In conclusion, I have gathered the impression that utilitarianism was a great part of Victorian society but that does not make it right. It was a corrupt schooling system and was perverted. Dickens uses a variety of devices to share the folly in the novel, but I think that the juxtaposition between Sissy and Bitzer was important and the metaphors and similes emphasised the inadequacies of the system. I think that the Gradgrind Philosophy and utilitarianism had a lot of effect on the next generation because it did not continue it just emphasised the mistake that was made by Jeremy Bentham. If Dickens had not written this novel then we might have still lived in a corrupt environment with clones and no emotion.
Despite their similar subject manner, finding the similarities of the two novels requires a little more analysis then one might expect. Both novels have an individual who wants to change his society for the better. Lowry’s novel has Jonas, who uncovers the secrets and discovers the shallowness of “the community”(Giver1) and Huxley’s novel has John, who see’s the true corruption of “the Other Place”(BNW110). Both of these men set out to change their surroundings for the better and ultimately end up sacrificing themselves. Jonas and John are also Jesus figures in their novels.
God’s Bits of Wood and No Longer at Ease express and explain colonization and the way that it affected those who were colonized in a way that textbooks often cannot. When comparing the two novels, differences in the nature of the ruling and similarities in the impact it has on various social classes and generations are evident. Though historical novels are a great source, it must be kept in mind that they are novels and should not be relied on for one hundred percent factual evidence.
Aldous Huxley is expressing a fear that people will create a perfect world by getting rid of everything that makes life worthwhile. Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning against the results of having a totalitarian state and he is expressing more secret police paranoia. In conclusion, these two books are similar and different in many ways. The differences stand out more than the similarities do. However, these books do have one common similarity.
Ironically, throughout history those in power who develop many moral laws for society are ones who partake in the underground world of society’s forbidden fruits, which is what troubles Freud and many others. Both Freud and Nietzsche find flaws with human morality, but Freud is the one who attempts finding a solution. On The Genealogy of Morals is one long story about the triumph of values that should not triumph. Nietzsche believes we value common man for no good reason (Nietzsche 28). Freud in Civilization and its Discontents, attempts to break down how our moral standards have developed from society and our instincts, while attempting to create a solution to salvage civilization, because although Freud is not an enemy of society, he does believe it can be improved.
These individuals look at how to solve the problems of society with the use of power or control. This society is not alluring, and has become known as a dystopian society. In the books, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and Oryx and Crake, by Margret Atwood, both authors portray dystopian societies with horrific similarities. Bradbury and Atwood emphasize the theme of knowledge. Knowledge is a strong aspect of a dystopian society because people will go out of their way to use their abilities to control the lives of others.
The term Feudalism can mean many things, depending on the context. If the person trying to define the term is not a Medievalist, then the definition would most likely be negative. As R.A. Brown says about feudal and feudalism: "in popular speech they are ignorantly intended as insults even more derogatory than 'medieval.'" The problem with the terms is that they are modern terms not medieval ones. The writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries developed terms of denigration for the societies that they were studying, and applied them over a wide area, as a way to understand their own eras.
A Walk Through Reality With Stephen Crane Seeking and expressing the bare truth is often more difficult than writing stories of fiction. This truth can be harsher to the reader than works of fiction; it can make an author's desire to reveal the essence of society through characters the reader relates to risky and unpopular. Stephen Crane wrote of ordinary people who face difficult circumstances that his readers could relate to (Seaman 148). Crane sought to debunk the ideas that were inherent in nineteenth-century literature, which depicted life in a more favorable, but often unrealistic, light. In Crane's works, Dorothy Nyren Curley says, "There are no false steps, no excesses," (255).
The early modern novel had no definite divisions between fantasy and realism. Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, for instance, has universal appeal in that it deals with and develops real moral and psychological issues, but the narrative still depends upon extraordinary settings and events (Konigsberg 18). Also, Defoe used a fictional "editor," and preface, among other things, to make his work seem like an authentic document and therefore a worthwhile read. As the literary form evolved, novelists began to separate from fantasy, interested more in creating plausible characters and situations than asserting their "truth" with fictional documents. The more explicit devices of authenticity faded from use, and a new sense of self-awareness emerged as novelists argued for legitimacy within the narrative.
Although “WAR IS PEACE” appears to be a contradiction, the paradoxical quality of the statement actually adds to the complexity of ... ... middle of paper ... ...e levels of consciousness to understand it. 1984 would not be the same if it lacked the harmonious presence of these contradictory elements, which developed a deeply corrupted society. The concepts like Newspeak, the Party’s slogans, and Ingsoc force readers to take an idea at face value, dig deeper to undercover the lie and then search for a way to prove that it is in fact the actual truth. 1984 pressures readers to use doublethink, actively believing two opposing ideas at the same time then repressing one, just to understand the way that Oceania runs. This effect helps create a parallel, if only for a moment, between the tortured comrades and the readers because we all must alter our thoughts to correlate with the Party’s.