Posts Tagged ‘P G Wodehouse’
Thank You, Jeeves! (1936): Movie Review: Guest Post by Dustedoff
Posted in What ho!, tagged Humour, Movie, P G Wodehouse, Thank you Jeeves on June 18, 2026| 2 Comments »
Meeting a Plum fan at Pondicherry, India
Posted in What ho!, tagged Fans, Humour, P G Wodehouse, Pondicherry, Puducherry on May 21, 2026| 1 Comment »
On the brightly lit beach road of Pondicherry, one is apt to run across a wide variety of people of different hues, sizes, and shapes.
There are the casual ones who can be found munching on a snack and gazing ceaselessly at the ocean’s waves, as if contemplating the divine. A bunch of wide-eyed youngsters bonding with each other could get spotted. Young couples murmuring sweet nothings in each other’s ears might be sitting in secluded spots, blissfully unaware of the goings on around them. One could also run into a few impeccably dressed newlyweds, sharing a bar of ice cream, with dreams in their eyes. One notices families whose kids are enjoying their evening out, with hassled parents in tow, making futile attempts at curtailing their sprinting ambitions.
Elderly persons, comfortably perched on the boundary wall, can be seen enjoying the mild south-eastern breeze caressing their mortal frames. Some might be huddled in small groups, perhaps sharing notes on the condition of the lining of their stomachs. Groups of elderly ladies can be spotted, animatedly discussing between themselves either the kind of cruelty they suffer at the hands of their daughters-in-law or the severity of the knee pain they bear.
Besides leisurely walkers enjoying a saunter down the road, one is apt to see spirited pedestrians trying to achieve the daily quota of brisk walking prescribed by their physicians. Newton, were he to witness the scene, would heartily approve of their nimbleness in deftly trying to avoid colliding with the ones coming from the opposite side. After all, this reaffirms Nature’s law that a given spot on a given plane shall at a given moment of time be occupied by only one body. A couple of fitness enthusiasts cast in the mould of Ashe Marson can be noticed vigorously doing Larsen exercises at different spots.
The benign gaze of Mahatma Gandhi keeps encouraging all those present to spend more time on the beach road. Diagonally across, the well-lit old lighthouse beckons all those feeling lost in existence, motivating them to keep navigating through the choppy waters of life wisely and be clear and persistent about the goals to be achieved.
Managers in hotels and restaurants can be seen perspiring, trying to manage the queue of weary walkers trooping in, looking for some nourishment to put down the hatch. Behind the Promenade Hotel, one can see unruly crowds of customers gorging on tangy snacks being served by carts peddling street foods of all kinds.
Just a stone’s throw away stands the majestic structure of Raj Niwas, the office-cum-residence of the Lt. Governor of this union territory. On the back side, nestled amongst other buildings, one can easily find ‘Surguru Spot’, an establishment which serves South Indian cuisine. It offers only vegetarian fare, though one does not know whether the inspiration for the same comes from the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley or from Madeline Bassett.
As opposed to the boisterous surroundings one experiences on the beach road, the ambience inside the hallowed establishment known as ‘Surguru Spot’ is sombre, serene, and cosy. On the day in question, the place was full of customers who had permitted their greed to win over prudence. They could be seen wolfing down a wide range of South Indian delicacies.
Into the hall walked a fan of Plum’s, handsomely upholstered like Eve Halliday. An editor of impeccable reputation, she might as well be assisting Aunt Dahlia in running Milady’s Boudoir. To identify yours truly, sitting huddled in a corner with a morose expression on his visage, was the work of a moment for her.
When Plum fans meet, it always feels as if one has met a long-lost bosom pal. Books get discussed. Challenges faced by editors are mentioned. Life’s vicissitudes get shared. Movies come up for a loving mention, especially the ones which have loads of subtle humour. Characters created by the Master and many of his books come up for a detailed analysis.
Suffice it to say that it turns out to be a feast of Reason and flow of Soul, which is never punctuated by intervals of uncomfortable silences that arise when those meeting each other for the first time come together.
The more, the merrier, you might say. But I wonder if the number of fans present at such an impromptu meeting of the Drones Club really matters. To me, what is far more important is the depth of discussion, as well as the wide range of topics covered.
Of course, one winds up such a meet with the fond hope that in the future, a few more fans who might be hiding themselves well in a small city like Pondicherry may also get prompted to join in the festivities. Throwing medu vadas duly soaked in delectable sambhar at ceiling fans could also be fun, right?!
