Couldn't resist this

Whats does your personality rate from 1-10? by morning_prayer
Your first full name
Your personality rates a	11
your best quality is	youre hot but modest about it
your worst quality is	your family pisses you off
this is because	lifes a bitch
Created with the ORIGINAL MemeGen!

If it's the last thing you ever do,

read this.

And this.

Snappy

Not much time, so a quick one, as promised to RK aka Kirk (why anglicise?) and Amit (why bubba? why??) -

Crediting the Manifesto and the communist revolution with bringing the sad plight of workers to light is like crediting the AIDS epidemic for highlighting the need for safe sex. The causal link is at best tenuous, because there's nothing to say the changes wouldn't have happened anyway; and even if the causal link can be established, that doesn't make the cause a benevolent force - it remains just as abhorrent and vile as it is when it is taken at face value, without considering the consequences. (And meanwhile, if you're considering the consequences, you've got to see the ill effects too! You can't say, on one hand, that implementation is problematic and that real life consequences ought to be ignored to see the principle properly, and then claim a long-term consequence of the principle as justification that it is good.)

That's precisely the problem with Marx: the ends don't justify the means. Granted, it would be unfair to hold him to our standards without considering his social era, but he was a revolutionary, after all, who was independent enough to think beyond his social context. That is the precise reason why it's hard to forgive philosophers for such transgressions of morality: seizure of property and concentration of absolute power into the hands of a few are ok? If this dude actually believed this power would not be abused, he was naive to the extreme; if he didn't even consider how the power would be used, he was lazy. In either case, he had no business being a philosopher.

Ayn Rand was a philosopher. She can be credited with more than just bringing individualism into the mainstream. (Which, in fact, is itself a dubious claim, considering the treatment she gets from serious philosophers... but that's another issue.) She claimed - and as far as I know, no one and none of my reading has contradicted her claim - to be the first person to defend capitalism on moral and ethical grounds rather than on the idea of 'social good' and 'overall benefit to society'. Adam Smith et al want capitalism because it holds the promise of great prosperity for the greatest number; Rand suggested that even if capitalism did steal bread from the mouths of the impoverished worker class, it would still be the only right system to follow. Nobody else has been so unapologetic about the whole thing.

She also wrote down a very articulate and well defined philosophy. Amit says she wrote good novels and then a lot of drivel - but I beg to differ. Her non fiction works are far superior, if only because they classify, define and develop philosophy like it was mathematics. There's classical beauty in it. Of course she went nuts after a while and wrote a load of drivel (against homosexuality, on what makes 'right' art etc) but it's important to note that she was unable to defend any of this drivel with her basic philosophy. (She tried, but the holes are too, too obvious; she herself was reduced to banking on iffy things like 'soul' and 'human nature', terms she had previously been very outspoken against.) Which goes to show that her basis is truly sound.

Just for the record, I love the way she develops her whole philosophical structure around just one axiom: existance exists. Once the iffy things like her theories on art and sex are removed, it's untouchable, and impossible to deny.

(I know I promised a short post... sorry! But this is a pretty decent length for me, no?)

Advert

From Paul's blog, which I thought I should put up here, as well -

What: Singapore Polytechnic Open Debates; 24th to 26th June 2004
Format: Australasian (8 minutes, no POIs)
Requirement: n judges (1 team, 1 judge)
Fee: $50 (3 debaters, 1 judge); extra judges $15
Why: Chance to debate Paul - And, I should add, people from Ateneo De Manila, winners of the Asians.
How: Email spscitds@yahoo.com.sg

Gmail, anyone?

A friend of mine has 2 invites left.

Book Review

Sophie's World:

A Novel About the History of Philosophy

By Jostein Gaarder

I haven't been reading too many good books lately, as you can tell from the dearth of reviews on this blog. So I went to the library the other day, firmly resolved to shove those old thrillers and my Harry Potters aside, and read something Enriching and Informative. Thought I'd have to settle for something boring. I was thrilled when I was able to get my hands on Sophie's World.

