Some Mock Awards for Lit Parody

I took very long to get this up, for either or both of 2 possibilities. One being that I still have yet to recover from the head trauma following a most delibitating blow from a certain someone; the other being that my mental jury was out for the last few weeks.

Loki Scylla - Mod, September - October 2007

Anyway, the judges have decided, and...

....

Drumroll, please.

(BRRRDRDRDRDRDR-CHANG!)

Thank you very much.

Now, since the jury has LEE-turned, let us begin with the first prize

MOST CONTROVERSIAL PLAY: Goes to "King Lee" Lit(RA), for its reference-rich text and colloquial humor, unflinching barbs at society, as well as its high risk of being sued for sedition should the intel go outside, and being sued for use of intellectual property by organizations such as TalkingCock.com or Uncyclopedia.

And next up, we have (points mike at audience)

(no response)

Well, never mind that.

MOST CONSUMMATE MAIN LEAD: Goes to "Deader than Fiction" Lit(RA), for its representation of the most honorable Mr. Seacrest, in the medium of the most theatrical Mr. Thia. Flashy, Stylish, and always willing to get lines from other people. Why, he's the former's mirror image.

Ahsnd nexsht hwhee hahvsh the nesxht awahrd.

MOST VARIATION IN CHARACTERS: Goes to "King Lear" for having 2 Lears, 2 Gloucesters, and a really spastic, but really God-like Edgar.

And that's that. With neck-breaking speed now, let us proceed to...(snap)

MOST NUMBER OF CHARACTERS INJURED IN PROCESS OF PLAY: Goes to "The Gods Must Be Really Crazy" For having injured more than half of its cast (in differing degrees) during rehearsal and having dealt a real knockout punch to its Tybalt cast member.

And now, um, we...well, should like, well, go on to the...yeah, the next award.

MOST MENTALLY CHALLENGING PLAY: Goes to the play with the most number of transvestite characters, for its perplexing vernacular, sinuous action, flummoxing twists, and deviant, subversive plot.

AND NOWWWWWW....



(scroll down)



THE END!!!!!!....

well, not really.

MOST DRAMATIC REVERSAL SCENE: Goes to the high-gravel-blind Juliet, following the "tragic" reversal, complete with a line well taken from the original, coupled with the love of bread and jam.

And that's all folks.

Next year, we shall have smarter humor, fine colloquialisms, and hopefully, more understandable languages and wiser Literature students.

For next year, we shall have Comedy, and no less.

In Retrospect II – Go East, Young Man?

A QUICK DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE BEGIN:

The author, Xenahort Charybdis, is awaiting professional editing upon this article, and thus its neutrality, at least for now, may be in question. However, it may be subject to change when said professional reads and edits it. But in order to comply with his tasks deadlines, this article by Xena has to be posted. So it is purely out of unfortunate necessity. Apologies to all who have been caused inconvenience by the author.

New Mod, Loki Scylla

(and now on to the main essay)

Article Taken From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/06/12/do1203.xml

I am somewhat impressed, while a little disturbed by this author’s viewpoints. Impressed by the fact that he was willing to break the mold when the global pendulum swung eastward, and Mao’s famous statement “The Chinese people have arisen” seemed to look fulfilled, albeit half a century late, but disturbed by the fact that he put it in such a critical fashion.

Although, I perceive, that is what editorials and columns are made of in places where the media isn’t censored.

In light of what the article has stated, I am somewhat reminded of 2 rather interesting issues concerning said country.

Given the recent events of product faults in China-made products, it would appear that either the government, for all its ostensible strictness and “conservativism”, has limited power over these events, or worse.

These same conservative policies have also led to high censorship of blogs, when interestingly enough, there is a serious lack of censorship of pornography, which is not only morally damaging, but reflects just as badly on society as blogs do. Recently, though, for better or worse, the Chinese government has just decided to attempt to stamp porn too, in addition to blogs. I surmise we will have to sit on the sidelines and watch this round.

Also, I have noted with some degree of concern that China’s great amount of growth, does not, in general, affect the vast majority of people in China. Instead, what we have resembles a centralized city system, expanded to fit a country with, just nicely, 1 billion odd people.

