Les Misérables, the Movie, the Musical and the Book

I have finished reading Les Misérables with no more than 10 days to spare until I leave for Paris, the principal setting of Hugo’s book. At over 1500 pages the unabridged edition is a rambling epic of Napoleonic proportion. It goes on long-winded tangents and social rants that are decidedly indigestible. Included are “books” on convents, where Cosette grows up and the Battle of Waterloo, the deciding battle that ushers in Hugo’s story in 1815. However, thoroughness does not preclude Les Misérables from being an important literary work. It is an important historical document of revolutionary France and morally instructive. The book beings with “So long […] as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use.” I agree. 

The story is of Jean Valjean, a dejected wretch of society who finds love through God, as represented by the second chance given by the Bishop of Digne; through benevolence and philanthropy, as represented by his caring for Fantine, the poor single mother who sings I Dream a Dream; and finally and most importantly through fatherly love in care for Cosette, Fantine’s daughter. This story of sorrow and rebirth is aptly set in post Napoleonic-France. As the movie points out, 23 after Louis XVI is executed, another King is back on the throne. Hugo unabashedly sympathizes with Republicans sees revolution as necessary for progress and for redemption of these Misérables.

His characters all find solace. Fantine’s sorrows are made whole with the happiness of Cosette. Javert, who sings “Men like you can never change / Men like me can never change,” sooths his inexplicable internal dilemma through suicide. Eponine dies in the hands of Marius (with a bullet through her exposed breast). Marius and Cosette live happily ever after.

Although the book was successful upon publication (1862) it was revived in the English-speaking world by the musical. It debuted in the West End in 1985 and is still playing in London, a production I hope to see when I visit at the end of this month. It distills the laborious book into a concise and heart-wrenching production. When an outpour of emotion is required, the recitative turns into song. With Les Misérables as sentimental as it is, the delivery mechanism of the comédie musicale is exceptional. No other musical is as successful in drawing tears (of despair and of joy) from the audience. In "Drink With Me", students destined to die reminisce of pleasures of the living. Jean Valjean makes peace with losing Cosette to Marius and wishes him life in "Bring Him Home", a song written specifically for Colm Wilkinson (the original Jean Valjean but the Bishop of Digne in the 2012 film). The musical one-ups the book in pausing on the most salient parts the 1500-page book skims over. Marius feels guilty for surviving his friends as he sings Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, perhaps the most memorable song of the musical. The book has but a paragraph to describe these ineffable devils.

Yet the book is worth reading. The musical makes easy simplifications that at best covers the depth of the story, and at worst, romanticizes these very human characters. Eponine is less of a hero in the book. She, in fact, caused Cosette to leave to England and concealed Cosette’s letter from Marius until the last moment before her death. This is a better version because it is more believable. I had always thought of her as unfathomably valiant in the musical. The musical also mischaracterizes the revolution as well-planned and as over-glorious. Instead, it was a opportunistic, spontaneous uprising comprised of loosely related revolutionaries. Marius was not well known to the friends of the ABC (“abasé”, or abased) and only chose to join them because he did not wish to live without Cosette. The barricade was also a small and rather insignificant annoyance to the larger engagements of the same time. But, understandably, the musical achieves concision in place of accuracy. Therefore, each the musical and the book have their place.

The movie is surprisingly faithful to the story. A few heartwarming tidbits are revealed: Valjean’s stay at the convent; Valjean’s happiness in finding Cosette in a new song named “Suddenly”; Marius’s bourgeois father; Eponine’s taking a bullet for Marius. Some scenes are spectacular. Anne Hathaway’s “I Dream a Dream” lives up and surpasses expectations; Samantha Bark’s “On My Own” is passionate. The women do better than the men. “Bring him Home” and “Stars” show the Hollywood actors belong there. “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” was anti-climactic. The movie cannot stand its own against because the musical is more immediate and therefore more emotional. But it is still a joy to watch.

A difficulty for the story is Cosette. She doesn't do very much more than look pretty. In fact, for the first six months Cosette and Marius stare at each other from afar and without knowing eachother’s names and decides they must marry. For all that Hugo defends: the poor, the powerless, the ignorant, he does not seem to care much for women. He even writes that women exist for two reasons: love and coquetry. Furthermore, I found it unsympathetic with the theme of the book that Marius ends up with rich Cosette instead of street-urchin Eponine. But I was relieved that the book made it clear that Marius marries Cosette without knowing Jean Valjean’s wealth.

A final note on the book. Hugo writes it as though he is telling a true story. Perhaps he is. But the setting and places in Paris are real. For example, Cosette and Marius fall in love at the Jardin du Luxembourg, a park I will no doubt visit next semester. The barricades are set up in “Les Halles,” where I am living. What better way to become excited for Paris than to read Les Mis.

Some Quotations

A description of Fantine and her friends: “All four were madly pretty. A good old classic poet, then famous, a good fellow who had an Eleonore, M. le Chevalier de Labouisse, as he strolled that day beneath the chestnut-trees of Saint-Cloud, saw them pass about ten o'clock in the morning, and exclaimed, "There is one too many of them," as he thought of the Graces.”

A description of the Thénardiers: “These beings belonged to that bastard class composed of coarse people who have been successful, and of intelligent people who have descended in the scale, which is between the class called "middle" and the class denominated as "inferior," and which combines some of the defects of the second with nearly all the vices of the first, without possessing the generous impulse of the workingman nor the honest order of the bourgeois.”

De-glorifying the Battle of Waterloo: “Bauduin, killed, Foy wounded, conflagration, massacre, carnage, a rivulet formed of English blood, French blood, German blood mingled in fury, a well crammed with corpses, the regiment of Nassau and the regiment of Brunswick destroyed, Duplat killed, Blackmann killed, the English Guards mutilated, twenty French battalions, besides the forty from Reille's corps, decimated, three thousand men in that hovel of Hougomont alone cut down, slashed to pieces, shot, burned, with their throats cut,—and all this so that a peasant can say to-day to the traveller: Monsieur, give me three francs, and if you like, I will explain to you the affair of Waterloo!”

