Our Roots

With Thanksgiving less than a week away, many minds and hearts are turned towards our families, the people who are related to us by blood.  Personally, my family is very important to me, though I'm not very showy about it (I'll try to call more often).  Our families are the first people we are able to interact with, to socialize and bond with.  They are our first teachers, our first disciplinarians, and our first friends.  But family is a lot more than that.  Families are traditions and customs.  Things passed from generation to generation, even if the meaning is lost.  Family is our roots.  There are many people who will say that certain traits or attributes are "in our blood."  Sure, in our scientific age, we can simply call this "genetics" but where's the magic in that?

There's a passage of dialogue in Robertson Davies' "The Rebel Angels" which talks about people using this analogy of "roots" and what makes us who we are.

No splendid crown without the strong root that works in the dark, drawing its nourishment among the rocks, the soil, hidden waters, and all the little, burrowing things.  A man is like that; his splendors and his fruits are to be seen, to win him love and admiration.  But what about the root?
Have you ever seen a bulldozer clearing land?  It advances upon a great tree and shoves and pushes inexorably until the tree is down and thrust out of the way, and all of that effort is accompanied by a screaming and wrenching sound from the tree as the great roots are torn from the ground.  It is a particularly distressing kind of death.  And when the tree is upturned, the root proves to be as big as the crown.
What is the root of man?  All sorts of things that nourish his visible part, but the deepest root of all, the tap-root, is that child he once was...That is the root that goes deepest because it is reaching downward towards the ancestors.



The imagery of a tree being forcefully, and violently,  torn from the ground encapsulates what it can mean for a person to try and tear themselves away from their history.  Many people feel some kinship to their past, be it culturally, racially, or even spiritually.  Attempting to abandon that connection, or being unable to express that part of ourselves can be a trying and painful time.

Even when placed in a situation or place where they are away from their kin, people strive to hold onto the values of their roots.  In the immigrant tradition of the United States, when people from other countries integrated into our culture, they still very often held to their own traditional beliefs too.  In doing this, they also sought to be around people who shared those customs, resulting in ethnic neighborhoods like Chinatowns and Little Italies all across the country.

So, when you're sitting down to the turkey and dressing or whatever you have when celebrating Thanksgiving this year, ask around and learn a bit more about what makes you who you are.  Ask about your history.  Your roots.

Virginity - Crown or Curse?

Yeah, it was only a matter of time before sex came up as a topic in one of these posts.  And, to anyone who has had sex, nothing can be as shaping of a person's sex life as their first time.

But there's a bit of a dilemma here.  A conflict of interest, if you will.  Even today, if you're a young woman, you're often told to wait to have sex while young men are told that it's alright to have sex and are even encouraged to have sex.  The operative word in the previous statement is "often" because it's no longer ALWAYS the case.  Parenting has gone from a case of "do's" or "do not's" and turned into a resigned "be safe". Where did this come from?  When did it start?  Has virginity become more of a liability than a asset?  In today's highly sexualized society, it seems that virginity carries a strange stigma.  In fact, stating that you are a virgin beyond your twenties conjures up images of people who are socially inept and/or emotionally stunted.  Why wouldn't someone have sex unless there were something stopping them?  At least, that appears to be the mindset of society today.

Amusingly, this kind of attitude isn't new.  In fact, the Shakespearean character Parolles gives a rather well made argument for giving up one's virginity as soon as possible...

It is not politic in the commonwealth of nature to preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational increase, and there was never virgin got till virginity was first lost. That you were made of is metal to make virgins. Virginity by being once lost may be ten times found; by being ever kept is ever lost. 'Tis too cold a companion. Away with it! 'Tis against the rule of nature. To speak on the part of virginity is to accuse your mothers, which is most infallible disobedience. He that hangs himself is a virgin; virginity murders itself, and should be buried in highways out of all sanctified limit, as a desperate offendress against nature. Virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese, consumes itself to the very paring, and so dies with feeding his own stomach. Besides, virginity is peevish, proud, idle, made of self-love, which is the most inhibited sin in the canon. Keep it not; you cannot choose but lose by it. Out with it! Within ten year it will make itself ten, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse. Away with it! 'Tis a commodity will lose the gloss with lying: the longer kept, the less worth. Off with it while 'tis vendible; answer the time of request. Virginity, like an old courtier, wears her cap out of fashion, richly suited, but unsuitable, just like the brooch and the toothpick, which wear not now. Your date is better in your pie and your porridge than in your cheek; and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it looks ill, it eats drily. 

