Dancing is the perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.
Hahahah. I'm not going to explain, you go figure it out.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
To boldly go...
...requires emotion. As the more dedicated fans amongst you have no doubt noticed, the title is a famous phrase from the popular TV series called Star Trek. The movie, screened only recently, was generally thought to be surprisingly good, an opinion with which I fully concur, having just watched it today (with Ian and Chen Yi), in spite of or perhaps because of its estrangement from canon. Admittedly it was a neat way of avoiding criticism from the more hardcore fans. They 'cheated' so to speak.
But anyway, to the main point of this post. Within the Star Trek universe, there exist extraterrestrial beings called vulcans, certain individuals of whom choose to undergo a process intending to purge themselves completely of emotions, the idea being that this detachment will allow for better judgment. Logic would function unimpeded by irrational emotions, and as such enable the vulcans to consider matters in a clearer light, so as to allow for error-free decision making.
First off, the idea is correct in certain aspects, emotions do on ocassion impede good judgment, and its regulation goes a long way towards making good decisions. And secondly, it does indeed allow people to perceive things that their more emotional counterparts might not, being able to view matters with greater clarity. Case in point: for many great scientists, their extraordinary insights were made possible by their avoidance of getting emotionally involved with the inanimate world, looking instead for the cold, hard facts. So the movie gets that much right.
However, completely distancing oneself from all emotion is not only aesthetically distasteful, it is also suicidal. Without emotions there would hardly be any motivation for doing anything, or indeed living. What, if not the emotion of fear, motivates you to run from the tiger charging you, all claws and bloody maw agape? To put it succintly, life and death would be equally stripped of meaning, and as such a person devoid of emotion would simply look his askance at the tiger and stand eyebrow cocked, as the tiger rushes to devour him. Imagine for a moment, yourself without emotion and now consider the whole of life with all the cold detachment of logic that you can muster. Why should you want to continue living? There is no pleasure to be had, no joy of reading Terry Pratchett, eating at Williams, seeing Manchester United beat Barcelona, or listening to Green Day rock until your parents complain of the loudness. What then can life offer you besides pain, those days you spent outdoors with the sun beating on you with merciless intensity, or the accidents you had and the subsequent agony of a broken ankle. You would, perhaps, be then gifted with extraordinary insight and clarity of thought, but what the hell does that signify to you? You know such intelligence must be preferable to stupidity, but how could you take any pleasure or pride in possessing the former? You might as well be stupid as not, or share your insight as remain silent. You could not feel any obligation to do so for the sake of advancing the general good of society. You become a rudderless ship, drifting according the whims and caprice of the wind and waves, till at last you lie broken on the now colourless shores of your life. Forgive me if I wax here poetic. Hah.
Ah well. My objections to the plausibility of the vulcans' supposed complete detachment notwithstanding, I still have no hesitation in recommending the movie to those of you who have yet to watch it.
And if you're wondering why I decided to speak so on the subject, it was because one of my two companions, I will not say who ^^, seemed particularly enamored of that vulcan concept...
But anyway, to the main point of this post. Within the Star Trek universe, there exist extraterrestrial beings called vulcans, certain individuals of whom choose to undergo a process intending to purge themselves completely of emotions, the idea being that this detachment will allow for better judgment. Logic would function unimpeded by irrational emotions, and as such enable the vulcans to consider matters in a clearer light, so as to allow for error-free decision making.
First off, the idea is correct in certain aspects, emotions do on ocassion impede good judgment, and its regulation goes a long way towards making good decisions. And secondly, it does indeed allow people to perceive things that their more emotional counterparts might not, being able to view matters with greater clarity. Case in point: for many great scientists, their extraordinary insights were made possible by their avoidance of getting emotionally involved with the inanimate world, looking instead for the cold, hard facts. So the movie gets that much right.
