Olivetti Lettera 32

The machine, which he bought in a Tennessee pawnshop for $50 in 1963, is beginning to betray understandable symptoms of old age and hard usage. If the Lettera 32 had hooves, it would have been dragged out to meet the bolt gun years ago.

"It has never been serviced or cleaned other than blowing out the dust with a service station hose," said the writer. "I have typed on this typewriter every book I have written including three not published. Including all drafts and correspondence, I would put this at about 5m words over a period of 50 years."

When a friend offered to buy the 76-year-old Pulitzer-prizewinner a replacement, McCarthy volunteered to auction his machine and has promised the proceeds to the Santa Fe Institute, a "transdisciplinary research community" dedicated to expanding the boundaries of scientific understanding.

Christie's, which is due to auction the machine – complete with a letter of authentication from McCarthy – in New York on Friday, reckons the typewriter will fetch between $15,000 (£9,000) and $20,000.

3 October 1976 - Gebel Barkel - Sudan

Taylor sat in the map tent, plotting out the scope of that day's excavations on aerial photographs of the dig. An orderly grid pattern, like a map of Manhatten, was creeping over the landscape. Imposing order on sands that had hid secrets for millenia.

Desert moths swirled around the single flourescent light, their shadows flitting over the canvas. Taylor finsihed the last of the days marking, and looked down at the completed work. The tomb system of Gebel Barkel had turned out to be much larger than anyone had initially thought. From the small collection of Nubian pyramids that lay in the shadow of the massif that gave the site its name, a complex network of outbuildings and tenements stretched towards the Nile river, indicating a large population centre, rivalling some of those centres in lower Egypt.

The door of the tent swung open and tall, swarthy arabic man in a turban entered. Taylor looked up from the photographs.

'No diggers in here, get out' he said, waving the newcomer away.

'Well dear fellow,' said the Arab, 'it's a lucky thing I'm no digger. Nor a leveller, nor a radical communist for that matter. I appreciate you chaps are worried about the red menace, but this is going a little far don't you think?'

Taylor leaned back in his chair, staring at the intruder. 'Who are you?'

'Name's Alexei, dear boy. Alexei Abdul-Mu'id. Although you can just call me Alexei. I am talking with Dr Taylor I take it? Mrs Maxwell told me you would be in this tent.'

'Yes, yes' Taylor stood up hurridly. 'I am Dr Taylor. I didn't. I mean, I'm sorry for my rudeness. I didn't expect to meet a, ahhh,  British national, dressed in your garb. You know, out here.'

'Oh, hardly British. and I am the one who should apologise, Doctor. My apperance does take people off guard, and, I have to admit, do enjoy the reversal on peoples faces when I tell them who I am.' A smile lit up Alexei's face. 'A foible I know, but a harmless one I hope.  I am a professor of egyptology at Cairo university, by way of Cambridge.'

Taylor stood up and extended his hand 'Niall Taylor, archeologist by way of Colombia and Ann Arbor".
Alexei grabbed Taylor's hand, a broad grin across his face. 'Yes Dr Taylor, I have heard much of you. It is a pleasure, a great pleasure'.

Taylor getured to a camp chair at the map table, 'Please Mr Abdulmood'

'Alexei, please'

'Alexei, yes then, please, sit down'.

'Oh no, I shan't keep you, I"m sure you've had a long day'

'No, not at all, I have just finished todays log. Please, I'm curious what brings you to our little project. I had not heard anything about you coming...'

Alexei took the chair Taylor had offered, glancing at the photos scattered across the table. 'It may be easier for you to explain why I am here'

'I'm not sure I follow' said Taylor.

'Here,' Alexei said, pulling forward the photo Taylor had been working on showing the whole site. 'Here is a record of all digs thus far, am I right?'

"Yes' said Taylor.

'Here were your digs from autumn '74,' continued Alexei 'around the original pyramids, and then over here,' pointring to a another crosshatched part of the map 'following the deductive work of Professor Hallen in your team, you continued in '75 along this wadi and uncovered the late kingdom works.'

'That is correct Mr, uh, Alexei' said Taylor. 'You seem to be very well informed of our progress'

'Birds and spiders Mr Taylor, birds and spiders. Archeology is a small world, especially when you are digging up my own backyard. Now, here" he said, pointing to a separate part of the photo 'you dug some sample trenches late last season and early this season, closer to the massif. What did you find?'

'Nothing' answered Taylor.

