I was going to write this with the clergyman's Daughter but for a blog post that turned into a super large monster so I decided to do this later and tried to keep it shorter as I have lots of work to do and could easily spend all my year writing my blog and reading books.
Anyway a Coming Up For Air takes the narrative view of Tom Bowling. A sometimes crude fellow who makes cipher for Orwells thoughts about the changes in Britain and the coming WWII. Orwell discusses the impact of WWI on peoples mindset saying its not that the past was necessarily better but in a sentimental way people had this innocence that everything would remain the same, life would always go on as usual. Secondly Orwell develops ideas on the unattainability of our, past using Tom having an urge to return to his home village and then finding his town is utterly eaten up by development and his idyllic fish pond has changed into a rubbish dump. Thus also complaining the best of britain was being destroyed by industrialisation. As always Orwell displays a very penetrating view of reality , which kind of like a scientist with a microscope helps us to discover many of the layers which make it up.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Read A Clergymans Daughter
A Clergymans Daughter is probably an under appreciated novel, perhaps hidden by the blinding strength of 1984. While Orwells really famous novels are political in nature this focuses with almost as much penetrating skill with more social aspects of society.
A Clergymans Daughter tells the story of Dorothy Haze the daughter of a rector of the local church who ruthlessly schedules her life to almost to the extent she's unconsciously or perhaps consciously a constant slave. Dorothy ends up losing her memory and goes on a number of adventures in different roles in the bottom and middle classes of society.
Orwell stuffs huge amounts of ideas into each episode of this novel. He uses her normal life as a rectors daughter to show village life and its how it functions with gossip, friendship and church also he uses it to introduce religion, the huge diversity in belief and show us Dorothys own. Later Dorothy works as Hop picker (Orwell himself worked this job) and showing how wages are systematically misused so the pickers get hardly anything, the sense of euphoria one gets for working all day and its influence on stopping critical thought (you're so tired). When Dorothy becomes a school teacher Orwell systematically shows how capitalism, private schools and silly parents all interact to give children a crap education that can't change. Finally when Dorothy talks to the village atheist Mr Warburton and goes home Orwell expresses concludes ideas about religion and servitude.
About religion, despite losing her faith Dorothy expresses what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief." That is Dorothy still believes religion is a good thing and wants other people to still believe, that religion gives purpose to life and this is contrasted with Warburton. But in the end we are shown Dorothy still does has a purpose, inspite of what she says, it is realised their is little difference inside the person between belief and non-belief as long as you have something to work towards, you have your purpose.
With servitude Orwell shows how forces systematically hold Dorothy in chains. In the hop fields she can only really work and get jobs by relying on Nobby her vagrant friend. As a school teacher she is bound to misery both by Mrs Creevy giving her piss poor wages and free time ensuring she is always working on something. Alternately Warburton offers to be her husband to an extent free her, yet she still would be relying on him and be with this ugly old man. So instead she has to work a kind of servitude with her father, doing church work she doesn't believe in.
A Clergymans Daughter tells the story of Dorothy Haze the daughter of a rector of the local church who ruthlessly schedules her life to almost to the extent she's unconsciously or perhaps consciously a constant slave. Dorothy ends up losing her memory and goes on a number of adventures in different roles in the bottom and middle classes of society.
Orwell stuffs huge amounts of ideas into each episode of this novel. He uses her normal life as a rectors daughter to show village life and its how it functions with gossip, friendship and church also he uses it to introduce religion, the huge diversity in belief and show us Dorothys own. Later Dorothy works as Hop picker (Orwell himself worked this job) and showing how wages are systematically misused so the pickers get hardly anything, the sense of euphoria one gets for working all day and its influence on stopping critical thought (you're so tired). When Dorothy becomes a school teacher Orwell systematically shows how capitalism, private schools and silly parents all interact to give children a crap education that can't change. Finally when Dorothy talks to the village atheist Mr Warburton and goes home Orwell expresses concludes ideas about religion and servitude.
About religion, despite losing her faith Dorothy expresses what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief." That is Dorothy still believes religion is a good thing and wants other people to still believe, that religion gives purpose to life and this is contrasted with Warburton. But in the end we are shown Dorothy still does has a purpose, inspite of what she says, it is realised their is little difference inside the person between belief and non-belief as long as you have something to work towards, you have your purpose.
