The future is hard to predict. In fact, the weather channel rarely gets it right. When a believable prediction is made, it is hard to come to a different conclusion, especially without reasonable evidence. So the statement made on the comparison between Huxley and Orwell’s novels makes perfect sense.
Although they are tow completely different extremes, as a comparison article had stated, there are endless connections. Whether it be though characters, slogans, or even basic plot, "it conducts a kind of dialogue between the lines with Huxley’s novel" (121). This quote is in reference to Orwell’s 1984. Many people believe that after reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Orwell was inspired to right his own prediction of the future. However, while I think that there are hundreds of connections between the two, Orwell saw past Huxley’s world, into a world far past A.F. 632.
When Huxley wrote Brave New World in the 1930s, he could not have been more accurate of the times to come. In the 70s, his prediction of soma resembled greatly the hippie generation and their slogan of "do what feels good." However, this generation has now quieted and has moved into a new generation. The generation of today is much more resembled to Orwell’s 1984. Today, parents can track their children by their coats, online companies can track previous purchases, and emails can even display ads related to your email topic. It seems as if our world has shifted between the minds of Huxley and Orwell. As Huxley stated in regards to this, "Mr. Orwell’s forecast in Nineteen Eighty-Four was made from a vantage point considerably farther down the descending spiral of modern history than mine, and is nearly correct" (119). In this line from Huxley himself, he acknowledges that while both him and Orwell were on different paths to the future, it as if Orwell has seen past him.
I found it very interesting that as both of these mens’ careers continued, they seemed to continue justifying their works in regards to each other’s opinions. While reading this article it caught my eye that in 1959 Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited. This new novel "is so shot through with references to Orwell’s novel that it might almost be called a justification of Brave New World in terms of Nineteen Eighty-Four" (120). It seems as though although Orwell was partially influenced by Huxley’s work, Huxley felt that Orwell made good enough points that he changed some of his own opinions. In my opinion, this marks both Huxley and Orwell as two of the most intelligent authors of their time.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Stand Up For Rights, Even If Not Your Own
Every person has something that to them, they feel is so important that they would do anything. For me, this matter is actually gay rights. While I myself am not, I know and spend time with many who are, including close friends. I feel that no matter what, two consenting adults in love should have the right to marry.
This idea is opposed for several reasons, a main reason being religion. Those greatly influenced by the church feel that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman, and should remain that way. In my opinion this makes the church hypocritical. A major foundation of a church is that everyone is welcome. So how can they then say this and turn homosexuals away?
Also, many would say that it is a moral issue. If the couple were to adopt a child, how would it affect this child growing up? Growing up, this child would know of no other life. I have read countless articles in magazines of children growing up with either two mothers or two fathers who would not ask for anything more.
Personally, I question those who look down upon this. Fifty years ago, the same feelings were held about divorce. It was looked down upon by churches and the affects on children were feared. Today, however, it is incredibly common. In fact, almost half of marriages end in a divorce. That is today’s normalcy. I think people should start accepting things such as gay marriage as the normalcy of the next generation. Love is a beautiful thing no matter who it is between. I have been with my boyfriend for two years and experienced this feeling. There is no reason that others should not have the rights to have the same feelings and equality. So although this issue does not affect me directly, it is a cause I do feel strongly for.
In a way, the same goes for the character Winston, of Orwell’s 1984. When he joins a group opposing Big Brother, he has no connection to it other than that he knows in his heart that things should be different. And just like the path Winston is now in, all paths will have ups and downs, but what is right always manages to come through.
This idea is opposed for several reasons, a main reason being religion. Those greatly influenced by the church feel that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman, and should remain that way. In my opinion this makes the church hypocritical. A major foundation of a church is that everyone is welcome. So how can they then say this and turn homosexuals away?
Also, many would say that it is a moral issue. If the couple were to adopt a child, how would it affect this child growing up? Growing up, this child would know of no other life. I have read countless articles in magazines of children growing up with either two mothers or two fathers who would not ask for anything more.
