One of the stories E.-M.Schmitt wrote in his cycle of religions. As you can probably tell this one goes on the subject of Islam. Moses is a young Jewish boy who has no mother and almost no father (somewhere around the middle of the story his father really stops existing) who happens to form a relationship to a local shop owner Ibrahim who`s a Muslim living in the Jewish quarter and selling stuff all around the clock. As Moses becomes very attached to Ibrahim, so is Ibrahim attached to Moses. Ibrahim becomes Moses`s step dad and they go on a journey south to the place where Ibrahim lived when he was young. By his attachment to Ibrahim Moses slowly transfers from being a Judaist to being a Muslim, he even changes his name and when he meets his mom he refuses to accept her as her son but is ready to accept her as her sons (Moseses) best friend. This story ain`t as brilliant as the Christian one but it`s still very good.

This story is a part in the group of stories by Mr. Schmitt about religion. The story in question focuses on Christianity. Oscar is a boy of about ten who writes letters to God as the Lady in Pink has told him to do. This lady in pink is an old nurse at the hospital where Oscar is bound to spend his last days. He has cancer all over him and the lady in pink helps him to be able with his very close death. Unbelieving at first, very believing at last Oscar writes to God his whole life. The lady in red comes up with a plan - Oscar has to live every remaining day of his life as if it was 10 years. So he manages to live a fruitful and long life within the last ten days he`s given. He starts off with early childhood, goes through teenage years and realising love, until passing out being about 100 years old. In the notes for this book I read that E.E.S. himself couldn`t stop tears when he read the story printed, and I have very little doubt that it`s true. It`s so sad and yet so optimistic, so realistic, so fatalistic, so everything you want it to be that you don`t even need words to describe it.

Despite the fact that this band didn`t last particulary long it`s considered one of the best the 80-90`s Britain ever produced. Probably there are some reasons for that, since at least on this album the songwriting is really good, some of the songs are very close to being brilliant, etc., etc. Yet there is one thing that bugs me about the Stone Roses - they are praised too much, and nobody can live up to the expectations of this level. Probably the Roses were the Beatles of their era, at least on some songs they do sound as a newer version of the fab four, particulary on "Shoot you down", with the 60s feel to their music. Not having listened enough to this record I`m not sure that I can judge it the way it deserves, but who cares. If I`ll give it another spin on my PC, the rating will probably change. Or it won`t. Who knows.

They say that Hot Hot Heat aren`t at their best in this record. I can`t really know for I`ve never listened to any album by this band before. And I`m not so sure that I ever will. Ok, this record ain`t bad so I probably could be thinking like this: "If a not-so-good record by this band is pretty decent, their best could be a freaking masterpiece. I probably should spend some money to learn more about this band." But I won`t do that? And why is that? First, I`m not a big fan of paying for anything. Second, how can I know that I will find a record that some people call to be better than this one to be really that good? As for this album it has 13 songs and after something like 3 or 4 listens only one of them has managed to capture myattention. It`s called "Goodnight, Goodnight" and it sounds somewhat similar to "Dogs die in hot cars", only it`s not very consistent - the verses are good but the refrain isn`t. From the rest of the album there`s "Pickin` it Up" - a college rock song, "Elevator" which probably could have been done by the "Goo Goo Dolls" and "Shame on you" which reminds of "This Love" by Maroon 5. Altogether it`s not bad but it ain`t very good as well.

Now there`s one thing I can`t deny even if I want to - it`s that Duerrenmatt is one of my favourite writers of all times. He`s funny and he`s smart, he`s witty and his joke is never a fart. "Der Meteor" is an absurd story about a nobel prize winning writer who rises from the dead. The only problem for him is that he doesn`t believe in that. He only thinks that he`s gonna die very soon and comes back to the place where he once lived when he was young, thinking that it would make a good place to die. Yet he not only doesn`t die but drives many other people into graves - by scaring them for him being alive, by doing what they don`t want him to. He`s a real asshole so to say. "Dichterdammerung" is a really twisted play - it`s basically a play where we see a play being played on a stage in some low quality theatre. It`s a play about a nobel prize winning writer who is visited by a great admirer of his who has found out that in all the authors book he writes about killings he performs himself. This admirer of his doesn`t want no money he just wants to be able to follow the master and look at his work. Yet since the writer is famous only because everyone knows that he does murder people the admirer can`t succeed at his wish. I don`t even want to comment the high rating, for Duerrenmatt it usually goes without saying.

