Blog #5: The Deeper Meaning

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 26, 2016

Different connections

A writer, named Katharina Schramm, wrote a quote that says “While in the 20st century there were Marie Curie, John F. Kennedy and Neil Armstrong, the hero of generation Y lies somewhere between Gates, Murdoch and Zuckerberg. As the relevance of corporate elites grew, results sometimes came to overshadow the deeper cause, and all too often, our moral compass points towards money. Critically said, we crave myopic success and showers of narcissistic applause. More rocks, less moonlight.” a very inquisitive quote about famous people from the 20th century and 21st century and how we can make a connection between their relevance to each other and Brave New World.

First, all of these people are very significant to society in some way. The first three are from the 20th century and each of them made some type of impact on history. Marie Curie was a very intelligent physicist who helped discover radiation, which lead to making x-rays and other uses of radioactivity much safer. Also, there is another individual that played a part, even though it was sort of small, was John F. Kennedy. He was an important figure during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with being able to make sure that we were kept safe from the communists in Cuba. Lastly, there was Neil Armstrong, who was the first man to walk on the moon. Then in the 21st century, there is Bill Gates, who was a computer programmer and one of the first to create the modern computer (PC computer), created Microsoft, and is now one of the wealthiest men in the world. Next there is Rupert Murdoch, who is an entrepreneur, businessperson, who worked in media and is extremely wealthy. Then there is Mark Zuckerberg, who created the social media website, called Facebook, and is now one of the youngest and wealthiest people in the world.

Both lists of these individuals are different in a similar way. For the first there people even though they were not billionaires, like the second three, but they had made a huge impact during their lifespan. Madam Curie discovered radiation, J.F.K. made sure there was no fighting against Russia, and Neil Armstrong went farther than any man had ever traveled before. During their time, people saw them almost like heroes. For the three people in the 21st century, all of them made a huge impact on technology and how we get information. Without their ideas we would probably still be living like it was the 20th century (probably not, but you get my point), still having to send letters to each other to talk, or still having to go to a library to find out who all of these people are. So in today's world, some people do look up to these men as heroes, being pioneers of their time. It is said in the quote that “we crave myopic success and showers of narcissistic”, which is basically how we don’t care about brains, only how good someone looks. The reason that there is a connection between this and Brave New World  is because we look up to people who did something great and don’t really think about, just like with the people in BNW, who look up to Henry Ford for inventing something.

Also, there is so much more meaning within this quote, like in the line “results sometimes came to overshadow the deeper cause. The author is referring to these people and their achievements, and to us all we see them as are achievements, but to them, they saw it as helping mankind evolve and become smarter. Another line that clearly has a deeper meaning is “our moral compass points straight towards money”. This is an obvious statement that is saying how we have all become so greedy and do everything just so that we can earn some cash. Lastly, to be honest, I’m having a little trouble with this one because it seems to have a much deeper meaning because she wrote “more rocks, less moonlight”. I assume that she was trying to say that nothing is beautiful anymore, it’s all just machines and no art, but if that's the case then I would have to respectfully disagree with that. We live in a world where both rocks (bland, and boring machines) and moonlight (art and beauty) both can be expressed.

In conclusion, there is so much meaning within this text and how it translate to our world and the world of Brave New World. Katharina has a very interesting perspective on this. Overall I would say that the message of this article would be that we should not look up to anyone just for doing one thing, but we do things for ourselves, and not for a certain goal, but for a greater cause.

Blog #4: Reasons of the Savage Reservation

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 20, 2016

Everything is For a Reason

In the novel Brave New World, the story takes place in a future, dystopian London, and there is the New World State, which is a society of people who are always happy, have a lot of sex, and there is an artificial creation of people. This is where are two protagonists, Bernard and Lenina live. As the story progresses the two of them decide to take a trip together out to a place called the savage reservation. This place has a lot of meaning to the story, from the writer's perspective, and the character's perspective.

First, the author of the book is Aldous Huxley, who probably wrote the savage reservation into the story to prove that even in “perfect” society, not everything is so perfect. Maybe he wanted to show how humans still can act a little uncivilized, rather than being the embodiment of perfection like in the New World State. He also is writing it as if the people in the savage are the leftovers of society. In our society, it would be similar to going into a rich neighborhood and seeing how nice and clean everything is, then going into a very poor neighborhood and seeing how dirty and dangerous it is living there. So in a way, Huxley wrote this as a parallel to his time period, when there were the high and mighty wealthy class people, and the opposite of them, which was the bottom of the barrel, hard working, poor, lower class people.

Than, when Bernard and Lenina are on the reservation it is quite obvious that there is a juxtaposition happening because Bernard and Lenina are both like fishes out of water and we see from their perspective that they are a little scared because they think of these people as being crazy and disgusting. An example is when Lenina notices a woman who is older than her, but in Lenin's eyes, the woman looks extremely ugly and incredibly old. Bernard finds the way they live very unusual, but Lenina is almost terrified because she had never seen anything like this and everything she new in her society was the complete opposite of the savage reservation. In a way, the real reason that Bernard and Lenina are acting like this is because of the New World State, which has programmed, into their minds, a certain way of thinking and behaving. Also, while they are on the savage reservation they meet this man, named John and his mother, named Linda. As the characters are talking Bernard figures out that Linda was originally from his society and that John is the son of the director and this is also a juxtaposition, because Bernard (and the reader) realize that the director has a child, which is not allowed in the New World State.