On Napoleon: “Wellington was the Bareme of war; Napoleon was its Michael Angelo”

Regarding Mme. Thénardiers: “Cosette was her only servant; a mouse in the service of an elephant.”

Some things never change: “It was the accent of Castlereagh auditing France's bill at the Congress of Vienna.”

Why Do You Hear the People Sing: “Songs are like the guillotine; they chop away indifferently, to-day this head, to-morrow that. It is only a variation.”

Parisians and their locomotive prowess: “To stray is human. To saunter is Parisian.”

On youth: “The first young lad who comes to hand, however poor he may be, with his strength, his health, his rapid walk, his brilliant eyes, his warmly circulating blood, his black hair, his red lips, his white teeth, his pure breath, will always arouse the envy of an aged emperor.”

Cosette all grown up: “Cosette, in gaining the knowledge that she was beautiful, lost the grace of ignoring it. An exquisite grace, for beauty enhanced by ingenuousness is ineffable, and nothing is so adorable as a dazzling and innocent creature who walks along, holding in her hand the key to paradise without being conscious of it. But what she had lost in ingenuous grace, she gained in pensive and serious charm. Her whole person, permeated with the joy of youth, of innocence, and of beauty, breathed forth a splendid melancholy.”

Love: “COSETTE in her shadow, like Marius in his, was all ready to take fire. Destiny, with its mysterious and fatal patience, slowly drew together these two beings, all charged and all languishing with the stormy electricity of passion, these two souls which were laden with love as two clouds are laden with lightning, and which were bound to overflow and mingle in a look like the clouds in a flash of fire.”

“One of woman's magnanimities is to yield. Love, at the height where it is absolute, is complicated with some indescribably celestial blindness of modesty. But what dangers you run, O noble souls! Often you give the heart, and we take the body. Your heart remains with you, you gaze upon it in the gloom with a shudder. Love has no middle course; it either ruins or it saves. All human destiny lies in this dilemma. This dilemma, ruin, or safety, is set forth no more inexorably by any fatality than by love. Love is life, if it is not death. Cradle; also coffin. The same sentiment says "yes" and "no" in the human heart. Of all the things that God has made, the human heart is the one which sheds the most light, alas! and the most darkness.”

“Angel is the only word in the language which never can be worn out. No other word would exist under the pitiless use made of it by lovers.”

On bankers: “And then, I met a pretty girl of my acquaintance, who is as beautiful as the spring, worthy to be called Floreal, and who is delighted, enraptured, as happy as the angels, because a wretch yesterday, a frightful banker all spotted with small-pox, deigned to take a fancy to her! Alas! woman keeps on the watch for a protector as much as for a lover; cats chase mice as well as birds. Two months ago that young woman was virtuous in an attic, she adjusted little brass rings in the eyelet-holes of corsets, what do you call it? She sewed, she had a camp bed, she dwelt beside a pot of flowers, she was contented. Now here she is a bankeress.”

“Citizens, the nineteenth century is great, but the twentieth century will be happy. 

In

Random Walk: Behind the Name

I have added a link to the "About this Blog" page. It links to the extended essay I wrote in grade 12. It concerns a random walk, a stochastic process but it is not a markov chain. That is to say, direction matters. Unlike a markov chain, future events are dependent on past events. This is a different Random Walk than the "Random Walk down Wall Street" because of this distinction.

Link to my paper.

The Greatest Tragedy Everyone Faces

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of life is to hit the ceiling. It happens to everyone many times, each with diminishing effect. Ice cream has been eaten, beers downed, videos posted on Youtube, parents and society blamed, revelations made and life rethought. This might be the root cause of mid-life crises, of low self-esteem, of chronic misery and of god-seeking. It might be the reason happiness declines after 26 and only recovers after 48. Life might be reduced to series of filters in a funnel. University is such a filter. Mostly every one of your and my friends have made it past this filter but for many (including myself, perhaps), this is the ceiling. There are other parallel competitions or conciliation prizes but they are largely a function of reduced expectations.

I felt the ceiling when I couldn’t make sense of English or French in high school despite all my best efforts. I might have felt so after writing the ludicrous COMM 341 exam, but I found a reasonable entity to blame for that shenanigan. I reread my Theory of Knowledge essay I wrote in grade 12 and found no difference in my writing style or my thinking. I might not have advanced intellectually since high school (though I have advanced in other ways, arguably).

The following consideration is that of causality. To the “nature” crowd, I should simply make peace with my ceiling. To the “nurture” bandwagon, something can be done: a change in environment, for example. Unfortunately, I am predisposed to stride with the “nature” crowd. This is a fairly defeatist attitude that engenders no optimism and provides no solace for those coping with the ceiling. It also probably ascribes too much importance to pedigree and luck. But why do boys outnumber girls in the top 0.01% of SAT Math Scores three-to-one, if not because nature? (I am proud to announce that I helped my fellow gender-men shift that ratio ever so slightly up, though I made a rather large fool of myself in the other subjects).

The nurture argument has its proponents too. IQ scores have been rising and women are making grounds on men. The true answer is nature and nurture. But I am a strong proponent of declining marginal benefit, an economic theory that applies effectively everywhere. Work (cost) is worth it when it is outweighed by the benefit. But after a certain point, the marginal benefit of work dips so low that pursuing the benefit only causes dissatisfaction. This is the ceiling I speak of. Many people who hit it work tremendously hard and hardly see results; they have mental breakdowns. To pass this ceiling depends on nature.

There might be a lot of ceilings in life but only a few are important. As life progresses, there are fewer things you excel at, and even fewer you are definitively better than your peers at. This creates a rather monomaniacal desire to improve on these few redeeming qualities that they become the sole proponent of your self-worth. The “nurture” camp will argue that it is this accumulation of effort and time (10,000 hour rule) that makes someone great. Unfortunately, time is a scarce resource and 10,000 hours are hard to come by. So one day when you hit the ceiling on all you might consider important, you cannot fathomably focus on something else.

Sports players hit such ceilings early on in their lives. Tiger Woods, certainly; and Jeremy Lin, most probably. Very few can achieve anything worthwhile after their pro-sports careers. Actors fall to the same early ceiling in glamorous Hollywood and postpone it with botox.