Related Posts
https://ashokbhatia.me/2025/02/19/the-myriad-challenges-faced-by-publishers-and-editors-in-plumsville
https://ashokbhatia.me/2016/04/20/the-travails-of-a-non-resident-pondicherryite
https://ashokbhatia.me/2023/05/29/when-anatole-goes-off-to-pondicherry-india
The Ghost in the Suitcase: Satyajit Ray, P.G. Wodehouse, and the Sunlit World of ‘Baksa Badal’: Guest Post by Suryamouli Datta
Posted in What ho!, tagged Baksa Badal, Bengali, Movies, P G Wodehouse, Satyajit Ray on May 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“But behind your achievement, the achievement of another remains…”
Feluda (“The Elephant God”)
In my schoolboy days, I once declared in an essay that Satyajit Ray was my favourite writer. Decades of reading have done nothing to dislodge him from that position. I have wandered through considerable literary territory since then—from Tolstoy to Tagore, from Borges to Bankim—and yet I return, always, to the particular flavour of Ray’s Bengali prose. Some will say this merely confirms that I never truly outgrew the garden walls of children’s literature. Perhaps. But to reduce Ray to Feluda and Professor Shonku is rather like insisting that a master chef is only to be judged by his breakfast menu. His short stories are every bit as accomplished, every bit as precise. Even his novel Fatickchand—into which he poured what one suspects was a deliberate effort to deny the reader any cause for tears—leaves, in the final pages, a bruise upon the heart that no amount of re-reading quite soothes.
A true storyteller, it seems to me, tells his tales with equal fluency across every medium available to him. Ray’s cinematic grammar is as fascinating as his prose, and the charge that his sensibility is somehow “Western” has always struck me as less a criticism than an inadvertent compliment. It was, in fact, that very Western flair which drew me deeper into his work—and led me, eventually, to a discovery that illuminated yet another facet of his genius.
The Screenplay and the Secret Admirer
Today I wish to set aside Ray’s directorial masterpieces—the Apu Trilogy, Charulata, Jalsaghar—and speak instead of a film in which he served not as director but as screenwriter and music composer. That film is Baksa Badal (1970) -literally, “The Exchange of Suitcases”—directed by Nityananda Datta and based on a story by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay. I have read the original story. I have seen the film. And I confess that the film, carrying Ray’s fingerprints on every scene, gave me a pleasure the source material alone could not.
The plot, briefly: Pratul, a psychiatrist, boards a train and encounters a young woman named Amiya. Upon arriving at his solitary quarters in a tea garden, he opens his suitcase to discover it belongs to a lady—silks, saris, and the unmistakable evidence of feminine proprietorship where his own belongings ought to be. The culprit is the oldest of railway comedies: the swapped suitcase. Fortunately, Amiya’s uncle’s address is tucked inside, and Pratul dispatches the bag to him in Kalimpong—the uncle being a botanist of the most magnificently unworldly variety. Amiya, meanwhile, has discovered the swap and is in pursuit of her property. What had been a simple exchange of luggage becomes, of course, something considerably more complicated—and considerably more enjoyable.
Now: what was in Amiya’s suitcase that makes this comic engine run? Not jewels. Not state secrets. Women’s clothing, homemade sweets, and—most dangerously of all—a personal diary, whose candid entries begin to sketch for Pratul a portrait of the woman he has never met. It is precisely this detail—the magnificently Wodehousean notion that a suitcase becomes a character reference—that lifts the film from pleasant entertainment into something approaching art.
Enter Plum
From an interview with Ray himself and later confirmed in Bijoya Ray’s memoir Amader Kotha (A commentary on Ray’s family life with his wife), came the revelation that explained so much: Ray’s favourite author was P.G. Wodehouse. Several veils lifted at once. The “smartness”—that unique quality of elegant mischief I had always sensed in Ray’s work without being able to name it—had a source. As Wodehouse himself once wrote: “I believe there are two ways of writing novels. One is mine, making a sort of musical comedy without music.” Ray, I would argue, understood this instinctively, and in Baksa Badal he composed precisely such a comedy—Bengali in its bones, Wodehousean in its spirit.
The Cast of Characters, Translated
The changes Ray made in adapting Bibhutibhushan’s story into a screenplay are where the Wodehousean influence declares itself most openly.
