Threats Keeping Gilead Alive

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood is a novel that made me realize how lucky we are to live in the United States today. We are entitled to so many freedoms that we take for granted. Walking down the street is a right we are allowed that other societies do not permit, especially the one depicted in this book. The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States. The society is kept in place because there are so many threats that keep people from rebelling. While 1984 by George Orwell is set back thirty years from now, this novel is set a lot closer to our time. Atwood makes many references to styles and trends that are similar to those we agree with today, such as the use of cars and televisions.  It is hard to believe that a society so similar to ours could be so quickly transformed into a metropolis ruled by threats and isolation, as depicted in this novel. Atwood shares the power of threats and the role of dehumanization in The Handmaid’s Tale by showing how threats prevent the demoralized handmaids from rebelling and keep the society in general running smoothly, however, there are many flaws in the system that could have potentially led to the downfall of the republic of Gilead.

Almost every day that Offred and Ofglen go into town to run errands, they stop at the Wall for reflection. This Wall is old and unattractive and serves as place for bodies after they have been hanged. Even though you would think that no one would want to visit this spectacle, the handmaids stop by it because it is an excuse for them to be away from home for longer. Offred remarks that, “sometimes [the bodies] will be there for days, until there’s a new batch, so as many people as possible will have the chance to see them” (42). The bodies are there as an example of what happens to rebels in Gilead. There is no tolerance for acting out and if you are caught, you are executed for all to see. 

Although in 1984, everything from the past is erased and forgotten, there is a faint memory of it in The Handmaid’s Tale. Even if they had jobs that were legal before the regime took over, it still haunts them. Offred acknowledges this by stating, “These men, we’ve been told, are like war criminals. It’s no excuse that what they did was legal at the time: their crimes are retroactive” (43). How are men and women supposed to move forward with their lives if their past haunts them? In a society like Gilead, everything from the past is supposed to be forgotten, yet it is impossible when individuals can be prosecuted for what they did before the regime was in place. The wall is a successful way for the regime to keep power over the handmaids and other citizens who may be considering rebelling against society. There is a constant reminder of what could happen if you get caught that keeps many men and women in line.

As I read The Handmaid’s Tale, I was especially interested in the differences between Orwell’s novel and Atwood’s. While both novels made it clear that people not of wealthiest class or highest social standing were supposed to be isolated and only have business relationships, the handmaids were forced to travel in pairs for their own protection. Although they were only supposed to say things like, “Blessed be the fruit,” minor communication turned into much more as the handmaids became closer with their partners (19). Offred and Ofglen quickly formed a relationship that, had Ofglen not been relocated, could have made both handmaids rebel from their positions and have put them both in a dangerous position in society. Although it seems that partnerships of women could not have gathered together and rebelled, I think their potential power cannot be underestimated, especially if other women were feeling the same about their positions as handmaids.

Throughout the text, Offred refers to the fact that she is not using her real name, yet never shares it with the audience. I understand that the handmaids must have their names changed because then it is much more difficult for them to find anyone from their past life, but I think this is cruel. They are separated from their friends, families, and now, the only thing left is their identity. The women are taken from their homes and are forced to have sex with strangers.

The back cover of The Handmaid’s Tale makes note of the dehumanization of the handmaids by describing their sole task as, “[lying] on [their] backs once a month and pray[ing] that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.” They are seen as less than human, as incubators, in fact. This dehumanization is just a part of society that no one else seems to have a problem with.

When Offred first meets Serena Joy, the commander’s wife, she acknowledges their situation and remarks, “As for my husband, he’s just that. My husband. I want that to be perfectly clear. Till death do us part. It’s final” (23). Serena Joy knows that Offred and her husband will be engaging in a previously intimate act that is now just a task that must be completed. Nonetheless, she treats Offred like a child who does not understand the sanctity of marriage or a commitment. I find it shocking how except for Moira and a few other characters, no one attempts to take a stand against society. This is a testament to the fear the regime has placed in the handmaids as a result of threats.

The Handmaid’s Tale shows how powerful threats can be, especially in a society as structured as Gilead. The fear that the regime instilled in the already insecure handmaids kept them from even attempting to rebel. By reducing the once self-sustaining women to the dehumanizing role as incubators, very few handmaids had the confidence to escape the regime. This novel makes the reader feel sorry for Offred and the other handmaids, and makes me take a step back and enjoy the various freedoms that I am entitled to that many of the characters of this book had taken away from them.

