![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Too much candy gonna rot your soul
Aug. 1st, 2011 04:29 pmOne of the few advantages to living in this hotter-than-hellhole during the summer: monsoon season.
My camera-phone just doesn't do it justice.
I need to stay the hell off Cracked. Woke up in the middle of the night last night, couldn't fall back asleep, thought I'd check one or two articles. Three hours later, I'm still reading random crap. I was getting really bad eyestrain, but I kept thinking I'd read just one more article. Repeat.
Damn it, I just went back to look up the article I was going to reference, and read five more. You win this round, Cracked.
Of course, I'm attracted to anything that has to do with books, so I read this article. It features one of my all-time favorite books, Fahrenheit 451. (Yeah, original, I know. Blow me. That book rules.) And since I never read it as part of a class curriculum, I guess I was spared the 'official' English teacher interpretations as listed. Specifically, that the book was about censorship. And it was, but the real point is how this censorship arose. It arose with the will of a populace who did not want to think anymore, because thinking is uncomfortable. Occasionally, you have to come face-to-face with existential crises, and your own mortality, and, hell, your glaring faults and hypocrisies. It is beyond me how anybody can read that book and not get that context. The government did not make these people into who they are. THEY made themselves into who they are. Assuming that the book is ONLY about censorship is a hideously simplistic reading, and misses the truly frightening and poignant message.
Did anybody really get only get 'censorship is bad' of that book? This wasn't a totalitarian government that brainwashed a populace. This is a populace that brainwashed itself.
Also, he foresaw the worthless drivel that is reality TV and sitcoms, and that, friends, is horrifying. When he wrote the novel you had a couple of channels on a black-and-white TV. Now we are supersaturated with mindless drivel, empty entertainments, and pure, unadulterated bullshit. And people seem to love this more than books--or anything requiring thought. The man was a prophet. Even our news has become a spectacle. Cable news is nothing but partisan bullshit, 24/7 sensationalism and speculation, and borderline pornography in the way it shoves itself into the personal lives of celebrities and grieving families. It's sick.
Well, the soap operas Montag's wife watches aren't strictly reality TV. Somehow I am reminded of a subset of fandom that consumes without critically thinking about the content, almost fetishizing the characters they encounter. I am inclined to say 'living vicariously', but that isn't correct. There are people (myself included) who live in a fantasy world, write, read, daydream, etc, which I guess can amount to a vicarious state. Maybe to an objective observer I am no different from Montag's wife, hypnotized by her digital 'family'.
I think the mindless soul-rot Bradbury described, in terms of a fandom, of a sort (soap opera fandom, I guess), really has nothing to do strictly with 'fandom' at all. In fans and non-fans, this is what is repugnant: consumption without critical thinking. Escapism without soul. Leisure without meditation. And absolutely nothing but these things. There are books devoid of content and critical thought, as there are films and TV shows of considerable depth and artistry.
In this sense, the message is more important than the medium. But I still love the written word, and, despite the recent trend to forecast its doom in a digital age, I hope the art persists forever. But this is the nostalgia of an old-school reader. Ultimately, what matters most is the content, the thought.
And there is nothing wrong with occasional, pure escapism, pure fun. I do this all the time. I know highly intelligent people who get guilty pleasure out of horrid reality TV and the like. But--nothing but is a hollow diet. You can have sweets, but you can't eat them all the time. Your soul will atrophy. And you can't appreciate how sweet sweets are, without context. And it seems that a lot of people gorge themselves on the fluff so they don't have to think--ever. So they can turn their brains off--forever. Sure, some entertainments provide the illusion of thinking (I think of braindead interviews on reality TV and cable news), but there is no introspection there.
I also know the neo-conservative interpretation of the book: that political correctness and 'multiculturalism' will turn us into mindless drones, afraid to think critically about anything. Inherent in this interpretation is the assumption that 'truth' lies with them: i.e., if we dare to question racial IQs, etc, or the superiority of one race or religion over another, we will find an answer very politically incorrect and offensive, so we must not think about it. Or anything. Again, inherent in this thought is the assumption that truth is on their side, that critical thought will inevitably lead you to their conclusions. This reminds me of the teacher I had in high school who assumed all of her intelligent students must be hardcore conservatives (fiscally and socially) and model Republicans, because Republicans have Truth on their side, and if you are smart, you will naturally see that. Yes, this was a teacher in a public high school, but that is a whole other story. She really, deeply believed that the Replubican party line packaged set of beliefs (don't even get me started on the arbitrary nature of packaged partisan politics, instead of considering issues individually; I think the party system is a monstrosity) was Truth.
Anyway.
There is a point to be had here: freedom of speech means allowing people to say things you find repugnant. One reason why I think groups like Westboro Baptist are perfectly free to hold up whatever signs and say whatever they want on public grounds. (We enter the argument of how far from a funeral is considered reserved for a 'private function'.) Same with neo-Nazis, Scientologists, etc.
The rebuttal to words is more words, debate and education--thought. It is NEVER censorship. I would rather live in a world where people can say deeply hurtful things than in a world where we can't say anything at all. Everything we say will offend somebody. If we censor people instead of mustering the courage and mental reserves to respond, we create Bradbury's future.
--------------
And, yes, I do realize Bradbury would disapprove of me spending so much time cocking around on the internet, reading stuff like Cracked (which, in the end, amounts to 'stuffing myself with factoids'). I also admit that I'm a trivia junkie (read: 'factoids'), but I can't see how people can digest 'factoids' without thinking critically about them, or looking at the background causes, the context, etc. I know I overthink things, but damn, seriously?
The thought of Machiavelli being a proto-Colbert is pretty amazing. I admit, I haven't studied Machiavelli (I read The Prince ages ago, but that's about it), so this concept is new to me. Does this mean hundreds of years from now people will think Colbert was serious? That's trolling that withstands the ages.
