|
6bcee17
|
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside 's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: 's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, and did not prophesy the same thing. warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in 's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What feared were those who would ban books. What feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. feared those who would deprive us of information. feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. feared that the truth would be concealed from us. feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. feared we would become a captive culture. feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny " ." In 1984, added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, feared that what we fear will ruin us. feared that what we desire will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that , not , was right."
|
|
aldous-huxley
fear
huxley
brave-new-world
orwell
george-orwell
desire
|
Neil Postman |
|
345669d
|
Every November of my boyhood, we put on red poppies and attended highly patriotic services in remembrance of those who had 'given' their lives. But on what assurance did we know that these gifts had really been made? Only the survivors--the living--could attest to it. In order to know that a person had truly laid down his life for his friends, or comrades, one would have to hear it from his own lips, or at least have heard it promised in advance. And that presented another difficulty. Many brave and now dead soldiers had nonetheless been conscripts. The known martyrs--those who actually, voluntarily sought death and rejoiced in the fact--had been the kamikaze pilots, immolating themselves to propitiate a 'divine' emperor who looked (as Orwell once phrased it) like a monkey on a stick. Their Christian predecessors had endured torture and death (as well as inflicted it) in order to set up a theocracy. Their modern equivalents would be the suicide murderers, who mostly have the same aim in mind. About people who set out to lose their lives, then, there seems to hang an air of fanaticism: a gigantic sense of self-importance unattractively fused with a masochistic tendency to self-abnegation. Not wholesome. The better and more realistic test would therefore seem to be: In what cause, or on what principle, would you your life?
|
|
suicide
war
christianity
friends
sacrifice
death
religion
christian-martyrs
conscription
kamikaze
memorials
poppies
self-abnegation
suicide-attack
martyrs
masochism
orwell
november
comrades
soldiers
theocracy
ugliness
causes
martyrdom
self-importance
patriotism
principles
fanaticism
childhood
torture
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
e9766fb
|
"The program of the ruling elite in Orwell's was: "A foot stamping on a human face forever!" This is naive and optimistic. No species could survive for even a generation under such program. This is not a program of eternal, or even long-range dominance. It is clearly an extermination program."
|
|
elite-program
orwell
totalitarianism
|
William S. Burroughs |
|
54773ad
|
But what [Orwell] illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that 'views' do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.
|
|
politics
truth
orwell
principles
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
c17b32f
|
"What we are confronted with now is the problem posed by the economic and symbolic structure of television. Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it. Our Ministry of Culture is
|
|
aldous-huxley
television
america
politics
huxley
brave-new-world
orwell
george-orwell
society
|
Neil Postman |
|
90c01f9
|
Though he never actually joined it, he was close to some civilian elements of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which was the most Communist (and in the rather orthodox sense) of the Palestinian formations. I remember Edward once surprising me by saying, and apropos of nothing: 'Do you know something I have never done in my political career? I have never publicly criticized the Soviet Union. It's not that I terribly sympathize with them or anything--it's just that the Soviets have never done anything to harm me, or us.' At the time I thought this a rather naive statement, even perhaps a slightly contemptible one, but by then I had been in parts of the Middle East where it could come as a blessed relief to meet a consecrated Moscow-line atheist-dogmatist, if only for the comparatively rational humanism that he evinced amid so much religious barking and mania. It was only later to occur to me that Edward's pronounced dislike of George Orwell was something to which I ought to have paid more attention.
|
|
humanism
politics
religion
dflp
moscow
dogmatism
orwell
liberation
middle-east
edward-said
soviet-union
rationality
palestine
palestinians
religious-extremism
communism
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
f7c6cec
|
"Vladimir Nabokov and George Orwell had quite different gifts, and their self-images were quite different. But, I shall argue, their accomplishment was pretty much the same. Both of them warn the liberal ironist intellectual against temptations to be cruel. Both of them dramatise the tension between private irony and liberal hope. In the following passage, Nabokov helped blur the distinctions which I want to draw: ...'Lolita' has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only in so far as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. There are not many such books. All the rest is either topical trash or what some call the Literature of Ideas, which very often is topical trash coming in huge blocks of plaster that are carefully transmitted from age to age until somebody comes along with a hammer and takes a good crack at Balzac, at Gorki, at Mann. Orwell blurred the same distinctions when, in one of his rare descents into rant, "The Frontiers of Art and Propaganda," he wrote exactly the sort of thing Nabokov loathed: You cannot take a purely aesthetic interest in a disease you are dying from; you cannot feel dispassionately about a man who is about to cut your throat. In a world in which Fascism and Socialism were fighting one another, any thinking person had to take sides... This period of ten years or so in which literature, even poetry was mixed up with pamphleteering, did a great service to literary criticism, because it destroyed the illusion of pure aestheticism... It debunked art for art's sake."
|
|
orwell
|
Richard M. Rorty |