Apr 27, 2007
Nice read
The 4th most sited economist Gregory Mankiw shares some of his 'work habits':
My Rules of Thumb
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/papers/My_Rules_of_Thumb.pdf
it makes a very nice read.
Apr 20, 2007
Book: Kite Runner by Hosseini
The Kite Runner is the first novel by Khaled Hosseini. It's supposed to be the first novel published in English by an Afghan... and that was 2003. The novel has also won several awards, and was a favorite for several book clubs, and was a top 10 best seller in 2005 (check the novel's wikipedia site).
Why all this? I don't know!
About 60% of the novel was truly interesting. The Afghani author was writing about his childhood in Afghanistan - way back, at the time of the King, before the communist coupe. That was very amusing, because it was real. The description of his father, the Kites competition, his Hazara friends/servants/relatives - all this was just very sincere and nice. The description of Afghan community in Fremont, CA was very interesting. I actually took a drive there and ate at a restaurant while reading the novel to "live in the same atmosphere". It was very similar. The part in the novel about "Nang and Namos", one's pride and dignity, was also very interesting insight into the Afghani mentality.
However, the other 40% of the novel was terrible. It read like a very bad action hindi movie. The action sequence was oversimplified and obviously made up. His whole story about walking in Afghanistan during the Taliban was so "cliche", it made the novel very weak. Reading about the author later on, it seems it left Afghanistan in the 1970s - thus he never lived through the communist government nor Taliban. His images must have come mainly from CNN and, and possibly some Afghan sources.
The Novel also had many weak spots for tying events together. It was obvious that the author went through the novel once, and then went back and added "connections" later on. The problem is that these connections were too obvious, too direct, and generally didn't fit in the context.
For example, at the end of the conversation with the INS officer, the officer says - out of nowhere - "did you promise that boy you'll take him to America", "Yes", "That is dangerous business, making promises to kids."
Why would anybody say that?
well, because in 2 scenes afterwards, the main cahracter breaks the promise the little kid attempts suicide!
By shear coincidence, the wife's uncle is an "INS Officer" who has been working there for many years. Later in the novel, the guy needs a hard-to-get humanitarian visa... and surprise surprise, the Uncle uses his connections to get it.
Even the "research" that was done for the novel, (e.g. the visa laws for adoption), are used in bulk - thrown at the reader, and did not help at all with the plot. They seemed to "solve themselves" quickly and with only one move.
There are many such instances that only show a certain immaturity in the author's style. No surprise, this was his first novel.
Thus, after all this, again, I'm not sure why this novel has become so popular. From an American point of view, the novel is very "politically correct", it denounces the Taliban and shows them as pure evil, it rails about "double standards with women", "women should be able to sleep with strangers before marriage just as easily as boys", ... I think to a point this played a role why this was a book club favorite.
Supposedly the author is coming up with a second novel soon. It'll be interesting to see if it does as good.
now... I'm looking for my next book. Any suggestions?
Why all this? I don't know!
About 60% of the novel was truly interesting. The Afghani author was writing about his childhood in Afghanistan - way back, at the time of the King, before the communist coupe. That was very amusing, because it was real. The description of his father, the Kites competition, his Hazara friends/servants/relatives - all this was just very sincere and nice. The description of Afghan community in Fremont, CA was very interesting. I actually took a drive there and ate at a restaurant while reading the novel to "live in the same atmosphere". It was very similar. The part in the novel about "Nang and Namos", one's pride and dignity, was also very interesting insight into the Afghani mentality.
However, the other 40% of the novel was terrible. It read like a very bad action hindi movie. The action sequence was oversimplified and obviously made up. His whole story about walking in Afghanistan during the Taliban was so "cliche", it made the novel very weak. Reading about the author later on, it seems it left Afghanistan in the 1970s - thus he never lived through the communist government nor Taliban. His images must have come mainly from CNN and, and possibly some Afghan sources.
The Novel also had many weak spots for tying events together. It was obvious that the author went through the novel once, and then went back and added "connections" later on. The problem is that these connections were too obvious, too direct, and generally didn't fit in the context.
For example, at the end of the conversation with the INS officer, the officer says - out of nowhere - "did you promise that boy you'll take him to America", "Yes", "That is dangerous business, making promises to kids."
Why would anybody say that?
well, because in 2 scenes afterwards, the main cahracter breaks the promise the little kid attempts suicide!
