EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8726
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:17 kollin wrote: I'm not sure either of you fully understand what the core themes of 1984 were. The book is just as much about the idea of truth as it is about anything else. That being said, it's my third favourite Orwell book (and still above Animal Farm). It was a shitty book, end of story. As a narrative it sucked and as a "message" it was a complete and utter farce. Being "complicated" and "deep" is not a virtue in and of itself; telling a compelling narrative is. Though I suppose you could try to play the "2001: A Space Oddyssey" game in trying to prove depth to a genuinely terrible piece of fiction. My personal favorite work by Orwell is "Shooting an Elephant" which, contrary to 1984, actually is a compelling and meaningful story. With perhaps a moral to it as well, even if a little ephemeral. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote: It was a shitty book, end of story. As a narrative it sucked and as a "message" it was a complete and utter farce. Being "complicated" and "deep" is not a virtue in and of itself; telling a compelling narrative is. Though I suppose you could try to play the "2001: A Space Oddyssey" game in trying to prove depth to a genuinely terrible piece of fiction. My personal favorite work by Orwell is "Shooting an Elephant" which, contrary to 1984, actually is a compelling and meaningful story. With perhaps a moral to it as well, even if a little ephemeral. Well I guess if you say it was a shitty book that's that. Just because you don't understand the message, doesn't mean there isn't one! | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote: It was written in 1949 and it shows. Most sci-fiction and fantasy were in the early stages of becoming forms of fiction. World building and lore were barely concept back then. The book’s intent was to evoke the feeling and concepts of the police state, while highlighting the tactics used by oppressive governments like the Nazis. It was written with the memory of large Nazi rallies held in the US and growing support for the movement within our country. H.G. Wells did it well since 1895. The Time Machine, essentially the first sci fi, was a good story. 1984 was not. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:18 ticklishmusic wrote: animal farm was better, but of course that was pretty much based on the rise of soviet russia  Animal farm was a direct analogy to soviet communism. 1984 was a futuristic fiction based on similar current events (state totalitarianism and propaganda in general). And while 1984 was on an extreme end of unrealistic state control, that's largely the point of speculative fiction. Take an understandable theme, push it as far as possible, but still keep the general concepts relevant to modern readers. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:26 kollin wrote: Well I guess if you say it was a shitty book that's that. Just because you don't understand the message, doesn't mean there isn't one! Oh I can see it has a message. The summaries of the themes in the book are rather interesting. It's a book, as the younguns say, is one of the best to read on SparkNotes! Too bad the story sucks and the actual narrative building is kind of sucky at being interesting AND at building a worthy message. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote: It was written in 1949 and it shows. Most sci-fiction and fantasy were in the early stages of becoming forms of fiction. World building and lore were barely concept back then. The book’s intent was to evoke the feeling and concepts of the police state, while highlighting the tactics used by oppressive governments like the Nazis. It was written with the memory of large Nazi rallies held in the US and growing support for the movement within our country. At least 1984 was told as a relatively entertaining standalone story, instead of Brave New World which was an essay pretending to be fiction. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:26 LegalLord wrote: H.G. Wells did it well since 1895. The Time Machine, essentially the first sci fi, was a good story. 1984 was not. Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein in 1818. That does not mean that horror writing was an established form of fiction at the time. Also, that book is bad until to realize that was a famine refugee crisis in Europe due to a volcanic eruption that basically destroyed warm, growing season. Then the unwanted monster wandering from town to town, created by man, but unloved by man, makes way more sense. I don’t enjoy reading Frankenstein, but I find the book fascinating due to what inspired it. The same with 1984. If you are unwilling to go through the work of understanding why the book was written and approach it form that critical angle, just say you didn’t like it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:34 Plansix wrote: Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein in 1818. That does not mean that horror writing was an established form of fiction at the time. Also, that book is bad until to realize that was a famine refugee crisis in Europe due to a volcanic eruption that basically destroyed warm, growing season. Then the unwanted monster wandering from town to town, created by man, but unloved by man, makes way more sense. I don’t enjoy reading Frankenstein, but I find the book fascinating due to what inspired it. The same with 1984. If you are unwilling to go through the work of understanding why the book was written and approach it form that critical angle, just say you didn’t like it. I personally thought Frankenstein was alright. To each their own on literary tastes. But Frankenstein doesn't end up being used as any form of political commentary as if it were actually worthy of being so, which cannot be said for 1984. Frankenstein is a product of its environment, yes, but it's strictly literary to the extent I have seen it used in the modern sense. Though is 1984 really sci-fi? It's more like political fiction. The technology there is honestly mostly primitive; it doesn't tackle themes of data surveillance or genetic engineering or anything of the sort, it's mostly a low tech society. Perhaps Brave New World would be more "sci fi" which is perhaps a more meaningful, if somewhat convoluted, exploration of themes of future society. