dharma. This is what Reuben says after observing the audience reaction to Pran’s performance in the song:“The audience goes mad. They whistle and scream and clap to the beat of the qawwali. Some even dance in the aisles. And as the qawwali draws to a close, the audience is in a frenzy.”As Reuben himself adds in the very next line, such spontaneous reaction would usually be reserved for stars – not mere heroes but stars - The likes of Amitabh Bachchan and Rajesh Khanna. But to have that kind of reaction for an actor whom people loved to hate, there must have been some X-factor associated with him!He always donned a new look, new style of dialogue delivery & mannerisms in every film he did. He never repeated any aspect or a trace of his roles from a multitude of his previous films & continuosly re-invented himself. He was a dynamic actor who never let himself be a stereotype. He infused life into the simplest & most stereotyped roles in Bollywood. Directors always casted him as a safe bet , thinking that if the film wouldn’t be a commercial success, atleast it would never flop if it has PRAN.In the words of Raza Muraad, “Chahe hero jo bhi ho, agar film mein Pran Sahab hai toh iska matlab film mein jaan aa gyi, film mein ek wazan aa gya”.Translation :- “Whoever be the hero in a film, if the film has Actor Pran, then it meant that that life has been infused into the film & it has gained weight.”“Pran saab was an astute counterfoil to the great stalwart actors” is apparent to any film aficionado. Chameleon like, he could change his demeanour and outlook by simply wearing a thick pair of glasses or donning jodhpurs and leather boots in the vintage entertainers, while representing a supreme challenge to the widely idolised heroes. As the tormentor of Dilip Kumar saab in Ram aur Shyam and the hurdle in the way of Dev Anand saab in the black-and-white Jab Pyar Kisise Hota Hai, Pran saab held his own right till the finale when he may have lost the battle but triumphed immeasurably as an actor.Throughout an estimable career, he used his eyes, voice, diction, facial mobility and body language to a powerful effect. He could memorise reams of dialogue just by glancing at the sheets of paper handed over to him on the sets, more often than not a minute before the call of lights, action, camera. He never made a mistake, the lines flowing smoothly from a photographic memory.Whether he was playing a Christian like the endearing Michael in Majboor, the Pathan Sher Khan flicking his hair back in Zanjeer" the street-smart fun person displaying amazing comic synergy with Dadamoni Ashok Kumar in Victoria No.203, the volatile convict in the black-and-white Shaheed or the upper crust father in Bobby, it was evident that he took great pains to differentiate every one of his characters, thus giving them a new and always credible edge. Even if he was saddled with a stereotyped role, like all actors are on occasion, the part received a fresh interpretation and impetus.He was a man of principles. If there was a particular line of dialogue or a situation in any script, bordering on the crude or which was socially and morally objectionable, he would comment on that immediately. He wouldn't get into an unresolvable conflict with the writer or the director but use fair reason and logic to stress his point of view. That is why every film-maker knew that Pran saab would go this far and no further, he had demarcated a boundary for himself, whereby he would not do anything that was vulgar or unaesthetic.In the words of Amitabh Bachchan,“From him, I have learnt that professionalism is an actor's main qualification and strength. There was never a day when he reported late, never a day he cancelled a shoot because he was feeling under the weather. One day, he was on the sets, exceptionally reserved and uncommunicative. After hours when he continued to be in a shell, the director asked him if something was wrong. Pran saab very quietly said that he had just lost his brother but he didn't want to cancel the shoot because life must go on. An artist of his stature would have been lionised in the U.S., Europe, wherever. Cinema may change both in content and technique. But nothing can take away from Pran saab's boundless contribution to Indian cinema. Whenever he had to climb up a wall, he left us, another generation, behind. He was always up first.Sir, thank you for giving us all so much of yourself, without ever getting anything from us in return. You are our inspiration, our Pran saab.” - AMITABH BACHCHANIn the biography “…and Pran”, journalist Bunny Reuben wrote about an incident that underscored why Pran was different from other actors.At an event, a mimic who was imitating actors like Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand, was asked to imitate Pran. The mimic “fell silent”. It was because in every film, Pran had different mannerisms, different styles & accents, so it was impossible to replicate him. He was an institution of acting in himself.That is the legacy of Pran - the VILLAIN OF THE MILLENNIUM !(1) Some films in which he was the epitome of evil (there are much more, but these are those films which exhibited the pinnacle of his villainy ) :-Madhumati (1958)Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai (1960)Dil Diya Dard Liya (1966)Ram aur Shyam (1967) - my personal favourite(2) Some of the most popular songs characterised on Pran as a character artist :-Yaari Hai Imaan Mera (Zanjeer, 1973)Michael Daroo Pi Ke Danga Karta Hai (Majboor, 1974)Dil Ki Umangein Hai Jawaan (Munimji, 1955)Hum Bolega Toh Bologe Ki Bolta Hai (Kasauti , 1974)Aake Sidhi Lagi Dil Pe Jaise Katariya (Half Ticket, 1962)Do Bechaare Bina Sahare (Victoria No. 203, 1972)Kasme Vaade Pyaar Wafaa Sab (Upkar, 1967)Jeena Toh Hai Usi Ka (qawaali) (Adhikar, 1971)Raaz Ki Baat Keh Doon Toh (qawaali) (Dharma, 1973)Husn Chala Kuch Aisi Chaal (BLUFFMASTER) (1963)Subhan Allah Haseen Chehra (KASHMIR KI KALI, 1964)Tum Agar Mujhko Na Chaho Toh (DIL HI TOH HAI, 1963)Iss Duniya Mein Jeena Hai Toh (GUMNAAM, 1965)Ae Bagh Ki Kaliyon (Jangal Mein Mangal , 1972)Some Youtube Videos to understand his legacy :-Short Biography :-Long Biography :-Best Dialogues of Pran :-Documentaries on his villainy :-(AWARDS RECEIVED BY PRAN)(FAMOUS DIALOGUES AND CATCHPHRASES OF PRAN)(FAMOUS SONGS PICTURISED ON PRAN)AT LAST , CONCLUDING :-वो आवाज़ का जादू या गर्मी हो लहजे कीवो अन्दाज़ निराला हो या चमक हो चेहरे कीहम किसको करेँ याद और किसको भुलाएँतुम्हेँ देखते हैँ जितना , उतना तुम्हेँ चाहेँहर बात तुम्हारी यूँ औरोँ से है जुदाजैसे फ़लक पे चाँद सितारोँ से है जुदाहैँ आज भी दुनिया मेँ फ़नकार बहुत अच्छेआगे तुम्हारे लगते हैँ लेकिन सभी बच्चेआज बस जिस्म के चर्चे हैँ जान नहीँ हैसब कुछ है सिनेमा मेँ मगर 'प्राण' नहीँ हैयूँ ही सदा हँसते रहो न तुम्हेँ हो कभी ग़महै दुआ हमारे बीच रहो ऐसे ही तुम हर दम

