Khaled Hosseini has done it again with his second novel 'A Thousand Splendid Suns' , presenting an emotional and beautiful story of two women, Mariam and Laila, set in the backdrop of a troubled Afghanistan starting with the Russian Invasion to Taliban and the American Invasion.

His first novel The Kite Runner was a huge hit. In this novel Khaled Hosseni takes us on a tour of Afghanistan, a country that most of us know little about. He mixes fact with fiction which keeps us engrossed as well as makes the story move at a fast pace.

It is very difficult to keep our emotions in check as he portrays the lives of women in conservative Islamic countries.

The Kite Runner is already being made into a movie and I believe this one will follow suit. However both of the novels portray a lot of emotions and feelings, I wonder if they can be visualized as described in the book.

A Thousand Splendid Suns is a highly recommended and must read novel.

The Kite Runner is Khaled Hosseini's debut novel and one of the best that I have read. The Kite Runner falls on the same league as Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance. While Mistry's novel is set against the backdrop of India's emergency period, TKR revolves around pre-911 Afghanistan. This is a story centered around the protagonist's guilt about his life and the redemption that he seeks. The story is narrated in first person and one could visualize the characters as if they are part of our own life. The characters are etched superbly and the settings are described vividly, we could actually smell and feel the presence of the characters around us.

The story revolves around Amir, the friendship with his childhood chum Hassan, the relationship with his father and the bondage with his country. The story touches upon the ethnic divide between the Pashtun's and the Hazara's (two sects in Afghanistan), the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and the Taliban regime.

The Kite Runner is a heart wrenching novel and will definitely leave an imprint on your life. It's highly recommended and a must read novel.

There was a popular game show in STAR PLUS titled "Khul Jha Sim Sim". The rules of the game were very simple. The host of the show offers the player a choice of three closed boxes. Two boxes are empty, but the third contains an expensive prize like a TV, Fridge, Microwave Oven etc. The player doesn't know which box has the prize, but the host does. The player first has to choose one of the boxes. Next, the game show host will pick an empty box that wasn't chosen, opens it, showing that it’s empty. Finally, the host gives the player an option to change boxes. The player can switch from the box that he picked to the other unopened box. Is there any advantage in switching boxes? What would you do?

Game theory is often described as a branch of applied mathematics and economics that studies situations where multiple players make decisions in an attempt to maximize their returns.

Game theory can be applied to our everyday life because we are not the only stakeholders in the actions that we perform. It's always better to have an understanding of what would happen if you choose to follow a certain decision that we make. How many of us really consider the pros and cons before making a decision? How does our action influence others in their decision? Bargaining in a shop is a game. Bargaining the fare with an auto-rickshaw driver involves game theory. The driver would accept your offer if he is made to believe that you would choose an another auto if the deal doesn't work out. But on a lonely night with not much of a traffic, your bargain might not work.

"Game theory at work : How to use Game theory to outthink and outmaneuver your competition" is an interesting book for starters on GT. The book has full of examples and discusses on the various outcomes of a game. If you are interested in Game theory, check out this book. Game theory is also an interesting topic to discuss with your friends.

OK. Let's get back to our original question. Would you switch the box?

Answer:

You should definitely change boxes. Let’s label the three boxes as A, B, and C and assume that you picked box
A. Obviously there is a 1/3 probability that the prize is in box A and a 2/3 probability that the prize is in either box
B or C. Either or both boxes B or C are empty. Thus, after you pick box A, it will always be possible for the host to
open either box B or C to reveal an empty box. Consequently, the host’s actions do not affect the probability of
the prize being in box A. Before the host opened one of the two other boxes, there was a 1/3 chance of the prize being in box A, and after he opened one of the other boxes, there is still a 1/3 chance of the prize being in box A.
Let’s say that the host opened box B and showed you that it was empty. Now, since there is a 1/3 chance that
box A has the prize, and a zero chance that box B has the prize, there must be a 2/3 chance that box C has the
prize. Consequently, you should switch to box C because it will double your chance of winning.

