Web Links

I've compiled a list of useful sites you can visit.

They have been classified under the titles of the different novels, and cover a range of topics, from the text, to the author, and to the context.

Do spend some time to visit these different sites, especially the GENERAL section, as it can provide you with an overview of the course.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utopia, Thomas More, and the context of the Renaissance.

http://www.d-holliday.com/tmore/utopia.htm
E-text of Utopia - to aid your research.

http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm
Good collection of essays on More and Utopia. I’ve read them all. So don't bother plagiarising.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/more.html
More and Utopia webpage. Links to other sites.

http://athena.english.vt.edu/~jmooney/renmats/more.htm
More about More.

http://www.d-holliday.com/tmore/more.htm
Some more about More! (Ok, I promise… No MORE!)

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3380
Essay on Utopia (Economy and Textual history).

http://www.apostles.com/thomasmore.html
If you are a fan…

http://www.stupidity.com/erasmus/eracont.htm
Erasmus – More’s friend and very influential supporter.

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/c-humanism/Humanism.html
What is Humanism?

http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/
Renaissance English Literature and History Site. Beautiful frontpage displaying Botticelli's Primavera.

http://communication.ucsd.edu/bjones/Books/vernac.html
Printing Press in the Renaissance.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm
The Dark Side... E-text of The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli.



Ninety Eighty-Four, Orwell and the context of the ‘40s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Overview of 1984.

http://www.rhetoriciansforpeace.org/students.html
Good web-resource on 1984.

http://www.llp.armstrong.edu/watermarks5/ks.html
Sensible essay on 1984.

http://www.globalaware.org/Artlicles_eng/1984.htm
Long-winded attempt to update 1984.

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr276/foot.htm
Orwell and Stalinism

http://students.ou.edu/C/Kara.C.Chiodo-1/orwellbib3b.html
Orwell and 1984 bibliography.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/arendthtml/essayb1.html
For those who'd like to read further about Arendt and her works.

http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calvin.edu%2Facademic%2Fcas%2Fgpa%2Fww2era.htm
German Propaganda - Context for 1984.

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/repress.html
Repression in Stalinist Soviet Union.



Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Dick, Science Fiction, and the context of the '60s.

http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_androids.html
Dedicated homepage about Dick and his works. Useful biography.

http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/E192/bladerunner/Dystopia.Blade.Runner.Hoffpauir.htm
DADOES (and Brazil) as dystopia.

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/
Remember the grand-daddy of computers, Alan Turing? A good website about him.

http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/interview.html
Knock yourself out, if you are THAT into A.I. Tonnes of essays and interviews on the subject. But don't get carried away!

http://technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=126
Apparently, the Voight-Kampf test has a strong cult following!



The Handmaid's Tale: Atwood and Context

http://www.heliweb.de/telic/atwood1.htm#16
Excellent commentary about the text. You don't need to read anything else!

http://membres.lycos.fr/fredy8/CriticalApproches.html
Good overview of the text.

http://www.randomhouse.com/resources/bookgroup/handmaidstale_bgc.html
Useful info about the text + Atwood interview, etc.

http://www.bookrags.com/notes/hmt/
Study guide - Useful in a pinch, but useless unless you also apply your mind to analyse what they've picked out for you. Don't rely on this.

http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/worldlit/canada/handmaid.html
Another useful study guide.

http://www.webenglishteacher.com/atwood.html
More useful links and study guides.

http://www3.cerritos.edu/fquaas/resources/English102/handmaid.htm
Again.

http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/atwood/internet.htm
And again.

http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/SCL/bin/get.cgi?directory=vol19_1/&filename=Caminero.htm
'Cheem' reading of THT in terms of Postmodernism (my cup of tea...).

http://members.aol.com/misuly/atwood.htm
See how bibliographiles and Sci-Fi lovers in Denver rated THMT.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/webdescrips/atwood157-des-.html
Intro on THMT.

http://www.bookslut.com/hundred_books/2003_12_001151.php
Review of THMT.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/750/Handmaid
Another review.

http://sexor.dns2go.com/~erica/hand.html
THMT trivia!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/wwf_handmaids_tale.shtml
Listen to Atwood interview on BBC online.



General

http://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/
Useful overview of utopian writings

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/philosophy/club/utopia/utopian-visions/
Very thorough examination of utopian writings and other issues related to it. Definitely worth a look.

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/philosophy/club/utopia/utopian-visions/spencer-lec.html
A university lecture series. Good insights. But please don’t plagiarise from here – I will know.

http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/10/sargent10art.htm
Provides a historical survey of utopian writings.

http://utopia.nypl.org/links.html
Another very rich website with many links to online texts about utopia.