Maybe that’s why the thrice-renowned Manchu emperor Kangxi was said to have made incognito travels: because proliferators of such stories recognized that when one ask for reports, you hear “the good stuff”. Well, to be more understanding, in their position, I’d rather show them my Big Apple, rather than show off my Calcutta.

Yet, the trouble remains, and it is the prevailing mentality of powerful oriental landlords of dynasties past: if it’s nice, show it, if it’s bad, hide it; if it supports you, laud it; if it opposes you, silence it.

Yes, it’s damaging to one’s image, yes, it’s bad in UN meetings when it gets brought up. Yes, it’s bad that morals go down and yes, we all know that it’s not very nice to have people speaking up too much in their blogs or other media. No one likes that.

But the new age’s the age of ideas. Have them, or bust.

The new age’s the age of consumerism. “They want it all, they want it now”, and now they want it good, a la post-Sol Badguy age.

Morals can’t be tackled in a legalistic fashion. The less it’s had, the more it’s wanted. If one begs to differ, look at religion’s history in the former Soviet HQ.

Mindsets must change for progress to take place. If one thinks one can raise a revolution without changing mindsets, just stare the French Revolution down the face, and try saying that again.

500 words

In Retrospect – Voices of the Gulf (TERM 3 BLOG 1)

FOREWORD:

Sorry, Ms. Chew that I keep on getting stuck on this, just presenting a new perspective…some Pakistan dude wrote this BEFORE the war started so I find it rather…interesting. But I promise the next one will be different... (And now to the show)

In Retrospect – Voices of the Gulf

It is actually a joke, if one considers how simple it would have been for people to see why it would be stupid to get into a place like the Middle East and get oneself put up against the deeply entrenched fanaticism that results inside.

Even if overthrowing Saddam was the goal, it should have been considered that the insurgency that would follow the invasion was the real threat, and not the paper-thin army that Saddam possessed. That was over in 2 weeks. The insurgency took 4 years, and still it is not over.

The Americans already have had countless examples of insurgency in cases ideological or religious fanaticism. One would have thought that after having seen Vietnam, Afghanistan, and seen Israel’s decades-long enmity with its neighbors, notably Palestine, they would have paused to think about the consequences first before going anywhere.

So, what’s the difference between the US policy makers, who couldn’t have, from an outsider’s vantage point, gotten it more wrong, and this particular editor, who couldn’t have gotten it more right?

It is a matter of perspective.

Having an outsider’s vantage point involves standing back and looking objectively at the evidence and likelihoods. It allows one to analyze situations and predict results accurately, and there is no shortage of logical, informed politicians who would know such things. But throw in a political agenda and it all changes. Political agendas can cloud this analysis with the shroud of “policy” and the “greater good”, and in a world of politics, the more powerful political standpoint will always win out, so long as it has enough clout to overrule the opposition.

So, what is the solution to this problem of perspective in policy making and the making of major decisions in the world arena? Get comprehensive insider information, because then we will have a well informed decision. Get us an outsider’s outlook, so we will have an impartial decision. Lastly, in light of the evidence and analysis gathered from the other two, kick as many political agenda as need be out as ends. With all this done, then we can finally make a right decision.

Well, if only it was that easy. Interestingly enough, this prediction coming from an Israeli, an ally of America, Yossi Alpher, holds very true.

“…a wave of anti-American radicalism and terrorism sweeping the Middle East, Iraq engulfed in ethnic unrest, and millions of refugees destabilizing neighboring countries…”

Given the situation, they can’t really back out now. There’s a limit to a nation’s political clout, no matter what the nation, or at least, it seems so for the time being. They, too, have a lot to answer for, and that, too, is not in doubt.

And you know what? We can’t really do anything, save for two things.

One, always listen to the insider. The insider view, unless with intention to deceive, or being deceived in itself, oft proves right.

And second, let’s all have some silence for Iraq, now shall we?

496 words.

EL Blog Post 2

Source Text: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Post 2: The Mess is on.

