Amusing Ourselves to Death: 1984 & Brave New World

[Red Terror]

What George Orwell (in 1984) feared were those who would ban books. What Aldous Huxley (in Brave New World) 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 that 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 "feelies", the "orgy porgy", and the "centrifugal bumble-puppy". 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.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2011_a_brave_new_dystopia_20101227


https://increasedapeace.wordpress.com/tag/chris-hedges/

My take: Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death takes as its central thesis that the printed word is vastly superior to the televised image, the latter being predominant in our world today. He takes Huxley's Brave New World as the prophecy that is being made incarnate in the modern world today. Has anyone read Brave New World or Chris Hedges or Neil Postman's books???

[YesNo]

I've read Brave New World and 1984 long ago. I like the pleasure/pain contrast you make regarding them. That makes sense. They are both describing big government or big bureaucracy and so in that sense they are similar. I don't think either will be a pattern for our future. We will more likely form smaller groups not bigger ones.

[prendrelemick]

I've read both, and agree that Huxley's world has proved closer to the mark, but both failed to predict the importance of the individual and demographics that very few political systems can control - we have chosen to go down this path . Our leaders are clinging on to the tigers tail pretending to steer. North Korea is perhaps an exception -very much 1984.

[ennison]

I don't think Orwell had in mind quite so nepotistic and gangsterish a state as the el dingbats rule. He thought of competing blocs. He was clever but if you examine the brilliant essay Shooting an Elephant you realize he was a Brit-Nat socialist from the off. He never thought other cultures were equal to that from which he sprang and which he thought was being damaged by being imperialistic. It was the damaging arrogance that Imperialism bred that bothered him. . I have no objection to that but I am aware that it is very limited. - for me.

[Eiseabhal]

Brit-Nat socialist... Like it Ennison. Do you mean the anti-Corbyn Blairite types? The we-gotta-have-a-big-bomb-too fellahs? But would he really be like them I wonder if he was here today? Nah. He was pretty far left. I avoided being shot when I served Queen and Country but I can imagine what a bullet through the throat might feel like thanks to George. He was a good writer. The description of the crushed mahout in that essay is pretty graphic - but I don't believe our George ever saw a truly mangled corpse.
Composed anything recently by the way?

[ennison]

Yep. Ag obair air hornpipe air son te a Grabhir. But I have another in the making too and I have been mixing the pair up. It's a nuisance - lack of musical concentration.

[AuntShecky]

I was pleased to see the reference to Neil Postman, the distinguished professor at New York University Three decades ago Prof. Postman warned us about the ever-blurring lines between news and entertainment, a prediction having sadly come true in "these here United States." I'd elaborate, but we're (wisely) not allowed to discuss politics on this site.

[Pompey Bum]

Very nice to hear from you, Aunt Shecky. :)

[North Star]

"And this from a man in a bunny suit." - How appropriate. . .

[Red Terror]

I was pleased to see the reference to Neil Postman, the distinguished professor at New York University Three decades ago Prof. Postman warned us about the ever-blurring lines between news and entertainment, a prediction having sadly come true in "these here United States." I'd elaborate, but we're (wisely) not allowed to discuss politics on this site.

... and I was pleased that you were pleased.

By the way, if you want to argue politics try this site (maybe you've heard of it):

http://www.politicalforum.com/

[Red Terror]

Neil Postman's thesis was that the ominous warnings of an Orwellian future, complete with totalitarian censorship, had badly missed the mark. "Censorship, after all, is the tribute tyrants pay to an assumption that the public knows the difference between serious discourse and entertainment -- and cares," the media theorist wrote. "How delighted would all the kings, czars and fuhrers of the past and commissars of the present be to know that censorship is not a necessity when all political discourse takes the form of a jest."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/opinions/donald-trump-howard-stern-bunch/index.html