Pratul is the linchpin. In the original story, he is an unremarkable fellow on a train. In Ray’s version, he remains a traveller, but a traveller of considerable resource and ingenuity. He does not merely return the suitcase; he arrives at the lady’s house in disguise—deploying the sort of elaborate subterfuge that Wodehouse heroes (and villains, and valets) often resort to. To my mind, Pratul is much likely akin to Psmith: that magnificently unflappable young man who, in Psmith in the City, Leave it to Psmith, and elsewhere, glides through many a catastrophe with a raised eyebrow and a well-turned sentence. Psmith is intelligent, fundamentally decent, and possesses what one can only describe as an almost supernatural capacity for crisis management—all qualities that Pratul’s character shares with him. There is also, in Pratul’s moments of quiet wit, more than a little of Jeeves: the man who sees further than everyone else in the room and arranges outcomes with the serene competence of a chess grandmaster.
Shovan is an invention entirely Ray’s own—he does not exist in Bibhutibhushan’s original. And what an invention it turns out to be! Played with a perfection that still disarms audiences today by Satindra Bhattacharyya, Shovan is positioned as the conventional “thorn in the hero’s side.” But Ray, being Ray, refuses the conventional treatment. Shovan is not a villain. He is something far funnier and far more human: a well-meaning, chronically disorganised, constitutionally forgetful innocent who creates havoc not through malice but through a congenital inability to manage his own affairs. He is, in every sense, like Gussie Fink-Nottle—Bertie Wooster’s hapless friend, the newt-fancier, a man whose romantic difficulties and spectacular social mishaps provide the engine for some of Wodehouse’s finest passages. The film’s perfectly Wodehousean irony—and one suspects Ray savoured it—is that Shovan goes, entirely unwittingly, to his own romantic rival for what we might today call life coaching. Gussie himself could not have managed it better.
This matters enormously from a craft perspective. Traditional comic construction demands a powerful antagonist to make the hero shine. Ray understood, as Wodehouse understood, that a more sophisticated comedy arises when the “obstacle” is not wicked but simply hapless—when the hero must defeat not malevolence but a dash of pumpkin-headed-ness. It is a far more charitable worldview and a far more entertaining one with absolute warmth.
The Uncle—absorbed in his botanical specimens with a serenity impervious to surrounding drama—is Lord Emsworth to the life. Emsworth, the ninth Earl of that ilk, was Wodehouse’s great monument to benign incompetence: a man so thoroughly enchanted by his prize pig, the Empress of Blandings, and his garden, that the turbulent comedy erupting around him might as well be occurring on another continent. Ray’s uncle achieves precisely the same effect: while a romantic catastrophe unfolds under his roof, he nurses his plants with the focused tranquillity of a man who has simply declined to notice that the world exists.
Amiya completes the quartet in the manner of Wodehouse’s Joan Valentine or, in her drier moments, Sally Nicholas: the woman who is the only person in the room capable of matching the hero’s intelligence, who wields a quiet, lethal humour, and who loves the hapless third party (Shovan, in this case) with the exasperated affection of an elder sister rather than the romantic devotion of a heroine. This is where Ray—faithful to his Plum—refuses sentimentality. She scolds Shovan as a mother might; she respects Pratul as an equal. The emotional geometry crafted by Ray is Wodehousean in its precision.
The Moustache Gambit and Other Plummy Pleasures
One cannot leave Baksa Badal without observing the running comedy of the moustache—a joke that begins when Pratul draws a moustache on a photograph of Amiya’s brother. This incident elevates the narrative to a level where an entire architecture of double identity (one persona with the moustache; one without) gets unleashed upon the viewer. it gets sustained with the careful internal logic that all great farce requires. Ray introduced this particular brand of “moustache punning” to Indian cinema a full decade before Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s beloved Gol Maal (1979) made the device famous in Hindi film. Priority, one feels, should be acknowledged.
In Wodehouse’s world, physical disguise and mistaken identity are the load-bearing columns of the comic architecture. Much Obliged, Jeeves, The Mating Season, The Code of the Woosters, Big Money—in story after story, the elaborate management of who thinks whom is who drives the plot forward. Ray understood this mechanism well and deployed it with characteristic economy: never a beat wasted, never a joke pushed past its natural life.
