still like haruki

South of the Border, West of the Sun is a typical Murakami, ambiguous as to whether there's anything supernatural there. From what I can tell, there are three forces at play (each symbolised by a woman): 1. enduring nostalgia for a first love, 2. guilt, 3. mid-life mediochrity.

So after telling the story of his childhood dear (1), his high-school sweetheart (2) and the nothingness inbetween before his current predicament (married with 2 girls), Hajime is fascinated to hear about Izumi (2) and that she has changed. Inside Hajime is the insatiable feeling that something is missing, which leads him back to these past loves.

It's quick, it's not the best Murakami, but overall I think the sentiment is about right and I enjoyed it.

Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes

This is essentially a history of mathematics, told with an emphasis on paradoxes and disputes that have happened over time in the mathematical world. At some times things are simplified so as to be accessible to the non-mathematical orientated reader, however there is some description that gets pretty full on - so I wonder how successful this book was in that regard.

It turns out, in my opinion, that some paradoxes and fallacies are more fun than others. My favourite from this book probably being

A civil-defence exercise will be held this week. In order to make sure that the civil-defence units are properly prepared, no one will know in advance on what day this exercise will take place.

which has it's counterpart in a man rings his wife and says she will receive an unexpected gift, a gold watch. She knows it will be unexpected, but now she expects a watch, so it can't be a watch... then it is.

these are more logical than mathematical - perhaps a more appropriate one is to define a number as "the lowest number that cannot be defined in less than 19 syllables", however this sentence (which can also define the number) has less than 19 syllables, so it can't be that number! awesome.

DFW

I won't go into great detail here as I think I read brief interviews with hideous men, searching for the wrong thing. David Foster Wallace is widely hailed as a genius, or at least very intelligent, and he certainly comes across as such, however I wonder whether much of the time he is more focused on the perturbation of form as an end rather than a means to convey a message, feeling, emotion. I'm not saying that all stories should have a moral, but I like to be moved by a story, even if it is uncertainly or profoundly but in an uncertain direction.

I don't mind a story to leave you wondering whether the character should be sympathised with, but I'm not drawn into a story where a character is created, endowed with what purport to be the secret, unconscious or "real" ambitions of people. And then the question is, am I getting it wrong? If I am, is that my fault as a reader or DFW as an author?

Anyway, definitely worth reading, and I guess when a book makes me really think long and hard about what I think of it and why I think this way, it's proabably a good thing.

Magneto, Prof X read The Once and Future King

Magneto sits in a plastic prison, reads The Once and Future King, is beaten and has mind-control fluid dripped into his neck... then later, Professor X is teaching T.H. White to a class of young mutants.

So, X-men 2 and the fact my brother read it is the reason why I eventually came around to reading TH White's The Once and Future King. It is written in a similar style to C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, which is mainly to say that children have a bit of the toff about them, "oh by drats, if he weren't so beastly!" There's also a fair lack of description in this type of writing - I guess to read more like folklore than anything else... this book assumes you know the general story of King Arthur already, and mainly works to add a few stories in, fill out a few details, and give colour to Lady Guenevere who is mainly portrayed as a pouty lump of contradictions (female). So, yes, it took me a long time to read (small words, long pages, sleep) and for the most part was annoying although a few bits are powerful and rewarding enough.

Another problem I have is that the definitive story of King Arthur, to me, is courtesy of a tape I had as a kid, which included many wonderful stories, including the lady in the lake (where is she TH?), the bit where he fights the giant, ends up being tricked into fighting and almost killing his friend, has his magic scabbard stolen and then is stabbed by Mildred, son of Morgan le Faye, then finally has to make a young man throw excalibur back to the lady in the lake (mind you, i don't think i heard much of lancelot at this time). But anyway, that story was ace.

I guess the emphasis of Once and Future King (and the reason it is being read in X-Men) is the realisation of Arthur that he has attempted to build a culture of Right over Might upon the foundations of Might is Right. This is the focus, at least of the first story, and of the last when Camelot's light is waning. The majority of the rest of the book focuses on the love affair between Lancelot and Guenevere - once again, it's reasonably unimpressive when so much attention is given to two people, both of whom come across as idiots. Maybe I just don't like dull people who attempt to overemphasize their discretions... Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, Les Mis (although this wasn't adultery, just two very boring people in love).

At any rate, it is read, which is good.