However, completely distancing oneself from all emotion is not only aesthetically distasteful, it is also suicidal. Without emotions there would hardly be any motivation for doing anything, or indeed living. What, if not the emotion of fear, motivates you to run from the tiger charging you, all claws and bloody maw agape? To put it succintly, life and death would be equally stripped of meaning, and as such a person devoid of emotion would simply look his askance at the tiger and stand eyebrow cocked, as the tiger rushes to devour him. Imagine for a moment, yourself without emotion and now consider the whole of life with all the cold detachment of logic that you can muster. Why should you want to continue living? There is no pleasure to be had, no joy of reading Terry Pratchett, eating at Williams, seeing Manchester United beat Barcelona, or listening to Green Day rock until your parents complain of the loudness. What then can life offer you besides pain, those days you spent outdoors with the sun beating on you with merciless intensity, or the accidents you had and the subsequent agony of a broken ankle. You would, perhaps, be then gifted with extraordinary insight and clarity of thought, but what the hell does that signify to you? You know such intelligence must be preferable to stupidity, but how could you take any pleasure or pride in possessing the former? You might as well be stupid as not, or share your insight as remain silent. You could not feel any obligation to do so for the sake of advancing the general good of society. You become a rudderless ship, drifting according the whims and caprice of the wind and waves, till at last you lie broken on the now colourless shores of your life. Forgive me if I wax here poetic. Hah.
Ah well. My objections to the plausibility of the vulcans' supposed complete detachment notwithstanding, I still have no hesitation in recommending the movie to those of you who have yet to watch it.
And if you're wondering why I decided to speak so on the subject, it was because one of my two companions, I will not say who ^^, seemed particularly enamored of that vulcan concept...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Omnis vel nihil
There have been many poets who have never versified; now swarm many versifiers who need never ascribe to the name of poets.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
For Grace...
It seems I have not made good on my previous promise to post something about church camp 09. That was nearly 3 weeks ago. Hmm...this is going to be difficult, the memories have, to my consternation, already started to fade.
Camp was at Shahzan Inn, Frasers. Looking back, this camp has been...different in many ways to any of the previous camps I attended. For one thing, the best moments of the camp were, for me, not the games or any indeed any of the activities planned by the church. That's not to say I didn't enjoy them, I certainly did. But the highlights of this camp were simply the times spent loitering around, enjoying the fresh, cool air whether in the company of friends or alone, pondering the existential. Hahah. Also, this was where I finished the book now amongst the dearest to me, Pride and Prejudice! The book of which I spoke most highly in previous posts. What I miss most though, was the feeling of complete indifference to my studies! Carefree indeed. So basically the parts of camp I enjoyed the most were the bits between activities, the easy flow of conversation amongst friends of which I had the pleasure of being a participant, or more often than not, given my disposition, simply observing. My only regret is that I missed most the sermons delivered by the speaker our church had invited. Once, because my team had a shortage of participants for the youth games, and the other time because I went with the other youths to listen to the youth speaker. Not that Andrew's sermon wasn't good, it was certainly very much so. Which brings me to the main point of this post...
Dear Grace has imposed on me a certain obligation to write about Andrew's sermon, and my bad memory notwithstanding, I shall do my best to oblige her. I have to opted first to write it on my blog, the employment of which to said end I have grown somewhat accustomed.
Mr. Andrew began with a power point that displayed three pictures, one of Lindsay Lohan, one of Michael Jackson and one of Britney Spears. People who, to put it shortly, are considered by the world to be successful people. An ill conceived notion with which a few of the youth apparently concur, if the excited cries evoked by the images are a thing to be judged by. Andrew lost no time in disabusing the youth of such a notion, deprecating the mess all three have generally managed to make out of their lives. He summed it thus: that in the eyes of the world these people were without a doubt objects worthy of admiration. Not so with the Christian perspective though.
Having made the point, Andrew turned at last to scripture, quoting Jeremiah 29:11-
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
We have the assurance of our future being in the hands of a loving God, attentive to our needs and wanting always what is best for us. Jeremiah continues on in verses 12-13- "Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." God has designs for us that he sometimes chooses to carry out in spite of ourselves, but as the verses above imply, more often that not the initiative has to come from us. We have to humble ourselves and realize that we are not the center of the universe, that there is One above who sees the bigger picture. Andrew gave an illustration with two pictures. In one, the picture showed a maze as viewed from the perspective of a participant standing inside. In the other, the view was from a position of elevation. Life is like that, with ourselves as participants in the maze and God looking down on us, giving directions that we either choose to follow or ignore. The parallelism is obvious enough. Walk your own way in life and you just might find your way out, but chances are you'll just get lost. Walk God's way and you'll reach your destination soon enough with half the trouble.