Of course, there might be people who never hit the ceiling in their respective fields and there might be people who find a new, pristine ceiling but these are the outliers. 

In

FY2012 Year in Review

2012 was a defining year. Early on, I was a rejected wretch. But then I regained full form with a 12th hour offer for a summer internship. I increased my popularity with 101 more friends on Facebook and launched this blog (which now has over 12,000 hits). I traveled to China, Whistler and New York. I “won” a stock simulation in Montreal. I completed a 4-month internship with ONCAP that spurred my choice to sign with CPPIB for next summer. I performed a Keg stand and my flip-cup odds were revalued. My heart jumped briefly. My tutorials company had a record-breaking year. And I stayed out of any prolonged affair with misery.

Elsewhere, 2012 was the year of elections and of debt redemptions.  It was painfully unproductive for developed countries and a troubling one for developing ones.  Revolutionary fervor spread across the Middle East. Advancements were made in physics and dice games. Les Misérables celebrated its 25th anniversary with a film. And the world did not end. 

In

The Messiah and the Christmas Spirit

It has finally snowed in Toronto. And though understated, my bedroom view of rolling hills of decrepit foliage is revived by an unadulterated blanket of white. The coffee beans are freshly roasted; green/red/white salads are served. Unfortunately, there are no Christmas trees or presents underneath. But that is a more a function of laziness and senility than a Grinch-like mentality.

Caprese Salad: balsamic reduction, fior di latte, basil, arugula, tomatos

And nothing says Christmas more than Handel’s Messiah. It is an oratorio that pays tribute to Jesus’ birth (Part I) and death (Part II) and preaches in true Christian fashion (Part III). But a non-Christian can appreciate the message of hope and despair, the incredibly dumb yet uplifting libretto that repeats phrases (or words) like scripture and the long-held melismas by out-of-breath singers. It is a grandiose and mesmerizing experience. I have seen it every year since grade 7, except the last.

After missing it in 2011 (for sad and lonely reasons) I redoubled my efforts to see it in 2012. We went to a small-scale rendition dubbed “the Dublin Messiah,” an attempt to recreate the first showing in baroque Dublin. This was before the modern day 40-person orchestras and 100-person choirs were invented. In 1700 England, percussion was but a street show. The Dublin Messiah gave some parts back to their intended singers but the most noticeable alterations were “Rejoice Greatly” in 12/8 time and “How beautiful are the feet” as a duetto. I find that the 12/8 time gives this happy song a quicker pace and an almost playful quality. But the “B” in the tenary form is noticeably worse. There was also no standing during Hallelujah because the King wasn’t there in Dublin.

Another surprise was the uncanny appearance of a mezzo-soprano I had seen before (though I did not know where at the time). She was easily the best soloist of the four and carried herself with a majestic virtuosity that comes only with performing this part so many times. A search back home showed that she was the mezzo-soprano at Kingston Messiah in 2010, indeed the last time I saw this piece. To be remembered across a two-year gap says something of her talent. And she was almost as captivating when she silently sat with a knowing smile, clearly in love with the music and her co-performers.

The smaller chamber choir and chamber orchestra worked. It placed greater emphasis on each of the individual performers, like the three-to-four singers in the four choir parts. And where talent lacked, it was apparently. The lead trumpeter could not play the valve-less Baroque instrument and was able to singlehandedly ruin The Trumpet Shall Sound, one of the triumphs of the oratorio.

Christmas is coming. And one of our co-patrons at the theatre whispered of another Christmas day miracle: Les Misérables. Well this should be a fun and musical holidays indeed.

Ensuring Fairness: An Oft-Forgotten Mechanism of Free-Market Society

Capitalism is a wonderful mechanism for cost-effective regulation. This might be counter-intuitive as airwaves are filled with the darker side of capitalism. But free-market societies with personal rights protection and profit incentives surely have less crime. One reason is because these societies tend to be richer. But another is because in a free-market society there is a well-defined zero-sum game: that one person’s gain is another person’s loss. This system places the onus of regulation on the very people who have the most to gain from whistle-blowing.

Two particular events illustrate this concept. One is Greyhound’s order to the London Rocket (a company started by two Queen’s Commerce students) to “cease and desist” on the basis that a license is required to transport paying customers on Ontario highways. On the issue, I am respectfully neutral. What it illustrates is that the Ontario Highway Transportation Board had no need to regulate its jurisdiction; Greyhound did it out of profit motive. Greyhound only called out the London Rocket, an ancillary operation to the company’s flagship route (Kingston). Greyhound doesn’t run trips to Kingston and thus had no motive to blow the whistle.

A second event is more particular to the Queen’s Commerce program. It had a run-in that could have tipped our reputable program into notoriety. It would probably have escaped the notice of administration. But it was stopped by students who felt a responsibility to their program and interested in keeping their school (and thus their resumes) from the overhang of scandal.

There is no doubt that capitalism needs reform. But its many redeeming qualities should not be forgotten. I think its ability to create fairness is a most important of these qualities.

In

The Commerce Education

The Queen’s School of Business is of the two best business schools in Canada. I have no doubt it has brought out the best in me. It has proved to be a prudent choice for my undergraduate studies. At the end of my first year, I had the choice to transfer to Brown University if not for the Ivy League name, then perhaps for Emma Watson. But I chose to stay with Queen’s for its strong recruiting opportunities, for the unique extra-curricular experience, and for my friends.

Today is effectively the end of my third year at Queen’s. In the last five days, I wrote four exams and taught two QUIC tutorials. There is but one exam more in the off-distance. My laundry basket is overflowing in anticipation for the parental unit parade. My piano is undusted and singing again. Christmas and Paris has never seemed closer. But as happiness builds in anticipation, the far-future again comes as foreboding. This year, I will decide whether to pursue post-undergraduate studies in the field of mathematical finance.