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:41 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/908004966333284352 Flynn being a compromised individual is kind of a non-story, he's known to be a man of low morals subject to monetary interests. Beyond that, building nuclear power is not exactly controversial; it's just an important aspect of international competition worth billions. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote: I personally thought Frankenstein was alright. To each their own on literary tastes. But Frankenstein doesn't end up being used as any form of political commentary as if it were actually worthy of being so, which cannot be said for 1984. Frankenstein is a product of its environment, yes, but it's strictly literary to the extent I have seen it used in the modern sense. Though is 1984 really sci-fi? It's more like political fiction. The technology there is honestly mostly primitive; it doesn't tackle themes of data surveillance or genetic engineering or anything of the sort, it's mostly a low tech society. Perhaps Brave New World would be more "sci fi" which is perhaps a more meaningful, if somewhat convoluted, exploration of themes of future society. Was genetic engineering even a concept in 1949? When was gene sequencing and DNA testable science? Data surveillance definitely didn't exist. Data was a hard stack of papers back then, if you were lucky. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote: I personally thought Frankenstein was alright. To each their own on literary tastes. But Frankenstein doesn't end up being used as any form of political commentary as if it were actually worthy of being so, which cannot be said for 1984. Frankenstein is a product of its environment, yes, but it's strictly literary to the extent I have seen it used in the modern sense. Though is 1984 really sci-fi? It's more like political fiction. The technology there is honestly mostly primitive; it doesn't tackle themes of data surveillance or genetic engineering or anything of the sort, it's mostly a low tech society. Perhaps Brave New World would be more "sci fi" which is perhaps a more meaningful, if somewhat convoluted, exploration of themes of future society. For the era? Sure it’s sci-fi. Big brother is an all seeing surveillance system that simply couldn’t exist in 1949. And it meets the core requirement of science fiction: how technology and science impact society. Closed circuit cameras were not widely available or used until after 1949. We were still broadcasting all television over the air waves. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:44 WolfintheSheep wrote: Was genetic engineering even a concept in 1949? When was gene sequencing and DNA testable science? Data surveillance definitely didn't exist. Data was a hard stack of papers back then, if you were lucky. Brave New World (which came 15 years earlier) covered genetic engineering in a more primitive way, with humans being born into a tier of strengths with higher breeds being better. Perhaps "selective breeding" is more appropriate. The concept of eugenics was around back then at any rate, and interest in genetics existed far before we found out that DNA was responsible for carrying genetic code; early theories favored proteins as the cause. Computers existed back then. Perhaps a bit lower profile than today but all of my relatives who lived in WWII were able to see the coming of the increasing relevance of electronics in the world. Could easily be a concept in at least a primitive sense even back then. Not that it had to be. Asimov's works around the same time could show that a lot of those themes were already visibly important. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:50 LegalLord wrote: Brave New World (which came 15 years earlier) covered genetic engineering in a more primitive way, with humans being born into a tier of strengths with higher breeds being better. Perhaps "selective breeding" is more appropriate. The concept of eugenics was around back then at any rate, and interest in genetics existed far before we found out that DNA was responsible for carrying genetic code; early theories favored proteins as the cause. Computers existed back then. Perhaps a bit lower profile than today but all of my relatives who lived in WWII were able to see the coming of the increasing relevance of electronics in the world. Could easily be a concept in at least a primitive sense even back then. Not that it had to be. That is science fiction. The system that exists in 1984 could not be made in 1949 tech. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:57 ticklishmusic wrote: Scientisits knew about DNA in the 1800's, but the structure wasn't known until the 1950's (thanks Watson, Crick and Franklin). No love for Nobel Prize Winner #3 on the W&C team? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 14 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote: Wiki describes it as social science fiction (and dystopia/political fiction), a sub-genre of sci-fi that focuses on future society. Which seems like an accurate enough description; it focused less on science than on society in such a future. Not that it did that well, but that's definitely what it did. The science fiction genre doesn’t have a firm definition anyways. Most genres don’t, with the exception of spy novels and murder mysteries. They need spies and murder. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28707 Posts
On September 13 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote: No, I don't use the term ironically. To me, it refers to the application of Marxist oppression and conflict theory to culture. As for you, I'd have to think about it. You definitely dabble in it. You should be aware of how tainted the term is. I don't really care personally, but the phrase gained popularity after being used, frequently, by Norway's Worst Man. I understand that this is not the case for you personally (that you specifically refer to applying oppression and conflict theory to culture is, honestly, the best explanation for using the term I've ever heard), but when I see someone use 'cultural marxism' my first instinctual response is to think 'this guy is a breivik sympathizer'. To many Norwegians, and obviously I don't expect you to have been aware of this, not necessarily to adjust, it's a strong indicator that 'whatever came before or after this is complete garbage'. Basically to me using the phrase cultural marxism is kinda like quoting Stalin or Hitler unironically. Even if whatever they said is a meaningful phrase in the appropriate context, I think it's better to not do it. | ||
| ||
