Yeah, the memory is not what it used to be; tried pulling these from my head.nukchebi0 wrote:
Fahrenheit 451 was written by Ray Bradbury, not Ray Vonnegut (you were combining Ray Bradbury and Kirk Vonnegut, I presume.)
Eh? You talking about the book or the movie? Starship Troopers, the novel, is on the military officers recommended reading list. It is a political novel masquerading as an action novel. It is short and the writing is relatively simplistic, but is a great, quick read.Uzique wrote:
Swap out Starship Troopers for Brave New World (some more academically credible sci-fi, of sorts) and you'll have yourself a good thesis.imortal wrote:
ok, 1984 (George Orwell), Farenheit 451 (Ray Vonnegut, Jr.), Starship Troopers (Robert Heinlein)
Compare and contrast the futures hypothosized by these authors in regards to the political and sociological arenas.
EDIT: Science fiction allows authors to play with extremes of human nature that no other genre can, and try to warn of possible outcomes. They can allow us to think about topics that, in a modern setting, may be taboo or too close for us to observe objectively. And some authors can get pretty scarily accurate.
Starship Troopers, the movie, was a piece of junk that should never have been released. It was an affront to the novel.
That's exactly what I'm telling you not to do.Uzique wrote:
What the fuck do you want me to do, recommend a high-school student to read some esoteric academics-only text so that he can showoff to his teacher what an irrelevant smartarse he is?
lol'dUzique wrote:
You're an absolute rastaquouere, a complete pseudo, and everyone that knows it. Self-admiring and precocious.
Yes I realize you're not doing this to impress anyone, this is just you, yadda yadda yadda, you don't want me to censor myself do you. Think of your fucking audience kid. You know more than half the people here don't know what the fuck you're on about, and it just makes it annoying. There is no need to patronize anyone, but there is also no need to talk in essentially undergrad lit school jargon.
You know exactly what I'm talking about, don't play stupid.
I like where this is going, an argument between an unstoppable force and an unmovable object.
By the way The Forever War is a decent Sci Fi.
By the way The Forever War is a decent Sci Fi.
Science fiction in the true sense of the word, but yeah not bang bang lazer ships sci fi. A genre in which there is a lot of shit in the bottom of the barrel.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
1984 is sci-fi? I don't know if you could call it shit...elementary maybe, but I've read far shittier books (and far shittier sci-fi, unfortunately).
In any case I thought it was bad. To summarize my grievances in a nutshell, it failed at being a warning to what society could become because it was so utterly exaggerated. The setting was so flawed from a sci-fi perspective it made it difficult to read.
Animal Farm was the shit. Which is why 1984 was even more of a disappointment when I literally went straight into it from Animal Farm, Orwell's subtlety went from ideal to nonexistent in less than half an hour.Uzique wrote:
Don't worry, Ken. Flaming is such an erudite little high-school kid that he can easily look down upon the works of meagre and struggling authors such as George Orwell. 1984? Poor sci-fi, doesn't compare to Hitchhiker's Guide. Animal Farm? What is that, a children's nursery tale? Puh-leez. Flaming only accepts and reads the most elite and underground of contemporary post-modernist literature.
Why look at it from such a perspective at all, then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The setting was so flawed from a sci-fi perspective it made it difficult to read.
Animal Farm more subtle than 1984? Orwell does an incredibly good job of making the central point of attacking the Soviet Union obvious, and does it through a simplistic story about barnyard animals. 1984 is more complex, with deeper characters, a more developed fictional world, and vastly more nuanced plot. Its much less obvious than Animal Farm, and when considering a comparison of his depiction to real-life totalitarian governments, not as exaggerated as it may intially seem. (Yes, I'm speaking in lazy, generalized superlatives, but I don't feel like writing an English essay.) If you are referring to a "show, not tell" method of conveying the message, then both are firmly ensconced in the former category.Animal Farm was the shit. Which is why 1984 was even more of a disappointment when I literally went straight into it from Animal Farm, Orwell's subtlety went from ideal to nonexistent in less than half an hour.
Out of curiousity, what do you think of Anthem? Of all the dystopian novels that are well-known, it is a particularly egregious example of lack of subtlety When the characters state what is understood to be the purpose of the book, the author has left the realm of reader interpretation and self-discovery. It was painfully obvious what Ayn Rand wrote the book for, and what she wanted the reader to be left with once they had finished reading. I barely made it through the book because the latter half was such a thinly disguised rant by Rand on her philosophy - one that sapped all the joy out of reading it.
To Jens, if you are going along the sci-fi/dystopian path, another book to look at is The Lathe of Heaven, by Ursula K. LeGuin. It focuses more of social aspects of dystopia than political (and thus small-scale rather than large scale), but nonetheless it is a well-written book and perfect for your assignment.