Personally, I question those who look down upon this. Fifty years ago, the same feelings were held about divorce. It was looked down upon by churches and the affects on children were feared. Today, however, it is incredibly common. In fact, almost half of marriages end in a divorce. That is today’s normalcy. I think people should start accepting things such as gay marriage as the normalcy of the next generation. Love is a beautiful thing no matter who it is between. I have been with my boyfriend for two years and experienced this feeling. There is no reason that others should not have the rights to have the same feelings and equality. So although this issue does not affect me directly, it is a cause I do feel strongly for.
In a way, the same goes for the character Winston, of Orwell’s 1984. When he joins a group opposing Big Brother, he has no connection to it other than that he knows in his heart that things should be different. And just like the path Winston is now in, all paths will have ups and downs, but what is right always manages to come through.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Genetic Altering and Its Infinite Possibilities
Although genetic altering could help to cure many of the world’s diseases, it would ultimately cause more problems than it would solve. In Brave New World, the seemingly perfect society is full of people who have been genetically altered to work and live in conditioned areas of the world. They live without diseases, attachment, or basically any feelings. So, what could go wrong?
Genetic altering could rid the world of fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS, and could give people longer lives and more opportunities. People would not have to face every day knowing they only have a ceratin amount of time to live, or have to see a loved one slowly lose their life. Genetic altering people to rid them of disease could change the world we live in as we know it. But would it ultimately be for the good? At the start, ridding people of disease will give everyone longer lives. Slowly, however, as the lives of people grow longer and the people of our planet continue to repopulate, our world will grow smaller. Overpopulation, starvation, and poverty will become more of a problem than it already is today. With more people on the planet, and longer lives than ever, those who are unable to keep up with the changing world will be dragged under the new civilization. They will be left on the streets, without diseases yes, but starving and poor.
This would also lead to a record-breaking growth between the social classes. With Darwinism coming into effect, those who cannot keep up with society will fall behind and be lost. The population of the world’s homeless will sky rocket while the rich grow richer. Cities will drown in poverty, leading to out breaks and riots in the streets. The genetic altering of people would do a lot more to this world than cure diseases or let parents chose the eye color of their child. There is also the issue of the cost. Who would pay for it, the government or the family? If it is the government, a limit on the spending would have to be created in order to keep a balance. And also, who would chose which families would receive the chance to alter their children? If the family were to pay, than only the rich and well-off would be able to. This would again create a growth in the distance of the social classes. If only the rich can alter their children, than their children will ultimately be better, leaving the children of the poor behind in the world.
I understand that this does give many parents the opportunity they did not previously have to conceive a child. It opens up a new world of possibilities for those who are unable to start a family. "No politician wants to get between a childless couple and the doctors who offer an answer to their prayers" (Gibbs). In an article found in Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs brought up the argument of where the line should be drawn in the new found world on genetic altering. "Science has given us childbirth miracles. Now we need laws to create some boundaries."
Many aspects come into the process of creating these boundaries. Religion is huge. It is believed that a child who is genetically altered loses their soul, and therefor, is hardly human. It is messing with nature and what God has intended and stepping in the balance of the world. Many would argue that it’s not right to create a child through science because it is not natural. Children should be born through parents, two humans, not scientists and their test tubes. There are so many different aspects coming into the decision of the boundaries, that it would be next to impossible to create them.
Another positive aspect of genetic altering, however, is that if parents can chose the physical appearance of their child, they would also be able to chose their race, leaving no one in the minority. This would eliminate racism. A world without racism would contain less conflicts between its citizens, and everyone would be the best. At least everyone would consider themselves the best. In the novel Brave New World, each social group considers themselves the best, based solely on childhood conditioning. However, none of these citizens know anything of the other groups of people. This creates great ignorance. In a world where everyone is superior, great pride lives along side its citizens. There is no superiority if there is no one, or no group, under who or what is the best. If everyone is the best, who does everyone consider the worst? Eliminating race from the factors of the minority, what new factors will emerge as the cause for racism? These new factors could be worse than the ones we are living with today; a new racism.
So we as a world society must decide what is better: a world rid of disease, or overpopulation, poverty, and new forms of racism. What would you chose?
