Freedom is a State of Mind

            The New York Times article Born and Raised in a North Korean Gulag deals with a little boy, Shin, who grows up in a prison camp, facing hardship and torture until his escape. Due to his conditioning from birth he feels the life he leads is the norm, and therefore does not question his existence until he hears of the outside world. However, once on the outside he feels alienated and a misfit, and often misses his old torturous life as freedom and independence comes with a price.

            This modern day true life story has many parallels with the theme and general storyline of Orwell’s 1984. Here the protagonist Winston holds no family bonds and has even betrayed his parents and sister, and turned his back on his father. This also holds true in the article. Again through the brainwashing by a totalitarian state, Winston and Shin get through their mundane controlled routine of the drudgery of daily life, without question or complaining about their pathetic excuse for a life without a soul. Until, that is a chance meeting with a person that changes their outlook and entire perspective. They go through a journey of self discovery and awakening which involves human emotions and frailties, such as love and hate, fear and joy. Both are imprisoned and shackled and are watched and monitored both physically and mentally and offer little resistance. The hold that this state of being has on both is so strong that they can never be free, even when freedom is reached. Strangely when Shin finds his way to the outside world he is unable to adjust to normal life and at times wants to return back. Psychologists tell us that this is not uncommon. Even kidnapped victims develop a bond with their tormentor and want to return. They feel as Shin would have felt strangely safe and protected in their bubble where life’s choices are simple. In the real world there are hardships of other kinds such as choices, decision making, competition, financial burdens, peer pressure. Prison life for the accustomed involves a life where you are told what to do, and is simplistic. This transition then becomes hard for the concerned person to make as they feel loyalty and a comfort level for their old life.

            Happiness is a state of being and is a neither black nor white. In the same way freedom is a subjective state of mind which does not involve shackles of the body but the shackles of the mind. No man is truly free until he has reached a state of peace, and this both Winston and Shin discover the hard way.

Inconvenient Truth

Truth is often stranger than fiction. In fact truth is often subjective and depends on your view point. While facts can often remain the same, opinions can vary. A famous US divorce lawyer so rightly once said, “There are three versions of each story, his, hers and the truth.” Often we distort the truth to make our version of events suit our immediate needs, thereby consciously or subconsciously manipulating the listener for self gain. This idea of manipulation of the truth to gain control over someone by playing psychological mind games with a person’s memory is the cornerstone of George Orwell’s 1984.

            In 1984 Big Brother would change past events to show the regime in a good light, thereby maintaining the unquestioning faith and support of the people he controlled. In one instance while chocolate rations were reduced to 20g and reported correctly, just as quickly news reports blatantly lied by false claims that chocolate rations had in fact been increased to 20g. Either way the people were receiving 20g rations of chocolate but through manipulation their disappointment quickly changed to euphoria. This manipulation was caused by poor short term memory, and belief and trust that whatever they are being told verbally by people in authority has to be true. Further, the changing of the written word in newspapers, or other forms of media and communications in 1984 becomes objective truth. It was reported for example that Oceania was at war with East Asia and allies with Euro Asia and vice versa to the whims of Big Brother. People believe their eyes far more than their ears, and believe that if it is written as so then it must be so. However, this is not always the case as we see even today there is much false reporting from the media to sell papers. A trivial case in point are the reported alliances and break ups of movie stars as reported without concrete proof in the popular press.

            One of the greatest manipulators of the truth as shown in 1984 is governments, and this continues even today. False claims of victory over enemies or showing the economy in a better light than reality are happening in present day leaderships. This occurs often to buy vote of confidence that will win elections and retain power for the current administration. And as people we often believe, as it is a far easier pill to swallow, as yes indeed, the truth warts and all, often hurts, and we cannot handle the truth. This subtle manipulation often starts at an early age, when parents protect children by creating a candy floss perfect world. For example we are eager to believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy and that our pet dog has not died but gone to a retirement farm. In this same vein the citizens of Oceania want to believe that Big Brother is their Santa Clause, there to protect them. So people do not die or disappear from Oceania, they simply never existed. This helps to maintain the smooth natural order without any ripples in the ocean of everyday life.

