A Bit About Books

Today, The New York Times posted a short, light story discussing the differences between paper and e- books.  The article featured a recent survey that showed the majority of teenagers interviewed preferred paper books.  Studies like these, during the time our culture is transferring everything online, are fascinating in that they beg the discussion: Is new technology always better?

This is where dystopias come in.  I am not going to answer the question of whether or not new technology is always better - I am merely going to tip my hat to Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, and the Wachowski brothers, creators/directors of The Matrix, both of which address the question of advancing technology beautifully.

Dystopias: On the Rise

Today, dystopias are on the rise.

The Walking Dead is the most-watched basic cable drama with 16.1 million viewers for its fourth (current) season premier.  Nearly two million of these fans follow the show on Twitter.  

Another dystopia, The Hunger Games, is one of Kindle’s top five all-time bestselling books, and the movie adaptation set records for the highest-grossing, non-sequel opening day, earning $67.3 million.  

The Road won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and was subsequently adapted for film.  

Summit Entertainment bought media rights to Divergent and was given a budget of $80 million for a planned release in 2014.  

As the numbers show, dystopias are wildly successful with today’s audience — and these audiences want more, or else they would have lost interest in these series.  The Walking Dead’s audience grows with every season, with 5,400 viewers of the season one, 2010 pilot; 7300 viewers of the season two, 2011 premier; 11,000 viewers of the season three, 2012 premier; and 16,000 viewers of the season four, 2013 premier.  Similarly, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire film adaptation was Fandango’s 2013 advance-ticket top seller, and the opening day grossed around $70.5 million, earning even more than The Hunger Games.  


Dystopian audiences have grown massive, no longer just a small group interested in George Orwell’s 1984 (although they too are included).  And as huge as dystopias are today, they are only growing in popularity.

More US Governmental Problems... Classic.

Of course, we have run into yet another governmental deadline: by Dec. 1, today, the problems with HealthCare.gov are supposed to be cleared up.

Good luck to us with that.  Check out The New York Times' article, Sunday Breakfast Menu, which doesn't specify the details but promises more information as the topic surely advances this week.

It seems as if our society is headed for dystopia no matter which direction we go: too little government, and we'll end up in a Lord-of-the-Flies situation where we are forced to make our own rules; too much government, and 1984's Big Brother and Party will reappear.

But with all this NSA phone tapping, I'd better watch out what I say to guard against thoughtcrime.  Or espionage and/or sedition.  Because those are still things.    

Walking Dead Playlist?

In the spirit of The Walking Dead, the music site Songza made a playlist titled Brooding over Biters with Rick Grimes featuring depressing, downer-blues-southern-rock.  Pretty catchy.    

The Walking Dead: Dystopian TV!

On Halloween of 2010, AMC premiered The Walking Dead, a post-apocalyptic (and therefore, dystopian) drama about a small group of survivors in a world of zombies originally based on a graphic novel.  Now on its fourth season, The Walking Dead is the #1 most-watched drama TV series ever in basic cable history with 16.1 million viewers for the season four premier.

What makes this show better than the others?  Zombies.  Well-done, not-cheesy zombies.  Err, walkers.

Besides the walkers, the show is just a drama - a close-knit group of people that experiences ups and downs together, focusing strongly on the characters' emotions, not just their actions.  Plus walkers.

In an attempt to rise above the rest of the zombie subgenre, The Walking Dead never, ever uses the word 'zombie.'  Instead, they call the undead 'walkers' or 'biters.'  This new labeling allows the show to create their own spin because the audience's preconceived notions of 'zombies' are not applicable to 'walkers' or 'biters.'  And the re-labeling helps.  Now, people can become walkers without being bit - a new feature for walking dead.

While the first season deals primarily with the fall of humanity and the second season builds the characters' relationships with one another, the third season seriously increases the moral discussion so often accompanying dystopic stories - what defines humanity?

The ragtag main group, led by Rick Grimes, encounters a second seriously organized group of survivors in the third season.  The resulting conflict between these groups forces the audience to ponder - if you were part of the group, what would you do?  Is it ethical to kill another living human if their group and your group are fighting for the same resources?  Should you align yourself with the other group merely because you have a common enemy?  In the absence of government, what is the determining factor in your behavior?  Do ethics even apply?