One must actually wonder why the statistics look so unfavorable right now. 6 years on from the events of 9/11/01, which began the entire Middle Eastern Saga, here is the scoreboard. No WMDs found, Osama not yet caught, Saddam executed, unstable situation in the Middle East, 3,400 American lives lost, many more Arab lives lost, no sustainable resolution in sight, and a approximate cost of $300 billion, no small sum for any country.

A fiasco, if one might be cynical about it.

Clearly, the Bush administration's rather gung-ho US "preemptive strike" policy seems to be costing them quite dearly, what with walking into the Middle East and overturning 2 whole governments, and never really finding what you were looking for, such as a man named Osama and the WMDs he and Saddam supposedly has on hand. It seems to be lowering many people's views of the Bush administration, so much so that even Americans themselves have lost faith, allowing the Congress to be taken over by the mainly anti-war Democrats.

This had led to much conflict between the presidential agenda and congressional agenda, which has, in its own time, led to the events that is the focus of this newspaper report. Once again, Congress has to decide on whether it should withhold funds from the troops in the Middle East or not, and this time it won't be so easy for them to decide. After all, the majority of the Democrats are not highly enamoured of Bush's plans, and that is plain.

However, it is of interest to note that it is also in their interest to support the funding of the troops, as it will make it seem as though they are in support of the troops, but just not in support of Bush's plan to resolve the war, as some of them may feel, or espouse.

Personally, I feel that this war, while originally justifiable in its nature (against terrorist aggression), has become something a lot less honorable in its latter years, and made to seem more like an attempt to find things that they have no evidence for (WMDs), and close up some loose ends (Saddam was formerly an ALLY of the US against the Soviets).

I also feel that the situation in the Middle East is not so easy to fix, as what they are up against is terrorism plus a religious philosophy which has been deeply ingrained in the psyche of those they are up against, so that they would actually be willing to die for what has been in their heads for so long, without questioning the worthwhileness of their deaths - if they die for their religion, then that alone makes them honorable.

Terrorists are like a pack of wolves, and that does not change. Just driving in with a big lumbering army is really not the smart way of doing things, it just leaves one open to the minor, but chaos-causing, slashing attacks that weaken armies, and then packs of wolves just love using. They should have never walked in like that in the first place. If they had proof, then they could walk in, without fear of such setbacks, because they would be vindicated by the proof.

But they didn't, and still don't have any, so too bad, seriously.

EL Blog Post 1

Source Text: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/11/15/singapore.sex.reut/index.html

Singapore's Sex Life: Now and for the Future.

It has been 4 years since this article was written. Since then, Singapore has been hit by the winds of change, and whether these winds are merely breezes that will whistle past the ears of Singaporeans, or gale-force hurricanes that will sweep the establishment off its feet, still remains to be seen.

Under this backdrop of developments, many major, if rather archaic Singapore laws on sex are also experiencing the tides of change.

Latest in these developments is the revision of the Penal Code of Singapore, which repeals Section 377 (on penetrative , non-reproductive sexual acts), and also the discussion over the feasibility of repealing its companion Section, 377A (the same, save for it affecting homosexuals instead), which remained untouched in the earlier revision.

It appears to be that the main issue is that it appears discriminatory to allow the same act for one group of people, but disallow it in another. Also, given Singapore's long running image of being conservative, and a semi-autocratic government, this discrimination does not particularly reflect well in our current society, as it makes Singapore, even to its own people (among the liberals at least), an archaic society.

But, to look deeper behind this supposed step towards a freer society, we must ask ourselves: even if we did become more liberal in our laws and regulations, would it be a good thing? Is this progress, or simply some form of regress under a thin, positive veneer of what we label "progress"?

Once we have some freedom, we will want more, and that is the painful, but inevitable truth. The government has effectively been withdrawn from the heterosexual bedroom, and now they wish to withdraw it from the homosexual bedroom.

While this can still be justified by raising the concept of "discrimination", I believe that if we keep on taking on this route, we will soon reach a point when there is no behavior, now regarded as vile and impermissible, that we cannot eventually find some concept, or some group of law practitioners, or some rights group to explain away or lobby for.