Other Writers and their Texts NOT covered in our course:

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/herland.html
Charlotte Gilman Perkins - Herland - Feminist Utopia.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/
William Morris - News from Nowhere - Marxist-Anarchist Utopia.

http://www.julianbarnes.com/
Julian Barnes - England, England - Postmodern/Baudrillardian Utopia.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/jefferies20.htm
Richard Jeffries - After London - Naturalist Utopia (can't find e-text)


Read at your own risk! More radical views about Utopias.

http://www.rewired.com/96/Fall/1122.html
Utopias and Technology, but written in the context of an attack on WIRED magazine.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/geras1.htm
Socialism and Utopia.

http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/freud4mainframe.html
Freud Fans

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/definitions.html
Anarchy Online

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/Proudhonarchive.html
Anarchist 1: Proudhon

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html
Anarchist 2: Bakunin

http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm
The original idea of the Panopticon.

Praise Be! We Love Big Brother! 

Sharul (attempting to) impress our american friends... Justin seems to have his doubts... 

Marilyn and Juling having a good laugh too... with Delon and Charlene looking suspiciously into the frame... My, was it such a funny conference?

Lionel and Sufyan having a good laugh... (Sarah Ching too!). What about, I can't remember.

Pre-PW/OP (submission) days... everyone looking so fresh-faced... still wet behind the ears. Look at yourselves now, battle-scarred and wordly-wise...

A series of oblique mirroring interfaces creating a moebius-like connectivity... we starring at a screen showing them starring at a screen showing us starring at...

Pics of Video Conference with Hatboro Horsham High, Pennslyvania, USA. Oct 26 2004@NIE.

Hi all,

This is LOOONG overdue. I apologise. I got the pics a long time ago but only just thought about publishing them on the blog (I had other grand ideas... but...). Well, better late than never!

Hope this brings back some nice memories! And for those who weren't there, you have the last laughs!

Some song lyrics about Utopia and 1984

While busy doubling up as a Thought-Policeman, gathering evidence of possible plagiarism amongst our group, i came across several song lyrics on the internet that are about Utopia or 1984. Have a look.

On a very different note, i strongly recommend you all to visit Jeremy Chan's ("Zhi Jian" on my blog site) blog. It's excellent in terms of visual presentation, depth of analysis and relation to other interesting sites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurythmics: Album: 1984: For the Love of Big Brother
http://www.lyred.com/lyrics/Eurythmics/1984:+For+The+Love+Of+Big+Brother/

Undead: In Eighty Four
http://www.searchlyrics.org/undead/in_eighty_four.html

Incubus: Talk Shows on Mute
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Talk-Shows-on-Mute-lyrics-Incubus/62CAC1EB0A62A78A48256E08000BB38B

Pink Floyd: Album: Animals (not on 1984 nor Utopia, and no lyrics either, but hey!)
http://rateyourmusic.com/view_album_details/album_id_is_978

Radiohead: Ignoreland
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1553

Alanis Morrissette: Utopia
http://www.firelyrics.com/song/79842/


Let me know if you know of or find out more...
(Frankly, I've never heard any of these songs before.... )

"Everyone's vision of Utopia is different..."

I have seen several postings with frequent references to this notion that "everyone's vision of utopia is different" , therefore there is conflict or disappointment, etc..

I would like all of us to think a little beyond this notion. Yes, it is true that everyone's vision of utopia is different from everyone's else, even in the slightest way. What then?

First - are we assuming that in utopia, everyone must think and feel alike? That everyone must share in this one, unified vision of utopia?

Second - If the society or government presents a certain vision of utopia (be it the world of the Utopians or Oceanians), and it is different from one's own, what is there to do? Should one rebel? Adapt? Run away? Or, as most narrators-protoganists in utopian writings would do, they ANALYSE what is different between their vision and what they see before them, and try to find out what this difference means.

If the world they see troubles them, the question would be - what went wrong? What will happen? If they like what they see, they might then pose questions about their own vision (or world of origin, as in the case of Raphael, for example) - what's wrong with ours/mine? [thus setting the stage for satire].

Which leads me to another issue, something very much in line with what we are also doing for GP - can we have an anarchic vision of utopia? Since we complain that utopias can never be realised as everyone's vision is different, would this problem be solved in an anarchic world, where there is no government to impose its ideology, no social or cultural pressures to accept a certain kind of vision, but where anything goes, and all views are acceptable? What then? Is THAT the ultimate utopia?

My point is: Do not stop at just noting that everyone's vision of utopia is different. What then? ...