With servitude Orwell shows how forces systematically hold Dorothy in chains. In the hop fields she can only really work and get jobs by relying on Nobby her vagrant friend. As a school teacher she is bound to misery both by Mrs Creevy giving her piss poor wages and free time ensuring she is always working on something. Alternately Warburton offers to be her husband to an extent free her, yet she still would be relying on him and be with this ugly old man. So instead she has to work a kind of servitude with her father, doing church work she doesn't believe in.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Finished Letters to a Young Contrarian
Letters To A Young Contrarian had the authors tone but was different from the previous book of his I read. This book was based on Rilke's Letters To A Young Poet and Hitchens own letters to his students (he works as a professor on writing and literature etc). Part of his style is of quoting and refering to other people and works aiding him to explain his points, to some it may be burdensome and an acquired taste, but I find it enriching though it some it does make one feel I must read more.
For literature and general society one part letter which deserves analysis was about the necesssity of conflict. Hitchens points out that "in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life argument and disputation." But I would take that further and say without conflict, without working to improve with a little feedback and struggle people generally slide backwards. No conflict, argument or struggle usually means lazy acceptance of a position whatever it may be. In novels for any character to change and develop they need some kind of conflict forcing them to reflect on themselves and maybe adapt. Hitchens other point is about perpetual happiness or paradise, "imagine a state of bliss and perpetual happiness and harmony, and you have summoned a vision of tedium and pointlessness and predictability." We all know this is true on some level. Think of a novel which has no struggle, no excitement, the character is just happy all the time and you can't disagree it would be a very boring novel.
For literature and general society one part letter which deserves analysis was about the necesssity of conflict. Hitchens points out that "in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life argument and disputation." But I would take that further and say without conflict, without working to improve with a little feedback and struggle people generally slide backwards. No conflict, argument or struggle usually means lazy acceptance of a position whatever it may be. In novels for any character to change and develop they need some kind of conflict forcing them to reflect on themselves and maybe adapt. Hitchens other point is about perpetual happiness or paradise, "imagine a state of bliss and perpetual happiness and harmony, and you have summoned a vision of tedium and pointlessness and predictability." We all know this is true on some level. Think of a novel which has no struggle, no excitement, the character is just happy all the time and you can't disagree it would be a very boring novel.
Read The Great Gatsby Novel
The novel of the Great Gatsby was excellent. The film was very true to the book, the only real difference being the book was able to expand on its characterization of Gatsby, Tom and Nick. Really interesting was the introduction which I've only half read which traces the influences of the novel. Also one of the important themes I previously forgot to mention was "the American dream."
This in the novel is represented by Gatsby and his rise from having only clothes on his back to becoming a millionaire and less to the letter of the dream but more to the spirit, is Gatsby transformation of his character, from James Gatz to the poised cool Jay Gatsby.
This in the novel is represented by Gatsby and his rise from having only clothes on his back to becoming a millionaire and less to the letter of the dream but more to the spirit, is Gatsby transformation of his character, from James Gatz to the poised cool Jay Gatsby.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Watched movies Great Expectations and Lolita
Almost every minutae of the world can be both used for both good and evil. Obsessional love is no different. In the movie "Great Expectations" (a modern take on the Dickens classic) which I watched recently, there is a strong portrayal of the good obsessional love. I also watched "Lolita" where the dark side of obsessional love is shown.
Lolita direct by Stanley Kubrick was a old film based on the novel of the same name by Nabokov. It was about the obssessional love this middle aged university lecturer Humbert, has for a 14 year old girl. This obsessional love turns Humbert first into a criminal, with sexual relations with a minor and practically inducing suicide of his wife. Then later he is destroyed, becoming a baubling mess after Lolita has run away from him, and then finally murders Clare Quilty, goes to jail and dies of thrombosis. The acting and story telling of the film were excellent. However my Nana telling me the film was banned at one point and anyone reading the book was regarded as morally perverse, makes one expect some hedonistic material but at least with modern standards the film was very tame, though a lot was probably censored as the director Kubrick says he wouldn't have made the film if he knew how harsh the censors would be. If one wanted to regard how realistic or idealised the "love" was, as one of the themes of past scholarship questions, it would be quite realistic. After all a much worse image of Josef Fritzl has been cemented all too strongly in our minds.