Because that is the perspective it is written from.nukchebi0 wrote:
Why look at it from such a perspective at all, then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The setting was so flawed from a sci-fi perspective it made it difficult to read.
A particularly good definition of sci-fi, a genre so difficult to define:
"Science fiction is fiction based upon some imagined development of science, or upon the extrapolation of a tendency in society." -Basil Davenport
Blatant in terms of consequences of not changing current societal course. If we don't choose to do x, y and z then WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE OPPRESSED AND THEY WILL KNOW WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE THINK AND WE'LL BE ROBOTS AND SECRET POLICE AND POLITICAL MASS MURDER LAH LAH LAH LAH. He went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far off the deep end to be taken seriously, to the point where the whole shebang was just idiotic. The part towards the middle/end where he was reading the "rebel" book was okay, but the ideas were so elementary it far from saved the rest of the book.nukchebi0 wrote:
Animal Farm more subtle than 1984? Orwell does an incredibly good job of making the central point of attacking the Soviet Union obvious, and does it through a simplistic story about barnyard animals. 1984 is more complex, with deeper characters, a more developed fictional world, and vastly more nuanced plot. Its much less obvious than Animal Farm, and when considering a comparison of his depiction to real-life totalitarian governments, not as exaggerated as it may intially seem.Animal Farm was the shit. Which is why 1984 was even more of a disappointment when I literally went straight into it from Animal Farm, Orwell's subtlety went from ideal to nonexistent in less than half an hour.
If you want to enact change you have to keep the consequences dire, but reasonable and believable. He did this in Animal Farm through metaphor - you are left to define the link from the book to current day yourself, as mild or as drastic as you please.
I'm not.nukchebi0 wrote:
If you are referring to a "show, not tell" method of conveying the message, then both are firmly ensconced in the former category.
I haven't read it. I will read Fountainhead again before I read it.nukchebi0 wrote:
Out of curiousity, what do you think of Anthem? Of all the dystopian novels that are well-known, it is a particularly egregious example of lack of subtlety When the characters state what is understood to be the purpose of the book, the author has left the realm of reader interpretation and self-discovery. It was painfully obvious what Ayn Rand wrote the book for, and what she wanted the reader to be left with once they had finished reading. I barely made it through the book because the latter half was such a thinly disguised rant by Rand on her philosophy - one that sapped all the joy out of reading it.
Rand is often painfully clear in what I have read of her writing, sometimes to the point of being cringe-worthy. I forgive her because of the quality of her statements, and how often they are still misunderstood.
That definition seems rather subjective, and the latter clause is especially tenuous.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because that is the perspective it is written from.
A particularly good definition of sci-fi, a genre so difficult to define:
"Science fiction is fiction based upon some imagined development of science, or upon the extrapolation of a tendency in society." -Basil Davenport
The link is so obvious considering the context that the definition lacks much in the way of self-determination.If you want to enact change you have to keep the consequences dire, but reasonable and believable. He did this in Animal Farm through metaphor - you are left to define the link from the book to current day yourself, as mild or as drastic as you please.
In his defense, over examples are sometimes more effective in conveying a point, especially when trying to counteract the substantial inertia of human behavior. With that said, that is entirely your interpretation - perhaps one he intended to receive, but regardless only one of many that can be gleaned. I derived, as you claim does not exist, a much more subtle portrait of how governments can exploit the stupidity and self-preservationist instincts of their populations in order to preserve power (along, obviously, with a hefty dose of more boring repression.) When we consider China's revisionist history (or Japan's for that matter), North Korea's show of force and degradation of its people, and the infamous gulags of the Soviet Union, this message seems plausible - or prescient. Simply stated, you read 1984 and thought Orwell was trying to jam a simplistic message down people's throats. I read 1984 and thought Orwell was trying to illustrate how totalitarianism establishes and maintains itself. Both can be valid interpretations (although I naturally think mine is more appropriate), which is the beauty of 1984 as a novel. It is well written, has the quality construction of plot, character, and setting, but is not overly forceful on the reader. Aside from being a classic dystopian novel, it epitomizes the purpose of literature. All the interpreted meanings are in the same general theme, but at least there is significant variance in them specifically. the same can not be said for many books, and specifically...Blatant in terms of consequences of not changing current societal course. If we don't choose to do x, y and z then WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE OPPRESSED AND THEY WILL KNOW WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE THINK AND WE'LL BE ROBOTS AND SECRET POLICE AND POLITICAL MASS MURDER LAH LAH LAH LAH. He went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far off the deep end to be taken seriously, to the point where the whole shebang was just idiotic. The part towards the middle/end where he was reading the "rebel" book was okay, but the ideas were so elementary it far from saved the rest of the book.