There is also, finally, the matter of Sudden Resolution—what one might call the Wodehousean Restoration of Order. In Plum’s world, however catastrophic the muddle, the final pages deliver every character to their appropriate goal , no bitterness permitted, no score unsettled. It is, as Wodehouse himself put it, a world “two inches above the surface of the earth”—a place where unhappy endings are simply not allowed. Baksa Badal achieves this same smooth, frictionless landing. The suitcases are returned. The right people find one another. And the uncle, one imagines, is finally left free to potter about amongst his plants.
A (Belated) Birthday Tribute
I do not pretend to be worthy enough of being able to judge a colossus. Satyajit Ray remains, as he has always been, my favourite—followed closely, in a different register, by Wodehouse. What Baksa Badal represents, to my mind, is something rarer than influence and more graceful than homage: it is the act of a supreme artist absorbing his deepest pleasure and returning it, transformed, in his own idiom. The Bengali soul of the film is never in doubt—the tea gardens, the Kalimpong hills, the particular social textures of middle-class Bengal—and yet, threaded invisibly through it, is the sunlit comic universe of Pelham Grenville Wodehouse.
This, I believe, is the mark of the greatest creators. They carry their loves inside their work like light inside a lantern—invisible from the outside until you hold the thing up to the flame and see, suddenly, the pattern within.
Wodehouse wrote that his ideal was to take “a handful of people and ring the changes on them.” Ray did precisely this in Baksa Badal—and rang them in Bengali, on a hillside, a stolen moustache, and made something wholly and unmistakably his own.
But behind your achievement, the achievement of another remains.
That is not diminishment. In Ray’s case, it is the highest compliment one can pay: that he was capacious enough to carry Wodehouse within him, and confident enough in his own genius to let the presence show—like a watermark, visible only when you know to look, and glorious when you do.
Belated happy birthday, “Manik-da” (as Ray is famously known as). The suitcases, it turns out, were never really swapped at all. Everything arrived exactly where it was meant to go.
“The object of the writer is to charm, to amuse, and to interest.” — P.G. Wodehouse
Baksa Badal (1970) did all three. And it did so because two giants, born on different continents and dishing out creative stuff in different time zones, turned out to share the same understanding of what comedy, at its finest, is actually for. (Ray was born on the 2nd of May, 1921 and left us on the 23rd of April, 1992. Plum was born on the 15th of October, 1881 and left us on the 14th of February, 1975.)
After all, humour is not merely a tool for propelling a narrative. It is the garnishing that creative geniuses deploy to make their offerings more palatable to their audience’s mental hunger, which is forever seeking an inner bliss which would transport them to a more equitable, fair, and just world.
Related Post
Of Valentine’s Day, A Sentiment Called Love, and P G Wodehouse
Posted in Uncategorized, What ho!, tagged Death, Humour, Love, P G Wodehouse, Paradise Lost, Valentine's Day on February 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »
A Meeting of Plum Fans in New Delhi, India
Posted in What ho!, tagged Fans, Humour, NCR, New Delhi, P G Wodehouse on January 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Joy in the Evening – A meeting of Plum fans in Kolkata, India
Posted in What ho!, tagged Calcutta, Fans, Humour, India, Kolkata, Kwality, P G Wodehouse, Park Street, Travel on December 30, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The Gentle Decline of the Mumma’s Boy: Guest Post by Suryamouli Datta
Posted in What ho!, tagged Be!, Bertie Wooster, Dr Watson, Dracula, Humour, Jane Fonda, Jeeves, P G Wodehouse, Rocky Todd, Sherlock Holmes on November 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »
I. The Specimen at Breakfast
It is a truth universally whispered, if not acknowledged, that a man excessively fond of his mother is a developmental hiccup waiting to happen. He may be able to earn a salary, navigate traffic, even discuss the stock market — but the moment he mentions calling his mother, he is mentally filed away under Incomplete Specimen of Homo sapiens. This is especially so if the party of the other part happens to be either his spouse, or a live-in partner, or even a steady girlfriend.
Observe one in his natural habitat: spooning sugar into his morning tea with the precision of a laboratory technician, eyes flicking toward his phone — not for stock alerts or fantasy league scores, but to text “Good morning, Ma.” Evolution, one suspects, took a wrong turn somewhere between the Y chromosome and the apron string.