The fourth season, although only about halfway through, not only continues but advances season three's discussion: How far should a person go to protect those they love?  Is murder ever ethical?  The most common question this season (even asked by the characters themselves!) is, "Can you come back from this?  How?"

Thus far, the fourth season's contemplation of right versus wrong in a world no longer organized by rules has only increased the show's literary merit.  While the show does indeed have its faults (Rick floats between crazy and totally sane way too easily and way too much), its portrayal of human response to horrific de-humanizing experiences and a complete collapse of society is brilliant.  My only fear (besides that my favorite will die) is that the show may over-villainize the Governor to the point that he will end up closer to a super-villain instead of a real human person who wasn't able to adjust to a dystopic society.         

A Clockwork Orange Review

          Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange, published in 1962, endures as one of the most iconic dystopian works despite the fact Burgess considered his novella manipulative and preachy.  While the book thrives under its dystopian label and does address the plight of the individual versus the collective state, A Clockwork Orange is primarily a discussion of free will as the defining characteristic of humanity.

           Told in first-person from the perspective of “your humble narrator” Alex, the story follows Alex and his group of droogs—friends—chronicling their horrifying crimes until Alex is imprisoned and undergoes state-supported involuntary conditioning to rid him of his violent tendencies. The book is divided into three parts: the first details Alex’s gang’s crimes, the second Alex’s stay in prison and “rehabilitative” conditioning, and the third Alex’s return to society with his new involuntary aversion to violence.  The first and the third part mirror each other, illustrating the complete reversal of Alex’s life as soon as he is deprived of his free will.  In both the first and third parts, Alex is out on the streets; however, while in the first Alex is portrayed as a lively degenerate who commits horrifying crimes by choice, the third part shows him as hapless and purposeless, incapable of committing any crime. 

            Set in a post-war, fictionalized, lifeless England, Alex’s crimes seem no better or no worse than the society he lives in.  At the milkbar, listless citizens drink down beverages laced with mind-numbing, incapacitating drugs—the legal alternative to escaping society in lieu of Alex’s liberating violence. When viewed in light of the apathy of the rest of the population, Alex’s choice of violence becomes almost justified for readers—at least he is making a choice.   

            Burgess hammers the importance of choice home even more as he begins each part with the question, “What’s it going to be then, eh?” automatically underscoring the role of free will with the very opening lines of his novella.  Burgess then blatantly discusses free will through Alex’s involuntary “rehabilitation” conditioning.  The procedure—Ludovico’s Technique—uses Alex as its test subject, and Alex is conditioned to have intense physical sickness in response to violence, thereby depriving him of choice.  As the prison chaplain argues, “Goodness is something chosen.  When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.”  The chaplain also raises the point that humanity is defined by free will, and to deprive someone of choice is to deprive them of their humanity, making them a machine. 

The title itself—A Clockwork Orange—refers to mankind becoming machinery.  “A clockwork” refers to the automatic operation of machinery, and “orange” can refer to man (referencing ‘orangutan’), as well as nature, the natural world, or humanity in general.  Within the novella, Alex reads from a book also titled A Clockwork Orange: “The attempt to impose upon man… laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword-pen.”  Here, Burgess uses the book to discuss not only mankind’s relation to machinery when deprived of choice but also the dystopian motif of the government’s role in this loss of humanity.

Similar to the collectivism and loss of individuality seen in George Orwell’s 1984, the State in A Clockwork Orange is preoccupied with maintaining power and ignores the needs of the individual, even going so far as to turn mankind into machinery by depriving people of their free will through Ludovico’s Technique.  This discussion of the government’s oppression of its people in the name of “the greater good” makes A Clockwork Orange one of the most iconic dystopian works; however, Burgess takes the discussion a step further by nullifying the idea of “the greater good” with the State’s removal of choice because, as Burgess emphasizes, good is a choice.