Why we are blogging II

Visit Sufi and Tracy's site - you'll find comments from people (someone from the UK, i presume) from beyond our course posting comments on YOUR blogs, and making interesting references to expand our understanding of the novel. I believe Joyce Chan had a small comment from a foreigner too, and recently, a student from SRJC posted a comment to me on mine.

Therefore everyone, pls visit each other's site and post a comment or two - pose a question, make a remark, correct a mistake, suggest other links, etc.

So, that's one demonstration of the usefulness of blogs - interconnectivity and openness to a myriad sources of information and views.

Inspired?

PS: BTW, I will post my comments on your postings now and then, so do scan the entire blog to see if there're any comments left by me or others.

Why we are blogging

In case some of you are still grousing about why we are blogging, here's one good reason - you'll be doing it in the university. Or, to put it in another way, we're doing Uni work at MJC.

____________________________________

The Straits Times Interactive
Jan 8, 2005

Blogs used in NUS tutorials

By Sandra Davie
EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT

NATIONAL University of Singapore students taking up the philosophy course on Reason and Persuasion attend tutorials with a difference.

Every fortnight, they have the usual face-to-face sessions with their tutors. But every other week, they attend tutorials online, by contributing to a discussion in a weblog set up by their course lecturer, Assistant Professor John Holbo.

The NUS Centre for Information Technology, which provides IT support for NUS lecturers, said a handful of them have started using blogs to teach their courses, and to keep track of their research students.

In the United States, blogs are being used extensively by teachers and university professors to teach, and to share research information and invite feedback.

Among the academic blog groups is Volokh Conspiracy, founded by Professor Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In NUS, lecturers such as Assistant Professor Adrian Cheok from the department of electrical and computer engineering and Prof Holbo use blogs to supplement their lectures and tutorials, as well as to check on the progress of their students' work.

They post follow-up discussion questions and topics, and make announcements or clarifications to points made in lectures. Some also include exam hints and advice on how to write academic papers.

Prof Holbo said blogs are especially useful for popular courses taken up by a large number of undergraduates. Instead of setting up tutorials for all students, they conduct some of the tutorials online, by adding their comments to a discussion set out in a blog.

For Prof Holbo's course, students are required to add their comments to the blog tutorial at least three times a semester.

At the end of the semester, the students must compile their postings and submit them to their tutor for grading. The score will be added to their year-end grade.

Prof Cheok, who began using blogs more than two years ago, said blogging is a familiar medium to many of the students, who maintain their own personal blogs.

'Even for those new to blogging, it is as easy as sending e-mail,' he said.

Students who have attended these 'blog tutorials' gave it the thumbs-up.

Miss Serena Tan, 19, who took up Prof Holbo's course, said: 'It is a lot less intimidating than trying to contribute in a tutorial class. It has also got me into the habit of putting down my views in writing.'

Computer engineering student Eva Yustina, 21, who had no blogging experience before her project supervisor, Prof Cheok, introduced it, found it a 'time-saver'.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Give me some time!

It's good see more and more postings on your various sites, some doing several at one go (huiting), some venturing into new texts, etc.

GIVE ME SOME TIME! I need to re-read "The Machine Stops" (read bits of it many years ago...) and Brave New World, WHILE getting hooked on Frank Herbert's Dune. I can't put it down. It's better than LOTR....

In the mean time, KEEP those posts coming!

A Brave New World or The Handmaid's Tale

It's good to see some of you picking up Brave New World. In many ways, it is the text that bears most similarities with 1984. The other text i would like you to read is Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Let me list some of the pros and cons of doing either as our fourth text next year.

Brave New World (1932), Aldous Huxley.
I think Marilyn provided a thoughtful commentary-comparision between 1984 and this text. Huxley himself, in an essay entitled "Brave New World Revisited" (1958) commented on the differences between his "fable" and Orwell's. He noted that his story focused on control exerted in a "soft" way compared with the more direct and brutal dominance of the Oceanic Party. The main emphasis of Brave New World is technology - how can technology help us build utopia? How might it ruin our utopia? BNW also allows us to make very interesting and relevant comparisons with DADoES, what with the use of Soma (drugs) and the creation of genetically-engineered classes of people. One more interesting fact - the novel makes mention of Singapore as one of the most productive genetic engineering stations! As a literary text, however, I don't think it rates very highly - again, like 1984, a crude plot and a brusque narrative style.