'Nothing!' exclaimed Alexei, jabbing his finger onto the table. 'Precisely sir. Precisely.' He sat back, grinning.
'Yes, nothing.' continued Taylor. 'In an almost perfect circle, 700 metres from the base of the massif, no buildings, no pits, no rubbish mounds.'

'And does that, as an archeologist, strike you as somewhat odd, Mr Taylor?"

"Why yes it does.' Taylor moved to the opposite chair and drew it up to the table. He took the photo Alexei had been holding.  'There are caves in the massif. Especially large ones here, here and here' he said, pointing at the edges of the mountain. 'If this place originated as a place of permanent settlement, surely those caves would have been the first homes. Any settlement should have extended out from there. It is very odd to have nothing there, but a very large settlement some distance away from the most habitable parts.'

'Very good Mr Taylor' said Alexei, leaning forward and resting his elbows on the table. He continued in a lower voice 'and why, do you think, that is?'

'Well, there could be a number of explanations. It has actually started to become something of a sore point between some of us here. Some say it is simply the place we are excavting is closer to the Nile, and therefore a more convenient place for buildings.'

'Come on Mr Taylor, you don't beleive that do you? The Gerbal Massif is an 800 foot high mountain in a flat desert. It is no coincidence there is a settlement here. Why no buildings on the massif itself?'
'I think it is for the same reason there are no settlements found near stone henge in England, Alexei. It is holy ground'

'Or taboo?'

'Yes, or taboo. Although given the settlement is built closer to the tombs than the massif, I don't see what taboo would be so strong as to require such distance from the mountain, it's almost like...' Taylor trailed off.
'Like what?' asked Alexei, frowning.

'Like... I don't know, like quarantine.'

Alexei smiled again. 'Aha, Mr Taylor, I see my faith in you has not been misplaced. Yes, it is like a quarantine exclusion zone is it not? You can almost see the yellow tape surrounding the massif with hieroglyphs warning 'Onto this ground, do not tread'. Heeding that ancient caveat, none did. Although the pull and attraction of the massif must have still be very great for such a large population to live here. Attraction and fear together in ancient Egypt. Fascinating. And with that, you have perfectly answered your own question.'

'I have?'

'That is why I am here Mr Taylor' cried Alexei'. 'To investigate, to riddle, to pry into the dusty secrets of this place. I meant to come last year, but I could not make it.'

Taylor sat still, looking at the man across the table. He leant forward and began picking up the photos. 'Well, sir,' Taylor said in a cooler tone. 'I am sure we would love to have your expertise on board. I am not sure what digs you have been on before, but they are not so much about solving riddles as the slow accumulation of data. There are no fancy temples or tutankahmuns here I'm afraid. Just an old settlement, which is filling in some of the knowledge of the late kingdom period of the nubian empire.'

'Of course Mr Taylor, of course, I understand this is very important scientific work going on here which I fully support. I apologise if my language is sometimes verbose, I promise I will not get in your way. But if possible, could you spare time tomorrow to show me around the site?"

"It would be my pleasure."

"Capital. We should start ealy to beat the fury of the sun.'

"Of course. Sunrise is at 6:12am tomorrow. I can meet you at six?"

"Splendid Mr Taylor. Absolutlely splendid" said Alexei. "I will leave you in peace, until tomorrow."

With that, Alexei rose and shook Taylor's hand again before disappearing back out into the darkness.

Ever Victorious

‘The champagne bottle burst against the door, leaving a dark stain on the scarlet lacquer.

Burgevine stood staring at the mark , taking a swig from an identical bottle to the one that lay shattered on the ground before the gatehouse.

‘Yang.’ He shouted, stumbling forward and pounding on the door.

‘Yaaaang!’

‘You yellow bastard. Come out here!’.

The door remained closed. Burgevine turned around and pointed at the dozen men in blue tunics who were alternatively watching their commander, and waving their rifles at any passersby on the busy Shanghai street to keep away.

‘Break it down’ ordered Burgevine.

The door behind Burgevine swung open. In the doorway stood a stooped chinese man in a sky blue silk robe.

‘Mister Henry’ he said in clipped English.  ‘How can I help you’

‘Yang’ drawled Burgevine, throwing his bottle down as he turned back to face the door. ‘Why, you are here after all. I thought you might have been down at Ms Tracy’s.’

‘Ahh, Mr Henry is entertainment’

‘Yeah, I’m a regular P.T Barnum Yang. Now you’re surely not going to keep me awaitin’ out in the street are you Yang. It’s perishing hot out here.

