2010 is hardly completely over, but I thought I would do a brief year in review.
Best Book Read (Fiction): Let the Great World Spin was beautiful and much of the writing was lyrical (as much as it is a cliche to refer to writing as that). Involving the interlocking stories of several individuals set around the famous tightrope walk across the twin towers, it's brand of fluent storytelling and compelling characters made for a great read. More than the eventual winner of the Booker Prize, Parrot and Olivier in America was filled with Peter Carey's trademark wit and humour. It was fun, hilarious, and filled with immensely well drawn characters. C, by Tom McCarthy was considered by many to be the front runner for the Booker and it is easy to see why. It has the edgy experimentalism that is a trademark of past Booker winners. Set in the decades from the turn of the century, it is in many ways a technological fable, each section hinging on the emerging science of telegraphy or signals.
Best Book Read (Non-Fiction): Nothing to Envy presents a harrowing portrait of North Korea through the oral testimony of a small number of individuals who defected. A book that is wonderfully woven together, it is a painful, shocking and flabbergasting read. In Search of Orwell in Burma follows a British journalist who traces Orwell's time as a colonial administrator in the country, and how it affected his life and writings. There are definitely chilling and Machiavellian parallels that can be drawn between the two (think 1984) and this book is effective for not over-reaching with the metaphors.
Best Film Seen (Current Release): Inception is a superior movie: thought provoking, multi-layered, filled with brilliant ideas. Oh, it also contained some excellent action sequences. A movie only Christoper Nolan could have pulled off.
Best Film Seen (Other Release): The National Museum's cinema has been a virtual gold mine since it opened, offering the opportunity to see great cinema classics in full restored cinematic glory. I am still kicking myself for missing the Fellini retrospective they staged, but the chance to see the great holocaust documentary, Shoah, was one that I thankfully grabbed. It is a film unlike anything ever made - nine hours that never feels overlong. A documentary in its most traditional form - just interviews, no recreations, no gimmicks, no set pieces. But what testimony, what horrifying details. We all owe Claude Lanzamann a great debt. Of equal worth in upholding a basic sense of the innate worth of every human being was the Apu trilogy. Satyajit Ray manages to create beauty and poetry out of the life of a young Bengali boy. A movie captivating in its simplicity. Surely the bildungsroman to make all others irrelevant.
Best Performance: Pink Martini were a real treat - an enormous multipiece band led by two wonderfully charismatic individuals. China Forbes did not disappoint with her superb vocals and presence. Tom Lauderdale was kooky, random, and very funny. And boy can he play the piano.
Other Media: I never played the original Starcraft. But there was enormous hype over the sequel. Ten years in the making. Talks of extensive delays. Was it worth the wait? No doubt about it. Starcraft II must rank as one of the greatest computer games ever created. Superb cinematic quality cut scenes, very well developed characters and voice acting. Well crafted individual missions with varied maps, and objectives. My only beef - you play for the most part as the Humans only. Still, an immense game. Simply superb.
26 November 2010
12 September 2010
To Boldly Go
Star Trek fans are well known for being extremely obsessive creatures, going to extremes because of their love for the TV series. They imitate characters, dress in Star Trek uniforms, and are privy to the most obscure references from their TV series of choice. I consider myself a Star Trek fan, though not a Trekkie. The difference is more than a mere linguistic one. A Trekkie is a mark of status, and must be earned or bestowed by other fellow Trekkies. It means attending conventions, learning how to speak Klingon, and doing the Vulcan split finger salute.
I am hardly that obsessive, yet in many ways I have an enormous soft spot for Star Trek, particularly the Next Generation series, which I grew up watching. It must be one of the great incongruities, and such a tremendously fortunate one, that Patrick Stewart, great thespian and Shakespearean actor, plays a science fiction starship captain. It was thus tremendously heartening for me to meet S. recently, someone who shared my interest in Star Trek, and the Next Generation in particular, even admitting to watching TNG episodes when she was depressed.
While randomly surfing the net, I have found two examples of how extreme Trekkies can be in their obsession. The first is this man who turned his entire flat into something straight out of a Star Trek set complete with galley, transporter area, ship schematics, original computer display panels (LCARS to the Trekkies) after his wife left him. The attention to detail is truly stupendous, and has to be seen to be believed. The second is the group of individuals in the Hague who have decided to stage an opera - completely in Klingon.
All of this is certainly a nostalgia trip back to my own days watching Star Trek The Next Generation on late night re-runs (it was usually shown at midnighton terrestrial), reading Star Trek novelizations, particularly the hugely funny ones by Peter David, and generally believing as teenagers are wont to do, that we can "boldly go where no man has gone before".
I am hardly that obsessive, yet in many ways I have an enormous soft spot for Star Trek, particularly the Next Generation series, which I grew up watching. It must be one of the great incongruities, and such a tremendously fortunate one, that Patrick Stewart, great thespian and Shakespearean actor, plays a science fiction starship captain. It was thus tremendously heartening for me to meet S. recently, someone who shared my interest in Star Trek, and the Next Generation in particular, even admitting to watching TNG episodes when she was depressed.
While randomly surfing the net, I have found two examples of how extreme Trekkies can be in their obsession. The first is this man who turned his entire flat into something straight out of a Star Trek set complete with galley, transporter area, ship schematics, original computer display panels (LCARS to the Trekkies) after his wife left him. The attention to detail is truly stupendous, and has to be seen to be believed. The second is the group of individuals in the Hague who have decided to stage an opera - completely in Klingon.
All of this is certainly a nostalgia trip back to my own days watching Star Trek The Next Generation on late night re-runs (it was usually shown at midnighton terrestrial), reading Star Trek novelizations, particularly the hugely funny ones by Peter David, and generally believing as teenagers are wont to do, that we can "boldly go where no man has gone before".