In conclusion, everything Huxley wrote in this story clearly happens for a reason, which moves the plot further and further. I find it very interesting the way Aldous Huxley wrote this, with all of the connections he makes from his world to the story’s world. The way the juxtapositions are written into the plot are placed very perfectly is a very intelligent way of writing and truly adds some depth to the story.

Blog #3: Dystopian Characters

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 12, 2016

Dystopian Characters

Throughout dystopian novel history there is always a world in which everything is either really good or really bad. No one seems to do anything about it, until we meet our main character, our hero, our protagonist, who acts differently than the normal citizen, wanting their to be change within the society. In Brave New World there are two protagonists, Bernard Marx and Lenina Crowne. There seems to be a pattern that in all dystopian novels that every main character shares the same traits. Some examples of these characters in other work could range from V, from V For Vendetta (book/movie) to Max, from the Mad Max series.

First, one trait that is recognizable throughout dystopian stories is that the main character doesn’t stand out a “protagonist” in the beginning of the story. They are usually just going along with the world they are in, trying not to stand out and be noticed, even though they know that they feel different. Like in the beginning of BNW, when Bernard is in an Orgy-Porgy and he doesn’t feel the same way about the sex and believing in Ford. Another dystopian character similar to that is Neo from The Matrix. In the beginning he is a nobody who, as the story progresses, becomes “the one”, the savior, who topples the controller's. Another good, but slightly different, rising character is Max, from Mad Max, because in his film Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. In the beginning of the movie he walks into a town and tires to draw as little attention to himself as possible, but as the story progresses he get involved in a plan with the leader of the town and becomes an important figure in a fight between him and the townspeople. On the other end of the spectrum there is the main character who is already wanting change and starts to set plans in motion on how to go against his/her suppressors.

Another trait that these dystopian pieces share is how the society reacts to what the main character is doing. In Brave New World when Lenina is talking to Fanny and Lenina says that she doesn’t want to have constant sex with other people Fanny looks at her as if she needs to see a psychologist. Also, with Bernard how he feels the same way, everyone starts to make fun of him and even fanny says that he is strange for not acting the normal way. Also, in the novel/movie V For Vendetta, the main protagonist V, who instantly goes against the norm feels that the people are being suppressed by a controlling govt., much similar to 1984’s govt. So V begins to destroy buildings and kill important figures from his past life, and giving passionate speeches to the people. This freaks out the government, who tries to stop him, but the society actually begins to rally around V and they see him more as an everlasting idea.

Lastly, within almost all of these stories there is a slogan that is repeated. In Brave New World there slogan is “community, identity , stability”. In other novels there are slogans similar, like in V For Vendetta the slogan is “Strength through unity, unity through faith” or in 1984 the people say “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”. Within all of these stories the people believe that these slogans mean good things and are meant to keep them on the right path, and believe in the society. Really they are saying the exact opposite with a much deeper meaning in the slogan, and sometimes is meant to subliminally instill fear into the people, so that individuals like our main protagonist don’t try and revolt.

In conclusion, there is clear pattern within the stories and characters that dystopian literature and films seem to follow. It is obviously a very good way of writing a story, otherwise it wouldn’t be as popular as it is today. I find it a very interesting story, following this character through their journey, seeing them transform into the rebel they were meant to be.

Blog #2: Chapter 3

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 4, 2016

Chapter 3: Multiple stories

In chapter three of Brave New World, there are three big different stories happening at the same time. One of them is while the kids are taking a tour of the Hatchery and they meet Mustapha Mond, who begins to lecture them about what life was like way back in the olden days (basically our time). Mustapha tells the kids that the way they lived back then was terrible and those people actually had parents. Another part of the plot that is happening is when Lenina and Fanny are in the female changing room, discussing her feelings about how maybe she doesn’t always want to have sex. Then there is a story in the male changing room, in which Henry Foster and the Assistant Predestinator are discussing Lenina, and Henry says to the Assistant that he should have sex with her sometime. As the two are talking Bernard jumps in and is disgusted by them and the way they are talking, he starts swearing at them, but they don’t seem to care. So in Chapter three all of these stories are happening simultaneously. This makes you wonder as to why Aldous Huxley chose to write the third chapter like this.

First, I have some ideas as to why he could have chosen to write chapter three the way he did. One theory is that maybe he did want to waste multiple chapters on each of these individual stories. Aldous could have wanted to save some paper, not wanting to make the book more lengthy and decided to put all of them into one chapter, which did kind of making it very complex. Another theory I have about this choice that maybe he chose to write this way to build some tension within the chapter. An example of how this seems to build tension is when we were reading this chapter in my class. As we were reading it, more towards the end, the lines seemed to get shorter for each story giving it this feeling of being very high-octane. Lastly, I think there is one big connection that is constant throughout the story, and is also mentioned throughout this chapter, within every story is sex. All the characters talk about is sex, like when Mustapha Mond is saying how sex is dirty, old, and no longer needed, Lenina saying that she feels like she doesn’t always want to constantly have sex with anybody and Fanny thinks is wrong (or crazy) for saying that, or when Henry and the assistant are talking in the changing room about Lenina and how the assistant should have sex with her eventually. This might be the strongest theory (not that the other ones aren’t good) because Huxley does always seem to mention sex throughout the entire book and whether it just something people do on a day to day basis or if is actually meaningful to some people, like Lenina.

In conclusion, we may never know the true reason as to why Aldous Huxley wrote chapter three like this (or we do and I just don’t know it yet), but I’m sure he did because he thought it made the most sense. I feel that this chapter could be a little confusing at times, but once you figure out what is happening things are much more clear. So I’d like to think that at least one of my theories is close to the true answer and that it will shed some light on Huxley’s reasoning for writing the chapter this way.