‘I cannot...’ began Yang

‘you cannot refuse me your kind hospitality Yang?’ said Burgevine, ‘well I am just flattered by your good manners, let me take you up on your invitation’  as he pushed the old man aside, striding into the courtyard. ‘I always said you were quality Yang, despite your inherent disadvantages.’

The troops filed in behind , filling the small anteroom to the grand house that sat behind

Standing frozen under the awning of the house stood a young chinese girl, her swollen red eyes stared at Burgevine.

‘Why, Mrs Ward, what a delight it is for this poor ol’ Virginian to see you here. I was just thinking the other day I must stop by to see how the lovely wife of my old friend was doing.’

The girl’s eyes darted to Yang who hovered at Burgevine’s elbow. Yang spoke quickly in chinese and she stole through the doorway into the dark interior.

‘Why Yang’ said Burgevine ‘That was uncomely of you to dismiss your daughter, her and I have much to catch up on’.

‘This is not correct Mr Henry. We should not meet here’

‘And why not Yang. We are old buddies ain’t we? You know why I’m here, now just run along and fetch me my pay. I know you have it. ‘

‘No money here Mr Henry. You come back next month hey?’

‘Yang, you know the deal. Fifty thousand taels for last months pay. It hasn’t arrived. Give it to me’

‘This is not the agreement with Mr Ward.’

‘Well, I’m fixin’ to change that little agreement Yang’

‘... but Mr Ward said..’

‘Ward said, Ward said ‘repeated Burgevine. ‘Hell, I don’t care what Ward said. Ward is dead old man and I spat on the corpse, I lead the army. Give me the money’.

‘But Mr Ward...’

‘Damn Ward! ‘roared Burgevine grabbing Yang’s tunic with his left hand smashing his fist into the banker’s face. ‘And Damn you’ as he punched him again dropping Yang to the floor.

‘No matter, I know where the money is’ Burgevine said. ‘Vincente’.

The small manilaman stepped forward from the ring of guards. ‘Si’.

‘Take five men to the back room, you know where it is. Bring out what you find there.’

‘Si’ he gestured at the nearest men to follow and they ran out of the room.

Yang squimed at Burgevine’s feet. Blood streaming from his face over the lacquered floor and staining the silk robe. Burgevine walked around the prostrate figure, picking up the needlepoint that lay on the bench.

“You know Yang, my papa was a general under Napoleon. He always tol’ me, ‘Henry, ‘ Burgevine slammed his boot into Yang, wham. ‘Henry, you got to care for your men. And if you look after your men, they will look after you. Now, Yang, I am here to lead your army. And if your army isn’t paid, they won’t fight. And if they don’t fight Yang, well... there ain’t nothin’ stoppin’ those fucking bloodthirsty Taipings’ wham ‘ coming into this shithole of a town and killing you ‘wham ‘ and raping and killing your daughter.‘ wham ’I’m protecting you Yang. And you are just too plain dumb to see it’. 

Spy vs Spy

I recently watched the new Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy movie. For some reason it  resonated with me quite a lot so I sat down and watched the old 70s TV series with Alec Guinness reprising Gary Oldman's role of George Smiley. So how do the two compare?

The most obvious difference is not in the actors and plot, but the set and Alfredson's direction. The new movie could never have been made in the 70s, it is too stylised and sleek. An idealised view of what the period was about. Everyone walks around in sharp, vintage suits, having meetings in big minimalist rooms that look like a Warhol studio designed by Damien Hirst. Guinness on the other hand is shunted around small pokey offices, crammed with overflowing files and drab civil servants. The turgid 'Yes Minister' feel of the Circus is much more believable.

Impressively, even though the TV series is four hours long compared the movie's two hours, the movie doesn't feel like it has left anything out. All the marks are hit - Tarr's story, Operation Testify, Peter's infiltration of the circus, the final confrontation - and all the relevant characters are fleshed out very well. Indeed, the character development in the movie does more with less than the series. Even though Patrick Stewart gives a stalwart performance as Karla, the russian spymaster in the series, his excision in the movie is a good choice, apart from a very small, quick throwback that is a highlight of the film.

Less is more with Smiley's wife, Anne. Alfredson chose not to include her in the movie, whereas the TV series can't resist sticking her in the final scene. A bad decision, especially when Guinness gives a great performance in the final confrontation with Bill Hayden when he tells Smiley he only slept with his wife on orders from Moscow. Guinness' small grunt and vacant stare is wonderful. Oldman couldn't quite pull that otherworldly air off.