Final Research Paper Idea

For my final research paper, I want to discuss how the media has change American’s perspective on such a catastrophic event such as September 11^th. While reading True Enough, I realized how jaded some perspectives of 9/11 are as a result of the medias response, even a decade later. My starting question is, why can we never be satisfied with accepting the facts of what happened? People feel the need to keep digging, as if they will find more information when the facts are right in front of them. From reading True Enough, I learned a little bit more information on the conspiracy theories surrounding September 11^th. I am looking forward to watching the documentary Loose Change and hearing more about Dylan Avery’s thoughts.

From a simple Google search of “9/11 conspiracy theories,” I received over four million links. One of the first ones I found was titled, “The 11 Most Compelling Conspiracy Theories of 9/11.” The fact that there are eleven widely accepted conspiracy theories surrounding the devastating event is shocking to me. Scrolling through the website, I watched a link from Loose Change that made a very compelling argument about how it would have been almost impossible for so many phone calls to have been made from 32,000 feet in the air, the usual cruising altitude for commercial airlines. Avery makes claims that seem legitimate, but in the context of September 11^th, just could not be possible.

I am interested in finding out if there is a large group of people who believe in these conspiracy theories and if there are more legitimate articles with facts proving that 9/11 was not just a random terrorist attack. This topic personally interests me because I live an hour outside of New York City and know many families who were affected by this horrible tragedy. I think it is incredibly rude and inappropriate for Americans to think the American government could have executed that 9/11. I think it is especially inappropriate that people think that the phone calls from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were pre recorded or made up. I am really looking forward to finding out more information about the conspiracy theories and how the media has changed our perception of this catastrophic event.

The Hidden Costs of Flying

Flying on airplanes is already expensive and now passengers are discovering that, “even the cheap seats on airplanes come with a fee.” In an article found on the Wall Street Journal online, Scott McCartney describes how airlines are now tricking passengers into thinking that the only seats for purchase are in bad locations on the plane. As a result, they are paying extra money for first class and seats with extra legroom that cost extra. McCartney rightfully points out that, “Overall, airlines look at seat fees as another way to generate revenue in low-margin industry. These days, checked baggage, meals, early boarding and flight changes on standby all come at a price.” Especially for those who fly often for business, these little charges can definitely add up. A seemingly all inclusive package may not be within reach anymore, but one thing is for sure, the earlier you book a flight, the better deal you can get!

Kardashian Wedding- Just for the Money?

This week, celebrity Kim Kardashian filed for divorce with her husband of 72 days, Kris Humphries. While this may not seem to be a pressing issue in the public sphere, I think it fits in perfectly with my ambassadorship because it deals with the presence of money in pop culture. There is much speculation that the marriage between Kardashian and Humphries was all a publicity stunt, their wedding video was sold to E and this NY Times article even mentions that she earned millions of dollars for the television episodes. Even this article’s title tells a lot about the business side of their relationship; “Kardashian Divorce forces the E! Network to Scramble.” The first information that readers get from this heading shows that their separation is a problem for the media, not for Kardashian or Humphries themselves. From this example, it seems that Kim and Kris have completely lost sight of the sanctity of marriage and are instead exploiting it for publicity. Although we don’t know exactly what happened in their relationship, it is difficult not to speculate that this wedding was a publicity statement that had no real love involved. Hopefully viewers will see how ridiculous this pair looks after their “fairy tale wedding” has gone to shambles in less than three months.

"The Handmaid's Tale" short paper

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood is a novel that really made me realize how lucky we are to live in the United States today. We are entitled to so many freedoms that we take for granted. Walking down the street is a right we are allowed that other societies do not permit, especially the one depicted in this book. The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States. While 1984 by George Orwell is set back thirty years from now, this novel is set a lot closer to our time. Atwood makes many references to styles and trends that are similar to those we agree with today, such as the use of cellphones, cars, and televisions.  It is hard to believe that a society so similar to ours could be so quickly transformed into a metropolis ruled by threats and isolation, as is depicted in The Handmaid’s Tale.