Hi mate here are my top ten, I am currently writing my own however i have used all these for some level of inspiration. I have also tried to give you breakdown of each novel.World’s Top Ten Dystopian NovelsDystopia can be quite bleak which makes it even seem odd how the genre is so popular today. However, there is always a certain level allure that dystopia holds that can never be experienced with any other genre of novels. Over the years, dystopias have become some of the best novels of all time in literature. This is such a fascinating genre where more and more disillusioned writers are typically telling a cautionary tale by warning us of where our current social, cultural and political surroundings might take us.Typically, all novels in the dystopia world share common motifs. In that, the authors circle around some of the darkest things about humanity with the ideas revolving around mass entertainment, brutality, technology, designer drugs, suppression of the common individual by all-powerful state governments in the dystopian fiction. It’s through satiric irony that the writers have been able to unearth the darkest of humanity and presented a destructive vison of how the future society might be.But like all other genres that have reached skyrocketing heights, there are so many authors that have jumped on to this bandwagon. This makes it quite hard deciding which dystopia novel in the market might be the best one for you. However, you need not worry about this genre being crowded. I will help you weed out some of the gems right from the duds by giving you recommendations so that you can broaden your scope of your TBR list.1.Brave New World by Aldous HuxleyBrief SynopsisBiotechnology is king. The brave new world depicts a society where all the babies are hatched, graded then mind-controlled to accept whatever position they are given in the society. In this case, the alphas are all tall, smart and beautiful while being given the chance to run everything.Alphas are required to work harder as they are designed to be frightfully clever. The betas don’t work as hard but are way better than the gammas. Gammas are stupid and are made to wear green while delta children wear khaki. As if that’s not enough, we have the epsilons who are short and plain. Believe it or not, humans are actually graded in this society.Our hero in this novel is Bernard Marx who is an Alpha but there is something that went wrong with all the mix. He is shorter than most alphas, wilful, more nervous, sexually jealous, and very unhappy. Therefore, he is treated as an outsider in his own community. He and Lenina Crowne pack up for travel to a savage reservation where the Director lost a female companion many years ago.When the two get to their destination, they find people engaging in totally unfamiliar rituals. It’s when they stumble upon Linda and the son John who is also categorized among the savages. Marx assumes that this must be the mentioned lost family that the director talks about. Marx is constantly under threats for his weird anti-social character and still he decides to take the two- John and Linda with him.When Bernard Marx presents John and Linda to the director, John who is the son of the director calls him father. This provokes the director since their society, doesn’t allow procreation between persons. In this case, the director’s crimes are exposed to the world. John is forcefully taken to the ‘Brave New World’ as sort of an experiment while Linda is taken to a hospital for her addiction to soma. Eventually Linda dies and this pushes John to fire up the anti-soma rampage in the hospital hallways.John is so angered by this society that eventually runs away and goes to live in a light house somewhere in isolation. Here, he is able to stay out of the limelight but reporters finally catch up with him as he tries to get involved in self-flagellation. John whips himself and the women around as the crowd gets larger. Still, he continues to take on women.Lenina who had earlier attempted to seduce John appears in the crowd. John furiously attacks her with the whip. But according to the social training of this society, they turn the violence in a sex orgy. John is manipulated under soma to be drawn in more or less unwillingly. When he comes out of the effects of soma the following morning and realizes what he did he commits murder by hanging himself.Critical Analysis of the StoryThe Brave New World is new classic by Aldous Huxley based on a futuristic society that revolves around pleasure while worrying less about moral repercussions. The dystopian future pictured through the ‘Brave New World’ offers a soothing drug soma as well as other pleasures at the same time manipulating them to some A-level mind-numbing dependence.Huxley basically tries to show us some of the negatives of an ostensibly successful; world where everyone seems satisfied and fully content on the outside with lots of carnal pleasures. But, all this is only achieved by sacrificing their freedom in terms of personal personality and happiness.The society here achieves their pleasures through pre-birth conditioning of all members. There are no mothers and everyone is happily content with their pre-destined role while desiring nothing greater that what they already have. In that case, Huxley explores some of the evils that may come with a successful and fully satisfied society. No one in this society can challenge the caste system as they all believe that they work together for a common interest.And when you slip from the