Still, for some reason or another a lot of people do not choose to ask God for directions. That or they are deliberately oblivious to God speaking to them. Listening and trusting God to do what he says might be compared to standing on a chair, blindfolded with someone asking you to jump, saying that he'll catch you. And to be sure, we would be foolish to jump if the trustworthiness of the person assuring us of a safe landing was in any way questionable. But here, the person assuring us is none other than God himself!
Here Andrew quotes Isaiah 43:2- "When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze."
Therefore we have no cause for fear when we ask God for advice and listen to Him. He intends to prosper, not harm us, and will see us through this life come water or fire.
But all this talk of listening to God begs the question, how do we listen to God? Obviously, prayer is one way of opening ourselves to suggestion from God and asking him to speak, but there are other ways too. Andrew had a testimony to share regarding the circumstances that brought about his marriage. Andrew had taken upon himself, or been given, the task of ferrying a certain girl who, lacking transport to church, was not in any case of a disposition to refuse such an elegant solution to her problems. To his pleasant surprise, he found that she had been graced with face and figure that showed very much to her advantage. Over time, his feelings grew and with that his attachment to her, as is the nature of things. Then one day, he dreamt of being married with her, and to cut a long story short, it was a vision shared not only by his pastor, but his girl as well. (Go for it, Andrew!!!) But levity aside, he'd succeeded in making the point: God speaks! And he does so on terms of his own choosing, whether directly by visions, or through other people. The fact that God chose to do so in such a dramatic fashion, as in Andrew's case, does not much signify.
For as 1st Kings 19:11-12 says..."The Lord said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by. " Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.
Sometimes we look for God to speak to us in a big, dramatic fashion, like the wind, the eathquake and the fire, but miss the whisper. God may not speak to everyone as he did to Elijah, or appear as he did to the apostle Paul, but the important thing is not the fashion in which the message is delivered; rather it is that the message is delivered, and received, not to put too fine a point on it. This is something that we need to realize so that we do not dismiss the manner in which the message is given and as a consequence, the message itself.
All points having thus been delivered, Andrew closed the session in prayer.
Camp was at Shahzan Inn, Frasers. Looking back, this camp has been...different in many ways to any of the previous camps I attended. For one thing, the best moments of the camp were, for me, not the games or any indeed any of the activities planned by the church. That's not to say I didn't enjoy them, I certainly did. But the highlights of this camp were simply the times spent loitering around, enjoying the fresh, cool air whether in the company of friends or alone, pondering the existential. Hahah. Also, this was where I finished the book now amongst the dearest to me, Pride and Prejudice! The book of which I spoke most highly in previous posts. What I miss most though, was the feeling of complete indifference to my studies! Carefree indeed. So basically the parts of camp I enjoyed the most were the bits between activities, the easy flow of conversation amongst friends of which I had the pleasure of being a participant, or more often than not, given my disposition, simply observing. My only regret is that I missed most the sermons delivered by the speaker our church had invited. Once, because my team had a shortage of participants for the youth games, and the other time because I went with the other youths to listen to the youth speaker. Not that Andrew's sermon wasn't good, it was certainly very much so. Which brings me to the main point of this post...
Dear Grace has imposed on me a certain obligation to write about Andrew's sermon, and my bad memory notwithstanding, I shall do my best to oblige her. I have to opted first to write it on my blog, the employment of which to said end I have grown somewhat accustomed.
Mr. Andrew began with a power point that displayed three pictures, one of Lindsay Lohan, one of Michael Jackson and one of Britney Spears. People who, to put it shortly, are considered by the world to be successful people. An ill conceived notion with which a few of the youth apparently concur, if the excited cries evoked by the images are a thing to be judged by. Andrew lost no time in disabusing the youth of such a notion, deprecating the mess all three have generally managed to make out of their lives. He summed it thus: that in the eyes of the world these people were without a doubt objects worthy of admiration. Not so with the Christian perspective though.