...Anthem. You characterize Rand's work perfectly, both in the above quote, and in your rant against Orwell's meaning in 1984. Applying your analytical style to Anthem yields the following:I haven't read it. I will read Fountainhead again before I read it.
Rand is often painfully clear in what I have read of her writing, sometimes to the point of being cringe-worthy. I forgive her because of the quality of her statements, and how often they are still misunderstood.
If we don't preserve individuality, then SOCIETY WILL BE RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE INDIVIDUALITY IS THE KEY TO ALL SOCIETAL BREAKTHROUGHS EVERYONE SHOULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE WE NEED TO PRESERVE INDIVIDUALITY. DID I MENTION THAT UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUALITY IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING?
Unlike 1984, though, she leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. You, as a Rand supporter, couldn't glean a different meaning unless you were straining for contrivances, because she leaves you unable to. That is, to me, the mark of poor authorship and a poor novel.
Additionally, the "quality of statements" argument fails to apply (perhaps something you will agree with once you read it). As much as you claim Orwell's message in 1984 is thoroughly simplistic and excessively unrealistic, Rand's assertions in Anthem are the same. I haven't read Fountainhead or her other famous work, so maybe the forced interpretations are stronger in them. For Anthem, though, she asserts (with better grammar and less clarity) exactly what I stated. It is an extreme view of individuality, and one that lacks any sort of qualifying nuance that might make it seems partially applicable to reality. She ignores completely the impact individualism without restraint has on society, a rather significant oversight. Gladly, 1984 permitted me to take a much more realistic interpretation; not only was it enjoyable, but actually communicated something. Anthem left me cringing at the pain of Rand's out-of-touch philosophy, obvious self-aggrandizement in the latter half of the book, and rather bland concrete literary elements.
A book being on the recommended reading list for military officers somehow makes it credible in the literary world? The P Diddy autobiography was recommended on Oprah as well brah, and that has simple writing and gets to the (incredibly insipid) point, too. Thinly-veiled sci-fi books that mask some edgy analogy or allusion to real-world issues piss me off - they're so patronizing.imortal wrote:
Eh? You talking about the book or the movie? Starship Troopers, the novel, is on the military officers recommended reading list. It is a political novel masquerading as an action novel. It is short and the writing is relatively simplistic, but is a great, quick read.Uzique wrote:
Swap out Starship Troopers for Brave New World (some more academically credible sci-fi, of sorts) and you'll have yourself a good thesis.imortal wrote:
ok, 1984 (George Orwell), Farenheit 451 (Ray Vonnegut, Jr.), Starship Troopers (Robert Heinlein)
Compare and contrast the futures hypothosized by these authors in regards to the political and sociological arenas.
EDIT: Science fiction allows authors to play with extremes of human nature that no other genre can, and try to warn of possible outcomes. They can allow us to think about topics that, in a modern setting, may be taboo or too close for us to observe objectively. And some authors can get pretty scarily accurate.
Starship Troopers, the movie, was a piece of junk that should never have been released. It was an affront to the novel.
Also, lol at Flaming and Nubichek having some huge pseudo-intellectual fight over goddamn George Orwell. Can we stop and start arguing over the interpretation of themes in J.K Rowling's masterful Harry Potter series yet?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Is 1984 science fiction?
I don't remember a lot of science in it, nothing new at least.
I don't remember a lot of science in it, nothing new at least.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It was written in 1949.Dilbert_X wrote:
Is 1984 science fiction?
I don't remember a lot of science in it, nothing new at least.
I need around tree fiddy.
Science fiction and futurism are not the same, science fiction usually requires some element of science.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
That is science fiction. Predictions about problems are the foundation of the genre, the technology itself that brings to light new social/ethical problems is not really the focus of sci-fi.nukchebi0 wrote:
That definition seems rather subjective, and the latter clause is especially tenuous.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because that is the perspective it is written from.
A particularly good definition of sci-fi, a genre so difficult to define:
"Science fiction is fiction based upon some imagined development of science, or upon the extrapolation of a tendency in society." -Basil Davenport
No, it's not. You can't take (for example that wasn't really used in the book) one bag of flour and convert it directly into a social equivalent. Is that a loaf of bread? 10 loaves of bread? Enough food to feed the nation? That is why you cannot tell the exact consequences. There are a few absolutes, as there has to be in subjects like death, but not every single aspect of the corrupt society is detailed.nukchebi0 wrote:
The link is so obvious considering the context that the definition lacks much in the way of self-determination.If you want to enact change you have to keep the consequences dire, but reasonable and believable. He did this in Animal Farm through metaphor - you are left to define the link from the book to current day yourself, as mild or as drastic as you please.