As I read The Handmaid’s Tale, I was especially interested in the differences between Orwell’s novel and Atwood’s. While both novels made it clear that certain people were supposed to be isolated and only have business relationships, the handmaids were forced to travel in pairs for their own protection. Although they were only supposed to say things like, “Blessed be the fruit,” minor communication turned into much more as the handmaids became closer with their partners (19). Offred and Ofglen quickly formed a relationship that, had Ofglen not been relocated, could have made both handmaids rebel from their positions and have put them both in a dangerous position in society. Although it seems that partnerships of women could not have gathered together and rebelled, I think their potential power cannot be underestimated, especially if other women were feeling the same about their positions as handmaids.

Throughout the text, Offred constantly refers to the fact that she is not using her real name, yet never shares it with the audience. I understand that the handmaids must have their names changed because then it is much more difficult for them to find anyone from their past life, but I think this is cruel. They separated from their friends, families, and now, the only thing left is their identity. The women are taken from their homes and are forced to have sex with strangers. Even the back cover of The Handmaid’s Tale makes note of this by describing the sole task of the handmaids as, “[lying] on her back once and month and pray[ing] that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.” They are seen as less than human, as incubators, in fact. This dehumanization is just a part of society that no one else seems to have a problem with. I find it shocking how everyone else thinks that this is an okay situation, when just a few years earlier, all of these females were entitled to hold jobs, raise families, and live the life they were intended to.

The Handmaid’s Tale is an example of what would happen if women lost power in society. This novel was very similar to Orwell’s, 1984, but shows a clear discrimination towards women, rather than a society that was unfair to all. Atwood uses Offred as the books narrator and keeps the reader aware of her flashbacks and thoughts on her situation. This novel makes the reader feel sorry for Offred and the other handmaids, and makes me take a step back and enjoy the various freedoms that I am entitled to that many of the characters of this book had taken away from them.

Ambassadorship Presentation

For my ambassadorship presentation, I discussed how our society has lost sight of the important people and now consider politicians (especially the President and the First Lady) celebrities. I found a video that shows this in which Obama Discusses Bieber. Our society has become centered around celebrities and even makes our President out to be one. Although I did compare Obama and his wife to JFK and Jackie O, I think technology has increased their prominence. I found a website, Michelle Obama: Fashion Icon, that perfectly displays this. I saw a big connection with True Enough because with a quote form Manjoo in which he remarks, "You can go so far as to say we're now fighting over competing versions of reality."

I also found an article that goes into further depth of the "True Enough" Connection.

I was really interested in the presentations that my classmates made. I thought Rob's was especially interesting because he was not discussing the subject of his video, but rather who was sharing the information. I think as viewers, we just accept TV reporters to be who they say they are, which most of the time is described as an "expert on the subject." Rob has made me really pay attention to who is telling me information, rather than just assuming they're credible and listening to their info. 

I also really enjoyed Kiely's presentation on Hollywood's portrayal of CEO's and other business executives as villains. Especially with The Social Network, it is easy to see how the media has made them out to be the bad guys. I think it will be interesting to see the movie The Margin Call and see how they could be portrayed as good.

"True Enough" and the Conspiracy Belief of 9/11

True Enough by Farhad Manjoo is an incredibly appealing book that discusses technology, politics, and many other ideas that are present in the public sphere. While some of my peers find this text to be biased and uninteresting, I think Manjoo encompasses a wide range of topics, while keeping a point of view that is not largely one-sided. I was enthralled when Manjoo brought up the 9/11 conspiracy theory specifically outlined in Dylan Avery’s documentary, Loose Change. I have always been interested in the views of September 11^th that discuss the idea that the American government was actually behind the attacks, and True Enough gave a great deal of information surrounding my queries.

While I do not believe that the United States government would ever create an event as catastrophic as 9/11, Avery’s documentary is successful because he provides so much evidence, and delivers it with such a confidence, that he pleads a strong case. Manjoo points out that there are definitely flaws in Avery’s film, but Avery is successful in hiding them from the reader. Manjoo remarks, “What’s interesting, in fact, is what [Loose Change’s] flaws mask: a certain devious calculation in the way Avery handles documentary evidence” (88). By acknowledging that Avery’s argument is not perfect, Manjoo makes it easier for someone, who does not believe that 9/11 was an inside project, to feel that their beliefs have been reassured.