Now...what exactly is Parolles arguing?  For all the high language, he is simply saying that, to stay a virgin isn't natural.  That animals in nature don't maintain their virginities and so humans shouldn't either.  He also says that virginity, like any commodity, will become less attractive as time passes.  That a person who holds onto their virginity too long will eventually be unable to find someone who wants it.  That seems to be very much the case today.  Especially with movies and television, it seems like every other title focuses around finding someone to have sex with or the aftermath of having sex with the wrong person...usually fixed by having sex with the right person.

While not an extremely recent film, one that exemplifies this idea the best is The Forty Year Old Virgin.  Just the title alone has the reader wondering what could be "wrong" with someone for them to be a virgin at forty years old.  Of course, the film pretty much takes those previously stated "virgin stereotypes" by making the  title character socially awkward with low self esteem.  And, it's only in his pursuit of sex does he manage to become a more well rounded person...although his friends (who have all already had sex) have their lives more or less turn to crap due to their bad decisions.

Of course, virginity has never really been a badge of honor for men.  Even across cultures, it's always been women who are expected to remain celibate before marriage.  In some ways, this new view of sexuality has grown as a form of empowerment to some women.  Rather than clinging to their "purity" as a sign of self worth, they discard it in exchange for a "freer" sexual lifestyle.

Funny how after all that, I haven't actually answered the title question.  What's your take on it?  Has virginity lost its importance?  Is it a hinderance or is it no longer even an issue?

Slight Shift In Direction

So, I've had this blog for just over a month and already find myself shifting focus somewhat.  Not sure if that's a sign of personal growth (which is a good thing) or a sign that I'm easily distracted (not quite so good).  Since literature is often the way writers hold a mirror up to the world and reflect back to us some of the things we may (or may not) be aware of, I'm going to be using that same method to point out things in today's society/culture/world that we may not have noticed or simply taken for granted.

And we can hope that I don't change my mind again in another month.

Princess Evolution

So, earlier this week, I stumbled across another blog where a person was stating a rather strong opinion about Disney's "The Princess and The Frog".  It's not really important what that view was but part of the argument acted as a springboard to a much broader topic in general.  Part of the other blogger's post pointed out that the male lead of the film (Prince Naveen) was a lazy, unskilled, playboy.  Having seen the film myself I can say...that's a very accurate depiction of the character.  At least through the first three quarters of the film.  But, as the film progresses, you find the character adapt and evolve through his interactions with the main female character, Tiana.

Now, as I was thinking about this, I began to wonder about the previous "Disney princess" films and make comparisons.  The results were rather interesting.  In several ways, "The Princess and The Frog" was in the minority as far as character development through the story and character interactions.

First, lets take a moment to consider previous Disney princesses and their respective "princes".  In order of first appearance, the princesses are...

Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Pocahontas
Mulan
Tiana

In the case of the first three (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora), the characters have about as much depth as a rain puddle.  But, then again, they aren't really supposed to have depth.  They're characters from stories that are meant to be told over the course of several minutes.  They walk around and do things and that's essentially it.  Their love interests are equally stiff and even to truly call them "love interests" is a stretch.  All three see their mates only a few times and know immediately that they're meant to be (technically, Aurora sees hers three times).  Again, I understand that these are children's fairytales so realism is relegated to the back of the bus on this one.