norms, you take the soma pill to calm the anger, reconcile with the enemies and be patient instead of bothering with the instabilities and complexities that come with marital relationships and families. No mother, no god, no spouse. You only have the soma, the system and the conditioning to rely on.About the AuthorThe Brave New World was first published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley. Long before that, Huxley had already been established as a novelist as well as a drama critic form his other books. Such included; Do You Want Will in 1929, Point Counter Point in 1928 and Crome Yellow in 1921.Besides that, Aldous Huxley was also well renown by his other great writers of his time which included D.H Lawrence, (Virginia Woolf and E.M Forster) of the Bloomsbury group. Today, this book by Aldous Huxley might be considered as a classic but it has had its share of rejection in the past. Most people criticized it for having a weak plot as well as characterization during the first publication.What makes the book so scary?The Brave New World is a book that depicts a future society where people are more concerned about their pleasures than the moral repercussions of the society. They watch as people get violent and through a drug known as soma turns all that to a sex orgy. Also, all the babies here are hatched, graded then mind-controlled to accept whatever position they are given in the society.Actually, they don’t even have the desire to want more that what they already have. More importantly, there are no mothers like in the normal world and people are actually graded in the society then set apart distinctly. Just imagine, living in such a society, then you are born a Gamma? You’re almost sure that no one would like to relate with you. Such are some of the effects of having a moral free and mind-controlled society.What makes it readable?Aldous Huxley presents his ideas in a fashionable way and clearly showing that he has done enough analysis of the present world. Therefore, his book is not just all about fantasies coming to pass in the future like in any other dystopia novel.He shows a level of admirable intelligence in his prediction of the civilization of humans in the coming centuries. Simply, he mirrors the aspects revolving around our current society in to the futuristic one.2.The Time Machine by H. G. WellsBrief SynopsisImagine taking a trip to the future and finding the entire human race is dead? In the Novel, Time machine by Wells, a time traveller discovers a machine that he uses to travel into the future. Little did he know, he will be traveling to the scariest future of mankind! The unnamed hero travels 30 million years into the future making this a ghost story brought to its logical ne plus ultra.It all starts with the time traveller explaining to his Victorian peers on his plan to travel to the future. The next scene goes to a dinner party where the time traveller eats and cleans up. Afterward, he starts telling his guests, a few from the previous scene, on how he begins telling them about his trip to the future.Wells switches the voice to the narrator himself. And the narrator tells them what he experienced in the year 802701 A.D. The future of the world has changed drastically and he discovers a new viscous being descended from the human race. One of the two tribes, for lack of a better word, is known as the Eloi. They are portrayed by the author as a group of creatures who are peaceful but less wise than the human kind.On the other hand, the Morlocks are more cannibalistic and aggressive of the two tribes. They seem more interesting and the author sounds like he’s comparing them to the rich men, or so I felt. More importantly, the human race is extinct. In addition, all other animals are also non-existent.The future of England is bleak. Unfortunately, the time traveller finds himself trapped in the future. This is because his machine gets stolen. He gets all frantic until he realizes that his machine is locked away in a bronze base that’s nearby. Later, he gives up on trying to free his machine. Before you know it, the time traveller is saving a drowning Eloi. The Eloi’s name is Weena.Weena tags along with the time traveller and he soon discovers the existence of the Morlocks. They seem to be a descendant of the rich men and form the underground machine that supports Weena’s tribe. As he goes for an exploring expedition with Weena, time gets away from him. It gets dark and the Morlocks start to attack the time traveller.The unfortunate part is, as the time traveller tries to fight against the Morlocks, he starts a forest fire that leads to the death of Weena. Heartbroken, the time traveller finds out that the door to the statue is open.The Morlocks try to trap him in their world but he luckily gets away. He travels near the end of the world; a time of cold and darkness. Then he returns back to his own time.Critical Analysis of the StoryWell, to me, the story misses a blast in the past. Though the past might be already known, I think a taste of the past would keep the conversation going. We might never know what the future holds. Each of us has a different story but the past is somewhat known.Still, Wells was an amazing writer and the story has an elegant sense of wonder. The book is a fine adventure tale.About the AuthorHerbert George Wells, born in Bromley England, left school to become a draper’s apprentice. This is a life the writer detested. Afterward, he won a scholarship to join the Normal School of Science. Additionally, he studied with the famous Henry Huxley. Henry saw Wells as the most gifted writer of their time. Wells was known for describing World War I as a war to end the war.Wells lived to see the worst of humanity saying in his own words that reality has taken an example from his books and decided to supersede him.What makes the book so scary?The fact that the future of humankind is dead is what scared me the most. The book literally takes you to the future and you get a vivid picture of what is happening. Since the release of this book, there has been a tone of time travel novels. But none can relate to this classic.The scientific concept