Manjoo leaves our heads spinning when he ask, “why should anyone take the government’s evidence as proof?” (94). Automatically, most Americans assume that the government has the most accurate information, and we should take their word as fact. However, Avery’s documentary proves that we cannot always trust our politicians to tell us the truth. Manjoo asks many questions of the reader that make me rethink my beliefs. I think this was the ultimate goal of his novel, it is always important to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and try to understand how they see it.  Manjoo is very successful in stretching our minds and placing ourselves on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Manjoo discusses some controversial topics in his book, True Enough, but I think that his inclusion of the conspiracy theory regarding September 11^th being an “inside job,” proves the most about media and our culture. Regardless of our beliefs, Avery makes an incredible case and makes it difficult for the reader to ignore the voice in our heads saying, “Maybe he’s right.” The use of this theory also shows the success of selective exposure and the major roles that media and technology play in our lives. 

What's Real and What's Not? Photoshopping as Discussed in "True Enough"

We live in an age where almost any question we may have can be answered with a quick Google search. Even though we know that some websites, like Wikipedia, may not be completely reliable, we generally accept Google’s first response as fact and carry on with our lives. I was really interested in the section of True Enough in which a photo shopped picture of an American soldier with two Iraqi boys ended up on the internet (page 78). While Manjoo talks about how many different versions of the picture surfaced on the internet and the soldier himself explained what was happening in the original image, it is still difficult for me to decide which story I believe. Society today tells us to believe what we see, what is right in front of us, but with the technology we have, how can we decipher what is real and what is not? True Enough is really making me think about what we should and should not trust in the media and I am looking forward to taking a closer look at what I see and read about online.

Social Identity Through Food in "True Enough"

Manjoo brings up a very interesting point when discussing a survey that the Committee on Food Habits conducted. The results showed that, “people’s feelings about food were tied up with their social identities—with what they thought was appropriate for “us” to eat” (50). I was not surprised at all with this outcome! As someone who has always eaten what my mom has put in front of me, college was a total eye opener. Manjoo even points out that families are used to eating what their mother’s and wives put in front of them.  I have no shame in going into Mather and diving into the sautéed summer squash because I know that although it looks strange, I like squash! While I may have no problem doing this, I have seen plenty of students who are embarrassed to get what they really want to eat because they think people will judge them for taking too much food, or will make fun of them for getting something that looks weird. People are always nervous to be looked down upon if what they really want isn’t “socially acceptable.” Manjoo continues on and points out that, “what we understand to be acceptable for us—and in a sense what we understand to be the “truth” around us—is defined through our interactions with other people” (52). I completely agree with this statement and can see how social beliefs on what is or is not “socially acceptable” to eat can have a major impact on what ends up on your dinner plate.

Selective Exposure in "True Enough"

I was really interested in the discussion of “selective exposure” that Manjoo first brought up on page 29 of True Enough. This phenomenon is so accurate! While reflecting on my own life, I can think of numerous times that I have used selective exposure when I hear something that goes against my beliefs. Although I am not usually enthralled with politics, I really like the way that Manjoo has written, True Enough. He begins to introduce political ideas with examples that draw the reader in and make them want to understand how it is used in a political sense, such as selective exposure. By explaining the way selective exposure was proven with the radio experiment, Manjoo made me want to know how the Swift Boat Veterans used this tactic to rally the general public against John Kerry. On page 42, I found the use of propaganda to be very interesting. By using the example of a mailing with an absurd statement claiming that, “Johnson [was] secretly in bed with the communists," I almost laughed out loud. This statement is so ridiculous that it is almost laughable. However, I could see a Johnson reporter receiving that card and actually sending a response back, just so they could have evidence that their beliefs were correct. I was not initially a fan of True Enough, but this book is really warming up to me! I think it is a humorous and intellectual way of looking at politics that I really am enjoying.