            Between the white of the truth and the black of the lie is a great chasm of grey that one can manipulate. And if indeed the truth does in fact hurt, or is inconvenient then why not believe the lie.

Politically Correct Speech

In Politics and the English Language George Orwell stated that the written word has become elaborate without basis. He particularly used the example of political speeches of his day to drive home his point. He preached, that we all need to utilize some rules to make speech more user friendly for the listener without clouding real messages or meanings with sugar frosting that does not add to the narrative, but simply confuses him. He wants us to stop using ready made metaphors, long words, passive language, foreign phrases, scientific words or jargon. Further, he argues that political writings tend to justify bad deeds while failures of the current administration are misconstrued as victories or at least work in progress. The type of language used misleads the common man into unquestioning support for the government who they falsely believe can be trusted on faith and fancy rhetoric alone.

While Martin Luther King’s famous I Have a Dream speech and John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address keeps in most part to Orwell’s rules, the two Georges, Wallace and Bush speeches blatantly break these rules. King’s speech while powerful, emotive and provocative is still simple in approach and makes its point visually without compromising on factual information or truths. On the other hand George Bush’s State Of the Union Address in the aftermath of the September 11, attacks is full of half truths and distortions and false bravado of victories of the war on terror. The truth was the US troops were not winning the war in Afghanistan, and conditions for the locals were far from the picture perfect impression his speech gave. Further, in  his speech the language used is longwinded, “across oceans and continents, across mountaintops and caves” showcasing unnecessary word usage where simplicity would have sufficed. Bush in fact was often admonished and even mocked as having very little command of the English language in spite of his Anglo Saxon heritage. The media coined his many gaffes as Bushisms which has now been accepted in Webster dictionary as a new word.

New words and phrases parallels Orwell’s novel 1984 where Newspeak and entries into revised dictionaries were an intricate part of his plot. In his novel Orwell showed that by simplification of the current language and the deletion of many words, this would allow the government of his futuristic city to control the people who would simply not have the vocabulary to protest. Therefore, I am a little surprised by his article as it is as if he has become ‘Big Brother’ himself and is taking away our right to express ourselves freely without constraints or rules. Again as I stated earlier in my last blog, metaphors and the like add colorful imagery to our words and are emotive and capture the readers or listeners attention. While political speeches need to be clear and concise there is always a little room for artistic flair to bring life as well as meaning to our words. Just look at the brilliant speech writing of Obama whose words alone allowed him to create history by becoming the first Black American President “Yes We Can”, will go down in the annals of history as a much copied and used phrase to much effect. Are you listening Mr. Orwell?

The Write and Wrong of Writing

George Orwell’s article Politics and the English Language states there is a general decline in English language usage in the way we express our ideas and thoughts in written form. Orwell feels the main culprits are our politicians who sabotage the English language for their own gain. This is done to cloud the truth and fool the masses in the righteousness of their actions by being vague and ambiguous. He states that this is done by over usage or incorrect use of metaphors, phrases, foreign and scientific words, and long or difficult words.

I do support his theories on political misleading writings. After all, politicians are trained never to answer a difficult question directly, but beat about the bush until you forget what the original question was. This holds true of all our political world leaders today who need to sell their ideas like a used car salesman. A striking example would be the charismatic musings of Obama, who captivated the world with his mesmerizing speeches and gave us all hope without actually giving the logistics of his plans. His words spoke volumes and a willing nation lapped it up. Perhaps religious books are political speeches in disguise. While his article is thought provoking, I do not fully agree with his opinions on general expression by prose, primarily because I am guilty of the crimes he speaks of. Yes, when you need to make a point in business like terms then language should be simple, concise and to the point. I hate the way the legal profession dupes the public into believing they are stupid by using senseless jargon that has no place in modern day society. However, I enjoy in being colorful and using phrases ETC in my writings and this is not done to confuse but to express in an educated way my thoughts, and I want the poetic license to continue to do so without derision. So I make no apologies for my ramblings as I want to celebrate the richness of the English language.

