DISGRACE - no, it's not about me.

I am still pretty honourable. It's about the nobel-prize-winning novel that I read on a novelist's recommendation.

The moment I got it off the shelf I was thinking: Such a tiny book, is it that easy to win a Nobel Prize in Literature? Writing a tiny story which only has 220 pages - many times less than JK Rowling's dictionaries called Harry Potter 5 and Harry Potter 6.

So I went and checked out the definition for this prize, and found:

“The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency ...”

(Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel)

Idealistic tendency is the key. If you want to be famous one day, write a little story, it doesn't have to be dramatic, touching, entertaining (I am not being sarcastic), but it has to be real and reflect the cultural tendencies of the plot settings.

On this criterion, JM Coetzee succeeded. He's brought out the issues of white-black conflicts, in a subtle way: there is no unpredictable plot twists - but somehow the story ends in a way unexpected by me, because I'd read too many novels with happy/sad endings and tended to think the end has to be one of the two.

I'm pretty sure that if one looks into details of every single page there are heaps of cultural elements to be identified, but my idea of reading a book, in particular, a novel, is to enjoy it. That means reading it on my bed, reading it while eating chicken drumstick and noodles, reading it while watching Julia Gillard showing her public speaking skills after being "elected" as the new Australian PM (I swear that before this I never know a PM can be ditched and replaced like that, overnight, through the intentions fermented over a couple of months). Back to my point, I mean, reading a novel should not be like reading Jiwook's notes where I have to strain and force my brain to absorb everything in there.

If there is anything you, the author, want me to absorb, it has to be embedded, and natural, so that it enters my head without forcing them to me.

After spending a day reading, what I remember from the book are the following: (I don't care whether this might become a spoiler or not, if you're worried and planned to read the book, I suggest that you close this window now)

* David Lurie is such a WOMANISER!! Well, I usually get really annoyed when guys in real life say to me that girls are there for men's pleasure. But if it's just a novel, be it, it's fake, so I don't mind. LOL~~~Is womaniser the right word, or pedophile?

* And he is such an idiot for being a hard nut to crack - refusing to issue a proper apology to save his job. Hard nuts like that tend to suffer in this world, they deserve some respect for standing by their principles (good or bad), but not sympathy.

* Animal euthanasia - I don't have a side on this, human beings have been doing that for ages, in various forms. The best justifying reason ever come out with is to sacrifice for the greater good of the mankind, in animal testing laboratories.

* Abort or not to abort - no qualms on that, its ultimate decision should be the carrier's. Men should respect that, always, no matter the reasons.

*** Submission and acceptance of life:

This is probably the most important message thoughout the book. Should we accept fate as it is, and not try to change it? Or do we have power to change? Should we embrace the culture in the surroundings we live it, or should we strive for our own good, and try to protect ourselves from the harm?

Well...again it depends on circumstances. In this day and age I tend to go with the side that says fate is changeable (I hesitated, and deleted the word "destiny" - because by implicit definition destiny is fixed, if the dialogues of "Heroes" is anothing to go by), and there are many successful people in this world who would agree with me.

But when I put myself in the shoes of people who prefer to submit, to tolerate, to accept fate as facts in life, I can see where they are coming from: they basically want peace and stability in life. Dream pursuers would unavoidably need to go (or sail) through the ups and downs, the waves, the weather, just like Jessica Watson (who is not going to hold her record for very long, because more young chicks nowadays want to be famous); yet all peace pursuers want is to live amicably, to minimise changes to the stable lifestyle. They do have a point, what's the point of chasing dreams when I am contented with what I have now. And ultimately, the place that you and I will take are the same: the hole in the ground.