[twit level nettiquette-violating full quote of the
prior article is done here only because Sean
pretended that following Usenettiquette to snip parts
not being answered is somehow invidious behavior.]
praguestepchild <praguestepchild @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
volny.cz> wrote:
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>> praguestepchild <praguestepchild @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
volny.cz> wrote:
>>> Do any of these pretentious idiots who list
>>> 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'Fahrenheit 451' as
>>> some of the greatest books ever written actually
>>> read?
>> Yes we do. More im****tantly, we read with
>> understanding, something you should really try
>> before criticizing them.
> Yes, I see your point, I should try and understand
> the subtle points these books are trying to make.
> Let me guess, the fact that they are ham-handedly
> overdone, my original point, the fact that they
> routinely appear at the top of great literature
> lists despite the fact that they are boring books
> written by extremely talented authors, this is all
> moot, because they are somehow relevant to our
> society, nay relevant, but extremely prescient.
"Great literature" is not exempt from being
tediously boring by onsies to later generations, or,
for example, _The Great Gatsby_ would never qualify
as "great literature". That novel is so tedious that
in half a dozen tries I could never get even half
way though it.
"Not boring" is hardly a major criterion for being
adjudged "great literature", since "boring" is
entirely subjective to the individual reader.
>> _1984_ is an object lesson in the limitlessness
>> of the behaviors justifiable to evil mated with
>> power, being replayed in current events.
>> _Farenheit 451_ is a novel of the "trends already
>> evident" near future and of "fundamentalist
>> bookburnings in the square" current events.
> '1984' is an object lesson? Thanks for the news
> flash, that's why I described it as a didactic
> novel. Interested readers might want to consult
> the original post, of which Ken(sic) felt it
> necessary to delete any material which doesn't
> prop up his soap box.
Not much acquainted with Usenet posting guidelines
then, are you?
* Do not include the entire article that you are
replying to. Cut down the part that you
include to the absolute minimum needed to
provide context to your reply.
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.announce.newusers/Hints_on_writing_style_for_Usenet
Read that again: ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.
Funny how you found it entirely convenient in your
response unblu****ngly to remove all the voluminous
evidence I provide on behalf of both _1984_ and
_Fahrenheit 451_ being precient, yet found the time
to whine that I had not included every precious word
of your OP despite that Usenet convention for the
two dozen years I have been a participant here
directly forbids doing so. Apparently to you
morality is a steeply sloped concept, useful only
when it slides things your way, otherwise not to be
employed or even noticed.
> I also mentioned the irony of an ADD generation
Well, no, you didn't. Those same readers can scan
your OP for any mention of "an ADD generation".
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/msg/d4fe382580169fe8?dmode=source
> growing up in A Brave New World then saying that
> '1984' is the greatest novel ever written.
I suspect that "the greatest novel ever written" is
entirely a matter of dispute in the eyes of every
list maker. _1984_ is surely _among_ the great
novels ever written, in any language, but I could
put, for example _War and Peace_ considerably
higher on my personal list.
>> Now go read _1984_ again, and think -- offshore war
>> prisoner torture facilities where none of the
>> civilized rules of engagement of international law
>> are allowed to be considered, where horrific means
>> are entirely and fulsomely justified by pur****tedly
>> attainable good ends -- and perhaps you will gain
>> some grasshopper-scale enlightenment on the lesson
>> the book conveys, and see just how prescient George
>> Orwell has eventuated to be.
> I read a lot. More than most people I've met. I
> suppose it is possible that you've read more than
> me, but I doubt it.
Well, I used to read several novels or textbooks _a
day_, but my reading has slowed down a bit with the
onset of some of the inconveniences of advanced age,
though a recent three day span did find me reading
2600 pages of light fiction.
> Why not dip into a bit of history before you
> decide that the world has descended into some sort
> of Orwellian chaos (and that Orwell was some sort
> of prescient genius?)
I'm not contending that the world has somehow
recently descended into chaos. I fully believe that
it never has _emerged_ from chaos. I am contending
that Orwell's prediction of mind control by direct,
government mediated torture, aimed primarily at his
own government's likely future, is spot on for the
current behavior of the US government.
