short story

I teared up today while watching a movie about the developing brain in my psych class. It was monotonous and so very powerful at the same time. The movie that is. I was watching babies giggle and cry and sleep. The next thing I knew a tear slipped down my face right between my cheek and nose. The beauty of it all made me think of you.
I remembered the curious way the meat over your hips never exactly faded away. I remembered the way your back looked when you wore that blue swimming suit. I remembered that time you told me you wanted to taste each other without pleasure. God. And then I sucked in my breath and waited for the moment to pass. But it didn’t. Your moon face would look up at me. Goddammit, you were always following me. Always following. I’d tell you, “Think for yourself. I’m tired of your parents doing it for you.” The optimism of a 16 year old is extraordinary. I forgot we were gay in Indiana. I forgot your parents always beat the shit out of you if you didn’t obey. For a moment I forgot how much I loved you. And then you quit eating. I’d yell and scream at you. I’d gorge on chips, and meat, and ice cream, and pasta in front of you. I’d dramatically moan how good it all tasted. For once you ignored me. And then you died.
And now I remember asking you to follow me. Follow me to California. Just get away from them. You don’t realize how they are. I think you heard me. I think you were practicing for when the time actually came. Following that is.
My dorm bathroom always smells really good. Not like chemicals or bodily odors or anything like that. It always smells like fresh air when I walk in. And then I go back to my room and sit at my desk and read and read and read and read. And I know I’ll eventually come home. And I’ll miss you a little bit more than I already do. But for now I sit here and wait.

Reaction to Question 4

I'm definitely in the camp of "I don't know how I feel about the society in this book." Yes, yes, of course it's bad. But... it's all based on comfort and contentment. It is indeed messed up that part of being happy is being on drugs and having a lot of purely physical sex. But then I compare BNW to 1984 and I can't help but think, "Wow, this society is just not that bad in comparison." What I do think is insightful about this book is that Huxley wrote this book to enlighten people that our goals (technology, sex, etc.) will not lead to true happiness. I think 1984 was about how much control the government could gain under the propaganda of "universal happiness". That was about the people that were in power staying in power. BNW is about where we as a people/society are trying to go or what we try to attain. I don't think both are truly comparable.

Reaction to Question 3

The Director, MM, is arguing for the positivity of society while the Savage is arguing that society is horrific. I think both have good points. The director points out everyone is always happy and society is stable- no wars, no disease. However, in exchange for stability and contentment there is no passion in life. Passionate anger, love, sadness, etc. People don't really feel. That's where the savage's argument makes quite a bit of sense. The Savage points out that he's felt all passionate feelings and he wouldn't trade them for stability. I know I wouldn't trade those feelings for stability. And Shakespeare and love and grief. That's what makes us human. I understand the savage and his argument yet i didn't necessarily feel for him. It was odd but when I read about him whipping himself I wasn't moved. His argument in Chapter 17 is not about freedom. He brings up God and literature. I think part of my problem in getting into this book is I couldn't identify with John.

reaction to question 2

I think that the control in BNW is actually a lot deeper than just surface level. I think many things used are for distraction. As long as the public is distracted than no one has time to think. Also, if everyone is happily distracted and content then no one has any reason to complain. It's quite brilliant actually and I never though of it. I was so critical of the reality of this book because I didn't think pure distraction could keep people from feeling. But with sleep conditioning and tampering with fetuses, how could anyone think freely? The odd thing is I don't think anyone is doing it for power because who stays in control? It's all done randomly. And if somehow you swim through the drugs and distractions and realize something is wrong you can go to an island with others like you. There is no free will in this book which is sad. I think whats most unsettling from this book is that you're set for life from the moment you are conceived. And the conditioning done when you are a baby is discomforting. It's all for control but who stays in control? Why?

reaction to question 1

I don’t think sex is nearly as prevalent in our time as in the BNW time. There are “feelies” but most people don’t frequent them. A majority of our culture is only focused on ‘what feels good’ but a minority is focused on living a meaningful good life.
We do travel to far away places often because it is so easy even though it negatively affects the environment. Unfortunately, about 70% of CEOs are male. This is like the book because only males seem to be in power.
I think it’s really hard to compare this book to the present because this book could never ever happen. We could never wipe out disease. We could never eradicate every natural unpleasantry while still living in a stable environment. This book is a completely impossible way of life so it was difficult to take it seriously.
I did think about heaven when reading this book. I’ve thought about under the same circumstances before. How could we ever reach a place with no unhappiness while still truly feeling happy all the time? What would the comparison be to feel the happiness? I don’t feel like the book really made an accurate depiction of what life could be like in the future besides complete control from the government. I think Huxley’s point is that we all seek physical satisfaction most of the time. Technology’s goal is to make everything easier and more enjoyable. He’s reached the peak of complete ease and enjoyment. His point is that no one is truly happy. I agree. But like I said, this could never happen in real life.

Soapbox

I am not blogging about any of the four prompts. I did not like this book. I read it completely and quickly. I did not find it difficult or boring. But I did not like this book.
I think that Huxley is trying to say women who have sex either outside of marriage or when they are not in love are going to be treated like meat, mindless, or are “sluts” or “whores”. I do not believe this is so. I could understand if Huxley’s point is that women AND men should not be having sex with anything that moves BECAUSE of disease (STDs) but I don’t think that’s his point. He portrays every woman in this book as completely mindless, addicted to soma, and focused solely on having sex. Which makes me believe that he thinks that if America were to portray sex as morally “okay” then he thinks all men and women would only focus on sex and not intimacy. I don’t think that’s the case. I point out that he places women in a ‘mindless’ light because
1. Only men are in high position in this book.
2. The sole female main character, Lenina, is used as a sexual symbol and as a symbol of someone that has completely bought into the ideals of The New World.
3. The female that chooses to have sex with multiple partners in the “Savage World”, Linda, does not get a disease but rather social retribution. She then does not understand the negative backlash she receives.
4. The “hero” of the story, John the Savage, is male as are the other two pseudo-heroes, Helmholtz and Bernard Marx (Interesting his last name is Marx, like the man who created communism. I don’t think Bernard is meant to be a hero in the book. However, I think he is meant to be one of the few fighting the detrimental ideals of the utopian society. I think he is meant to be pitied and hated. Yet he was the beginning of questioning society and understanding that everyone was conditioned.)

Poetry Response: Inoculation

I found Inoculation to be a very interesting poem indeed. Rather difficult to understand though. I think the writer is comparing small pox to slavery. He is making the point that slavery is like small pox and some do survive. The opening two lines set up the rest of the poem. “Cotton Mather studied smallpox for a while/ instead of sin. Boston was rife with it” The writer is saying he studies small pox, probably wants to help people when sin(slavery) is staring him right in the face, where he should really be helping people. He asks his slave if he has ever had smallpox. The slave gives a very interesting answer. He says that his mother tried to kill him with small pox. But the boy survived and became a slave for the man. The poem is rich with irony in that the boy survived small but was forced into slavery, worse than smallpox?