7 September 2010
A New Hair Day
I have a strange relationship with my hair. As I tell people, I tend to cut it when I get bored with it. Often, the best that can be said of my relationship with my hair is that I pay it no attention. I ignore it, willfully or otherwise.
The phase of willful ignorance was a legacy of my time in Junior College, where there were two main fashion statements pertaining to males. One was to wear incredibly baggy trousers that threatened to fall off at any moment and which reduced the wearer to walking in a strange sort of shuffling gait in order to ensure that said trousers did not actually fall off. The second was to style one's hair such that there was a peak or pointed end sticking out at the front, or for the more adventurous, to ensure that there was a kind of ridge or crown running from back to front. If one stops to think about it, both fashion trends resulted in behaviour or appearances not dissimilar from the mating rituals and exhibition displays of some birds of paradise, but I digress.
Everyone is young and idealistic during Junior College. I chose, in my own inimitable way, to take my own chosen stand against such vacuous exhibitionism, such facile displays of irrelevant fashion. So I refused to gel, or style, or even comb my hair. It saved me a few minutes every morning, and it certainly saved me a significant amount of youthful angst regarding my appearance (or so I thought). I went to school on some days with tufts of hair sticking out on one side, making me look rather unbalanced (both literally and metaphorically). On good days, my hair would be a shapeless mass, on bad days it would be an unmanageable mess.
Two kind classmates, hoping to save me from myself, once attempted to do me the favour of trying to make order of all that chaos. Given that we were part of a humanities class, they clearly had not heard of the second law of thermodynamics, or they hadn't figured that my hair would follow that law so closely, or else they might not have even bothered. After a PE lesson, they whipped out a comb they had specially brought (a key tool of young adolesence, to be found sticking out of the back trouser pocket, which I of course lacked), and after an attempt to solicit my permission, dragged me in front of row of mirror lined sinks in the boys bathroom and attempted to gel my hair into a semblance of what was then considered fashionable. They ended up aghast at its state, appalled at my indifference. And for all their well-meaning intentions, they decided that it would be all but impossible to convince me to abandon my folly regarding my follicles.
Now that I am older, I have given up the willful rebellion of my younger days. I am no longer (alright, less) inclined towards taking stubborn principled stands based on some fundamental notion of what is intrinsically right. Thus, my attitude towards my hair has gone from one of willful to benign indifference.
The phase of willful ignorance was a legacy of my time in Junior College, where there were two main fashion statements pertaining to males. One was to wear incredibly baggy trousers that threatened to fall off at any moment and which reduced the wearer to walking in a strange sort of shuffling gait in order to ensure that said trousers did not actually fall off. The second was to style one's hair such that there was a peak or pointed end sticking out at the front, or for the more adventurous, to ensure that there was a kind of ridge or crown running from back to front. If one stops to think about it, both fashion trends resulted in behaviour or appearances not dissimilar from the mating rituals and exhibition displays of some birds of paradise, but I digress.
Everyone is young and idealistic during Junior College. I chose, in my own inimitable way, to take my own chosen stand against such vacuous exhibitionism, such facile displays of irrelevant fashion. So I refused to gel, or style, or even comb my hair. It saved me a few minutes every morning, and it certainly saved me a significant amount of youthful angst regarding my appearance (or so I thought). I went to school on some days with tufts of hair sticking out on one side, making me look rather unbalanced (both literally and metaphorically). On good days, my hair would be a shapeless mass, on bad days it would be an unmanageable mess.
Two kind classmates, hoping to save me from myself, once attempted to do me the favour of trying to make order of all that chaos. Given that we were part of a humanities class, they clearly had not heard of the second law of thermodynamics, or they hadn't figured that my hair would follow that law so closely, or else they might not have even bothered. After a PE lesson, they whipped out a comb they had specially brought (a key tool of young adolesence, to be found sticking out of the back trouser pocket, which I of course lacked), and after an attempt to solicit my permission, dragged me in front of row of mirror lined sinks in the boys bathroom and attempted to gel my hair into a semblance of what was then considered fashionable. They ended up aghast at its state, appalled at my indifference. And for all their well-meaning intentions, they decided that it would be all but impossible to convince me to abandon my folly regarding my follicles.
Now that I am older, I have given up the willful rebellion of my younger days. I am no longer (alright, less) inclined towards taking stubborn principled stands based on some fundamental notion of what is intrinsically right. Thus, my attitude towards my hair has gone from one of willful to benign indifference.
2 August 2010
30 Before 30
There is something about turning thirty. One remembers the number of great rock musicians who have died before they are thirty: Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Jimmi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly. Einstein came up with his major theoretical breakthroughs a few years before his thirtieth birthday. Newton revolutionized physics before that age. By thirty, most great sportsmen are seen to be on the decline, be they footballers, basketball players or tennis players.
When you approach thirty, there is palpable sense that you should have achieved something, come close to establishing yourself. If not securing some little nest egg, then at least deciding what you are going to do with the remaining fifty years you have on this planet. This makes this particular turning point ripe in significance (and for a existential crisis). This has led to an online trend for creating a mini bucket list of things to do, loosely, thirty before thirty.
I am probably being premature about this, but I thought I would start early. All too often people begin this existential soul searching after they cross their 29th birthday, and the tasks they set themselves are a little on the frivolous side (e.g. go sky diving, visit the Pyramids, bake a pumpkin pie!). This is certainly important, but I also wanted concrete (and even occasionally difficult) goals which might take longer than a few months to achieve. Doing 30 things in a short space of time is difficult, giving myself the better part of two years to do so enables me to set harder tasks.
There weren't many ground rules for coming up with the 30 things. The first is, unlike normal new year resolutions they should not be merely aspirational. There should be a degree of achievability. So no vague resolutions of wanting to exercise more. Stating something like, I want to learn how to be proficient in rock climbing, on the other hand, is more specific, and something that can clearly be attained.
