the future in a novel? i hope not.

In his extraordinary analysis essay titled “Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984”, Ward thoroughly discusses the similarities and diversities between the two anti-utopian novels, 1984 and Brave New World. Obviously, Orwell and Huxley had an urgent message to relay to all generations about the impending future. It is not, after all, impossible to succumb to tyranny, ignorance, and power (or any lethal combination of the three). What we must rest on to secure a stable future is our intelligence, strength, and stubbornness (but only when resisting such awful powers, right?).

As part of his discussion, Ward analyzes communications (direct and in-direct) between the two master writers. The topic is boiled down to this – which future would be most probable, the one described by Orwell, or the one crafted by Huxley? In a sentence, the author determines, “The political system envisioned by Nineteen Eighty-Four is simply not efficient, and, all other things being equal, efficiency leads to stability as inefficiency leads away from it” (119). Power is terrifying and certainly not a tool to be toyed with, yet can a man efficiently terrorize a country into stability? Cuba, Iran, and North Korea are definitely not countries I would jump to call “people-friendly,” or models of well-organized governments. Man will most certainly relinquish his free will in response to fear; the instinct to survive is simply too great. But what these types of close-minded governments refuse to tolerate is, essentially, the free thinker, the rebel, the revolutionary. And one will always exist. Some men are not bred to surrender their individuality as willingly as others. This is why, as Ward stated, a system ruled by terror can never truly achieve stability.

In this same debate, Huxley maintains that his dystopia has a greater chance of existing, “…the lust for power can be equally well satisfied by inflicting a humiliating pleasure rather than a humiliating pain; and the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing” (120). This statement is true. Man reacts more willingly to pleasure than he does to pain. Therefore, he is almost more willing to adapt to control than he would be if he were tortured into it. In a sick sense, the characters of Brave New World still possess free will, no matter warped it may be (conditioning, after all, had a strong influence on their this concept of “free will”). They have no fear of reproach simply because they believe the mantra, “Everybody is happy now.” And what of the rebels of this society? There is no torment, no painful punishment. They are sent to an island, which is framed to be an escape from cloned happiness and ideals. These “free thinkers” are removed from society as to not “corrupt” the minds of the rest of the herd. Stability, in Huxley’s world, is key, not power.

“For Orwell, the most potent intoxication is power; for Huxley… it is sex. But for Orwell, as for Huxley, only a state that takes the ultimate intoxicant into prime consideration can achieve stability” (125). In order for any given society to be successful and stable, it must first identify man’s ultimate weakness. Then, it must expand its availability and once man has bitten, claw at his declining strength and resistance. Suddenly, man is convinced that the government’s way is the right way, the only way, and will succumb to their every order. Obedience equals stability, and that can only be conquered if the government is aware of the people’s needs, and more importantly, the people’s wants. Huxley manipulated man’s desire for lust, which is why his “brave new world” was so stable when compared to Orwell’s future. Orwell relied on the knowledge that man will eventually surrender to fear. But what happens when there is an uproar? Would man actually surrender so quickly? And if so, is it possible for the government to remain? Would there not be intervention by other nations or groups of people? For these reasons, I find Huxley’s potential future to be much more realistic than Orwell’s.

beliefs

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Corinthians: 4-7).


Sometimes when I wake up in the middle of the night, I can hear my father snoring from across the hall. Snoring is perhaps one of the highest peeves on my list of annoyances, but rather than pursue a destructive rampage I merely creep to his bedroom door and shut it. Had this been any other being outside my family realm, I may have induced some sort of physical harm. (This includes, but is not limited to, duct taping of the mouth, pillow over the face, etc.) But it is my father, who I know cannot help this gruesome habit. More importantly, it is my father, and I love him.

Love is an ideal I would defend to my death. It has cradled me when I feared, rocked me when I sobbed, and rejoiced with me when I laughed. I define love as a state of calmness, of happiness, of generosity of the heart. It does not necessarily infer the fireworks and Hollywood happy endings kind of love, but the child rolling with a kitten, grandfather handing a homeless man a dollar kind of love.

