The Huxleyan Warning

After reading the excerpt from "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, I find myself partially agreeing with his views. Postman's stance on culture's immersion into technology is accurate, because people now resort to the use of their cell phones, televisions, or computers as a way to spend their time. I do not believe, however, that these things are a complete waste of time nor are they the only way we spend our time. Yes, if we are not careful as a society, we may become seduced by technology completely without even realizing it. Yes, there are downsides to technology. But, if used properly, however, technology can be a great asset to society. For example, a child moves to college, and he or she is away from his parents for the first time on his own. Although technology is not a substitute for person-to-person interaction, it can certainly help bring people together. The child can call his parents, or even talk to them on Skype or FaceTime. The ability to be connected with people is something that is a necessary part of life.

The part where I agree with Postman the most is his view on television. "Neither do I put much stock in proposals to improve the quality of television programs. Television, as I have implied earlier, serves us most usefully when presenting junk entertainment; it serves us most ill when it co-opts serious modes of discourse - news, politics, science, education, commerce, religion - and turns them into entertainment packages," (Postman 159). The most important aspects of our everyday life are not presented to us as such; they are presented to us as if they are films, or stories with plots. While it is healthy to distract ourselves with Netflix, we can not spend all of our time watching that or following the Kardashians. There is no depth. Especially in this time with a presidential election in the near future, we need to focus on real issues. Voters need to be informed, and the media needs to do a better job of relaying unbiased and honest information.

Humans are independent people. We must be able to make our own choices. We can not be too dull with work and study, but we also must avoid committing ourselves to a life of shallow entertainment.

World State vs. Savage Reservation: Brave New World

The World State eliminates the aspects of modern life that makes the human experience so real. First, it eliminates the miracle of childbirth, and replaces it with cloning via lab production. "A squat grey building of only thirty-four stories. Over the main entrance the words, CENTRAL LONDON HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTRE, and, in a shield, the World State's motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, AND STABILITY," (page 1). The name of the facility reveals the robotic nature that life has become in this new society. People are no longer born; they are hatched like birds, or clones in the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars. In addition, children in the World State are no longer provided a real education. They are conditioned to a certain role: conditioned to know how to perform that role and conditioned to love that position and nothing else. The leaders of the World State believe that, with the removal of families by replacing them with the hatchery system, and creating workers who are drones, life will be easier due to consistent happiness with no feelings of jealousy or free thinking.

The range of human emotion is a critical factor to the foundation of the World State. Families are abolished, as well as the experiences of abject misery or pure elation. The people of the World State are conditioned and forced into staying in one small sector of the emotional spectrum. "Our ancestors were so stupid and short-sighted that when the first reformers came along and offered to deliver them from these horrible emotions, they wouldn't have anything to do with them," (page 45).  The controller criticizes people of past generations for allowing feelings of sadness or anger, and he believes that everyone should always be in the same small window of happiness. A person's emotions can not swing too far to either extreme, because then it wouldn't be stable. Consequently, the World State will always be stable because there is virtually no variation in emotion: with no family attachment, abject misery, or elation, everyone is always in the same frame of mind.

The Savage Reservation, however, is the polar opposite of the World State. There is no defined political system, natural birth is existent, and the whole range of emotion is available to everyone. People are allowed to think and feel freely; they are not manipulated by a government to be content with a certain role or position, or even to be forced to do something. "Nobody's supposed to belong to more than one person," (page 121). The savage talking to Lenina is explaining one of the differences between the Savage Reservation and the World State. In the world state, there is frequent group sexual intercourse, because everyone is believed to belong to each other. In the Savage Reservation, however, the people follow ancient rules. The idea of monogamy is followed, and when someone breaks that belief, he or she is punished.

Based on my reading of the two different societies, I would rather live in the Savage Reservation. Yes, it may be more physically brutal, but I would be able to live knowing that I am free mentally and physically. The World State appears to be entertaining, but it is a shallow world with no substance to living. The members of that place are servants to the Controllers, and they will become nothing more than that. The Savage Reservation allows the possibility of elation and true love as well, as opposed to the polygamy that consistently occurs in the World State.   

