To: Whoever Reads This

Hey(:

I realised that I haven't posted for a few days, partly because I ran out of books (wait.... that may be almost the whole reason), and partly because I've been really busy/pre-occupied studying (I almost wrote reading..... OTL)

Just to let you guys know, I'll be having mid-years next week, and from there, it's a rush to the end (IB EXAMS O.O), which means my blog posts will probably decrease in frequency. I won't lie and say it'll stop til Nov 18, because there will probably be times when I have a whole lot of books to read and really want to share. But, well, it won't be very frequent.

I've been thinking of making a few changes to this blog too, it's not definite though (and I'm not talking about structural changes - I tried changing the blog skin once, and I'm still trying to figure out why it didn't work), I mean content wise. Well, it occurred to me (sometime after I ran out of topics), that to limit reviews to books is a little, well, limiting. Plus, some of the books I read, I don't think a lot of people will want to hear about (like why Japan's economy was such a miracle than such a failure. heh.) So, if there is anything interesting in the newspaper/magazines, I might, just MIGHT talk about it. (Being decisive is not my strong point).

And because I've been rather annoyed with these two things, I shall start ranting here (I've been short-tempered lately, though I keep trying, pray for me):

1. I was looking through some amazon.com books (procrastinating is ... is... just is), and I saw some Pride and Prejudice Spin-offs/Sequels, where some people were slamming the book for changing the character. YET NO ONE TALKS ABOUT MURDER AT MANSFIELD THAT WAY. I think it's really indicative of the degeneration and state of society that people would praise characters that are clearly bad (though not to the extreme of evil). The humour arises from the fact that the author/reader (reader response theory?) has to adjust the character til they are conventionally good. Seems like the subconsciousness likes sin, but doesn't want to praise it in the open.

2. Tin Pei Ling made an intelligent comment on her facebook. About the DBSS houses (Design, Build, Sell Scheme if I remember correctly). Well, after that, I went to her facebook (I saw it on Yahoo! news) and well, it's not so bad. But there were a lot of annoyed/overly critical Singaporeans. I don't get it, it was a sensible comment and they're mad/annoyed with her?

And apparently, Nicole Seah broke the cooling-day rule too. I'm not sure about specifics but it seems that way. But it's weird. At first, Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah appeared to be on the same level, both of them immature. And I put Singaporean's slightly unthinking (I mean to say, it was instinctive) adoration of her hard to comprehend. I've said it before, she also cries and shouts, basically behaving like my 6yo brother. And I can't say I'm impressed with the NSP manifesto (WP is cool though).

But now, well, I'm not sure what to think. I'm politically apathetic, so I don't know if Nicole Seah did anything recently, but well, Tin Pei Ling did resign from her job, which is a step in the right direction (even though MPs are overpaid). But honestly, nothing I've seen in Nicole Seah inspires/elicits a sense of admiration. On the contrary, all the fawning by Singaporeans makes me very very suspicious. I have an almost anti-herd mentality. Sometimes (I did say I was indecisive).

As Phua Chu Kang would say "Wake up your idea". GE is over, it's time for cooler heads to prevail. And let's not have a militant netizen-population. I'm thankful our union(s) are not militant, let's not start on the net. And let's not be so 'anti-conventional' (which for some reason translates to anti-PAP) that we become 'conventional' by swinging all the way to the opposite end. It seems like being anti-PAP is the new convention.

That was cathartic.