Love enlightens the masses and creates an unbreakable union between even the most diverse communities. When September 11th occurred, a melting pot of cultures stood together in pride of their nation – it was for love of a frightened country. Every Sunday, Christians across the world flock to their house of worship and praise a Lord no man can be certain exists – it is out of faith, it is out of love. When a person passes away, many attend his funeral and other desired processions – it is most certainly, out of love.

Love is able to conquer what hate evokes. The media mass-produces reality television shows that boast violent fights and screaming matches about cheating spouses and brutally honest people. Shows about finding love (such as the ever popular Flavor of Love) become boiled down to one hour of “This girl is a dumb ho and I hate her and bleep this and bleep that I love this man and no one can stop me from getting anything I want.” This sort of negative attention is merely a concoction for hatred in a post-modern world. People are attracted to the idea, but even more attracted to the idea of disaster (as long as they are not in the situation). Watching those aforementioned shows may help boost self-esteem, but they pollute the idea of love. Love should be sought after, but not in such a tasteless and destructive manner. It should not be based on body type and size, bluntness of personality, or interest in promiscuity. Sex does not define love. Love is not meant to be ridiculed in the manner it often is now, it is meant to celebrated and respected.

After the tragedy of 9/11, many suffered the passing of a loved one. Some were able to grieve, to forgive but not forget, while others continue to struggle with the idea of this defeat to this day. How can love exist in a world full of hate and loss? It depends on how you view the world. Regardless, love will always manage to survive destruction because it is the solution. (Is not selfishness the love of self? Even in situations where a problem may have been solved merely for the other to have his way, you are experiencing love – love for your sanity.)

Love is a belief most certainly worth fighting for. Whether it is love of family, love of a lover, love of a God, love of a pet, love of the earth, it does not matter. Love is love is love. And if it is eliminated from this earth, there is essentially nothing worth living for. A man will become a shell of his former self, a droid of emotionless values. His every action will be performed on robotic tendencies. Not out of desire or necessity, but from routine. There is nothing to look forward to, there is no one he hopes to see. He trudges through life without questioning. Why bother doing so? The answer cannot excite him, for he feels no love.

Many take the freedom of love in America for granted. There remain countries where arranged marriage still exists – where you cannot choose to marry someone you love. Some expressions of love must be kept hidden in fear of exposure or expulsion. Love is not meant to be stressful. It is meant to be a beautiful occurrence, meant to engulf every heart of every being on this earth. For we all hold one thing in common: we are human, and we love.

So I encourage you to love, and love often. Smile at an unfriendly peer, embrace a friend who needs reassurance, be earnest, be honest, say something simple like please and thank you. Spread happiness, and build circles of love. Do not become entrapped by a cement wall of hate.


“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

happy turkey day!

JUST A NOTE:: I am aware this piece destroys the laws of correct capitalization. I took this piece creatively. For some reason, I write all creative pieces in lower case letters. I don't know why. A lame trademark, perhaps...?


i am thankful for the cliche: for the living and those who flourish in heaven. i am thankful for daddy and mommy, who tempt the disease known as confidence into my blood stream. and for my sister, who constantly challenges me with her lust for the unknown. the sisterly struggle to be better than the best - somehow, she never loses her definition of family.

i am thankful for tears and devoured empathy. how else would k.w. know i am eternally thankful for her existence? that horrid night she shattered her mind - slapped her world on pause for one whole month - i was trapped there with her. destruction running rampant in my sanity. those bitter nights when i couldn't help but declare, "this is it, this is all there is, this is the end." emptiness personified. i am so very thankful for god's second chances.

i am thankful for pens and the right of the written word. i am thankful for the life and times of jim morrison - and other ridiculous inspirations. the scent of freedom on my tongue, laughing in my ears, slapping every surface of the body. wake up, woman. your future is peering through the window.

yes,
i am thankful for the monster i call the future. ominious, looming closer closer closer. sometimes opporitunity is scary. i am thankful for every second my heart beats faster - every second my lungs compress
and release.

some aren't lucky enough to have that luxury. i am thankful i am.

child abuse

The issue of child abuse is highly prominent in The Glass Castle. Or rather, neglect. There is no possible way to argue the legitimacy of child abuse/neglect. How can any empathetic human being possibly think beating their child to death is an option in the sense of child rearing? Some do, scary enough.

