In reading Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984, one can note the similarities between 1984 and Brave New World. This is expressed simply and accurately through examples from the texts, the opinion of the author, and outside sources. As a lay reader, one can draw comparisons while reading these two books. This article scrapes deeper into the crust of thinking and enlightens the reader about truth.
I appreciate the analogies of Beethoven and The Beatles, and Shakespeare and Noel Coward. The reference to two contrasting, well-known artists provides insight into the text that will follow. This description also provides an easy way to understand the author's analysis of a whole truth. He quotes Huxley's Music at Night, expressing that all contemporary authors 'of significance... prefer to state the Whole Truth' (118). This whole truth is expressed to be present in both Brave New World and 1984 (although the author contests that "Brave New World is too small in compass to sate satisfactorily the whole truth") (118).
I found it interesting that Huxley was moved by Orwell's novel, 1984. Huxley comments on the novel's ruling minority as possessing 'sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion' in removing sex from the equation (119). It is comforting to see Huxley extend his opinion on 1984
because of the similar nature of the novels. This communication shows that Huxley was not entirely sure of himself and his assertions. The most interesting part about this is that no letters written by Orwell are found. One is left wondering if Orwell shared the ambitions to discover these truths as Huxley.
This article also discusses Zamyatin's novel, We, and how it most likely influenced Huxley. One notices the affect that works have on other authors. Zamyatin has most likely influenced Huxley, as Huxley has influenced Orwell. This process of gaining influence from the talents or ideas of others is a constant and cyclical process. When one responds to the ideas of another, the original person has the opportunity to rebuttal or concur. Huxley, however, defies the misconception that he was influenced by Zamyatin, in saying that he had not read We (122). This point shows that similar ideas may float through the heads of people. Orwell looks foolish in accusing Huxley of plagiarism. He opens the doors for catapults of rotten vegetables with his idea that he did not plagiarize, but another did.
Although both Brave New World and 1984 contain biblical allusions, the difference in the endings of the novels present the most striking comparison. John, The Savage, dies a sacrificial death (alluding to Christ), while Winston dies emotionally by giving into The Party (or the Satanic O'Brien) (127). These two contrasting fates show different opinions on religion, but more importantly, express the possible outcomes of people who try and be individuals in a cut and dry, one way, society. Regardless of whether or not the authors gained insight from others, the message is powerful. Through different characters and situations, one can witness the potential of similarly deadly, but not identical, worlds.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
WORDs.
WORD. No, I am not agreeing with a dawg. I am drawing attention to the nature of "word" and words: the complexities, connotations, multiple meanings. I am picking up my green highlighter and coloring the importance of a paragraph. I am circling, underlining, scribbling, crossing out, writing, writing, writing for its sake (not just mine). If it has not been made apparent yet, I am a lover. My significant other? Language.
Reading is boring. My shoulders tense as I hear this. They must not know what it is like to be swallowed whole by the swirling smoke of a book. I hate English. I wonder how one can say that. Do you hate every syllable that comes out of your mouth? What about foreign languages? Are they just as despicable? Nein, нет, Não, Geen, Non, いいえ, Ingen, 沒有, No! Language is the source of all understanding. Without it, we would be struggling to coexist and communicate.
Language plays an essential role in self expression. Whether the pen chooses a poem, a rant, a novella, or just a few lines, it is all a part of the endless growing process. It is through writing and discovering new ideas through words that one gains a better understanding of oneself. As one can witness while reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, writing has the potential to relieve one from inner frustrations. Writing offers an outlet in which to act freely and discover emotion. The reader witnesses, throughout the novel, how Stephen becomes closer to language. It is clear, as seen through his speech, that he enjoys words. The power of writing is exemplified when Stephen decides that his desire to be a writer is worth abandoning his current life. One sees the affect that language holds when Stephen decides that he will choose that over Ireland. It is also wanting of freedom that leads Stephen away from Ireland. This theme of freedom is reinforced with the free act of writing.
