Feedback

Was pointed to a blog that commented on City by Mantissa (no idea who he or she is). Excerpt:

" would say it reminded me of Murakami Haruki - in its simplicity and sweetness, alienating and yet beautiful language. But yes, it's reminded. He's not Murakami - he's not as brutal in content and sparse in language yet, he offered more hope than Murakami ... explained too much in some parts - too earnest to share, perhaps it's a rational, intelligent, responsible Singaporean thing - the inability to completely let go of your beloved creation.
If you're interested in why I loved it and regarded it so highly, then I shall attempt to share it here in as best a coherent manner as I could. My apologies, as I know I can't articulate well:-
It's a classic theme, of personal dreams and principles, manifested in the commitment to public service and loved ones, set against our nation-building years and hence, intertwined with the greater hopes of a young nation. [....] It's not all pretty, which is why those who read it carefully would know it's not propaganda, not pro or anti government.
[....]
It's beautifully-written - it asked not for perfection, but its insights and portrayal of the simple slips down the slippery slope actually bridged and helped create a particular empathy and common understanding.For instance, Bryan the protagonist was a kind, principled and sagacious man. A principled ex-principal [ =) ] in danger of losing himself as he get swept away by the struggle for his rented home at Seletar Airbase which was making way for the heroic economic project Seletar Aerospace Park. Just as Bryan fought for the pretty colonial houses, just as I tried to support the preservation of the nondescript Stamford Library which I loved, others whom I know have fought hard against great odds to make the Aerospace Park a reality. There's no right or wrong - space is always open to contention, up for definition. There's a historical, sentimental view of the intrinsic value tied to physical places, and there's the no less noble but much less romantic view tied to economic survival for our people - what kind of legacy should we leave, and can we afford it?And yet, happily or unhappily, there're some things which are clearer than those questions above. Bryan is someone who would have won my utmost respect. He mentioned that as an ex-principal, grown men who were students in his school had came up to him on occasions, with "you probably do not remember me, but I was....", and that they were right - he was a principal and not a teacher, and hence he seldom could remember the students. But he knew and appreciated their desire to be remembered in those formative years, so instead of a straight answer, he would ask for the years they were in the school, and then try to recall and share a few of his memories of the school and its people in those periods, so that they knew they were somewhat remembered in those years. However, when the politician whom he felt evaded the citizens' questions on the airbase during the two hours dialogue session came up to him with the familiar you-probably-don't-remember-me-but-I-was-a-student line, he reported that it gave him great satisfaction to respond with brutal honesty you-are-right, I-don't-remember-you. For that, he felt was a minute of honesty which much surpassed the two hours of double-speak.Was he wrong to do that? We could all empathise. Many of the people I know would applaud. I think it's poignant - it made him less of the man he was (although I do think he was a sage and no one could be expected to be infallible). In giving in to his need to mete out suitable punishment or similar pain to the politician, he also failed to see the clear parallel between his past action and those lofty and wonderful principles and the politician's possible good intent. We seldom can give straight solutions and answers; in any case, those simple yes-or-no oft don't fully represent the truth. The truths are much more nuanced and there're much more common grounds which we could find amongst those we think could be our adversaries. If only we could all give the others the benefit of the doubt and not be that quick to judge, the hurt we feel and the pain we give to others, in essence, the alienation would be a lot less. This is my personal belief for a fundamental tenet for the building of the Civil Society which Mr Tay so cherished. We can't always agree, but we should try to listen and appreciate one another's intent and point of view.
This is a book which I think all who think, dream and try to live by your principles in contributing to the creation of a home which you hope would not disappoint those who came before you, and would be somewhat meaningful to those who would come after you, and in it all, true to yourself, should read.