1984, Love Among the Ruins or A Clockwork Orange?

[Breckinridge Elkins]

Which is the best, or your favorite?

[UberSwank]

Love Among the Ruins

Men Among the Ruins (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Among-Ruins-Reflections-Traditionalist/dp/0892819057/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198859289&sr=8-1) :agree:

[Breckinridge Elkins]

False.

Read the Evelyn Waugh classic. (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Among-Ruins-Evelyn-WAUGH/dp/B000AMZQ3Y/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198859561&sr=1-2)

[sugartits]

I have not read Love Among the Ruins. Guess I'll get a copy and put it on the "to read sometime" stack.

I chose 1984 over A Clockwork Orange just 'cause it has more of a classic status. It was a hard decision, as both novels tell it exactly how it is, was and how it is going to be until the end of time.

[gmork]

False.

Read the Evelyn Waugh classic. (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Among-Ruins-Evelyn-WAUGH/dp/B000AMZQ3Y/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198859561&sr=1-2)


Interesting. At least two novels out there w/the same name...

- Love Among the Ruins: A Novel, by Robert Clark (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Among-Ruins-Robert-Clark/dp/1400030307/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198919252&sr=1-1)

From Publishers Weekly
Edgar Award-winner Clark (Mr. White's Confession) abandons the psychological murder mystery genre of his earlier work to plumb the emotional depths and dangers of young love and mature infidelity in this literary fiction set in 1968 Minnesota. Clark rambles through the hearts and minds of Bill Lowry, 17, and Emily Byrne, 16, in wordy, reflective fashion, treating teenage passion with serious intensity. Bill's divorced, politically active mother, Jane, is a delegate to the Democratic convention in Chicago. The riots there and Humphrey's selection as the Democratic candidate find her disenchanted with the system and skeptical about the chances for an early end to U.S. participation in the Vietnam war. Bill will be graduating from high school next year and the specter of the draft hangs over him as he begins his romance with Emily by letter. Emily's parents, Edward and Virginia, are a loving, Catholic, middle-class couple whose comfortable marriage contains neither pain nor passion.


Love Among the Ruins: A Novel - by Angela Mackail Thirkell (http://www.amazon.com/Among-Ruins-Angela-Mackail-Thirkell/dp/1559212047/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198919317&sr=1-3)

From Publishers Weekly
Thirkell (1890-1961) wrote some 30 highly entertaining novels about life in the imaginary English county of Barsetshire (a setting invented by Victorian novelist Anthony Trollope). Her books achieved enormous popularity for their humorous style, subtle characterization and sympathetic portrayal of a class-conscious society. First published in 1948, Thirkell's ninth Barsetshire novel is, like her other confections, a story of English ladies and gentlemen and their irrepressible children, all of whom live in such fabulous country towns as Winter Overcotes and High Rising, where they talk delightful nonsense, fall acutely but not painfully in love and in general find life worth living despite the shortages and rationing of postwar Britain.

Even more interesting that my local library system has a grand total of one copy of Waugh's book in the entire system (about 50 libraries in an on-line group, including two colleges), but at least 20 copies of Clark's book, and a dozen or so of Thirkell's.

Well, I've put in a request for Waugh's book, which I've never read. Loved Brideshead Revisited back in my Catholic days, but was not as impressed by either Charles Ryder's School Days or A Handful of Dust.

[gmork]

Oh, yes. And as much as I liked 1984, it had to be A Clockwork Orange. The character Alex simply burns himself into your brain the way Winston Smith does not.

PS: Since we're discussing "dystopian" type books, what do people think of The Camp of the Saints (http://www.amazon.com/Camp-Saints-Jean-Raspail/dp/1881780074/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198920308&sr=1-2), which I've also never gotten around to reading?

[gmork]

Even more interesting that my local library system has a grand total of one copy of Waugh's book in the entire system (about 50 libraries in an on-line group, including two colleges), but at least 20 copies of Clark's book, and a dozen or so of Thirkell's.