Ah, Disney's "Golden Age".  Computer generated graphics were the newest thing and Disney couldn't go wrong cranking out one classic after another.  Here is where things take a bit of a shift.  Rather than just taking old stories and making them last an hour, Disney begins actually breathing some semblance of realism into its characters.  Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, Pocahontas, and Mulan fall into this category and each one of these characters that the previous three did not.  Attitude (to varying degrees).  All five of them are somewhat outsiders in their respective worlds.  Ariel and Belle are both dreamers longing for worlds that are denies to them either by gender or biology (merfolk aren't very graceful on land).  Pocahontas and Jasmine are both royalty in their culture though find themselves reticent to marry those most "suited" to them by status or class.  Mulan seems to be unable to fit within the restricting constraints of femininity imposed by a patriarchal Chinese culture.  So, now you have these female leads who are rocking the boat a bit, giving audiences a more identifiable personality to relate to.  The men in these films, however, seem to be a step behind.  Prince Eric (Little Mermaid) is essentially a handsome face who doesn't want to settle down until he sees a hot redhead and instantly wants to tie the knot.  Sounds like a lot of marriage stories in Vegas.  Aladdin is another character who doesn't really change much.  He's a nice, but poor, guy who carries around the "Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover" sign well enough but that's it.  He sees a hot girl and wants a hot girl and basically does whatever he can to get her including lying about who he is and how much money he has to impress her.  Damn, are we STILL talking about Vegas?  The Beast is the first male lead in one of these films that actually shows signs of development.  At the beginning of the story, he's a jerk on his best days.  He knows that he has to find a woman to love him and yet he still holds Belle against her will and actually throws her in his dungeon (hey, no one said the guy was bright).  In fact, it's at the suggestion of another character, that he gives her an actual room to live in.  Over time, though, he learns how to actually treat another human being.  The pivotal moment comes when Belle learns that her father has become lost in the forest.  The Beast knows that, if he lets her leave, she may never come back but he has grown so much as a character that he willingly lets her leave, even if it means forgoing becoming human.  In Pocahontas, we have kind of a "watered down" attempt at character development in the case of John Smith.  Here's a guy who has apparently made a life (and quite the reputation) for himself going to new worlds and helping to subjugate the natives.  However, one eyeful of a long-haired Native American in a mini-skirt in front of a waterfall (oh, and a musical number) is enough to change what is no doubt YEARS of personal experience.  What, did the last village not sing on key or something??  Finally, in this group, is Mulan's beau Li Shang.   His entire purpose is to train his army and to lead that army.  When Mulan appears to be a hindrance to this task, he can't stand her.  When she appears to be a worthwhile soldier, he respects her.  When it's revealed she's a woman, he turns away from her.  When she comes up with a way to save the Emperor, he respects her.  It seems like his mood is dependent on what is appropriate for the story.  He couldn't respect the fact that she went through all that training with the other men AND saved his life, but manages to do so right at the end?  I'm not sure if that's character development or the story using him as a puppet.

Jump ahead just over a decade and we have Disney's newest entry into the princess lineup.  This film is filled with several noteable firsts worth mentioning.  Most obvious, this is the first African-American princess in the Disney lineup.  Also, this is the first Disney princess film where the action takes place in an "American" setting (It wasn't America in Pocahontas so that doesn't count).  Tiana, the story's princess, is a young woman who has a hellacious work ethic all driven by a dream to open up a restaurant.  Unfortunately, this all consuming desire leaves her with nothing that might resemble an actual life.  This is where Tiana stands apart from other Disney princesses.  She actually has a FLAW!  Not a quirk.  Not something that just makes her unique but an actual character flaw.  The film is just as much about Tiana overcoming this flaw as it is about finding "true love" (Disney's princess staple).  That brings us back to Naveen.  As I said before, at the start of the film he's a good-for-nothing, philandering lady's man who wants nothing more than to maintain that lifestyle on someone else's dime.  In fact, his prime motivation at the start of the film is to find a rich woman and marry her (damn, we're back in Vegas!).  However, just like Tiana, Naveen changes over the course of the movie and comes to realize that money doesn't equal happiness.  So, not only do we have the male and female leads growing as characters, but we have another interesting development shown before only in Beauty and the Beast.  The characters DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER at the start of the film.  In fact, they're complete opposites to one another.  Admittedly, that sounds more like the premise to a romantic comedy but I actually LIKE this movie so I won't insult it in that way.  Still, the fact that these two characters start at odds with one another and, through shared experiences, come to understand and relate to one another shows a definite growth in Disney's ability to tell a story.  Another way this film is in the minority is that the hero...isn't all that heroic.  In the other films, the hero usually has some kind of showdown with the villain.  In this film, it's Tiana who must confront the villain at the end of the film and ultimately defeats him.  The only other place this really happens is in Mulan.

