Conclusion

So we're faced with a War of The Worlds, ironically enough. Which Dystopia is more apropos to the world we really live in? We have Huxley's realm in his novel Brave New World, based in pleasure and power; we have Orwell's world in his novel 1984, based in punishment and power. Both take a look at the potential future of our world. They are both warnings. They both serve to deter the reader from making the same mistakes that are depicted in the book. The question is, though, which book more truthfully depicts where our society is headed? Which book is better? That is, which encompasses a more whole truth?

Let's first examine the timeliness of the novels. 1984 was written in 1948. It was incredibly insightful then. It's plot, characters, and theme all spoke to the dangers that Nazi Germany embodied in that era. It was totalitarianism in it's most real and extreme form. The idea that all individuality and individual thought could be controlled and/or eliminated was an ideal that needed to be dealt with at the time. "From the perspective of 1948, the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four seemed very probable; but from the perspective of 1959, much less so" (Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984). This is because, after Nazi Germany fails, and the world remains intact people begin to see why. Totalitarianism doesn't work. It doesn't vascillate. It doesnt expand and contract with change. It simply tries to contain every individual thought until eventually, individuality, like all things contained for too long, builds in pressure and bursts out of its holdings. Nazi Germany was defeated by it's own evil. It was a state at war that lived by the sword in every sense and died by the sword as well. Orwell's world is not unlike that. While it is the perfect form of Nazi Germany, there are yet Winston Smith's present who are willing to fight against it. It is not so farfetched to imagine that eventually a brotherhood of Winstons and Julias will exist and will rise up and will overthrow Big Brother.

There is restriction, and therefore, there is resistance. The two come hand in hand invariably.

"Huxley makes the point that terror is a less efficient administrative tool than pleasure" and I certainly agree. In the weeks before graduation I'm certainly more inclined to do my math homework for a lollipop than I am because my grade will fall 5 percentage points if I don't do it. I strive to be happy. I strive to smile. I strive to laugh. I strive for love. I strive for sex. I strive to strive and not to run. All of this is based on pleasure. I do what I do, perhaps out of laziness or, more likely out of human nature, for pleasure. In order to control me, most of those who know me best have sought to control manipulate what I should do into what I want to do. They have found that this works better than telling me what I shouldn't do. A little secret: I do what I shouldn't do anyway.

The Declaration of Independence guarantees the citizens of the United States "Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit of Happiness." It is there that Brave New World finds its thesis. Can the population be controlled by using the guarantee that our country prides itself on. Can "The Pursuit of Happiness" be the thing that ends our life and liberty? In Huxley's world the people revel in sex and drugs in order to maintain happiness. It's far from the same sex and drugs in our world, but how far really? Turn on the TV: diet pills to satiate the hunger for happiness, half naked women and well built men to satisfy the desire for sex in a world that seems to be stripped of its clothing which each passing year. All of this because our society derives pleasure from it's basic human longing for sex and happiness. Is it so farfetched to imagine that a world that bases it's stability on its people searching for pleasure is more likely to obtain total control than a society that bases it's stability on pain. People won't fight pleasure. "The power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing."

The Greatest Thing You'll Ever Learn...

“All you need is love.” So say John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Love is that universal thing that binds humanity to itself. Most people would do anything for love. In a society today filled with corruption and dishonesty and war and hatred, love is, to many, the one thing worth crying, fighting, and dying for. Love is the crunch of freshly fallen leaves on a crisp autumn morning and the way it feels when your feet warm under the covers on a cold winter’s night. Love is the way the wetness of a first kiss seems to linger on your lips forever. But, all of that said, as one poet once wrote:

don't think love is just
a hug and a smile,
a good fuck and duty,
a phase and a poem.
Love
is none of these things solely
but all of these things plus.

To take things a step further, another poet writes:

Love never has to be defined.
I don’t know if you believe that.
I don’t think you do,
but it’s something you taught me.
I love you.
Does it matter how or why?
Love is hurt.
Love is happy.
Love is hurt.
Love is loyalty.
Love is hurt.
Love is a passenger seat
and a handshake goodbye that means everything and nothing.
Love is hurt.

Each passage is worded in such a way that the reality of love radiates to the audience. If a reader who has been in love doesn’t feel something after reading these words something must be wrong with them. These words are passion. They are true. They are honest. They are honest. They are honest. They are the representation of everything we have come to know and love and hate about love.

Agreed?

Now, what if you found out that one of these passages were written by a woman to her partner after having been denied the right to marry? What if you found out that one of the passages was written by a young man who was coming to terms with loving himself by coming to terms with loving his best friend?
These scenarios may or may not be accurate. The point stands. Love is love is love is love. “Love never has to be defined.” Love is not between a man and a woman. Love is not between a man and a man. Love is not between a woman and a woman. Anyone who has ever been in love knows that love knows no boundaries. Love knows no reigns. Love knows no limits. Love is no more a choice than homosexuality and homosexuality no more a choice than love.

Laws restricting the expression of homosexuality are inevitably restricting love. However, laws banning the expression of love might be especially apropos in the current global atmosphere of “nucular” threats and wars for oil. After all, why should our country promote love between two men when hate and gunfire between two men is so much more en vogue?

“Love is the fulfillment of law.” That’s not The Beatles; it’s the bible. The choice to be straight or gay or in love or out of love may not be ours. However, the decision to legislate on the ability of others to express how they love whoever they love is a choice that we do have. Love is everything. Love is nothing. Love is a natural and inalienable right that we are all born with. It is the first and final step in the pursuit of happiness our constitution guarantees every citizen of our country.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved.

Agreed?