This Blog = Punishable by Death or Imprisonment
4 November 2009
There is a distinct irony inherent in the power of the Party’s control in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The crux of their power lies in the naiveté of the general public: their willingness to believe uncritically what is told to them, a willingness born of fear, and yet the execution of the Party’s power relies heavily on the sharp minds of the very public that Big Brother is trying to control. For instance, the act of writing is not allowed. Recording events, like keeping a diary (or writing a blog), is not “illegal” in the technical sense of the word, but could result in death or imprisonment, so any attempts to “communicate with the future” are highly risky to say the least. And yet it is Winston’s job to communicate and craft a reality for the future that is in compliance with the Party’s doctrines. The difference is that the diary promotes individual thought and subjective, uncontrolled reality, while the other is a highly crafted conformist reality. The thing is, Winston could do neither of these acts without an element of creativity and free thought. The very seed of individualism and creativity that leads Winston on his journey with the diary is the very thing that he draws upon when he fabricates fictionalized realities like that of Comrade Ogilvy.
Additionally, the double standard of control and reliance is seen with the character of Syme. Winston knows with certainty that one day Syme will be vaporized because he lacked “a sort of saving stupidity.” Unfortunately for Syme, the very thing that makes him so good at his job of language de-creation, if you will, is the thing that will get him killed in the end. Syme’s analytical and philosophical grasp of Newspeak with the implications and possibilities inherent in its execution provide Syme with an artistic reverence toward his job. While he crafts the language into simplicity, his knowledge of what he does ensures a finely crafted framework for future expressions of reality; this is exactly what Big Brother would like. And yet this insight is dangerous in one person, and so Syme’s insight and linguistic artisanship solidifies his fate.
In the world of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the characteristics that ensure a functioning role in society are also the ones that the Party seeks to suppress. There is a contrary nature in the reality of the novel; “even to understand the word DoubleThink involved the use of DoubleThink” and so there exists a simultaneous suppression and reliance on the individual members of the society to be able to access the very abilities and thought processes that they are told to control.
A Bountiful Samhain
29 October 2009
This weekend is Halloween. I will be dressing up as an academic professional and infiltrating the MWPCA/ACA conference on Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror and Humor this weekend in downtown Detroit. I hope there is candy.
This fall is proving to be incredibly hectic, and I do want to keep in touch amidst the chaos, so over the next few weeks, I am going to be posting some short “thoughts on file” from various books that I have read. I say this because one day I may post something about World War Z, and the next day may be a reflection on Anna Karenina. You might get whiplash from the topics flying out of opposite ends of the spectrum with no warning, and so here is a little heads up.
My long term goal – to begin after the upcoming holidays – is to begin conducting read-alongs. When that starts, I will announce a book (or you can suggest one!), and we can all read along together.
For now, let’s all ambrace the randomness…and have a happy and safe Halloween weekend!
That’s Shorthand For…What?
28 October 2009
I logged in this morning with a few ideas for a post topic, but I was not entirely sure what I wanted to write about. So there I am, in my pajamas, clutching a cup of coffee (made with milk….but that’s a different story, trust me) and I start rereading and reviewing yesterday’s administrative stuff. That’s when I notice that the post yesterday was really hard to read.
I took another sip of my coffee and looked again. Yup. It wasn’t me, it was the post. Dropped letters, truncated words, extra spaces. It was like reading a drunk person talking. (well, maybe not that bad, but you get the idea.)
Oh, and hopefully I fixed all of the errors so there is nothing to see there… move along. We can pretend it didn’t happen.
So I started thinking about how I write…you know, penmanship. I have my special occasion writing that comes out when I write sentiments in cards, or when I am making food or place cards for a cocktail party. Generally, it makes an appearance when the people who have to read my writing are either holding a gift that goes with it, or if they had to change out of their pajamas to come over to my place and socialize. In both of those scenarios (especially the latter), they deserve some good penmanship.
For myself…well. Forget it. I take notes and write my lists and the end result looks like a hybrid between Old English and TXT Speak. There are words that I can blend: with the becomes withe and connect to becomes connecto, and then there are words that I can turn into symbols, like behavior, psychology, and because. Behavior and psychology turn into b and Ψology. Because becomes b/c and the @ symbol stands in for at, about, all and area. (Hmm, I wonder what other people’s shorthand is like…if it is like a signature…)
I can read my own shorthand. Usually. And if I can’t, then I can sleuth it out by its context. It is when I can’t read what I typed 12 hours before on a keyboard that I start to worry. And I am not talking about ‘Ohai, im txting so itsin cntxt, KWIM?’ I am talking about when I am typing an equivalent to my special occasion writing, and it comes out looking like my shorthand. You see, I don’t have a set shorthand for keyboards yet, not like I do for scrawling out a note. This means that when I go back to read and proof what I typed out, I don’t catch a lot of what I blended together, as I don’t have a conscious recognition of my shorthand. One would think that means I can recognize the typos and mistakes easier because they would stand out more – they are not yet assimilated into the way I process. But nope.
Apparently that is not the way it works for me. Apparently, my brain has its own online shorthand, with its blended words, dropped letters and extra spaces…it just hasn’t informed me yet.
……
Or, I just need to have more caffeine before I edit.
Twitterpated
27 October 2009
Remember Bambi and his lesson in young love?
We all say at one point that it’s not going to happen to us…and eventually even the strongest succumb to the 140 character lure of Twitter.
I am not yet at the stage in which all I can think about is Twitter and I can’t live without it, but the relationship is young. Who knows what will happen….
All this is to say that The Read Queen is now on Twitter!
Follow me, I’ll follow you…(and my my my, that sounds like it can be categorized in the file of Stalker; Creepy.)
The Inherent Value of Pulp
23 July 2009
During my procrastinations today, I came across a really fantastic piece titled The Almighty Word over at if:book. Alex Rose discusses the value of “trashy literature” (my own description) as a means to an end- being that it gets people to read. A really good article that raises some great points: do we elevate the written word to a higher status than other media simply out of seniority status or nostalgia? And is it really harmless that some literature is valued simply because it is being read, not because of its content? Great site, great article: both are extremely relevant in this time of changing definitions of what it is to be a reader, an author, a book versus literature, etc.
