I think of a quote I heard years ago (thank you search engines--put in what I could remember and there it was):
"What (George) Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What (Aldous) Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
~Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
Tragically, 45 seems to fulfill both prophecies at once. He denies us truth, while feeding us a glut of the meaninglessness. Obviously, this cannot all be laid at 45's door, but he embodies it so completely, it is as if the two writer's collaborated on his creation.
The book goes on:
"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, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."
While "1984" is terrifying, it is "Brave New World" that always shook me more deeply, because I believe that ultimately people resist tyranny, sometimes too little, too late, after much destruction and tragedy, ultimately only when it affects them directly, but revolutions continually turn over. Ultimately there are enough oppressed by the regime that they can say enough is enough. But decadence is too tempting. If all people are comfortable, then there will never be enough to look up and say, "This is not right." I once wrote an essay in which I argued that "Brave New World," really is a utopia. Everyone is happy. The lower class doesn't even suffer dissatisfaction because it is programmed out of them: I'm so happy I'm not an Alpha, they have to think so hard. They will not revolt because they have no idea that they are subjugated. But is contentment not a desirable goal?
"What (George) Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What (Aldous) Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
~Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
Tragically, 45 seems to fulfill both prophecies at once. He denies us truth, while feeding us a glut of the meaninglessness. Obviously, this cannot all be laid at 45's door, but he embodies it so completely, it is as if the two writer's collaborated on his creation.
The book goes on:
"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, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."
While "1984" is terrifying, it is "Brave New World" that always shook me more deeply, because I believe that ultimately people resist tyranny, sometimes too little, too late, after much destruction and tragedy, ultimately only when it affects them directly, but revolutions continually turn over. Ultimately there are enough oppressed by the regime that they can say enough is enough. But decadence is too tempting. If all people are comfortable, then there will never be enough to look up and say, "This is not right." I once wrote an essay in which I argued that "Brave New World," really is a utopia. Everyone is happy. The lower class doesn't even suffer dissatisfaction because it is programmed out of them: I'm so happy I'm not an Alpha, they have to think so hard. They will not revolt because they have no idea that they are subjugated. But is contentment not a desirable goal?