of time travel, however, is rather weak but you can’t say whether this writer’s thoughts are true or false. More importantly, imagine the rich and powerful overpowering the entire universe? That’s something that I guarantee you, everyone dreads.What makes it readable?I love the fact that I get lost in the words of Wells is as if I’m the time traveller telling the story. The writer brings to life a concept that most people only imagine about. More to that, it’s something we all want to see; the future.Spice it up with a bit of imagination mixed with the end of humanity and Voila! You get an amazing book that will quench your imagination.3.1984 by George OrwellBrief SynopsisThis novel focuses on a character known as Winston smith who is depicted as an everyman who lives in the Oceania. Oceania is a future state which has a ruling authoritarian political party that controls simply everything. Winston happens to be a member of the lower members of the party as he has a working post in the ministry of truth.Winston works to change the historical information in order to portray the likes of the Big Brother (who is the head leader) and the government. Since Winston is worried about the state too much, he keeps a secret diary that he writes down all his anti-governmental ideas and thoughts. Winston decides to share his thoughts with another guy known as O’Brien who is his co-worker as well as the member of the ruling party.However, Winston feels that O’Brien could be a member of the brotherhood who are the opposition party. That aside, Winston meets Julia at the ministry of truth who is also a party member. Julia sends Winston a note notifying him that she is in love with him. Despite the fears Winston has, he still jumps in the boat and starts engaging in a passionate affair with the lady.In that case, Winston books a room in the neighbourhood where it’s a lower class society. He hopes that they can have their little private affair with Julia here. The two sleep together and afterwards discuss about their hope for achieving freedom outside the oppressive state they are currently live in. afterwards, Winston goes and meets up with O’Brien who confirms that he is a member of the brotherhood. He shares the brotherhood’s manifesto with Winston which is scripted by their leader.The book typically has information about the recitation of the brotherhood including some social democratic ideas. However, O’Brien does this just to test Winston’s loyalty. Winston is arrested at the bookshop by some private police then taken to the ministry of love for torture but he refuses to admit that he was wrong to disobey the government. From here Winston is taken to a room where O’Brien uses his worst fears against him.Winston hates rats and when a box of hungry box of rats are brought up close to his face he pleads to be released. In fact, he pleads that Julia takes his place. The book at the end recounts how Winston once again becomes a valid member of the society. He becomes a broken man who has no power to resist oppression form the government. Although he meets up with Julia shortly after, he no longer cares anything about her. All he does is look up at a poster of the Big Brother is admiration and love.Critical Analysis of the storyOrwell’s nightmare has become so much engrained as part of our consciousness in a way no one expected. Basically, the novel 1984 is a story that shows horrors of political treatise. The book surveys the theme of socialism which is an integral part of the warnings set by George Orwell. As we can see Orwell tries to warn against some of the dangers that are likely to come up when there is a lot of authoritarianism. In this dystopian state, the author offers a very devastating view of the society where there is totally no freedom of expression.The people are actually not allowed to say what they think. Instead, the population here is forced to believe in a single party and a single ideology without any option. In fact, this is a society where language is disregarded to an extend that it is only used to serve the government. The party has actually invented its own language known as the Newspeak that is used as a tool for completely eliminating any forms of political rebellion.For that reason, the party controls everything ranging from what the people, think, speak and even do if they disobey they are taken up for punishment. As we can see, even the colleagues at his work place don’t actually play any roles in the society. They are only there to work for the ruling class of the government officials as they dread the looming punishment if they disobey.In short, everyone who is not part of the ruling class is subjected to the capitalism ruling system. Here in this book, George Orwell simply combines what is known as a thriller narrative with a seriously core political message that unravels the horrors that would come up with political oppression.About the AuthorGeorge Orwell was a novelist as well as a known novelist and critic. Famously known for his books Animal Farm in 1945 and 1984 in 1949. George was a man who has strong opinion all addressed towards the political movements that happened during his time. this included communism as well as fascism and imperialism.Orwell’s book 1984 stirred up a lot of controversies after his bleak vision of a future with a world divided in to three major oppressive nations. All the reviewers of Orwell’s books found the fictional perspective of Orwell too despairing. The main idea of this book was to show the government what the world will turn to be like if they start controlling every single bit of a person’s life even their private thoughts.What makes the book so scary?Would you imagine living in a world where you don’t have the freedom of expression? Oppressive, right? Such is the world depicted in the book 1984. A future where you are actually forbidden to have any private thoughts and everyone is compelled to adhere to only one ruling party and a one ideology.The book brings to us a government that controls even the private thoughts of its citizens and has actually a language known as the Newspeak. This is used as a tool for completely