I've done some more looking around, this isn't quite true. Love Among the Ruins has apparently been reprinted in several "omnibus" Waugh editions, so there's more than one copy available locally. Not that anyone else cares.

[PseudoCop]

Oh, yes. And as much as I liked 1984, it had to be A Clockwork Orange. The character Alex simply burns himself into your brain the way Winston Smith does not.

PS: Since we're discussing "dystopian" type books, what do people think of The Camp of the Saints (http://www.amazon.com/Camp-Saints-Jean-Raspail/dp/1881780074/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198920308&sr=1-2), which I've also never gotten around to reading?

Camp of the Saints is a great book and well worth reading. FWIW, I read 1984 about once a year, I haven't read A Clockwork Orange since I was a teenager but I would watch the movie again without hesitation.

[gmork]

Camp of the Saints is a great book and well worth reading.

I freely admit I had a WFH moment after I saw this in my library's on-line catalogue...

Title The camp of the saints / by Jean Raspail ; translated by Norman Shapiro

probably b/c I had this vague idea it was somehow a favorite of racialists. :p

[Johnstein]

I always preferred Brave New World to 1984.

[Jake Featherston]

1984 is the only one of those I've ever read. I read it about ten times, however, if not more, so its safe to say I liked it. Re-reading 1984 was like a hobby of mine in 1984 and '85. I also read Animal Farm about a dozen times during that period.

Anthony Burgess wrote another dystopian novel (other than A Clockwork Orange) called The Wanting Seed. Its worth a read.

Another classic dystopian novel is We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

[Jaybird]

I always preferred Brave New World to 1984.
I actually have to agree with Johnson on this one.

[Intrepid]

PS: Since we're discussing "dystopian" type books, what do people think of The Camp of the Saints (http://www.amazon.com/Camp-Saints-Jean-Raspail/dp/1881780074/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198920308&sr=1-2), which I've also never gotten around to reading?

It's a terribly written book, really bad. Plot lines, story, characters - all shoddy. It's only interesting for it's correlation to the present.

[Mr. K]

Another classic dystopian novel is We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

Supposedly We was the inspiration for 1984. I didn't finish reading We since, well, I didn't like it.

[Iconoclast]

1984 is much more than just a novel to me. It's prophecy.

One day, Western governments will have the technology needed to make themselves almost immune to public revolt. Surveillance technology has already far surpassed what Big Brother had available to him. And eventually body armor will be so highly developed that ordinary firearms -- even powerful rifles -- will be useless against the System's thugs.

All I can say is, I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime. I will put a bullet in my own head before I ever allow another mortal man to have absolute power over me. "Liberty or Death" is a phrase every true man takes to heart.

[gmork]

1984 is much more than just a novel to me. It's prophecy.


I agree w/ Johnson vis a vis Brave New World over 1984. I think the sociologist Neil Postman's comment (paraphrased) that what we're heading toward isn't a world like 1984 where television sets can't be shut off, it is more going to be like Brave New World where no one will want to is on target. Though the plot for Brave New World is dreadfully tedious, I do admit, I think it is a much more likely scenario than 1984.

[Breckinridge Elkins]

It's a terribly written book, really bad. Plot lines, story, characters - all shoddy. It's only interesting for it's correlation to the present.

I thought it was pretty good, by French standards.

[Jaybird]

I agree w/ Johnson vis a vis Brave New World over 1984. I think the sociologist Neil Postman's comment (paraphrased) that what we're heading toward isn't a world like 1984 where television sets can't be shut off, it is more going to be like Brave New World where no one will want to is on target. Though the plot for Brave New World is dreadfully tedious, I do admit, I think it is a much more likely scenario than 1984.

Where have I seen that discussion before?