The author, Jostein Gaarder, is a Norwegian writer and former philosophy teacher. The foil for Gaarder's pedagogic fantasy is Sophie Amundsen, a spunky 14-year-old whose philosophic journey begins when a pair of timeless posers -- "Who are you?" and "Where does the world come from?" -- appear mysteriously in her mailbox. A follow-up envelope containing typewritten pages titled "What Is Philosophy?" orient her on a correspondence course in the history of philosophy that eventually turns into a Socratic tutorial.

Sophie's enthusiasm shocks her mother, who attributes her newfound interest in the mysteries of life to the influence of drugs.

Nothing could be further from the truth (at least until the Kierkegaard chapter, when things do get a trifle psychedelic). Sophie's tutor, Alberto Knox, grounds the philosopher's project in maintaining a sense of wonder, but on the whole he is clean and sober indeed. What keeps the novel moving are the tricks Gaarder plays with reality and illusion. Sophie begins receiving postcards addressed from a United Nations observer in Lebanon to his own 15-year-old daughter, Hilde. As Sophie gradually becomes aware of her existence within a book (within a book (within a book)), the philosophical question gradually take on an existential tinge, embracing problems of determinacy and free will.

The story-plot of the book (for want of a better term) was certainly delightful in places. The author quite ingeniously puts a new spin on staple Amar Chitra Katha concepts like time passing at different rates for two separate worlds; and sometimes there's a marvellous quality of resonance and unity between the plot and the philosophical discussions at that point. But the plot is decidedly thin overall. Gaarder sets things up reasonably well, and the plot payoff is really quite disappointing. Even the major characters (Sophie, Hilde, Knox, the Major) move and speak with the stiffness of cardboard. But the plot, in the end, is completely secondary.

The philosophical discussions themselves are excellent, summarising the teachings of the great philosophical masters with surprising simplicity and clarity. In tracing the course of philosophy, the discussions end up detailing social and political development too. I found this especially satisfying, because philosophical ideas do indeed shape politics and social trends, and sometimes vice versa, and it was a pleasure to read an author who realised the significance of this.

It's tempting to get all warm and gloopy over these things, but having done the trumpeting, I must say doubt the accuracy of Jostein Gaarder's summaries. It seems impossible to me that Plato and Aristotle and Spinoza can be discussed in the space of a couple of hundred pages, if the discussion is to fully represent each of their philosophical outlooks. I myself haven't read the original work (scary thought, that), but I suspect there have been many simplifications and favourable interpretations of these philosophers' work to preserve a unity of theme in the book itself. If so, it would be a great pity.

Then there is the question of the author's own bias, which certainly creeps rather heavily into the book, and that's where my enthusiasm for the book waned. For example, in this passage - towards the culmination of the book, the philosopher is teaching young Sophie about a 'pivotal' development of 20th century philosophy [p 463]:

In our own time, we also have completly new problems to face. The most serious are those of the environment. A central philosophical direction in the twentieth century is therefore ecophilosophy or ecosophy, as one of its founders, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, has called it. Many ecophilosophers in the western world have warned that western civilization as a whole is on a fundamentally wrong track, racing towards a head-on collision with the limits of what our planet can tolerate.

...There is something basically wrong with western thought, they claim."

"I think they are right." [Sophie responded]

Ha, ha.

Predictably, Marx gets very sympathetic treatment [p 398]:

[Sophie] "If conditions were as bad as you say, I think I would have signed that Manifesto. But conditions are surely a lot different today?"

"In Norway they are, but they aren't everywhere. Many people still live under inhuman conditions while they continue to produce commodities that make capitalists richer and richer. Marx called this exploitation"

...On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to blame Marx for the negative factors in the so-called socialist countries fifty or a hundred years after his death. But maybe he had given too little thought to the people who would be the administrators of communist society."

Which rather reminded me of RK, actually, who thinks something similar of Marx - his ideals were right, he just forgot about the implementation part. Phthooey. Ongoing advertisements for environmental activism and world federalism via the United the Nations add to the novel's liberal agenda. Presumably, then, the "eco-philosophers" have solved the problems that plagued the socialists, right?

