Mistborn Trilogy

Stuck in this series now by Brandon Sanderson, but I only read it around certain times of the day. If I can be an Allomancer (or Mistborn), I'd burn pewter all day. According to Sanderson, pewter burners get enhanced strength/energy when they burn, but when used excessively they have what is termed 'pewter drag' (some energy knockout afterwards). Pewter burners heal quicker too, and suffer less pain and injury in battles. That's why they are called Thugs.

I always think Thugs are the most primitive Allomancers, primarily because only brute force is enhanced; but I now feel that it's could be useful for busy days. Since I'm not an Allomancer, and pewter would probably cause me severe digestion problems if ingested - I rely on coffee as an alternative instead. And it causes 'coffee drags' too.

I like Sanderson's writings - the Mistborn Trilogy is as exciting (if not more so), and almost as gripping as the Hunger Games Trilogy. There are two points in his work that I prefer over Hunger Games though: Firstly the element of mystery which I really appreciate in long novels, and secondly, he does not kill so brutally (at least not in the graphic sense), and he does not kill so many characters dear to your heart. Sadly I have a very large philosophical conflict with one of my favorite characters, Sazed. He seems to think that all religions matter because they represent hope. I think he downsized religion to a peanut. I believe in Christianity not merely because I need something to hope for. I believe because it is love, it is truth, it is hope, and it is power. It is a way of life. It is life.

And lately I feel so insecure with people. Not just lately, it's been for months now. I want to be that NUS freshie I was four years ago, or even the intern I was last year. One that was genuinely looking out to meet new people, to learn more about them and to share my life with them. I guess my zest for meeting new people have died out early, and every time I am with people that I'm not very close too, I close up like a clam-shell. I just feel that I'm not interesting enough, not friendly enough, and not loving enough. I'm not myself - there are so many layers of me I've yet to show.

Where's that part of me that enjoys building friendship? Was she shut out long ago by many other friendships that she didn't manage to sustain? Or am I just a loner pretending not to be one all the while?

Multi-tasking

I used to think I was good at multi-tasking. Doing a different number of things at the same time. Like talking on the phone and typing, managing a few computer windows concurrently, thinking about what to write in my FYP report when playing Tumblebugs, talking to Dawn while playing the piano, and watching TV while eating and reading a book (yes this is what I can do very well indeed).

But oh! Doing things in the lab just made me realize that I'm actually Level Noob in multi-tasking. A very humbling experience, and a good one too, as all humbling experiences are to me.

Today I was just asked to manage only two things concurrently, and I messed up a step in one of them. Although it was not something un-redeemable, and was easily rectified, it was a process that I've already run many times. And this was just with two (familiar) jobs on hand, and me still feeling in control, meaning I wasn't panicking or rushing or compelled with any emotions that leave my mind blank. Sadly whenever I'm pressured for time, and a number of things descend on me on the spot, my mind just blacks out and reels and doesn't now what to do next.

Well, today I made a mistake without being in that state of mind. Wonder what'd happen if it was something more important and I am on the verge of blacking out. (According to yesterday's training, this is called 'cognitive loading', and I suppose my load threshold is pretty small.) And initially I thought I could even take on one additional task on top of whatever I already had in hand.

Four months in this job has revealed to me the limitations of my multi-tasking abilities. I realize that I can multi-task quite decently when I am localized positionally (meaning I don't need to move around); but when I'm running around different rooms handling different stuff at the same time, I might forget things.

And how do I overcome this? My workload is already much lighter than all my colleagues, and I only have to account for myself mainly. How do I cope if one day I must manage running several different processes plus ad-hoc work plus checking on other people? How do I increase my cognitive loading threshold besides familiarizing myself with things? Sometimes there's no time to go through everything mentally beforehand like what I'm used to doing now to spot difficulties before they arise.

I need more practice and I hope I have the luxury of time for that before the lab gets really busy. And I'm really thankful to God for this training ground in things I'm weak at. I'm already better at my hands-on routine tests; now it's the mental part that is challenging.