[Ahmadinebobina]

1984 for me.
Orwell was just so scarily adept at burning ideas and images into the brain; I haven't read it in years but still can't get rid of the idea of morning exercises, Winston's space behind the wall, the bloody flapping washing line outside the window of him and his lady friend's secret window!
Terrifying book, all too real and unfortunately surreal in that.

(Down and out in London and Paris is fantastic too!)
[For a really irrelevant aside..Orwell loved Henry Miller too ]

[bardamu]

Oh, yes. And as much as I liked 1984, it had to be A Clockwork Orange. The character Alex simply burns himself into your brain the way Winston Smith does not.

PS: Since we're discussing "dystopian" type books, what do people think of The Camp of the Saints (http://www.amazon.com/Camp-Saints-Jean-Raspail/dp/1881780074/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198920308&sr=1-2), which I've also never gotten around to reading?

Camp of the Saints rules.

[bardamu]

1984
Terrifying book, all too real and unfortunately surreal in that.

(Down and out in London and Paris is fantastic too!)
[For a really irrelevant aside..Orwell loved Henry Miller too ]

Orwell missed consumerism. We live in an Orwellian universe but one that is overflowing with consumer goods. Some people might question whether an affluent 1984 is even a dystopia. He also missed the hyper sexuality of our era unlike the puritanical society of 1984.

Down and Out in London and Paris is great. His collected essays are good too.

Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer is hilariously antiSemitic. Jew this, Jew that throughout the book.

[Breckinridge Elkins]

Interesting points.

Waugh's Love Among the Ruins was a reply to Orwell's 1984.

[Ahmadinebobina]

Orwell missed consumerism. We live in an Orwellian universe but one that is overflowing with consumer goods. Some people might question whether an affluent 1984 is even a dystopia. He also missed the hyper sexuality of our era unlike the puritanical society of 1984.

Down and Out in London and Paris is great. His collected essays are good too.

Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer is hilariously antiSemitic. Jew this, Jew that throughout the book.

I meant that it was 'real' in general, of course points were missed and areas left out. By and large, I find it a very stark book though, it stays with you.
Though I do think in many ways it was the image of an anti-utopia, it's intentions toward the greater good even whilst doing bad may have been there. There's a vague paralellel with the nanny-stating of the E.U. there, too.

As for Miller.... there's also mention of 'little yellow men', niggers and of course our favourites - the whores and cunts. I don't believe there was a serious rascism there. He did later marry an Asian woman iirc amongst a multitude of other non-white comrades/associates.

[bardamu]

I meant that it was 'real' in general, of course points were missed and areas left out. By and large, I find it a very stark book though, it stays with you.
Though I do think in many ways it was the image of an anti-utopia, it's intentions toward the greater good even whilst doing bad may have been there. There's a vague paralellel with the nanny-stating of the E.U. there, too.

As for Miller.... there's also mention of 'little yellow men', niggers and of course our favourites - the whores and cunts. I don't believe there was a serious rascism there. He did later marry an Asian woman iirc amongst a multitude of other non-white comrades/associates.


It was a stark book. I had a friend who visiting London asked me what I wanted. I had her get me a hard bound copy of 1984 but I couldn't read it through again becuase it is like you say so goddam stark. The nanny state parallel is large for sure.
No, Henry Miller was not a racist, least not relative to his period. Pretty sure he wouldn't approve of some delicate flower of White womanhood mating with the brutish looking Blacks though, which is all it takes these days to be on the wrong side of political correctness.

[Ahmadinebobina]

Pretty sure he wouldn't approve of some delicate flower of White womanhood mating with the brutish looking Blacks though, .

One hopes!! :)

[Jaybird]

Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer is hilariously antiSemitic. Jew this, Jew that throughout the book.
My friend was just telling me about it. I was truly shocked, I had always been under the impression that it was a collection of love poems.

[Ahmadinebobina]

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? How?
READ IT!!! It's perfection.