"To Vaporize or Not to Vaporize? That is the Question." Evaluating the Process of Vaporization in George Orwell's Novel, "1984"

As I read George Orwell’s novel, 1984, I was constantly consumed with questions surrounding the text. It seemed that no matter how much reading and analyzing I did, I would never come up with an answer as to how the type of world depicted in 1984 could possibly exist. One of the main questions that followed me throughout the book had to do with the process of “vaporization.” How could Winston and Julia not have been vaporized after everything they did against The Party? Winston constantly discussed how vaporization meant that, “[people] were considered never to exist” however Julia and Winston both re-entered society after going to Room 101 (43).  1984 left me filled with questions, yet the underlying query that followed me throughout the novel surrounded the idea of vaporization, and how in a society in which fear of being vaporized kept many citizens from acting out, two captured enemies of the party were ultimately freed from vaporization.

One of the first mentions of the process of vaporization in 1984 occurred when Winston was discussing his job at the Ministry and the specific career of one of his co-workers. Her job, “day in, day out, [was] simply tracking down and deleting from the press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed” (43). Winston described her job position and pointed out that the woman’s own husband had been vaporized a few years prior. This concept really confused me because at the time, I was unaware of the intricate measures in which The Party took to maintain complete power over citizens of Oceania. How could it be possible to just eliminate someone from society, to make it seem like they never lived? However, as the text went on, I realized just how brainwashed members of The Party had become. It became apparent that it was easy for them to believe anything they were told, because they were not allowed to use their minds to comprehend how dysfunctional a society it actually was. People could be “eliminated from society” because other citizens were not allowed to question the government. It didn’t matter who was gone, or how they vanished, once they were gone, they were gone.

As 1984 continued, it was clear to me that the idea of vaporization was constantly in the back of Winston’s mind. One afternoon while eating lunch with his friend Syme, Winston thinks, “One of these days, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face” (55). While it appeared that Syme was just a passionately loyal party member, Winston saw how he could be a potential threat to The Party because he was capable of so many emotions and thoughts. It did not come as a surprise when Winston accurately predicted the future vaporization of his friend.

After Syme had disappeared for a few days, Winston pointed out that his name had been eliminated from everything he was previously associated with. There were no records that Syme was ever a living being. As Winston and Julia began their relationship, it was clear that everything they were doing was against the guidelines of Oceania. They engaged in a sexual relationship, met in secret, spoke of rebelling from The Party, and broke even more of The Party’s unwritten laws. These unrecorded rules were known to all citizens of Oceania, and prevented members of society from living free lives because they were constantly being watched. To a reader, it seemed that Julia and Winston’s rebellion from The Party was much worse than Syme’s passion for The Party, yet eventually, Julia and Winston’s lives did not end by vaporization. The inconsistency in The Party’s behavior leads to confusion for the reader, and almost certainly would have been confusing to The Party’s followers, had they been able to use their brains and form their own opinions like Julia and Winston did.

It was shocking that in a society such as the one depicted in 1984, people could be punished not only for being against The Party, but also for being so faithful to it.  One might ask, “How could being too invested in the party be a bad thing?” I thought this at first as well, but after finishing the novel, it was clear to see that The Party just wanted complete control. Control of everything was the ultimate goal of The Party, and Syme’s passion could have be seen as a loss of power to The Party. Unless one is right in the middle of extreme loyalty and rebellion, they were always at risk of vaporization.

To me, the most interesting part of 1984 was the conclusion of the novel, in which Winston and Julia are both back in society as if nothing has changed. Of course, they do not have the same rebellious beliefs, and are definitely not still sneaking around together behind The Party’s back. The first question that I had when it was revealed that Winston was not alive, was about what other citizens would think of his disappearance and then his sudden re-emergence back to society? Although Party members were not allowed to question anything The Party did, Winston had never described a scenario in which party members disappeared and then came back to their old lives. It was clear that although Winston had been forced to visit Room 101, in which his worst fear came true, he still had a bit of rebelliousness to him. While watching the telescreen and waiting to hear information about the war that Oceania was involved in at the time, Winston let his mind wander and, “a violent emotion but a sort of undifferentiated excitement, flared up in him” (298). It seemed that Winston was imagining what would happen if Oceania actually lost the war it was currently in, with Eurasia. A loyal Party member should never have thought these kinds of things, because it was against The Party, yet Winston was momentarily back to his old ways. Although he quickly snapped out of it, I was still left with confusion as to why The Party had let him come back to civilization, and if not vaporize him, why they hadn’t sent him to a forced labor camp. I thought that the entire point of capturing rebels of The Party was to get rid of them so they would have no possible way of spreading their rebellious ideas with others. While he was detained, Winston was unaware of how much time he spent away from his life, and as a result, so were the readers. However, it seemed like he was missing for a decent amount of time.