Did you choose the same answer? Did you apply the GT concept of was it a gut feeling?

Another Teaser question from the book:

Assume that three people secretly write down a dollar amount on a piece of paper. They must pick a
whole dollar amount between $0 and $100. The person who writes down the lowest number wins the
amount she wrote down. If there is a tie, the winners split the total. Thus if:

       Person one writes down $53 and
       Person two writes down $22 and
       Person three writes down $30,

then person two wins $22. If person three had also written down $22 rather than $30, then persons two
and three would have each received $11 because they would have split the $22. Find the reasonable
outcome in this game when all players are rational.

Answer:

All three people choose $1. This is a game better played as team. Imagine that all three of them choose to write $100. That would be the best outcome since everyone would get $33.33. But if both your opponents write $100, it's better if you write down $99. You would win $99 and a it's a better deal than $33.33. No one would want this to happen because they wouldn't believe the other two. The natural outcome is to write $1 because that's the least. Everyone writes $1 and wins 33 cents each. They would have been better if all of them had choose to write a higher number. The logic of game theory, however, compels the players of this game to bid against each other and throw away almost all of the available money.

There are more games like The prisoner's dilemma, Nash Equilibrium, threats, promises, negotiations etc. The book is a good read on all these games.

Game theory in Movies:

There are lot of movies that involves GT. The few that I can think of are Ransom, Crimson Tide, Dr.Strangelove, Failsafe, Hunt for Red October etc. No wonder that most of the movies are related to the cold-war era, where lots of tactics, negotiations, threats & promises were involved.

Any other good GT movies that you can think of?

Last Man Standing is my first David Baldacci book and definitely will not be the last. I have been reading non-fiction of late and wanted to get back to fiction and the best way was to get hold of a page-turner thriller novel. I was a little bit apprehensive in choosing this book because I have not read any reviews on any of David Baldacci books. However with a gut feeling I purchased this book and it has not disappointed me.

Web London a member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and his compatriots from the Charlie Team hit out on a drug raid in Washington D.C. As they near the target, Web London suddenly freezes up and finds himself immobile and falls on the ground. Unaware of Web London's condition the rest of the team continues with the mission and within seconds no one is left alive. Web London thus becomes the sole survivor of a remote-controlled ambush and is the "last man standing". Faced with guilt over his team mates death and increasing media coverage over his cowardice freezing up act before the raid, Web London decides to find out the real reason on why he froze up and also investigate on the ambush.

The author's research on the FBI's hostage rescue team, latest electronic gadgets, sniper tactics are evident from the book. There are lots of sub-plots and each of them are beautifully weaved together to reveal the main plot.

Based on the reviews "Last man standing" does not seem to be David Baldacci's best work which now gives me an option to read his earlier books like "Absolute Power" & "The Camel Club" which has got better reviews than "Last Man Standing".

Below is a sample chapter from the book "God's Debris".  This book is an interesting read. Download the book from the link given at the end of the chapter, read it and discuss it with your friends.

----------------------------

Relationships

----------------------------

The old man rocked some more and smiled at me. “You’re alone much of the time.”

He was right. I enjoyed being alone. I had friends, but I was always happy to get back home.

“How do you know that?” I asked.

“Your pupils widen when I talk about ideas.”

“They do?”

“There are two types of people in the world, my young friend. One type is people-oriented. When they make conversation, it is about people—what people are doing, what someone said, how someone feels. The other group is
idea-oriented. When they make conversation, they talk about ideas and concepts and objects.”

“I must be an idea person.”

“Yes. And it causes trouble in your personal life but you  don’t realize how.”

“That’s rather presumptuous of you. What makes you think I have trouble in my personal life?” I had to admit he
was right. Everyone has an imperfect personal life, but for me that imperfection was almost a defining principle.

He continued, “Idea people like you are boring, even to other idea people.”

“Hey, I’m insulted,” I said, not really feeling so. “I will admit I’m not the life of any party. Whenever I try to inject
something interesting into a conversation everyone gets quiet until someone changes the topic. I think I’m pretty
interesting but no one else does. All of the popular people seem to babble about nothing, but I usually have something
interesting to say. You’d think people would like that.”