The ommissions irked me more - there's not a word about the pro-capitalist "econo-philosophers"; for instance, there's no mention of Adam Smith despite the deep coverage afforded to his contemporaries. Ayn Rand isn't mentioned either. (This would have been understandable in a mainstream, ivory tower kind of book because those idiots don't take Rand very seriously, but cannot be overlooked in this one, more so because Sophie laments the dearth of women philosophers on several occasions.)

At worst, Gaarder's book is a philosophical Ikea, whose clean lines and slick marketing offer a one-size-fits-all coziness, masking the bitter ideological rivalries and utter radicalism that characterizes so much of philosophy's history. At best, the book reveals the importance and prevalence of philosophical questions throughout different cultures and times, and the healthiness of the open, enquiring and curious mind. So while it may not be the ideal, unbiased reference book, it does make for an excellent, entertaining read that does manage to Enrich and Inform.

Rating: 7/10

Milky milk

Heh. 

Job

So I went off to town (literally - roamed around Raffles Place and City Hall for days) to attend a few interviews, certificates tucked under one arm and umbrella under the other (rained like mad). I thought it would be a long shot, since I generally consider myself unemployable. Imagine my surprise when all the jobs I interviewed for were offered to me.

This is no idle boast, people. Granted, in my naivete, I went for a couple of interviews with insurance agencies and it was a while before I smelt the rats there. But I got legitimate job offers, too - one as a PR person for a small vitamin-selling place (which paid 1.6k only so that was off the cards), one really swanking job as a writer and web-presence-maintenance person for another small health-and-fitness co., and one "business development manager" (swanky name for runner of roadshows) for a firm that organises conferences. (FYI, I didn't apply for any techie jobs for obvious reasons.)

So here I am, looking at the prospect of a very decent salary and financial security for the coming months. Yay.

How I'm going to manage Australs prep with this job on one hand baffles me.

Converted!

It pays to be a nagging, HP-obsessive debater. I have, through these very qualities, managed to make the boyfriend read the first three Harry Potter books.

After the first one, he was telling me he had far, far better things to do with three hours of his life. After the second, he was quoting passages from the book and telling me how much fun he was having. After the third, he became a true convert by making the standard fan statements: that Rowling's imagination and storytelling skills are splendid, that he couldn't wait to read the next book and that a writer like JKR comes by once in a lifetime.

All hail me.

The good stuff & some plot holes

The Plot Holes - (SPOILERS AHEAD!)

Just the big ones:

Update:There's no mention of secret keepers! So how come Lupin coolly believes Sirius even before hearing Sirius say he's innocent? Sirius could very well be the culprit, if anyone at all could just walk up to Voldie and tell him everything. In fact, why would anyone go through the trouble of faking a death if all they had to do was point the finger at Sirius? And what's more, how would anyone know who betrayed Lily and James? And why would they believe Sirius, James's best friend, the betrayer, when it could have been *anyone*?? AARRGGHH! The more I think about this, the bigger the plot holes seem!

1. Why did Sirius escape from Azkaban only *now*?

2. How did he know to come to hogwarts looking for Peter?

3. How and why do Lupin and Snape show up in the Shrieking Shack when they do?

4. How does Lupin know how to work the Marauder's Map?

5. Who are Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs?

6. Why does Harry's patronus take the shape of a stag?

7. Why does Snape hate Lupin, and why does he talk of 'vengeance' to Sirius?

8. Why does Peter's transformation not include his clothes? Sirius and McGonnagal never shed them when they transform, and nobody ever shows up naked; Peter, somehow, scurries out of his clothes after he transforms.

The Good Things
But now it is time to compensate for the POA-bashing by listing all the good stuff I forgot to put down.

The clock theme throughout the movie is a brilliant touch. You see time ticking away everywhere - pendulums swinging, astronomy sets with planets revolving, Harry watching clocks waiting for his friends to return from Hogsmeade.

Then there are the dialogues themselves:

Snape: "Mr Potter, what are you doing wandering the castle at this time of the night?"
Harry: "Sleepwalking."