After much back-and-forth in my mind, I realized that The Party had made an exception for Julia and Winston. Such enemies of The Party who were willing to risk their lives to destroy The Party went through such a transformation in Room 101. The one thing in life that Winston cared about was Julia, and the horrors of facing his worst fear forced Winston to betray her in order to save himself. I think The Party realized that once they got Winston to betray Julia and vice versa, there was no more reason for him, or her to be rebellious. Winston’s disobedience really came out when he was with Julia. To Winston, knowing that there was at least one other person who thought the way he did was enough to betray The Party. Once he realized that there was absolutely nothing left that he could do to save himself or his loved one, he put all of his love back to Big Brother.

The idea of vaporization plays a large role in 1984 because the threat of extinction was enough to deter many rebels from promoting their negative ideas about The Party. However, two incredibly disobedient Party members were spared from vaporization. While at first, the reasoning behind this perplexed me, through analyzing; I came to the realization that there was no need to vaporize Julia and Winston because once they betrayed each other, there was no more need to betray The Party. They were spared from vaporization because O’Brien and other members of the Inner Party knew that once they broke Julia and Winston’s alliance, neither of them had any more need to rebel from Big Brother; and The Party was right.

Images of Global Warming

While searching through the "New York Times" online, I stumbled upon an article about a gallery in Beijing in which the artist, photographer David Breashears, took hundreds of photos showing evidence of global warming. While this doesn't directly connect with my ambassadorship of dealing with money in the public sphere, I think it does show a great deal of influence in the public sphere. Breashears incredibly large photographs are displayed next to previous photographs of such natural locations as The Himalayas, various Asian rivers, the Tibetan landscape, and more.

I think this is an incredible language of the power of photography and nature in the public sphere. It doesn't always have to be abut language, and as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words." I think this is very accurate, especially looking at these photographs, it is clear that there is a global warming issue.

While this article may not have a lot to do with money in the public sphere, I think it indirectly does. There is no way an artist would be able to travel to these various locations and reproduce these incredibly large prints without the use of money. So, although this article isn't screaming dollars and cents, there is definitely a presence of money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/arts/design/three-shadows-gallery-in-beijing-turns-focus-on-global-warming.html?_r=1&ref=arts

"True Enough"

After reading, 1984, a book that I was surprisingly very interested in, I was really looking forward to starting True Enough. I don't consider myself a person who is very in-tune with politics. While I do like to know what's going on in our country, I am not one to be constantly watching the news or checking out news sources for up to date information regarding our political situation. True Enough seems like the kind of book that presents news and liberal ideas in a way in which the reader can get into the story, and want to hear more about what the author has to say. Like I said before, I follow politics, but not intently. I had no idea that the "swift boat veterans" or any major group of people opposed Kerry in the 2004 presidential elections! They seemed to have played a very important role in the election, potentially causing Kerry to lose to Bush.

I think that True Enough is a good text to read in "Language and Power in the Public Sphere," especially seen by this first example of the "swift boat veterans," and the language they used, and the power they held over Kerry supporters in the 2004 election. I am really looking forward to reading more of this text and learning more about our government and the role of language in our society.

"How do YOU say economic security?"

While scrolling through the New York Times Online op-ed pieces, I stumbled upon this article. As Americans, do we just listen to our government to see how we're doing economically and take it as fact, or actually do the research? In my opinion, we put way too much trust in our news sources and in the government. We should just go right to the source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/how-do-you-say-economic-security.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

1984 Final Blog Post

When I initially completed 1984 by George Orwell, I was speechless! Although I did have an idea of what would happen at the conclusion of the novel, because I read the book flap, which gave a bit of a hint, I was still completely surprised with the ending. The part that I was especially confused with was the fact that both Julia and Winston were eventually let free! Even though they were physically free, it is clear that O’Brien and The Brotherhood accomplished their goal because the last line of the book is “[Winston] loved Big Brother” (308).