In the end, they are both good, but different. The bonus of the series is another series, Smiley's People, waiting in the wings with another great Guinness performance. But Alfredson puts together a distilled yet complete package that crams so much into every scene it would be churlish to criticise it for brevity. 4 stars.

Collingwood - Historical Thought

The Idea of History

Epilegomena: 4: History as Re-enactment of Past Experience

R. G. Collingwood

How, or on what conditions, can the historian know the past ? In considering this question, the first point to notice is that the past is never a given fact which he can apprehend empirically by perception. Ex hypothesi, the historian is not an eyewitness of the facts he desires to know. Nor does the historian fancy that he is ; he knows quite well that his only possible knowledge of the past is mediate or inferential or indirect, never empirical. The second point is that this mediation cannot be effected by testimony. The historian does not know the past by simply believing a witness who saw the events in question and has left his evidence on record. That kind of mediation would give at most not knowledge but belief, and very ill-founded and improbable belief. And the historian, once more, knows very well that this is not the way in which he proceeds ; he is aware that what he does to his so-called authorities is not to believe them but to criticize them. If then the historian has no direct or empirical knowledge of his facts, and no transmitted or testimoniary knowledge of them, what kind of knowledge has he: in other words, what must the historian do in order that he may know them?

My historical review of the idea of history has resulted in the emergence of an answer to this question : namely, that the historian must re-enact the past in his own mind. What we must now do is to look more closely at this idea, an see what it means in itself and what further consequences it implies.

In a general way, the meaning of the conception is easily understood. When a man thinks historically, he has before him certain documents or relics of the past. His business is to discover what the past was which has left these relics behind it, For example, the relics are certain written words ; and in that case he has to discover what the person who wrote those words meant by them. This means discovering the thought (in the widest sense of that word : we shall look into its preciser meaning

( 283) in � 5) which he expressed by them. To discover what this thought was, the historian must think it again for himself.

Suppose, for example, he is reading the Theodosian Code, and has before him a certain edict of an emperor. Merely reading the words and being able to translate them does not amount to knowing their historical significance. In order to do that he must envisage the situation with which the emperor was trying to deal, and he must envisage it as that emperor envisaged it. Then he must see for himself, just as if the emperor's situation were his own, how such a situation might be dealt with ; he must see the possible alternatives, and the reasons for choosing one rather than another ; and thus he must go through the process which the emperor went through in deciding on this particular course. Thus he is re-enacting in his own mind the experience of the emperor ; and only in so far as he does this has he any historical knowledge, as distinct from a merely philological knowledge, of the meaning of the edict.

Or again, suppose he is reading a passage of an ancient philosopher. Once more, he must know the language in a philological sense and be able to construe ; but by doing that he has not yet understood the passage as an historian of philosophy must understand it. In order to do that, he must see what the philosophical problem was, of which his author is here stating his solution. He must think that problem out for himself, see what possible solutions of it might be offered, and see why this particular philosopher chose that solution instead of another. This means re-thinking for himself the thought of his author, and nothing short of that will make him the historian of that author's philosophy.

It cannot, I think, be denied by anybody that these descriptions, whatever their ambiguities and shortcomings, do actually call attention to the central feature of all historical thinking. As descriptions of that experience, their general accuracy is beyond question. But they still require a great deal of amplification and explanation ; and perhaps the best way of beginning this is to expose them to the criticism of an imaginary objector.

Such an objector might begin by saying that the whole conception is ambiguous. It implies either too little or too much. To re-enact an experience or re-think a thought, he might argue, may mean either of two things. Either it means enacting an

( 283) experience or performing an act of thought resembling the first, or it means enacting an experience or performing an act of thought literally identical with the first. But no one experience can be literally identical with another, therefore presumably the relation intended is one of resemblance only. But in that case the doctrine that we know the past by re-enacting it is only a version of the familiar and discredited copy-theory of knowledge, which vainly professes to explain how a thing (in this case an experience or act of thought) is known by saying that the knower has a copy of it in his mind. And in the second place, suppose it granted that an experience could be identically repeated, the result would only be an immediate identity between the historian and the person he was trying to understand, so far as that experience was concerned. The object (in this case the past) would be simply incorporated in the subject (in this case the present, the historian's own thought) ; and instead of answering the question how the past is known we should be maintaining that the past is not known, but only the present. And, it may be asked, has not Croce himself admitted this with his doctrine of the contemporaneity of history ?