[Jaybird]

I really don't know why I thought that. I've been thinking about it since he told me. If I recall correctly, as a kid I remember hearing about libraries banning it so I guess I inferred that it was a dirty book. I really don't know.

[PoisonSausage]

1984 because Smith doesn't do that 'oooh, I'm so deep and violent' listenting to faglord Kraut music thing.

[Ahmadinebobina]

Yeah, Smith is extremely disquieting. You kinda want to hang out with Alex.

[PoisonSausage]

Yeah, Smith is extremely disquieting. You kinda want to hang out with Alex.

Nah, I kinda want to shoot the little smart arse prick in the face.

He's just a knacker who thinks istening to Beethoven makes him classy.

[Ahmadinebobina]

Sausage, where are you from?

[PoisonSausage]

Sausage, where are you from?

I'm a rootless cosmopolitan, though I did park my arse in sunny Rathmines for a few years.

[Ahmadinebobina]

Ha, I KNEW it.:D

Which board did you come from?

[PoisonSausage]

Ha, I KNEW it.:D

Which board did you come from?

I am on all boards.

I am the boards.

Without me, there could be no boards.

On another note, I see they have tarted up the Rathmines Inn. Made it shite if you ask me.

[Ahmadinebobina]

That's why you go to Mother Reilly's, they couldn't tart it up.

[PoisonSausage]

I don't care much for Dublin these days. Expensive and shite. Far better craic in Belfast.

[Hermanric and Horse]

Ha, I KNEW it.:D

Which board did you come from?
He's King Kangaroo/Sweet Left Foot, apparently.

So that would be Liberty Forum (but then we've all "come from" LF at some point, yes?) and Speakeasy.

[Hermanric and Horse]

Orwell missed consumerism. We live in an Orwellian universe but one that is overflowing with consumer goods. Some people might question whether an affluent 1984 is even a dystopia. He also missed the hyper sexuality of our era unlike the puritanical society of 1984.
Living in 1948 Britain it would be easy to miss consumerism. IIRC they were still living on food rationing back then.

Brave New World is a better book at tackling the connections between hyper-sexuality and soft-totalitarianism.

Camp of the Saints is good at examining White/Western suicide cult. It is a book that reads more and more contemporary the older it gets, because the disease it describes is getting worse every year. When it was written it felt like fiction; today it reads like non-fiction. Apart from the final apocalyptic showdown, of course. We're living the the Camp of the Saints, gradualism-style.

[Jake Featherston]

I am on all boards.

I am the boards.

Without me, there could be no boards.

Welcome, Ixabert!

[IlluSionS667]

I've never heard of Love Among the Ruins or Johnstein is Watching Me before. Although I own a copy of 1984, I've only seen the film. Of A Clockwork Orange, I also only saw the film.

If I have to judge two films from an aesthetic point of view, I choose for A Clockwork Orange. If I have to judge the story and the underlying message, I choose 1984.

[IlluSionS667]

Orwell missed consumerism. We live in an Orwellian universe but one that is overflowing with consumer goods. Some people might question whether an affluent 1984 is even a dystopia. He also missed the hyper sexuality of our era unlike the puritanical society of 1984.

I can't speak of the book, but the film mentions three social layers (if I remember well) :

Inner party members : the ruling and manipulating elite.
Outer party members : a bunch of well-educated and puritanital sheeple without a grain of orriginal thought and completely controlled by the inner party members.
Proletarians : the poorly educated, paupered masses.


As the main character belongs to the outer party members and he spends most of his time with other outer party members throughout the film, we learn only little about the social conditions of the inner party members and the proletarians, although it does mention that the party used pornography as one of the elements to keep the proletarians satisfied. Because of the latter, I think it would be incorrect to depict Orwell's 1984 as a puritanical society.

IMO, 1984 largely resembles society as we knew it in Western-Europe between the '50s and '70s and as we know it in some Eastern-European countries today. Western-Europe and North-America have developed way beyond Orwell's predictions since the '80s.

