Ah, that’s exactly what I was looking for with the OP. Did the college study influence your beliefs? If so, towards the author’s perspective or against?
Yeah it is! I read three volumes of the Gulag Archipelago, Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, and First Circle. All by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I also read Dr. Zhivago by Boris Pasternak and Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky. I found these to be fascinating portrayals of Russian psyche and post revolution history. I've read some other stuff too so I didn't kill myself. After 30-40 years things look different.
I think, that from a historical perspective, as Paine was in close and frequent contact with people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who approved of his writings, as an insight into the thinking of many of our founding fathers. His Rights of Man as well as Age of Reason, the ideas expressed in them, were also expressed in Jefferson’s letters. Paine was just the one who put the ideas down in a book. If one considers that Jefferson saw Christianity as Paine saw it, it is easy to see why separation of church and state was so important to him.
That hardly precludes their being polar opposites any more than does the coexistence of the North and South poles on the same planet; and I don't know how you could get closer to complete opposition than those two dystopias. On the one hand you have a society that avoids suffering like the plague, on the other a society where misery is cultivated minute by minute; on the one hand you have "a gramme is better than a damn" and on the other the Two Minutes Hate; and on the one hand you have promiscuity as a virtue while on the other you have a society so far beyond puritanical that its neurologists are working on a way to abolish orgasms. It has never come across to me like that. It just strikes a resonant chord in my soul.
Both are governed by a totalitarian government. I've never seen them as opposites, but as different views of the negativity of totalitarianism.
i don't mean to be a jerk about it but a person putting politics into their novel is simply trying to pass off their ideas in a manner that makes you accept the ideas without critical thought. Hollywood does this extensively. Here is an example.. you have a long running tv sitcom. you fill it with characters you like and sympathize with. every week you look forward to their antics and you actually care about these made up people, you care what happens to them and cannot wait to see more of them. you even wish they were real people and you were in their lives. You love them! then they turn around and drop the bombshell that the one you love the most is gay.. All of a sudden you have a lot more sympathy for gay people, all of a sudden you think that because you love that person there must be nothing wrong with being gay. Replace gay with anything you like.. say maybe NAZI? what are you willing to approve of if the people you love do it? how is your mind being changed without your knowledge or proof that the change is legitimate? Yes, be careful of people who entertain you into believing what they believe.
Apropos of what is going on in politics all over the world and particularly in the U.S. at the moment? "Darkness at Noon" Koestler. Easy, fast read. Then read it again. Many people have become so culturally narcissistic that they think the machinations of the state are going to end up working to their benefit, that government is their friend, the benevolent giver. This book is the antidote to that.
Great post. In my OP I mentioned specifically appeal to emotion. But, I think it’s close minded to refuse to learn from things you don’t agree with or even vehemently disagree with. Per my example of “The Jungle”, there is much to be learned about exactly the things you brought up. It’s socialism on parade, but to a thinker, it’s a brutal beat down of socialism. Perhaps avoiding such media or literature is appealing so weak minds are not corrupted, but I can’t agree with that. I’d rather educate people (children) to deal with appeal to emotion and to think critically. Then when they come across this garbage, they learn about propaganda and human nature instead of falling for the narrative of the author/writer/producer. Anyway, that’s my opinion. Avoiding things you can’t handle I guess is wise. But I find too much value in learning from the opposition on all subjects and through all forms of literature.
I've re-read things and found quite a few interesting ideas that I missed the first time. I'm guessing that the first reading was exploratory in nature. Not knowing much about the story meant that I hit mostly on the most obvious points. The second time through allowed me to spot the inferences and foreshadowing. As far as themes, again, the first time through I saw the obvious. The next time I saw the more subtle themes winding through. Of course, experiences in life can lead us to spot inferences and analogies we missed before. There is that part of 1984 where the large Prole woman is hanging laundry outside Winston's window and singing a song. My first experience with that was the idea of the Proles being the best hope for the future. A later reading left me with the idea of the "fat lady singing" because he got busted right after that. And I'm sure that if I read it again, I'd come up with something different.
You made me think of this--Do you think what you've learned about the historical context of the writer and the setting of the book (since your first reading) changes how you understand it?
Very true, and why i mentioned being careful not avoiding it. Personally i agree with Stephen King. When it comes to novels, everything that doesn't contribute to the story needs to get the axe.. too many great stories are ruined by authors needing to put their political agenda in their stories. Here is a perfect examples. "Ready player one" the popular novel by Earnest Cline. It's a great entertaining story. But the pace is slowed and the story often sidetracked by by the authors very far left agenda. A little goes a long way and this otherwise very fun read, hits you over the head with a sledge hammer of it.. there are pages of it you can skip and not miss the story.
Yes it certainly can. My current practice is to never read forwards or introductions before reading the book. I want the author to speak to me first. I look at first copyright date for historical reference if I’m in doubt about time period but that’s all I want to know. I certainly don’t want someone else’s opinion on the work before I read it. After reading I will often study up on the author etc. and yes sometimes it colors things.
There is a lot of heavy/serious truth in your statement while still being humorously entertaining. Well done.