Society, ever alert to genetic inefficiency, has decided that this man must be mocked into extinction. He represents emotional dependency in an age that prizes self-sufficiency — the last candle in a world that prefers LED.
II. The Crime of Devotion
The modern “Mumma’s Boy” is a walking paradox: sentimental in public, decisive in none of the approved ways. He is not loud enough to be “alpha,” nor cool enough to be “detached.” He apologizes too quickly, remembers anniversaries unprompted, and believes emotions are meant to be acted upon, not merely analysed in therapy. In short, he is guilty of unedited humanity.
The crime, of course, is not affection itself — it is the refusal to outgrow it. Civilization applauds the man who rises above his upbringing, not the one who keeps it alive. The market rewards efficiency, not continuity. Our man, poor fellow, confuses tenderness with duty. He texts his mother daily because he has once lived through the silence that followed a missed call. He obeys her warnings about rain because he still remembers pneumonia from childhood. His obedience, mocked as immaturity, is often just trauma in polite clothes.
III. Society’s Favourite Punchbags
It is not that women despise such fussed-over persons — they simply find him inconvenient. For, how do you compete with someone’s story of origin? The Mumma’s Boy threatens the fragile ecosystem of modern romance: he already belongs to a woman who expects nothing, manipulates rarely, and forgives instinctively. It is not rivalry so much as redundancy.
Men, meanwhile, offer no solidarity. They, too, laugh — loudly — at the one who has not mastered emotional detachment. It is the laughter of the insecure, the sound of men terrified that affection might be contagious. Among themselves, they repeat that chilling corporate proverb of our age: Never mix feelings with efficiency.
And so, the mockery becomes ritual — a collective reassurance that we have evolved past dependence. What we really mean is: We have forgotten how to love without negotiation.
Sometimes it feels like that great trial on screen — twelve angry voices debating one man’s tenderness. The accused sits quietly, guilty of calling his mother, of speaking softly, while the jurors of modern life argue his fate. They call him dependent, unfinished, obsolete. And then Juror Eight raises his head, the lone dissenting conscience, asking what no one wants to: what if gentleness is not weakness but evidence of endurance? The others look away, impatient for a verdict. Empathy, as always, wins no medals — only the comfort of being right too early.
IV. The Concept of Extended Motherhood
The role of the mother does not always remain confined to one’s genetic parent. Motherliness is a sentiment which many other parties could end up showering upon the hapless male in question. It could extend its scope to include obdurate aunts, assorted females, and even valets and butlers who fuss over the object of their affections or masters in a way that could turn their biological mothers green with envy.
Consider Aunt Agatha who is forever keen to see Bertie Wooster getting married and keeping the Wooster dynasty alive and kicking. We also find Emerald Stoker who is one of those soothing, sympathetic girls you can take your troubles to, confident of having your hand held and your head patted. There is a sort of motherliness about her which you find restful. Not to forget the likes of Florence Craye and Vanessa Cook, who wish to raise the level of Bertie’s intellect. Elsewhere, at Deverill Hall, we get introduced to Esmond Haddock, who lives with his five overcritical aunts. They disapprove of his relationship with Corky Potter-Pirbright, because she is an actor.
Social status is no barrier to such strains of motherhood. Lord Marshmoreton must muster all his courage to stand up to his sister, Lady Caroline Byng, and declare a matrimonial alliance with his newly appointed secretary. In Blandings, Lord Emsworth finds it challenging to ignore the instructions of Lady Constance Keeble.
V. The Wodehouse Paradox
If literature had a patron saint for this tribe, it would surely be Bertie Wooster — the eternally well-meaning man who requires Jeeves not to outthink him but to save him from his own kindness. The Wodehouse universe never punishes the sentimental fool; it merely chuckles at him. And yet, who among us would rather live in Jeeves’s world — all logic, all restraint — than Bertie’s, where affection and absurdity coexist like bread and butter?
Jeeves’ is another shining example in the genre of extended motherhood. Just like one’s mother would decide what to wear on a certain occasion, his sartorial choices often conflict with those of his master. Whether it is about a white mess jacket with brass buttons or a pair of socks, the valet’s wish eventually prevails.
Our modern world has no use for Woosters. We have replaced them with algorithmic men — rational, optimized, and barely human. We speak of “emotional intelligence” but what we really mean is emotional management. In a quiet act of rebellion, the Mumma’s Boy continues to feel un-strategically. He loves inconveniently. His sentimentality, far from being regressive, is the only authentic protest left.
