Respond to George Orwell's essay. When developing your response consider the questions below. Use specific evidence from the text to support your position. Make sure your response is substantial.
Understanding
What's your understanding of George Orwell's argument?
Analysis
How does he make the argument? (Analyze his rhetorical strategies.)
Evaluation
What do you think about his argument? Is it well-made? Is he right? Are there flaws to the argument? Does he overlook anything? What modifications would you make? Is the argument still relevant?
Here's a link to a copy of the essay if you need one.
Post your comments by class time Monday, April 9
***
Next week we'll continue our study of Neil Postman's use of Brave New World and 1984 in Amusing Ourselves to Death. You'll write a blog response to the questions: How does Neil Postman use the two dystopian novels to make his argument? Is Postman right?
Here is some material to familiarize yourself with.
1. excerpt from Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
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 Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley'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 meant undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account .man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.'' In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
[We also read this in class last Monday.]
2. "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Stuart McMillen (comic)
After you follow the link click on the long image on the left to make it bigger.
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death_COMIC
3. "1984" Macintosh Apple Advertisement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4
4. Terms from George Orwell's 1984 that might help you better understand Postman's argument.
http://www.gradesaver.com/1984/study-guide/glossary-of-terms/
5. Huxley's letter to Orwell
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html
[You also received a copy of this in class.]
In class on Friday while discussing this argument we evaluated the concept that Orwell believes that there is a loss of individuality in the language through this style of using “dead” words in our speech. I agree with my classmates that he is afraid of the similarity between all writing but I believe we overlooked a major part of the argument. He aslo states that by simplifying your words and using the best word possible for your own sentence you can avoid being foolish. He states that our foolish thoughts allow our rhetoric to be foolish, this is a relevant theme that still relates to political speak today. Many people attempt to turn simple statements into formal addresses by entangling their argument with useless words that complicate the meaning. Orwell also adresses the lack of imagery in our language that has been replaced by complex phrases that mean nothing. The main theme that I believe unifies the two parts of this argument is the idea of using the best word to fit your situation. This allows you to remain and individual and make your own argument while avoiding foolish use of words. This argument is very powerful as I find myself thinking about using the best word instead of using the long comlicated phrases. I also find this argument ironic in relation to modern english classes in school. I have found that many times if you write the simplest most direct way of saying an idea you will get a worse grade than if you use complicated “dead” phrases to talk around the point rather than get to it. While the argument is relevant I also believe it is a lost cause because our culture is too entangled in writing this way. Even as I am argueing against this I am using dead phrases that are not individual but fill spaces in sentences. This is a problem that orwell also noticed in his writing. As he is making this argument he was finding himself going against his own logic proving that it is impossible to reverse what has happened to our language.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we discussed that in his essay, Orwell discusses how rhetoric has basically become as simple as using more complicated words and phrases. Also, he mentions how there is a loss of individuality, since it seems that everyone is using the same words and phrases these days. Because of this, the English language has become “ugly and inaccurate” and “make it easier for us to have foolish thoughts”, according to Orwell. Throughout the essay, Orwell presents the reader with numerous examples, such as dying metaphors and operators. Also, Orwell presents many rules with which many people follow when making an argument. However, he criticizes or breaks these rules right after he lists them, utilizing satire in his argument as well. This argument is still relevant to today’s language because it is evident that we see the same phrases a lot throughout the media. I am also guilty of this “crime”, since I have used long, complicated phrases in order to fill up space and reach the minimum number of pages. This is a problem that Orwell also noticed in his writing. As he was making this argument, he was finding himself submitting to the very rules that he was critiquing. Luckily, he acknowledges this, gaining the audience’s trust. Nevertheless, his unintentional hypocrisy shows how far the English language has fallen and what little we can do to help it recover.