The Handmaid's Tale (1986), Margaret Atwood.
Set in the future where human fertility is reduced by environmental degradation to a dangerously low level, America is transformed into a religously fundamental state, run by "Commanders" and "Aunts", where the prime role of the few fertile women left is to act as surrogate mothers for these commanders, moving from household to household. This would be an interesting text because Atwood was very influenced and affected by 1984, so many issues are carried over and transformed in hers. It also allows us to look at utopian writings from a more feminist perspective, something direly lacking in this genre. Personally, I really like Atwood's style of writing - it borders on the poetic (tho' occasionally it also threatens to flip over to the banal). Of all the utopian texts i've read, this one has one of the highest literary value (play of words, explores issue of writing and reading, poetic use of language, plays with perspectives, etc.). I must warn you however, that the text deals a lot with issues of sexuality (it's as if Atwood wrote a novel about Julia... a more sophisticated and human version...) which i hope will not overly repulse or excite some of you.

So, i think these are the two most likely candidates for next year's fourth text. Do your reading now, if you can, and we'll talk about this when we meet in Jan '05 (which is just a couple of weeks away *gasp*)!

Reloading the Matrix discussion

Reading some of your postings, especially Zhi Yun's (again), i feel compelled to say something.

Read pp. 279-281.

I think that here, we can start to piece together what the Party is really about, the nature of their power. Isn't what the Party after really simply complete STASIS? Nothing but the operation of their power over the rest of Oceania. That's all that mattered. Our government, most governments (and we all believe in this) puts all it has on GROWTH and IMPROVEMENT. The Oceanic one wants NONE of that. They might as well have another slogan : Growth is Destruction. All it, the Party, wants, is for the people to obey and they to continue ruling forever. Now... isn't that exactly what was happening to humans in the world of the Matrix? We were held completely subservient to the machines and were made to think whatever they wanted us to think. All we had to do was serve as batteries. Perhaps looking at 1984 from this perspective offered by The Matrix might help explain WHY it is so power-hungry, WHY falsification is so important.

Read DADoES

A reminder to all:

Next year will be a very tight one. We'll start the semester straightaway, and plan to start on Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (DADoES) by Week 7 (sometime near VD...). So please finish the novel before 2005! You are more than welcome to post your views on DADoEs on the blogs.

LT

"The Pattern", Robert Creeley

The Pattern

As soon as
I speak, I
speaks. It

wants to
be free but
impassive lies

in the direction
of its
words. Let

x equals x, x
also
equals x. I

speak to
hear myself
speak? I

had not thought
that some-
thing had such

undone. It
was an idea
of mine.

Robert Creeley, 1967.

---

What do you make of this poem? What's the subject matter? How might it be relevant to 1984?

LT

In response to Zhi Yun's postings: The Manipulation of Truth

The reason why i'm posting here in response to Zhi Yun is because (and I HAVE duly lodged my complaint on her site) her blog system does not register comments beyond 1000 words!

The Manipulation of Truth

Raphael (our fellow Meridian, not the famed narrator) mentioned that truth is socially determined. Zhi Yun also said that if all the mathematicians got together can declared that 2+2=5, then we'd all have to accept it. I think we need to have a little perspective here.

In the real world, mathematicians cannot simply declare that 2+2=5. We'd fire them all and commit them to asylums. They have to PROVE to us that 2+2=5. Nevermind if many of us actually fail C Maths and can't prove anything by manipulating numbers and symbols; someone else can. It is the mathematicians' responsibility to make it understandable to the public.

What is fictive and scary about 1984 is that the Party has such absolute control over every aspect of the people's lives that even mathematicians are out of a job. One is powerless to counter the obvious lie that 2+2=5 because no one will be able or willing to testify against it. Such a situation will, touchwood, never happen in the "real world".

There is a difference between what is true and what we believe in.

What we believe in may not necessarily be true, and we may not necessarily believe what is true (this is called delusional or being very, very misguided). Ideally, of course, we should believe in what is true.

Human society has all the power to make people believe in almost anything it wants : 2+2=4, 2+2=5, 2+2=elephant, etc. But this does not make 2+2=4 any less true. THIS is what Winston is insisting on. The Party cannot touch the realm of objective truths. One thing to note: we humans express this mathematical law of addition, exemplified by "2+2=4", in terms of numbers. An alien civilisation may express this same objective relation as "~$c_@". In this sense, the signs do not matter, but the relation that is expressed does. THAT cannot be denied and effaced. That is objectivity.

