what world you rather be in?

[weemadando]

Never did I say there wasn't the violence.. just not the torture device thing.

Its not a torture device, it was an EXPERIMENTAL form of conditioning. It failed, the program was discontinued. It wasn't widespread in usage.

True that, but it was planned on being used widespread..

So were nuclear weapons, but people realised it mightn't be such a good idea.

[haas mark]

So were nuclear weapons, but people realised it mightn't be such a good idea.

Right-o. But I haven't read the book A Clockwork Orange yet, so I can't really say much..

[Iceberg]

The giver, assuming I can bring a few things from home. Nothing major, just an AK-47 and a shotgun along with ammo.

AY-MEN, brother!

I GOT YER FUCKING RELEASE RIGHT GODDAMN HERE!

[Ironbeard]

Clockwork Orange is an interesting one. Although the Ludovico technique is the main focus of the book, it's discontinued (I can't remember that, but it's been a long time since I read the book, so I'll take your word on it) and it seems that anarchy rather than government control is the main feature in the society. IIRC, at the start the teenage gangs run wild and the police are portrayed as incompetents. After Alex gets caught, the book seems to be describing the law-enforcement reaction - savagely beating the criminals they do catch and the technique ( which seems a highly controversial innovation, born out of desparation. That said, I think the main objection to it is that it doesn't seem like punishment, and the only person who objects to it being mind-control is the chaplain.)

Towards the end, Alex describes how he gains responsibility, through being a father. But his old gang-buddies join the police and don't seem to be changed much, apart from that they wear uniforms when they beat people up. He also describes escalating battles between the gangs and the police, including firefights which he seems horrified by. I think he implies that the police are able to regain control be being a little better at fighting than the gangs, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

By the way, forgive my ignorance, but this is the first I've heard of the Giver. Who wrote it?

[Raxmei]

I'm curious about you opinions of Mike Kelly's interpretation of 1984.

1984 by George Orwell

'1984' is a 'utopian' novel, meaning that Orwell is describing an ideal world that has never existed but which he would like to see come about. In the world of the novel everyone is happy and well provided for. England is ruled by a group known as 'The Party', because everyone has such a good time. Their leader is so kindly and considerate he is affectionately known as Big Brother. The police are known as the Thought Police, because they prefer to use logic and reason to solve disputes. Everyone is watched by cameras 24 hours a day, so that everyone can be a TV star and no-one feels left out. The English language is being simplified to help those with learning difficulties.
The villain of the novel is a man called Winston Smith, who doesn't like sharing and joining in. As a child he stole a piece of chocolate from his baby sister and has since gone from bad to worse. He teams up with a nymphomaniac named Julia and they embark on an orgy of antisocial behaviour. Fortunately, he falls into the hands of the Thought Police, who psychoanalyze him to work out what is wrong with him. They realize that all his problems stem from his childhood traumas, in particular his phobia about rats. They cure him of this by putting him in a cage full of rats to show him rats aren't so bad once you get to know them. They also free him of Julia's bad influence. The novel ends happily with Winston fully cured and grateful to Big Brother.

I read 1984 four years ago, and from what I remember it looks like he got some fairly observant points in.

[Ironbeard]

Incidentally Talen, don't you remember winston's neighbour, Parsons (I think)? He was always enthusiastic and loyal to the party, organising local events to celebrate and glorify the regime, boasting about his kid's efforts tracking down spies. His kid heard him say "Down with Big Brother" in his sleep, and he ended up sharing a cell with Winston at the ministry of love. Even in the cell he was proud of his kid and grateful that he would be corrected.

And about the war in 1984 - can it be called a real war when there's no possibility of victory and the whole thing's a cynical political exercise to keep the population in check? Add to that that the only recognised war hero mentioned, Comrade Ogilvy, was completely made up.

[InnerBrat]

Raxmei, that is one of the funniest sites I've ever seen!

OK, I'd go for Brave New World because Everybody's Happy Now.
(and real sized women are considered attractive).

[Iceberg]

Let's see...

Social commentary on eugenics
vs.
Social commentary on McCarthyism
vs.
Social commentary on Soccer-Momism
vs.
Social commentary on Nazism
vs.
Social commentary on total anarchy

They all suck.

[Enforcer Talen]

Incidentally Talen, don't you remember winston's neighbour, Parsons (I think)? He was always enthusiastic and loyal to the party, organising local events to celebrate and glorify the regime, boasting about his kid's efforts tracking down spies. His kid heard him say "Down with Big Brother" in his sleep, and he ended up sharing a cell with Winston at the ministry of love. Even in the cell he was proud of his kid and grateful that he would be corrected.

And about the war in 1984 - can it be called a real war when there's no possibility of victory and the whole thing's a cynical political exercise to keep the population in check? Add to that that the only recognised war hero mentioned, Comrade Ogilvy, was completely made up.

you do have a point.

[Setzer]

I was referring to the post where one is broken acting all for big brother. I would expect some could follow him without being broken. why defy him at all?

Even if you consciously follow Big brother, your subconscious might get you. Parsons was jailed, after all, and he's nothing more than a thing of the party.
Me, I'd go for Brave New World. I'd be conditioned to follow society, I'd never grow old, never be hungry, unemployed, or anything bad. The society in Brave New World is a Utopia for those who grew up in it. Now here's a biggie: With the resources and technology of 2003 Earth, under a united government, on an Earth-parralel, in the same star system how would you conquer these worlds? 1984, I think, would be simple, since they only have 1940s technology, maybe 1950s. That means a V-2 like rocket bomb with an atomic warhead would be the best they could throw at you.

[Ironbeard]

I don't know... out of the three I know (1984, Clockwork Orange and Brave New World), 1984's the only one which I can recall makes any reference to military capacity. 1984 has three continental superpowers pouring their entire economic surplus into the military, and a population easily whipped up into a patriotic war-frenzy. 1984 does have evidence for advanced technology, such as voice-recognition software sufficient to be regularly used by journalists (the speakwrite) and some form of artificially intelligent printing press that actually writes novels. However, I agree with you that the military technology isn't all that advanced. Given the nature of the war (as revealed in Goldstein's book) military technology doesn't need to give any real advantage, but just needs to be expensive and impressive-sounding (eg. the Floating Fortresses). Therefore all research efforts are driven towards devices for domestic control.

The world of 1984 would be difficult for agents to infiltrate and gather intelligence on, due to the all-pervasive surveillance. A modern army would probably prevail due to the technological advantage, but due to the sheer size of Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania's forces - and the lack of intelligence - would expect to suffer heavy casualties.

Brave New World appears to possess technology in advance of the modern world, but, like 1984 this all appears to be geared towards domestic applications. Given the decadent nature of the society, I would hazard a guess that it has no external threats, and may well not possess a standing army. It may not even have internal security forces that could be pressed into service (who needs police when everybody's mind controlled?). Assembling a force to meet a military threat would be especially difficult for the government of A Brave New World since all their people are conditioned to fulfil specific funcitons, therefore creating a problem recruiting for an unanticipated "soldier" function. I predict large gains on Brave New World before they can react, follwed by an attempted fight-back which is defeated due to the poor adaptation of their soldiers.

Clockwork Orange, seems little different from the current world apart from the extreme rate of youth crime. Lack of discipline among recruits, and the necessity to enforce order would appear to be the only military problems I can think that particular world would have. I think an invasion would result in a close-fought fight, but that the strains placed on society by the war would result in a collapse into total anarchy, therefore nobody really wins.