By shear coincidence, the wife's uncle is an "INS Officer" who has been working there for many years. Later in the novel, the guy needs a hard-to-get humanitarian visa... and surprise surprise, the Uncle uses his connections to get it.
Even the "research" that was done for the novel, (e.g. the visa laws for adoption), are used in bulk - thrown at the reader, and did not help at all with the plot. They seemed to "solve themselves" quickly and with only one move.
There are many such instances that only show a certain immaturity in the author's style. No surprise, this was his first novel.
Thus, after all this, again, I'm not sure why this novel has become so popular. From an American point of view, the novel is very "politically correct", it denounces the Taliban and shows them as pure evil, it rails about "double standards with women", "women should be able to sleep with strangers before marriage just as easily as boys", ... I think to a point this played a role why this was a book club favorite.
Supposedly the author is coming up with a second novel soon. It'll be interesting to see if it does as good.
now... I'm looking for my next book. Any suggestions?
Apr 11, 2007
1984, the movie
As I said in a previous post, I read Orwell's novel "1984" recently. Yesterday I got to see the movie.
I had a hard time finding it. Blockbuster and Netflix both do not carry it. When I used to live in Seattle, Scarecrow Video, the biggest movie store west of the Mississippi, was my ultimate destination for all these rare movies. However, we don't have such nice places in the bay area (yet).
Fortunately, the Peninsula Library System had a copy of this movie. One have to respect public library systems in this country.
The movie is interesting: it was filmed between April and June in 1984 - the same period in which the novel takes place.
If you didn't read the novel, the movie is disappointing and vague. The movie excels at reproducing the atmosphere of the novel: the Big Brother police state, the people, the cars, the military everywhere, the "ministry of truth" offices and the "ministry of love" policemen, etc.
However, the movie does a very bad job at developing the story. Orwell's treatment and development of events and dialogs in the novel is just brilliant. And it makes the novel, in my opinion, a very fine piece of literature. This is in addition to its compelling political and philosophical message. The events in the movie seem to happen sequentially without much explanation or proper build up.
I am not very surprised that very few places carry the movie.
If you have read the novel and want to "visualize" the world of 1984, then definitely see the movie. Otherwise, don't ruin the story for yourself - pick up the novel and read it.
I had a hard time finding it. Blockbuster and Netflix both do not carry it. When I used to live in Seattle, Scarecrow Video, the biggest movie store west of the Mississippi, was my ultimate destination for all these rare movies. However, we don't have such nice places in the bay area (yet).
Fortunately, the Peninsula Library System had a copy of this movie. One have to respect public library systems in this country.
The movie is interesting: it was filmed between April and June in 1984 - the same period in which the novel takes place.
If you didn't read the novel, the movie is disappointing and vague. The movie excels at reproducing the atmosphere of the novel: the Big Brother police state, the people, the cars, the military everywhere, the "ministry of truth" offices and the "ministry of love" policemen, etc.
However, the movie does a very bad job at developing the story. Orwell's treatment and development of events and dialogs in the novel is just brilliant. And it makes the novel, in my opinion, a very fine piece of literature. This is in addition to its compelling political and philosophical message. The events in the movie seem to happen sequentially without much explanation or proper build up.
I am not very surprised that very few places carry the movie.
If you have read the novel and want to "visualize" the world of 1984, then definitely see the movie. Otherwise, don't ruin the story for yourself - pick up the novel and read it.
Apr 10, 2007
1984 and Brave New World
Labels:
book
I have just finished reading 2 of the 3 "dystopia" classical novels of all time. I read Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. I left our Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. (Well, there are several other famous dystonpian novels, like Animal Farm and Anthem... so 3 is not really an accurate number).
Quickly, 1984 explores what would life be like if a totalitarian communist regime is able to take over the world in the 1950s. The novel follows Wilson as he lives in 1984, with the 'Big Brother' government taking care (and micro-control) the life of every citizen (party member) very closely (supposedly to prevent social injustice).
1984 has truly shocked me. Orwell is a master writer - he immerses the reader in the events and the thoughts of his characters to the deepest level. Every word, every move, every feeling, I was able to feel throughout. The novel is also very smart - it does not patronize the reader or insult the reader's intelligence.
This is usually a very good feature about a novel, except that, in the third part, Wilson is taken to the "Ministry of Love" (internal intelligence) for torture and interrogation. And in this third part, I was extremely exhausted and disturbed. The description of torture was not gory, but it got to you. The Big Brother's ministry of love did not want to just kill its enemies. It wanted to brainwash them into admitting they were wrong in the first place - not just say that, but truly mean it. Thus, most of the torture was extremely mental and ... oh, how disturbing.