Now, Winston is right and wrong about matters. He is right that the objectivity of 2+2=4 cannot be effaced. When the world of 1984 is dead and gone, and the proverbial alien race swops down from the skies, this knowledge would still hold true, no matter what the Party wilfully says. BUT, until that day comes, and when the Party holds such absolute sway in society, there may be no point for Winston to know that 2+2 truly = 4, because the Party simply would not allow it. In other words, the Party has the political power, if it so chooses, to make the entire population of Oceania to adopt a mass delusion - to believe that 2+2=5. This is what is really tragic and scary about 1984, that such a bleak scenario might come about. It is sad because the entire society may be forced to live in a mass, perpetual delusion (sigh... yes, think MATRIX). But delusion implies that the truth, as Mulder says, is OUT THERE. There IS hope. What Winston wants to hold on to is this basis for HOPE, that he knows something objectively true that the Party can never touch or sully, like his love for Julia. Alas, what he didn't count on was the fact that the Party didn't need to change objective truth... it only needed to break Winston's personal resolve and spirit.

The hope for us readers is that this only shows that the Party is one particular party which chooses to be delusional. It can one day die out. And truth is ultimately untouched. And as a critic pointed out (I wonder how many of you noticed this), the Appendix at the end of the book writes about Newspeak in the PAST TENSE, implying that the world of 1984 was already a historical fact; Big Brother's fearful rule did not last. So, there is hope after all, veiled and very understated.

LT

"April is the cruelest month", "nonetheless:...

In response to Zhi Yun's query regarding "WHY APRIL?", this is my answer. Again, it's TSE. Let it be noted that I am NOT a fan of Eliot. My favourite poet, William Carlos Williams, HATES Eliot (and so i have to follow suit...). But Eliot's influence on English poetry and literature is immense. I don't know whether Orwell had this poem in mind when he penned 1984, but there's no doubt he read it. (EVERY educated person who knows English read and will have to read TSE, though you don't have to LIKE what he wrote, unlike Shakespeare...). [Incidenntally, Eliot, in charge of Faber and Faber books, refused publication of Animal Farm as he thought he thought it was too sympathetic to the Soviets].

I think my views of Eliot can be summarised by this short extract from Raymond Chandler. (I've not read this story in full; copied it from a website i found).

"`I grow old... I grow old... I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.` What does that mean, Mr. Marlowe?"

"Not a bloody thing. It just sounds good."

He smiled. "That is from the `Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.` Here's another one. `In the room women come and go/Talking of Michael Angelo.' Does that suggest anything to you, sir?"

"Yeah -- it suggests to me that the guy didn't know very much about women."

"My sentiments exactly, sir. Nonetheless I admire T. S. Eliot very much."

"Did you say, 'nonetheless'?"

- The Long Goodbye by Raymond Chandler

---
T.S. Eliot (1888–1965).

The Waste Land
1922

I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD

APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke's,
My cousin's, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.

...

Unreal City,
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet.
Flowed up the hill and down King William Street,
To where Saint Mary Woolnoth kept the hours
With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.
There I saw one I knew, and stopped him, crying 'Stetson!
'You who were with me in the ships at Mylae!
'That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
'Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?
'Oh keep the Dog far hence, that's friend to men,
'Or with his nails he'll dig it up again!
'You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!'

History is Written by the Victor

History students may have heard this often enough. But it pays to pause and think a little about this. I also refer you to Denise's site where she deals with similar issues (plus my comments there).

The title above makes us question - is there objective history? (or rather, what IS "objectivity" in history?). For history students planning to pursue history in university, you might be doing this in year 1, NUS.

In a simple sense, this phrase can mean that the victor (military/political victory, etc.) simply glorifies its actions, whitewashes its misdeeds and vilifies the losing side. So, it could be the Communist government in Russia painting the capitalist "counter-revoluntionaries" as pigs with top-hats, or the Americans making so many caricatures of Bin Laden and the "terrorists".

In another sense, every nation tries to project its own identity, and tries to tweak its history to suit its image. American history tends to highlight its struggle for freedom from colonial rule, and how it then fought for freedon throughout the world, first for the blacks at home, then in the two world wars+cold war, vietnam and now middle-east. But who remembers their treatment of the red indians? and the existing racial inequality that the blacks still face? Or the fact that americans were more often "accidental heroes" in the world wars, preferring to remain neutral (so as to earn more $$ selling weapons!) till the very last minute when their own security was threatened?!

Singapore too, is very conscious of the fact that it is a new nation with a very short sense of its own (common) history. We have a rather 1984-ish icon - the Merlion! It is a pure invention of the STB, complete with its own "story-myth". (notice how every Singapore writer feels impelled to lampoon the poor creature!?) But is our case more understandable? After all, we were a fledging nation-state, small and vulnerable.