On Thursday, I wrote the STAT 455 exam. This is the hardest course I have ever taken and therefore, there was much self-affirmation to be accomplished. I needed to believe I will succeed in mathematical finance. Stochastic Processes is a branch of probability concerned with randomness in time. A Random Walk, for example, is a stochastic process. I entered the Grant Hall with as much determination as ever and left unresolved. I returned home and modelled the problem on EXCEL (with YASAI); I have never been so happy to see a Poisson distribution (4b). I might have let out a barbaric yawp.

A queuing question casually made an appearance (Q3). It extended the single-server model of COMM 341 by modelling in a probability that customers facing a longer line are less likely to join. There are no formula sheets. The problem is to derive the formulae.

To do this is not simple but it was the simplest question on the exam. To focus on understanding concepts instead of plug-and-chug arithmetic is rewarding. For one, formulae need not be memorized. Assumptions are thoroughly considered. Finally, it is broad and wide-ranging in scope. And that is the chief criticism I have of Commerce education. What we learn is almost exclusively a special case, i.e. a star in the night sky. One clearly overshadows the other. It all makes what we learn in Commerce a bit frivolous.

In the last month, I had the pleasure of meeting the creator of http://qcumber.ca/ and a diverse group of students from other faculties. We played the ubiquitous exchange game called Contact and words like “Realpolitik” and “Carthage” made appearances. What a refreshing change from “Franklin Templeton”. Commerce was a resoundingly positive decision. And these experiences propel me to seriously consider something similar but a bit different.

A comprehensive definition of happiness (part 1)

In this article, I improve on my previous attempts to define happiness. I am convinced that happiness is reconciliation between expected and actual results. However, the relationship between the two has been ill-defined. But, let us try.

For simplicity, we will assume there is a linear relationship. That is, happiness is exactly the difference between expected and actual results:

ϵ=Y-X

Here, ϵ is happiness, Y is actual results and X is expected results. Taking Y to be a function of X (since Y happens after X)

Y=X+ϵ

1.png

This gives an equation for a linear regression through the origin with beta = 1. Happiness is the error term. Three conditions must hold. ϵ must be normally distributed, be independent sample-to-sample and have constant variance. These are mostly reasonable. For example, constant variance verifies that people of all income levels are similarly happy. Independence sample-to-sample means day-to-day variations can be rocky, another generally accepted consequence of life. That ϵ is normally distributed, however, is less substantiated. Kurtosis (fat tails, i.e. bi-polar) and skewness (like the perennially disappointed French) are likely characteristics of happiness. However, for ease of analysis, we will assume ϵ is normal.

Implication 1: The goal should be the decrease standard deviation. Which graph would you rather have?

2.png

σ = 10, μ = 0

3.png

σ = 50, μ = 0

Implication 2: Learn to predict results more accurately

4.png

σ = 10, μ = -10

Overly-optimistic predictions result in unhappiness

5.png

σ = 10, μ = +10

Overly-pessimistic predictions result in happiness

From John Adams to Obama

The Obama victory had struck a malaise in me (or perhaps it was the keg stand). The resultant bed-tied activity was to watch over eight hours of John Adams, an acclaimed HBO miniseries tracing the founding father from the revolutionary war to his death.

The series has left no doubt of American exceptionalism in modern history. The series does little sugar-coating as is often accomplished with American history. The follies of the participants and of both sides are clearly told. But America is a crystal ball for the future. The society is more recognizable to the modern audience than any other society of the time period. One telling scene has John Adam’s wife speaking Latin while the subservient British equivalent sat dumfounded. Another is Adam’s visit to the perfumed, beautified and indulgent Parisian aristocrats soon to be irradiated.

John Adams is a brash, stubborn, no-bullshit politician. He won the 1796 election from his porch in Quincy. He was a pragmatist vested in the interest of America above all else. As lawyer he defended the English of the Boston Massacre; as a congressman he promulgated and signed the Declaration of Independence against the King. As emissary he courted the French, Dutch and later the English, and as president, he turned his back on them. Indeed, Adams was a true centrist who neither succumbed to pressures of his own party (the Federalists) nor that of the Republicans (who now are called Democrats).

Parallel to revolutionary America is revolutionary France, which had its revolution not long after America’s. The response of monarchist England was war. The Hamiltonians were intent on supporting Britain while the Jeffersonian wanted to back revolutionary France as a similar endeavour as America’s own. But Adams prudently signed a treaty with Napoleon (a treaty with Britain was signed when Adams was vice-president), knowing that young America could not withstand another war. It was this self-sacrifice of sorts that had him lose the 1800 election to Jefferson. John did not pull a George W. Bush.

John Adam is shown to be steadfast in his principles if misguided at times. He leaves his wife and sons for too long and later disowns one. He is painfully unsympathetic to a son-in-law that he deems to have failed. He contrives royal titles for president (“his majesty, his highness”) and is laughed out of congress.

But John Adams risked losing an election for the good of Americans. Adam’s independent thinking, pragmatism and unyielding idealism are qualities unseen in modern-day presidents. How sad a country of America’s pedigree should bear no resemblance to its heyday.

In

My Paper Published in Mathematics Magazine

Cover of Mathematics Magazine, Oct 12. 

Cover of Mathematics Magazine, Oct 12. 

My paper entitled “Skunk Redux” on probability was published in the October 2012 edition of Mathematics Magazine. I am pleased to announce it is the most-read math magazine and is consistently used as reference in upper-year math courses. But the tangible benefit is of course that I am now searchable on JSTOR.

The question I deal with is familiar to anyone taking Math 111 - Linear Algebra. It is by far the most relevant and accessible mathematics course at Queen’s, not least because of Peter’s tireless commitment to pedagogy (Dr. Peter Taylor is the co-author). In Skunk, a pair of dice is rolled again and again until either you choose to sit or at least one 1 comes up. If you sit, your payoff is the dice sum of all your previous rolls. If at least one 1 comes up while you are still standing, your payoff is zero.

It is not a difficult article to read. Everything is elementary. It contributes nothing to mathematical lore and pales in comparison to the other articles in the magazine. I make tangential comments about risk-taking (“It took some willpower not to allow my emotions to steer me toward the standard freshman crowd—the eternal optimists who luckily see the world as their oyster, untainted by the rationality I sometimes wish I could do away with”) and bad habits (“Peter started rolling the dice on that first day of class. As usual, I did not bring anything to class, not even a calculator, so I had to ballpark it.”) True mathematicians will be turned off. 

