During what turned into “storytime” on Monday, we looked at Ursula K. LeGuin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” Finish the story.  We’ll discuss it tomorrow. 

We’ll have a discussion of conformity tomorrow and seek answers to questions of equality, specifically: What is the overlap between a society that values conformity above all things and a society that values equality above all?  Is there any overlap?  Michel de Montaigne, considered by many to be the father of the modern essay (now you know who to blame), says of conformity:

Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul.

Which, of course, raises the question: What are the “finer senses”?  (See Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron“) After freeing himself from the equality devices, Bergeron dances with the prima ballerina.  Can we make the argument that the arts are made possible by these “finer senses” and thus non-conformity or rebellion?  Of course, Bergeron also declares himself “a greater ruler than any man who ever lived!”  So there’s the wrench in that analysis.  Thoughts?

Your homework for this weekend is to keep reading Brave New World (reading journal=friend) and finish Harlan Ellison’s “‘Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman.”  First question: What’s with the jellybeans?  I leave you to come up with other questions that pop up.

Bonus reading: Ursula LeGuin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.”  This is a quick read, but a very haunting story.  Read it if you so desire, but we will be focusing on Brave New World and Ellison’s story in class on Monday.

P.S.  If for any reason you have trouble opening Ellison’s essay, download a free PDF reader or read LeGuin’s story.  Discussion is impossible if we’re not all on the same page.

We’ve had some great discussions the past few days.  If you are still uncertain about a topic, ask Stacie.  She keeps cranking them out then disowning them. 

We decided to finish the book by Tuesday, which seems reasonable.  Don’t rush if you’re feeling behind. Enjoy the book, read a bit every day, and you’ll be fine.

Here again are the board clips (less jumbled this time):

Sherrie presented her idea for synthesizing Ellison’s short story, MLK’s “Letter…,” the novel, and Montaigne’s quotation on conformity.  (Keep us updated!)

The question I put before the class was:  Are they happy?  If so, why?  If not, does it matter?  We went through a list of things in our lives that upset us, then crossed out those that are eliminated in the BNW.  The next question was why is Bernard unhappy initially, and what is the source of Hemholtz’s discontentedness?

If you come up with an idea, want to offer one to the class, have a question, or a general observation, comment below for the good of all.

We had a great discussion today, guys!  Here are my notes.  The screencast thing didn’t work, but here is a copy of my notes, jumbled for your interpretative pleasure:

(Click on the pics to make them printable/legible.  Well, larger, anyway.)

Thanks, guys, for keeping me on task.

During our last few discussions we have found it easy to dismiss the dystopian society described in Huxley’s work.  “Of course someone would rebel against a society that cares so little about its citizens.  Of course it is not right to determine someone’s caste from birth.  Of course a person should rebel against morally unjust laws.”  Maybe, maybe not.

Enter Plato.  Written around 360 B.C.E., Plato’s Crito is a dialogue between Socrates, who has been condemned to die by the government of Athens, and his friend Crito, who wishes to help Socrates escape before his sentence can be carried out.  Their debate centers on the question of whether it is just to disobey laws one does not find just.  This may seem like a simple question, but we’ll see just how complex it is.

To add another position to the argument (from a related situation, but not the same), we will read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”  In this letter, Dr. King makes a moral argument for disobeying unjust laws.

With these two readings, we will return to Brave New World with perhaps a different perspective.  Each of us may or may not come to a personal conclusion to these questions, but we will have a better awareness of the intricacies of this particular aspect of the Conformity/Rebellion discussion.

I love this.  Nothing makes me happier than a cross-disciplinary insight into a piece of literature.  We were discussing the fact that “particulars”—that is, the details necessary for a person to live in a time A.F.—are considered to be the basis of “virtue and happiness” in the novel, while generalities are merely an “intellectually necessary evil” (Huxley 4).  This philosophy seems to be adapted straight from assembly-line logic: a person (read: “worker”) needs only to know about his or her specific duty.  Thinking beyond that, to generalities, might create more questions and unnecessary thought.

Then JVW mentions left brain/right brain thinking.  Fantastic.

Now I give you this:

We’ll talk more tomorrow about chapter 3.