"Let us create one nation for all Singaporeans. We are a young country, and we share one future together. Let us build among ourselves a sense of belonging, a feeling of common identity and shared destiny…. [L]et us feel instinctly [sic] that we are, first and foremost, Singaporeans. This is our home and this is where we belong."
Lee Kuan Yew. (I apologise for not having bibliogrpahical details)

"The Singapore Story is based on historical facts. We are not talking about an idealised legendary account or a founding myth, but of an accurate understanding of what happened in the past, and what this history means for us today. It is objective history, seen from a Singaporean standpoint."
DPM LEE, “The Launch of National Education”, May 1997.

My point is that it is often a fine line between the use and abuse of history. We must always put the understanding of a particular history itself in context. Singapore desperately needs its own sense of past and belonging. To what extent should we invent what we need? To what extent should we emphasise what we feel is important to us now? To what extent should we highlight aspects of our history that are misty, confusing or even potentially hazardous (for politics and society)? Isn't that a question that all governments and historians have to ask themselves?

A historian's job is to be faithful to the past (notice i do not say "to present the past as it really was"). There is a need to preserve historical documents as they are. These artefacts allow those who come after to reinterpret the past for themselves, to verify, to ascertain the "facts" for themselves. It is in this respect, i feel, that what the Party does in 1984 is unforgivable - physically destroying historical artefacts. It is one thing to invent historical figures. It is quite another to destroy existing ones.

Orwell also has pointed out a very important facet of history that we should do well to bear in mind - without historical markers in our lives - be they physical landmarks, photos, texts, or even familar smells and sights - we find it harder to define ourselves, our transient personal selves. Personally, I get very frustrated whenever old, familiar bus routes are altered...

LT

List of Available Blogs (so far)

These are the diligent students who have submitted their blog address to me, in order of "appearance". Some links are faulty.

Please visit each others' sites to see the very interesting things that's been published so far. I've tried to comment on as many of the postings as i can. Even though it's a small group, the postings are thoughtful and that's very useful. Comment on each other's postings, engage in cheem intellectual discussion, pose as academics! And don't worry: the current small number of sites does NOT mean that this exercise will be discounted for CA. No way.

LT
___

Lyanna Wong http://one-nine-eight-four.blogspot.com
Denise Lee http://coralinaglassdome.blogspot.com
Chan Wei Sze http://weisreading1984.blogspot.com
Joy Cha http://joyreading1984.blogspot.com
Marilyn Chok http://maril-1984.blogspot.com
Samantha Heng http://samanthaheng.blogspot.com
Joel http://www.1984forwhatitsworth.blogspot.com
Joseph http://www.geocities.com/joker_n_1984
Nadia http://Nads1984.blogspot.com
Ming Yan http://theyarewatchingyou.blogspot.com
Joyce Chan www.nineteen-eighty-four.blogspot.com
Raphael http://raphael-1984.blogspot.com
Wu Zhi Yun http://geocities.com/bleeding_berry/1984.html
Vincent Tan http://vincenttanreading1984.blogspot.com
Sarah Ching http://peripheral-vision1984.blogspot.com
Yap Hui Ting http://1984vs2004.blogspot.com
Liane http://thegoldencountry.blogspot.com
Tracy and Sufi http://meetmymaker.blogspot.com
Syafiqah http://1984syafiqahm.blogspot.com
Juling http://fiftysixyearslater.blogspot.com/
Yanqing http://fatdiuqs.blogspot.com
Christopher Low http://www.newspeak1984.blogspot.com
Juliana http://juliana-1984.blogspot.com
Samantha Tsang http://samanthat-1984.blogspot.com
Audrie Soh http://houseof1984.diaryland.com
Justin http://ahopelessreality.blogspot.com
Khairah http://www.livejournal.com/users/khairah1984
Rohani http://www.livejournal.com/users/rohani
Joylynn http://www.1dys9to8pic4.blogspot.com
Wei Ying http://www.wy-1984.blogspot.com
Kurseth http://www.1984-mythoughts.blogspot.com
Jeremy Chan http://memoryhole.beplaced.com
Khairiah http://www.k-1984.blogspot.com
Kelly Low http://www.surviving1984.blospot.com
Marli http://1984bymarli.blogspot.com
Suprita http://supritakaursingh-soni-reading1984.blogspot.com
Jin Ni http://milkoo00.blogspot.com
Jia Zhao http://thelastminutework.blogspot.com
Ashley http://oneniner-eightfourer.blogspot.com
Sean http://4891.blogspot.com
Yu Jin http://mywhatacrappyending.blogspot.com
Willis http://willisreading1984.blogspot.com
Marcus http://marc-lit.blogspot.com

Preludes, by TS Eliot

This is the poem by T S Eliot (aka "TSE") from which I constantly make comparison with 1984's image of the woman singing on the streets near the curiosity shop. See what you make of it.