Somewhere in his subconscious, he still believes love should precede purpose — a belief that makes him unemployable in the economy of the heart.
VI. A Matter of Chromosomes and Consequences
If one were to approach this anthropologically, one might say the X and Y chromosomes never quite recovered from the moral confusion of modernity. Men were trained to conquer, but not to comfort; to provide, but not to preserve. Our subject — this peculiar holdover from an earlier blueprint — runs on an emotional operating system last updated when people still said ‘touch base’ unironically. Once, during an office migration, he was the only one who refused to upgrade to the new HR portal because his old login still worked—and he trusted that more than promises of “a better interface.” That, in essence, is his problem and his virtue: he sticks to what once kept him safe, even when everyone else has moved to cloud-based feelings. He still believes that obedience to his parent can be a form of strength — a legacy code he sees no reason to rewrite.
He is loyal to the first woman who ever loved him unconditionally, and that loyalty leaks inconveniently into other relationships. But instead of being admired for gratitude, he is censured, condemned, criticised, denounced, lambasted, lampooned, and pilloried for having a regressive outlook. A culture that venerates mothers in myth, after all, cannot quite stand sons who take the mythology literally. We worship the Mother Goddess with cymbals and incense, but flinch when a man lives by her word. The hymns say, “Matru Devo Bhava,” yet a son who truly believes it — who lets his mother’s advice outweigh his wife’s or boss’s — is dismissed as weak, regressive, or unmanly. In our stories, divine mothers bless their children’s wars and ambitions; in real life, they’re expected to stay politely out of them. The contradiction is cultural theatre — we deify motherhood, but only in the abstract. The moment reverence becomes obedience, the devotee metamorphoses into a punchbag. You see it everywhere — we stage plays about mothers’ sacrifices, post emotional tributes on Mother’s Day, and light lamps to divine matriarchs, yet flinch at the real-world consequences of such devotion. A son who quotes his mother is infantilized; one who disobeys her is applauded for “growing up.” It’s as if society prefers motherhood embalmed in marble, not breathing at the breakfast table. The worship is safe precisely because it’s distant. Up close, it demands humility — a virtue now branded as weakness.
And if that sounds too tragic, literature has always offered more consoling alternatives.
Even Bram Stoker, that cartographer of nightmares, gave the world a family of obedient sons. The Children of the Night in Dracula rise only when summoned, hunt only what their master decrees, and retreat at a single gesture. Strip away the gothic trappings, and they are curiously domestic creatures — well-mannered predators who would never dream of disobeying their guardian. Theirs is not rebellion but perfect filial discipline: a household of nocturnal Mumma’s Boys, loyal to a fault, beautifully house-trained in terror. The feudal spirit prevails.
And then, on a very different plane, comes Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Adventure of the Three Garridebs. When Dr Watson takes a bullet meant for another, Sherlock Holmes — that priest of logic, that marble statue of reason — forgets deduction altogether.
“You’re not hurt, Watson? For God’s sake, say that you are not hurt!”, he cries, tearing open the wound like an anxious mother examining a scraped knee. For one mortifying instant, the cold machine of intellect becomes the warm machinery of care. The great detective, so often accused of heartlessness, turns out to have been hiding a maternal core under his waistcoat. Even Doyle, perhaps without meaning to, admits that the purest love left to civilisation may no longer be romantic or heroic, but quietly maternal in spirit.
VII. The Inconvenient Truth
Here is the inconvenient truth: the Mumma’s Boy is not a moral failure. He is, in fact, society’s unwanted conscience. His instincts are outdated only because ours have calcified. While we train ourselves to love efficiently — in 300-character texts, in time slots between meetings — he still believes affection does not need an agenda. He may never lead revolutions or scale startups, but he will never ghost you either.
His so-called immaturity is often merely a refusal to evolve into emotional automation. After all, unlike in the digital logic-driven world that he inhabits, emotions are challenging to predict based on an algorithm or a mathematical equation. Mock him all you want, but he carries the faint, embarrassing reminder that tenderness used to be fashionable. Those who like him love him enough to let him enjoy the extra space for himself – the segment of his heart which has been lovingly occupied by someone from his childhood days.
So, to borrow from Rocky Todd, let him be!
“Be!
Be!
The past is dead.
To-morrow is not born.
