Many people, my own father included, have expressed a great deal of distress at the constant demise of Game of Thrones' main characters. This show has gained a great deal of fame, some would say notoriety, for being ruthless to its main characters. However if we really examine the record closely, is it that much more bloodthirsty than other literary works?
WARNING SPOILERS BELOW
Let's compare it to other popular TV shows:
1. Breaking Bad - main character dies, brother-in-law of main character, who is a major antagonist, dies, quite a few other people die, all in all not a happy ending.
2. Downton Abbey - Sort of main character for first 3-4 season dies, someone gets raped, another beloved character dies.
3 How I met your mother - title character is revealed to be dead.
4. Friends - er ok here we get a happy one...
If we compare it to other classical works, I think Game of Thrones comes off even better:
1. Julius Ceasar - title character dies
2. Anna Karenina - title character dies
3. Romeo and Juliet - both titled characters die
4. Hamlet - title character dies, his mother dies, his uncle dies, his fiancée dies, you get the picture.
Therefore I think it is rather unfair to single out Game of Thrones as being particularly guilty of killing beloved characters. It is only vicious in this respect if we compare it with other fantasy shows where the protagonist always triumphs and good reigns supreme - even then, let's not forget that Harry Potter lost his father, mother and godfather before managing to knock off Voldemort.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Racism
Disclaimer: I personally try my very best to harbor no racist attitude.
Despite our efforts to combat it over the last hundred years or so, racism is still present in a great many places, some more obvious than others. Although we have made tremendous progress in reducing its effect, somehow I doubt that it will be possible to ever completely wipe it out.
Consider that people do have a tendency to regard certain groups of people as closer than others. When the closer group of people is citizens of the same nation, that is called patriotism and is widely considered a noble emotion. When the closer group of people is one's family, it is called family love and is generally considered to be a intrinsic component of human nature. However when the closer group of people is those who share the same skin color, then it is called racism and is widely condemned.
There seems to be a bit of dissonance here.
So I think that there are only two ways to make race unimportant - the first is to achieve a utopia where every one of us regard every human being as equally deserving of our love and help regardless of whether they are our brother or a stranger from a distant land. This is rather unlikely.
The second is to make race a non-factor in our emotions. One difficulty in doing this is that a person's race is often tied to his or her culture, which in turn ties to things such as religion and language which tend to have strong emotional ties. Unless these differences can be weakened as well, a tendency to prefer one's own race would be difficult to wipe out.
Despite our efforts to combat it over the last hundred years or so, racism is still present in a great many places, some more obvious than others. Although we have made tremendous progress in reducing its effect, somehow I doubt that it will be possible to ever completely wipe it out.
Consider that people do have a tendency to regard certain groups of people as closer than others. When the closer group of people is citizens of the same nation, that is called patriotism and is widely considered a noble emotion. When the closer group of people is one's family, it is called family love and is generally considered to be a intrinsic component of human nature. However when the closer group of people is those who share the same skin color, then it is called racism and is widely condemned.
There seems to be a bit of dissonance here.
So I think that there are only two ways to make race unimportant - the first is to achieve a utopia where every one of us regard every human being as equally deserving of our love and help regardless of whether they are our brother or a stranger from a distant land. This is rather unlikely.
The second is to make race a non-factor in our emotions. One difficulty in doing this is that a person's race is often tied to his or her culture, which in turn ties to things such as religion and language which tend to have strong emotional ties. Unless these differences can be weakened as well, a tendency to prefer one's own race would be difficult to wipe out.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Exams and the purpose of education
It is well known that in East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea, the pressure to succeed in exams is very heavy. Many students commit suicide after receiving unimpressive results in these exams. Therefore, there has been much talk of reforming the system to place less emphasis on exams, which would be more akin to nations like Finland or Sweden, which emphasize holistic learning, and letting each student learn at his or her own pace.
But can this actually be done just by reforming the educational system? I have my doubts.
Although it is true that the general culture in Asia does push students towards striving for high results in examinations, there is an underlying reason for this, which is that attaining high results do make a large difference to a student's financial future. Take Korea for an example; it is not easy to start one's own business, and manual labor is not paid that well, so the prevailing path to success is to do well in the high school graduation exam to get into a good university, from which one can enter a renowned company e.g. Samsung and climb the corporate ladder.