My camera-phone just doesn't do it justice.
I need to stay the hell off Cracked. Woke up in the middle of the night last night, couldn't fall back asleep, thought I'd check one or two articles. Three hours later, I'm still reading random crap. I was getting really bad eyestrain, but I kept thinking I'd read just one more article. Repeat.
Damn it, I just went back to look up the article I was going to reference, and read five more. You win this round, Cracked.
Of course, I'm attracted to anything that has to do with books, so I read this article. It features one of my all-time favorite books, Fahrenheit 451. (Yeah, original, I know. Blow me. That book rules.) And since I never read it as part of a class curriculum, I guess I was spared the 'official' English teacher interpretations as listed. Specifically, that the book was about censorship. And it was, but the real point is how this censorship arose. It arose with the will of a populace who did not want to think anymore, because thinking is uncomfortable. Occasionally, you have to come face-to-face with existential crises, and your own mortality, and, hell, your glaring faults and hypocrisies. It is beyond me how anybody can read that book and not get that context. The government did not make these people into who they are. THEY made themselves into who they are. Assuming that the book is ONLY about censorship is a hideously simplistic reading, and misses the truly frightening and poignant message.
Did anybody really get only get 'censorship is bad' of that book? This wasn't a totalitarian government that brainwashed a populace. This is a populace that brainwashed itself.
Also, he foresaw the worthless drivel that is reality TV and sitcoms, and that, friends, is horrifying. When he wrote the novel you had a couple of channels on a black-and-white TV. Now we are supersaturated with mindless drivel, empty entertainments, and pure, unadulterated bullshit. And people seem to love this more than books--or anything requiring thought. The man was a prophet. Even our news has become a spectacle. Cable news is nothing but partisan bullshit, 24/7 sensationalism and speculation, and borderline pornography in the way it shoves itself into the personal lives of celebrities and grieving families. It's sick.
Well, the soap operas Montag's wife watches aren't strictly reality TV. Somehow I am reminded of a subset of fandom that consumes without critically thinking about the content, almost fetishizing the characters they encounter. I am inclined to say 'living vicariously', but that isn't correct. There are people (myself included) who live in a fantasy world, write, read, daydream, etc, which I guess can amount to a vicarious state. Maybe to an objective observer I am no different from Montag's wife, hypnotized by her digital 'family'.
I think the mindless soul-rot Bradbury described, in terms of a fandom, of a sort (soap opera fandom, I guess), really has nothing to do strictly with 'fandom' at all. In fans and non-fans, this is what is repugnant: consumption without critical thinking. Escapism without soul. Leisure without meditation. And absolutely nothing but these things. There are books devoid of content and critical thought, as there are films and TV shows of considerable depth and artistry.
In this sense, the message is more important than the medium. But I still love the written word, and, despite the recent trend to forecast its doom in a digital age, I hope the art persists forever. But this is the nostalgia of an old-school reader. Ultimately, what matters most is the content, the thought.
And there is nothing wrong with occasional, pure escapism, pure fun. I do this all the time. I know highly intelligent people who get guilty pleasure out of horrid reality TV and the like. But--nothing but is a hollow diet. You can have sweets, but you can't eat them all the time. Your soul will atrophy. And you can't appreciate how sweet sweets are, without context. And it seems that a lot of people gorge themselves on the fluff so they don't have to think--ever. So they can turn their brains off--forever. Sure, some entertainments provide the illusion of thinking (I think of braindead interviews on reality TV and cable news), but there is no introspection there.
I also know the neo-conservative interpretation of the book: that political correctness and 'multiculturalism' will turn us into mindless drones, afraid to think critically about anything. Inherent in this interpretation is the assumption that 'truth' lies with them: i.e., if we dare to question racial IQs, etc, or the superiority of one race or religion over another, we will find an answer very politically incorrect and offensive, so we must not think about it. Or anything. Again, inherent in this thought is the assumption that truth is on their side, that critical thought will inevitably lead you to their conclusions. This reminds me of the teacher I had in high school who assumed all of her intelligent students must be hardcore conservatives (fiscally and socially) and model Republicans, because Republicans have Truth on their side, and if you are smart, you will naturally see that. Yes, this was a teacher in a public high school, but that is a whole other story. She really, deeply believed that the Replubican party line packaged set of beliefs (don't even get me started on the arbitrary nature of packaged partisan politics, instead of considering issues individually; I think the party system is a monstrosity) was Truth.
Anyway.
There is a point to be had here: freedom of speech means allowing people to say things you find repugnant. One reason why I think groups like Westboro Baptist are perfectly free to hold up whatever signs and say whatever they want on public grounds. (We enter the argument of how far from a funeral is considered reserved for a 'private function'.) Same with neo-Nazis, Scientologists, etc.
The rebuttal to words is more words, debate and education--thought. It is NEVER censorship. I would rather live in a world where people can say deeply hurtful things than in a world where we can't say anything at all. Everything we say will offend somebody. If we censor people instead of mustering the courage and mental reserves to respond, we create Bradbury's future.
--------------
And, yes, I do realize Bradbury would disapprove of me spending so much time cocking around on the internet, reading stuff like Cracked (which, in the end, amounts to 'stuffing myself with factoids'). I also admit that I'm a trivia junkie (read: 'factoids'), but I can't see how people can digest 'factoids' without thinking critically about them, or looking at the background causes, the context, etc. I know I overthink things, but damn, seriously?
The thought of Machiavelli being a proto-Colbert is pretty amazing. I admit, I haven't studied Machiavelli (I read The Prince ages ago, but that's about it), so this concept is new to me. Does this mean hundreds of years from now people will think Colbert was serious? That's trolling that withstands the ages.