Genetic altering could rid the world of fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS, and could give people longer lives and more opportunities. People would not have to face every day knowing they only have a ceratin amount of time to live, or have to see a loved one slowly lose their life. Genetic altering people to rid them of disease could change the world we live in as we know it. But would it ultimately be for the good? At the start, ridding people of disease will give everyone longer lives. Slowly, however, as the lives of people grow longer and the people of our planet continue to repopulate, our world will grow smaller. Overpopulation, starvation, and poverty will become more of a problem than it already is today. With more people on the planet, and longer lives than ever, those who are unable to keep up with the changing world will be dragged under the new civilization. They will be left on the streets, without diseases yes, but starving and poor.
This would also lead to a record-breaking growth between the social classes. With Darwinism coming into effect, those who cannot keep up with society will fall behind and be lost. The population of the world’s homeless will sky rocket while the rich grow richer. Cities will drown in poverty, leading to out breaks and riots in the streets. The genetic altering of people would do a lot more to this world than cure diseases or let parents chose the eye color of their child. There is also the issue of the cost. Who would pay for it, the government or the family? If it is the government, a limit on the spending would have to be created in order to keep a balance. And also, who would chose which families would receive the chance to alter their children? If the family were to pay, than only the rich and well-off would be able to. This would again create a growth in the distance of the social classes. If only the rich can alter their children, than their children will ultimately be better, leaving the children of the poor behind in the world.
I understand that this does give many parents the opportunity they did not previously have to conceive a child. It opens up a new world of possibilities for those who are unable to start a family. "No politician wants to get between a childless couple and the doctors who offer an answer to their prayers" (Gibbs). In an article found in Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs brought up the argument of where the line should be drawn in the new found world on genetic altering. "Science has given us childbirth miracles. Now we need laws to create some boundaries."
Many aspects come into the process of creating these boundaries. Religion is huge. It is believed that a child who is genetically altered loses their soul, and therefor, is hardly human. It is messing with nature and what God has intended and stepping in the balance of the world. Many would argue that it’s not right to create a child through science because it is not natural. Children should be born through parents, two humans, not scientists and their test tubes. There are so many different aspects coming into the decision of the boundaries, that it would be next to impossible to create them.
Another positive aspect of genetic altering, however, is that if parents can chose the physical appearance of their child, they would also be able to chose their race, leaving no one in the minority. This would eliminate racism. A world without racism would contain less conflicts between its citizens, and everyone would be the best. At least everyone would consider themselves the best. In the novel Brave New World, each social group considers themselves the best, based solely on childhood conditioning. However, none of these citizens know anything of the other groups of people. This creates great ignorance. In a world where everyone is superior, great pride lives along side its citizens. There is no superiority if there is no one, or no group, under who or what is the best. If everyone is the best, who does everyone consider the worst? Eliminating race from the factors of the minority, what new factors will emerge as the cause for racism? These new factors could be worse than the ones we are living with today; a new racism.
So we as a world society must decide what is better: a world rid of disease, or overpopulation, poverty, and new forms of racism. What would you chose?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Family of Friends <3
Growing up, I never really had a set group of friends in my life. I always wished that I could have that small group of people that I could rely on for anything, could talk to, and be myself with. In grammar school and middle school, I had my best friends like everyone does, but one this always led to another and that would end. Even entering highschool, I had friends, but I was never sure of who the people were that I could trust. As a child, I sometimes felt very alone. This is possibly the worst thing to experience at a young age. I also went through a move during these years. Saying goodbye to old friends was not nearly as hard as finding new people that I could call best friends again.
More than any other time in my life, this year I couldn’t be more thankful for my family. However, I’m not talking about the family you think. I finally found the people that I can always count on. They are my best friends and I could never ask for anything more than them. We are all so entirely different that sometimes I wonder why we get along so well, but we are brought together by something we all love: theatre. I could not ask for better people to spend my last year a high school with, making memories with. All of them touch my heart and change my life all the same. People always say when they graduate that there are certain people and things they will never forget. Their hand prints are on my heart forever.
This year, I want to thank you guys for being all I could ever ask for. You are my heart and soul and are forming the person I am today and who I want to become. I can be myself and laugh about anything. Happy Thanksgiving guys I love you all forever.
More than any other time in my life, this year I couldn’t be more thankful for my family. However, I’m not talking about the family you think. I finally found the people that I can always count on. They are my best friends and I could never ask for anything more than them. We are all so entirely different that sometimes I wonder why we get along so well, but we are brought together by something we all love: theatre. I could not ask for better people to spend my last year a high school with, making memories with. All of them touch my heart and change my life all the same. People always say when they graduate that there are certain people and things they will never forget. Their hand prints are on my heart forever.