If it were not for words, appearing on white lines, coming out of mouths, the thoughts of people would be severely limited. It is for this reason that one should be grateful for words. The world of 1984 presents the potential of "Newspeak". This form of speech makes expression limited because of what the author can say. "Newspeak" shortens the extent of expression by destroying words. It is with the destruction of words that free ideas are lessened.
It is through communicating that one interacts with others. Facial gestures can provide some form of understanding, however, do not match the power of a sentence. Words are what enable us to voice different opinions. If it were not for words, one may just accept everything as it was. Thoughts would be halted due to the fact that they could not be expressed. The beauty in language is that there can be dozens of outlooks on one subject. There is no "right answer" in expressing an idea. Everything is open for discussion.
I would lay my body on the line in defense of words. This may appear trivial to some, but, when one realizes the key role that language plays in society, one may think differently. Without language, there would be no blog. There would be no laughing. No questioning. No... Life's limitations would be far greater if one did not have the opportunity to express oneself with language. I am ready to stand up and lessen the limitations.
Reading is boring. My shoulders tense as I hear this. They must not know what it is like to be swallowed whole by the swirling smoke of a book. I hate English. I wonder how one can say that. Do you hate every syllable that comes out of your mouth? What about foreign languages? Are they just as despicable? Nein, нет, Não, Geen, Non, いいえ, Ingen, 沒有, No! Language is the source of all understanding. Without it, we would be struggling to coexist and communicate.
Language plays an essential role in self expression. Whether the pen chooses a poem, a rant, a novella, or just a few lines, it is all a part of the endless growing process. It is through writing and discovering new ideas through words that one gains a better understanding of oneself. As one can witness while reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, writing has the potential to relieve one from inner frustrations. Writing offers an outlet in which to act freely and discover emotion. The reader witnesses, throughout the novel, how Stephen becomes closer to language. It is clear, as seen through his speech, that he enjoys words. The power of writing is exemplified when Stephen decides that his desire to be a writer is worth abandoning his current life. One sees the affect that language holds when Stephen decides that he will choose that over Ireland. It is also wanting of freedom that leads Stephen away from Ireland. This theme of freedom is reinforced with the free act of writing.
If it were not for words, appearing on white lines, coming out of mouths, the thoughts of people would be severely limited. It is for this reason that one should be grateful for words. The world of 1984 presents the potential of "Newspeak". This form of speech makes expression limited because of what the author can say. "Newspeak" shortens the extent of expression by destroying words. It is with the destruction of words that free ideas are lessened.
It is through communicating that one interacts with others. Facial gestures can provide some form of understanding, however, do not match the power of a sentence. Words are what enable us to voice different opinions. If it were not for words, one may just accept everything as it was. Thoughts would be halted due to the fact that they could not be expressed. The beauty in language is that there can be dozens of outlooks on one subject. There is no "right answer" in expressing an idea. Everything is open for discussion.
I would lay my body on the line in defense of words. This may appear trivial to some, but, when one realizes the key role that language plays in society, one may think differently. Without language, there would be no blog. There would be no laughing. No questioning. No... Life's limitations would be far greater if one did not have the opportunity to express oneself with language. I am ready to stand up and lessen the limitations.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
We the People
Welcome to Good Baby, home of the Good Baby, may I take your order? Welcome to Baby King, where you can have it your way. Ba-da da da baby--I'm loving it. Envision the savory, juicy, flame-grilled...Wait! Babies are far from Big Macs or Whoppers. Right? Think again. Genetic design presents the capability to produce fast-food style, assembly line, babies. This efficient system allows one to create a custom-made baby. While genetically designing babies appears to be an innovative proposal, for the purpose of conception or eliminating hereditary diseases, the rights to the parents should be limited with restrictions.