So, whether Disney simply decided to make the characters more well rounded or their style has evolved to this point, I think that they've come a long way from where all it took to snag a princess was royal breathing and making sure you didn't have halitosis before kissing her.

Girl Power = Oxymoron? Images of Women in Art and Media

When we look at the various forms of media in existence today (radio, television, internet etc.), it's often hard to distinguish whether media and art reflect society...or whether society has begun to mimic art.  Sometimes, we find ourselves with very conflicting views when we stop and really study the images we're bombarded with on a day to day basis.  Women in particular seem to be getting a heavy dose of this so called "contradiction" of images and it seems that many of these images can be traced to the different archetypal schema pointed out by Carl Jung, a follower, and later detractor, of Sigmund Freud.

First, there is Woman: The Mother.  This is the caring, loving figure that we often associate with our own mothers though it doesn't necessarily have to be someone's mother.  In fact, this figure doesn't even have to be related to you.  Any female who is selfless and nurturing in her behavior falls into this archetype. 

Second, there is Woman:  The Temptress.  This is the woman who is fully aware of her sexuality and sensuality and makes use of it as a tool or even as a weapon.  Contradictory to the Mother, the Temptress is completely selfish and only out to fulfill her own desires and wishes by using others.  A Temptress does not have to actually engage in sexual activities to become a Temptress.  Often the promise or allusion to the potential is enough to gain what she needs.

Finally, is Woman:  The Warrior.  This aspect has always existed though really took off during the Women's Lib movement after the 1950s.  The idea of women as fierce, assertive and aggressive in pursuit of their goals.  While the Temptress used her gender as a weapon, the Warrior often marginalizes her gender if not ignoring it completely.  In fact, any assistance might even be viewed as perceiving her as weak, which the Warrior cannot accept.

Now, the question becomes, "Which of these views is most accurate?  Which is least?"  or "Can you accurately use just one to describe a woman, or is each woman a combination of the three?"

Since I'm interested in getting a bit of feedback on this one, this post is going to be a little shorter.  I want to hear what you guys who actually read this thing think.  Are there any images of women that I missed?  What are your feelings on the earlier questions?  Do you think I'm totally off in left field?

I wanna know!

Just The Nature Of Things

As I was walking to my car from class one evening, I stopped a moment and looked at a tree that was nearby.  I've no idea the species, but it was a small tree, maybe fifteen feet tall at the highest though it's lowest limbs were well within reach.  The leaves were an eclectic mix of autumn browns, reds, and golds which slowly fell one after another, even more as a light breeze moved through the branches.  I swear, I was expecting a Hallmark poem to scroll up in front of my eyes.  It seems that even in today's fast paced, technologically driven world nature still has the ability to take our breath away.  So it's no wonder that nature has often played a role in literature, though that role has changed with the different modes of thought which have come and gone.  A rather interesting, and admittedly sometimes depressing, view is that of the Naturalistic writer.

Stephen Crane, a poet of the late 19th/early 20th century, wrote a short poem which has become a famous (perhaps infamous) quote...

 A man said to the universe: 

"Sir I exist!" 

"However," replied the universe, 

"The fact has not created in me 

A sense of obligation."

That short poem, a mere two sentences, encapsulates one of the tenets of  Naturalistic writing.  Nature as an unsympathetic, uncaring entity.  Naturalism has its roots in Realism which, as the name suggests, is a style of writing where the author attempts to be as true to real life as possible.  In this respect, Naturalist and Realist writer's works often have their protagonists describing their feelings of injustice and the unfairness of life which is very much the case.  

