Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> [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.]
Yes, well when you delete then crosspost to three other groups, I do
consider that rather cheap.
>
> praguestepchild <praguestepchild @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
volny.cz> wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>>> praguestepchild <praguestepchild @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
volny.cz> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
It's all relative, blah blah blah, one man's meat is another's poison,
yes, thanks for that. Here's my point: *all* didactic dystopian
literature sucks. Is that my opinion? Obviously.
But anyone I've ever met who has claimed 1984 is their favorite book was
an intellectual snob who didn't actually read books. And it's not just
1984, there's a whole genre of this crappy literature that is somehow
considered classic, merely because it beats us over the head with it
point, rather like a Saturday Night Live skit.
Want to read a good book by Orwell? 'Down and Out in Paris in London'.
His essays are fantastic also, but 1984 sucks.
> 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.
I get the feeling you used to get beaten up a lot as a child for being a
tattle-tail.
>
> Funny how you found it entirely convenient in your
> response unblushingly 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.
Oh Christ, OK, you are the expert on USENET, and I am immoral. There,
are you happy?
>
>> 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.
Yes, well there's the gist of it. You suffer from paranoid delusions.
I don't. You think 1984 was fantastic because it was prescient, I think
it sucks. Ditto for both of us for Fahrenheit 451.
I'm not going to convince you that they aren't all out to get us, and
you aren't going to convince me they are.
So let me just say that out of all these dystopian books with a
heavy-handed lesson, the one that comes closest to today's society is 'A
Brave New World'.
Example:
Western college kids use their parents credit cards to buy masks from a
comic book to protest against Scientology, a silly little religion most
famously promulgated by a few bad (albeit popular) actors. They then
post these pictures of themselves protesting to all their little blogs
so they can show the world how political they are. Then they go off to
a rave where they can take ecstasy and dance to really awful repetitive
music and congratulate each other.
What part of this resembles '1984' or 'Fahrenheit 451'? Is their free
speech being trampled? Are they beaten down by a totalitarian government?
No, the only fascism they experience is the strict code of political
correctness. Instead of hiding their thoughts from Big Brother, they
are actively trying to post every inane thought they ever had to their
tedious blogs.
The death of Literature, should it come, which I seriously doubt, will
come from frivolity, not from an evil totalitarian government.
Does that make 'Brave New World' the best book ever written?
Naw.
>
>> 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.
No, it's not a red herring. People are constantly acting as if they
live in exceptional times. This tends to reinforce their belief that
things are teetering on calamity. A knowledge of the violations of free
speech committed by these icons adds perspective.
This is why I don't see the US as teetering on the edge of some sort of
'Fahrenheit 451' dystopia. Free Speech is really, really important,
that is without a doubt. It is a big problem in Russia at the moment,
and is a problem here in Eastern Europe.
>> You are defending a badly written book (and
>> condescending to tell me to read it again) for
>> being prescient of censorship.
>
> 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.
I've read almost everything Orwell ever wrote, with a special love of
his essays and I've read most everything Bradbury wrote before say,
1990, and I find both of these 'classics' to be the worst of their oeuvre.
Making iconoclastic contentions is neither narrow-minded nor parochial.
Saying that 1984 is your favorite book because it is one of these
books that all intellectuals supposed to like, is.
>
> And again, reading books of history that document
> some kinds of past misbehaviors of governments is
> _not_ the same thing as reading books of real
> predictive power that documented _before the fact_
> what have become current frequent misbehaviors of
> governments or behaviors of societies.
And again, being aware of history grants one perspective, helping to
dispel paranoid notions that one's current government is exceptionally
stupid, corrupt, divisive, etc.
Besides, 1984 was published in 1949. It more closely described the rash
of totalitarian governments behind the newly formed Iron Curtain than
anything today.(with the obvious exception of North Korea)
>
>> 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.
>
It seems to be de rigour for people who drag in logical fallacies
nowadays when they aren't really appropriate. Straw dog is the one most
abused, I believe. I made it quite clear why historical precedents are
not a red herring.
>> You haven't the faintest notion of what censorship
>> 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 supportive to your positions in
> an open Usenet discussion, so you might want to
> abandon that tactic in future confrontations.
If you want to make an ad hominem attack, just do it, don't call someone
an utter fool and then try and couch it as patronizing advice.
Seriously, it makes you look like a whiny bitch.
I'm going to leave the rest of it because I have to feed my kid and I
don't see the point. You think the press is beholden to special
interests, I don't. Yes, they are somewhat, they are far from perfect
that's for sure but I don't see them as teetering on a 1984 precipice.
The recent explosion of the blogosphere has certainly made the old style
press sit up and take notice. I don't think either one of us is going
to change their mind harping about it on Usenet.
--
\\\\sean////
|