Be to-day!
To-day!
Be with every nerve,
With every muscle,
With every drop of your red blood!
Be!”
VIII. The Last Gentleman
And so, the poor “Mumma’s Boy” trudges on — neither rebel nor saint, just an outdated model of emotional software running in a world obsessed with constant updates. He will continue to be the butt of jokes at brunches, kitty parties, and on social media panels about “modern masculinity.” But here is the twist: when the Wi-Fi of human connection inevitably goes down, it is usually this man — with his unglamorous emotional wiring — who still knows how to reconnect without instruction.
He will still call home, still remember birthdays, still believe that love does not need a disclaimer. Society may keep rewarding the loud and detached, but somewhere, between a performance review and a reminder to buy detergent, he’s the one holding civilisation together with nothing more than a well-intentioned affection and a decent phone plan.
Note:
- Inputs from Prodosh Bhattacharya are gratefully acknowledged.
- Illustrations courtesy the World Wide Web.
Figures of Speech and Flowerpots: Guest Post by Captain Mohan Ram
Posted in What ho!, tagged Blandings, Flower pots, Leave it to Psmith, Necklace, Omar Khyyakm, P G Wodehouse, Psmith, Rubaiyat, Rupert Baxter on October 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »
We were subjected to a weekly torture session in school — a class called English Grammar. Imagine a twelve-year-old from Coimbatore in the deep south of India being bombarded with “subordinate clauses” and the “past pluperfect”! Those lessons were enough to drive most of us permanently away from English literature.
Then came a class on Figures of Speech using the opening couplets from Omar Khyyakm’s Rubaiyat (Translation – Fitzgerald), a revelation! For once, grammar turned into something alive, fun, colourful, and exciting. Let me share what I still remember from that day.
“AWAKE! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
The Sultan’s Turret in a Noose of Light.”
(Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, trans. Fitzgerald)
This isn’t just a sunrise — it’s a sunrise with flair, drama, and imagination!
Metaphor
• Bowl of Night — Night compared to a dark bowl holding the sky.
• Hunter of the East — The Sun as a hunter.
• Noose of Light — Sunlight as a glowing rope that ensnares towers.
Personification
Morning flings a stone, stars flee, light sets traps — the cosmos comes alive!
Symbolism
• Sultan’s Turret — Power and pride, humbled by the dawn.
Imagery
• Stars scattering like birds.
• Light roping in a turret.
• Night shattered like porcelain.
Who knew dawn could be so dramatic? Omar Khayyam turned a simple sunrise into a cosmic chase — and restored my faith in English grammar!
Years later, imagine my delight when I found that P. G. Wodehouse had stood this lofty imagery on its head — with his trademark anticlimax — in Leave It to Psmith.
The Scene
Poor Rupert Baxter is locked out after a failed attempt to locate Lady Constance’s missing necklace in a row of flowerpots. Exhausted and desperate, to attract attention he hurls flowerpsots through a window — which, alas, turns out to be Lord Emsworth’s bedroom! Finally, he falls asleep outdoors, only to be awakened by none other than Psmith himself.
Quote
“The spectacle of Psmith of all people beaming benignly down at him was an added offence.
‘I in person,’ said Psmith genially. ‘Awake, beloved, AWAKE! for Morning in the Bowl of Night has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight… The Sultan himself,’ he added, ‘you will find behind yonder window, speculating idly on your motives for bunging flowerpots at him. Why, if I may venture the question, did you?’”
Unquote
Only Plum could take Omar Khayyam’s exalted poetry and turn it into a dazzling anticlimax involving flowerpots and a furious peer of the realm.
That’s Wodehouse — the magician who could turn the sublime into the side-splitting.
(Captain Mohan Ram, ex Naval designer, eventually moved to the automobile industry where, if one may hazard a guess, he might have been designing some amphibian vehicles. His career trajectory followed the Peter’s Principle. He rose to senior positions, until finally retiring recently at the age of eighty four. He is currently cooling his heels, writing inane posts on Facebook.)
Related Posts:
Lost in the ‘pandal’ jungle of Kolkata during Durga Puja: Guest Post by Suryamouli Datta
Posted in What ho!, tagged Bertie Wooster, Humour, Jeeves, P G Wodehouse on September 26, 2025| Leave a Comment »

