Trelawney (to Hermione): "You may be young in years, but the heart that beats within you is as shriveled as an old maid; your as dry as the pages of the books you so desperately cling to."

Hermione (to Draco): "You foul, loathesome, evil little cockroach!"

Ron (waking from a dream): "The spiders! They want me to tap dance! I don't want to tap dance!"
Harry: "Well you tell those spiders, Ron!"
Ron (going back to sleep): "Yeah... yeah, I will."

Ron (I forget when - someone remind me?): "She's gone mental, Hermione has. Not that she wasn't already, but now it's out there for the whole world to see."

Sirius: "Brilliant, Snape. Once again you put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion."

Snape: "Oh, listen to you two, quarrelling like an old married couple."
Sirius: "Why don't you go play with your chemistry set?"

Sirius: "Sorry about the bite. I reckon that twinges a bit."
Ron: "Twinge? Twinge? You nearly tore my leg off!"
Sirius: "I was going for the rat. Normally I have a very sweet disposition as a dog. More than once James suggested I make the change permanent. The tail I could live with. But the fleas... they're murder."

POA Review

Now that I've watched it, it would be criminal of me not to find time to do a review. Not that the movie's worth it, though. Not my time in watching and reviewing, nor my money, which I actually didn't spend because it was Anjali's treat. There. If you're short of time as well, don't bother reading what follows. The only reason I'm doing it is because.. well.. it's Prisoner of Azkaban - sob! -... and no matter how mutilated, it deserves to be respected.

If only the script-writers had thought the same.

SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!

As a movie, no book knowledge involved, I give this one a 3/10 for sheer incomprehensibility. It's not zero because there was some darned good acting involved (I take back every bad thing I ever said about Gary Oldman), and some really lovely scenes. Great camera work. But nothing can save this movie from its fatal speed. In trying to fit everything into two hours, the script-writers have sacrificed a lot of plot, exposition and very necessary explanation. It's all so rushed, up to and including the Shrieking Shack scene, that people who haven't read the book WILL NOT know what's going on. (Hint, hint - read the book!) This might have been more forgivable if some other long, useless, lingering scenes, like the gratuitous fight scene with the whomping willow, hadn't existed.

As an adaptation of one of my favourite books of all time, certainly the best one in the Harry Potter series, this movie sucked. Having said that, I'd still give it 4/10.

There are some good things, you see. Let's list that so I can bitch at my leisure later.

First - Harry. Never in the movies has more justice been done to his character. Dan's managed some acting for once, even though he slips sometimes, and the direction and script give his character a lot of room for growth. Harry misses his parents, hates the Dursleys and Marge, shows loyalty for his friends and gets angry when he hears of Padfoot in the Three Broomsticks.

I didn't get one thing, though, and I don't see why they should have made this change. During a Patronus training session with Lupin, Harry draws on a memory 'to do with his parents' to conjure one successfully for the first time. Obviously it's a detour from the book, but my mind immediately went to the Mirror of Erised, and I was thrilled that they'd actuallu tied that in here. It would have fitted well. But later, Harry explains that he drew on a 'memory' of his parents talking to him. Weird. He doesn't have any memories like that. But on the whole, Harry was good.

Second - Hermione. Emma's stupendous in this movie. She gets loads of screen time that she makes very good use off; she finally comes off in the movies as the heroine she is. And that punch! I couldn't stop myself from applauding, even in a stiff old Singapore theatre.

Third - Snape, Moony and Padfoot in the Shrieking Shack scene. These are Snape's words to the other two, if my memory serves correctly:
"Look at you two, bickering like an old married couple!"
WHOOOOPEEEEE!!! Plus, Padfoot is very well done. Oldman, like I said, exceeded expectations. Scary when he needs to be, and sexxxy as hell later. I can even forgive him for stealing Dumbledore's lines of finding the person you love within yourself, because it adds that extra touch of poignancy, post OotP.