The paper links my undergraduate career from the first day of class, through the disenfranchising inaugural year when I sought refuge in the mathematics department to compensate for my failures in Commerce, to the otherwise miserable summer of 2011 when the paper was officially accepted, to the current quandary of what role mathematics will play in my career. 

Mathematics is the most elegant of all disciplines. Its study is deeply satisfying because it makes principles of ancillary courses go full circle. The queuing models of 341 are stochastic processes in the form of Markov chains (Stat 455). Their time-reversibility property make equations easily derivable. Finance, of course, is all about statistics and regression. The most salient criticism of commerce is that more technically-minded disciplines can easily learn the material. The reverse does not hold. This explains why McKinsey seems so intent on hiring engineers.

My relationship with mathematics is on-off. In grades 8, 10 and 12, in the heat of rediscovery, I placed well into the top tiers in Canada for mathematics competitions. In grade 12, I was invited to write the Canadian Mathematics Olympiad. In the off years, I characterized the subject as a passive, unimportant, socially disparaging, unrewarding field relegated to nerds and self-satisfied intellectuals. More recently, I rediscovered the discipline. I hope it plays some part in my future.

To read the magazine, click here (starts on pdf page 29).

Kingston Restaurant Guide: Le Chien Noir, Harpers and Aquaterra

This week, the restaurant guide continues with another list of notable restaurants. Le Chien Noir continues to lead the culinary scene in Kingston. Casa continues to fall.

  • Oct 25: Casa Domenico (★)  The Panini special, was essentially uneatable, smothered in multicoloured cheese and soggy onions. The Caesar salad was likewise soaked in a heavy, downtrodden dressing, as if it came out of TheKeg. 
  • Oct 24: Le Chien Noir ★★★★★ This is quite simply the best restaurant in Kingston.
  • Oct 21: Aquaterra ★★★★ This is probably the only all-you-can-eat experience worth attending in Kingston.
  • Oct 20: Izumo (★★★) The menu seems especially dainty; the attention to detail and sophistication here catapults Izumo past most of its ramshackle competitors.
  • Oct 20: Harpers ★★★★ The simplicity differentiates it from The Works. The quality of ingredients differentiates it from Five Guys and other run-of-the-mill burger-bars.
  • Kingston Restaurant Guide: The Five Pillars of Kingston

    An essentially comprehensive review. The five pillars of the Kingston food scene are Sima (Sushi), Woodenheads (Pizza), Le Chien Noir (French), Harpers (Burgers) and Olivea (Italian). They are each best-in-class and are world-class establishments that can compete against their Toronto equivalents. In the next few weeks, these five and many other Kingston restaurants will be reviewed in an effort for Random Walk to become the headline food blog for the Kingston area. I think this will be a fun and useful exercise.

  • Oct 17: Atomica ★★★★ The hip offspring of Le Chien Noir is a dark, ultramodern hub with florescent blue bar lights that are too foolish for haute-cuisine.
  • Oct 15: Woodenheads ★★★★★ Most pizza variations are filled to the brim with forward, guilt-inducing toppings. A particular favourite is the Dynamo, an exultation of sweet (honey) and savory (pesto). 
  • Oct 14: Chez Piggy ★★★ The atmosphere is dominated by les anciens (which suits the occasion of my mother’s fiftieth birthday). Perhaps that is why the food is so boring and flavourless.
  • Oct 10: Sima Sushi ★★★★★ Owners June and Daniel Kim worked 11 years at Toronto’s best sushi restaurants and now dominate Kingston’s scene.
  • Oct 6: Kingston Brewing Company ★★ The brew pub experience is one of eclecticism. Memorabilia line every inch of useable wall-space and the meandering menu is a comedy routine.
  • Oct 3: Olivea ★★★★★ The chicken is brick-pressed to colourful perfection. Burn marks are so satisfyingly bitter. The arugula salad hits high notes and crunch frites dip into a sour aioli.
  • ​Sima Sushi, Sashimi Lunch

    ​Sima Sushi, Sashimi Lunch

    12 New Restaurant Reviews (Toronto)

    August was a busy month that many restaurant reviews were pushed back. Now, safely tucked in Kingston, I finally publish these post-summerlicious reviews. Deal-seekers will still find discounts for notable places. Centro, Aria, Célestin and Fifth Grill all had large-scale promotions. Aria continued to solidify its place as Toronto’s best new restaurant, while Fifth Grill and Centro continued to fall from their glory days. Yorkville continues to be a safe bet, with ONE and Crème Brasserie delivering notable eats at notable prices. And finally, Nervosa, the Yorville guru sets up a new shop in hipster’s paradise. It is Gusto 101 and will no doubt be heard from again and again.

  • Aug 31: Centro ★★
  • Aug 30: Obikà (★★★)
  • Aug 30: Aria ★★★★★
  • Aug 29: Crème Brasserie ★★★★
  • Aug 27: ONE ★★★★
  • Aug 26: Célestin ★★★
  • Aug 22: Carisma (★★★★)
  • Aug 20: Brassaii (★★)
  • Aug 18: Fifth Grill (★★★)
  • Aug 15: Trattoria Nervosa ★★
  • Aug 14: Gusto 101 (★★★)
  • Aug 12: Wish (★)
  • (Bracketed ratings are for restaurants where fewer than three dishes have been sampled.)

    Thanksgiving: I have contributed nothing to society but have received much in return. Thank you.

    Life has dulled to a hum and I couldn’t be happier. I am enjoying a quiet thanksgiving from a lonely Kingston. For one weekend, the primary contributors of rambunctiousness emigrate to congregate with distant relatives, eat disproportionately fat turkeys and most importantly, appease their financiers. Such pensive times allow for a celebration of the true purpose of thanksgiving. That is to give gratitude to the social fabric and institutions that allow for our continued success. I have contributed nothing to society but have received much in return. Thank you.