Queensland Shrugged

Did you want to know who is John Galt? I am the first man of ability who refused to regard it as guilt. I am the first man who would not do penance for my virtues or let them be used as the tools of my destruction. I am the first man who would not suffer martyrdom at the hands of those who wished me to perish for the privilege of keeping them alive. I am the first man who told them that I did not need them, and until they learned to deal with me as traders, giving value for value, they would have to exist without me, as I would exist without them; then I would let them learn whose is the need and whose the ability-and if human survival is the standard, whose terms would set the way to survive.

March Movies

Revolver:

Pro-tip Guy Ritchie, having characters repeat enigmatic phrases over and over doesn't make them any more understandable, it just shows how empty and pretentious a movie is. 1 star.


Brazil:

Definitely not the Messiah

Not a great movie, but a fantastic and intricately designed insight into Gilliam’s mind which is engagingly bizarre and has a distrubingly catchy soundtrack that I can't get out of my head. 3 stars.

Liam Neeson: Age 5

The Grey:

A monster movie with smart pacing that gets that it's not about the monsters, it's about the people. 4 stars.

Game Change:

Taking Palin to school

Palin doesn't appear in the book until around page 350 or so, but she probly never read that far so at least she can watch how godawful she really was. 4 stars.

Devious dons abandon unschooled models

Let’s look at today’s Cryptic

Across

      1. First pairs of little birds don’t produce vital urge (6)  = LIBIDO. First two letters (pair) of ‘little birds don’t’. Libido is a ‘vital urge’.

     10. Pretty poor, like a butchers that’s nearly sold out (3,4,4) = NOT MUCH CHOP. Double meaning

      12. Partypooper ruins the wine (10) = SPOILSPORT. i.e spoil sport and spoils port.

      

      17. Divided garden set off (9) = ESTRANGED. ‘off’ means anagram of ‘garden set’ which means divided.

      

      21. Don’t include the captain (4) = SKIP. Means not to include as well as captain.

      

      22. Shippers of supporting screws (10) = FORWARDERS. To ‘support’ is to be ‘for’ something. Screw is a gaol ‘warder’.

      

      27. Emu’s heart, small but uprising (6) = MUTINY. The middle (heart) of E(mu)s and small (tiny) is an uprising.

Down

3. Musical note in a two bed apartment (6,4) = DOUBLE FLAT. Which is a note and a two bed apartment.

6. Wine produces Irish fighters (7) = MADEIRA. Produce (made) plus irish fighters (IRA) is a sweet white wine.

14. Musical blonde belonging to me (2,4,4) = MY FAIR LADY.

15. Eddy the smart mole, perhaps (9) = MAELSTROM. ‘Perhaps’ means an anagram of ‘smart mole’ which is an ‘eddy’ or whirlpool.

20. Section of emblem is hiding a scar (7) = BLEMISH. Part of em(blem is h)iding.

24. A portent of love for the males (4) = OMEN. Love is ‘O’ (as in ‘O’ Romeo) and males is MEN. A portent.

Crusader Kings II

Despite how natural and common they seem to us now, countries in Europe are no more than accidents of history. Prior to the 17^th and 18^th centuries, you didn’t have countries so much as you had kingdoms that, over several hundred years, formalised their rule in a particular location. But if you went back to the 10^th and 11^th centuries, these kingdoms were only just starting to form out of the primordial ooze of the dark ages. 

Therefore England in 1066, wasn’t ‘England’ as we know it today. It was an assortment of ethnic-religious communities of Christian Saxons, or Druidic Celts, or Norse Vikings. This patchwork of peoples were ruled over by a feudal system – an incredibly complex web of vassalage, duties, relationships and conflicts.  Feudal systems were medieval pyramid schemes, barons at the bottom, and the king at the top, and if one king couldn’t rule, another one would do just as well. This dynamic lead to the extreme situation that existed in England in late 1066. The country was ruled by its traditional Saxon King, Harold Godwinson. Unfortunately Harold was invaded almost simultaneously by two other feudal lords, Harald Hardrada of Norway, and William of Normandy. While Harold was able to defeat Hardrada, he lost to William at the battle of Hastings.  So a Frenchman ascended the throne of England and there was an intermingling of the Norman feudal lords into the existing Saxon system giving rise to a new Norman/Anglo-Saxon realm. 