ReplyDeleteI think part of our problem is that we are no longer sure what we want to say, just that we need to say something. People have discussed being guilty of writing things that don't mean anything in order to fill page space, but the underlying issue is that no one is thinking hard enough to actually have anything to write about. I mean, of course you're going to write things that don't actually mean anything when you have nothing to say in the first place. Whether this is because people have gotten lazy and stopped thinking, or because no one is asking pertinent or interesting questions anymore is a difficult decision. Perhaps it is a combination of both. I know that personally, my writing improves one hundred fold when I am discussing things that I am invested in. The overall writing habits that Orwell talks about can be influenced by people having concrete, interesting thoughts to share. The connection with politics is clear, but that case, instead of saying things that mean nothing, they instead say things in a way that is too difficult for the average citizen to unravel, or get involved in what Mike Daisey calls "unraveling the truth." The techinque is the same, but the intention is different, and far more sinister. I feel like Orwell should also be advocating people to think, and to be invested enough in their country to decode what politicians are truly saying.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of George Orwell's essay, is that the english language, although complex, can be easily manipulated. Orwell uses several passages to illustrate how this can happen and how it can be fixed. I found his essay to be somewhat amusing, confusing, and also a bit snobby at times. One point that struck me as confusing was the small paragraph before he gives the five examples of bad english. Orwell says, "I could have quoted far worse if i had chosen--", but isn't the whole point of the essay to show the worst of the english language? I believe that Matt said on thursday that he would rather Orwell have chosen the worst examples he could find instead of the "average, but fairly representative examples.", in order to show us how much our language has deteriorated over years of misuse. When writing, people have a tendency to over-do themselves, in order to make themselves look and sound smarter. By using meaningless words, they are just trying to lengthen their response. People seem as though they know much about the topic at hand, but in reality, they're just wasting space. Politics may seem to be a completely different topic, but they might as well be the misuse of the english language at it's finest. Politicians use big fancy words in order to establish a gap of knowledge between them and the average citizen. Although Orwell expresses a valid argument, he looses power when he says that he too has become a victim of the abuse that he is trying to fix. His point being, we know what we're doing wrong, we just don't stop ourselves from doing it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as understanding Orwell’s argument, I believe he simply wants to point out that the English language has fallen away from what its purpose is. That purpose is to pass on clear and concise information from one person to another. What has happened is that our language has become muddled and confused and what is written in modern English directly follows a code of “higher writing”, where higher writing means using other languages, hiding the meaning behind pretentious diction and all around trying their very hardest to say as little as possible in as many words as possible. Orwell wants us to realize that volume does not equal substance and that just because you sound intelligent does not mean that you are. The way he makes this argument is through examples of one kind or another. First, he wins the trust and interest of the reader by offering several examples of appalling writing. Most likely, the only people who could read those passages and think, “This is brilliant and concise writing” would be the authors. He then sets off giving examples of what these and other authors use in their types of writing. He then tries purposefully to avoid the examples he made, with new metaphors such as “tea leaves blocking a sink”. Sometimes he falls short of his own expectations, and slips into the vernacular of his day, but he does apologize and admits his faults. He sparingly uses biting humor in this passage, and the sarcasm in the line “[Modern English] will construct your sentences for you--even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent” is there to make fun of those who write with such obvious and pre-designed tone. Near the end of it, he ends up giving advice to writers and has specific rules to follow that are difficult to argue with. And his final piece of rhetoric is used to diffuse anyone who would complain that he is applying this to all types of English. But Orwell assures them that he is only talking about expressing ideas through words. I think overall, this was the best piece of rhetoric I’ve read this year. I am biased because his opinions already matched up similarly with mine, but admitting small mistakes while holding your ground is a personal favorite argument style of mine, and Orwell uses it when it counts the most. And this is definitely relevant, and it probably will always be relevant. With txt speak and political language prevalent in this day and age, our language is getting father away from relaying intelligent and concise information.