    Shortly after claiming that my future would be “unsettling” on my (well received) September 15 post, I found myself with a clear sense of direction for the next seven months. It involves restaurants, mathematics and Paris – there are worse combinations.

    With a stroke of an electronic pen, I moved Canada’s unemployment rate a few negligible ticks in the right direction. But there was no escape from buyer’s remorse. Third year commerce students see the world as their oyster. They are free agents in a seller’s market. Their insecurities are actually options, which we know to have much value. It is difficult to see many years of effort culminate in something as fleeting as a signature. And the question that will always jut out is “did I make the right decision.”

    The timing was particularly awkward. After a year and half of networking and career testing, the entire decision unravelled during the first two weeks of school. That was unexpected. I thought I would have gone through the official process in November. This was historically the month of reckoning, when kings were crowned. During my first two years, I had always envisioned third-year recruiting to be a stressful ordeal, as were March 2010 and January 2011. My experience was vastly different. I submitted my beautified résumé with some pompous footnotes and ended up with exactly what I wanted. Many watering hole conversations with sages later, I realized I had a chance to be self-fulfilled and happy. I signed the offer.

    What I have recently learned is that third year commerce is not the end-all. Rather, it is a beginning to a difficult and demanding life. Wannabe financiers bring up a famed diagram that shows a distinct path to “success”. The misconception is that third-year recruiting defines success. This summer spelled my disillusionment. I saw enough despair to know the hardship lies after. With all the firm-cycling and industry-hopping witnessed this summer, third-year recruiting is certainly not the end. There is no timeline. Life is more interesting than that.

    This newfound attitude might best be described as short-termism. Without gateways at prescribed times, there is no need for a plan. Heading in the right direction is enough; how you get there is the sum of everyday decisions made because they are good and righteous in themselves, because they fit with your values. Hopefully, those values include such venerable qualities like hard work, commitment and sacrifice as these will surely help in the longer term. People with these qualities may very well decide to over-work themselves in the short term and propel themselves into the future. But embracing hard work, commitment and sacrifice is a lifelong pledge. To claim to work hard now to have it easier in the future is simply indefensible.

    That is to say you should never do something because it is a means to an end. You should do it because you want to.

    Boardwalk Empire and Downton Abbey: 3rd Season Premiers; America and Britain in the 1920's

    Boardwalk Empire and Downton Abbey both begin their third seasons in the early 1920’s. There is very little comparison to be made. Atlantic City is the place of dreams, where social mobility is vast and unhindered. Nucky Thompson could not afford breakfast as a child; now he is America’s most prominent mobster. The depiction of America is all rather unruly, fraught with scandalous politicians, kickbacks and unfettered violence. It was, indeed, the Wild West, a description much to the delight of the English. Compare to the aristocratic house of Crawley, where crackling guns are replaced with crackling tongues, and political maneuvering with the game of marriage.

    The tie over is Cora, the American wife of the Crawley patriarch, and her mother endowed with an American exceptionalism to rival Maggie Smith’s British equivalent. “Whenever I’m with her, I’m reminded of the virtues of the English,” says the Dowager Countess. When pressed with “Isn’t she American?” she replies a pithy “Exactly.” The cocktails banned during the prohibition of the United States (from which arose the mobsters of Atlantic City) make their way into pre-dinner drinks at Downton. The Dowager Countess was horrified.

    The British must deal with a dichotomy at the turn of the modern era. It is clear that the US is firmly the strongest power in the world. Indeed, the US saved the Allies in the First World War and the Cora’s American wealth will have to save Downton from going underwater (again). Britain fears becoming a vestige of the 19th century and relies on its superior sense of tradition to counteract American supremacy. Crawleys mis-dressed in black ties instead of the more formal white ties are compared to “Chicago Bootleggers” (e.g. Al Capone in Boardwalk Empire).

    But the cultural cross pollinations is not just one-sided. Atlantic City entertains old world immigrants. The Irish, in particular, are prominent. Revolutionary sentiment had turned them very American. When the youngest Crawley daughter marries an Irish chauffeur, the house is swept up is controversy. In Atlantic City, Nucky marries an Irish immigrant and hires an ex-Irish revolutionary to do his dirty work. The two share pragmatism, idealism and disdain for the old.

    Nucky Thompson’s metamorphosis into full-mobster moves the show into foreign territory. I am unsure if it can deliver. The first two seasons relied on some sympathy for Nucky. Albeit a criminal, he exhibited a soft-hearted humanism. However, in an unexpected turn of events, he orders the death of an insignificant thief. The old Nucky would have shuddered. His wife Margaret was a repentant fortune hunter (this respectable synonym for “gold-digger” as used in Downton Abbey) but is set to play a hackneyed independent-feminist. The opener was still highly entertaining, but I fear it’s losing the charm of the first two seasons. We certainly do not need more plain-vanilla gangster dramas.

    In Downton, financial troubles are set to create rifts, for what is an aristocrat with no money? The heartwarming marriage between Mary and Matthew in its pomposity ironically diverts attention away from monetary troubles. There are more than enough post-wedding jokes thrown around. Cora remarks to her daughter, “because when two people love each other…everything is the most terrific fun.” But even the tightly-would Mary jokes, “You can leave us unchaperoned. After tomorrow, all things are permitted.” The series does a wonderful job letting the audience share in their hard-earned romance. The episode ends on a happy but foreboding note.

    In

    3rd Year: And so it begins (again)

    A one-week repose was well needed, and maybe even deserved. Not a weekend after writing my ethics exam, I was thrown into “high-finance.” What had I gotten myself into? The capricious summer was fraught with the vicissitudes characteristic of the industry. Lugubrious ordeals were  instructive and victories offset the troubles. Summerlicious (34 restaurants in 17 days), midway through the summer, hurried the toil along so that four months ended on a cusp instead of in monotony.