Another work by Stephen Crane that is often read to illustrate his Naturalistic style is a short story entitled "The Open Boat".  In this story, four men are stranded in a small boat after their ship has sunk: the narrator, a reporter; the captain, who has been injured; the cook, who is most optimistic of the group; and finally the oiler, who we learn is named Billie.  Eventually, after much rowing, the four men come within sight of shore and decide their only hope is to swim for it as the choppy seas make it impossible for the boat to make the journey.  Billie, the most physically fit of the group, pulls ahead while the other three flounder as best they can using bits of the boat to stay afloat.  In the end, the captain, cook, and narrator all arrive on shore alive.  Ironically, Billie is the one who doesn't survive as he's seen laying face down motionless in the surf.  This final scene is Crane's way of showing the utter indifference of nature.  Billie was the strongest and most "fit" of the four and yet he is the one who ultimately dies.  Hardly a fair ending, though that's entirely his point.  There is no place for being fair in nature.

Another Naturalist writer takes a slightly different approach.  Jack London, another favorite of mine, takes the Naturalistic approach and combines it with the views of Darwin.  While nature is still unsympathetic to the trials of an individual's life, nature also subscribes to a certain code.  Survival of the fittest.  London's novel Call of the Wild is a staple of many middle and high school reading lists and illustrates London's Naturalistic style.  The setting of the novel is the rugged frontier of Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush.  Buck, a large, pampered house dog of mixed breeding is sold by his family's gardener and shipped north to serve as a sled dog.  Right away, his lessons of nature are harsh and unforgiving.  Buck learns that a man with a club is something to be feared and obeyed and that to obey means survival.  Buck watches as other dogs like him refuse to submit and are ultimately killed.  This is where the novel differs stylistically from a Romantic novel.  In a Romantic novel, the author would emphasis the nobility and spirit of the dogs which refused to be broken, lifting up their deaths as something to aspire towards and idealize.  Instead, we see Buck watching and thinking how foolish those dogs are.  Now that they're dead, what do they matter?  Their deaths didn't matter.  Other dogs will still be beaten, some will submit and others will die.  Better to submit and live than to die.  Survival is paramount in a Darwinistic world.  Throughout the novel, we see Buck as he learns the ways of life out in the wild.  As part of a sled dog team, there is a dynamic pack hierarchy which Buck must navigate and eventually ascends to pack dominance.  Eventually, Buck comes under the care of a man named Thornton.  Unlike his previous owners, Thornton treats Buck kindly and the pair form a bond making them almost equals.  This even camaraderie between man and animal is seen as the ideal relationship where man and beast (man and nature) both coexist for the other's benefit.  But remember that thing I said about nature not being fair?  Well, unfortunately, Buck and Thornton don't get a happily ever after...not together anyways.  While Buck is out hunting, a band of natives attacks the cabin and kills Thornton.  With his owner dead, Buck is no longer tied to humanity and surrenders completely to his animal instincts.

Today, people would describe Realistic and Naturalistic writing as being "gritty" when all it really does is simply portray life as it is.  Sometimes hard, sometimes cruel, and sometimes unfair.  Of course, just as there are bad things in nature, there are just as many good things.  For every life that ends, another life begins.  Life may not be fair, but it's neither cruel nor malicious either.  It's what we choose to focus on that affects our outlook.  So, next time you're outside, stop.  Take a look around.  Inhale.  Exhale.  And know that life is good.

The Simplest Things Are Often The Truest

(Now, before you compliment me on the clever title, I'll let you know it's a quote of Richard Bach.)

Many times, in writing of any kind, we see the creation of a piece of writing as an elaborate symphony.  The setting (time, place, even the weather) has some meaning which the author is trying to convey.  Then we have the character(s) who act within the setting, fully evolved and complex individuals (in good books anyways) who react to the conflict which drives the plot, ascending in a crescendo all the way to the story's climax...then once again descending, calming to a state of rest.  And if you think prose can be elaborate, consider having to do the same thing within the constraints of meter and rhyme.  However, that's not always the case.  Sometimes, writers can take a broad topic and concentrate it into something small, yet powerful.

There was a time when I somewhat fancied myself a poet.  Fortunately for the readers in the world, I realized finally that poetry wasn't really my style, though I have a great deal of respect for poets, especially the so called "greats."  One of my absolute favorite poets, a master (or rather mistress) of simplicity, is Emily Dickenson.

