Amusing ourselves to death - Huxley vs Orwell
recombinantrecords.net
recombinantrecords.net
Postman goes deeper than this, though. He isn't saying that TV's weakening of the discourse is directly because of trash programming, but that the medium itself is modifying what messages people take in.
Taft was over 300 lbs when he was elected president. There is no way he would be elected in the age of television. He wouldn't have the look for TV.
Political speech in the time of Lincoln assumed of the audience a long attention span, ability to parse arguments and complex sentences, and up-to-date knowledge of current events.
I'm not halfway through, but I'm finding it compelling so far.
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, that all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Can you imagine 10 percent of the populace following Lincoln on this today? It's like a legal deposition. To a far less educated electorate.
Some of the rhetoric of that age has a level of thought-density that is nonexistent in modern speech. I always thought that was due to the selection bias of the speakers back then (you had to be extraordinary to even register in the public consciousness, but there were several counterexamples to this).
[EDIT: added snippet of Lincoln speech.]
"My opponents say that federal control of slavery is unconstitutional. While the supreme court previously referenced the 5th amendment's protection of property, Douglas and his adherents point to the 10th, which grants powers to the states whenever not granted to the federal government."
The first two sentences are completely unnecessary.
No. Not sure I can imagine 10 percent of the populace in 1860 following Lincoln either. Of course, with 60-70% of the adult population excluded from voting, narrowing your appeal wasn't such a huge problem.
In transcript form, perhaps not. In spoken text? I think we could meet the 10% bar. A lot of the klunkiness of that is the transcription, I think; modern extemporaneous speech is transcribed differently.
"So far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it. As I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates. As I understand, all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law", while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""
Transcribe the same speech with modern sensibilities, dropping intermediate "ands" and other such information-free interjections when appropriate and lay off the semicolon and it cleans up fairly well. Even the "hard words" and phrases I think are more common speech of the time, and only sound erudite because we inherently think of old-timey things as sounding educated since only educated people bother to learn them. My great-grandchildren will probably think "old-timey" sounds fancy.
Which is all to say, there are always distractions, society is always on the brink of collapse. We should remain vigilant, but technology and the media it enables is ever-changing, and we will always be struggling to adapt.
I wonder how much of the change in the electorate can be attributed to the shifting forms of communication. There appear signs of a relationship, but I'm not persuaded yet.
If during Taft's time the electorate was entirely unconcerned by race or religion, I wonder how Kennedy and Obama would have fared.
This book is a lot of fun.
We've got the great firewall of Australia & China, and the camera on every street-corner in England, and coming soon to Chicago, New York, and more.
And we've also got American Idol.
We've also got the propaganda war of Iraq, the jackboots on the neck of countless vilified populations worldwide, the haves and the have-nots.
I'm not quite so sure it's wise to linger on pop culture while military power still murders many every day, keeps untold others in the dark, and the all-seeing panopticon is part of the effect of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Digg, and others.
Focusing on pop-phenomena and wringing hands over the trite uselessness of pop culture can be just another way to be self-righteous and better than thou. In a perfect world perhaps all we'd worry about is social networks and gossip. But we can't because Orwell's world is real and true, and power continues to absolutely corrupt.
I could go on and on. The treatise is interesting and thought provoking, but weak.
disclaimer: I haven't read the book and am responding to the (likely oversimplified) line of argument presented in the comic.
Huxley's dystopia is set up to be more subtle and in fact, not one that you would choose to opt out of; that's the crux of it.
He compares to Orwell's writing both in his retrospective, Brave New World Revisited and in his talk titled The Ultimate Revolution (great listen, by the way). Here's a bit from there:
"The state of servitude the state of being, having their differences ironed out, and being made amenable to mass production methods on the social level, if you can do this, then you have, you are likely, to have a much more stable and lasting society. Much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs and firing squads and concentration camps. So that my own feeling is that the 1984 picture was tinged of course by the immediate past and present in which Orwell was living, but the past and present of those years does not reflect, I feel, the likely trend of what is going to happen [...]"