    And in the one week, I accomplished not more than read a third of Les Misérables, in preparation for the Hollywood production and Toronto’s revival of the musical.  The book is masterly though Hugo rambles for tomes and tomes in socialist fashion about tangential plotlines and inconsequential ideas. One such misdemeanor is his description of Waterloo, the decisive end to Napoleon. When I arrived in Kingston on Saturday, the setting was all too familiar. I stepped into war-torn territory near the end of a weeklong engagement. The veterans of Queen’s University, tired and hoarse, saw victory only pints and millilitres away. I stood with a guilty conscience like a cripple given safe passage. Their droopy eyes, frazzled hair and incomplete memories were eclipsed by glorious grins of accomplishment and of resilience. And after a weeklong ceasefire, today they rise again to welcoming the real veterans for faux-coming. How inspirational.

    I moved into a beautiful house behind Goodes Hall. Unlike my old lodgings, the new one is aptly described as a man-cave. Despite modern feminism and the prophesized “End of Men” this temple of masculinity, for which pilgrimages (and certainly not of a Catholic variety) should be and often are made, is undeterred. I cannot contain my excitement to live in such venerable conditions.

    The rest of Kingston has not changed too much. Its leisurely pace of life is solace compared to the hectic metropolises of the summer. The sushi at Sima is still so fresh, the pizza at Woodenheads as thin as ever and the bike rides almost idyllic in autumn. QP emits a youthful exuberance seen only on campuses; its microwaved chicken avocado is a guilty pleasure. The Goodes Hall expansion is a footnote for the newly-minted Starbucks it houses. I can imagine the location doing quite well, despite some worthy competition from the man-cave just a minute away (rumour is, the establishment recently started serving lattes).

    Classes have ensued and luckily, only one class requires participation (and only 6% for that matter). One professor barred laptop usage, a counterproductive policy that extinguishes any intellectual vivacity and forces students to trudge along with the professor at the prescribed pace unsympathetic to the needs of the diverse student body. To perform quantitative business courses without a laptop is like studying Literature without a dictionary. Students should be trusted to take control of an education they paid over $14,000 for. As such, I look forward to once again, assuming the role of recluse, a societal function that is deceivingly intellectual and productive.

    These constructive outlooks suggest a reasonably delightful future to come. The job markets are indeed precarious and my future is unsettling. Clarity is non-existent. Yet I have decided to look forward to this semester for being happy is better than being sad and for hope is better than despair.

    In

    Downton Abbey - Season 2: Alas, poor Yorick, all is equal in death.

    The major theme of the second season continues from the first: that happiness and strife are independent of socio-economic status. How right that is.

    The ensemble cast returns to a world engulfed in war. Many themes of war are picked up properly. One servant suffers from shellshock, first witnessed in WWI trenches; the ‘political’ chauffer uses the execution of the Russian royal family (1918, a year after the revolution) as a parable for his new life with the third eldest Crawley daughter; women gain importance as nurses. The war spells tragedy for Downton. A servant dies protecting the heir, Mathew Crawley, who is initially crippled but later regains his health.

    The tragedies continue in the post-war outbreak of Spanish flu, from which 3% of the population died. Alas, poor Yorick, death is the greatest equalizer of all. Despite the widespread infections both upstairs and downstairs, the only casualty was the heart-broken yet perennially loving and self-sacrificing fiancé of Mathew, Lavinia Swire. Her death was the happiness of Mary and Mathew, their love finally unhindered. It is an accomplishment for the series to have the audience to so thoroughly share in the joy of two beneficiaries of wealth, appearance, pedigree and frankly, someone else’s death. There is nothing that precludes the well-to-do from eliciting sympathy and relief thereafter. Just as the poor can attain insurmountable highs, the rich can plummet to lows.

    A heartwarming scene near the end hosts the servants’ ball, where the nobles dance with their servants. Hierarchies are still respected. The patriarch Crawley is reserved by head housekeeper; the Butler twirls with Crawley’s American wife, Cora.

    The second season is almost as successful as the first by virtue of characters and wit. Cora, played by Emmy nominated actress Elizabeth McGovern, has a magnificent accent similar to that of Atlantic City mobsters in Boardwalk Empire (a new season of which starts soon!). As her fellow Americans, she is ever so open-minded, industrious, crafty, calculating and decidedly less noble-minded than her British counterparts. Viewers no doubt were pleased that Lavinia was sacrificed in Cora’s stead.

    Unfortunately, a few tangents led nowhere or were less than meaningful. Patriarch Crawley, a Major and an aging suitor all have illicit affairs out of wedlock. We get the point. People were just as salacious a hundred years ago, just that society was less accepting (and found fault with the woman more often). Aside from that, the affairs were at best, boring. At worst, they were unbelievable in an otherwise genuine series.

    I am sad to finish the second series with the third not yet available. Despite some follies, the second season comes as vociferously as the first, filled to the brim with emotions both euphoric and lugubrious in a holistic and pertinent yet often comical depiction of the lives of the rich and poor. 

    In

    A formal theory about happiness, success and what have you

    My ramblings on my life and the underlying drivers of happiness have garnered a bit of attention. They are some of the more popular posts. That’s good because happiness is, after all, the most important result of anyone’s life. That isn’t to say I have any authority on the matter…but here goes.

    Success and happiness are so correlated they might as well be the same. Happiness must be an integral part of success, or else the definition of success is skewed. However, they are not necessarily the same. Success is definite. It may be differently assessed by different people but that does not change the underlying characteristics. Success is a person’s intrinsic value. Cynically speaking, it might be how much you are willing to give up to have someone else’s life. So when you say “I wish I were someone else,” you are essentially saying the target is more successful.

    Success is something that is built up. It is the accumulation of accomplishment, whatever they may be. But it can be impaired, written down or given a haircut. At this early stage in our lives, accomplishments depreciate very quickly. Last year I had a couple of lines on my resume pertaining to high school. This year I have two. What success is not, however, is forward looking. Success is not derived from hope, potential or optimism. It is quite simply the retained value of all the things a person has done in the past.

    Happiness, on the other hand, stems from the past, present and future. They say people can’t be happy because the past is always too rosy, the present unfulfilling and the future unresolved. Happiness is built on success. Happiness is what you make of your success and how you intend to leverage it in the future. When outlook is dimmed, a person’s underlying success should help serve as a baseline for happiness. Happiness can also get out of hand, climbing to unsustainable heights before bursting and plunging down to lows.