In fact, the Eastern culture of focusing on examination results probably stems from the government exams in old China, getting a passing grade in them was a necessity to starting a career in the bureaucracy, which was the primary path to wealth and respect, especially for many poor families. In those days, students who passed would even get a flag erected in their village to commemorate their achievement. With the huge material returns promised upon passing exams, it's really not surprising that its importance was very high.
Coming back to the northern European countries, why is it that they take exam results relatively lightly? I think one key reason is that their societies are much more egalitarian than Asian ones, so even a high school dropout can enjoy a decent living working at manual labor or a service job, since their minimum wage is very high. According to what a friend from that area told me, an engineer there would earn less than twice as much as a waiter, so the returns on academic excellence are, comparatively speaking, much less over there. Since that is the case, students there can focus on following their interest, rather than their economic interest.
Put simply, schooling really serves two aims: one is to educate the populace and the second is to differentiate the academically outstanding from the less outstanding. A strong focus on exams serves the second aim more. In order to reduce society's focus on exams, it is not enough to reform the educational system itself. The economic advantage of being academically outstanding must be reduced, which would entail a higher minimum wage and a stronger social welfare net. Focusing only on "exam culture" is treating symptoms without looking at the cause.
But can this actually be done just by reforming the educational system? I have my doubts.
Although it is true that the general culture in Asia does push students towards striving for high results in examinations, there is an underlying reason for this, which is that attaining high results do make a large difference to a student's financial future. Take Korea for an example; it is not easy to start one's own business, and manual labor is not paid that well, so the prevailing path to success is to do well in the high school graduation exam to get into a good university, from which one can enter a renowned company e.g. Samsung and climb the corporate ladder.
In fact, the Eastern culture of focusing on examination results probably stems from the government exams in old China, getting a passing grade in them was a necessity to starting a career in the bureaucracy, which was the primary path to wealth and respect, especially for many poor families. In those days, students who passed would even get a flag erected in their village to commemorate their achievement. With the huge material returns promised upon passing exams, it's really not surprising that its importance was very high.
Coming back to the northern European countries, why is it that they take exam results relatively lightly? I think one key reason is that their societies are much more egalitarian than Asian ones, so even a high school dropout can enjoy a decent living working at manual labor or a service job, since their minimum wage is very high. According to what a friend from that area told me, an engineer there would earn less than twice as much as a waiter, so the returns on academic excellence are, comparatively speaking, much less over there. Since that is the case, students there can focus on following their interest, rather than their economic interest.
Put simply, schooling really serves two aims: one is to educate the populace and the second is to differentiate the academically outstanding from the less outstanding. A strong focus on exams serves the second aim more. In order to reduce society's focus on exams, it is not enough to reform the educational system itself. The economic advantage of being academically outstanding must be reduced, which would entail a higher minimum wage and a stronger social welfare net. Focusing only on "exam culture" is treating symptoms without looking at the cause.
A common misconception about Christianity and the Catholic church
A common misconception that I think many of us here in Asia hold is that Christianity and Catholicism are two separate religions. This is really a bit similar to saying that birds and chickens are two separate things.
In truth, Christianity covers all religious sects which believe in Jesus Christ, of which the two most major are Catholicism and Protestantism. What many of us think of as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. The blame may partially lie with the prevailing Chinese translation of the two, rendering Catholicism into 天主教: "The religion of the Lord of Heaven" and Protestantism into 基督教: "The religion of Christ". Viewed in this light, the misunderstanding is quite understandable.
Originally, the Catholic Church was the only major stream of Christianity. About 500 years ago, a fellow named Martin Luther raised some complaints about how the Church was handling things, as it had some corrupt elements. This led to some areas of Europe breaking away from the mainstream Church and forming their own churches, due to this movement starting with Martin Luther's protest it was called Protestantism. This has led to a lot of killing back and forth between the two divisions, but now everything is largely okay, so you can go to your friend's Catholic church without worrying about anything other than having to wake up extremely extremely early.