Great Expectations (again modern take) wasn't as good as Lolita. It was about a good hearted boy Finn who falls in love with Estelle. Estelles aunt hurt in love has trained her to be cold and toy with men so Estelle falls into this pattern with Finn. I won't give an excessive overview but Finn becomes a great success because he helped a convict he saved when he was a little boy and in the end after much trouble meets Estelle again and they love each other. With "love" it is pretty idolised as a real person is unlikely to be obsessive enough to wait the decades for this cold heartless women to actually find a heart. As an enjoyable reader of other of Dickens books I will suspend judgement on him. But this movie definitely messed it up, like all good things love in films needs real conflict. Instead we have Finn perhaps true to his name just flopping on the ground saying "come on Estelle, please this time love me."
So it seems at least in this case the dark side of "love" seems more probable. But I wonder is it perhaps because the media would always obsess over a horror story about love and not report the happy endings as too boring. Perhaps also too blame are the writers of crappy romance movies, who can't conceive of positive love without raining us with cliches.
Lolita direct by Stanley Kubrick was a old film based on the novel of the same name by Nabokov. It was about the obssessional love this middle aged university lecturer Humbert, has for a 14 year old girl. This obsessional love turns Humbert first into a criminal, with sexual relations with a minor and practically inducing suicide of his wife. Then later he is destroyed, becoming a baubling mess after Lolita has run away from him, and then finally murders Clare Quilty, goes to jail and dies of thrombosis. The acting and story telling of the film were excellent. However my Nana telling me the film was banned at one point and anyone reading the book was regarded as morally perverse, makes one expect some hedonistic material but at least with modern standards the film was very tame, though a lot was probably censored as the director Kubrick says he wouldn't have made the film if he knew how harsh the censors would be. If one wanted to regard how realistic or idealised the "love" was, as one of the themes of past scholarship questions, it would be quite realistic. After all a much worse image of Josef Fritzl has been cemented all too strongly in our minds.
Great Expectations (again modern take) wasn't as good as Lolita. It was about a good hearted boy Finn who falls in love with Estelle. Estelles aunt hurt in love has trained her to be cold and toy with men so Estelle falls into this pattern with Finn. I won't give an excessive overview but Finn becomes a great success because he helped a convict he saved when he was a little boy and in the end after much trouble meets Estelle again and they love each other. With "love" it is pretty idolised as a real person is unlikely to be obsessive enough to wait the decades for this cold heartless women to actually find a heart. As an enjoyable reader of other of Dickens books I will suspend judgement on him. But this movie definitely messed it up, like all good things love in films needs real conflict. Instead we have Finn perhaps true to his name just flopping on the ground saying "come on Estelle, please this time love me."
So it seems at least in this case the dark side of "love" seems more probable. But I wonder is it perhaps because the media would always obsess over a horror story about love and not report the happy endings as too boring. Perhaps also too blame are the writers of crappy romance movies, who can't conceive of positive love without raining us with cliches.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Finished Love, Poverty and War by Christopher Hitchens
Love, Poverty and War is an fascinating collection of essays by the journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens. It was very much to my taste as it provided a reasonable variety. The title was was from the old idea that a mans was incomplete until he experiences the trials of love, poverty and war. These make up three sections of the book with Americana added for travel stories. I find Christopher Hitchens a always intriguing writer and speaker because he's the ultimate anti-sheep with an often acidic wit for what he dislikes.
Love is books he has written about either as reviews or introductions. It was particularly useful for scholarship english as it contained analysis of authors and works. One of the best essays was an introduction to Brave New World which seems to cover almost every concept one could use in an essay about Brave New World. Particularly intriguing to me was the fact Huxley taught George Orwell at Eton and Hitchens traces probable influence of Brave New World on Orwells novel. However one of the most interesting was finding the social context. Huxley was writing 1930s when modernity was just becoming into full view, when cars, condoms and genetics were just entering society. Huxley also was part of the upper class and as such had an interest in breeding in both the aristocratic and scientific sense. Also there is Huxleys contempt for the masses and his favourite philosopher Pyrrho who taught judgement could be suspended on all matters of truth. To put it suavely, I will definitely use his ideas to develop my own on Brave New World and the theme of dystopian novels. Anyway the other good ones in love were review of a Kipling biography and Byron which went through there poems and lives giving me a hunger for them though Kipling especially.