After all, Shakespeare was a literary master in inventing words and phrases that we commonly adopt today, and he is lauded for this. Today, we have new words and phrases such as “Google” that respected dictionaries are adding to their new word list, some of which I must admit appall me as this does represent the real destruction of the English language I so revere. I am also outraged by modern day slangs and Americanisms that have filtered into the modern day mainstream English language and are accepted as the norm. The modern day media who should covet the written word are often so guilty of glamorizing or coining incorrect or new words and making them the norm. An example of this is when they highlight George Bush’s errors in word usage as Bushism and in doing so condones his faults. However, language will inevitably change with time and new words will be used and many old words forgotten as our society changes. After all we no longer speak or write in the tone of “ how art thou”. Language evolves with time and will continue to do so. While George Orwell gives some good advice on how to improve our writings I feel this advice is limited to scholars, students, politicians ETC.  Language is in fact decreasing as we text or twitter our messages within a confined space but obviously this was before George Orwells’ time. If George Orwell witnessed modern day writings of the public at large today, he would beg for more metaphors as he turns in his grave.

The Inner Mindset and Relationship between Author and Reader – A Novel Concept

The Psychology of the Novel article goes into an in-depth analysis of the psychology of the author and reader and the intertwined relationship they share.

As any person who has read a novel that has gripped them from beginning to end knows and as the article rightly states, you analyze, ponder and cannot wait for the story to unfold. The proverbial question on your lips is what happens next? Interestingly, this question occurs even when you abhor the novel, and like a car crash you cannot look away. The reader has invested time, money and far more importantly has made an emotional commitment which impels him to move forward and turn page after page. A novel is a far more intimate experience than a play or movie. You are much more connected to the private thoughts of the characters especially the protagonist whose journey you keenly follow. You are not on the outside peeping through the keyhole, but you are actually on the set so to speak even as part of the furniture. As you read with only words as your companion you create your own canvas of images. And while the author is the producer and director you certainly become co-director or a partner with the author as you create mental images in your head. There are separate relationships being created depending on whether the novel is written as a narrative or first person, but the creative journey is the same path taken by the author. You retrace his careful steps in the writing process and in doing so develop a bond. Newer generations might need convincing of the merits of reading a novel in this high tech world where we demand mediums where our images are created for us in 3-d and 4-d and instant gratification is received. However, as any cerebral person who has lost themselves in a novel knows reading is a habit which is difficult to break.

The experience of writing as seen through the eyes of the author is just as interesting. He needs inspiration to unleash the creative flow while still breaking for breath to concern himself with the obvious logistics. The author has a message to deliver which he needs to justify as he begs for the attention of the audience. A novel is not just written to fulfill the creative needs of the author, he also writes for his readers and he needs assurance and affirmation. He needs a response and reaction whether positive or negative. His attention seeking narcissistic nature seems to cry out love me or hate me, but do not ignore me, hear me out. A novel that has never reached publication or has never been read is like a still born child. A mother nurtures the child in the woman, develops a close bond and mourns for what could have been. However, beyond his relationship with the reader, there is a relationship he shares with himself. The writing experience is like sitting in the chair of the therapist and getting things off his chest. It is a release of pent up emotions and emotional baggage that he has been carrying around. With this release he is free and at peace with himself. He has spoken and he has been heard.

The author and reader without knowing each other are inextricably bound, just as the leaves of the book are bound. They share a special enduring relationship that feeds each others needs. When the author starts the writing process and the reader the reading process the psychology of both are changed forever. Finally, I am reminded of the age old adage, never judge a book by its cover. Certainly not, allow the words to reach your soul as you float over the intricate canvas and then pass judgment. Like it or hate it you are richer for the experience.



Forests

Forests The Shadow of Civilization by Robert P. Harrison gives a detailed opinion of the importance of forests in the depiction of the development of our civilization, whether it be historical or fictional. Harrison uses many examples to prove his point using references from epic literary pieces and legends as well know historical events. Many of these references have parallels with the novel We.