Most of the non-Catholic churches we are familiar with today reside under this banner. There are also branches which broke off for other reasons, the Eastern Orthodox church broke away after some sort of argument which I am unfamiliar with and too lazy to look up, so we will discuss that another day. The Anglican Church of England broke away because the then king of England could not get permission from the Pope to divorce his wife so he started his own church which would of course permit him to do so. Then we have some interesting groups like the Mormons and the Moonies, which would require their own article to do them justice.
Anyway that is the gist of it; if you wish to learn more about either religion please consult your friendly neighborhood pastor or priest. I myself don't go to church very often so sorry can't help there...
In truth, Christianity covers all religious sects which believe in Jesus Christ, of which the two most major are Catholicism and Protestantism. What many of us think of as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. The blame may partially lie with the prevailing Chinese translation of the two, rendering Catholicism into 天主教: "The religion of the Lord of Heaven" and Protestantism into 基督教: "The religion of Christ". Viewed in this light, the misunderstanding is quite understandable.
Originally, the Catholic Church was the only major stream of Christianity. About 500 years ago, a fellow named Martin Luther raised some complaints about how the Church was handling things, as it had some corrupt elements. This led to some areas of Europe breaking away from the mainstream Church and forming their own churches, due to this movement starting with Martin Luther's protest it was called Protestantism. This has led to a lot of killing back and forth between the two divisions, but now everything is largely okay, so you can go to your friend's Catholic church without worrying about anything other than having to wake up extremely extremely early.
Most of the non-Catholic churches we are familiar with today reside under this banner. There are also branches which broke off for other reasons, the Eastern Orthodox church broke away after some sort of argument which I am unfamiliar with and too lazy to look up, so we will discuss that another day. The Anglican Church of England broke away because the then king of England could not get permission from the Pope to divorce his wife so he started his own church which would of course permit him to do so. Then we have some interesting groups like the Mormons and the Moonies, which would require their own article to do them justice.
Anyway that is the gist of it; if you wish to learn more about either religion please consult your friendly neighborhood pastor or priest. I myself don't go to church very often so sorry can't help there...
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Bad Hotels
I know as well as anyone else the adage "you get what you pay for", so I really don't expect chocolate on my pillow when I stay in a budget hotel, unlike that time when I was in Nikko Saigon when I strolled into my palatial room to discover a delicious piece of white chocolate nested comfortably on each pillow of the two beds in my room... but here I digress. Anyway so yes, we pay for what we get.
Recently I have been assigned to some dreadful place distant from civilization; a small town near Melaka, so this gave me vast firsthand experience with second and third rate hotels. Yet about these hotels there is one aspect that irks me like no other - NO WIFI.
When I was traveling in the United States, even the crummiest motel had wifi in their rooms, and it was pretty fast too - fast enough for me to stream Youtube. Even some not too high grade hotels in Melaka had it too in the rooms, which really makes my stay much more comfortable, as I can then clear some emails and surf the net a bit after my dinner and bath, then go to sleep in the secure knowledge that my night was both somewhat productive and not too boring.
But currently I am in the reasonably renowned A Famosa resort and there is just no wifi in the rooms, only in the lobby. What makes things worse is that there is no table of a suitable height with a plug nearby except for an unused reception table facing the entrance, which I am now sitting at. Although this is tolerable in terms of comfort, it is really lacking in terms of dignity. What if other guests were to think I was some sort of poorly dressed receptionist?
Even worse, the net has now conked out. So I had lugged my laptop and cable out in vain. Now I am typing this using my phone hotspot with great disdain for this travesty of a hotel, and feeling a great deal of nostalgia for Hilton Tokyo.
Recently I have been assigned to some dreadful place distant from civilization; a small town near Melaka, so this gave me vast firsthand experience with second and third rate hotels. Yet about these hotels there is one aspect that irks me like no other - NO WIFI.
When I was traveling in the United States, even the crummiest motel had wifi in their rooms, and it was pretty fast too - fast enough for me to stream Youtube. Even some not too high grade hotels in Melaka had it too in the rooms, which really makes my stay much more comfortable, as I can then clear some emails and surf the net a bit after my dinner and bath, then go to sleep in the secure knowledge that my night was both somewhat productive and not too boring.