The novel, just like Orwell's Animal Farm, is usually thought of as anti-communist/anti-socialist. But it's actually not. Orwell himself was a socialist. However, and as he said, the novel is against any tyrannical system of whatever ideology. In 1984, the 'Big Brother' is described to look a lot like Stalin.
However, some of what the Big Brother government said reminds one A LOT of what is happening today.
One sentence was "War is peace" - "we wage war to achieve peace"... hm..., where did I hear that before?
The second novel, Huxley's Brave New World, was OK. I think it is of much less quality than Orwell's. Huxley seems to have had few ideas, and then he created a novel around them. Orwell was closer to a philosopher. His characters were much deeper and much more believable. Huxley's novel seem patronizing at times by "pushing" the reader into hating or liking certain characters. One wouldn't love or hate them for their ideas, but rather, as done in hollywood, but other attributes like the way they talk or how nice they behave.
Brave New World is about a futuristic "utopian" world where the government also tries to make every person very happy all the time by "encouraging free sex, drugs, and conformist ideas" for all the citizens. The novel then compares this world with the "savages world" (which is supposed to be today's world). The comparison and the bulk of the philosophical discussions take place when "John", a "savage person", is brought to live in the utopian world.
Both were made movies. It'll be nice to fetch them out. I know both Blockbuster and Netflix do not carry either of them. I guess they are too academic for their tastes.
It would be very nice to find an Arabic "dystopia" novel. I don't know of any.
Quickly, 1984 explores what would life be like if a totalitarian communist regime is able to take over the world in the 1950s. The novel follows Wilson as he lives in 1984, with the 'Big Brother' government taking care (and micro-control) the life of every citizen (party member) very closely (supposedly to prevent social injustice).
1984 has truly shocked me. Orwell is a master writer - he immerses the reader in the events and the thoughts of his characters to the deepest level. Every word, every move, every feeling, I was able to feel throughout. The novel is also very smart - it does not patronize the reader or insult the reader's intelligence.
This is usually a very good feature about a novel, except that, in the third part, Wilson is taken to the "Ministry of Love" (internal intelligence) for torture and interrogation. And in this third part, I was extremely exhausted and disturbed. The description of torture was not gory, but it got to you. The Big Brother's ministry of love did not want to just kill its enemies. It wanted to brainwash them into admitting they were wrong in the first place - not just say that, but truly mean it. Thus, most of the torture was extremely mental and ... oh, how disturbing.
The novel, just like Orwell's Animal Farm, is usually thought of as anti-communist/anti-socialist. But it's actually not. Orwell himself was a socialist. However, and as he said, the novel is against any tyrannical system of whatever ideology. In 1984, the 'Big Brother' is described to look a lot like Stalin.
However, some of what the Big Brother government said reminds one A LOT of what is happening today.
One sentence was "War is peace" - "we wage war to achieve peace"... hm..., where did I hear that before?
The second novel, Huxley's Brave New World, was OK. I think it is of much less quality than Orwell's. Huxley seems to have had few ideas, and then he created a novel around them. Orwell was closer to a philosopher. His characters were much deeper and much more believable. Huxley's novel seem patronizing at times by "pushing" the reader into hating or liking certain characters. One wouldn't love or hate them for their ideas, but rather, as done in hollywood, but other attributes like the way they talk or how nice they behave.
Brave New World is about a futuristic "utopian" world where the government also tries to make every person very happy all the time by "encouraging free sex, drugs, and conformist ideas" for all the citizens. The novel then compares this world with the "savages world" (which is supposed to be today's world). The comparison and the bulk of the philosophical discussions take place when "John", a "savage person", is brought to live in the utopian world.
Both were made movies. It'll be nice to fetch them out. I know both Blockbuster and Netflix do not carry either of them. I guess they are too academic for their tastes.
It would be very nice to find an Arabic "dystopia" novel. I don't know of any.
Apr 6, 2007
H1-B visas reach quota in 1 day!
By late Monday afternoon, USCIS had already been flooded with 150,000 H-1B petitions. It can only accept 65,000. Many of those workers will go to tech companies, such as Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp., and Intel Corp.
Those lucky enough to get in before the door closed will have to cross their fingers and hope that they survive the next round. To be fair, USCIS said it will randomly select the winners of H-1Bs from among the entire pool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)