Having made the point, Andrew turned at last to scripture, quoting Jeremiah 29:11-
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
We have the assurance of our future being in the hands of a loving God, attentive to our needs and wanting always what is best for us. Jeremiah continues on in verses 12-13- "Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." God has designs for us that he sometimes chooses to carry out in spite of ourselves, but as the verses above imply, more often that not the initiative has to come from us. We have to humble ourselves and realize that we are not the center of the universe, that there is One above who sees the bigger picture. Andrew gave an illustration with two pictures. In one, the picture showed a maze as viewed from the perspective of a participant standing inside. In the other, the view was from a position of elevation. Life is like that, with ourselves as participants in the maze and God looking down on us, giving directions that we either choose to follow or ignore. The parallelism is obvious enough. Walk your own way in life and you just might find your way out, but chances are you'll just get lost. Walk God's way and you'll reach your destination soon enough with half the trouble.
Still, for some reason or another a lot of people do not choose to ask God for directions. That or they are deliberately oblivious to God speaking to them. Listening and trusting God to do what he says might be compared to standing on a chair, blindfolded with someone asking you to jump, saying that he'll catch you. And to be sure, we would be foolish to jump if the trustworthiness of the person assuring us of a safe landing was in any way questionable. But here, the person assuring us is none other than God himself!
Here Andrew quotes Isaiah 43:2- "When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze."
Therefore we have no cause for fear when we ask God for advice and listen to Him. He intends to prosper, not harm us, and will see us through this life come water or fire.
But all this talk of listening to God begs the question, how do we listen to God? Obviously, prayer is one way of opening ourselves to suggestion from God and asking him to speak, but there are other ways too. Andrew had a testimony to share regarding the circumstances that brought about his marriage. Andrew had taken upon himself, or been given, the task of ferrying a certain girl who, lacking transport to church, was not in any case of a disposition to refuse such an elegant solution to her problems. To his pleasant surprise, he found that she had been graced with face and figure that showed very much to her advantage. Over time, his feelings grew and with that his attachment to her, as is the nature of things. Then one day, he dreamt of being married with her, and to cut a long story short, it was a vision shared not only by his pastor, but his girl as well. (Go for it, Andrew!!!) But levity aside, he'd succeeded in making the point: God speaks! And he does so on terms of his own choosing, whether directly by visions, or through other people. The fact that God chose to do so in such a dramatic fashion, as in Andrew's case, does not much signify.
For as 1st Kings 19:11-12 says..."The Lord said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by. " Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.
Sometimes we look for God to speak to us in a big, dramatic fashion, like the wind, the eathquake and the fire, but miss the whisper. God may not speak to everyone as he did to Elijah, or appear as he did to the apostle Paul, but the important thing is not the fashion in which the message is delivered; rather it is that the message is delivered, and received, not to put too fine a point on it. This is something that we need to realize so that we do not dismiss the manner in which the message is given and as a consequence, the message itself.
All points having thus been delivered, Andrew closed the session in prayer.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
<3<3<3<3<3<3
Perish the thought, I am not in love. Not at least, by any modern definition. Love is NOT seeing him/her and feeling your heart beat twice as fast. Exercise does that, and for that matter so does eating chocolate. I don't mean to ignore the emotional aspect of love, that is practically impossible. I am simply deprecating the modern concept of emotion being all there is to love. It has led to far too many broken marriages and broken homes for there to be any truth is such an idea. So then, what is love?
1st Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Famous verses, but all too often forgotten; too often broken, even amongst the body of Christ. Love of this kind is exceedingly uncommon, within the church and without. I am disappointed that this should be true in case of the former. I am aware that there are certain...unresolved issues amongst the committee members. That this should impair the function of a committee supposedly dedicated to body of Christ is a sad state of affairs indeed. The embodiment of perfect love was Christ. Should not his body be striving towards the same? Saddened am I with what I perceive to be a lack of this love in our committee. I am perfectly convinced that if this were not the case, there would be nothing missing, or amiss in the committee. For lack of patience, hurtful words were said that should never have been said. For lack of love, grudges are even now held where no record should have been kept. Even if you are unable to be reconciled to somebody else in the committee, leave all the baggage outside the door. Don't weigh down everybody else with your personal disputes. Inevitably however, the baggage creeps back in, however hard you try to slam the door, which is why your disputes need to be resolved, if possible, between the two of you rather than in front of a crowd of spectators.