The second section was Americana which was interesting but least interesting of the sections. It basically consisted of travel writing around America. Not too much relevant for scholarship but this quote I might find a use for “The food! The Coffee! The newspapers! the radio! These would all disgrace a mediocre one party state, much less a prosperous country.” Its in the "Ballad on Route 66" and is aimed at the standardization of america, which should apply to my dystopia theme. Thinking about it something to do with Brave New World which is going to pop up all too often in this blog. Probably something to do with stress-free consensus and consumerism.
The third section was poverty. This I really enjoyed. Here one gets a real taste of his polemics against a number of famous figures. This is where is his anti-sheep reveals itself. Thus armed with facts and an acidic prose, I enjoyed re-evaluating a number of figures, the Dalai Lama and Michael More, who despite liking his work in my youth was already suspicious but this confirmed a dislike and distrust of his work once and for all. One everyone must read is his review of a biography of JFK where Hitchens mobilizes the very open but rarely reported evidence that JFK was one of the sickest presidents in office, on a cocktail of drugs and thus the image of a young healthy, vigorous person was the fabrication of his spin doctors. My favourite quote of the section was something like this 'My definition of ‘celebrity culture' is one where people's actions are judged by their reputations and not their reputations by their actions." (I filched this one off the net but it was basically the same as in the book). These points will be good for real life references for themes such as appearance vs reality. The infantilization of celebrity culture and all that jazz. Another excellent essay in the section is "Why Americans Aren't Taught History" I may quote use this in scholarship as most dystopian novels have historical amnesia as a pivotal part of their system of control. The essay itself explores the absolutely poor history teaching and knowledge in America and examines the revolting text-books and causes.
The final section is his work as a war correspondent. All was very interesting, but most chilling was writing about his time in North Korea where Nineteen Eighty-Four lives with its constant adulation of their dead god president Kim Il Sung and his remaining version on earth the dear leader Kim Jong Il.
Love is books he has written about either as reviews or introductions. It was particularly useful for scholarship english as it contained analysis of authors and works. One of the best essays was an introduction to Brave New World which seems to cover almost every concept one could use in an essay about Brave New World. Particularly intriguing to me was the fact Huxley taught George Orwell at Eton and Hitchens traces probable influence of Brave New World on Orwells novel. However one of the most interesting was finding the social context. Huxley was writing 1930s when modernity was just becoming into full view, when cars, condoms and genetics were just entering society. Huxley also was part of the upper class and as such had an interest in breeding in both the aristocratic and scientific sense. Also there is Huxleys contempt for the masses and his favourite philosopher Pyrrho who taught judgement could be suspended on all matters of truth. To put it suavely, I will definitely use his ideas to develop my own on Brave New World and the theme of dystopian novels. Anyway the other good ones in love were review of a Kipling biography and Byron which went through there poems and lives giving me a hunger for them though Kipling especially.
The second section was Americana which was interesting but least interesting of the sections. It basically consisted of travel writing around America. Not too much relevant for scholarship but this quote I might find a use for “The food! The Coffee! The newspapers! the radio! These would all disgrace a mediocre one party state, much less a prosperous country.” Its in the "Ballad on Route 66" and is aimed at the standardization of america, which should apply to my dystopia theme. Thinking about it something to do with Brave New World which is going to pop up all too often in this blog. Probably something to do with stress-free consensus and consumerism.
The third section was poverty. This I really enjoyed. Here one gets a real taste of his polemics against a number of famous figures. This is where is his anti-sheep reveals itself. Thus armed with facts and an acidic prose, I enjoyed re-evaluating a number of figures, the Dalai Lama and Michael More, who despite liking his work in my youth was already suspicious but this confirmed a dislike and distrust of his work once and for all. One everyone must read is his review of a biography of JFK where Hitchens mobilizes the very open but rarely reported evidence that JFK was one of the sickest presidents in office, on a cocktail of drugs and thus the image of a young healthy, vigorous person was the fabrication of his spin doctors. My favourite quote of the section was something like this 'My definition of ‘celebrity culture' is one where people's actions are judged by their reputations and not their reputations by their actions." (I filched this one off the net but it was basically the same as in the book). These points will be good for real life references for themes such as appearance vs reality. The infantilization of celebrity culture and all that jazz. Another excellent essay in the section is "Why Americans Aren't Taught History" I may quote use this in scholarship as most dystopian novels have historical amnesia as a pivotal part of their system of control. The essay itself explores the absolutely poor history teaching and knowledge in America and examines the revolting text-books and causes.