One thing that I was confused with was O’Brien’s role. Was he a party member or was he against the party? Was his alliance with Winston actually a ploy to make Winston confess his opposing party views? Orwell wrote a very successful novel in which I was completely enthralled! You know it’s a good assigned reading book for school when the students don’t want to put it down, which was definitely the case for me.

When asked the question, “what does the novel mean to you as a whole?” I initially had a difficult time determining my answer. My thoughts on this answer changed as I continued reading but I think my final understanding is that the party has no need for individuals. Individuals create issues and make it more difficult for the party to accomplish their goals. Especially at the end of the novel when O’Brien is interrogating Winston, the reader can see how little The Brotherhood cares about the human race and any particular people. Their goal is to continue on with their regime and not have to worry about the actions of individuals.

Another aspect of this society that really confused me was the fact that there are no laws in Oceania. How could such a strict civilization function when there are literally no written laws in place? Although everyone is aware of what they can and cannot do, wouldn’t the society function much more efficiently if there were just simple laws in place? I guess the reason for this is that there would be too many laws that need to be obeyed, and just having “unwritten rules” makes the government seem less controlling and gives the appearance of giving citizens more freedom.

I was especially disappointed on page 300, after Winston was released from Room 101 and is back having gin at The Chestnut Tree. He is contemplating if it will be victory or failure reported on the telescreen, and what life could be like if it was failure. Of course, the ultimate reporting is that Oceania has undoubtedly succeeded in defeating whichever enemy they had at that moment. Upon hearing this, Winston is emotionless and, “almost unconsciously traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5” (300). This simple act shows that the party has defeated Winston and he no longer has control over what happens with his mind and his actions.

"Elite for a Day, in Coach, for a Fee"

For my blog, I have been following money and its role in the media and pop culture. One article that I found that is particularly pertinent to my subject is about how a regular family paid a little extra money and received the celebrity treatment. The word “elite” no longer pertains to a certain special group of people; it has extended to include anyone who possesses money. It’s hard to determine if this is a good or a bad thing because it can be argued both ways. You may consider it a good thing because it could seem that class divisions are becoming less present in society, but it could also be seen as a bad thing because who knows what people may do in order to get money.

The premise of the article is that a family is at the airport about to go on vacation. The wife thought it would be rewarding to pay a few extra bucks, to the tune of $200 a couple, to receive the V.I.P treatment in the terminal.

Here’s how Michelle Higgins explained the event in her article titled, “Elite for a Day, in Coach, for a Fee" found on The New York Times online:

So how did we gain such special treatment? We paid for it: $200 a couple in addition to the price of our tickets for myself and my husband to receive American’s V.I.P. treatment (our baby received it free of charge) through the carrier’s Five Star Service program. Once reserved for celebrities and V.I.P.’s traveling between New York, Los Angeles, and Miami, American began offering the service to passengers at Kennedy Airport in 2007, and expanded it to 11 airports last year. The program is being promoted through an online sweepstakes that promises to get you through the airport “like a star (jealous glances included).”

Has our society turned so upside down that it is a good idea to spend two hundred dollars in order to feel like a star for three hours? Our generation and the one above it have completely lost sight of the importance and value of dollars and cents. According to the United States Department of Labor, federal minimum wage is just $7.25. That is less than a sixteen year old makes babysitting! Many states have minimum wages that are below the federal line. Someone working at minimum wage would have to work almost 28 hours in order to make the two hundred dollars that this family just spent in order to feel like celebrities. Yes, many may think this is a completely justified action if you have worked hard to earn your money, but it is still difficult to forget about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who work just as hard and can barely afford to get food on the table for their families.

As a “pop culture ambassador” for our seminar, I will be working to find more articles about money and how the media and celebrities have jaded our perspective on how to spend money and live fulfilling lives.