[PoisonSausage]

Living in 1948 Britain it would be easy to miss consumerism. IIRC they were still living on food rationing back then.



Indeed they were. They were on them until the mid 50s. It is easy to understand why Orwell though permanent totalitarianism was the natural way of the future.

[PoisonSausage]

IMO, 1984 largely resembles society as we knew it in Western-Europe between the '50s and '70s

Dude, read the book before making imbecelic statements like that.

[IlluSionS667]

Dude, read the book before making imbecelic statements like that.

What's imbicilic about that claim? I think you underestimate the "Orwellian", totalitarian nature of Western society... IMO, liberal society is far more totallitarian, deceptive and tyrannical than eg. Hitlerian society.

[Hermanric and Horse]

What's imbicilic about that claim? I think you underestimate the "Orwellian", totalitarian nature of Western society... IMO, liberal society is far more totallitarian, deceptive and tyrannical than eg. Hitlerian society.
He means its not like the regimented, one party state style of totalitarian socialism depicted in 1984. This is simple fact.

What we have today could be described as a kind of soft totalitarianism. Yes it is deceptive and tyrannical, but the way it rules is by nature different from hard totalitarianism. It's more about manipulation and the creation of false "choices" in order to deceive; a 1984 style totalitarian state would not bother with these.

[IlluSionS667]

He means its not like the regimented, one party state style of totalitarian socialism depicted in 1984. This is simple fact.

How is a two-party-system like in the US or UK any different, really? Aren't those just two sides of the same coin? Aren't they both controlled by the same elitist multi-billionaires from behind the scenes in an attempt to uphold the appearance of free elections?

1984 is all about disguising the true nature and intentions of the government by lies, deception and various other forms of manipulation. The very concept of "democracy" is exactly that : a system based on lies, deception and various other forms of manipulation.

What we have today could be described as a kind of soft totalitarianism. Yes it is deceptive and tyrannical, but the way it rules is by nature different from hard totalitarianism. It's more about manipulation and the creation of false "choices" in order to deceive; a 1984 style totalitarian state would not bother with these.

Soft totalitarianism is a modern concept that is far more extreme than hard totalitarianism. Soft totalitarianism deals with controlling minds and souls, while hard totalitarianism deals with controlling actions and speech. In this sense, Orwell's dystopia could be regarded as a form of soft totalitarianism because it is based on controlling minds and souls directly...

[Hermanric and Horse]

How is a two-party-system like in the US or UK any different, really?Well, for starters, you don't have millions of people dying of starvation or being rounded up and sent to the gulags.

Just because the ends are the same don't mean the means are the same.

[Inventor]

Apparently I missed out on the voting but A Clockwork Orange was more enjoyable than 1984. I never read Love Among the Ruins.

[IlluSionS667]

Well, for starters, you don't have millions of people dying of starvation or being rounded up and sent to the gulags.

There are millions of people dying of starvation and living in constant fear. Just look at the African and Asian countries that are exploited by Western multi-nationals and ruled by puppets controlled by Western billionaires. Rather than production and consumption classes we now have production and consumption countries. That's globalisation in action.

Just because the ends are the same don't mean the means are the same.

No. The means of a "democratic" society are far more deceptive, destructive and vicious. That's why I said we're already way beyond 1984 today.

[Hermanric and Horse]

There are millions of people dying of starvation and living in constant fear. Just look at the African and Asian countries that are exploited by Western multi-nationals and ruled by puppets controlled by Western billionaires. Rather than production and consumption classes we now have production and consumption countries. That's globalisation in action.
Now you are simply shifting the goalposts. We were talking about Western Europe/USA, not "the world". Europe has been exploiting "the world" for centuries. No one claimed they were totalitarian back then. People have been exploited and starving and living in constant fear since the dawn of history, and before. No one called that totalitarian either.