111111

Just thought this date was rather significant. Looks like one a programmer might like. And I officially have no work today. Because yesterday I was on noon shift (101111 - oh look, another programmer-philic date), and I'll be on night shift next so technically it's the next day (121111).

But it's still another day like all other days. :)

I regret to say I haven't been doing much with my life lately except read tonnes of story books. I've even procrastinated answering my cousin's tutorial question which has been in my inbox for about a week already. :S

One knows one has read way too many Agatha Christie stories when one could predict most of the time 'who dunnit', AND the motive too. Trust me, she has a way of making murderers obscure by either making them too obvious, too likable, or too unnoticeable. She's an awesome story teller, really fleshes out characters well instead of merely going on with the plot. That's why I read her stories for the human element, as well as the mystery element.

Another book I've been interested to read lately is 那些年,我们一起追的女孩, mainly because the movie is heavily promoted in most MRT stations now, and it has received many good reviews particularly in Taiwan (not to mention it has very nice theme song). I'm not really interested in the movie (this type of romance doesn't go down too well with me, I like romantic comedies more); but the book should be interesting. I like the way how good Chinese authors write stories such as this: there should be many delightful quotable quotes.

"Hard Magic" vs. "Soft Magic"

I've been reading Brandon Sanderson recently. Love the way he wrote his two stand-alone novels: Elantris, and Warbreaker. He seems to have a fondness for creating fantasy worlds with chim names. I'm reading Mistborn now, which is a series rather than a novel.

I think recently I've been taken to fantasy stories. Still a big fan of Agatha Christie though. But I think my liking for fantasy is highly subject to how the author creates his/her fantasy world. How 'logical' are the events in the stories. Whether they follow the created 'rules of the world' or not.

In his website on fantasy writing tips, Brandon Sanderson categorized fantasy stories (those with 'magic') in a continuum in which one extreme is 'hard magic', and the other extreme being 'soft magic'. Hard magic are stories that have set rules in them, and although magic exist, they operate under certain constraints, and characters have to fulfill certain 'rules' to use magic. Soft magic is more towards 'magic' without any rules.

Take the famous Harry Potter series for example. The 'hardness' in the writing of the story falls in the fact that magic only occurs 1) when the character uses a wand, 2) the correct incantations are said and maybe other conditions like the wand is gestured properly. J. R. Tolkien's Gandalf in Lord of the Rings however uses soft magic. He doesn't have to explain how he does the magic. It is just there.

It's easy to create tension when writing stories that apply 'hard magic', because a character's abilities are definitely limited. In soft magic writing however, tension has to be created otherwise (e.g. Gandalf disappears after battling some evil creature, leaving Frodo and team to fend for themselves alone).

Sanderson's own stories, are said by himself to be of around 80% hard magic. I wouldn't say that the Harry Potter series are as 'hard' as Sanderson's fantasies, as some time here and there, some unexplained 'ancient magic' occurs to save Harry's skin. Sanderson's worlds, on the other hand, each have a distinct characteristic, and they pretty much abide by the rules most of the time. Even they don't, they don't deviate too far from them. And each 'world' he created are originally unique. Like Mistborn's character's abilities to use metal to create magic; and Warbreaker's Awakeners that use a person's 'Breath' to awaken objects. He is a creative man, and supports his created fantasy world well.

I wonder however of Sanderson's own perception of deity, for he uses deity as a common theme across all his stories, although in different ways. And all of them seem to imply that a person's religious belief is merely an extension of culture, and there is 'no right answer'. This is a 'logic' (if it were called to be so), that I am unable to comply with. If truth is truth, shouldn't it be absolute, and not relative? If there are 'many right answers', or 'no wrong answer' to a question, would the answer still be truth?

Therefore I would still tend to disagree when receiving comments like: there's no right answer to this problem; or you can't say absolutely that anything is wrong or right after all. In judging human behavior, everything still boils down to whether something is right or wrong, regardless of circumstances, and cultural aspects. And regarding God, He either exists or He doesn't, there's no such thing as "He exists if you believe Him to be".