“Actually, the popular people only seem to be babbling,” he countered. “In fact, they talk about a topic that everyone cares about; they talk about people. When a person talks about people, it is personal to everyone who listens. You will automatically relate the story to yourself, thinking how you would react in that person’s situation, how your life has parallels. On the other hand, if you tell a story about a new type of tool you found at the hardware store, no one can relate to the tool on a personal level. It is just an object, no matter how useful or novel.”

“Okay, so how do I become more interesting?”

“If I gave you advice, would you follow it?”

“Maybe. It depends on the advice.”

“No, you wouldn’t follow my advice. No one has ever followed the advice of another person.”

“Now you’re just being disagreeable,” I said. “Obviously people follow advice all the time. That’s not a delusion.”

“People think they follow advice but they don’t. Humans are only capable of receiving information. They create their
own advice. If you seek to influence someone, don’t waste time giving advice. You can change only what people know,
not what they do.”

“Okay then. Can you give me some information that would help my personal life?”

“Perhaps,” he said, clenching his red plaid blanket tighter around his tiny body. “What topic interests you
more than any other?”

“Myself, I guess,” I confessed.

“Yes, that is the essence of being human. Any person you meet at a party will be interested in his own life above
all other topics. Your awkward silences can be solved by asking simple questions about the person’s life.”

“That would be totally phony,” I said. “First of all, it would be like interrogating him. Secondly, I couldn’t possibly pretend to be interested in the answers. If he turns out to be some shoe salesman living with his mother in Albany, my
eyes will glaze over.”

“It would seem phony to you while you asked the questions,but it would not seem that way to the stranger. To
him it is an unexpected gift, an opportunity to enjoy one of life’s greatest pleasures: talking about oneself. He would
become more animated and he would instantly begin to like you. You would seem to be a brilliant and talented conversationalist, even if your only contribution was asking questions and listening. And you would have solved the
stranger’s fear of an awkward silence. For that he will be grateful.”

“That solves the stranger’s problem, but I have to listen to this guy drone on about himself. The cure is worse than
the disease.”

“Your questions to the stranger are only the starting points. From there you can steer him toward the thing you
care about most—yourself.”

“Wouldn’t he want to talk about himself instead of me?”

“When you find out how others deal with their situations it is automatically relevant to you,” he said. “There
will always be parallels in your life. Find out what you and he have in common, then ask how he likes it, how he deals with it, and if he has any clever solutions for it. Perhaps you both have long commutes, or you both have mothers who
call too often or you both ski. Find that point of common interest and you will both be talking about yourself to the
delight of the other.”

“What about sharing my opinions on important things?” I asked. “I’m always getting into debates with people. It seems like I always have a more thought-out view of things and I feel like I have a responsibility to set people straight. Sometimes, though, I wish I could just shut up. But when you hear the crazy views that some people have— actually, most people—how can you just let it slide?”

“Have you ever been in traffic behind someone who doesn’t move when the light turns green, so you honk your
horn, then you realize the car is stalled and there is nothing the driver could have done?”

“Yeah, I’ve honked. It’s embarrassing,” I said.

“Most disagreements are like my example. Two people have different information, but they think the root of their
disagreement is that the other person has bad judgment or bad manners or bad values. In fact, most people would share your opinions if they had the same information. If you spend your time arguing about the faultiness of other people’s opinions, you waste your time and theirs. The only thing than can be useful is examining the differences in your assumptions and adding to each other’s information. Sometimes that is enough to make viewpoints converge over time.”

“Hey, if you can teach me to get along with women, I could sure use that.”

“I can tell you some things.”

“I’ll take whatever help I can get.”

“Women believe that men are, in a sense, defective versions of women,” he began. “Men believe that women are
defective versions of men. Both genders are trapped in a delusion that their personal viewpoints are universal. That
viewpoint—that each gender is a defective version of the other—is the root of all misunderstandings.”