Fourth - the other, slightly less imp stuff. Trelawney, Draco, Hagrid being broken up about Buckbeak, the twins, the Fat Lady, and that cameo appearance of Sir Cadogan. Two deserve special mentions - the Marauder's Map which looks superb, and Buckbeak, who is CGI and very very realistic. Not cutesy, not scary - just right.

Fifth - the little details. Marge floating around as Harry rushes down Wisteria walk, and the swings being where they're supposed to be. Under a dementor's hood *shiver*. Draco's paper swan. Hermione's wonderful line as she tries to entice Buckbeak towards her with a roasted rodent: "Here, Buckbeak, come and get your nice little ferret!" (Get it?)

Then there's stuff that I don't know how I feel about yet. Dumbledore, for one, was... I don't know. In some ways he was very like Dumbledore, deep and mysterious and all of it. But what defines Dumbledore for me is his wackiness and humour and that was definitely not there. But it wasn't really there in the other movies either so I don't know why I'm feeling weird about Dumbledore here. Maybe because he wasn't there enough... not nearly enough. All his lines got stolen by Padfoot and Moony.

It was also interesting that the Three Broomsticks was treated in the movie like a real pub - kids not allowed. The trio don't go in there, only Harry slips in with his invisibility cloak. Hmm.

WARNING: RANT AHEAD!

The biggest blunder, of course, is the Shrieking Shack scene. It's way too rushed for fans even, though I loved the quarrel between Moony, Padfoot and Snape, even without the 'married couple' reference. Here's where the plot really suffers from being cut down to its bare bones. JKR took it nice and slow in this part (two whole chapters!) for a reason. It needs exposition. It's where it all comes together... this is where the beauty of the book truly lies.

Another thing that irked me is how anger was so muted in this movie. Both Harry and Hermione have decent-sized tempers in third year, but it's not adequately represented. For example, blowing Marge up seems to be a calculated move on Harry's part rather than an involuntary manifestation of his anger. Playing comedic music as Marge floats away slows down Harry's pace. He stands there watching Marge float, funny music in the background, instead of getting his trunk and rushing off.

Another place where this happens is when Hermione leaves Divination. Trelawney says stuff to her, and she just gets up and leaves. She's supposed to show her exasperation, she's supposed to yell, "Fine! I'm leaving! I've had it with this class!" But there's nothing. I suppose that's the natural consequence of not focusing on her overloaded schedule too much.

In terms of specific characters/situations:

1. Ronald Weasly - ornamental. Sirius doesn't attack him, he doesn't defend Harry in the Shrieking Shack, he doesn't even fight much about Scabbers being eaten. He's reduced to Hermione's Love Interest... as someone eloquently put it, it was like the credits read "Mr Hermione Granger". For some reason, Hermione keeps calling him "Ronald". Who does she think she is, Luna?

2. Remus John Lupin - murdered, mutilated and scattered to the wind. It's unforgivable. The man of my dreams (ok, ok, can he be second at least?) looks disgusting - weak chinned, pencil-moustachioed (the worst kind - Gary Oldman's was tolerable), and too old. I know that the occupational hazard of being Lupin is that you've got to be sick all the time, but did he really have to limp and be on the verge of fainting? Couldn't he have just gotten a cold or something? Plus, his body language is weird - this man has effeminate ticks, people. If that isn't murder, tell me what is. I do like his voice, however, and the extra non-book bits about him were brilliant: the music, the 'something big' that Lily did for him.. (Is this officially canon? Did JKR authorise this?? I need to know!)

3. Moony - because I need to keep this book-3-spoiler-free. Ugh. Not bad CGI, just terrible vision behind the CGI. And incredibly, they spell it 'Mooney' in this movie. Huh?!?

4. Quidditch - all new game. A lot of people will like the quidditch scenes in this movie. It's no-holds-barred thrilling and all. But I have a peeve because this isn't the game I know to be quidditch. Since when are you allowed to go miles high into the clouds? Nobody can see you there! How's the referee supposed to know if you've gone out of bounds? And with that kind of cloud cover, how can you not get lost? About the only good thing here is that we get to see a Dementor's mouth. EWWW. And *shiver*.