Many of the items on the list were things that I have been meaning to do for awhile. The hope is that setting them down in a concrete way will give me the added motivation to actively pursue them.
In no particular order, the thirty things are:
When you approach thirty, there is palpable sense that you should have achieved something, come close to establishing yourself. If not securing some little nest egg, then at least deciding what you are going to do with the remaining fifty years you have on this planet. This makes this particular turning point ripe in significance (and for a existential crisis). This has led to an online trend for creating a mini bucket list of things to do, loosely, thirty before thirty.
I am probably being premature about this, but I thought I would start early. All too often people begin this existential soul searching after they cross their 29th birthday, and the tasks they set themselves are a little on the frivolous side (e.g. go sky diving, visit the Pyramids, bake a pumpkin pie!). This is certainly important, but I also wanted concrete (and even occasionally difficult) goals which might take longer than a few months to achieve. Doing 30 things in a short space of time is difficult, giving myself the better part of two years to do so enables me to set harder tasks.
There weren't many ground rules for coming up with the 30 things. The first is, unlike normal new year resolutions they should not be merely aspirational. There should be a degree of achievability. So no vague resolutions of wanting to exercise more. Stating something like, I want to learn how to be proficient in rock climbing, on the other hand, is more specific, and something that can clearly be attained.
Many of the items on the list were things that I have been meaning to do for awhile. The hope is that setting them down in a concrete way will give me the added motivation to actively pursue them.
In no particular order, the thirty things are:
- Obtain a place in a Phd program and choose a specific field of study at an overseas university
- Learn the basics of English grammar and linguistics
- Complete a short collection of essays or similar literary endeavour (and attempt to publish it)
- Master a third language to at least basic conversational level (or improve mandarin to such a level)
- Develop an understanding of film theory, film criticism and practical film making
- Create a wardrobe that is comprehensive, fairly stylish, and most importantly one that I am comfortable with
- Create and maintain a website
- Blog regularly (4-5 posts a month)
- Host a formal dinner party in which the dishes are all prepared by me
- Learn how to cook basic dishes and to be comfortable in a kitchen
- Keep a monthly budget and manage finances closely
- Learn about investing, stocks and shares and create a portfolio (however meager)
- Climb another mountain (at least Kinabalu, preferably Kilimanjaro)
- Master the basics of rock climbing
- Open a really expensive bottle of wine and share it with some close friends
- Obtain a driver's license
- Finish watching a list of 50 classic films (see list in another blog post)
- Read twenty classic works of literature (see list in another blog post)
- Finish in the Top 100 of the World Quizzing Championships
- Make a return trip to the UK, catch up with old friends, watch Wimbledon, visit Hay-on-Wye (for the literary festival)
- Write regular film/theater/book reviews and attempt to parlay this into a freelance position
As you can tell this list is still a work in progress. Suggestions for the remaining things to accomplish are more than welcome.
22 June 2010
A Million Words and Counting
A Million Word and Counting
by Paul Payack
Citadel Press, 2008
There have been innumerable books and articles on the notion that English has become the global language, the international language of business and the chosen medium of cross-cultural communication. Much has been made of how globalizing forces has cemented English's status as the lingua franca (perhaps lingua anglia?) - the majority of web pages and blogs are published in English, hundreds of millions of people around the globe want to learn it and it is the only feasible medium of exchange either in the corridors of power in Brussels or when a Chinese investor attempts to seal a deal in Africa (and vice versa).
Paul Payack, a self-styled word maven has shown a penchant for self-promotion when his site, the Global Language Monitor claimed to have found the millionth word in English. As many linguistic scholars have already pointed out, such as David Crystal, the doyen of word popularizers, the very exercise was a "load of rubbish". It became more so when the millionth word turned out to be the completely insipid choice of "Web 2.0", a selection made more out of self-interest and one that hardly fulfills the goals of highlighting the "diversity and dynamic growth of English" that was the supposed aim of the whole exercise.
This book turns out to be a prelude to all the needless hoopla. Payack claims himself not merely to be a word maven but a trivia fiend, and these qualities are on display here. He gives us numerous lists and groups of facts, no doubt culled from the archives of the Global Language Monitor. What he is forgotten is the basic principle that lists (and reams of trivia) are never interesting in themselves, but only hold value if they are relevant, and are fascinating only when they are out of the ordinary and not completely mundane.
What this book primarily consists of is groups and lists of English words organized according to various topics such as 'the silver screen', television' and 'celebrities' (including a random list of weird celebrity children names), most of which are pointless and mundane. A list of Top 25 'Bushisms' is hardly original though at least randomly funny. I hardly need a book like his to tell me that the top phrases associated with Hurricane Katrina were "disaster, catastrophe, apocalypse and end of the world" among others; nor was his Katrina word explainer really illuminating: explaining what cajun is was interesting, but do I really need a defintion of 'search and rescue', or 'superdome' or 'recovery' or 'sandbag'? Similarly, I nearly fell out of my chair in surprise and shock when he listed the frequently used tech words of 2007 as 'iPod, nano, cookie, megahertz, plasma, and blu-ray', among others.
The biggest disappointment is that when Payack veers away from the mundane, which is rare enough, he fails to go beyond listing various words and phrases to explaining how they might come about. So as an example, it was interesting to me that in Finnish English a "noobie" is a slang word for a rookie, or in Polish English "thanks for the mountain" roughly means thank you in advance. The problem is, Payack never does explain in any kind of detail how these terms might have come about, something that was supremely unsatisfying.
Worse is when Payack inundates us with completey pointless lists of facts, often without ever revealing their significance. So he gives us a list of the Top 25 Fashion Cities based on his company's predictive quantities indicator, saying that it is "surprising" but failing to reveal how he came by this list at all. More pointless are lists of every country and its capital city, or the names of powers of ten up to a googolplex and other reams of random information that anyone could probably find in an almanac. Within the random lists there are some nuggets that I found of genuine interest, such as a list of countries without a national language (now that is certainly something that never crossed my mind), but it was rather tiring sorting through all the chaff.