            Burgess harnesses language to wonderful effect: the entire story is told in Nadsat, the Russian/Cockney slang Alex speaks.  Even excluding Burgess’s discussions of free will and governmental roles, this novella is likely the most linguistically engaging work of fiction ever created. Without glossary or footnote, readers must learn the language as the story progresses.  This allows Burgess to manipulate his readers by language alone.  Because Alex is “your humble narrator,” everything is filtered through his perspective, and this filtering allows even a despicable criminal to become a sympathetic character since readers are only exposed to his version of events.  The readers’ acclimation to the language also provides an initial barrier to understanding during the first part; Burgess uses this barrier to his advantage and details the most horrifying of Alex’s crimes in this part where readers will understand and care the least, making Alex’s crimes appear less significant.  Nadsat itself is manipulative in the sense that readers are presented with nadsat—teen—slang that only has the capacity to convey certain limited meaning.  Because Nadsat is heavily Russian-based, Burgess may have been alluding once again to the story’s communist/collectivist backdrop; however, if this was his intent, it was executed poorly because Nadsat serves as a rebellious language in his story and functions in opposition to the State rather than in accordance with it. 

            Originally, the novella was written with twenty-one chapters.  Prior to 1986, all American publications only included the first twenty chapters.  While Burgess insisted the final chapter was necessary to make the story complete through Alex’s development, American publishers disagreed and thought American audiences would find the darker ending of the twentieth chapter more believable and more appealing.  Both forms are valid: with the inclusion of the last chapter, the novella becomes a story about a character’s choice, whereas the novella becomes more of a hard-hitting parable describing the simultaneous danger and necessity of free will if the last chapter is excluded.  Either way, A Clockwork Orange is a necessity for any literary discussion pertaining to free will, especially in relation to government.        

Polarization leads to secession?

As we previously discussed in October, our country is the most politically polarized it has been since post-Civil War Reconstruction.

A perfectly clear example of this: Recently in Colorado, five rural counties want to secede and become the 51st state.  The conservative community argues that its voice isn't heard and its votes are worthless due to the massive democratic population within the cities.  These five conservative counties would relax gun control and outlaw marijuana, gay marriage and new renewable energy standards, which liberal-dominant Colorado has legalized.  For more information, check out The Seattle Times' article or The New York Times' article on Colorado's proposed (and completely impossible) split.

And the craziest part?  Colorado's not the only state considering splitting up over politics... But for now, the vote to secede is just a statement and not at all likely, considering Congress would have to agree.

  

Nadsat!

Here's a handy little Nadsat dictionary for all who haven't read A Clockwork Orange in a long time and  need a refresher...

Timeline Too!

And here is your Dystopian timeline - a beautiful list organized by year noting important social, political, technological, and literary influences of dystopia!

A Good List of Great Books

Check out the article Best Dystopian Science Fiction Books.  Wow what a list.

Handy Flow Chart

This little flowchart pretty much covers whether or not a work can be counted as dystopian and is totally applicable: 

1984 Book Analysis: Spoilers.

What better way to start off a discussion of dystopias than with the ever-classic 1984?

The flap copy for my cheap edition gives a decent analysis:

“The world of 1984 is one in which eternal warfare is the price of bleak prosperity, in which the Party keeps itself in power by complete control over man’s actions and his thoughts.  As the lovers Winston Smith and Julia learn when they try to evade the Thought Police, and then join the underground opposition, the Party can smash the last impulse of love, the last flicker of individuality.”

One of the most iconic dystopias, 1984 depicts an imagined future as described above.

In the first part, Winston quietly rebels the demands of the party.  He buys a notebook and writes.  Orwell uses this first part of the novel to introduce his readers to the world Winston is acclimated to, and illustrates, through Winston’s doubts, fears, and hatred for the Party his inherent humanity.  He resists doublethink, and he despises that whoever controls the present controls the past, and whoever controls the past controls the future.  Orwell creates an atmosphere of fear and describes a cold, unavoidable and unalterable future.

Julia and Winston’s affair makes up a hefty chunk of the second part; here, Orwell incorporates one of the biggest human motivators – love – and suddenly we’re worried with Winston and Julia.  We need them to succeed against Big Brother.  Toward the end of this section, they join The Brotherhood and read Goldstein’s book, a scathing breakdown of the Party and its methods to stay in power, including perpetual warfare and a learned ignorance.