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell is both an amazing author, and a well-educated English major. He has written a series of best sellers, and a long list of intriguing essays. Recently, my class got the chance to read one of his more popular essay's, Politics in the English Language. In this essay, Orwell argues that the English language is slowly evaporating, and it is happening at an increasing rate. He makes this assumption based off of the writings of other authors. To prove his point, he uses a variety of examples. For instance, he quotes the following phrase written by Lancelot Hogben; Above all we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the basic put up for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder. Although he claims this may not be the worst example of usage of bad English, it does portray some of the mistakes Orwell is trying to prove. He claims writers are now often at fault for using an extensive vocabulary where it is not needed, and are rarely concise where they could be. This and a few other common mistakes angers Orwell, and in his essay he sets up a criteria all writers should try to follow while writing. He plays on his audience's ethos by admitting he is also sometimes at fault for the mistakes he writes about, but believes if we all try to put an end to it that it can be stopped. By providing examples of bad literature, and thoroughly explaining his argument, I believe Orwell makes a valid point and one that I agree with.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell argues that the the amount of people using the english language efficiently is declining. The english language should be as clear and precise as possible; fancy words and phrases that complicate the meaning are unnecessary. Orwell critiques the english language by saying that it lacks individuality. Orwell addresses the use of “dead” metaphors such as “toe the line” or “fishing in troubled waters.” Orwell also mentions the use of pretentious diction such as “phenomenon”, “liquidate”, and “exploit” make things sound more important than they really are. The point Orwell is making is that writing should be clear, meaning that additional words are not needed when something could be said flat out and simply. Writing should also be original; common metaphors have no impact. Stale metaphors show a lack of thought on the author’s part. Orwell makes this argument by using an allusions. He says “A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.” What he means by this is that modern english is “full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.” Orwell also makes his argument by appealing to logos. He gives examples of the pretentious words and dead metaphors to show his audience something they might recognize because they have seen and heard them so many times before. I agree and disagree with sections of Orwell’s argument. I can relate to his agitation toward dead metaphors. When i hear someone say “it’s raining cats and dogs” or “a bad egg,” it has no impact. There is no strong visual created in my mind because they are so overused. When Orwell mentioned one of his own metaphors, “tea leaves blocking a sink,” I could create a picture in my mind. Even if the meaning is not clear, the visual is strong. However, I only somewhat agree with Orwell’s argument on the use of pretentious words. Although I prefer to read something clear and simple, some complex words are needed to address a subject more strongly or exaggerate the importance of something. The key is to avoid using formal words excessively so they do not become pretentious. I really enjoyed this piece of rhetoric because i could relate to many of Orwell’s opinions. I found Orwell’s guide questions on being a scrupulous writer very helpful. Although one may not ask themselves each of these questions when writing every sentence, they are a tool for going back and analyzing.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell is trying to make us see the flaws in writing today, especially political writing because that is where most of the examples of poor writing can be found. He talks about how in some cases we a fluffing up our writing with fancy words while at the same time getting rid of the real meaning of the thing trying to be said. On many occasions we can see instances of people merely beating around the bush rather than just coming out and saying what they need to say. This frustrates Orwell, which is why he makes the argument in the first place.
ReplyDeleteOrwell makes his argument in a couple of different ways. He makes a point of listing as many examples as possible so he can both show what writers should avoid doing as well as to prove how often these problems can happen. He also takes examples from writing and even “translates” a famous quote from Ecclesiastes into what he calls modern english, rendering it near impossible to read in an attempt to demonstrate how ridiculous this was of writing sounds. One of my favorite parts in the whole essay was when he was talking about a communist writer using only a short list of common phrases and said, “but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink.” What I get out of that is Orwell mocking the author, using his own original phrase to prove it makes for a better sentence than just using the first thing that comes to mind.
I agree with nearly everything Orwell talked about in his essay. However I stand by what I said in class about some of the points he wrote about being less valid today because our language is constantly changing. The section in his essay I had a particularly hard time with because of this was the one about so-called “meaningless words.” In it he listed off words like “romantic,” “plastic,” “values,” “human,” and “dead” and explained how these words are used in works like art and literary criticisms, even though they don't offer any meaning to the subject. Maybe when he wrote this he had a point, but I feel it only applied for the short term and think that over time and with constant use most of these words have created a meaning that people can understand (other words like “plastic” I think can stay in Orwell's “meaningless words” category). As a whole, I think the essay was great. It was very informative and made me take a closer look at my own writing. In fact while writing this I had to go back into the essay several times to make sure I wasn't doing what he said not to so I wouldn't sound stupid. He made it interesting enough to keep my attention, and in general everything in it still hold true today.