In sum, Payack's book is a disappointment in a field already chock full of books celebrating the rise of English as a global language. With such a broad and fascinating subject area, what is truly is amazing is that Payack has produced a book that contains so much that is insipid. Rather like Web 2.0 if you ask me. Global English, in all its varied diversity certainly deserves better.
by Paul Payack
Citadel Press, 2008
There have been innumerable books and articles on the notion that English has become the global language, the international language of business and the chosen medium of cross-cultural communication. Much has been made of how globalizing forces has cemented English's status as the lingua franca (perhaps lingua anglia?) - the majority of web pages and blogs are published in English, hundreds of millions of people around the globe want to learn it and it is the only feasible medium of exchange either in the corridors of power in Brussels or when a Chinese investor attempts to seal a deal in Africa (and vice versa).
Paul Payack, a self-styled word maven has shown a penchant for self-promotion when his site, the Global Language Monitor claimed to have found the millionth word in English. As many linguistic scholars have already pointed out, such as David Crystal, the doyen of word popularizers, the very exercise was a "load of rubbish". It became more so when the millionth word turned out to be the completely insipid choice of "Web 2.0", a selection made more out of self-interest and one that hardly fulfills the goals of highlighting the "diversity and dynamic growth of English" that was the supposed aim of the whole exercise.
This book turns out to be a prelude to all the needless hoopla. Payack claims himself not merely to be a word maven but a trivia fiend, and these qualities are on display here. He gives us numerous lists and groups of facts, no doubt culled from the archives of the Global Language Monitor. What he is forgotten is the basic principle that lists (and reams of trivia) are never interesting in themselves, but only hold value if they are relevant, and are fascinating only when they are out of the ordinary and not completely mundane.
What this book primarily consists of is groups and lists of English words organized according to various topics such as 'the silver screen', television' and 'celebrities' (including a random list of weird celebrity children names), most of which are pointless and mundane. A list of Top 25 'Bushisms' is hardly original though at least randomly funny. I hardly need a book like his to tell me that the top phrases associated with Hurricane Katrina were "disaster, catastrophe, apocalypse and end of the world" among others; nor was his Katrina word explainer really illuminating: explaining what cajun is was interesting, but do I really need a defintion of 'search and rescue', or 'superdome' or 'recovery' or 'sandbag'? Similarly, I nearly fell out of my chair in surprise and shock when he listed the frequently used tech words of 2007 as 'iPod, nano, cookie, megahertz, plasma, and blu-ray', among others.
The biggest disappointment is that when Payack veers away from the mundane, which is rare enough, he fails to go beyond listing various words and phrases to explaining how they might come about. So as an example, it was interesting to me that in Finnish English a "noobie" is a slang word for a rookie, or in Polish English "thanks for the mountain" roughly means thank you in advance. The problem is, Payack never does explain in any kind of detail how these terms might have come about, something that was supremely unsatisfying.
Worse is when Payack inundates us with completey pointless lists of facts, often without ever revealing their significance. So he gives us a list of the Top 25 Fashion Cities based on his company's predictive quantities indicator, saying that it is "surprising" but failing to reveal how he came by this list at all. More pointless are lists of every country and its capital city, or the names of powers of ten up to a googolplex and other reams of random information that anyone could probably find in an almanac. Within the random lists there are some nuggets that I found of genuine interest, such as a list of countries without a national language (now that is certainly something that never crossed my mind), but it was rather tiring sorting through all the chaff.
In sum, Payack's book is a disappointment in a field already chock full of books celebrating the rise of English as a global language. With such a broad and fascinating subject area, what is truly is amazing is that Payack has produced a book that contains so much that is insipid. Rather like Web 2.0 if you ask me. Global English, in all its varied diversity certainly deserves better.
15 June 2010
World Quizzing Championships 2010
As my friends will know, I am a huge fan of all things trivia and quiz related, so one of the highlights of my year is the World Quizzing Championships. This year marked the second time that I officially took part in the competition - I had previously been a competitor in 2006 while studying in England, deciding to make the trip to Cardiff (where it was held) despite the fact that my final PPE exam was just two days later. That experience, as well as trying out the 2008 and 2009 sets of questions underlined that the World Quizzing Championships provides high quality but extremely challenging questions.
I had planned to take part in the quiz in Manila, and the Philippines itself has the strongest quizzing culture in Southeast Asia (though a distant second in Asia to the quiz mad Indians) but I ended up organizing a small leg of the competition in Singapore instead (Malaysia also has a tiny leg with around 2-3 competitors). In the end, we held the Singapore leg at The Yard, a small quiet British pub on River Valley Road (with claims to be the oldest British pub in Singapore). Joining me in this trivia madness was Jake, an American friend of mine who has partnered me in many quizzes in the past, and Kenneth, whom I met at the weekly quiz at Brewerkz and who hopes to take part in College Bowl quizzes in America, where he is headed to study.
A bit on the rules of the competition. Basically, there are eight categories - Culture, Lifestyle, Media, Entertainment, Sport and Games, World, History, and Science. They are divided at random into two parts of four categories each. There are 30 questions in each category for a total of 240 overall. The quiz is done individually, with no conferring, and competitors get an hour for each part. Their total score is tabulated by dropping their worst category and adding together the scores for the remaining seven, for a maximum total of 210 points. If scores are tied the person with the higher score in their worst category is ranked first.
What makes the quiz very tough is the quality and difficulty of the questions and the question of speed. Having 1 hour for 4 categories works out to 60 minutes for 120 questions or 30 seconds per question including reading the question itself, trying to recall the answer (or in some cases trying to work it out) and of course trying not to second guess yourself. The questions are often much tougher than your average pub quiz. All in all it makes for quite a challenge.
