Review: 1984 : Ο μεγάλος αδελφός

1984 : Ο μεγάλος αδελφός
1984 : Ο μεγάλος αδελφός by George Orwell

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree

I always loved how, in the book, pop prolefeed songs are manufactured by computers; no human creativity is needed. I involuntarily recall this tidbit whenever I listen to the newest radio hit these days.

I originally read Nineteen Eighty-Four (the original title, though understandably usually shortened to 1984) in Greek a few years back. 10 days or so ago I felt a need to return to it in English and did so in audio book format, read by Simon Prebble.

They say that Brave New World describes our world much better than 1984 does, that the blissful ignorance is much more prominent in our society than 1984’s “boot stamping the human face”. I’ve always held at heart that our own dystopia in the making is the neat blend of the two: the blissfully ignorant sex, drugs and genetically determined human strata, go hand in hand with a government that is in love with power and has merely chosen this more subdued but no less effective way to prolong its ever-lasting dominion.

In this world, wars never end; the enemy is unbeatable and ever-present. Bombs go off randomly every now and again just to allow your mind to come in terms with this fact. Telescreens follow the population everywhere. Nowadays people even take little telescreens with them and have feelings of withdrawal if they are ever separated from them. Those who control the present control the past, and those who do so, do it very, very well. So well, in fact, that public opinion can be swayed one way or another in a matter of weeks or even days — so little do people actually remember, so easily do they forget. Relativism is used as the end-all be-all argument to support that might is right following sickening twists of logic: that there is no nature “out there”, thus truth is dictated by the government and the government only. A similar argument hides behind the saying “who wants to ban fascist groups is against freedom of speech and a fascist themselves!” The encouragement of doublethink, of which the above is but an example, ultimately has people holding two contradicting beliefs at the same time: “I’m not a racist, but everybody knows that our race is more advanced” or “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”. In a similar vain, the government body that is responsible for hitting people and quenching peaceful protests is named “Ministry of Citizen Protection” and the one which makes sure that everyone starves is called “Ministry of Development”, releasing false figures to mask the facts and manipulate the masses. They are allowed to do so; there are no real laws, since the judiciary body is also controlled by the government. What about the proles where the hope for revolution lies? They’re either too busy surviving to actually think for themselves or they’re blindly consuming the “prolefeed” the party is providing them with, including of course their own propaganda.

…oh, sorry about that. I got carried away there and started describing our own living, breathing 2012.

This is definitely one of the masterpieces of the 20th century and is one of absolute favourites. It stands as a beaming symbol of the totalitarian societies of the past and of political oppression, violence, propaganda, hunger for power etc. Orwell’s vision was so ironically vivid, realistic and reverberated with so many that his name has even come through this book to stand for a whole arrangement of things that smack of real-world totalitarianism. Even if he did write it for a different world than what exists more than half a century later, it’s evident that when it comes to human societies, old loves die hard; whether it is totalitarian socialism/communism or hardcore neo-liberal capitalism, it makes little difference. The essence, displays Orwell masterfully, remains the same. Reading 1984, especially for a second time, I got the same feeling Winston, the protagonist, gets from reading a certain book in the book itself: that he had always known about these things and that he was grateful that he had found someone who could articulate them for him.

Parts of 1984 are extreme, I’ll admit. Part Three is a punch in the gut every time. I just wanted to lie in a fetal position in the corner of my room after first reading it. It is that hopeless, that horrible. I can’t believe that states like Oceania et al. could be set up and maintain themselves on force, pain and hatred alone; call it conscience, call it a belief that people are basically good, I just can’t see such a place existing. It’s too evil to exist! That said, I can’t think of a way that such a regime, if already having been set up properly, could fall, either. Not to mention that in many ways, our own world and reality is full of unnecessary evil. Who’s to say if it’s within the bounds of possibility for the next logical step in this progression of evil and imbalance to be taken?

This nightmarish inevitability hidden within, the terror of the idea that if someone really wanted to create IngSoc and Oceania, they could, is what plays with my mind and I believe with every reader’s mind. We might, like Winston, think that such a world is just a work of dystopian fantasy; if we look around us carefully, we just might realise that the absoluteness of the pain, the torture and the future being described as “a boot stamping on a human face forever” might not be such absurd ideas after all.

The owner of the boot is creating his shoelaces made of hatred and fear as we speak. What if we could create our own artificial shortage of shoelaces?

View all my reviews

Review: In Watermelon Sugar

In Watermelon Sugar
In Watermelon Sugar by Richard Brautigan

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

In Watermelon Sugar is one of those books which you kind of get the charm of but simply can’t like. It’s tiny, with a chapter for every one or two pages, and is very easy to read, yet it took me some six months to finish. I see here on Goodreads I’m in the minority but I can easily see why someone could be taken with its simple prose, dreamy lack of narrative and the accordingly floaty characters who always live for the moment, nurtured in a unique, post-modernist culture.