Here you accuse me of a lack of information. True, I don't know how much she/he hurt you, or who's right and who's wrong. Neither should I presume to be made judge or jury over such a matter, the reason being, between friends there is no need of justice. Now, that can't be right you say...and in certain situations, indubitably so. But friends give and take and this act necessarily entails creating an..imbalance, for want of a better word. Now, this idea of give and take is a form of love wouldn't you say? That's what I meant when I said that there is no need of justice between friends, for justice is all about equality, and love, while obviously not diametrically opposed to justice, sometimes overrules the need for the former. It wasn't fair or just on my brother for me to want my cake and and his, but he knew I was young, and at that age a little inclined to be selfish, and so out of love, I believe, he let me have both. This wasn't a one-time event, as an older brother he was continually giving, and I taking, which to my dismay I realized later on, and have tried to repay him a little, or 'even the score' a bit, I should say(still working on it actually). But the point is this: that when the circumstances (a certain maturity on his part and a lack on mine) demanded it, he gave when I wanted to take. What enabled him to do it? Why, love of course. He was being 'not self-seeking, not easily angered, and always persevering'. He never, save once, (that one I really had it coming...heh) gave me thrashing I pretty damn well often deserved.
Consider this: even atoms know how to give and take! Sodium particles donate one electron to chloride particles...and...voila! Sodium Chloride, a.k.a table salt. The thing about donating electrons, or should we say giving and taking, though, is that when this happens we get an ionic bond. The particles stick together, and its a strong bond, with a high melting/boiling point, as we learnt in Form 4 chemistry. To put it another way, when particles give and take, they grow closer to one another and are not easily broken apart. Notice a little parallelism here? God is great indeed! He gives moral lessons through the fundamental principles and laws that hold the world together.
And so what I think our committee needs is love. Love enough to put aside all differences, to leave out the right and wrong and just be reconciled for the sake of Christ's body, the church. Love enough to give and take, and bond to truly become one body, separate members still, but one body nevertheless.
1st Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Famous verses, but all too often forgotten; too often broken, even amongst the body of Christ. Love of this kind is exceedingly uncommon, within the church and without. I am disappointed that this should be true in case of the former. I am aware that there are certain...unresolved issues amongst the committee members. That this should impair the function of a committee supposedly dedicated to body of Christ is a sad state of affairs indeed. The embodiment of perfect love was Christ. Should not his body be striving towards the same? Saddened am I with what I perceive to be a lack of this love in our committee. I am perfectly convinced that if this were not the case, there would be nothing missing, or amiss in the committee. For lack of patience, hurtful words were said that should never have been said. For lack of love, grudges are even now held where no record should have been kept. Even if you are unable to be reconciled to somebody else in the committee, leave all the baggage outside the door. Don't weigh down everybody else with your personal disputes. Inevitably however, the baggage creeps back in, however hard you try to slam the door, which is why your disputes need to be resolved, if possible, between the two of you rather than in front of a crowd of spectators.
Here you accuse me of a lack of information. True, I don't know how much she/he hurt you, or who's right and who's wrong. Neither should I presume to be made judge or jury over such a matter, the reason being, between friends there is no need of justice. Now, that can't be right you say...and in certain situations, indubitably so. But friends give and take and this act necessarily entails creating an..imbalance, for want of a better word. Now, this idea of give and take is a form of love wouldn't you say? That's what I meant when I said that there is no need of justice between friends, for justice is all about equality, and love, while obviously not diametrically opposed to justice, sometimes overrules the need for the former. It wasn't fair or just on my brother for me to want my cake and and his, but he knew I was young, and at that age a little inclined to be selfish, and so out of love, I believe, he let me have both. This wasn't a one-time event, as an older brother he was continually giving, and I taking, which to my dismay I realized later on, and have tried to repay him a little, or 'even the score' a bit, I should say(still working on it actually). But the point is this: that when the circumstances (a certain maturity on his part and a lack on mine) demanded it, he gave when I wanted to take. What enabled him to do it? Why, love of course. He was being 'not self-seeking, not easily angered, and always persevering'. He never, save once, (that one I really had it coming...heh) gave me thrashing I pretty damn well often deserved.
Consider this: even atoms know how to give and take! Sodium particles donate one electron to chloride particles...and...voila! Sodium Chloride, a.k.a table salt. The thing about donating electrons, or should we say giving and taking, though, is that when this happens we get an ionic bond. The particles stick together, and its a strong bond, with a high melting/boiling point, as we learnt in Form 4 chemistry. To put it another way, when particles give and take, they grow closer to one another and are not easily broken apart. Notice a little parallelism here? God is great indeed! He gives moral lessons through the fundamental principles and laws that hold the world together.