This year, I want to thank you guys for being all I could ever ask for. You are my heart and soul and are forming the person I am today and who I want to become. I can be myself and laugh about anything. Happy Thanksgiving guys I love you all forever.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Poverty. Who's To Blame?
Poverty. From it stems off more issues than any other social issue facing people today. From it, people are more likely to become addicted to drugs and alcohol, get a poor education, and be drawn into criminal lifestyles. In some cities, it seems that the rates of people in poverty are only climbing to new heights. Unfortunately, a large majority of these people are young children. They are unable to change their situation because they are born into a world that their parents’ poor choices have made for them. For some children, like the Walls children, they find a way out.
In The Glass Castle, who is to blame for the horrible living conditions of the family? Personally, I blame both of the parents. Firstly, the father is to blame because of his addiction to alcohol. Every time the family comes into a little bit of money, he wastes it all with no concern to how it will affect his children. I also blame the mother, maybe even just as much. In the beginning of the memoir when the children find a ring that could buy them food and decent clothing, the mother keeps it for herself. Not thinking of her starving children, she keeps it out of selfishness. Also, when the mother actually got a paying job, she often refused to go, being to lazy and greedy to get out of bed. She cared more about her tiredness and unwillingness to work more than the lives of her family.
Now that I think of it, I almost blame the mother more than the father. In the end, we find out that the mother owns a large sum of property worth a million dollars. While the children go through life scavenging for food, wearing ragged clothing, and fighting over who gets to sleep with the dogs for warmth in the winter, the mother could have easily solved all of their problems, probably for life, with this money. Also, the mother could have left the father. In all reality she would have been much better off.
When the children leave their family for New York, they made the best decision they ever would. They had been born into a life they could do nothing about. They could not solve their father’s addiction, nor could they do anything about their mother’s depression and selfishness. In leaving to start new lives, they broke away from poverty. When the parents follow them to the city, we see how unwilling the parents are to finding a new life as well. For the first winter, they live on the streets. Then, they find a home in no better condition than the broken down home in Welsh. This may sound horrible, but I do not feel bad at all for the parents. They had so many options to change their situation, even if only in a small way. Instead of trying to make their lives better for both themselves and their family, they ignored their problem and acted as if life was just one big adventure. In my opinion, the roles of the children and the parents was completely backwards in every way. It seemed as though the children wanted a better life for the parents more than the parents wanted decent lives for their children.
If children brought into these situations can change their lives for the better, why cant the adults?
In The Glass Castle, who is to blame for the horrible living conditions of the family? Personally, I blame both of the parents. Firstly, the father is to blame because of his addiction to alcohol. Every time the family comes into a little bit of money, he wastes it all with no concern to how it will affect his children. I also blame the mother, maybe even just as much. In the beginning of the memoir when the children find a ring that could buy them food and decent clothing, the mother keeps it for herself. Not thinking of her starving children, she keeps it out of selfishness. Also, when the mother actually got a paying job, she often refused to go, being to lazy and greedy to get out of bed. She cared more about her tiredness and unwillingness to work more than the lives of her family.
Now that I think of it, I almost blame the mother more than the father. In the end, we find out that the mother owns a large sum of property worth a million dollars. While the children go through life scavenging for food, wearing ragged clothing, and fighting over who gets to sleep with the dogs for warmth in the winter, the mother could have easily solved all of their problems, probably for life, with this money. Also, the mother could have left the father. In all reality she would have been much better off.
When the children leave their family for New York, they made the best decision they ever would. They had been born into a life they could do nothing about. They could not solve their father’s addiction, nor could they do anything about their mother’s depression and selfishness. In leaving to start new lives, they broke away from poverty. When the parents follow them to the city, we see how unwilling the parents are to finding a new life as well. For the first winter, they live on the streets. Then, they find a home in no better condition than the broken down home in Welsh. This may sound horrible, but I do not feel bad at all for the parents. They had so many options to change their situation, even if only in a small way. Instead of trying to make their lives better for both themselves and their family, they ignored their problem and acted as if life was just one big adventure. In my opinion, the roles of the children and the parents was completely backwards in every way. It seemed as though the children wanted a better life for the parents more than the parents wanted decent lives for their children.