In class on Friday, we had a very long intriguing discussion about George Orwell's essay. What stuck out the most to me was his opinion on the English language and how easily it can be interpreted. There is old English and modern English. The things he believed to be common, maybe aren't so common today.Orwell mocks a lot of authors and has a very strong opinion about everything. For him, there is nothing that is easy or simple. If it's not the way he thinks, then it is weird or wrong in his eyes. Words that he thought were pointless back in his time such as romantic and dead, mean something to us now. Over the years, writing and language have changed drastically. It's interesting to me to look back and see how things have changed. It makes me wonder what my opinion would be on language if I was alive in that time period. Mostly, it made me look at my own writing and now whenever I pick up a pencil to write, all i can think about is what he would think of my word choices and the way I choose to phrase things.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and discussing Orwell’s work in class, something I found very interesting was that this piece was written in 1946. George Orwell was obviously a incredible writer and brilliant man, to have realized some of the issues that have continued to consume the world of the English language. I also thought that throughout his piece, he showed complete understanding of what he was talking about, which is why the piece was so passionately written. Along with his passion, came his sense of sarcasm, he often explained that using all the complex language, was actually a shortcut or easier, for a writer. It saved authors the time to pick the right words. Clever enough, throughout the long letter, Orwell was caught making some of the same mistakes that he so angrily critiqued. This not only made his audience feel relatable to him, but it really brought to reality, that this problem has reached everyone. Although a great author has encouraged people to change the way they write, I think people either stick to filling their works with meaningless and wrong words, or people mix up the difference between being exact and writing too simply. I think somewhere along the way, Orwell’s message got lost, but after reading the paper, I am definitely more conscious of my techniques. I guess if he could reach our English class, than that’s a start.
ReplyDeleteOrwell made some very interesting and effective points in his essay and there were many important parts that were discussed in class such as rhetoric being only the complication of simpler words and phrases. What I understood from this essay was that he believes writing should entail of the clearest and most accurate of words and phrases that have originality rather than those that have been used beyond the point of there being any genuine meaning left to it. The use of imagery that can be most accurately used in relaying some sort of message or meaning is also something encouraged. The way some writers are not able to come out and make their point from the beginning, but rather dance around the subject before actually making their point, is just one more instance of language that frustrates Orwell. He makes his argument by picking out many examples of writing that all do the things he is so against. Political language is something he especially picks out because it is such a frequent example of these uses of language he finds disgraceful with their unnecessary words and complications of much simpler ideas. Orwell states that the process of what is happening to our language is irreversible which I agree with because even though it has been many years since he wrote this, it is still very relevant and I think that a majority of people would not be able to really change their ways. It also seems to be that in schools, the type of writing he is against can be seen as a good thing in many cases. A student who gives a much longer and detailed description with long words and dead phrases is more likely to be rewarded than a student who simply sticks to the point and keeps things short and simple. I believe that Orwell’s argument is very well made and effective in making readers realize some of the flaws that they themselves may have as writers. However, because the essay was written quite a while ago, there are some examples of words that he sees as being effective or ineffective that I do not agree with. They may have made sense when he was writing this but now I do not think they do. The argument is very intriguing and entertaining to read, especially because of the many things that may apply to and help improve one’s own writing skills.
ReplyDeleteThis is my response to Postman’s theory. Neil Postman makes the argument that although Orwell’s 1984 world did not happen, there is a better chance of Huxley’s Brave New World society to appear later on in the years. In the excerpt from his book, Postman compares elements from 1984, which express a more aggressive totalitarian society, and Brave New World, which express a more passive form of totalitarianism. His structure, along with the comic that Stuart McMillen wrote, shows how similar our modern society is with that of Brave New World. For example, in the comic, Postman states that “What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”, then the panel shows a family watching the Biggest Loser on TV with the father ironically eating Doritos. Also, when Postman says that “Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.” the panel shows a radio station broadcasting advertisements, celebrity gossip, and other “irrelevant” things that people would rather listen to than the truth. All in all, I believe that Postman is right to side with Huxley’s Brave New World because of the relevance it has for today. How often do we see people with some i-thing or in front of some sort of electronic, catching up on TV shows or the celebrity gossip they missed? How often are advertisements on than the actual program we intended to watch? How often do you see anyone with a regular old paperback instead of a Kindle Nook? Basically, I believe that Postman is trying to warn us about the aspects of our society because it might not be long until our society transforms into something similar to the World State in Brave New World.
