/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4217892]

So here's the deal /lit/, I've got the task of comparing 1984 and brave new world in an essay of about 20 pages length as well as a presentation.

Most won't have read it (German here) and I'm wondering about how much detail I should put into explaining the situation in both worlds.
Any informational pictures (if they exist) such as pic related would be very interesting as well.

I'm not too often on /lit/, so ig threads like these aren't well looked upon here I understand.
Just tell me and I'll delete it then.

[Anonymous No.4217911]

If it's twenty pages you may as well explain the situation in both worlds.

[Anonymous No.4217964]

>>4217892
how about you read the book from your picture?

[Anonymous No.4217966]

>>4217911
I was planning on being very descriptive in the essay but I fear that the (1hour) presentation won't be enough time to explain it in way that's plausible.

Anyone else care to contribute?

[Anonymous No.4218541]

I really dislike this comparison. First of all it ignores the weird social engineering of BNW, secondly it ignores the language of 1984.

[Anonymous No.4218574]

Das könnte vielleicht auch hilfreich sein, nur so am Rande.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html

[Anonymous No.4218587]

>>4218541
Actually, let me try to explain why I dislike it in depth. The problem is that the world of BNW is treated symbolically, while 1984’s world is treated literally.

Our world is nothing like BNW. There’s no one-world government, there’re no spontaneous orgies in the street, etc. But what you do is taken the essence of it (ie people drowning in triviality) and then expound on it. If you notice in the picture all the scenes from BNW ARE NOT FROM BNW! 1984, poor poor 1984, is taken completely literally. “There’s no Oceania and we don’t have crimethink, Orwell is so dumb!” this image wants to say, and in doing so presents literal scenes from 1984, refusing to talk about its essence. What would that be? Manipulation of truth through language, which all of a sudden doesn’t make him seem so weird and crazy.

I’m sure you know about crimethink and doublethink, but there’re many other interesting newspeak words and concepts he develops, like bellyfeel and duckspeak, which are just as, if not more, relevant than anything BNW has to say. It really bothers me that people treat these dystopic novels as manifestos which can be compared to the present to determine “who was right.”

[Anonymous No.4218606]

>>4218587
>There’s no one-world government
Really? Obama certainly acts like there is.
>there’re no spontaneous orgies in the street, etc.
What is the gay (sorry, erhm, 'pride') parade.

[Anonymous No.4218616]

>>4218606

>Really? Obama certainly acts like there is.
hurr

>What is the gay (sorry, erhm, 'pride') parade.
I think you need to learn the definition of "spontaneous"

[Anonymous No.4218660]

Orwell and Huxley are both right,
there is still censorship AND massive distraction media or how you want to call it. Why would ´they` only use one technique?

[Anonymous No.4218668]

>>4218660

This.
Framing BNW and 1984 as mutually exclusive is missing the point.

[Anonymous No.4218675]

>>4218668
how could postman make such a stupid mistake?

[Anonymous No.4218720]

>>4218675

What?

[Anonymous No.4218733]

>>4218720
read the last sentence of the picture the op posted

[Anonymous No.4221501]

bump

[Anonymous No.4221558]

>>4217892
If you're moderately advanced in philosophy, you might want to look into Deleuze & Guattari's differentiation between the disciplinary society - as theorised by Foucault - and the late capitalistic society of control.

If you aren't, you can still just name-drop them for bonus points.

>Foucault located the disciplinary societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they reach their height at the outset of the twentieth. They initiate the organization of vast spaces of enclosure. The individual never ceases passing from one closed environment to another, each having its own laws: first the family; then the school ("you are no longer in your family"); then the barracks ("you are no longer at school"); then the factory; from time to time the hospital; possibly the prison, the preeminent instance of the enclosed environment."

>The different internments of spaces of enclosure through which the individual passes are independent variables: each time one us supposed to start from zero, and although a common language for all these places exists, it is analogical. One the other hand, the different control mechanisms are inseparable variations, forming a system of variable geometry the language of which is numerical (which doesn't necessarily mean binary). Enclosures are molds, distinct castings, but controls are a modulation, like a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other, or like a sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point.

>The conception of a control mechanism, giving the position of any element within an open environment at any given instant (whether animal in a reserve or human in a corporation, as with an electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction. Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one's apartment, one's street, one's neighborhood, thanks to one's (dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person's position--licit or illicit--and effects a universal modulation.

>In the prison system: the attempt to find penalties of "substitution," at least for petty crimes, and the use of electronic collars that force the convicted person to stay at home during certain hours. For the school system: continuous forms of control, and the effect on the school of perpetual training, the corresponding abandonment of all university research, the introduction of the "corporation" at all levels of schooling. For the hospital system: the new medicine "without doctor or patient" that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation--as they say--but substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code of a "dividual" material to be controlled.

[Anonymous No.4221563]

>>4221558
Forgot the actual link.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/archiv/netzkritik/societyofcontrol.html

[Anonymous No.4221575]

>>4217892 (OP)
This isn't directly related to your question, but I thought you might find it helpful regardless.

If you're moderately advanced in philosophy, you might want to look into Deleuze's differentiation between the disciplinary society - as theorised by Foucault - and the late capitalistic society of control.

If you aren't, you can still just name-drop them for bonus points.

>Foucault located the disciplinary societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they reach their height at the outset of the twentieth. They initiate the organization of vast spaces of enclosure. The individual never ceases passing from one closed environment to another, each having its own laws: first the family; then the school ("you are no longer in your family"); then the barracks ("you are no longer at school"); then the factory; from time to time the hospital; possibly the prison, the preeminent instance of the enclosed environment."

>The different internments of spaces of enclosure through which the individual passes are independent variables: each time one us supposed to start from zero, and although a common language for all these places exists, it is analogical. One the other hand, the different control mechanisms are inseparable variations, forming a system of variable geometry the language of which is numerical (which doesn't necessarily mean binary). Enclosures are molds, distinct castings, but controls are a modulation, like a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other, or like a sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point.

>The conception of a control mechanism, giving the position of any element within an open environment at any given instant (whether animal in a reserve or human in a corporation, as with an electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction. Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one's apartment, one's street, one's neighborhood, thanks to one's (dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person's position--licit or illicit--and effects a universal modulation.

>In the prison system: the attempt to find penalties of "substitution," at least for petty crimes, and the use of electronic collars that force the convicted person to stay at home during certain hours. For the school system: continuous forms of control, and the effect on the school of perpetual training, the corresponding abandonment of all university research, the introduction of the "corporation" at all levels of schooling. For the hospital system: the new medicine "without doctor or patient" that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation--as they say--but substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code of a "dividual" material to be controlled.

[Anonymous No.4221584]

>>4221575
Here's a link to the essay.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/archiv/netzkritik/societyofcontrol.html