Supporters of Darwinism may agree with the argument of only the strong survive, following the concept of natural selection. However, to directly connect Darwin to genetic engineering is not an adequate proposition. Evolution has morphed animals into the beings that inhabit the earth today. Following a primate beginning, evolution brought "homo" or "human" life about. According to Hooper Museum of California, mankind went through the trials of natural selection, from homo habilis (the ape-like, stone-tool creator) to Neanderthals (limping weapon makers, discovered to bury their dead), to homo homo sapiens (the name given to humans today). This inexorable change in the development of man is a result of adaptation. Mankind sought ways to survive and thus evolved. It should be noted that this was a natural process. No test tubes or laboratories were involved in the creation of the homo homo sapien. Genetically designing human beings should be monitored and controlled. The efforts should not be aimed at producing a superior race free of hereditary diseases and imperfections. Natural selection occurs over an extended period of time without facing rubber gloves. Technology has significantly prospered since the time of the Neanderthals, however, there is still concern over how it should be used. Darwin did not wish to create a superior race. He attested that the ones who could not survive would thus vanish. Using genetic engineering, primarily, in order to aid conception, presents the safest route. While religious people may be disheartened by unused embryos, this form of genetic design is most logical. A married couple who innocently desires to share a genetic child, but is unable to conceive through traditional means, can find this opportunity very appealing. Invitro fertilisation offers the chance for such individuals to conceive. If the number of embryos created is limited, this process does not pose a great threat. Eliminating harmful diseases is a reasonable initiative because it can present severe limitations for the child. Using genetic engineering for the purpose of picking the right eyes, hair color, intelligence, etcetera, etcetera, is where the line in the sand becomes thick. This idea of assembling babies (in less than 20 seconds! No, sorry. That is a Double Cheeseburger.) for the satisfaction of superficial desires is frightening.
The literary scholar is likely to draw comparisons to copious dystopian novels. One novel that comes to mind is Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. Published in the early thirties, and set in the year 2540 AD, Huxley foresaw a future not far from the reality of today. Although this date is over 500 years away, the similarities are profound. It presents a world in which babies are produced according to set standards. All beings come to exist as a result of the manipulation of hatcheries. There are different classes, castes, that determine the tasks of each individual upon creation. Psychological conditioning convinces each infant, teen, and young adult that he/she is happy in his/her designated position. It is dangerous to use the word individual. In OneState, everyone grasps tightly to the motto: "COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY" (Huxley 1). Marriage does not exist. No serious emotional connections are allowed. Each person belongs to the other. With the use of genetically engineering every aspect of a soon-to-be-baby, individualism is lost. People become equal, in the sense that there is nothing different. However, achieving equality in this manner is not plausible. The creation of different social classes, upon the birth of a test tube, limits the opportunities of others. Is this the direction that today's society is headed? Is the United States of America, home to diversity and prospect, on a downward slope to the land of limitations? The cost, alone, presents a concern for those who hold a tight budget. According to one clinic, Nova INF, the cost can vary (depending on the number of cycles needed) from 9,000 to 32,000! This seems outrageous to have to pay such an astronomical amount. Imagine the cost if a person is choosing sex, hair and eye color, or other hereditary traits! The acceptance of this practice would create a serious social divide between those able to afford the treatment and those incapable. This could lead to a threatening creation of super humans. Madison Grant, graduate of Yale and author of an eugenic book, speaks about a "rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit" (Grant, The Competition of Races). To believe in the the elimination of those who are less than perfect defies the foundation in which the Constitution upholds. Where is the equality here?
Nancy Gibbs, writer for Time Magazine, expresses the necessity of making "sure that we weigh the risks before we embrace the promise." This statement should be valued by doctors, potential parents, the government, and citizens. The idea of artificially inducing embryos with hormones and genes seems futuristic. It is time for everyone to realize that this idea is no longer just a dream. It is real. It is here. It is now. What is being done to protect the future?