I have a good friend of mine who I can hear groaning already.  She read Dickenson in high school, which is when just about everyone reads her.  She's arguably the most anthologized female poet (or female writer in general).  A big part of this has to do with her her poetic style.  For one, all of her poems are very short (rarely more than twenty-five lines).  Secondly, as with all great poets, her work touches all facets of life, positive and negative.  Life and death.  Love and loss.  Beauty and pain.  Finally, and the main crux of this post, is her simplicity. 

I can imagine Dickenson as the premier slogan writer (or even songwriter) of the century if she were alive today.  All of her poetry flows easily off the tongue and with a rhythm that can easily be described as "catchy".  Lets look at one of her poems (by the way, Dickenson never titled any of her poems, so they're often identified by the first line of the poem.) 

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

Put some soulful starlet in front of a microphone and someone at the piano and you've got a hit refrain.

And, while Dickenson is known for using metaphor just as readily as other poets, it isn't so abstract as to make them unapproachable even for your average person.  Take the often anthologized poem "My life had stood a loaded gun" as an example.

My Life had stood - a Loaded Gun -
In Corners - till a Day
The Owner passed - identified -
And carried Me away - 

And now We roam in Sovereign Woods -
And now We hunt the Doe -
And every time I speak for Him -
The Mountains straight reply -

And do I smile, such cordial light
Upon the Valley glow -
It is as a Vesuvian face
Had let its pleasure through -

And when at Night - Our good Day done -
I guard My Master's Head -
'Tis better than the Eider-Duck's
Deep Pillow - to have shared -

To foe of His - I'm deadly foe -
None stir the second time -
On whom I lay a Yellow Eye -
Or an emphatic Thumb -

Though I than He - may longer live
He longer must - than I -
For I have but the power to kill,
Without--the power to die--


In the imagery of this poem, even someone who isn't practiced at identifying meaning in metaphors can understand the thought of one's life being a "loaded gun".  Everyone knows that a loaded gun, unlike an unloaded gun, is full of potential (for good or for bad).  Thus, a person's life has the potential to do great good or great harm.

My personal favorite of Dickenson's poems is "Success is countest sweetest"

Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed.
To comprehend a nector
Requires sorest need.


Not one of all the purple host
Who took the flag today
Can tell the definition
So clear, of victory


As he, defeated, dying
On whose forbidden ear
The distant strains of triumph
Break, agonized and clear.

This poem embodies the insightful simplicity of Dickenson's poetry.  The message seems so obvious, yet it's not something we usually consider in our day-to-day thoughts.  Is victory sweeter to the one who obtains it?  Or to the one who doesn't?  The most obvious parallel is to look at sports.  Who do you think enjoys victory more?  A five time national champion, or a team with a losing season?  Anyone who watches sports on television has seen the celebration when a supposed "underdog" wins.  So, if the person who rarely wins cherishes victory more than someone who wins often, then how appealing must victory appear to one who never wins?

There's definitely a lot to be said about simplicity in writing.  Is this condemning those who choose a more complex writing style?  Of course not.  Just as there's a purpose for simplicity, there is a purpose for complexity.  Without it, things like in-depth, abstract thought would be meaningless.  We need one just as much as we need the other.

Brave New World - Unsung Utopia

Everybody seems to know what a utopia is, but not as many people are aware of it's dysfunctional cousin dystopia.  A dystopia is defined to be "a society characterized by human misery, such as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding." The irony between the two is that while many cultures discuss utopian ideals, you find very few instances of them in literature.  Much more often, you find writers portraying dystopias which have resulted from some groups attempts at creating a utopia and failing.  Aldous Huxley's Brave New World has become a corner stone of dystopian literature because of how it's hyper-industrialized, counter-individualistic contradicts much of Western ideologies.  However, if you take a large step back and look at the book without placing modern society's emphasis on their actions, you'll find that the book actually doesn't fit the definition of being a dystopia.


Lets take each part of the definition of dystopia in turn...


Squalor - While there is quite obviously a stringent and unyielding class system in the World State, each class has certain jobs which it performs for the good of society.  While we, the readers, aren't given much insight into the lifestyle of lowest classes, from what we know of that society, it's logical to deduce that they earn a sufficient wage that they are able to provide for themselves.  Having homeless people would be a burden to the state and would not be tolerated.  While I doubt they would be euthanized, I imagine they would be offered the chance to contribute or leave.