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman creates a reasonable argument by comparing and contrasting two ideas of what the future may hold in a “Brave New World” and “1984.” Related to the real world I believe his argument is perfect, but he had to mold some ideas of brave new world to fit his argument. Compared to modern life Postman is spot on while using these two books to contrast situations. As 1984 is closer to a strict totalitarian government which the world has moved past, he shows that the world becomes more and more like Huxley’s vision every day. In my mind I can still picture the future ending up with a controlling all powerful ruler, but for now we will stick with “A Brave New World” as the more realistic future. Postman states that in a brave new world, they didn’t need to ban books because people didn’t want to read them. While I find this true for our culture, and this is illustrated in a comic strip picturing a family staring at the tv, this isn’t exactly true to the novel. In Huxley’s world I remember that old literature had been banned to eliminate free thought and that forced people to conform. These situations are slightly different as in our world literature is readily available, but why would anyone ever want to read? Another part of his argument revolves around the people of the Brave New World loving their oppression because they had anything they could ever want or need. I agree with this statement and its relation to the real world because the human race is obsessed with distractions and in today’s world we have endless ways to break concentration and lose ourselves in simple foolish activities. It would be very possible for a controller to occupy and oppress us without ever discomforting us, this is the way we can be controlled and this is the way that Postman believes is more likely.
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman is able to use these two dystopian novels to make his argument by comparing and contrasting the various factors that the novels imply will end up contributing to a horrible type of existence that oppresses its people. The major themes that can be found in both books are pointed out by Postman and are each very different. He seems to make it clear that the occurrences in “1984” are something we have moved past and that we have already congratulated ourselves for not letting it happen. This involved an aggressive totalitarian society that controlled what the people did. Brave New World, however, is presented to readers as being much more relevant to the world we are living in now and that there is still a great and increasing possibility of something like this dystopia actually becoming a reality. In this novel there is no need for an oppressive government because everyone enjoys the oppression. The comic strip especially makes Brave New World seem like a much more possible and realistic option for us. I certainly agree with Postman that the issues in our culture are becoming more and more passive and distractions have turned into things that many people would not be able to live without. The things that people find themselves engaging lots of their time in are activities such as video games, television, and celebrity gossip which all involve no thinking or even a slight possibility of stimulating the brain. Of course anyone would admit that these pastimes are much more enjoyable than doing something such as studying, but the excessive amount of time that is put into such distractions can be very detrimental in the long run and Huxley accurately presents an option of what could end up happening because of this. Eventually there will not even be anyone who wants to engage in anything other than these activities and that is where the type of life in Brave New World comes into play. I agree with all the problems that Postman sees in our society and I think that the fate that could end up coming from these problems are a lot closer than anyone would really be able to imagine.
ReplyDeletePostman’s overarching style is one of juxtaposition. He starts out the passage with a different tactic. It begins as a self-congratulatory piece about how, as a culture, we have not fallen to Orwellian thought and process yet. But Postman then goes the opposite way and reminds the reader that while we were trying to avoid 1984, we still gained aspects of that, and we ended up also gaining aspects of Huxley’s Brave New World. He then goes on to show the differences between the books and what they are predicting and implying. Orwell was concerned that we would be controlled by our government and thought and actions would be controlled by an omniscient government. Huxley feared that we would fall captive to ourselves, that government would just be the equal distributions of distractions to the populace and we would be kept in line by our own impotence and lack of interest in anything that does not offer immediate gratification. So Postman has to emphasize this. And he does so by pointing out the nuances that make Brave New World scary, and what makes 1984 scary. Postman is trying to argue that personally subjecting ourselves to that kind of slavery is worse than having it forced upon us by others. On the subject of whether or not he is right, I would say yes, we have taken on aspects of the World State with things like 3-D movies, the internet and other distractions from thought. But he seems to have neglected what we did pick up from 1984 Orwellian ideas. Just look at London England. The city is covered in cameras for the safety of the citizens. Everywhere we look, everything has to be safe and child proof. And just a couple months ago, there was legislation that made it all the way to the President that would have given the government the ability to hold suspects of terrorism indefinitely without trial. So I would say that we have started to mix the aspects of both novels into something we have come to accept as normal.
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman argues that the world’s future is more likely to end up like Brave New World than 1984. He makes this argument by comparing the two novels. It is obvious that the issues in 1984 are not problems in today’s society because 1984 has already passed. Brave New World on the other hand, is very relevant in today’s society. It is set in the future and society today is leaning towards passivity, which makes an outcome like Brave New World very possible. I think Postman’s argument about the growing level of passivity is right. This can be proved through Stuart McMillan’s comic strip. In the comic, rather than having the need to ban books, people were so absorbed by TV that they no longer had an interest in reading. People are given so much through the Internet, that they are reduced to passivity and egotism. The truth was “drowned in a sea of irrelevance.” The media, celebrity gossip, and advertisements are taking over the world. Huxley feared that we would become a trivial culture. People are obsessing over things with little value or importance, such as gaming and social networking. All of the things Huxley feared would happen are coming true. People are being reduced to passivity by their own choice; no one is forcing it upon then. People are being controlled by their own pleasure. “Huxley feared what we love will ruin us.”
