The Huxleyan Warning

In Neil Postman's "The Huxleyan Warning", he clearly spells out the negative effects that television has on our culture, turning it into what he calls a "population distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments…" I agree with Postman's argument to an extent. He believes that television in every form is bad, and it would only be useful if it became worse. If everything on television became a serious topic or discussion, it would no longer truly be entertainment. I do think that our culture has fixated on this entertainment too much, but I think that a little distraction here and there isn't a bad thing. Not everything has to mean something or have some sort of important message, and I think Postman fails to acknowledge this in his writing. I do agree with his questioning of who would stop a culture being overtaken by entertainment. He says, "Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture's being drained by laughter?" I think he makes a very good point. Just like in Brave New World, no one would complain about it because they are constantly happy, constantly being satisfied by their every need. Instant gratification at its finest. If this was to ever happen to our culture, would we be noble enough to rise up against it? These are the important points Postman makes that I do agree with.

Brave New World: World State vs. Savage Reservation

The World State is a society driven by acting on one’s desire and everyone “having” everyone. A quote that represents this ideology is in chapter three, when Mustapha Mond is explaining the history of the World State. He says, “Mother, monogamy, romance… No wonder the pre-moderns were so mad and wicked and miserable. The world didn’t allow them to take things easily, didn’t want them to be sane, virtuous, happy… they were forced to feel strongly. And feeling strongly, how could they be stable?” (Page 41). The entire state philosophy is about not suppressing desire, because then there would be no stability and peace to humanity, stability being the most important factor to the world state.

Another important quote that helps better represent ideology of the World State is located in Chapter 6, when Lenina is with Bernard, but he wants to be alone in her company (which is an odd thing in the World State). She says, “A gramme is always better than a damn… Everybody’s happy nowadays… Everyone works for everyone else… When the individual feels, the community reels… Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today… Progress is lovely.” (Page 90-1) This is a great example of someone in the society spurting off the sleep-taught sayings about the World State. This shows how people are using soma to deal with their unpleasant emotions, prioritize community over individual, and the support of instant gratification- all important to the stability of the World State.

The Savage Reservation, a society that is wholly different from the World State, is described in detail in chapters 7 through 9. We learn about it through characters John and Linda, Linda being someone who used to live in the World State and can point out the stark contrasts between the two.  In chapter 7, Linda approaches both Lenina and Bernard and starts to explain to them the savagery of this civilization. She says, “‘Well here, nobody’s supposed to belong to more than one person. And if you have people in the ordinary way, the others think you’re wicked and antisocial… So they’re having children all the time- like dogs.” (Page 121-122).

Lastly, if I was to pick a culture to be a part of I think I would choose the Reservation. I can’t imagine not being able to feel what humans feel. What would be the point of just being drugged up and distracted all of the time? The Savage Reservation wouldn’t have the fancy amenities that the World State has but I would rather have control over my mind instead of being manipulated by leaders.

Review: Megan Shepherd's "Her Dark Curiosity"

“Her Dark Curiosity”, by Megan Shepherd, is the second book belonging to the Madman’s Daughter Trilogy. After escaping the island where her father was performing secret experiments that could change the world, she returns back to London to rebuild her life and forget about the awful sights she witnessed on the island. The story closely mirrors Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Hyde with its own twists, which adds a familiarity to the story.

“Her Dark Curiosity” to me, seems to be a lot more over-dramatic than the first novel in the trilogy. Main character, Juliet Moreau seems to know the repercussions of father’s experiments, yet she is drawn to vivisection and finding a cure for one of his creatures who followed her back to London. She has no sort of character development and seems to always use the excuse of the “animal inside of her” to justify her likeness to her father’s madness. She clings around to a serial killer and believes she can somehow save him using the science that got her father banished from London in the first place. However, I do love how Shepherd explores the humanity within the beast/Edward from the island. “I want to be just a man, that’s all, who isn’t marked with bruises, who can walk the streets without worry that he’ll kill someone.” He swallowed, as his hands again closed over mine. “Who can love you as you deserve to be loved.” Shepherd not only gets the reader to hate the beast, but also to root for him at the exact same time.