And so what I think our committee needs is love. Love enough to put aside all differences, to leave out the right and wrong and just be reconciled for the sake of Christ's body, the church. Love enough to give and take, and bond to truly become one body, separate members still, but one body nevertheless.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Price of Ignorance...
...is a fifth of the total marks for chemistry paper III. Oh, for want of a better knowledge of burettes and the functions thereof! A lack of the very same is the cause for my want of spirits this miserable afternoon. This is indubitably the worst performance I have had the misfortune to give for any chemistry paper since the very first, back in Form 4. Ah, I cringe at the thought of my chemistry teacher's displeasure... I confess, it is no less than I deserve for such a pitiful error as this. Ah well...stercus accidit...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Patriotism
Malaysia BOLEH!!!
And to prove it, our government recently spent millions to send our very first Malaysian into space!!! Oh, what joy and prestige it doth bring our country; for surely such an achievement is justified for its own sake, and does much to recommend ourselves to the approbation of the world in general.
Uhh, not really. What exactly it proves, I'm not sure, with our country's politics in its death throes, our football team languishing some dozen from rock bottom ranking and only a silver to show for our Olympics team. We can't even tar the roads properly. Neither do we have a local university to be proud of.
Why all this talk of astronauts all of a sudden? Because our only one came to my school today. That's right! You go on off to your Sri KDU to watch David Archuletta, while we lucky few...err...we'll just hang round and learn what its like to umm...use the privy in space. Yeah! Right. So um...on that subject, we found that it involves the use of... You know what, never mind. Just two words: tubes & suction. I'm still not sure whether I'd prefer to know that or go to a DA concert, as I'm not actually a fan to begin with.
And to prove it, our government recently spent millions to send our very first Malaysian into space!!! Oh, what joy and prestige it doth bring our country; for surely such an achievement is justified for its own sake, and does much to recommend ourselves to the approbation of the world in general.
Uhh, not really. What exactly it proves, I'm not sure, with our country's politics in its death throes, our football team languishing some dozen from rock bottom ranking and only a silver to show for our Olympics team. We can't even tar the roads properly. Neither do we have a local university to be proud of.
Why all this talk of astronauts all of a sudden? Because our only one came to my school today. That's right! You go on off to your Sri KDU to watch David Archuletta, while we lucky few...err...we'll just hang round and learn what its like to umm...use the privy in space. Yeah! Right. So um...on that subject, we found that it involves the use of... You know what, never mind. Just two words: tubes & suction. I'm still not sure whether I'd prefer to know that or go to a DA concert, as I'm not actually a fan to begin with.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Heap big books
Gosh, it seems I'm bidding fair to turn this into a book blog...
This being the case it seemed good to me, most excellent bibliophilus (I made that up), to post a list of 10 books that I have read, and highly recommend, in no particular order of preference.
1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
3. Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian
4. Any book by Terry Pratchett
5. Dune by Frank Herbert
6. The Temeraire series, by Naomi Novik
7. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
8. Watership Down by Richard Adams
9. The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis
10. Why the Toast Always Lands Butter Side Down by Richard Robinson
Actually, I feel compelled to explain a bit about no. 10, seeing it is the only non fiction book I have yet to recommend. Murphy's law is an adage in Western culture that broadly states: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."(further reading wikipedia) The book attempts to provide an explanation as to why this happens, using scientific fact and psychology. As factual books go, this one is particularly entertaining and easy to read. Readers can have no complaint about the book being 'very dry'. The facts are delivered in a way that captivates one's interest almost immediately. All in all, highly amusing, factually sound and a bloody good way to expand one's general knowledge.
This being the case it seemed good to me, most excellent bibliophilus (I made that up), to post a list of 10 books that I have read, and highly recommend, in no particular order of preference.