...duh. Of course he is. That is the "simplistic message" he is trying to shove down your throat. Of course, the only part that addresses this point directly is the portion of the book I have already let off the hook to some degree, for the very reason that you denounce the latter half of Anthem.nukchebi0 wrote:
I read 1984 and thought Orwell was trying to illustrate how totalitarianism establishes and maintains itself.
A minor point, but you missed the boat here. I was showing how ridiculous the situation is that Orwell sets up, not how in-your-face the author is about the underlying philosophy. I showed an excessively broad, unrealistic situation, you showed annoyance with repetition.nukchebi0 wrote:
...Anthem. You characterize Rand's work perfectly, both in the above quote, and in your rant against Orwell's meaning in 1984. Applying your analytical style to Anthem yields the following:
If we don't preserve individuality, then SOCIETY WILL BE RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE INDIVIDUALITY IS THE KEY TO ALL SOCIETAL BREAKTHROUGHS EVERYONE SHOULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE WE NEED TO PRESERVE INDIVIDUALITY. DID I MENTION THAT UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUALITY IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING?
Apart from that you continued to denounce a book I said I wasn't going to read, at least for some time. I don't want to read it for a reason.
I think you're both missing the point about Orwell's blatant and (unpoetical) direct approach to the topics he was thinly-veiling with metaphor and allusion; he was trying to write novels (one of the most popular forms of entertainment during the day) to warn the majority of his intended audience against the horrors and dangers of totalitarianism, as he directly experienced himself during the British Raj in India/Burma, as well as during his journalistic and political adventures into the Spanish Civil War. Complex and finely crafted prose masterpieces make great reading for the inclined and initiated, but when it comes to writing a novel with the ostensible and secondary purpose of basically being political agitprop, designed to sway the opinion of the masses and utter a stark warning, something more plain and direct is needing.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Animal Farm was better than 1984 tbh.
Uzique, just out of curiosity, where did you come across the word "rastaquouere"? It's not the most common word choice.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
God, I don't know, where did you first come across the word 'irrelevant'? It's hard to remember how your vocabulary is formed... interesting words and the study of etymology in general is pretty intriguing, I guess, so they stick in the mind.Pochsy wrote:
Uzique, just out of curiosity, where did you come across the word "rastaquouere"? It's not the most common word choice.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Flaming, I'll answer your post in a bit.
Out of curiousity, what is your perception of Harry Potter? I have a feeling masterful was meant facetiously .Uzique wrote:
Also, lol at Flaming and Nubichek having some huge pseudo-intellectual fight over goddamn George Orwell. Can we stop and start arguing over the interpretation of themes in J.K Rowling's masterful Harry Potter series yet?
I wish people would stop going on about Animal Farm, it was just a nice book about some animals.
Speaking of animals, anyone read Watership Down?Hakei wrote:
I wish people would stop going on about Animal Farm, it was just a nice book about some animals.
I need around tree fiddy.
I understand that he was writing for the masses, but I still believe that he went so over the top in 1984 with his politically class based oligarchy to the point that it was melodramatic and counterproductive.Uzique wrote:
I think you're both missing the point about Orwell's blatant and (unpoetical) direct approach to the topics he was thinly-veiling with metaphor and allusion; he was trying to write novels (one of the most popular forms of entertainment during the day) to warn the majority of his intended audience against the horrors and dangers of totalitarianism, as he directly experienced himself during the British Raj in India/Burma, as well as during his journalistic and political adventures into the Spanish Civil War. Complex and finely crafted prose masterpieces make great reading for the inclined and initiated, but when it comes to writing a novel with the ostensible and secondary purpose of basically being political agitprop, designed to sway the opinion of the masses and utter a stark warning, something more plain and direct is needing.
That is my opinion anyways. I would recommend reading Animal Farm (it takes like 2-3 hours anyways) and skipping 1984.
The Divine Comedy has been a good read so far.
Why... on Earth...AussieReaper wrote:
The Divine Comedy has been a good read so far.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No it takes place in Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.Uzique wrote:
Why... on Earth...AussieReaper wrote:
The Divine Comedy has been a good read so far.
So are you making a whistle-stop tour to Milton's Paradise Lost next, too?AussieReaper wrote:
No it takes place in Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.Uzique wrote:
Why... on Earth...AussieReaper wrote:
The Divine Comedy has been a good read so far.
I asked why because they're pretty random texts to be reading for enjoyment.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/