Julia and Winston are caught, and part three concerns itself with Winston’s torture by the Party.  He is tortured until his physical pain overcomes everything else – he “gives up” Julia and with her any ounce of resistance he had.  At the end, Winston comes to love Big Brother and the Party.  With this ending, Orwell’s warning against totalitarianism is foreboding; the Party will eliminate all human needs and desires – like love – to perpetuate its own power.

Written in 1949, Orwell’s tale predicts a near-future communist-totalitarian regime.  Orwell uses specific themes and details to envision a world under complete communist/totalitarian rule.  Important elements used by Orwell (and common to all dystopias) to illustrate the dangers of an all-powerful government include:

-       Propaganda -  Beyond all the posters, banners, and rallies, newspapers edit politicians’ speeches to make the leader always seem right; more than this, the perpetual stream of songs, announcements, and propaganda streaming from the telescreen can never be turned off.  Citizens are taught to fear their own family, and sex is seen as a requirement to keep the population going – otherwise, it is frowned upon.  Doublethink – the ability to believe a “fact” even with directly contradictory knowledge – is a must for all citizens. Just take the Party's slogans: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; and Ignorance is Strength. Add in some made-up rebellion to keep the people on their toes and dedicate a 2-minute hate frenzy to keep it fresh in their mind, and this all amounts to a level of propoganda completely overwhelming. 

-       Fear – While you can’t escape the noise of the telescreen, you also can’t escape its ‘view,’ and you never know when the Thought Police are watching.  Even if you say something slightly off in your sleep, they’ll know, and once they know, you’re done for – you’ll either be tortured or killed.  All of the posters with Big Brother watching should remind you, as well as the secret microphones hidden around the city.  And the Thought Police will train your kids to report on you – so you can’t even trust your own family.

-       War – Because the nation is in a perpetual state of war, citizens are united under the false pretense of a foreign enemy and never question their government.  Their rabid patriotism allows them to accept whatever the Party is telling them, and their hatred for foreign enemies and rebels like the Brotherhood blinds them to all.  War for the citizens is peace for the Party, comfortably in power.  

-       Ignorance – The Party controls all information.  It re-writes books, newspapers, and even songs daily.  As the quote goes, who controls the present controls the past; who controls the past controls the future.  Along with the fact that citizens are completely ignorant concerning their own Party, of course they are completely uninformed as to the citizens of other countries – citizens who are in as bad of a situation as they are – and fear foreign takeover.  As if they could lose any rights.  Even their language – Newspeak – eliminates multiple words a year so citizens don’t even have a way to think about rebellion.  The less the people know about how horrible their own conditions are, the less the chance they'll rebel against the Party.  

And because this book ends with Winston having the spirit stamped out of him through torture, we readers are left with Orwell’s warning of what could possibly happen.  Our only hope lies in the robust, lively prole woman, hanging her laundry…

Congress Agrees?!

Congress voted on and has passed the bill to increase the debt ceiling!  Read about it in The New York Times article "Congress Passes Debt Deal."

Room to Breathe? US Senate Gets Its Act Together

Today, members of the Senate reached an agreement to put the pin back in the grenade - to reopen the government and extend the Treasury's ability to borrow money.  The agreement will fund the government through January 15, and it would raise the debt ceiling until February 7.  (For more on the debt ceiling, check out my previous post or Forbes' in-detail analysis.)

The Senate has assigned December 13 as the deadline for a detailed budget.  Check out The New York Times article "Senate Paves Way To End Debt Impasse." The article discusses that the deal wasn't pretty for either side, but that "the deal... yielded virtually no concessions to the Republicans."  Now, the Senate and the House are both working on translating the agreement into "legislative language."  Both are expected to vote tonight.

CNN's article "Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default," covers the story and includes a video.  

If you're curious as to what this means for stock investments, take a look at The Boston Globe's business spin, "Dow Surges on Debt Deal."  Like the title says, the Dow (Dow Jones Industrial Average - an important stock market index) surges with the Senate's agreement.

So, for now, we've avoided a modern-day dystopia... But I'm sure come January and February, we'll see a similar sticky situation.  