eliminating any forms of political rebellion. Any forms of opposition are punishable through looming torture.What makes it readable?In this book, the author brings to us a wide array of themes in an easy to comprehend way. This is one book that is presented in a simple, short and direct way. In that, its direct to the point and that is actually the reason why it is being studied in most schools worldwide.4.We by Yevgeny ZamyatinBrief SynopsisWe by Zamyatin is a book that has laid emphasis on a character by the name D-503 who is a mathematician. He foresees a future where he will be able to make an integral first ever rocket seen in the OneState. Although he is a superb citizen, D-503 follows all the movements of the table to the letter. He mocks the irregularities of the ancient music while on the other hand praising the rhythms of engines and the human lives that are being basically choreographed from above.Respectfully D-503 awaits the pink tickets of his partner O-90. He is in awe of the subversive verses of the poet R-013. Generally, he lives his life according to how a citizen of OneState is expected to. However, when I-303 enters his life, D-503 is puzzled by so many questions and suddenly his life is thrown to a flux. His virtues and treatise about OneState become hijacked as I-303 mysteriously crosses his path.And when he drags the things happening in OneState in to the equation, he becomes unusually interested in the things happening outside the Green Walls of OneState. D-503 neglects his dreams then change his way of thinking. He is more focused on the ideology that dreams and hopes while believing that happiness is brought forth by lack of freedom.D-503 falls in love with the I-303 who is a leader of an underground movement and they escape far beyond the green wall through a tunnel. Past the green wall, life is different and in the primitive past. However, before long the rebels are all captured and D-503 becomes reconditioned then made to be an unmoved spectator when his beloved one being tortured in front of his eyes.Critical Analysis of the StoryWe by Zamyatin is a book that hovers around fiction and fantasy that is considered by most people as the tragedy of mythic. The novel focuses on a story of a mathematician known as D-503 whose main aim is building the very first integral rocket of the OneState. OneState is the glass city where the story is set and the residents here are perceived to live in Utopia.All they do is rise, work, eat and sleep in their rhythms as they believe that life is synchronized to the minute. All the way from free time, to music, uniforms, humours and everything else the citizens of this State know. They typically live according to the mechanized movements of the clock as well as hyper formalities. Also they live under a regulated existence under a watchful eye of their benefactors.Hence, they are given zero room for imagination or individuality in any case. More to that, the violators of the law in this state are scorned then melted away publicly as everyone watches. But beneath all this severe façade, there is a stirring movement beyond the Green Walls.About the AuthorYevgeny Zamyatin is a Russian novelist, satirist and playwright who has one of the most brilliant as well as cultured minds. He is known for the famous dystopian novel known as We. Besides that, Zamyatin has also written a couple of short stories while criticizing the communist regime of the Russian country.Zamyatin was born in 1884 in Lebedyon and studied naval engineering at school. He died in Paris in 1937, leaving behind his legacy as a serious critic of oppressive governments.What makes this book so scary?This book simply introduces us to a community where people are not given the chance to express any imagination or individuality in any case. Anyone who tries to violate the law in this society is scorned then melted away publicly as everyone is watching. The book simply shows us what an oppressive government in the future would look like.What makes it readable?Since our narrator is a mathematician with much interest for numbers as well as empirical data, this book tries to bring out the nature of the narrator through the ‘dry’ style of writing. And the fact that he has only known the self-censored world, it’s okay for him to use the unfinished and disjointed thoughts to explain his experiences.5.Oryx and Crake by AtwoodBrief SynopsisSnowman, a character in the book, lives in an outdoor setting near a water body with a group of alien entities, Crakers. The Crakers are full of questions and they always bring Snowman one fish every week. In the story, Snowman experiences anger from a man known as Crake. Crake is fond of and still hears the voice of Oryx.As I read on, I found out that Snowman was known as Jimmy. He lived in a compound that belonged to a company known as Organlnc. His father was a geneticist who worked with a lab technician, Ramona.Pigs, known as pigoons, were grown for human organs in the lab and that brought tension in the marriage of Jimmy’s parents. The story continues with the pandemic outbreak that spreads across the earth from every city they marketed the BlyssPluss Pill. Jimmy ends up locking himself with the Crakers in the Paradice compound.Eventually, Jimmy leaves the compound since electricity might run out and he relocates to the beachside park.Critical Analysis of the StoryThe basic structure of the Oryx and Crake story is something we know too well. The book typically bounces back and forth between times that’s just before the collapse of humankind. From the beginning, you will feel that the setting is masterminded by an energetic and sure guide.Although the structure of the story is complicated, the writer never loses the readers and shows them a clear forward path. All through the entire book, the plots turn relentlessly that you might end up feeling breathless. Will Jimmy tell about how the biological disaster was released? How will he survive the starvation, attack from the mutant pigs and injury?But this book lacks the novel set in a dystopian future as the Handmaid’s Tale. All in all, if you love adventure and would like to indulge your brain