| BookTalk.org News |
| • Only 4 members are currently signed up to receive email digests. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity. |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| Featured Videos |
Dan Barker
author of "Godless"
talks about his deconversion
Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"
More Videos
|
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
bradams 
I can enter The Chamber
Usergroups: None
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 61
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: Orwell vs Huxley
|
 |
|
I think it was Meesh's post regarding Fahrenheit 451 that put me in mind of something that Neil Postman wrote, even though he does not mention Bradbury.
| Quote: |
We were keeping our eyes 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, w 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 that 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 appetitive 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 would ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love would ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
|
I've quoted the entire forward to Amusing Ourselves to Death because I feel that quoting only parts of it would reduce its impact. What I'm proposing here is not a discussion of Postman's book, but a discussion of the idea it encapsulates, particularly in regard to books ("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"), but also in regard to the other ideas.
My own thought is that if Huxley was right (and I think he was), then Orwell's prophetic vision may also come to pass because of that. I believe that what Huxley envisaged has largely come to pass, if not literally then at least in spirit, for a large proportion of the western world. For example, I know a university graduate who can quote Harry Potter readily, but when told of Benazir Bhutto's assassination responded by asking "Who's he?" I think that because the population has become so passive and entertainment oriented it has made possible a gradual curtailing of our civil liberties in a much more Orwellian fashion. After all, Big Brother is nothing more than a tv show to most people in my country, and they remain ignorant of Owell's version.
What does anyone else think on the issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| This reminded me of an anecdote I once heard (was it in Chomsky's Interventions?) about a group of Russian journalists who traveled to the US during the Cold War. They wondered how it was that the American free press were all towed the government line on most matters when the Soviets had to use coercive methods to arrive at a similar destination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradams
I can enter The Chamber
Usergroups: None
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 61
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
That does sound like Chomsky. The whole idea of Manufacturing Consent.
I wonder whether manufacturing consent is more Orwellian than Huxleyan in the sense that it's institutional. Maybe it's both!
In Australia our sports stars get more news coverage for their off-field antics than more serious news items. We had a footballer, Ben Cousins, who's been all over the papers for his abuse of drugs and a cricketer, Shane Warne, who gets headlines for his sexual exploits - front page news and page after page of coverage. In comparison the passing away of one of our great politicians, Don Chipp who founded Australia's third force in politics the Australian Democrats, didn't even merit a whole page late last year.
Those examples sound more along the Huxleyan lines than the Orwellian, but what I've read of Chomsky about the maufacture of consent generally sounds Orwellian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