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, Postaman comes right out and says, "When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves.". By saying this it's almost as though the entire population in 1984 had let out a long held-in sigh of relief. Even though they managed to dodge George Orwell's vision, they still have Aldous Huxley's totalitarianism society to worry about, and they have a good reason too. Brave New World may not be as far fetched from our world after all. Huxley stated that we will all be easily distracted, that we could never focus on one thing. In the cartoon of Amusing Ourselves to Death by Stuart McMillen, he shows a simple black panel with plain white words written across the top of it. When you start to read what the words say, you read regular left to right, straight across like usual then you suddenly plummet to the bottom right corner. You follow the partial sentence of, "man's almost infinite appetite for distraction.", down to a glowing TV screen that is highly contrasted from the back background. It seems as though it just screams "Watch me!". Huxley really nailed that one. I mean how many students don't get distracted by our beeping phones or the blaring TV while trying to do homework? Almost none. We will look up and watch the TV for a few seconds, then remind ourselves, "I'm not watching TV, i'm doing homework, focus.". As much as we love being distracted, it's exactly as Huxley said, “what we love will ruin us.”.
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman believes that instead of worrying about an Orwell version of the future, we should be more concerned about Aldous Huxley's idea of the future which he describes in Brave New World. Postman mainly uses comparisons to strengthen this argument. He also emphasizes how much easier it would be for Huxley's future to happen, since the creation of something like Big Brother wouldn't be necessary to control people. Instead, “people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies meant undo their capacities to think.” All that's needed is something to keep us satisfied and we'll be as easily controllable (if not, more easily controlled) as the people who lived in Oceania. The books, Postman points out, have very opposite ideas which he sums up with the powerful sentence, “In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.” And I do agree with Postman. At this point in our history it's more probable and practical for this to take place. We've already started experiencing it in a way. Television, computers, an cell phones all are distracting us from the rest of the world and what is really important. I personally find most TV shows have very shallow plots that are so obviously made to keep the audience in, for the most part, suspense, that they can be hard to watch at times and remind me of the feelies in Brave New World. Then there's the fact that people are spending an increasingly greater amount of time on things like their computers or phones playing games or “talking” with friends. I think Stuart McMillen's comic best illustrated Postman's ideas about where we are headed because he makes Huxley's idea more relatable than Orwell's. When he draws Orwell's ideas, they usually follow what the book was saying. When he draws Huxley's, it's mostly drawings of people doing what we consider to be normal things, and would seem completely different and harmless if it hadn't been viewed in this context.
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman had very strong opinions about Brave New World and 1984. He felt that Brave New World was more likely to happen than 1984. From what I know about both books, I agree with Postman. Huxley believes that what we love will ruin us and Orwell believes that what we hate will ruin us. I agree with Huxley on this point strongly because us Americans really do love things. For me i also think of the example of fast food. As Americans we consume so much fast food, a majority of the population is obese. "What we love will ruin us", well it already has. More and more people are getting diabetes and fatter every year. Other things we will grow to love will ruin us in the end. I don't agree with Orwell because the things I hate, don't ruin me life. I have learned to live with them. If they get worse, I would try to compensate for them. Yet, I have no intentions of having the things I love, ruin me. In the cartoon "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Stuart McMillen, it has comics that directly relate to Brave New World and are really true. It is almost scary how right on he was with the cartoons. It shows us how easily people are distracted and how technology will over throw everything else. Technology is very distracting, I would know. How often do kids in High School go on Facebook or text their friends in stead of doing the things we need to do? It takes a lot of self- control and determination to pull ourselves away from such tempting things. I also found it interesting that people were anxious come the year 1984, because they were worried that what Orwell wrote would come true, seeing as it didn't there was a big sign of relief. What is scary about Brave New World, is that it still could happen, there was not date or year that this situation would happen. I personally feel that our future will somewhat end up like that. Of course I would never want t to because I would rather have people actually enjoy things and feel real emotions and experience things like sadness and pain. The world should not be controlled by a drug. I found the comics and the argument done by Postman very informative and very spot on.