a little, then this book is the perfect fit for you.About the AuthorMargaret Atwood is an amazing writer born in the year 1939 in Ottawa. She grew up on the northern side of Ontario, Quebec and at the same time in Toronto. She later received her undergraduate degree in Victoria College, University of Toronto.She attained her masters in Radcliffe College. Throughout her writing career, Atwood received numerous awards of honorary degrees. What’s more, she’s written over 35 volumes of poetry, fiction, non-fiction, and children literature. She currently lives in TorontoWhat makes the book so Scary?The book introduces us to a future where Biotechnology has taken the wrong route. Additionally, there are creatures that literally attack Snowman but at the same time, the Crakers are more than welcoming. One of the characters deliberately created a super virus that kills. That is because he wanted his super humans to thrive.That’s what I’d prefer calling mad science at its best. As I read through the book, I’m torn between wishing on getting a glimpse of Atwood’s mind and thinking to myself how it would be terrifying. Regardless, this is a wonderful book that you should definitely add to your collection.What makes it readable?The one question that will go through your mind is how can someone create such a fascinating story and at the same time terrifying? You will absolutely love the book. This is her second successful speculation of science fiction. It directly connects to some of the modern day fears and the future it might hold.The ethics behind genetic engineering is still shaky but this book gives it a whole new meaning. You will never go wrong taking a walk through Margaret Atwood’s mind. But be sure of a terrifying experience.6.Fahrenheit 451 by Ray BradburyBrief SynopsisFahrenheit 451 is a book that has its plot set across a futuristic society that finds happiness and pleasure in shallow waters. In that, people in this society achieve their pleasures from what look like wall-sized TV screens as well as small meaningless talk. In this society, it’s more of a sin to think and things like books which are depicted as the vehicles of new and different ideas are banned in this society.And to accomplish their mission to eradicate books, these society uses diverse firearms to burn down any traces of books that are still intact. The story takes a turn where one of the fireman’s known as Guy Montag starts to wonder why their society is burning down books. This is after Montag meets a carefree lady who has the balls to ask people around and most specifically Montag if they are happy with what is happening.Eventually, Montag develops the habit of rescuing as well as stealing books from the fires. Basically, the story tries to show us what can happen when we live in a society that is mentally stagnant. Just imagine living in a world where you are not allowed to read about the rest of the world since books are outlawed in the society no matter their themes.The society is so set back that they don’t even realize when the rest of the world in planning a war against them. They are convinced that the war would be quick taking only a day or two. The society is a slave of entertainment and we can see this clearly from Montag’s wife Mildred who takes pleasure in watching shows on a big screen all day long. Mildred has gone to extents of calling the characters in the show her family.Critical AnalysisFahrenheit 451 is a book that paints a picture of a word where people no longer think for themselves. In such a world, books are seen more of receptacles of individualistic thinking. And since thinking for oneself is such a crime, books are banned in this society. As they believe that thinking for oneself would hurt someone else out there, the people in this society just end up in a hedonistic society.In that what people now call family area the wall to wall televisions as well as the characters that are portrayed in it. A society where teenagers are seen driving cars while trying to kill pedestrians just for the sake of doing so. This is book that more importantly critiques mass establishment that tends to control the entire function of the society. A society with mass misinformation without any trial system.People openly lose their mental faculties and all they do is wait for information to flow from their huge wall to wall televisions. and definitely the information flowing in is already manipulated by the government and therefore most people have lost their fundamental ability to ask a simple ‘why?’About the AuthorRay Bradbury is an American writer who has his works categorized in the horror and fantasy niche. He is best known for his novels Fahrenheit 451, the Martial chronicles, The Illustrated Man. His best known novel is the Fahrenheit 451 which focuses on a study of the future American Societies in a dystopian study.Bradbury won the Pulitzer back in 2004 and still remains one of the most celebrated authors of the 21st century. Born in august 22 1920 then died on June 5 2012 in Los Angles at the age of 91.What makes this book so scary?This book presents to us a world where people no longer think for themselves and books are depicted as a way of individualistic thinking. And it’s for this reason, all books are banned from the society completely. Is this where our future might be headed?A future where people are slaves of technology to an extent where they refer to characters in the TV as their own family? This books also shows us how the government could easily control a society through misinformation when they become reliant on technology and neglect reading about the rest of the world on books.What makes it readable?This book tries to teach the society a lesson about being enslaved to the modern technology and media. It tells us that we shouldn’t just sit there and watch as our attention smoulder all the way to ashes. At times it’s necessary to extinguish that burning flame of your smartphone and work on restoring values that comes with deep knowledge and real face to face conversations.7.The Giver by Lois LowryBrief SynopsisIn a world with some of the common problems eliminated, such as global