1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
3. Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian
4. Any book by Terry Pratchett
5. Dune by Frank Herbert
6. The Temeraire series, by Naomi Novik
7. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
8. Watership Down by Richard Adams
9. The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis
10. Why the Toast Always Lands Butter Side Down by Richard Robinson
Actually, I feel compelled to explain a bit about no. 10, seeing it is the only non fiction book I have yet to recommend. Murphy's law is an adage in Western culture that broadly states: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."(further reading wikipedia) The book attempts to provide an explanation as to why this happens, using scientific fact and psychology. As factual books go, this one is particularly entertaining and easy to read. Readers can have no complaint about the book being 'very dry'. The facts are delivered in a way that captivates one's interest almost immediately. All in all, highly amusing, factually sound and a bloody good way to expand one's general knowledge.
Quoth Pratchett...
The pen is mightier than the sword. But only if the sword is very small, and the pen very long and sharp. Such is the wit and humour permeating much of Terry Pratchett's writing. His books are, most of them, part of what is known as the Discworld series and are to be found under the fantasy section in the MPH, Kinokuniya or Borders bookstores near you! Although written in a fantasy setting, Pratchett's work (Discworld) is more accurately considered satire, and pretty damned good one at that. There is very little left of popular culture that Pratchett has not poked fun at, employing the wit, humour and irony that typically define a Pratchett novel. The best thing is, you never can take in all the subtle jokes in one reading, which gives the books re-reading value. First timers may take a while to appreciate this unusual style of writing, but those who persevere will come to appreciate the world T.P. has created and be very much the gladder for it. Whilst entertaining in the extreme, a number of his books adopt a more serious tone, at times giving the reader pause to examine the characters themselves and insights the writer has chosen to reveal through them. These personally I consider the best, as they make you think as well as laugh, as one reviewer put it succintly. Tremendously entertaining, easy to read and at times profound, it is everything good satire should be.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The twilight of literature
A gross generalization you might think, but true on at least one account if Meyer's book of the same name is anything to go by. The first 20 pages of Twilight convinced me against further perusal. Credit to my friend: he got as far as 80, and if his review does justice to the 60 pages I missed, I shall be glad indeed to have dismissed the novel as early as I did. I think it important to make a little note here: Meyer's book is not considered romance per se. Neither is the unfortunate category under which it correctly falls, id est, chick lit. Chick lit is not to be confused with romance, bad enough that it is considered literature! I am, as you surely accuse me and which I freely admit, biased; but only because I have yet to find a novel classified chick lit that is not woefully shallow in its portrayal of its characters and its depiction of love. I hardly know what to think of its apparent success in sales. Perhaps it is due to the fact that it is exceedingly good at creating characters hormone driven teenagers, particularly our female counterparts, can relate to? Sorry! I have nothing uncomplimentary to say about those of the female persuasion, but the vast majority of fans raving over Twilight are, in fact, female. Chick lit itself is primarily targeted at the very same.
If I have not thoroughly alienated you with my highly biased expostulation by now, permit me to draw your attention to a book that does justice to the names of romance and literature both! Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is probably vastly superior to anything you will find on chick lit shelves, no matter how hard you search. Set in the victorian period, Austen succeeds in creating an engaging story populated by equally interesting characters without feeling the need to include vampires. Described as genius, Austen's use of English does full justice to the meaning of the word. Neither does she condescend to present a watered down version of feminine issues, nor fail to include at least one moral lesson from the 'sparkling comedy of manners', as it is called, that follows. As far as literature and romance, or for that matter English, is concerned, Jane Austen is pretty darned hard to beat. I have never been a fan of love stories myself, but Pride and Prejudice might change that. I entreat you, the next time you visit the bookstore, to give the book a go. Never mind it's being a classic, it might surprise you.
If I have not thoroughly alienated you with my highly biased expostulation by now, permit me to draw your attention to a book that does justice to the names of romance and literature both! Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is probably vastly superior to anything you will find on chick lit shelves, no matter how hard you search. Set in the victorian period, Austen succeeds in creating an engaging story populated by equally interesting characters without feeling the need to include vampires. Described as genius, Austen's use of English does full justice to the meaning of the word. Neither does she condescend to present a watered down version of feminine issues, nor fail to include at least one moral lesson from the 'sparkling comedy of manners', as it is called, that follows. As far as literature and romance, or for that matter English, is concerned, Jane Austen is pretty darned hard to beat. I have never been a fan of love stories myself, but Pride and Prejudice might change that. I entreat you, the next time you visit the bookstore, to give the book a go. Never mind it's being a classic, it might surprise you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)