The Deal with Default and the Debt Ceiling

I apologize for the overabundance of political posts and (thus far) the lack of dystopian literature discussion.  But how often does our government shut down and how often do we face default?!

Here are some basic explanations to figure out what exactly default may mean and how important raising the debt ceiling is (take a look at the Sloan Sabbith video linked here and shown below if you're already an economic expert):

What is the debt ceiling?

Similar to a spending cap on a credit card, the debt ceiling limits national debt.  The debt ceiling limits the national treasury's ability to accrue debt - once the Treasury has reached the certain assigned amount, the government's spending cannot exceed its income.  

By the beginning of 2013, Congress was supposed to have agreed on a budget for the year.  The stalemate between parties extended the budget debate until March, when cuts were implemented.  These drastic cuts bought Congress time (from March until now) to work out a budget before the debt ceiling could be reached.  But they still haven't done their job.

What does raising the debt ceiling mean?  How would it help?

Currently, the US debt ceiling is $16.7 trillion.  The US will reach its debt ceiling of $16.7 trillion TOMORROW, estimates project.  Once we hit the debt ceiling, we can't borrow any more money and we would default on our loans.  Raising the debt ceiling would mean that we would increase the amount we allow the government to borrow - over $16.7 trillion - to give Congress time to get their shit together.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, the US Congress was discussing whether or not to raise the debt ceiling in 2011.  The mere discussion of possible default was enough to give investors cold feet.          

What does default mean for the country? 

If, by October 17 (TOMORROW!), we still haven't raised the debt ceiling, the government may be forced to default on its loans.  This could have multiple effects, better discussed in Forbes' article, "Debt Ceiling: Deadline to Default?"  In short, Forbes considers the possibility of default close to zero, but the article explores all other possible outcomes, which, this article states, would likely lead to a recurring default scare in the future.  Check the article out - Forbes knows what they're talking about.        

Sloan Sabbith Debunks Debt Ceiling Impacts

Two days until the government defaults on its debts!  (More on this very soon).  In 2011, we were in a very similar situation - discussing whether or not to raise the debt ceiling (granted, in 2011 the government hadn't shut down).  Wikipedia's article breaks 2011's situation down pretty smoothly in their article "US Debt-Ceiling Crisis of 2011."

Luckily, we had enough sense in us to raise the debt ceiling and NOT default.  And they say history repeats itself... We'll keep our fingers crossed.

HBO's show The Newsroom features an episode concerned with this very default scare.  Sloan Sabbith (Olivia Munn), The Newsroom's savvy economist, debunks debt ceiling impacts in this short clip from the show:

 

A Sneak Preview

With so many dystopian works - from A Clockwork Orange to The Road to Walking Dead - where can we even begin a discussion?

Wikipedia has lists of dystopian films and literature (linked here).  While these lists are definitely a magnificent place to start in our search for dystopia, the choice of works included and not included are fascinating.  For example, Wikipedia considers the Batman series to be dystopian, but it does not include A Clockwork Orange in its list of dystopian films.  

What should we consider as truly dystopian?  Or are there varying degrees?

To prime the pump for further discussion, I thought I would include a link to the film 1984, produced, ironically, in 1984, and based on George Orwell's book:  

Enjoy!

US White House Falling Down, Falling Down, Falling Down...

What could be a more appropriate way to begin a discussion about dystopias than the shut down of our very own government?  For the first time in almost twenty years, the US government has shut down.  If you missed that, or missed why that happened, check out this article, "Government Shuts Down In Budget Impasse," from The New York Times (Sept 30).

Without starting a belabored discussion about the dismal state of affairs in the world of US government, it is safe to say that this lack-of-an-operating government stems from the fact that today, our country is more politically polarized than since post-Civil-War Reconstruction.  This polarization has grown from the general population and now infects Congress; fewer representatives and senators identify as 'moderate,' and what happens?  Congress can't agree on a new budget after delaying for nine months (the budget was supposed to be ready by January... and then was extended to March... then sequestration happened...)  If you like charts and graphs, this Voteview.com article, "The Polarization of the Congressional Parties," graphs out the progression of political polarization from 1879 to 2009 with multiple charts.    

What are the implications of this tendency toward extremism, at least in political ideology?