I set myself a number of goals for this year's quiz. First, I hoped to crack 100 points. Seemingly modest considering that the highest possible score was 210 (eight categories of 30 questions each, with the lowest scoring category disregarded), so surely scoring 50% or 105 should be a easy right? I knew from past experience that attaining even 15 in any category was a major challenge though I did hope to break 100 and if possible score 50%.
Besides that, I hoped to be the top scoring competitor in Southeast Asia. For that reason, I had hoped to fly over to the Philippines, where the best competitors are to take part there. It would also be a good opportunity to meet other quizzers which would have been nice.
In the end, I accomplished neither. I ended up with a respectable 98 points, good enough for a 127th in the world. A Filipino quizzer by the name of Leonard Gapol scored an even 100 to beat me by a mere 2 points. To break the top 100, a score of 105 was needed (which was coincidentally exactly half the marks). To put the result in perspective, there were over 1200 competitors taking part in this year's WQC, so my placing puts me just fractionally outside the top 10%. Not bad, even if I failed to accomplish my two other targets.
As for the questions, I was particularly proud because I didn't drop that many questions and managed to work out those that I knew I knew but took some time remembering. In my case it was the British fashion designer that committed suicide (Alexander McQueen), the French city where there was an alternative papacy (Avignon), the standard measurement of distance in Ancient China (the li) or the very young British diver who one of the youngest competitors at the Beijing Olypics (Tom Daley). In a quiz of this difficulty there is nothing more irksome that to have an answer at the tip of a brain which you can't quite pull out.
Of the ones that got away I should have gotten the clue to the Tuileries Gardens in Paris (mixed it up with the Luxembourg Gardens), and a music clip clue from the musical Hairspray, but there weren't that many dropped points for me in this particular quiz.
This turned out to be especially important this year as it was a fairly tough quiz compared to the ones in 2008 and 2009. I struggled on Sciences (which includes the Social Sciences), which was expected, but I didn't even manage a score of 10 in History, which is surprising, given it is a subject I am normally quite decent at. In the end I managed 19 in Media, 16 in Sport and Culture, 14 in Entertainment, 13 in Lifestyle, 11 in World, 9 in History and 8 in Science. Here's to more quizzing and a better score next year!
I had planned to take part in the quiz in Manila, and the Philippines itself has the strongest quizzing culture in Southeast Asia (though a distant second in Asia to the quiz mad Indians) but I ended up organizing a small leg of the competition in Singapore instead (Malaysia also has a tiny leg with around 2-3 competitors). In the end, we held the Singapore leg at The Yard, a small quiet British pub on River Valley Road (with claims to be the oldest British pub in Singapore). Joining me in this trivia madness was Jake, an American friend of mine who has partnered me in many quizzes in the past, and Kenneth, whom I met at the weekly quiz at Brewerkz and who hopes to take part in College Bowl quizzes in America, where he is headed to study.
A bit on the rules of the competition. Basically, there are eight categories - Culture, Lifestyle, Media, Entertainment, Sport and Games, World, History, and Science. They are divided at random into two parts of four categories each. There are 30 questions in each category for a total of 240 overall. The quiz is done individually, with no conferring, and competitors get an hour for each part. Their total score is tabulated by dropping their worst category and adding together the scores for the remaining seven, for a maximum total of 210 points. If scores are tied the person with the higher score in their worst category is ranked first.
What makes the quiz very tough is the quality and difficulty of the questions and the question of speed. Having 1 hour for 4 categories works out to 60 minutes for 120 questions or 30 seconds per question including reading the question itself, trying to recall the answer (or in some cases trying to work it out) and of course trying not to second guess yourself. The questions are often much tougher than your average pub quiz. All in all it makes for quite a challenge.
I set myself a number of goals for this year's quiz. First, I hoped to crack 100 points. Seemingly modest considering that the highest possible score was 210 (eight categories of 30 questions each, with the lowest scoring category disregarded), so surely scoring 50% or 105 should be a easy right? I knew from past experience that attaining even 15 in any category was a major challenge though I did hope to break 100 and if possible score 50%.
Besides that, I hoped to be the top scoring competitor in Southeast Asia. For that reason, I had hoped to fly over to the Philippines, where the best competitors are to take part there. It would also be a good opportunity to meet other quizzers which would have been nice.
In the end, I accomplished neither. I ended up with a respectable 98 points, good enough for a 127th in the world. A Filipino quizzer by the name of Leonard Gapol scored an even 100 to beat me by a mere 2 points. To break the top 100, a score of 105 was needed (which was coincidentally exactly half the marks). To put the result in perspective, there were over 1200 competitors taking part in this year's WQC, so my placing puts me just fractionally outside the top 10%. Not bad, even if I failed to accomplish my two other targets.
As for the questions, I was particularly proud because I didn't drop that many questions and managed to work out those that I knew I knew but took some time remembering. In my case it was the British fashion designer that committed suicide (Alexander McQueen), the French city where there was an alternative papacy (Avignon), the standard measurement of distance in Ancient China (the li) or the very young British diver who one of the youngest competitors at the Beijing Olypics (Tom Daley). In a quiz of this difficulty there is nothing more irksome that to have an answer at the tip of a brain which you can't quite pull out.
Of the ones that got away I should have gotten the clue to the Tuileries Gardens in Paris (mixed it up with the Luxembourg Gardens), and a music clip clue from the musical Hairspray, but there weren't that many dropped points for me in this particular quiz.
This turned out to be especially important this year as it was a fairly tough quiz compared to the ones in 2008 and 2009. I struggled on Sciences (which includes the Social Sciences), which was expected, but I didn't even manage a score of 10 in History, which is surprising, given it is a subject I am normally quite decent at. In the end I managed 19 in Media, 16 in Sport and Culture, 14 in Entertainment, 13 in Lifestyle, 11 in World, 9 in History and 8 in Science. Here's to more quizzing and a better score next year!
