Brave New World Discussion

Back to the old blogging routine.

*After reading the packets about detail and diction, I found that the assignment wasn’t still posted on schoology (that I could see), so I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to write about. But! I think it was something about giving examples of detail and diction in Brave New World, so that’s what I’m going to write about.

From what I gathered in the detail packet, detail is when you write something and are just giving a description. There is no emotional information included, just facts. I think a good example of this in Brave New World would be when they describe without any emotion the process of how they make people and then brainwash them. No one really seems to have any emotion most of the book, so I think a lot of this book could qualify as detail. I also believe that an example of an author who uses this form of writing constantly would be Ernest Hemingway.

Diction would be when you do have an emotional connotation with what you’re saying. An example of this in the book would be, just in general, the character John. Most everything he says is filled with emotion. Another example would be when the Director gets emotional about him and Linda. Or one more would be when Bernard has his moment of questioning with Lenina. This book does have emotional text, but not as much as the factual aspect. I think this is okay though because the book is about how no one thinks or has real emotions. So it all works.*

On to examples of how Brave New World exemplifies a Dystopian society perfectly.

1. Propaganda is used to control the citizens of the society

As Bernard mentions about a thousand and six times, every single night from (birth) and as children, the citizens of the society are subjected to subliminal messages each night that condition them to act differently. They also learn catchy little phrases that they can repeat on command, even when completely unnecessary, such as when Linda is living on the reservation with the "savages."

      2. Information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted.

There is a chapter, or at least a section, that begins with Mustapha Mond, world controller, looking over a report from a scientist and rejecting it—even going so far as to underline multiple times the rejection—because he thought that it would let people think. He, and other world controllers, also send people who think freely to little islands outside of society because if they think it could bring everything down. They also restrict the citizens time so much that even if they wanted to think, they would be exhausted. Additionally, they give them little pills called soma so that any time any thoughts or even bad feelings come up they can just take a “holiday.” Even going farther than that, they’ve been brainwashed since birth (not even birth) so free thinking is pretty much out of the question. They also have pretty much no job choices and a set caste system they have no way of getting out, and they don’t want to get out of it. 

3. A figurehead or concept is worshiped by society. 

The people of this "brave new world" worship a man called "Ford" almost obsessively. And he just sort of speaks out of the ceiling at strange times. And on a recording too. 

4. Citizens are perceived to be under constant surveillance.

Bernard and Lenina's boss mentions something about how he has noticed that Bernard's behavior reports have been unusual outside of work and even during work. Obviously they are spied on/have surveillance if Bernard's boss has information on him outside of work.

5. Citizens have a fear of the outside world. 

Citizens don't so much have a fear as they just don't see the use of it. When Bernard suggests they go to Malpais, Lenina thinks it's a stupid idea and doesn't want to have to live in the muck and all that. The only character that seems, or at least seemed at one point, genuinely afraid of the outside world is Linda. She didn't exactly adjust well to being thrown into the world of savages. 

6. Citizens live in a dehumanized state.

The citizens even realize this several times and don't care. They refer to themselves as children and don't really care that they are. Everyone there is kind of child, and they don't really do any adult activities. "It is their duty to be infantile (pg. 98)." They also aren't parents, don't have children, and don't have spouses. They have no connections, but they are supposed to be a "unit" or a "whole." No one person matters, so I guess none of them matter?

7. The natural world is banished and distrusted.

The citizens our the "brave new world" live in a high tech society where they got rid of all the trees and the grass and the bugs and anything that could potentially hurt anyone. It's all a padded room. The citizens distrust the "savages" and call them that because of it. They don't think that living in squalor with, god forbid, families and religion and drama could ever work. 

8. Citizens conform to uniform expectations. 

Everyone is conditioned to believe that the caste systems they are placed in are just and right. They are also taught as small children that they and their death don't matter. Individuals don't matter. It's society as a whole that matters. They also say a few times, "what do a few murders matter? As long as society is kept intact." 

9. The society is an illusion of a perfect world. 

This should be evident from all the previous information, but to further drill in the point, at the end after John, the "normal" human, experiences the world and feels so much guilt for what all is happening, he kills himself. 