Oppresion - Because of the mental conditioning of the people, there is almost no dissension.  What's more, any dissenters that do crop up are freely allowed to leave.  Better to have them gone than force them to stay where they either cause others to defect or cause more harm than good.  Those people make a life for themselves where they are not bothered by the World State.  


Disease - Because of the advances made in genetics (and eugenics), it seems that disease has been all but bred out of humanity.  Only healthy zygotes are "bokanovskified" and made to reproduce themselves.  What minor ailments exist, there is Soma.  Unlike narcotics of today (and in other works) soma in itself is non-addicting and has no negative side-effects.


Overcrowding - Because the world is under the control of a single government, population control keeps the world population under 2 billion to insure that mankind doesn't outgrow its resources.  I imagine there are many environmental groups who would love it if we could somehow manage the size of the human population (though I doubt many would want to do so the way the characters in the novel has devised).


The world in Huxley's novel is more utopian than dystopian.  While much of the stability is due to the mental programming done while the people are young, it's not too different to how young children are raised now.  Whatever culture the child is raised in, the parents bring the child up to follow the rules, customs, and traditions of that culture.  They teach the child what is or isn't "proper" by their standard.  In Huxley's world, this standard has become uniform.  There is no racism, sexism, etc.  Contraceptives are distributed to everyone and they are encouraged to have as much sex as they want.  Sex is no longer procreative, but that doesn't mean that people don't still want to have it.  People want to have sex without worrying about pregnancy now.  The removal of emotional attachment to sex means that sex no longer "complicates" things.  It is expected that the person you have sex with one night will probably have sex with some one else the next night, and someone else the night after that so people no longer are distracted by it.  Their productivity isn't compromised.


Interestingly, also due to the conditioning, there is no class conflict in the novel either.  The lowest of the classes (Deltas and Epsilons) while designed to be more ape-like and inferior, are still given some level of worth.  The higher classes, while they may find their more inferior brethren repugnant to look at, are told early on that things wouldn't be as they are with the Deltas and Epsilons.  As well, the Deltas and Epsilons are told that they need the Alphas.  This codependency insures that one group doesn't feel completely removed from the other.  All are needed for the continued prosperity of the World State.

Do I think our world should become like the World State?  Not really.  Do I feel that we can take something from it?  Absolutely.


Often, society (and I'm mainly referring to Western society as that's the one I live in) as a whole demeans certain professions.  Waste management, food service (especially fast food), etc.  But these people are performing a service that we ask for.  What's more, society as we know it would collapse if all these people simply disappeared.  I've known people who have said they would never work in fast food.  They consider the job to be beneath them.  As a thought exercise, imagine that every person in the country had a Master's degree.  Someone will still have to pick up the trash every week.  Someone will still have to flip the burgers.  Someone will have to do the job that other people don't want to do to insure that this country can function.


So, try keeping that in mind when you get snippy at the girl in the drive-thru.

Why This? Why Now?

I guess, before I start getting into the actual blog itself, I should probably go into why I'm doing this at all.  I mean, I could just as easily put this down in Word and share it only with close friends rather than throwing it out into the vast expanses of cyberspace.  Really, there are a few reasons.

One is motivation.  Anyone who knows me well enough, knows that I can sometimes lack in motivation to do things.  If I didn't have any expectation of people actually reading this stuff, I doubt it would get done within any reasonable length of time.

Another reason is practice.  Just like anything else, if you want to be good at writing, you have to practice.  Another thing that usually I need motivation to get done.

Finally, it's a sort of cyber-penance I'm placing on myself.  While I'm fairly internet savvy, as a rule I tend to stay away from 'fad' trends if I can help it.  I didn't get a Myspace page until practically made to, and by that time Facebook was getting really trendy.  By the time I got around to making a page for that (again, under duress) Twitter was the new thing.  And no, I don't tweet.  Yet.  So, this is my way of throwing myself further into the digital age and hopefully providing something meaningful and/or entertaining to the rest of the world.

Hope you enjoy.  If not then at least take solace in knowing I enjoyed it.