ReplyDeletePostman argues that the threat of Brave New World aka "Amusing ourselves to death" is more realistic than the threat of Orwell's 1984. He uses examples from modern day life to illustrate current examples of the things we amuse ourselves with, making his argument more frightening for the people that identify with the activities. This is furthered in the comic strip version of his essay, in which people are depicted watching television, or using twitter. I believe Postman's argument is valid, but I can also see areas where he tweaked facts from "Brave New World." One example being the "overcome with information" detail that we already discussed in class. Although this may not stay true to the book, it does ring true with the rest of his argument about what we have to fear in the future. The idea that we will give up the pursuit of knowledge or justice in the face of entertainment strikes me as possible, but only to a certain extent. For lack of a better way to put it - I have too much faith in humanity to believe that the World State could happen. There will always be the threat of what Orwell writes in 1984, but history has shown that there will always be those who rebel. When it comes down to it, I believe that there are people who will remain interested in the legitimate problems of our world, and on the same note, the real joys of it. Even if we did succumb to Brave New World, we would be losing not only the problems of our world, but the true beauty and joy of it as well. We woud lose the things that are real. In the end, I guess both Huxley and Orwell make arguments that I can understand, and Postman too puts together an argument for Brave New World that makes sense. I just have too much faith in humanity for any of them .
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman is clearly an educated man, and one who has read and fully analyzed two of our world's most popular dystopian novels, Brave New World and 1984. In Postman's rhetoric argument, Amusing Ourselves to Death, his views of both novels becomes evident. Neil Postman had been like the rest of society, and worried that our world would be much like the Orwellian image by 1984. Like the rest of us, he was very satisfied that this nightmare never came true, but is not at ease. He fears that Huxley's version is only a short time away, and is much more realistic to our time. He argues that in Brave New World, the people are given so much knowledge that they become passive, and that they are happy with their world because it contains satisfaction. He believes that the gist of 1984 is that the people are controlled and forced to give up what makes them unique, but once they are subjected tot his slavery they appreciate it. Postman argues that what makes Brave New World even more terrifying than 1984 is the fact that it is all based around the people's personal choice. In class, we then studied a comic strip which also portays Postman's argument, but in a more present manner. For instance, it shows our passivity by a man eating chips and watching television. Then, we watched an Apple commercial which plays on the horrors of 1984. It makes one believe that Apple is not like other corporations, and they are working hard to keep our lives private and unique. In the commercial, they are shown destroying Big Brother, and are portrayed as heroes. Regardless, they are a brand based around technology and production, which mirrors Huxley's dystopia. Postman certainly makes us wonder how distant the Huxley's horrors are, and I think his argument is both relatable and brilliantly organized.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear the Neil Postman has decided that although the expectation for the predictions in 1984 never became a reality, the fear should be that the story Brave New World by Huxley, will be our future. Postman was able to make his message so easy to recognize by his simple statements, and comparisons between the two novels. Whether the argument is right or not, is something to examine more closely. He almost applauds us for skipping the development of an aggressive totalitarian government predicted in 1984. This way of life would have controlled everything people do. Although Huxley wrote about another consuming way of life, it is much more passive. Postam makes this idea feel more realistic, by using examples of the things we use in reality, to the things Huxley wrote in his book. All of these examples are shown much more specific and severe in the comic strip based around Postman’s argument. Every image is relatable to people in some way, which adds fear Postman is trying to instill in the people. I have to completely agree with Postman when he talks about the passivity controlling the future. I do believe that we live in a world in which we fill our lives with technology and gadgets, that have become necessities. We are blinded by the things that we love, and are so consumed with “things”, that we often lose our sense of humanity quite often. One point that I felt strongly about was the last sentence of Postman’s argument. After the first couple time reading it, I had mixed feelings about how Postman ended such a strong argument. I felt as though it did not sum up what he had wrote about throughout his essay, but I also decided that it was still relevant and and appropriate for his argument. I have to agree once again with this statement, “ In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.” I think that although at the time of Postman publishing his piece this may not have happened, and even now the severity of Huxley’s story has not taken over our lives. However people should not be blind to the fact that we have gotten tangled in a mess of passivity, we have obtained this way of life, and it is the things that we love that have ruined us. Neil Postman is a brilliant man who should be applauded himself for the prediction he argued, that is now unfolding right before our eyes. We escaped the life predicted in 1984, but we are far from advancing past the life in Brave New World.