Next. First of all, Huxley's dad was a biologist, and Huxley also wanted to be a biologist, but he had a major vision problem and instead turned to writing. This explains his fascination with genetics (the making of humans in labs) and biology (making them better) in the novel. An industrial revolution was going on right as the new century began. This meant new inventions and improvements and new science to ogle at. This contributed to a feeling that everything was moving too fast. An example of new inventions in the novel would be how all everything had to be new, how a model of consumerism was promoted, and how all sports had to involve probably a hundred pieces just to work.
Also in teen years of the 1900s, there was a war happening. That was World War I. That means a lot of unrest and people were scared. An example of this in the novel would be the "Nine Year's War." People got really scared during that time and so the government just "fixed" it. Then we had the '20s, which was all prosperity and lavishness until 1929. The '20s represent how the people in the novel live day to day.
Then the real stuff went down and the feeling of moving too fast was cemented. They had moved way too fast. The '30s were a time of cynicism. They were moving forward too quick, and now was the time to slow down and catch up with aspirations. An example of this would be the people who think too much. One example would be John, and other examples would be the people who were taken to the islands.
The 1930s was when Brave New World was published. I think it was published then to show what could have happened, and what still could if people continued the way they had been.

Last. I found a lot of things about this book interesting/important.

1. The scene with Bernard and Lenina in the helicopter thing near the beginning of the book (page 92) was really interesting. At first Bernard is trying really hard to get her to just think ("But it's lovely. And I don't want to look." Daisy Buchanan moment much?) and feel ("I want to feel something strongly."), and then he just kind of gives up and starts laughing. I think this is really interesting because he's trying to break free, but then Lenina just continually resists and finally he just gives up. I think this is probably pretty representative about how most people feel in this society. Maybe at first they tried to get out of it, but then there was just so much to keep them there. He also continues on page 94 about how "it suddenly struck me the other day that it might be possible to be an adult all the time." And then Lenina is all like, "No, no. I don't understand. We had fun, you're dumb. Stop thinking." Bernard, again, is a real pushover, and stops the discussion. 
2. Just a small thing: on page 95, when it talks about Mustapha Mond intial-ing a permit, I thought the way he signed was really interesting. "He pencilled his initials--two small pale letters abject at the feet of Mustapha Mond--and was about to return..." It's interesting that his signature is small and pale. It kind of represents him as more of a figurehead, with no actual power, against "Ford." 
3. OH MY GOD when the Director was reminiscing, I repeat, reminiscing, about Linda and his trip to Malpais. Like, wow. You don't just think. I bracketed that entire part.
4. And then Mustapha Mond talking at the end to all John, Helmholtz (?), and Bernard. He knows enough, but he still doesn't really get it. I mean, he's trying to protect the world, but he's kind of going about it the wrong way.

There was a lot more stuff that was super interesting, but I just can't even think of any.

Confusing stuff:

1. Ford. 'Nuff said.
2. I didn't like how he didn't explain a lot of things. I mean, I realize all the characters know everything about everything, but some things weren't explained that well and I was confused on what they meant. Also, even though I guess it doesn't really relate to the story, I would have loved an explanation of what all the different activities they did were. (i.e., the golf and the helicopters and whatnot)
3. What the whole basis of government is? Like, who is running this whole thing? Or is no one running it at all and that's part of the problem? We just have the world controllers and a dead guy* controlling the place? *read: dead guy=Ford to the 21st century mind of Erika

I probably also have a lot more questions, but again, nothing I can think of at the moment.

Overall, the book had some really interesting ideas and I think it's a classic for a reason.

POV and Creepy Stories Discussion

Another day, another reading assignment.

In this assignment, I reviewed Point of View! Basically, you have a bunch of different types of narration that can be divided into two subcategories of "Narration from a Nonparticipant" and "Narration from a Participant." From there, you can go more in depth, but the main point is that you're either using third or first person, respectively.

Whether your narrator is a participant or not, they are probably one of three types: innocent, naive, or unreliable. This means that you may not be able to trust your narrator because 1) they don't understand the implications of the story, 2) they have certain beliefs thrust upon them at birth that they have not matured past, or 3) they are "deceptive, self-deceptive, deluded, or deranged." This information is presented as "bad" for the reader, but really I think that the deceptive narrator or the innocent narrator adds a whole new level of interest to the story. With the innocent narrator, you have to think past their actions and come up with why they would do the things they do. With a deceptive narrator, you do almost the same, but at the end you may be surprised to figure out that the narrator has not been entirely truthful. We, as readers, are conditioned to read and accept most things in fiction as truth (for the fictitious world), but when we are presented with a deceptive or innocent narrator it makes the reading experience so much better.