Supporters of Darwinism may agree with the argument of only the strong survive, following the concept of natural selection. However, to directly connect Darwin to genetic engineering is not an adequate proposition. Evolution has morphed animals into the beings that inhabit the earth today. Following a primate beginning, evolution brought "homo" or "human" life about. According to Hooper Museum of California, mankind went through the trials of natural selection, from homo habilis (the ape-like, stone-tool creator) to Neanderthals (limping weapon makers, discovered to bury their dead), to homo homo sapiens (the name given to humans today). This inexorable change in the development of man is a result of adaptation. Mankind sought ways to survive and thus evolved. It should be noted that this was a natural process. No test tubes or laboratories were involved in the creation of the homo homo sapien. Genetically designing human beings should be monitored and controlled. The efforts should not be aimed at producing a superior race free of hereditary diseases and imperfections. Natural selection occurs over an extended period of time without facing rubber gloves. Technology has significantly prospered since the time of the Neanderthals, however, there is still concern over how it should be used. Darwin did not wish to create a superior race. He attested that the ones who could not survive would thus vanish. Using genetic engineering, primarily, in order to aid conception, presents the safest route. While religious people may be disheartened by unused embryos, this form of genetic design is most logical. A married couple who innocently desires to share a genetic child, but is unable to conceive through traditional means, can find this opportunity very appealing. Invitro fertilisation offers the chance for such individuals to conceive. If the number of embryos created is limited, this process does not pose a great threat. Eliminating harmful diseases is a reasonable initiative because it can present severe limitations for the child. Using genetic engineering for the purpose of picking the right eyes, hair color, intelligence, etcetera, etcetera, is where the line in the sand becomes thick. This idea of assembling babies (in less than 20 seconds! No, sorry. That is a Double Cheeseburger.) for the satisfaction of superficial desires is frightening.
The literary scholar is likely to draw comparisons to copious dystopian novels. One novel that comes to mind is Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. Published in the early thirties, and set in the year 2540 AD, Huxley foresaw a future not far from the reality of today. Although this date is over 500 years away, the similarities are profound. It presents a world in which babies are produced according to set standards. All beings come to exist as a result of the manipulation of hatcheries. There are different classes, castes, that determine the tasks of each individual upon creation. Psychological conditioning convinces each infant, teen, and young adult that he/she is happy in his/her designated position. It is dangerous to use the word individual. In OneState, everyone grasps tightly to the motto: "COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY" (Huxley 1). Marriage does not exist. No serious emotional connections are allowed. Each person belongs to the other. With the use of genetically engineering every aspect of a soon-to-be-baby, individualism is lost. People become equal, in the sense that there is nothing different. However, achieving equality in this manner is not plausible. The creation of different social classes, upon the birth of a test tube, limits the opportunities of others. Is this the direction that today's society is headed? Is the United States of America, home to diversity and prospect, on a downward slope to the land of limitations? The cost, alone, presents a concern for those who hold a tight budget. According to one clinic, Nova INF, the cost can vary (depending on the number of cycles needed) from 9,000 to 32,000! This seems outrageous to have to pay such an astronomical amount. Imagine the cost if a person is choosing sex, hair and eye color, or other hereditary traits! The acceptance of this practice would create a serious social divide between those able to afford the treatment and those incapable. This could lead to a threatening creation of super humans. Madison Grant, graduate of Yale and author of an eugenic book, speaks about a "rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit" (Grant, The Competition of Races). To believe in the the elimination of those who are less than perfect defies the foundation in which the Constitution upholds. Where is the equality here?
Nancy Gibbs, writer for Time Magazine, expresses the necessity of making "sure that we weigh the risks before we embrace the promise." This statement should be valued by doctors, potential parents, the government, and citizens. The idea of artificially inducing embryos with hormones and genes seems futuristic. It is time for everyone to realize that this idea is no longer just a dream. It is real. It is here. It is now. What is being done to protect the future?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