“How does that help me?” I asked.

“Women define themselves by their relationships and men define themselves by whom they are helping. Women
believe value is created by sacrifice. If you are willing to give up your favorite activities to be with her, she will trust you. If being with her is too easy for you, she will not trust you. You can accomplish your sacrifices symbolically at first, by leaving work early to buy flowers, canceling your softball game to make a date, that sort of thing.”

“Why does it seem like the rich and famous guys get all the women?” I asked.

“Partly because the rich and famous are capable of making larger sacrifices. The average man might be sacrificing a night of television to be with a woman. The rich and famous man could be sacrificing a week in Tahiti. There is much to
be said about the attraction of power and confidence exuded by a rich and powerful man, but capacity for sacrifice is the most important thing.”

“What do men value?” I asked.

“Men believe value is created by accomplishment, and they have objectives for the women in their lives. If a woman meets the objectives, he assumes she loves him. If she fails to meet the objectives, he will assume she does not
love him. The man assumes that if the woman loved him she would have tried harder and he always believes his objectives for her are reasonable.”

“What objectives?”

“The objectives are different for each man. Men rarely share these objectives because doing so is a recipe for disaster.
No woman would tolerate being given a set of goals.”

“So what should a guy do if the woman in his life doesn’t meet these secret objectives? How can he get her to
change?”

“He can’t,” he replied. “People don’t change to meet the objectives of other people. Men can be molded in small ways—clothing and haircuts and manners—because those things are not important to most men. Women can’t be
changed at all.”

“I’m not hearing anything helpful here.”

“The best you can hope for in a relationship is to find someone whose flaws are the sort you don’t mind. It is futile to look for someone who has no flaws, or someone who is capable of significant change; that sort of person
exists only in our imaginations.”

“Let’s say I find the person whose flaws I don’t mind,”

I said. “The hard part is keeping her. I haven’t had much luck in that department.”

“A woman needs to be told that you would sacrifice anything for her. A man needs to be told he is being useful.
When the man or woman strays from that formula, the other loses trust. When trust is lost, communication falls apart.”

“I don’t think you need to trust someone to communicate. I can talk to someone I distrust as easily as someone I trust.”

“Without trust, you can communicate only trivial things. If you try to communicate something important without a
foundation of trust, you will be suspected of having a secret agenda. Your words will be analyzed for hidden meaning and your simple message will be clouded by suspicions.”

“I guess I can see that. How can I be more trusted?”

“Lie.”

“Now you’re kidding, right?” I asked.

“You should lie about your talents and accomplishments, describing your victories in dismissive terms as if they
were the result of luck. And you should exaggerate your flaws.”

“Why in the world would I want to tell people I was a failure and an idiot? Isn’t it better to be honest?”

“Honesty is like food. Both are necessary, but too much of either creates discomfort. When you downplay your
accomplishments, you make people feel better about their own accomplishments. It is dishonest, but it is kind.”

“This is good stuff. What other tips do you have?”

“You think casual conversation is a waste of time.”

“Sure, unless I have something to say. I don’t know how people can blab about nothing.”

“Your problem is that you view conversation as a way to exchange information,” he said.

“That’s what it is,” I said, thinking I was pointing out the obvious.

“Conversation is more than the sum of the words. It is also a way of signaling the importance of another person by
showing your willingness to give that person your rarest resource: time. It is a way of conveying respect. Conversation reminds us that we are part of a greater whole, connected in some way that transcends duty or bloodline or commerce.
Conversation can be many things, but it can never be useless.”

For the next few hours the old man revealed more of his ingredients for successful social living. Express gratitude.
Give more than is expected. Speak optimistically. Touch people. Remember names. Don’t confuse flexibility with
weakness. Don’t judge people by their mistakes; rather, judge them by how they respond to their mistakes. Remember
that your physical appearance is for the benefit of others. Attend to your own basic needs first; otherwise you will
not be useful to anyone else.

I didn’t know if I could incorporate his ingredients into my life, but it seemed possible.

---End of Chapter---

Download the free e-book from here.