You should also visit this site http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/eliot.html#etext to have a look at the most oft-quoted poet of the 20th century. His The Waste Land can, in some ways, be counted as a (dys)utopian text.

LT

___

T.S. Eliot (1888–1965). Prufrock and Other Observations. 1917.

Preludes

I

THE WINTER evening settles down
With smell of steaks in passageways.
Six o’clock.
The burnt-out ends of smoky days.
And now a gusty shower wraps
The grimy scraps
Of withered leaves about your feet
And newspapers from vacant lots;
The showers beat
On broken blinds and chimney-pots,
And at the corner of the street
A lonely cab-horse steams and stamps.
And then the lighting of the lamps.

II

The morning comes to consciousness
Of faint stale smells of beer
From the sawdust-trampled street
With all its muddy feet that press
To early coffee-stands.
With the other masquerades
That time resumes,
One thinks of all the hands
That are raising dingy shades
In a thousand furnished rooms.

III

You tossed a blanket from the bed,
You lay upon your back, and waited;
You dozed, and watched the night revealing
The thousand sordid images
Of which your soul was constituted;
They flickered against the ceiling.
And when all the world came back
And the light crept up between the shutters
And you heard the sparrows in the gutters,
You had such a vision of the street
As the street hardly understands;
Sitting along the bed’s edge, where
You curled the papers from your hair,
Or clasped the yellow soles of feet
In the palms of both soiled hands.

IV

His soul stretched tight across the skies
That fade behind a city block,
Or trampled by insistent feet
At four and five and six o’clock;
And short square fingers stuffing pipes,
And evening newspapers, and eyes
Assured of certain certainties,
The conscience of a blackened street
Impatient to assume the world.

I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.

Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;
The worlds revolve like ancient women
Gathering fuel in vacant lots.

Pearls of Wisdom from Lord Acton

Fresh from my comments on Nadia's blog.

I believe you've all heard Lord Acton's famous saying:

"Power Corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Think about it more deeply. What does it REALLY mean? And how might it apply to 1984? What does this quotation tell us about the nature of POWER?

Another issue:

Have you ever wondered why the Party bothered to do plant the seed of rebellion in Winston's subconscious 7 years ago? Why the 7-year prank on a poor pen-pusher? Why PROVOKE him to rebellion, and even facilitating him the tools and accessories, such as the fake antique shop, complete with old man and painting, etc.?

LT

My 3 Encounters with the Matrices

After reading Marilyn's latest posting, i was reminded of how much the Matrix trilogy seems to have made an impact on this cohort, so i thought, why not post my views on it here so provoke some views from everyone?

The Matrix (1) blew my mind. I went to the film with little expectations, thinking it'd be just another action flick with some cool effects. But the plot was fascinating. And the directors seemed to know what they were up to, with references to Baudrillard, etc. The idea that THIS reality can actually be entirely FALSE, collectively dreamed up by us and controlled by a computer-machine really changes the way we look at things. To me, i love the Matrix because i see it as the computer age's updating and reinterpretation of a Buddhistic universe (and scenes from The Animatrix confirms this - later).

There is a Buddhist saying - before I was on the path to enlightenment, i saw mountains and rivers. When i was on the path to enlightenment, the mountains and rivers disappeared. When i was truly enlightened, i saw mountains and rivers again. This is exactly what Matrix was saying, i thought. Before Neo was "saved", he mountains and rivers, what the Matrix wanted him to see. But when he was saved, he saw the matrix for as an evil construct to be fought against. But when he became truly enlightened, he saw through the matrix, beat it, and could zip in and out of it at will - seeing mountains and rivers again.

But one problem always bugged me - Neo and company never questioned the reality of the un-plugged world. How would they know that THAT world is not false too? How could the movie rest, and expects us viewers, after being blown away by such a cool idea, to not think this? The film side-stepped this issue and even played up the narrative of Neo as Saviour-Messiah, "unplugged version" (i can't resist the pun). The film has set up two mirrors (literally - remember the scene where Neo was asked to swallow the red pill, and immediately, he touched the mirror and it consumed him?), endlessly casting images (and doubts) upon the other, ad infinitum. Why did the directors cop-out?

So, i was undecided - Matrix 1 was good, but it might be fluke. We have to see the entire trilogy to decide. And, the other films that producer Joel Sliver pushed out (previous to Matrix as well) were horrendous - Romeo must die, etc. I was losing faith....

Then came Animatrix - a commercial product pushed out to stimulate interest in the other two installments and to rehash storyboards and other waste materials used to prepare Matrix 2 and 3. I didn't care - i lapped it all up. And I loved it. The first two stories confirmed my hunch that Buddhism played a part in the Cohen brothers' conception of the original film, evidenced by the mandalas endlessly opening up AND blending with the computer circuitry - brilliant image. And the short stories (except the last one) all carried the same philosophical depth and promise as the first.