ReplyDeleteon Orwell's argument in Politics and the English Language.
ReplyDeleteOrwell argues that pretentious prefab phrases would relate the vapidity of one individual's mind to another, but he writes a book that expresses a fear of forgotten words and prefix-adaged monosyllables trying to relate too much of what they're incapable of relating. i see little continuity between the two arguments--is his public opinion so fickle?
then, reading the thing, the essay, i was constantly bogged down in his great expanse of mispellings, vague grammatical structure, and simply dull style lacking in the vibrancy of the imaginative language he attempts to uphold. perhaps that is a tactic to show us by example, but it worked poorly on me, who spent a weak forcing my self to read the boring thing.
I agree wholeheartedly that prefab phrases and instant noodle versions of language exempt the speaker and writer of any need, desire, and responsibility to think, but that this style of mindless self expression is accomplishes through embellished pomp, i question. maybe in england in 1946 the style of communication between human beings was different, but i doubt that.
in the end, here i am, who likes to synthesize lopsided sentences chocked full of pretentious phraseology and pseudo-scientific terms just and Orwell condemns, and i think i can criticize his argument. i can. he does not adhere to his own standards, and propheses it, but more alarmingly, orwell fails to dazzle me, the reader, with his own understanding of his argument through use of the antithesis of the condemned in a witty and remarkably crafted rebuttal of it through his own style. he fails to make his argument in macro-structure. he fails to contrast his own ideas with those of the critiqued excerpts. Orwell proposes at the beginning of his essay that "language is a natural growth and not an instrument" next to which, in the margin in piunk pen, i wrote, "develop relationship [between the two aspects of "language"] or die. makes audience think he's less prudish [that is, more philosophical and less nostalgic.]." I am forever disappointed that he did not succesfully develop this relationship, and instead becomes distracted in his criticism of humanity.
i agree with his argument, though he hardly made one.
.
.
.
[neither have i--i am hoping that my audience agrees so that i don't have to scour my notes for everywhere orwell makes a spelling mistake or criticizes american culture an writing.]
on Neil Postman. i would choose that as a pen name for my more formal style. no, on his essay, amusing ourselves to death. first of all, no one except (presumably) executed sixty-year-olds and john and his mom ever die in brave new world. wait! there's a dead dog, too--but that was already dead.
ReplyDeletesecondly, Orwell writes a different kind of book. while huxeley societal extrapolation have com alarmingly close to reality, they're less of a discussion of human nature, and more of a cry a dissatisfaction with the trend in a prediction human advancement. no--in the end, how much a fututristic novel rings true is less important than the understanding of human nature that can be gained by it. in this respect, having only read the one of two, i say that huxeley reveals something (though i claim it was by mere folly) about what postman cites huxeley to call "man's near infinite appetite for distractions."
i'll shut up with my reluctant praise of huxeley by saying that, while a comparison between the two novels is tempting, it is also peculiarly infantile to suppose that they can be treated as one and the same manner for making two drastically different prophesies. a prophesy's value exists only in its ability to be fulfilled; a book is a statement about humanity.
to make it short because i have an essay to write and APs to study for and incompletes to complete, i'll say that Postman makes the same argument as huxeley does, but he also does as i just condemned in the last paragraph and treats the books as pieces of voodoo tricks and fate-thieved threads.
synthesis: orwell is a master at manipulating emotion (cited in the apple and in the visual references to his book and newsspeak phrases now used as english). synthesis 2: what i said in my previous paragraphs about treating books as books and not as reasons to panic or not depending on the level to which 1984 has been realized. (cited in postman's first paragraph, mcmillan's reluctance ot depict modern realizations of orwell's society, apple's ad depicting itself as savior into huxeley's future form orwell's, and in the general lack of panic at the closeness of me and mary-jane to Lenina crowne and of my brother and joe-shmoe to Henry marx.
OH YEAH--and the pretentious, meaning-packed phrases that orwell condemns allow for the inadequacy of the complexities of grammar to convey through chunks of ideas mediated by articles and conjunctions the enormity of the smallest human sentiments! germans sling words into compound nouns, a national joke, while english speaking people create phrases of latinate and otherwise words! ---!
ReplyDelete