> You seem fixated on US transgresses of Human
> Rights
No, I'm just contending that such trangressions meet
the criterion of being in consonance with Orwell's
prediction of the future behavior of a major world
power.
I'm well aware that however egregious US violations
of treaties on human rights may be, there are many
other nations that make the US look positively
_civilized_ compared to their much worse such
behavior, "civilized" being something that the US is
not at all now, and may never have been.
I felt more that we in the US were a bastion of
civilized behavior back in the 1950s. That feeling
by me that things were better some time ago may
indeed reflect reality, or may be merely the usual
current-dystopia past-utopia view so typical of the
aged views of the prevailing situation during their
own youth.
> so I would recommend starting out with Gore
> Vidal's books on American History, especially
> focusing on Lincoln.
No thanks. While he is a respected historian, Vidal
is turgidly unreadable _to me_, and predicting the
past isn't really the current subject matter in any
case.
>> Now go read _Farenheit 451_ again, and see as well
>> how prescient Bradbury has turned ou to be in his
>> morality tale of the dangers of permitting the habit
>> of censor****p and the habit of intolerance of
>> conflicting ideas to invade a society.
> Again, you might want to check your history
> especially re: Lincon and Jefferson.
This red herring is pertnent to the current
discussion _how_, exactly? "Go away and waste your
time doing something completely orthogonal to the
current discussion, where I feel I am losing ground
and would rather distract you from the discussion"
is a frequent Usenet intellectually dishonest debate
tactic, but that doesn't make me want to buy into it
just because _you_ use it.
> You are defending a badly written book (and
> condescending to tell me to read it again) for
> being prescient of censor****p.
I dispute that it is badly written, and suggest that
you read it until you understand yourself why others
find it such a powerful foretelling. You are
obviously within your rights to tell me in response
to go to hell, but that doesn't make your original
contentions any less narrow-minded and parochial,
nor does it make your comparatively (to the list
makers) uneducated evaluation of these books
correct for any audience outside its author.
And again, reading books of history that do***ent
some kinds of past misbehaviors of governments is
_not_ the same thing as reading books of real
predictive power that do***ented _before the fact_
what have become current frequent misbehaviors of
governments or behaviors of societies.
> But let's forget about Jefferson's fascist
> tendencies for a moment.
Especially as they are red herrings dragged in by
you to bolster your tottering arguments, having zip
point zero to do with this discussion.
> You haven't the faintest notion of what censor****p
> is.
I am always bemused by those who think they can
strengthen their positions by claims that they can
read my mind. Making yourself look an utter public
fool is _not_ EVER sup****tive to your positions in
an open Usenet discussion, so you might want to
abandon that tactic in future confrontations.
> I live in a country (the Czech Republic) where
> censor****p is a reality. No, there is no burning
> of books as in Bradbury's simplistic novel.
> Instead there is a weak press that is a beholden
> to the political establishment.
Which same contention of self-censor****p is daily
bruited, especially by foreign media, and correctly,
as true about the US media. Do you really think the
truckling of your press to the monied interests is
somehow unique to the Czech Republic? It is instead
an inevitable, deeply entrenched, and utterly
worldwide phenomenon.
> This is the reality of modern censor****p, and
> there is no simplistic burning of books involved.
Perhaps not where you live, but here in the US,
literal book burnings are an ongoing, usually
"somewhere inside the US borders several times a
year", phenomenon of our system wherever gross
intolerance to opposing viewpoints is actively
encouraged and strengthened by those who stand to
profit by such intolerance, and where book burnings
are the ritual celebration of such intolerance by
its practitioners.
And by the way, censor****p by self-censor****p is the
"simplistic" one about which to worry, it is an
unavoidable outcome of pure economics winning out
over idealism, an unequal battle.
Book burnings are the more im****tant symptom,
because they, like cross-burnings and church
bombings, are a highly visible piece of evidence
that intolerance has become both entrenched and
accepted.
It is actually an indication that the US is ever so
slightly _improving_ in the area of some kinds of
institutionalized intolerance, that the perpetrator
of the Birmingham Alabama church bombing that killed
four black girl choir members was finally brought to
some kind of accountability by the legal system, albeit
only decades later when the original cachet of his
murderous behavior had eva****ated away.
xanthian.
|