Anyway. The biggest issue between pro-con child abuse is discipline. Where is the line? In The Glass Castle, Jeannette receives a whipping from her father for talking back to him, and disrespecting her mother. However, she makes valid points in her arguement. If they want to parent, why don't they? Obviously this retort catches Rex off guard. Where is his authority when he needs it? He asserts the intangible by abusing his daughter. There. That shows her!

Whipping out of anger, just as Rex did, to be abusive. Even the greatest Super Nanny could dispense the same wisdom: if you're angry at your crazy child, take a deep breath. Step back, count to ten. Then explain the child's error, and spank away. But reacting out of anger is dangerous. It could result in your own child's death; as well as your own imprisonment. Where is the line between discipline and abuse? There are no rules or structure at the Walls’ home, and the children are suffering because of it.

In the same spectrum, there is a distinct role reversal in the Walls household: the children are the parents, and the parents are the children. The children go to school and work for a better future. The parents cling on to hopeless dreams and drown money in luxuries they can’t afford. This is neglect—the parents are not working for the children’s needs. Even basic needs, such as food and a warm shelter. This is not adventure, as Rose Mary likes to say. This is abuse. When Rose Mary attempts to parent, her threats for punishment aren't taken seriously. There is no authority in the household because of the parents trying to befriend the kids. This sends a mixed message to Jeannette. Is Dad a friend or a a parent?

Then there is the scene where Erma sexually abuses Brian. She claims to be fixing an inseam, but somehow she misplaces the two meanings. Lori stands up to their creepy grandmother, and the three children are punished by having to isolate themselves in the basement. No food, no bathroom, no running water, no heat. This is the definition of neglect. Yet, they are able to fend for themselves. The children are forced to grow up at such a young age. Abandon childhood fantasies for this sort of sick reality. They are used to harsh language and physical scandals, such as neighborhood fights. What happened to innocence?

Lastly, there is the visit from the child welfare man. Jeannette turns him away. She is aware that change is needed in the household, but she will not readily admit her dismal condition. It is a proven fact that those who experience and suffer neglect are less likely to change habits for the better. This is because abuse is all they know - change is scary. But you would think a life of abuse and neglect is even more scary. Somehow, in the minds of those who suffer, it isn't.

women?!

Destruction because of women is greatly seen with Lt. Jimmy Cross. He blames himself for the death of his men because he engulfs himself in a photograph of Martha. She represents the ideal woman waiting for him at home: beautiful, athletic, charming. He is a man fighting a war that represents, in the long run, nothing at all. Therefore, it is only appropriate for a man to avoid the hands of death for his family, his “woman.” Love is the antidote to a war so vile and destructive. This extreme infatuation leads to lost thoughts and stray minds. Thus Lt. Jimmy Cross spends his time ogling a woman who will never care for him as he does her; as the young soldier tears apart the shit field for a lost photograph, the one that killed Kiowa; revealed their location; provoked an attack. Or in a sense, provoked his death.

“When a man died, there had to be blame. Jimmy Cross understood this. You could blame the war. You come blame the idiots who made the war. You could blame Kiowa for going into it. You could blame the rain. You could blame the river. You could blame the field, the mud, the climate. You could blame the enemy. You could blame the mortar rounds. You could blame people who were too lazy to read a newspaper, who were bored by the daily body counts, who switched channels at the mention of politics. You could blame whole nations. You could blame God. You could blame the munitions makers or Karl Marx or a trick of fate or an old man in Omaha who forgot to vote.” (O’Brien 177)

Women provide the perfect distraction: something beautiful to stare at rather than the earth embracing corpses; blood kissing the earth; the destruction that is their reality. This distraction essentially leads to blame. Although not outright, it is because of women that the death of Kiowa occurred. Had Cross been scanning the fields, observing his men; had the young soldier left his conversation to a mental imagine rather than a tangible… Kiowa’s life may not have been destroyed.

Obviously, the physical woman did not provoke any sort of death. She did not parade herself in her man’s line of vision or call him to her attention. She is not dictated as a trashy, unfortunate waste of existence. She is what she is: a woman; a homely distraction. Although scarcely found in war, she was the often the target of blame.