I only read it because Bergengruen was born in Riga. I never thought that this book would be good. But it amazingly is. Some parts of Bergengruens biography aren`t particulary interesting but the way he describes some episodes is just brilliant. For example, his family left Riga for Germany in early 1900s, so when Werner was to go to WW1 his father said to him: "You see how good it is that you are not in there anymore, in that case you`d fight against your own people." So Werner says that he sees no big difference on which side to die, and his relationship with his father is never really good again. Then there was one interesting thing about Knut Hamsun (the Norwegian writer) - when during WW2 he expressed his support for the Nazis it became a good style for the people of his hometown to throw books written by Hamsun into his garden, and even pilgrims from other towns came to do the same thing. I have to admit that the book isn`t really evenly written but the good things in this case make up for the bad ones and I really can`t say that this book is no good.

I don`t mean to be rude but I`m just too lazy to say much about this book. It is a somewhat creepy story about 5 people being put inside a building which hasn`t been used in decades. They have to find the sun or something like that inside. One of the fellows dies very quickly and the job they have to do suddenly turns into a nightmare. Still there`s a problem worse than one of your fellow dying under bizarre circumstances. It`s your book being boring. And that is just the case of Georg Klein. I got so bored with the book that I really read it just to read it till the end, not caring about what was going on. So if you`d ask me what the moral of this story is or what happened to each of the characters I`d tell you - I don`t know. I only know that 3 of them stayed alive, one of the three - partly alive. So did I.

Now that is a surprise even for myself - once again I`ve read a book by a Japanese writer. This one - Mr. Oe - is a Nobel prize winner (in Literature if you really didn`t expect that). If you know me you probably also know that authority isn`t authority to me. So he is a Nobel prize winner. Why would I think that Mr. Oe is better than the beggar I saw two hours ago eating cookies at the local supermarket? Probably because Mr Oe is a good writer. He created the story of Mitsu and Takasi - two brothers living in the Seventies Japan. Mitsu is the person from whose point of view we see the way story develops. He and his wife are dragged by Takasi to the village where the brothers spent their childhood. They come back to relive in some way the lives of their ancestors - Mitsu is the renewed his great-grandfather, a rich landowner, while Takasi is great-grandpas younger brother who lead a revolution in the First year of Mannen (1860). Nowadays Takasi starts training the local football team and makes out of his youth people that run over the local Korean supermarket. Still it ain`t 1860 and you can`t possibly win, and you don`t win at all. I read that this book is similar to the "Karamazov Brothers" by Dostojevski but I haven`t read that (I`m an ignorant punk) therefore it`s all I can say on the subject. The book i good, but not great. I wouldn`t give a Nobel prize for that but I wouldn`t say: "Shut your freakin` face uncle freaker!" either.

Welcome to a brand new genre in my factoid - a theatre play watched not on the stage but on the screen. This was performed in 1987 by the most notorious Latvian theatre at the time - the Latvian Theatre of the Youth. So, this is a play by Gunars Priede, the same fellow who wrote "The blue", but this is surely his most famous work (in Latvia, of course, for outside nobody knows his name). There`s this woman who once was a teacher (before WW2) but because she was leftist she couldn`t go on with her job during the German occupation, neither could she do it after WW2 in the Soviet days (I`m not gonna say "Soviet occupation" just because I`m an asshole, so buzz off!). She met a man named Sergey who was a war prisoner and who was given to her as a servant by the Germans, something similar to love developed between them, but in the midst of the centrifuge WW and Stalinist terror brought there was no real place for love. The play was lovely performed, although a bit too realistically for me, but I know that no cool expensive decorations were available in 1987 in Soviet Latvia, so I won`t mind that, and the choice of the actors was also quite good. At least it shows history the way I want to look at it and not in the way it is seen by silly commies or silly Latvian nazis.

In the gospel according to IMDB this is a great film. Apart from dreadful acting the first half of this film seemed to be good - a guy named Klaatu arrives to Earth from outer space to bring to the nations of the Earth the message that if they will use nuclear power they will be killed by the more advanced races. After being injured he ends up living together with some normal people because he looks just like one of them. After that as in any film of the cold war era and especially in a film from the Communist-hunt days you will find a lot of pathos and patriotic gibberish. Klaatu visits the statue of Abraham Lincoln, he tells to the people that the universe needs a world police that would keep order and that you`re either with us or against us. George W. Bush, what was your favourite film when you was a little boy? I bet I know, you even have the same haircut as Klaatu. Yeah, the ending is about as good as the words "terrificly bad" charactarise it. Screw IMDB, watch "Flying Saucers: the true story" instead. Or find yourself a rainbow.