But currently I am in the reasonably renowned A Famosa resort and there is just no wifi in the rooms, only in the lobby. What makes things worse is that there is no table of a suitable height with a plug nearby except for an unused reception table facing the entrance, which I am now sitting at. Although this is tolerable in terms of comfort, it is really lacking in terms of dignity. What if other guests were to think I was some sort of poorly dressed receptionist?
Even worse, the net has now conked out. So I had lugged my laptop and cable out in vain. Now I am typing this using my phone hotspot with great disdain for this travesty of a hotel, and feeling a great deal of nostalgia for Hilton Tokyo.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Sympathy
Planes are falling like flies lately. MH370 was lost to the watery deep, MH17 met a fiery end and today another Taiwanese plane was crushed by stormy weather. The whole world is a bit more sullen today.
The question is, why do we feel such sympathy when planes go down? After all tens of thousands of people die every day in the poor countries, from starvation and disease and war. These corpses dwarf those that perish in the skies by far.
I suppose the reason is that we simply cannot identify with them - these people are just fundamentally different from our middle-class existence, unlike air travelers who could be you or me or a family member. The more someone is like us, the more we sympathize with them. That is why terrorist attacks shock us so much, as people who were a moment ago enjoying their comfortable urban existence are suddenly injured or dead, to their great surprise. People who die in war zones, well it is a tragedy, but that is somehow only to be expected, right?
A ton of people doing research on AIDS died on MH17. I could not help but think that if someone who suffered from AIDS was on board too, many would feel far more sympathy for his death than if it had been from the disease, because "AIDS wouldn't happen to me, only to druggies/gays". That's just human nature.
The question is, why do we feel such sympathy when planes go down? After all tens of thousands of people die every day in the poor countries, from starvation and disease and war. These corpses dwarf those that perish in the skies by far.
I suppose the reason is that we simply cannot identify with them - these people are just fundamentally different from our middle-class existence, unlike air travelers who could be you or me or a family member. The more someone is like us, the more we sympathize with them. That is why terrorist attacks shock us so much, as people who were a moment ago enjoying their comfortable urban existence are suddenly injured or dead, to their great surprise. People who die in war zones, well it is a tragedy, but that is somehow only to be expected, right?
A ton of people doing research on AIDS died on MH17. I could not help but think that if someone who suffered from AIDS was on board too, many would feel far more sympathy for his death than if it had been from the disease, because "AIDS wouldn't happen to me, only to druggies/gays". That's just human nature.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
The next stage in the evolution of handphones
The interesting thing about the progress of handphones is the growth curve in size. A long long time back the standard handphone was this rather enormous thing, rectangular and thick, made of solid black plastic with huge buttons and a prominent antenna on the top. This slowly shrank down to the still solid but smaller Nokia 3310, the venerable dreadnought of the phone world, with toughness comparable to Wolverine's claws. It then got even smaller, before swinging up the opposite way and becoming rather large - if you've seen one of those Samsung Galaxy whatevers you will know they can really double as a table tennis racket. So what is the next stage in handphone evolution?
Some have bet that it will trend back down in size, giving us the Samsung Gear, a wearable smartwatch. Others have chosen to continue increasing it in size, as we can see from the inexorable growing iPhones. I, on the other hand, believe that the next paradigm leap in phones should be the ability to impose its power on the surroundings. Imagine a phone capable of projection:
You could use it to watch Godzilla, unhampered by the size of the screen. Another use for it would be to send a signal to the skies in a crowded area to summon your friends to gather:
I firmly believe that this would add vastly to user experience, thus cementing the next step of progress for humanity's usage of small electronic devices.
Some have bet that it will trend back down in size, giving us the Samsung Gear, a wearable smartwatch. Others have chosen to continue increasing it in size, as we can see from the inexorable growing iPhones. I, on the other hand, believe that the next paradigm leap in phones should be the ability to impose its power on the surroundings. Imagine a phone capable of projection:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)