I could find very little pleasure in this book. It’s not just that it’s so much stuck in the era it was written in; I got sick of trouts and that watermelon sugar stuff of which apparently everything is made in that peculiar world. The easy-going style I found pretentious and forced. What I found the most annoying though were the characters: they were wafer-thin, completely naive and perfectly interchangeable. Again, perhaps, that’s what’s made this book so famous and loved by so many. Obviously, I beg to differ.

I must admit it, though: the idea of having a sun the colour of which changes every day, and when it’s black the world has an extended night with no stars and everything is completely silent, tickles my Extraverted Intuition.

View all my reviews

Review: 344 Questions: The Creative Person’s Do-It-Yourself Guide to Insight, Survival, and Artistic Fulfillment

344 Questions: The Creative Person's Do-It-Yourself Guide to Insight, Survival, and Artistic Fulfillment

344 Questions: The Creative Person’s Do-It-Yourself Guide to Insight, Survival, and Artistic Fulfillment by Stefan G. Bucher

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

“The more honest you are with yourself as you go through the book, and the more notes you make in it, the more valuable it will become to you. That’s why this book is small, fexible, and doesn’t cost a lot of money. I want you to take it with you when you go to woek, keep it in your bag, and scribble into it as answers occur to you. Don’t keep this book clean! Mess it up! Write in it freely! Doodle! Put a rubber band around it, so that you can keep interesting articles and extra pages of notes in it. If you keep this book in mint condition, I’ve failed. Because a tattered, bust-up book-filled out and scribbled upon — means you’ve found out new things about yourself and you’re inspired to take action”.

I would heartily agree, Mr. Bucher. A tattered, note-filled book is an addition to every person’s fossil registry of personal story and evolution. It really is a crying shame this book does not inspire any of this. Unavoidably I must come to the heart-wrenching conclusion that you have failed.

First of all, how do you expect, no, demand from people to write on a book made entirely of glossy paper? Have you ever tried writing with a pencil on this material? I always hated my English textbooks for this very reason. Unless this is some indication that you want our answers to be set in Bic ink — hardly the point of the book as you must have planned it Mr. Bucher, I would entertain the thought — the selection of materials is the first poor design choice to come out of this book. I might have actually tried writing with a pen but the subconscious connections with English teachers with terrible Greek accents I so naively thought I had left far behind, ultimately overpowered me.

Then, what sort of questions are these? They gave me the feeling they were either too sterilised or trying too hard to be witty and/or innovative. Most of the book consists of questions that require you to either be extremely honest with yourself or have remarkable skills of self-knowledge to properly answer, mostly both: “What are you doing to sabotage yourself?”, “What are you going to be doing in the next 60 years?”, “Do you prefer your inner or your outer life?”, “How do you handle too much success?”, “How much can you whore yourself out?” etc. They’re insightful questions, but if I were in any position to actually be able to return equally insightful answers, I wouldn’t be interested in buying this book in the first place. If I could answer all these questions as easily as the book has this passive-aggressive aura about it that it’s really possible, I would already be everything I want, can, have or haven’t ever dreamed to be.

OK, let’s say that answering the questions would actually evolve me into such an Übermensch. The auxilliary questions meant to help you on every page, along with the whole flowchart thing going on that makes no sense and if I really followed it I would never even reach half of the questions (how can you have several arrows pointing towards a box in a flowchart, but no arrows pointing outwards and still have it be workable?), are not much better than the main questions themselves. I don’t know if designers use flowcharts –they probably do– but this book would definitely be enough to drive any programmer to insanity!

Some of the less ambitious questions pack some punch and made me think as well as laugh. This is the reason this is getting 2 stars instead of only 1.

This sterilised, efficient, perfectly creative –where creative is implied here to exclude anything that cannot be represented with flowcharts–, ideal model for Westerners, best displayed in cases such as this… It scares the hell out of me, man.

View all my reviews

Review: You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You’re Deluding Yourself

You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself
You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You’re Deluding Yourself by David McRaney

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Logic. The paragon of human superiority. People have achieved so much because we’re plain smarter than everyone else on this planet. Right?

Maybe not so right. David McRaney, creator of the You Are Not So Smart blog which inspired this book, thinks that people are greatly overestimating their ability to rationally make heads or tails of the world. With a collection of almost 50 articles based on a rich bibliography of psychological, neurological and sociological studies, the author deconstructs, bit by bit, all of your sense of personal superiority, security and general feeling of “I’m simply smarter”. But it’s OK, the author re-assures us; deluding ourselves is part of what makes us human.

After reading the book, one might feel that he has gained some valuable knowledge that might just make him this much smarter. I felt that way too. But alas, this is also another delusion that was unfortunately not included in the book. Read all about the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight. It would have been the perfect conclusion.

Read this book and second guess your life. If you dare.

View all my reviews

(I have mentioned this blog in another post of mine: Link)