Response to First Chapter of "1984"

When I first began reading "1984" by George Orwell, I was totally confused and did not like it at all! However, once I got into the book, it was incredibly interesting. "1984" made me think about how technologically dependent our society is, and how scary it is to imagine our lives without the constant availability of the internet and cell phones. One of the most shocking things about this novel is how Winston constantly describes the forced use of technology and the complete lack of privacy that citizens in London of this era have. Except for the proles, everyone is forced to have their lives in the public eye, something that we so very much take for granted. We willingly post photos of ourselves on Facebook, and give out information of our addresses, cell phone numbers, and other information about our whereabouts like it's no big deal. If we take a step back, we realize that we are submitting ourselves to a world pretty similar to that described in "1984." A world in which technology controls us and gives no room to make our own decisions and propose our own ideas. By just reading the first hundred or so pages in this novel, I am already seeing the flaws in our society that media is submitting us to. I am really looking forward to finishing up this text to see if Winston will be "vaporized" for his questioning of Big Brother and everything that has changed in his society.

Moneys Role in Pop Culture

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/travel/elite-status-on-airlines-for-a-fee.html

I was lucky enough to get an area of the public sphere that really interests me, pop culture. As I was thinking about what sources and areas of pop culture that I wanted to be our seminar “ambassador” for, I immediately went to the New York Times online. In my last semester of high school, I took a class called “contemporary issues” in which I got constant e-mail updates from the NYT online on what was happening in the world. Also, my family has been getting copies of the New York Times every morning for as long as I can remember, so naturally I was inclined to check out this website before I did anything else! I was really interested in the article we discussed in our blogs about sex on campus and the public response, so I wanted to follow a topic that I thought would interest me as much as that did. While scrolling through the opinion pages and style and art sections of the New York Times online, I discovered an article that was really about money. While “money” is such a broad category, I think that focusing on the use and importance of money in the public sphere will be instrumental to our class discussion. Pop culture is centered on money and those who have money, those who used to not have money, and those who are struggling to have enough money. I think money is clearly an important part of the public sphere and will be pertinent to class discussions and pop culture, and I think the New York Times has such a variety of reporters and opinion writers that it will be a very reliable source for my information in this class!

"After Class, Skimpy Equality" Response

As a freshman girl just finishing up her first week in college, I think this article was really enlightening and interesting to read. When I first began reading the article, I thought how ridiculous it was sounding and how women certainly have more self respect that to adhere to the requests that some of the “frat boys” had who were referred to in this editorial. However, as I continued reading, I realized how accurate Lisa Belkin was. A quote by a Princeton junior whom Belkin interviewed, addressing the dress code for students going out, really made me realize how correct Belkin’s assumptions were. The student remarked, “When the guys go to the Street they are laid-back, casual, like they are going to class,” he said. “But the women come in, in short cocktail dresses, makeup, high heels” (1). As I think back to last night, walking around my noisy dorm filled with freshmen getting ready to go out, I think of the boys in backwards hats and Nike t-shirts and the girls in tight dresses and enough jewelry on to open up a store! As I kept going back to Belkin’s article for quotes, I was just amazed with the accuracy of her statements and how, as a Princeton grad herself, she understood how students think this kind of behavior is okay in college, yet disagrees with it as an adult.  A student at the University of Utah agreed by stating, “[College is] the designated time to try new things and get stuff out of your system. If parents were still in our mindset, they would understand. I think that every person has been there, but I think when I grow up I will look back and think it’s unhealthy. Because it’s animalistic. But it’s just what happens at this age” (2). I guess I’ll have to come back to this article and see how I’m feeling in a few decades!

Mountains Beyond Mountains Question Response

I think Farmer’s childhood in poverty was instrumental in forming his future career path. In Mountains Beyond Mountains, Kidder referenced his childhood for almost the entire first half of the book, which I think shows how important his upbringing was in forming his decisions later in life. I believe that Farmer’s early contact with Haitians played a role in his choice to spend so much time in Haiti. On page 51, Kidder is describing Farmer working in the fields picking fruit with his father. When a young Farmer questioned, “But, dad, white people don’t pick citrus,” and received a snappy response from his father explaining, “they’re Haitians,” I think it stuck in Farmers mind. It didn’t matter that Farmer was White and the other workers were Black, they were all just people trying to earn a living. I think Farmer’s ambition is also seen as a result of his growing up in a poor community. “No couch potatoes in the [Farmer] family,” [Kidder] said once to Farmer’s mother. “No couch” she replied (55). While this line just seems humorous when it’s read the first time, reading between the lines shows that Farmer really had no other option but to work his hardest to get the education and make the connections that later made his work in Haiti and around the world so powerful.