Reading through the history of the period the question that immediately springs to mind is, ‘how do you create a game which models this period of time?’ Obviously traditional gameplay concepts that use the country as the base unit simply don’t work. They are unable to look at the internal webs of feudal systems and ethnic communities that merged and separated during the period. Fortunately you don’t have to think of an answer because in 2004, Paradox Interactive sat down and thought about exactly this problem. The solution they came up with was Crusader Kings. While Crusader Kings was good, in February 2012 Paradox came up with an even better solution, called Crusader Kings II.

More The War of the Roses (starring Michael Douglas) than the Wars of the Roses (starring Richard the Third), the heart and soul of Crusader Kings II are the characters. You don’t rule a country, you play as a character who holds a title in a feudal system. When that character dies, you continue playing as the heir. There are the Counts, who own small parcels of land and pay tribute to the Dukes, who pay tribute to the King. As the holder of your title, you have a small court of advisors, courtiers and your family. Every character in Crusader Kings II, from the lowliest courtier, to the Kings and Emperors, have their own set of personality traits (ambitious, slothful, pious etc) which determine how they interact with the characters around them; and by ‘interact’ I mean ‘plot your downfall’.

Your children will plot against each other succeed your title, your sister-in-law will plot against you to make your younger brother your heir. Thanks to the UI, it’s very simple to see why people like or hate you. The diligent ones will not like you because you are slothful. The lustful characters will not like you because you are chaste. Boris of Hereford, who you made Duke, will love you. But when you die and you take up the reins as the heir, Boris will take his new found power and lead a revolt.

I won’t go too much into the retelling of the various coups, wars, palace revolts and family breakdowns I’ve had. They are all unique every time you play and have their impact because of the attachment you form with your family. This attachment is where Crusader Kings II comes into its own. Other strategy games, like Civilization, have personalities injected into them in an attempt to forge that kind of connection. It certainly has people you can hate, like Montezuma. But Montezuma is always the ‘other’. He isn’t your only son that you had late in life,  who you raised and nurtured to take over your throne... only for him to turn out to be a slothful, syphilitic heretic who shatters your kingdom. As the saying goes, each family is unhappy in its own way and one of the pleasures of the game is finding out just how dysfunctional your family is. 

There are some niggling issues. Combat feels too simple. Troops are raised from your vassals for specific wars. So, true to the period, you don’t have a standing army. However whenever there is a battle, more soldiers = victory. This seems to belie the quite complicated algorithm that underlies combat so it would be good to see that re-worked. More plots and ambitions for characters would also be welcome.

The upshot of the game is new kingdoms are born, thrive and die with little regard to history. Spain could remain Moorish. The pope can move to England. In addition, you have to deal with the invasion of the Mongols, and send troops off to Crusade in the Holy Land. Muslim leaders are in the game, but not playable at the moment (no doubt waiting for an expansion). Paradox games throw masses of data at you, but you don’t have to worry about all of it all the time. 

In the end, point is to put you in the shoes of a feudal lord, which the game does quite convincingly. If the ultimate goal of history is to re-enact a thought, then Crusader Kings II comes very close to doing so.  4 stars. 

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Dashan is invited. Let's see if he turns up.

Dear Mark,

I trust this is not too presumptuous an email, but I am writing to invite you to my wedding reception on 12 May 2012 in Beijing.

I am getting married on 5 May 2012 in Sydney to my Beijing fiancée. On 12 May 2012 we will be having a small (like, really small - 20 people) family reception at the Grand Hotel in Beijing with her family and some of our Australian friends. We would both like to extend an invitation for you to come along to the Beijing lunch if you are in town and free that day. A plus 1 is also welcome!

We don’t have many friends in Beijing, my fiancée (Shanshan aka Susan) left there over 10 years ago and we both live permanently in Sydney. We were talking about who we could invite to the lunch at Beijing and I said, ‘how about we invite Dashan?’ She was like ‘that’s crazy’. That was the end of that conversation.

Then I was reading your answers on Quora, which are really quite funny. So I go back to Susan and say, ‘read this answer from Mark on Quora, this guy’s alright, he sounds like a funny down to earth kind of guy who would be a great guest’.

Susan said 'who the hell is Mark?'

'Dashan'.

'Dashan's name is Mark? That's so weird. Alright then, if you want to invite him, invite him.’

So here we are! Although I realise that if you do come, I am subjecting myself to a life-time of comments from my in-laws that my Chinese is ‘almost as good as Dashan’s’. All the same, it would be great to see you there.

If you can't make it that day, no problem. Thanks for taking the time to read this missive.