May 9th, 2007

First among many?

I recently read the book ‘First Among Equals’ by Jeffrey Archer (my first JA in so many years). To be precise, I finished it day before evening. The ending was a surprise in the last line, and quite reminded me of his short stories ‘Quiver Full of Arrows’ and ‘A Twist in the Tale’ (both compilations I enjoyed right from my school days).  The book was interesting, with a little bit more of politics than I cared to read about, but I found myself more interested in it than I expected.

What was more interesting however was the read on Wikipedia. You see, being an MP himself (I think he was an MP), I was curious whether the character of Simon  in the book closely resembled his life…to an extent. Instead, what I discovered was that he changed the book ending for Europe and the US as per the market dynamics. i.e. as per what people expected.

<I don’t care about spoilers, as I don’t think ull read it after this post, but here’s a warning anyway>

Whereas in the original script meant for the british audience, Raymond becomes the PM, in the US script, Simon manages the win.

<that is the main spoiler, though the rest of my post will mainly deal with this, so…>

This in itself is quite a surprise, though logically it shouldn’t be. It showcases how the political scenario is a direct reflection of the social structure of a country. The type of person that people would root for and uphold. Simon and Raymond are very different, from different backgrounds and have undergone different events through life. The support they get is from almost mutually exclusive parts of the society. Hence the preference of one candidate over another in two different strata of society is only logical.

However, it is a little unusual to notice that the end of the book is different in the two books.

Not that its rare I think, still, it was kind of surprising.

Light Play

Shoe toe designs

By freak accident I finally figured out why the toes of womens shoes are so shallow. Ok I will begin by explaining what I mean by “toes of womens shoes”. In a closed shoe, this is the portion which covers your toes and a little more. Usually however, it is difficult to find this covering extend to more than the length of your toe. In mens shoes they still extend to mid foot, but in womens for some reason, they leave the toes visible, I mean, if my toes re visible, I wonder how much of others’ would be (I think my toes are shorter than they should have been. My only physical flaw…almost). However, as I sat down and by a freak chance (not so freak) put the ball of my foot on the chair support and the toe on the floor, I realize the benefits.

For one, a shoe that covers exactly upto your toes from front does not risk that unsightly crease caused by walking/ folding of the shoe at that point due to many reasons (including but not limited to walking).

As to why you notice this phenomenon in ladies’ shoes? Here are some hypotheses, somewhat exhaustive but not limited to these, and of course, mutually ‘addable’: (they are in no particular order)

a)      to avoid an unsightly crease

a.       this is all the more important since womens shoes usually have some (superfluous) decoration on top, and would get removed with a crease

b)      to show of women’s skin/ pretty foot (they don’t count on u wearing thick socks) – does foot count?

c)       Women usually wear heels, thus the probability of a crease forming immediately is high – this ensures they wont buy that brand/ from that shop again. Why stock?!

d)     Perhaps… perhaps given an impression of longer toes?

Whatever it is, it is somewhat uncomfortable to slip ur foot into a shoe and discover ur as good as wearing one slab of sole covering your heel and out reaches of your toe nails, with heels. Darn uncomfortable. So, this basically makes buying shoes more difficult. As if it wasn’t a difficult task already!

Watching waiting

Boredome redefined

I am bored.

I am so bored that I am actually bored. There is some flux at workplace thereby leaving me with precious little to do, which I therefore am saving for the last moment. So that if need be, I can work on something, albeit short and stupid. I am not part of the clan that believes in finishing work immediately. Sorry.

So I have written hello mails. I have responded to forwards. I have updated my blog and toyed with the idea of writing a book review (which I gave up since im just too bored to do that).

I have had my designated cups of coffee and short chats on phone, as far as permissible in the office environment. I have customized my google webpage, added feeds to my google reader, gone to one of the notebooked sites and read through older content and interesting pages.

I have meandered on the net, looked to Wikipedia for interest and dejected landed onto unknown blogs. I have read through all the old Doordarshan adverts available on the net () and surreptitiously laughed at them…or smiled, and sung along in subdued mental notes.

Thereby I have landed on movie reviews and posts on topics I wouldn’t have cared to read a word about till yesterday. I have forwarded those posts, and read their comments. Thereafter I have forwarded the comments. I have commented on the comments.I have forwarded such mails, and their forwards.

I looked at the phone and my inactive gtalk. I have realized that with the presence flux of ‘higher up’ people around me I cannot read/ use them. I resorted to mails.

And I have more than an hour to spend.

So I start writing this post. At least I will be occupied bored. Though bored, I will be moving fingers.

I have stupid office problems like being unable to open graphic sites (colleagues interest is not flattering), playing music (sound card is disabled), chatting (of course not!), reading web books/ comics, talking on the phone, etc etc.


I am the supreme example of a company squandering its money and wasting me. I cant even value add to myself by being on phone etc.


I am bored.