Besides it's those evil Western countries who are feeding Africa right now; if anyone is starving there it's due to corrupt African governments. Sure western countries do business with them, but Africans have always behaved the way they do and nothing Western governments do is going to change that, unless they decide to recolonize Africa and run the place properly again. But if Westerners so much as murmur that people like Mugabe are evil for starving his own people, they are accused of "racism" and "colonialism" and other Africans will rush to Mugabe's defense. If this is the fault of "globalism" it's only because the globalists are PC idiots who don't actually attempt to be colonialist in their treatment of Africans.

And there is certainly no mass starvation in Asia. Asia is doing pretty well under globalism.

Totalitarianism is a form of government, not an international system; it is what a government does to its own people, not to foreigners. People screwing foreigners isn't "totalitarianism". If it is, the word "totalitarian" is too damned broad to have any real meaning or utility.

No. The means of a "democratic" society are far more deceptive, destructive and vicious. That's why I said we're already way beyond 1984 today.
Uh, sure buddy. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

Nevermind all the alleged evil currently going on today under globalism isn't 1/1000ths as bad as the hundreds of millions who died under 20th century totalitarianism, people mostly killed by their own governments. If you are simply doing body counts, soft totalitarianism is nowhere in the same league as hard totalitarianism. That may change in future, but for now you simply can't compare the two in terms of body counts.

[IlluSionS667]

Now you are simply shifting the goalposts. We were talking about Western Europe/USA, not "the world".

Corporate and banking criminals of European and American descent (and often Jewish blood) are running the world. Country borders are slowly becoming insignificant due to their policies and exploitation has shifted from the European labor class in the 19th century to entire Asian countries today.

Europe has been exploiting "the world" for centuries. No one claimed they were totalitarian back then.

The degree of exploitation and the degree of totalitarianism aren't directly related. Both are distinct concepts.

People have been exploited and starving and living in constant fear since the dawn of history, and before.

Bullshit. That's a lie the totalitarians want you to believe. They present a much distorted image of the past to advance their own interests.

Besides it's those evil Western countries who are feeding Africa right now; if anyone is starving there it's due to corrupt African governments. Sure western countries do business with them, but Africans have always behaved the way they do and nothing Western governments do is going to change that, unless they decide to recolonize Africa and run the place properly again.

Africans fare best in primitive civilisations. They are too incompetent to run their own nations and shouldn't be expected to do so. Western industrialists both support and install such African tyrants, which they manipulate as puppets.

And there is certainly no mass starvation in Asia. Asia is doing pretty well under globalism.

There is only little mass starvation, but there is quite significant mass poverty.

Totalitarianism is a form of government, not an international system; it is what a government does to its own people, not to foreigners. People screwing foreigners isn't "totalitarianism". If it is, the word "totalitarian" is too damned broad to have any real meaning or utility.

Totalitarianism basically means that people have little to no freedom to make any choices for themselves because everything is regulated to the very details. We can't even park our cars in the streets for free or cut down a tree in our own backyards without a permit anymore. That's what I regard as totalitarian.

Nevermind all the alleged evil currently going on today under globalism isn't 1/1000ths as bad as the hundreds of millions who died under 20th century totalitarianism, people mostly killed by their own governments. If you are simply doing body counts, soft totalitarianism is nowhere in the same league as hard totalitarianism. That may change in future, but for now you simply can't compare the two in terms of body counts.

Body counts are by far the only meaningful criterium.

The more people a government kills or throws inside a gulag, the more people will rise up against that government in their hearts. It keeps people aware of their situation and resistant against the indoctrination of the government. Soft totalitarianism lures a people into its own demise with with bread and circusses. It keeps people ignorant of their situation and allows them to degenerate as an entire race. In the end, the latter is far worse.

[FIPS]

.

Burgess' "Wanting Seed", Percy's "Second Coming", Lem's "Futurological Congress", and Zinoviev's "Yawning Heights".

.