I also agreed with the text saying that third person narration is more trustworthy than first person, as first person presents more of a bias. Although, third person could potentially be deceiving. In Harry Potter, the narration is in third person limited, so Harry is the main focus. Every thought or emotion he has is displayed to us, but so are his perceptions. For example, Harry constantly thinks Snape is wishing him trouble (and at times he is), but a lot of the time he isn't, it's just how Harry perceives it.

--

Moving on to character, this was a review also. By now we should know the difference between "flat, round, static, and dynamic" characters and all about the "antihero." However, I did like the paragraph on naming characters, especially the quote, "A character, first of all, is the noise of his name." Naming of characters is so important. If you name a character "John Smith," he will immediately be considered ordinary; however, a character like "Freda Zeggs" would be exotic and unusual. I also liked hearing about how Charles Dickens named his characters and wondered if it was still possible to name so obviously in the literary world today.

The paragraph on motivation was interesting too. I think about character motivation a lot because of the RP group that I'm in. When you write a character for an RP, you usually have a few set values that you try to go off (at first). As you continue to write and develop your character, you can add in little nuisances ("multiple facets" of the character) that make your character unique and not "stock." I find this idea kind of hard to grasp. Not in the sense that I don't understand how motivation works or any that, but kind of the fact that human nature is really confusing and how can you even fathom shoving that into one character? I have realized as I've kept writing for my RP that characters are so much more complicated than the book definition ("an imagined person who inhabits a story") makes them out to be. If you write them well, they are hardly "an imagined person" when you're done with them. You can practically reach out and touch them because of their realness. It kind of reminds me of the saying "I have lived a thousand lives through books." If you write a character well enough, it's almost like the reader can mix up the character's memories with their own. I don't know if you've ever experienced that, but I frequently find myself trying to remember if something had actually happened or if I read it once.

--

In "A Rose for Emily," the story is told in first person through a minor character. I believe it's told through a member of the town, but it's a little bit odd because this member of the town knows just about everything. However, this could be more of a retelling after hearing a bunch of things from other members of the town. Kind of like an older person telling gossip to a younger person, as we do see a lot of gossips in the town. The effect of this kind of narration is weird. If we would've seen from Emily's eyes, perhaps we  would've been less creeped out, but probably not. By not seeing from Emily's eyes, we gain no perspective or motivation for why she is doing all the creepy stuff she's doing and WHY HER HOUSE STINKS I MEAN COME ON! Looking in as the casual observer, we only see certain seemingly weird things Emily does. Exhibit A, buying arsenic "to kill rats." Perhaps the police should have maybe, just maybe paid a visit to her lovely home. Especially after that nice man who was her lover disappeared. Overall, the narration leaves the reader guessing why Emily is doing all this weird stuff and then at the end super creeped out because we don't know her motivation for being a scary, old necrophiliac.

In "The Storm," the story is told in third person omniscient, meaning an all-knowing narrator. The effect of this kind of narration is a disconnected kind of air. If it would've been told from one of the character's POV, we 1) wouldn't have seen everything that happened and 2) would have been much more emotional about the situation. Everyone just seemed very calm and composed, and that had the effect of making the actions in the story seem acceptable to the casual reader. The message you get from it with the disconnect is something along the lines of "BE FREE YOU SEXY PEOPLE, NO ONE CARES--especially not your wife," but we would've gotten distinctly different messages if it would've been told from each one of the characters. In fact, we may not have gotten a message at all.  "The Storm" was by far my favorite of the two. I really dislike creepy stories or stories that make me uncomfortable. "The Storm" was more of a, "I'm not sure I agree with you, but at least your story isn't the creepiest thing in the world."