Then came Matrix ... reloaded, right? Can't be bothered to remember. Pure crap. Confirmed my suspicion that Matrix 1 was a fluke. The introduction of the key master chinese kung fu guy was but just one of many the terrible moves made by the director-producers. Unlike Star Wars (IV-VI), where the elaboration of the plot made the story more interesting and complex, here, the writers were clearly out of their depth. What the *#@~! is the Architect? God? The way the film tried to provide a meaning and explanation to the story only simplified it and made it mundane. So, the whole story of the Matrix, of Neo's heorism is nothing but a self-regulatory programme run by the Architect, with the Oracle in "collusion"? We might as well call it "Matrix Reloaded; with Norton Antivirus and latest patch!" Neo is "destined" to rebel, so as to make the Architect's programme (which is "the world") stronger. The Oracle is there to add the element of chaos, unpredictablity. He, the father figure, she the mother. It was a plot twist for the twisting's sake. It was so cliched I was laughing and crying at the same time. And, of course, there has to be LOVE to save the day. Yawn... Can we have a movie that does NOT have love as the PRIME motivating factor?

So, when it came to Revolutions, i went in expecting nothing but mindless action. Heck the plot and the pseudo-philosophy. And sure enough, I had a good time, seeing the copy-cat Battletech-Aliens crossbred mechwarriors shoot off the drones or probes or whatever those squid-like things were. By now, the plot had become as unwieldy and messy as the ludicrous virus that Agent Smith had grown into. You see where all this is going - the entire Matrix trilogy has become nothing more than an allegory of computer virus-busting - the stuff that programming geeks fantasise about. From a potential parable about the problems of perception and experience, about the realities of existence, the Matrix had descended to the level of a storm, not in a teacup but a floppy disk. Which actually proves my first thought right - that all this action and heroism is taking place within the space of kilobyte - Neo thought he was the One; actually he's only a bit (literally) in another larger programme. But in this case, i hate to be right.

So, there you have it, my tirade against the Matrix, feeling very let down and betrayed by what could have been an extremely fascinating film. I get angry thinking of the wasted opportunities the writers-producers squandered away with the other two matrix installments.

But that's my view. What do you think?

LT

My 3 Encounters with 1984

My 3 encounters with 1984

I first read 1984 when I was in JC 1, first-three-months. I still disctintly remember reading it in the not-so-brightly-lit bus to college in the mornings, sitting on the long seats facing the ticketing machine.

I found the novel rather crudely written, as if Orwell was more interested in the message than in how he was saying it. He wanted to paint a negative picture of totalitarianism and he used bold, harsh strokes to do it, even if often a times they seemed high-handed - the violent subject matter was presented in an equally, and ironically, violent style.

I also found the politics of 1984 crude. What's all this talk about pure, naked power? Orwell is just theorising, talking about power abstractly. Nobody talks like that. Nobody acts like that. It's totally unbelievable.

During my post-gradudate studies in NUS, I tutored a few first-year Lit classes, and one of the prescribed texts was 1984. I had to re-read it again. This time, I found something there that I had not noticed before. Armed with post-structuralist theories and ideas, Winston's act of writing, in defiance, immediately caught my eye. Here, is the real politics of 1984. Not in the war or in Room 101, but in the mind, in writing, in language, in thought.

And reading the novel in this way made me realise that Orwell was on to something quite profound. He was rethinking an old philosophical issue that Rene Descartes had so famously stated in 1637 - "I think, therefore I am". Now, we can't think without language. Therefore we should say "I think in language, therefore I am." But, language is not pure. It affects and is affected by social forces. In that case, what "I am" is mutable, potentially unstable, potentially malleable.

And when I finshed my studies, and finished my NIE course, I came to Meridian Junior College, and once more, I found myself having to teach 1984. This time, I paid more attention to the historical context of the novel, read more widely from Orwell's corpus of works, and became an instant fan of his essay style - he writes brilliantly, using simple words and short, neat sentences. This time round, I saw the relevance of Freud to a reading of 1984. Definitely, the text deals a lot with repressions and what Freud calls "the return of the repressed". Perhaps I will work that into some of the lectures.

So that, my folks, is the short history of my 3 encounters with 1984. Of course, this is an account of my reading of 1984, the history of my reading. Yours may differ entirely; your experience of 1984 will be from a very different perspective and context.

(PS: For Derrida/Deconstruction disciples, the words in bold hint at "deconstruction at work"; pardon the pun....)

LT