21 May 2010
30 Things A Man Should Own Before 30
- A skin care regimen. C’mon guys, healthy complexions aren’t just for metrosexuals!: Not going to happen, and so far, not needed.
- A tasty signature dish he can whip up for a date: Cooking is useful but I'll learn it for myself. A signature dish would be cool.
- Respect for women as equals and not just as heads attached to boobs. Absolutely, as long as they don't behave like heads attached to boobs
- At least four good pairs of shoes: dressy, business casual, casual, exercise: There's a difference between exercise and casual? Just kidding. I'll have to work on this one comfortable shoes that fit me are tough.
- At least one friend who gives honest fashion advice I think I've found someone, but fashion advice is something you never get in too short a supply if you are me.
- A tailored suit Done. Just need more occasions to wear it! And with a bow tie too!
- A toolbox that includes: a hammer, screwdriver, wrench, nails, work gloves. I definitely need to improve on the handyman bit. No point having tools if you are clueless about how to use them. I CAN change a light bulb. I think.
- Enough clean underwear (no holes!) to get him through a week between laundry sessions. Yes, an absolute essential.
- Independence from his mama. Absolutely. Independence is good. From women. Period.
- The ability to ask for directions. You don't need to ask if you don't get lost!
- A great road map when there’s no one to ask. I don't drive, and you don't need road maps in Singapore. It's too small.
- A favorite cookbook. I'll have to work on understanding them first.
- A decent set of pots and pans. And knives. Never forget the knives.
- An emergency kit in the trunk of his car. Again, no car, so no worries.
- A hobby that does not include a television set or a 6-pack of beer. I will take this to be an active hobby that requires you to sweat. I'm thinking rock climbing.
- A trusted barber or hair stylist. This is a perennial problem. I need one that speaks in English, and will just give me a trendy easy maintain look that doesn't require me to put in much effort. Recommendations welcome.
- A pair of jeans that makes his butt look good. I think I do own a pair. Girls, feedback welcome on the latter bit.
- Jumper cables. Don't own a car, so not bothered.
- A driver’s license. I was close to getting one. Will go ahead and finish it.
- Always enough toilet paper. Obviously. Just don't expect me to put the toilet seat back up.... why can't you put it down if you need it?
- Sheets that don’t scratch.
- A nightstand that doesn’t say “Handle with care” on the side. Huh?
- A smile he uses generously. Use it too much and it loses its luster. I say reserve it for special occasions and special someones.
- At least one lamp that didn’t once belong in a dorm room.
- Enough confidence to approach someone he finds attractive. Always difficult, this.
- Enough sense not to use a cheesy pick-up line. (When in doubt, say “hello!”) I never do cheesy pick up lines. I only come up with sardonically witty retorts that nobody ever understands.
- A great razor. Being Chinese I have no regular need of one. That said, having tried to grow a mustache in my university days, I know how ridiculous I look with one.
- The beginning of a nest egg. Sigh. I wish.
- A place where everyone knows his name. I've got that. I am a firm believer in the local pub where everybody is friendly with everyone. That, and most of the second hand bookstores in Singapore.
- At least one sex move he’s received lots of positive feedback on. Errr, well. I couldn't possibly comment, could I?
16 May 2010
A Host of Benefits
I was quite tickled by this. What helps to burn calories and increase your overall fitness, reduces the risk of heart disease, increases your immunity against influenza and the common cold, helps to reduce depression, and even gives you a better sense of smell? Of course benefits only accrue with sustained regular doses.
I'm sure that by now you have an inkling about what the answer to the above just might be. Appropriate warnings must be issued as with any form of drug or treatment: this particular one should only be administered with an individual in whom you have due care and trust. Thankfully there is low risk of an overdose. Might induce euphoria and temporary feelings of happiness and emotional dependence.
I'm sure that by now you have an inkling about what the answer to the above just might be. Appropriate warnings must be issued as with any form of drug or treatment: this particular one should only be administered with an individual in whom you have due care and trust. Thankfully there is low risk of an overdose. Might induce euphoria and temporary feelings of happiness and emotional dependence.
8 May 2010
British General Election
So it has come to be. Most of the media commentators had predicted a hung parliament, and I did as well. David Cameron needed a very big swing in his favour - almost all 80 odd marginals (with a 8 point swing to the Conservatives needed to gain the seat) and then somehow conjuring up another 30 odd seats from somewhere. While the Conservatives did well enough in winning back seats in their own heartlands of the South-West (and to a lesser extent the South-East) they failed singularly in making any significant dent in Scotland, much of a dent in Wales (though they did pick up 5 seats), and in any major urban area in the UK. While David Cameroon has made significant strides in a Conservative Party revival, the fact that his party still remains toxic to many voters and his failure to penetrate much into Labour strongholds is a significant cause of concern for his party.
If there was one advantage that Gordon Brown brought to this election, it was strangely enough his Scottishness, and it clearly showed. The Conservatives managed to retain their only seat in Scotland but made absolutely no inroads anywhere else, and all of the marginal Labour (and Lib Dem) seats there returned their MPs with larger majorities on the whole. It will be interesting to see how much of the poor showing in Scotland is down to genuine antipathy towards the Conservatives (as opposed to nationalistic support for Brown and former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy). The Scottish vote, with only 1 in 59 seats going Conservative, renews questions about devolution and the West Lochlian problem. The Conservatives would have a clear majority in Commons excluding Scotland and with a number of key bills in the Commons that do not pertain significantly to Scotland (Blair's raising of University tuition fees comes to mind) passed only due to Scottish MPs, this is an interesting constitutional question that has reared it head more significantly in the context of this election.