--


Foreshadowing is used a lot in "A Rose for Emily." In the first sentence, even, foreshadowing is used. We learn immediately that Emily is dead, which is foreshadowing that at the end we'll find out something about her death. In the next paragraph we learn a bunch of seemingly mundane things about her "stubborn and coquettish" house that should be seen as a metaphor for Emily herself. This is foreshadowing for the character to come, as we only know Emily's name so far. When they go on to mention the thing about her not having taxes, you know that's gonna be a big point. Why else would the mention something so boring? Then they go on to visit her and that is foreshadowing for the fact that they will never visit again based on her behavior. Lastly, we see foreshadowing in the fact that Emily has cut all her hair off after "being sick" and looked like a young girl again. This should warn us that something is wrong with Emily and that "looking like a young girl again" suggests some sort of innocence or lack of regard for morals--meaning mental illness (not to suggest that being mentally ill is a "lack of regard for morals"). The narrator is telling the story from memory, probably, so almost everything is either foreshadowing or "We didn't say this then, only this."

--


Setting is literally the most important thing in both stories. Going to the more obvious of the two first, in "The Storm" the setting is important because it allows the mother to commit her infidelity. It also traps the father and son in the market. Additionally, it brings the lover in from the rain. If the storm hadn't happened, the father and son wouldn't have been trapped and the wife wouldn't have had the time to do her thing, along with the fact that the lover wouldn't have come in from the rain.

In "A Rose for Emily," setting is equally important, yet less obvious. The setting needed to be in a closed off, antiquated town in the middle of nowhere for this to work. If it was in a large city in modern times, no one would've known or cared. But, being that it's in the middle of a hot summer in an isolated town that knows everybody's business and has nothing better to do than gossip, we get to hear the telling of Emily's life from the view of the casual gossip. If the gossips didn't care about her, we never would have known about the fact that a new man was in her life or that she bought arsenic at the store. We needed the small town atmosphere or else we wouldn't have the story. We also probably wouldn't have the wonderful comparison of stubborn house to stubborn woman.

Blog #1: Elements of a Story

A story is described as "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment." I find this definition very bland and what someone who had no idea what a story was would say. A story to me is somewhere you can escape to that gives you some sort of adventure or conflict or life lesson. A story is ideas presented to you in a way that you don't notice they're there until the end. A good story changes your way of thinking and makes you want to be better. Writing and storytelling are two crafts that cannot be defined to the narrow "accounts told for entertainment." Stories are something entirely different. They are stars inside of an author's brain that spill onto the paper and become constellations and galaxies that you, the reader, have the pleasure of naming and enjoying. 

The elements of a story that make it "good" are things like symbolism, imagery, character development, world building, story arcs, plot twists, and backstories. Symbolism makes the story more than just words on the page. It takes what could have just been the color yellow in The Great Gatsby and turns it into a clue of corruption. Imagery lets you see what is happening while you are reading. Character development helps you make believable characters so that people can either relate to them or at least enjoy them. World building lets you make organic worlds that are believable and interesting instead of one-dimensional and common. Story arcs and plot twists are essential to any story. Backstories are the highlight of my writing and reading life. They are my essence and my happiness. Backstories (going along with character development) make characters so much more intersting. You can either empathize with them, understand them better, or feel even worse about their situation. For example, learning the back story of Remus Lupin in Harry Potter was one of the saddest events of my recent life. 

The elements of a story that make it "bad" are just the opposite of all of these items. If you have one-dimensional characters in a bland world where your characters do nothing but walk around and have conversations rife with nothing but everyday niceties: you do not have a story. You have a journal, and a fictional one at that. 

When looking over our "syllabus" for this class (that we made last year), I found myself getting a sick feeling in my stomach. What had I gotten myself into? There were so many books and essays and responses that I couldn't quite wrap my head around doing this and also doing another English class. I'm really worried about this, but I hope I can manage it all. 

What I'm looking forward to in this particular unit is the chance to explore how to create such things as: world building, character development, symbolism, backstories, and so forth. I can competently create them now, but I'd like to be able to smoothly do so. I think reading and reflecting on passages will help with this a lot, but I'd also like to possibly listen to speakers on this (on YouTube or in books). I went to a literary conference last summer and I learned a lot more about writing than I thought was possible. While I'm not terrific, I find the more I learn the more I can look back on past work and see that it's getting better. I think working on the basics and the structure of writing will make it easier in the future.