If children brought into these situations can change their lives for the better, why cant the adults?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Courage Fear and Embarrassment
In war, what is courage? Does it mean that you are not afraid to kill a man? Not afraid to die? Or is going to war cowardice to begin with? In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien considered not going to the war at all. Instead, he wanted to run away from it all. However, sitting out in the boat in the river, he realized that he did not have the courage. The passage with all of the faces in the river calling to him was probably one of the most powerful for me. Here, we see characters we have yet to be introduced to and Tim’s internal struggle with himself. He was so unsure of what would be the courageous thing to do. To him, going to the war was an act of cowardice for not being strong enough to get away. It was also cowardice to run away from people the people whose lives you may change or save. Does it take more courage to run from war, or is it harder to fight?
A quote that really stuck out for me in this book was about fear. "They were afraid of dying but they were even more afraid to show it" (O’Brien 20). In war, once you are there, it is all about being tough, and being able to withstand what you are faced with. If you are afraid, and another member of your platoon sees, you are no longer the strong "warrior" that everyone expects you to be. Also, if someone else sees your fear and admits to it too, slowly, one by one, your platoon weakens. To them, showing your fear weakens your strength and your hopes.
In the Vietnam War, most of the soldiers were only kids just fresh out of high school. They barely got a taste of the real world before they were shipped off, and more than likely, killed. They all wanted to act as courageous as possible, but to most it was just a lie. How can people so young truly believe that they are ready to die for a cause that many of them are unsure of? I believe that if they are afraid, they have every right and reason. Showing it however, is their own battle.
I recently talked with a U.S. Marine about how he felt about courage during a time of war. What he said really related to the scene in the book where Kiowa dies and all of the men involved feel responsible. The Marine said that in times of war, especially if the bond between soldiers is close, one man would put his life on the line without a second thought for another soldier. When Kiowa died, all of the men took responsibility for the death, especially Norman Bowker, who eventually committed suicide. Because of his bond with Kiowa, according to the Marine I spoke with, he could not live with himself for being to weak put his friend’s life before his own. Another thing that this Marine said to me was that "Fear lets you know your alive." I thought that this related a lot to the novel as well, because when those boys were out there fighting for their lives, I would think they would need some sort of reminder that they’re alive when people all around them are being killed.
Anyway. Back to my original question, what is courage in war. I think that killing a man is cowardly, because I also feel that a lot of wars are unnecessary . But that’s just me.
A quote that really stuck out for me in this book was about fear. "They were afraid of dying but they were even more afraid to show it" (O’Brien 20). In war, once you are there, it is all about being tough, and being able to withstand what you are faced with. If you are afraid, and another member of your platoon sees, you are no longer the strong "warrior" that everyone expects you to be. Also, if someone else sees your fear and admits to it too, slowly, one by one, your platoon weakens. To them, showing your fear weakens your strength and your hopes.
In the Vietnam War, most of the soldiers were only kids just fresh out of high school. They barely got a taste of the real world before they were shipped off, and more than likely, killed. They all wanted to act as courageous as possible, but to most it was just a lie. How can people so young truly believe that they are ready to die for a cause that many of them are unsure of? I believe that if they are afraid, they have every right and reason. Showing it however, is their own battle.
I recently talked with a U.S. Marine about how he felt about courage during a time of war. What he said really related to the scene in the book where Kiowa dies and all of the men involved feel responsible. The Marine said that in times of war, especially if the bond between soldiers is close, one man would put his life on the line without a second thought for another soldier. When Kiowa died, all of the men took responsibility for the death, especially Norman Bowker, who eventually committed suicide. Because of his bond with Kiowa, according to the Marine I spoke with, he could not live with himself for being to weak put his friend’s life before his own. Another thing that this Marine said to me was that "Fear lets you know your alive." I thought that this related a lot to the novel as well, because when those boys were out there fighting for their lives, I would think they would need some sort of reminder that they’re alive when people all around them are being killed.
Anyway. Back to my original question, what is courage in war. I think that killing a man is cowardly, because I also feel that a lot of wars are unnecessary . But that’s just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)