The final section is his work as a war correspondent. All was very interesting, but most chilling was writing about his time in North Korea where Nineteen Eighty-Four lives with its constant adulation of their dead god president Kim Il Sung and his remaining version on earth the dear leader Kim Jong Il.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Modern neuroscience and the dystopia
I feel I have to write about science so when I found this interesting study on the side-effects of parkinsons treatment. So it seemed a perfect connection with one of my favourite forms of literature the dystopian novel.
Parkinsons disease is caused by the rapid death of a special type of dopamine producing brain cells. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter which has a varity of functions in the brain but chief among them is helping to produce movement. So to simplify it a little, as there less and less dopamine in the brain Parkinsons patients gradually are less and less able to move. This is treated by a cocktail of drugs which hopefully create more dopamine in the brain. The other function of dopamine is a reward chemical, so when you win a game of tennis or cards or hunt that deer (in a more hunter gatherer context) your brain produces extra dopamine, giving you that wonderful transcendent pleasure. The study by Mayo clinic found in 18.4% of patients taking therapeutic dose of parkinsons drugs, hyper-sexuality and compulsive gambling, but none of these disorders were found in the parkinsons patients who were not being treated by these drugs.
This finding connects with literature and society because it is now blatantly obvious drugs can control change and determine who we are. In Brave New World central to the story is the drug soma which gives instant pleasure to the masses creating a blissed out conflict-free consensus which creates absolute conformity. But "Todays Brave New World will have a multitude of designer psychotropics" as neuroscientist Steven Rose says in his book 21st Century Brain. Today we have drugs which will make people more sexual, gamble and probably consume more. We have ritalin which offers to increase concentration on demand. Some drugs like LSD and mescaline are used to create religious experiences on demand. It seems our technological development is in part offering us technology which could create a dystopia which will surpass all of the previous generations wildest dreams. In America it seems Ritalin is already passed around schools and university campuses to improve performance. One wonders what happens if a drug company creates a hyper-memory, hyper-concentration drug which almost guarentees exam success?
These developments suggest what I have always thought when comparing the two great dystopias Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. While Nineteen Eighty-Four was more horrifying (and is today alive in North Korea), Brave New World was more subtle but will always be relevant to every society. Following this now is perhaps an opportunity for a new dystopia waiting in the wings. When Huxley was writing in the 1930s it was a transition where modernity was just coming into view. Now I think post-modernity seems to be coming just coming into view.
Parkinsons disease is caused by the rapid death of a special type of dopamine producing brain cells. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter which has a varity of functions in the brain but chief among them is helping to produce movement. So to simplify it a little, as there less and less dopamine in the brain Parkinsons patients gradually are less and less able to move. This is treated by a cocktail of drugs which hopefully create more dopamine in the brain. The other function of dopamine is a reward chemical, so when you win a game of tennis or cards or hunt that deer (in a more hunter gatherer context) your brain produces extra dopamine, giving you that wonderful transcendent pleasure. The study by Mayo clinic found in 18.4% of patients taking therapeutic dose of parkinsons drugs, hyper-sexuality and compulsive gambling, but none of these disorders were found in the parkinsons patients who were not being treated by these drugs.
This finding connects with literature and society because it is now blatantly obvious drugs can control change and determine who we are. In Brave New World central to the story is the drug soma which gives instant pleasure to the masses creating a blissed out conflict-free consensus which creates absolute conformity. But "Todays Brave New World will have a multitude of designer psychotropics" as neuroscientist Steven Rose says in his book 21st Century Brain. Today we have drugs which will make people more sexual, gamble and probably consume more. We have ritalin which offers to increase concentration on demand. Some drugs like LSD and mescaline are used to create religious experiences on demand. It seems our technological development is in part offering us technology which could create a dystopia which will surpass all of the previous generations wildest dreams. In America it seems Ritalin is already passed around schools and university campuses to improve performance. One wonders what happens if a drug company creates a hyper-memory, hyper-concentration drug which almost guarentees exam success?
These developments suggest what I have always thought when comparing the two great dystopias Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. While Nineteen Eighty-Four was more horrifying (and is today alive in North Korea), Brave New World was more subtle but will always be relevant to every society. Following this now is perhaps an opportunity for a new dystopia waiting in the wings. When Huxley was writing in the 1930s it was a transition where modernity was just coming into view. Now I think post-modernity seems to be coming just coming into view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)