The Conservatives have always relied predominantly on the rural vote, but their inability to make almost any inroads in the cities and industrial areas in this election is still noteworthy. Apart from winning back the marginals in their Southern base such as Hove, Portsmouth North, Watford and Bristol, they were fairly unsuccessful in making much inroads into any of the Northern or North-Central cities. They did win Cardiff North, and took back Southampton, and succeeded in wresting Oxford West and Abingdon in a big swing away from the Lib Dems but even in the Southern heartlands the Conservatives embarrassingly lost Brighton Pavilion to the Greens and Eastbourne to the Lib Dems. In an election when they needed to win literally everything in the South West and South East, the fact that even Southern cities like Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Colchester and Bristol are fairly ambivalent in what should have been big Conservative wins, does not bode well for Cameroon and his party.
For the Lib Dems this election revealed that much of the hype surrounding them and their leader was merely just that - hype. Given the economic uncertainties and a deeply unpopular standing Government, the electorate was hardly likely to favour a third party, which despite Nick Clegg's rhethoric, was never remotely considered a credible party for Government. While in certain cases, anger against Labour translated into Lib Dem gains, the scalping of Charles Clarke a notable case, more often the Lib Dems also suffered from the anti-Labour backlash, particularly in the South-West and also in losing two significant MPs in Lembit Opik and Dr Evan Harris. Opik, certainly one of the most colourful characters in Parliament, found himself decapitated by the masterful conservative strategy of finding a plain spoken local Welshman to run against him in Montgomeryshire. A more stark contrast to the celebrity dating, chat show regular Opik would be hard to imagine.
My personal sympathies go out to Dr Harris. I voted for him in the last general election when I was a student living in Central Oxford. He was the victim of redistricting (which reduced the student vote he so relied on) in part, but his loss was still quite a shock. I certainly hope he runs for parliament again, and given the marginal loss he suffered (it went to a recount), one should not bet against him winning back his seat the next time around.
As for Labour, this is almost certainly the end of the road for Gordon Brown. In taking the most seats, and the popular vote, the Conservatives clearly have the mandate to govern, hung parliament or no. Given that the electorate had clearly turned against Labour, the best they could have hoped for was that the Conservatives would be prevented from attaining a clear victory, which is what transpired. Brown must almost certainly make way for someone else to be Leader of the Opposition, most likely David Milliband. Labour still maintain a big stranglehold on Scotland, Wales, the North West and most of the big cities (including large swathes of London) and with most of their power base intact, they will continue to be the other major player in UK politics. In many ways, the bigger threat to Labour might have been a major Lib Dem breakthrough, with the Lib Dems gaining 20 or even 30 seats and approaching the 100 seat mark. This would be similar to the situation with the rise of Labour and the decline of the Liberal Party at the turn of the last century. As it stands, Labour can regroup and bide its time as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The fascinating question will be how the hung parliament will pan out. It is almost certain that the Conservatives will have to make common cause with the Lib Dems. They could just about form a majority with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and assorted Northern Irish parties, but it would not be a stable base for governing. Ruling with the Lib Dems could mean giving them cabinet positions and more vitally, giving ground on Lib Dem demands for more proportional representation in Parliament and some modification to the first past the post system. Once again, it has been shown that the first past the post system is not at all friendly to the third biggest party except in the case of hung parliaments where they tip the balance. As such, while this election has been a disaster for Nick Clegg in every other respect, in this one regard the Lib Dems have made their most significant stride in their party's history. How they use this opportunity will likely determine the next cabinet, and the future of the party itself.
If there was one advantage that Gordon Brown brought to this election, it was strangely enough his Scottishness, and it clearly showed. The Conservatives managed to retain their only seat in Scotland but made absolutely no inroads anywhere else, and all of the marginal Labour (and Lib Dem) seats there returned their MPs with larger majorities on the whole. It will be interesting to see how much of the poor showing in Scotland is down to genuine antipathy towards the Conservatives (as opposed to nationalistic support for Brown and former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy). The Scottish vote, with only 1 in 59 seats going Conservative, renews questions about devolution and the West Lochlian problem. The Conservatives would have a clear majority in Commons excluding Scotland and with a number of key bills in the Commons that do not pertain significantly to Scotland (Blair's raising of University tuition fees comes to mind) passed only due to Scottish MPs, this is an interesting constitutional question that has reared it head more significantly in the context of this election.
The Conservatives have always relied predominantly on the rural vote, but their inability to make almost any inroads in the cities and industrial areas in this election is still noteworthy. Apart from winning back the marginals in their Southern base such as Hove, Portsmouth North, Watford and Bristol, they were fairly unsuccessful in making much inroads into any of the Northern or North-Central cities. They did win Cardiff North, and took back Southampton, and succeeded in wresting Oxford West and Abingdon in a big swing away from the Lib Dems but even in the Southern heartlands the Conservatives embarrassingly lost Brighton Pavilion to the Greens and Eastbourne to the Lib Dems. In an election when they needed to win literally everything in the South West and South East, the fact that even Southern cities like Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Colchester and Bristol are fairly ambivalent in what should have been big Conservative wins, does not bode well for Cameroon and his party.
For the Lib Dems this election revealed that much of the hype surrounding them and their leader was merely just that - hype. Given the economic uncertainties and a deeply unpopular standing Government, the electorate was hardly likely to favour a third party, which despite Nick Clegg's rhethoric, was never remotely considered a credible party for Government. While in certain cases, anger against Labour translated into Lib Dem gains, the scalping of Charles Clarke a notable case, more often the Lib Dems also suffered from the anti-Labour backlash, particularly in the South-West and also in losing two significant MPs in Lembit Opik and Dr Evan Harris. Opik, certainly one of the most colourful characters in Parliament, found himself decapitated by the masterful conservative strategy of finding a plain spoken local Welshman to run against him in Montgomeryshire. A more stark contrast to the celebrity dating, chat show regular Opik would be hard to imagine.