warming and employment, there’s very little hope and love. All these problems are eliminated with a cost; free will, colours, and love. The book is actually about a young lad known as Jonas. Jonas is special.At the age of 11. Jonas was chosen to be the Receiver of Memories which required him to be secluded from the rest of his peers. He was taken under the mentorship of the Giver and taught how to see colours figuratively and literally. All his other friends were assigned jobs. With time, Jonas was able to see that there’s something wrong with their utopia.Critical analysis of the storyLois Lowry wrote an amazing story in this book. As you get to understand the book, you will end up questioning the necessity of control. And at the same time, the consequences of a perfect world. The best part about this book is that the writer was able to successfully create a parallel planet.This book also teaches some sense of morals when Jonas lost the trust of his parents. At the beginning of the book, Jonas was a normal child who trusted his parents completely. However, when The Giver shows Jonas the tape where his father was releasing a new child and the trust is severed.That moment is what forced Jonas to leave the community earlier than anticipated by The Giver.About the AuthorLois Lowry is an American Book writer who has written 45 different and entertaining children book. One of them is The Giver. Born in 1937, Lois is known for her difficult subject matters when writing novels for children.Lois uses The Giver to give the youths a chance to relate to the unusual situations in this book. Even my not so bookish friend was able to connect and understand what is going on. Lois has other books in line and I can’t wait to get my hands on any of her new books.What makes the book so scary?Control is something we all fear for humanity. This book brings out the worst in control. As much as the characters have a better life and the future is so clear, they don’t have a piece of heart. Jonas being able to see what the parents did is a show of the cruelty that mankind is capable of.All in all, this book is good for any child and teaches them not to be control freaks. I don’t know about you but I’d love my kids to take a look at this edition.What makes it readable?If I remember correctly, The Giver was an option to read when I was in elementary school. But since there were limited copies I chose to read another book. And Yes, I’m actually reading this book now.I know the book was meant for kids but once you start flipping the page, I guarantee you that you’ll get glued. Simply put, this book connects to both the young and older readers. Some will hate it while others like me will fall in love with it. But the thought and debate this book inspires is simply undeniable.Have you ever wondered how you would explain colour red, snow or even falling in love to a person who has never experienced any of these feelings? Then you’d be amazed by how Lowry’s style of writing brings out these feeling in 200 pages. That’s true talent right there!8.Divergent by Veronica RothBrief SynopsisThis book circles around the life pf Beatrice who is born to an abnegation family. She lives to uphold all the ideals of her parents despite the fact that she is only allowed to look at the mirror only once per year. More to that, she is outfitted in to the drabbest and plainest clothing. All in all, Beatrice strives to be as kind as the mother, calmer than the older brother and an ideal civil servant like the father.However, despite all this, Beatrice knows that she is different and she doesn’t fit to be part of the Abnegation family. Throughout her life, Beatrice struggles with her emotions as she watches the daredevil chaos as born kids from the Dauntless clan leap and claw from the fast running trains as they go to school. At sixteen, it gets to the point where she has to take the aptitude test and choosing will be done. Although the test results of Beatrice are inconclusive, it happens that she is somehow different from the rest pf the population.In her tests, it is evident that Beatrice doesn’t fall in to present factions. This is because she displays the dominant traits in the Abnegation, Dauntless and Erudite. When it’s time to choose, Beatrice chooses the Dauntless clan hence abandoning her family. Beatrice chooses her heart and although selfishly chooses the Dauntless, this is depicted as a very brave act.Later on Beatrice shows interest in being enrolled to the faction. However, this is not a simple choice since there are only ten available spots and the number of people hopeful are double that. She struggles her way through until she gets to the ruthless initiation ritual. At this time, she not only discovers what she is made of but also learns what it really means to be a divergent.Critical AnalysisIn a world that have been ravaged by human fallings, ignorance, lies, aggression and greed comes a new society. And that is from the brink of the apocalypse that humanity has reorganized itself for the future version. Having split into five major factions that tend to live while upholding a common virtue.In the society, the people who believed that the source of their failures is selfish greed formed the faction of Abnegation. Therefore, such people were sworn to serve the needs of other people while remaining selfless. On the other hand, the other lot that believed that their failure and collapse was caused by ignorance were pledged to the Erudite tract made to always thirst for knowledge.More to that, the other lot who feel that its human lies that caused the falling of the world assumed the fraction of Candor and pledges to remain truthful and openly speak their minds. Those who felt that power of hunger and aggression were the roots of failure in the society enrolled to the clan of amity. They take the mantle of peace in all cases.The final group of people were the ones who felt that cowardice was the root source that steamed all their problems flung into the Dauntless clan which was the faction of the strong and courageous.About the AuthorVeronica Roth is an American novelist as well as a short story writer born in august 19 