Review: "The Great One" The Story of The Greatest Hockey Player Ever

The Sports Illustrated novel immediately dives into the whole plot of the book with the title, "The Great One." Wayne Gretzky, a hockey player in the National Hockey League from 1978 to 1999, has always been recognized as the best player to ever live, thus the name, "The Great One." The book, through its many authors who had covered Gretzky throughout his career, recaps the different stages of his time playing in the NHL. It spans from his rookie season in Edmonton, to him being traded from Edmonton to Los Angeles in 1988, then through the end of his career in New York with the Rangers. 

Prior to reading this book, I had already known a lot of information regarding the career of Wayne Gretzky. When I began digging into the novel, I was hoping for an in-depth view into his life: how he prepared for games, what he thought of all the pressure and attention of the NHL, and his overall perspectives and experiences. Thus far, I have been bored to death with repeated statistics that represent Gretzky's greatness. I can go online and be blown away by his goal totals during the prime of his career, so I want to see his career from his vantage point. 

Hockey fans should search for different works, such as Bobby Orr's memoir, if they want more about Gretzky's life than just his statistics through his 20 seasons in the National Hockey League. 

War by Chris Hedges

After reading Chris Hedges's thoughts on the Iraq War, I am shaken. For years, I have felt blinded by the media. Only on rare occasions have I ever been given an insight to the horrors and the traumatic experiences suffered by the soldiers in any war. The reasons for the war are awful as well. I understand his point of views, which state that the War on Terror in the Middle East is hypocritical in a sense. "This myth, the lie, about war, about ourselves, is imploding our democracy. We shun introspection and self-criticism. We ignore truth, to embrace the strange, disquieting certitude and hubris offered by the radical Christian Right." The attitude of some radical Christians is not any better than the atittude of radical Muslims, but Christians do not look at themselves. Now, I am not suggesting that either religion is violent, but rather that each has its own good and bad people. And yet, in the United States, too many people are blaming the entire Islamic population for the actions of a few sociopaths. No one, however, blames the entire Christian population for the KKK. The actions of a few can not define the intentions of a whole group.

Update: The Great One

I am currently on page 83 of "The Great One," a biography about the hockey legend, Wayne Gretzky. This Sports Illustrated novel, so far, has detailed the early stages of Gretzky's hockey career. I am very interested in learning about this man's career, particularly because he could dominate leagues at extremely young ages. For example, in juniors, which is typically for 16-19 year olds, Gretzky was the best player in the league at age 14. Although his career is one of the most interesting in all of sports history, this book has been difficult to read. The writing is making my passion, ice hockey, seem almost dull. Hopefully, as the book progresses and I enter the professional stage of his career, the book will become more interesting and entertaining.

Ophelia's Madness

Caroll Camden's argument on the reasoning to Ophelia's madness is part of the theory I believed throughout the play. I believe, too, that her insanity stems from Hamlet's treatment of her. I also think, however, that the death of Polonius caused Ophelia to become mad. This is because following the death of a loved one, especially a father, is very traumatizing for a person. It is shown earlier in the play through Prince Hamlet, who lost his father to a tragic murder. He was grieving for weeks, and it can be seen that Ophelia was obviously rattled by her father's death as well. I believe, though, that her madness stems from not only from her father's death, but from Hamlet as well. Hamlet treated her poorly throughout the play, and him being responsible for her father's death put the nail in the coffin. "He warns her that Hamlet is merely playing with her aflections . . . " Camden is summarizing the warning of Laertes, Ophelia's brother, which states that Hamlet is simply trying to use her. This is where I believe Ophelia's role in the play comes into action. While I feel that her character and her death make the play more tragic, I believe her character serves as a way to highlight Hamlet's insanity and twisted behavior. The way he treats her throughout the play, such as when he lashes out at her or stares at her with a possessed look, acts as a way to show more external results of his insanity. Her character essentially is a way to take the internal conflict within Hamlet and provide it with an external mark.