My personal sympathies go out to Dr Harris. I voted for him in the last general election when I was a student living in Central Oxford. He was the victim of redistricting (which reduced the student vote he so relied on) in part, but his loss was still quite a shock. I certainly hope he runs for parliament again, and given the marginal loss he suffered (it went to a recount), one should not bet against him winning back his seat the next time around.
As for Labour, this is almost certainly the end of the road for Gordon Brown. In taking the most seats, and the popular vote, the Conservatives clearly have the mandate to govern, hung parliament or no. Given that the electorate had clearly turned against Labour, the best they could have hoped for was that the Conservatives would be prevented from attaining a clear victory, which is what transpired. Brown must almost certainly make way for someone else to be Leader of the Opposition, most likely David Milliband. Labour still maintain a big stranglehold on Scotland, Wales, the North West and most of the big cities (including large swathes of London) and with most of their power base intact, they will continue to be the other major player in UK politics. In many ways, the bigger threat to Labour might have been a major Lib Dem breakthrough, with the Lib Dems gaining 20 or even 30 seats and approaching the 100 seat mark. This would be similar to the situation with the rise of Labour and the decline of the Liberal Party at the turn of the last century. As it stands, Labour can regroup and bide its time as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The fascinating question will be how the hung parliament will pan out. It is almost certain that the Conservatives will have to make common cause with the Lib Dems. They could just about form a majority with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and assorted Northern Irish parties, but it would not be a stable base for governing. Ruling with the Lib Dems could mean giving them cabinet positions and more vitally, giving ground on Lib Dem demands for more proportional representation in Parliament and some modification to the first past the post system. Once again, it has been shown that the first past the post system is not at all friendly to the third biggest party except in the case of hung parliaments where they tip the balance. As such, while this election has been a disaster for Nick Clegg in every other respect, in this one regard the Lib Dems have made their most significant stride in their party's history. How they use this opportunity will likely determine the next cabinet, and the future of the party itself.
20 April 2010
Theological Questioning and Evil
At the prompting of a good friend, I am starting to revisit theological questions. Or more accurately, I am again look at religion and particularly theology from a philosophical perspective. My closer friends will know that I accept, to a fundamental degree, that the firm foundations of religious faith can never come from reason alone. I accept the need for Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". That said, any faith that is blind, that is reached without deep questioning and searching to me is fundamentally hollow, and perhaps even rotten, a soft center without any weight.
For me, one of the most difficult philosophical (let alone religious) problems that exist is the problem of evil. Not merely that there is evil in the world, but that it is often the completely innocent that suffer unjustly. Christianity though in particular has a much greater burden in relation to the problem of evil because they posit a God who is personal, whom you can seek comfort in, pray and talk to, who watches over each and every person just as he watches over the sparrow.
While a humanist can bite the bullet and say that injustice is often a brutal fact of a cold, uncaring world a religious person cannot. A volcano doesn't have intentions, nor an earthquake. It cares not for the fact that a town or a city or a school or tens of million people living nearby. But Christians cannot escape the question of how an all knowing, all powerful God could allow for those many thousands of innocents to die. Indeed, some psychologists have suggested that it is precisely in the fact of the inexplicable brutality of existence, in our need to find some kind of meaning in the very first place, that many turn to God as an answer.
As Peter Singer argues, I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question short of saying that God's ways are unknowable, and any attempt by feeble human minds to understand God's intentions is akin to a monkey trying to grasp the depth and power of Shakespeare. I find this reply unsatisfactory. To begin with, the argument is circular. It attempts to argue that we are incapable of knowing God precisely by presupposing that God is omnipotent and omniscient as well as good, the very three things that seem incompatible together when we deal with unjust evil in the world. More damning for me is the denigration of reason. As I said earlier, any faith that I shall ever come to will be through constant thought, struggle and reflection. It is far far too easy, and correspondingly also too dangerous to just say God's reason is unknowable. Let us not seek to grapple or understand. Let us just accept.
Perhaps that is the crux of religion. Acceptance. Submission (which is the major tenant of Islam). Thy kingdom come they will be done, now and forever. Amen.
For me, one of the most difficult philosophical (let alone religious) problems that exist is the problem of evil. Not merely that there is evil in the world, but that it is often the completely innocent that suffer unjustly. Christianity though in particular has a much greater burden in relation to the problem of evil because they posit a God who is personal, whom you can seek comfort in, pray and talk to, who watches over each and every person just as he watches over the sparrow.
While a humanist can bite the bullet and say that injustice is often a brutal fact of a cold, uncaring world a religious person cannot. A volcano doesn't have intentions, nor an earthquake. It cares not for the fact that a town or a city or a school or tens of million people living nearby. But Christians cannot escape the question of how an all knowing, all powerful God could allow for those many thousands of innocents to die. Indeed, some psychologists have suggested that it is precisely in the fact of the inexplicable brutality of existence, in our need to find some kind of meaning in the very first place, that many turn to God as an answer.
As Peter Singer argues, I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question short of saying that God's ways are unknowable, and any attempt by feeble human minds to understand God's intentions is akin to a monkey trying to grasp the depth and power of Shakespeare. I find this reply unsatisfactory. To begin with, the argument is circular. It attempts to argue that we are incapable of knowing God precisely by presupposing that God is omnipotent and omniscient as well as good, the very three things that seem incompatible together when we deal with unjust evil in the world. More damning for me is the denigration of reason. As I said earlier, any faith that I shall ever come to will be through constant thought, struggle and reflection. It is far far too easy, and correspondingly also too dangerous to just say God's reason is unknowable. Let us not seek to grapple or understand. Let us just accept.
Perhaps that is the crux of religion. Acceptance. Submission (which is the major tenant of Islam). Thy kingdom come they will be done, now and forever. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