1988. Roth is known for her series of novels; divergent, allegiant and insurgent. Veronica started writing at a very young age as a very avid reader. One of her best reads were the giver by Lowry in 1993 which is also cited as a young adult dystopian.She penned her first book divergent during her winter break as she was in her final years. Insurgent was later released in 2012. This book came in just at the right moment when the dystopian novels niche was picking up so well. And later followed the Allegiant in 2015.What makes this book so scary?This novel pictures the life of a young girl who is about a 16 years old and living in a scary futuristic world. She lives a lonely life in a fortified city with high walls and everyone in the state is required to join any of the five factions in their society.The book simply tries to show us how the future with brainiacs who are depicted as creepy and cannot be trusted might be impossible unlike with the brave people.What makes it readable?This book is ideal for the young teenagers as it revolves the themes around a young girl who is made to choose between her family and joining the faction of the brave. It tries to show us that cowardice could be the only reason why you are not moving ahead with your life.9.The Handmaid’s Tale by AtwoodBrief SynopsisOffred, a handmaid in Gilead, serves the commander and his wife. Serena Joy, the wife of the commander, is a former gospel singer and has always advocated for ‘traditional values’. In this book, there is a dangerously low rate of reproduction. That is why Handmaids are forced to bear children for some of the elite couples who might have trouble conceiving.More to that, Offred is not the narrator’s original name. Every handmaid’s name starts with the word ‘Of’ which is then followed by the commander’s name. In every month, when it’s the right time in Offred’s menstrual cycle, she must have wordless sex with the commander as Serena sits behind her.Additionally, Offred’s freedom is restricted just like any other women in the story. She only leaves the house when going shopping and her room’s door is should not be completely shut. On top of that, Gilead’s police watch her every public move.Critical analysis of the storyThis book brings out some of the challenges women face on a daily basis. I won’t pretend to understand what women go through. Hell, most people have been doing that same thing for years.In the novel, Offred notices a phrase that’s always on the bedpost of the commander’s bed. ‘Nolite te bastardes carborundorum’. As the novel drifts into chaos, she realizes that the phrase means ‘don’t let the bastards grind you down’. Atwood published this book in 1985 in view of what will happen in the future.About the AuthorFrom the previous book, I know you now have an understanding of who Margaret Atwood is. This book received a lot of criticism in its release with most people arguing that it will never happen. However, recently the women rights and all the efforts of making women equally as men are dwindling by the day. The world seems to concrete in the LGBTQA society more since they have a united front.What makes it so Scary?The basic idea that the human race is in danger of reproductions shows to the world what might happen. More importantly, I felt that this story connects more to the female gender and gives the male gender an understanding of what really happens in their day to day lives. Like I said, I really wonder what goes on in Margaret Atwood’s mind but I don’t think it’s something good.She has a twisted yet creative way of connecting to the audience.What makes it readable?As a man, it’s difficult to understand what really happens in a woman’s life. All I can do is stand beside them as they fight for equal rights. That being said, this book gave me a direct connection to a woman’s world. It also showed me the full strength of how bad things can get.The book relates to the modern type of oppression in the female gender. But who knows, maybe if you get the chance to read this book, you might actually change the future.10.Red Queen by Victoria AveyardBrief SynopsisRed queen takes us to a fantasy setting where the world is divided into two groups depending on their blood colour. The silver blooded are gifted with amazing powers (imagine x-men with the abilities of Dracula) and live in pure luxury. On the other hand, the red-blooded suffer from extreme levels of poverty. What’s more, they are treated as inferiors by the silver blooded.Mare Barrow, 17-year-old Red girl, discovers that she possesses an ability that not even the silvers have ever seen before. That throws off the book into a chaotic adventure that I’m sure you’ll instantly fall in love with.Critical Analysis of the BookRed Queen is an amazing novel that manages to merge the world of electrifying drama together with science fiction powers. The character of Mare is such a marvel to discover and unravel. She is so much more than what we are left to believe in the beginning. I found myself saying ‘I freaking love this girl’ a couple of times as I read the book.About the AuthorVictoria Aveyard is a young American writer. Born in 1990, Massachusetts, Victoria is known for her Red Queen novel. She developed her interest in writing at a very young age and has been writing ever since.What makes it so scary?The Reds are more or less like the human race we have today. And the idea of oppression is always a concept we are all scared of. Since the Silvers also end up fearing the powers of Mare, they declare her in public the long-lost princess who’s now engaged to the Silver prince.Now, this is the part that kept my nerves on edge. Despite knowing that her life might be in danger if she was discovered, Mare helps a secret organization, Red Guard, to bring down the Silvers. You have to read the book to really understand what I mean.What makes it readable?Victoria writes a compelling story that really captivates the audience. Trust me on this, you will want to read the next book once you start on this series. This novel will get you to care about the characters and play around with your emotions. And that’s exactly what I want in any novel.