    Unfortunately, constant happiness is not enough. It must, as all things, have a return. That may be why, despite all that running, you feel like you have not moved at all. Non-volatile happiness (i.e. one that tracks success closely) with reasonable growth is probably the golden ticket. What happiness should not be, however, is fleeting. Rational joy derives from strong understanding of underlying success and reasonable forecasting of future success. Expectations that are too high will have disappointing results.

    Happiness is a figment of the mind; it can often feel like a grumpy old man with a short attention span. Success is a much easier target to aim for. It is a high quality boost to happiness, unlike the temporary gyrations that end up nowhere. I believe this model gives a reasonable outline of two key end goals of human existence. It may even end up making you happier.

    Downton Abbey: Season 1. Aristocracy 101: What is a weekend?

    Two ecosystems exist in parallel at Downton. One is upstairs led by a bumbling patriarch Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham, a benevolent aristocrat modern enough to use electricity and telephones and even sleep in the same bed with his respectably cunning American wife. He is prideful in his occupation, calling the management of the estate his “life’s work”. His dowager countess mother, played by Maggie Smith, is a nippy semblance of old money and British wit as to provide some remarkable one-liners. “What is a weekend?” she genuinely asks of an upper middle-class lawyer. His three daughters are worldly, eloquent and mostly beautiful. The dowry-bearing first-born, Mary, is most exquisite, at least until she gallivants (to put it cleanly) with a Turk who ends up dying in her bed. (Aside – I must squeeze in another stomach spluttering quotation by Maggie Smith: “No Englishman would *dream* of dying in someone else's house - especially somebody they didn't even know.”) The middle sister is a radical free spirit, interested in politics, fashion, feminism and anything modern and keeps out of the courting limelight, though she herself is quite sought after. The youngest is a green-eyed monster but takes what is coming to her, in both senses of the phrase.

    Downstairs, the hierarchy is just as pronounced. Servants must stand when head Butler, a scrupulous and honour-driven Charlie Carson enters the room. They are mostly proud of their occupation but question whether their blind order-taking is fit for the ensuing era. One contemplates marrying a farmer; another applies to be a receptionist. There is quite a bit of politics and backstabbing not unlike the state upstairs. But I personally just don’t find the story downstairs as riveting.

    This all happens on the dawn of World War I, not a hundred years from today. It is a turbulent time for aristocracy. Indeed, WWI was preluded with the death of King Edward and a funeral procession that included “five heirs apparent, forty or more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens-four dowager and three regnant.” It began with the assassination of an archduke and ended with dissolution of no less than four empires. With the industrial revolution closing the inequity gap and Marxist leanings taking over, it is hard not to sympathize with nobility.

    And while this is not a show to scoff at the rich; it also does not look down on the poor. If anything it might suggest that as different as upstairs and downstairs might seem, they are remarkably similar. A classist Mary first speaks unkindly to her suitor for the sole reason that he must work for a living but besottedly receives a most romantic kiss. Yet only after he turns ridiculously wealthy does she accept his marriage proposal, one that he reneges in what must be the saddest scene in the first season. You might judge the well-to-do here but to the credit of the series, it is very believable and innocent. A similar love story develops between war-wounded valet Bates and head housemaid Anna, two genuinely selfless and uncalculating (unlike above) individuals but run into problems with some luggage from Bates’s past. And kudos to Emmy nominated Brendan Coyle, who plays this downtrodden character with no desire for pity but only an unequivocal sense of nobility.

    This is the most successful British television to have ever aired, picking up the most number of Emmy nominations for a show in its category. It surely deserves them. It has an incongruent ensemble cast but manages to give each character a heart, a meaning in life, and a role in society (however unfair it may be). And the truly refreshing piece is that it doesn't make it seem all that unfair after all.

    In

    Game Change: can Paul Ryan live up to Sarah Palin?

    Paul Ryan was selected by Mitt Romney to appeal to the far right, as Mr. Romney himself is rather progressive (he was, at one point, a democrat). In 2008, after defeating Romney in the primaries, McCain found himself inheriting a rundown GOP owning to Iraq, the financial crisis and Bush. He chose Alaskan Governor Palin, an attractive ultra-conservative who would appeal to the female vote. It was meant to be a game changer, one to match Obama’s ground-breaking campaign. But in their haste, the strategists failed to recognize Palin’s lack of any general knowledge precluding that of the energy sector.

    How she could be elected as such a prominent figurehead (albeit of Alaska) with no understanding of the world is confounding. Both Obama and Palin are celebrities in their own right, but as chief strategist Steve Schmidt presciently says, “Primary difference being Sarah Palin can't name a Supreme Court decision, whereas Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor.” I might have fallen into the same category as Palin on this distinction until the recent Supreme Court ruling for Obamacare. Though the landmark case Palin should have cited was Roe v. Wade, given her outright stance against abortion. Thus she might best be described as an ideologue – someone who is dogmatic yet cannot provide any intellectual justifications.

    Neither Palin nor McCain agreed to watch Game Change, though the movie was not political (or condoned by the Democrats) at all. In fact, McCain is portrayed as an upstanding war hero. He campaigned and lost with great grace, at odds with his unabashed advisors. He was kind to Palin and at no time did he blame her for his loss. Palin, though, was portrayed as ungraceful, daft, childish and stupid. But an accurate portrayal cannot necessarily be called slander. The movie does sympathize with Palin and gives her the benefit of inexperience. It feels very much as though she had little idea what she was getting herself into.

    The most interesting tidbit was that Ronald Reagan once said that trees cause pollution. This pleased Palin, seeing her idol commit a mistake almost as frivolous as hers (“I can see Russia”, “refudiate”). The whole affair is quite fun to scoff at. In 2012, there is much less laughing. A decidedly uncharismatic capitalist takes on an unaccomplished incumbent; in their hands rests a nation struggling to stay at the top. Obama still needs to select a running mate but it looks as though the vice-presidential race will be nowhere as colourful as four years ago.

    In