The main theme deals with the concept that the‘forests came first. As illustrated in poetry, it is shown that Rome and in fact all cities started as a forest and needed to be cleared to create a community. This clearing allowed for the science of enlightenment to form. The analogy goes on further to compare ‘forest and city,’ where forest represents the uncivilized and undeveloped world, and city represents the modern developed world. Both entities are separated by a wall figuratively or otherwise. This was evident in We when the city boundary had a green glass wall that shut out the jungles of the forest. Development can only take place if we abandon our archaic ideals and primitive way of life, “Rome can become Rome only by overcoming, or effacing, the forests of its origins.” And yet the forests or nature eventually overcomes its defeat and encroaches upon the city. The author I feel means to explain that as we develop we inadvertently manage to destroy ourselves. This destruction could be in wars as in the case of Ancient Rome, or today in global warming where we are depleting the Earths natural resources. We are playing with the natural order and inviting the wrath of Mother Nature, who shows her fury with destroying the newly created world. Today environmental concerns such as the destruction of the Amazon rain forests is leading us to the first step in annihilation such as melting glaciers and the extinction of many species. Similarly, in We the city gained greatness just as Rome had done before it, but ended in being overcome with the forest encroaching.

The metaphorical comparison of forests is shown in our everyday sayings and phrases such as ‘family tree’ and ‘tree of life'. This shows how symbolic and significant, tree and forest references have become to our psyche. Despite our concrete jungles and our overcoming the laws of nature, ultimately we are ancestrally born of the earth and through our burial rituals we return there. Therefore order and balance is maintained and life comes full circle.

Relationship between Questions of Conquest and Freedom and Democracy

Questions of Conquest and Freedom and Democracy both deal with mans’ attainment or loss of freedom and its subsequent consequences. Freedom is defined as the right of self or the individual, to express himself without any pre-conceived notions, and to follow his own desires and dreams without influence. Freedom means choice and decision making without burden and being an individual.

In Questions of Conquest the author discusses in great depth how the ancient civilizations of the Aztecs and Incas were destroyed ruthlessly by Spanish invaders. This was preceded by Columbus stumbling upon the Americas in his search for India. The writer, a native, questions how life would have been different for his country if these ancient tribes were left alone, and if the modern day creation of Peru was for the best. The question is rhetorical, but a deeper understanding of mans’ freedom is brought to the forefront. The tribes though primitive and archaic were still developed and sophisticated in many ways. However, they were ruled by their leaders and their way of life and acted as a whole and not as individuals. Upon loss of their leaders in battle they effectively gave up to their Spanish aggressors. Like children, they could not think for themselves and faced insecurity without authority. Invasion meant their ant like society was destroyed and freedom in its infancy was born. However, today modern day society in Peru is happy to be the new invaders. With their own hands they do not want to preserve their tribes and traditions, as they feel it is a handicap to progress. They embrace westernization, little realizing that they are still held captive, figuratively speaking by their invaders. There is little freedom when they have to conform to white mans ideals for success and acceptance globally.


In Freedom And Democracy some of the ideas above is discussed but on a more general level relating to man kind in general, and his socio development and how it relates to the notion of freedom. The article states the opinion that modern democracy has meant the loss of the individual. Every thought or desire we have comes with pre-conditioning, and that we are automans who have lost their self worth. It discusses that this conditioning begins in our childhood with our parents and teachers, and that education robs us of the right to think for ourselves. In fact, we learn to conform to what society expects of us and deviating from this means being classified as ‘abnormal,’ which in turn leads to self doubt and insecurity. We are suppressed of our rights to be our true self. This suppression takes many forms such as sexual, emotional sense of tragedy, original thinking, truth etc. We have in effect given up on spontaneity and our individuality to be part of the pack, and have no free will, but convince ourselves we have to keep our peace of mind.


In essence, man from the Ancient tribes to the present day has not been able to achieve ultimate freedom. The tribes of South America were invaded and lost their way of life to become puppets in the hands of their invaders, and today we still dance to the tunes of others expectations.