5. MWPP - invisible! No development on this front... we never get to hear anything about them. All we're left with is Lupin curiously knowing a lot about how the Map works.

There, then. Not so much a review as a blow-by-blow, not-very-organised dissection. I have a lot more to say, but it's best not to sound too incoherent.

If you can stand not watching this movie, don't.

W-O-W!!!

Joanne Kathleen Rowling, we bow to thee, thy Imagination, thy Inventiveness and thy Wit. And now, to thine Divine Website.

In which JKR Writes an awesome Biography, Leaves easter eggs lying around (Hunt for Clues!), Tells of characters, scenes and plotlines she has Edited from her Books (check out Dean Thomas's back story - so wonderful and it's not going to make it into the books!), Touches on Book 6, Lays raging Rumours to Rest, and Reveals the colour of Padfoot's Eyes.

And OH, the teasers.. the cruel, cruel tidbits of info that leave you grasping and thirsting for more.. just a little bit more!

Bloody brilliant site.

Busy

as hell. Which means my BKK updates will have to wait for the weekend. Sorry people.. but it's all for the best. Some good writing is coming your way.

Other happenings in my life (yup this is one of those occasional posts):
1) I got an interview callback! Let's all cross fingers and wish good things for me on Monday, 1.30 pm.
2) Ex roomie Anjali's in town. Looking forward to tonight when she'll be over in my room. :D:D:D Girl talk. :D:D:D
3) The gay debate continues. I wonder why rights issues get me so riled up. Not that I'd ever wish the indignation away - not for anything.

Fruity fruit me

Sushee has posted a nice pic.

Mine will be up soon, hopefully.

Disgusting

Check out this latest attempt (I'm sure it's one) by the Catholic Church/whatever other paa-thetic establishment to advance the ex-gay movement. If this blog isn't scripted I'll eat my daisies.

Two stalks of daisies

I rank one day in Switzerland as one of the most beautiful days in my life. It wasn't a perfect day or anything, the kind that comes with crystal blue skies and cool breezes and warming sunshine. It was foggy and dampish - the wrong kind of day for Vinay, my travelling companion, and I to go up Mt Schilthorn to see the view from the top. But our schedule was tight, so up we went on the funicular to a halfway-point village called Murren, and then on to Schilthorn itself. Fortunately for us, the fog hung way below Schilthorn's peak at Lauterbrunnen and Murren's level, so we got our view of heavenly skies and glistening white peaks.

But that's not what most makes that day memorable for me. We came back down from Schilthorn at around 7 p.m. and looked around for a place to stay in Murren, only to find the place too expensive. Some shopkeepers directed us to another village about half an hour downhill by foot called Gimmelwald, where there was a youth hostel. The fog was lifting by the time Vinay and I started our walk down from Murren to Gimmelwald. No hyperbole can do justice to that half-hour trek.

Our road from Murren led to a narrow path that had us walking on the mountainside - valley on one hand and the mountain itself rising on the other. The view was breathtaking, but better still were the little spring flowers that carpeted the slope. Wildflowers of every vibrant colour blended in a stunning tapestry that took on greater radiance in the setting sun. Imagine this*, only in glorious technicolour.

Whoever said flowers are life's small pleasures was sadly, sadly mistaken. I think flowers compare to the greatest joys of life - love and laughter and fresh air and all of it. I used to say Wordsworth's "Daffodils" was a frovolous poem, with no real meaning to it, but now as I think of it, every line resonates with truth.

I bought two stalks of daisies today - they cost me just $1.80 - and those ten-odd flowers put me in a euphoric mood every time I look at them. They make me think of freshness and life; they take me back to that day when I trekked to Gimmelwald and collected myself a tiny little boquet of red and purple flowers. Vinay took a picture of me holding those flowers in front of a small red window with a red chair and table by it, which unfortunately didn't turn up because the batteries in my camera had run down by then. But I don't need the picture. My white daisies are enough to take me back there.


* Vinay took this snap of me the previous day when we were exploring Lauterbrunnen.