Granted, the homosexual minority in Singapore actually does have a lot of valid reasons to complain that they are being discriminated against, and if I wanted to be sympathetic, I would even say that it is somewhat justified for them to desire their own rights. The laws were, and some still are, against them, so it is natural for them to have ants in their pants over it.

However, the danger of losing our old moral standards, and the possibility of losing sight of the idea that "something is surely a wrong thing, no matter how good it may look" is still very real.

So, I shall refrain from joining the ranks of those who would celebrate and embrace this concept of freedom, and instead warn that we are facing a serious problem. Even if we could now claim that “there are some things we will never accept”, it’s really not a big deal, or even in the slightest a guarantee that there are some moral barriers we will not cross. Words about these were cheap 100 years ago, and words like these are still cheap now.

But, actions are not cheap, they have consequences. Instead of being besotted with what we think is a “beneficial revising of the law”, we should sit down and think about what these things could do to us, or the generations to come.

5 Quick Tips before an Argument

1. Please make sure you don't end up proving what you meant to disprove.
2. Please make sure you know whether 2 things are mutually exclusive, or not.
3. Please make sure you have enough background knowledge about a topic before you talk.
4. Please make sure you never, EVER back yourself into a corner
5. Please make sure you think before talking, or if not, convince people that you did.

And by the way, there is something wrong with what I wrote up there. If you know what is wrong, Cbox me.

Random Comparisons - Orwell and Huxley

Now, who was right? Aldous or George? 1984 or Brave new World?
In my opinion, Huxley has been easily proven right.

Orwell envisioned a world where we were suppressed,
Huxley envisioned one where we had no real restrictions.

Orwell envisioned a world where we didn't know enough,
Huxley envisioned one where we would be too distracted to do anything.

Orwell envisioned a totalitarian government of rules,
Huxley envisioned a totalitarian government of distractions

Orwell envisioned a world where what we feared would rule us,
Huxley envisioned one where what we loved would rule us.

Orwell's fear was the iron fist of communism and the threat of pain,
Huxley's fear was the phallus of hedonism and the threat of pleasure.


Now which one does it look like today? I shan't insult your intelligence by telling you.

Well, all their smartness and foresight aside...Neither of them really did anything to fix it, or their own lives for that matter. Huxley was an unabashed hedonist himself, and Orwell was a hardcore socialist. Ah well, too bad. At least they gave me something to dilate about.

The Strange Book I: Contradictions and Discrepancies

There is a certain book, with a rather peculiar history.

It has been around for quite a while, long enough for many people to take spikes at it once in a while. But like any good piece of literature, it rose to outlive generations of men, pallbearers, critics and expositors all alike.

But like many books of literature, its alleged "weaknesses" have appeared in criticisms again and again and again, one of which is the idea that it may contain a good many contradictions woven into its plot.

This, however, is a rather strange idea, because through my studies of it, I found none.

Now, a certain event in this book had 2 men recording it. In one man's account, a man named J spoke to 2 men about something while walking down a road, but the other account has no record of this. And for another event, one account had this same J spoke to 2 men about something, but in the second account, it was recorded that one man was spoken to.

People pounce on this and say, "AHA!" Very enlightening, but I think not so. Why? I would say that this is because there is a difference between "Contradiction" and "Discrepancy".

A contradiction would be that "J said this to A and B" and in the other account "J spoke to only A". This could be considered a contradiction, because the two accounts are in direct conflict. However, this might be attributed to mistaken information in one of the men, or something of the order. (And if you know the context of the book this is a very minor event, and does not really affect the credibility of the book)

A discrepancy on the other hand is that "J said to A and B" and in the other account "J said to A". The difference is that while no mention was made of B, the second account did not assert that B was not spoken to, while the contradiction did. B could have been spoken to in the same words, but on a separate occasion, or some other possibility.

Unfortunately, what was detailed in the book was definitely a case of the latter.



(Omission and Denial are not the same thing. If any would-be critic already guessed the book, I invite him/her to have a little chat with me on the comments page.)