Shepherd does do a great job with the predictability of the novel. Beside the cliche “I love them both” romance, every other aspect of the book comes to the readers as a surprise and the mystery only continues to go deeper more sinister as the novel continues on.

I would recommend this story to others because it is full of twists and turns, and a reader can definitely overlook the romance within the novel. Unlike of YA reads, it doesn’t just focus on a love triangle, but with a dark science that keeps readers at the edge of their seats.

Chris Hedges on the War in Iraq

I believe that Chris Hedge's view on the war in Iraq, or about his views on war in general is entirely incorrect. Hedge's argues that in war people lose the sense in the meaning of a life and says, "They see that war is a state of almost pure sin with its goals of hatred and destruction. They know how war fosters alienation, leads inevitably to nihilism, and is a turning away from the sanctity and preservation of life." This argument could be held true until one remembers the reasons behind the war, the greater purpose of it all. It could be cynical for me to say that humans can't come together as one and stop war, but you can't just not fight a fight after being attacked. 

Hedges also treats the young soldiers of war as if they are some sort of killing machines. He says regarding these soldiers, "The thrill of destruction fills their days with wild adrenaline highs, strange grotesque landscapes that are hallucinogenic, all accompanied by a sense of purpose and comradeship, overpowers the alienation many left behind. They become accustomed to killing, carrying out acts of slaughter with no more forethought than they take to relieve themselves." I find it insulting to the men and women that voluntarily join the military to fight this fight for the United States. I highly doubt any of these people find taking a human life come with so much ease and effort. I see how someone could come to those sorts of conclusions from seeing the dramatic changes in their lives, but it completely disregards that these soldiers have never seen such grotesque violence, and it must shake them in their core to be participating. 

 

"On Ophelia's Madness" - Hamlet

In Carroll Camden's article "On Ophelia's madness", I do agree with his argument about the circumstances of Ophelia's madness. I agree when the author quotes, "No girl becomes insane because her father dies, least of all Ophelia." It is very important to stress the idea that it didn't take her losing her father to go crazy, it was her constant manipulation by the men around her and the loss prospects after Polonius is no longer there to tell her what to do. She is also very love sick after Hamlet declares his love for her but shortly turns on her and says "I did love you once... You should not have believed me... I loved you not." The author turns and also adds that "... Polonius' prescripts have their effect on Ophelia too... the appearance of Hamlet's pretended madness is contrasted with the reality of Ophelia's madness."

I think that Ophelia's role allows better understanding of Hamlet's complex personality. Ophelia also highlights key themes of the play, including corruption, patriarchy and deception. In addition, Ophelia mirrors Hamlet's flaws. Like him, when faced with something she never takes actions, only reacts to the actions of others. Instead of saving herself when the branch snapped and fell in the river, she does nothing. The terrible realizations Hamlet makes when he hears of Ophelia's deceitfulness is what causes him to emotionally abuse his mother Gertrude, another woman he loves. Also, Polonius never advises Ophelia to be true to herself like he wishes on his son Laertes. This shows how she is subject to the double standard between male and females about lack of freedom of choice and action within the time period. All together, Ophelia clearly just adds more depth to the themes of the play. 

Strengths and Weaknesses- Hamlet

Hamlet, which in many critics opinions is called Shakespeare's greatest play, seems to me to a bit overdramatic. However, one of its many strengths was its complex plot of revenge and stride for power. The weaknesses were that the entire play consisted of Hamlet feeling pity for himself and failing at each opportunity to succeed in his revenge on his Uncle, King Claudius. In his famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy, Hamlet goes on about choosing to live and suffer, or die and perhaps go to Heaven or something greater. "To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub / For in that sleep of death what dreams may come / When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, / Must give us pause. There's the respect / That makes calamity of so long life." Is in an important line, and pretty much outlines the reason for living. The fact that we don't know what happens after death and thats why we choose to live long lives. The weaknesses were that the entire play consisted of Hamlet feeling pity for himself and failing at each opportunity to succeed in his revenge on his Uncle, King Claudius. In my opinion it was at times boring to hear Hamlet feel sorry for himself, and the way they set up their spying plots are completely obvious and not calculated whatsoever.