1984 - The First Step into BioShock: The Novel

"WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." -- Page 3

These three blatant paradoxes mentioned within the first few minutes of reading have come to define the world that Winston Smith lives in.  They are perfect examples that demonstrate the Newspeak word doublethink, which George Orwell defines on page 31 as "to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them," (i.e. the opposite of cognitive dissonance).  Although Winston probably knows that these three slogans of the party don't make sense, he has no way of reasoning in their favor and no proof that the inverses are true.  To our Western-tuned, democratic, clearly-superior minds, it may seem strange or even absurd for these axioms to contain any value or truthiness; however, this is precisely why they are paradoxes.  In the Ingsoc-oriented Oceania, members of the Party have accepted these principles as fact; it is through constant, perpetual war with either Eurasia or Eastasia that Oceania is able to ration supplies given to citizens and keep hate focused on one common Enemy of the State, thus maintaining the peace; it is through unlimited excess and the inability to restrict freedoms that we become slaves to our own desires, and the Party remedies this by suppressing civil liberties and eliminating personal wants; it is through intelligence that heretics are able to challenge the social postulates established by the Ministry of Truth, but by staying ignorant of the truth, the individual builds the strength of the whole of society.  As is so often the case with socialism, the theories work well on paper but not in action.  It is clear that 1984 does not present a utopia, but rather the appearance of one, a dystopia.

Twenty-Something Days Until Spring Break

For my next trick, I will require the assistance of question number four from the book, page 1119.  Here goes:

#4. How is dramatic suspense created? Contrast the amount of information possessed by the audience as the play proceeds with the knowledge that various individual characters have: what is the effect of such a contrast?

I personally thought that one of the more interesting parts of this play is that the audience discovers essential plot points at the same rate as the characters within the play.  Some of the more suspenseful moments are created through the use of Willy's flashbacks.  Now, I know what you must be thinking to yourself right now, if they're flashbacks, then don't the characters already know what happened because they've already experienced the events?, to which I would say take a hike.  In actuality, the memories that cause conflict within the Loman family during the story have usually either been suppressed or convoluted through Willy's lies and exaggeration.  Because of this, when we, as the audience, discover the reason behind the rift in Willy and Biff's relationship to be infidelity to his wife on Willy's part, the memory still seems suspenseful because it is a moment of realization for Willy as well.

I bet Linda knew the whole time...

Tragicomedy: The King of Portmanteaux

After reading Death of a Salesman, I'm ready to crack down on some of these 'evaluation of drama' questions and get busy analyzing literature, so let's start with question number two...

#2. Is the play a tragedy or comedy, a melodrama or a farce? If a comedy, is it primarily romantic or satiric? Does it mingle aspects of these types of drama? How important to experiencing the drama is the audience's awareness of the classification of the play?

I would say that the play is a tragedy, because I can't really see it fitting perfectly into any of the other types.  It is not overly emotional or exaggerated, like a melodrama, or obnoxiously funny or entertaining as a farce would be.  The closest thing I could think of it being is a comedy, in the most Shakespearean of definitions, because there is a partially-happy ending for at least Biff.  Because the play mingles in both genres, I've settled on categorizing it as a tragicomedy, the ultimate classification.  As far as importance goes, though, knowing that the play fits into this category is of mediocre concern.  Sure, it's crucial for the audience to understand that Willy died an unchanged man due to a tragic flaw (tragedy), and that Biff learned a little bit about himself and who he is through the process (comedy), I still wouldn't call these lessons imperative.  Then again, this would probably be a pretty boring play to sit through if it weren't for the cultural/literary significance and all...

So Far So Good

Personally, I like Iago's character.  I understand that at times he is occasionally conflicted between motivations and excuses for why he does the things he does, but does that make him a bad person?  No, but I suppose turning your superior against his wife and ruining his second-in-command's life probably does.  Oh, whatever.  Literature needs more villains with the depth of character that Iago possesses.  I really like the humor Bill injects into the story, too.  I mean, here I am studying the text more than 400 years after it was written, and I still find it funny.  And I'm not even a nerd!  I'm a little disappointed by the lack of death thus far, but I've been assured that Act V is a bloodbath, so that's encouraging.  I guess I'm just caught up by how awesome everything is going for Iago, and I'm waiting for the bubble to burst.  Obviously, I want Emilia to die first.  She is annoying and a burden on society, and if she survives while everyone else dies I will be über upset.  I like Roderigo for some cruel and twisted reason (I probably find his naïveté endearing), but I've come to realize that when you read Bill you can't get too attached to any one character.  As of right now, my reaction is plainly put: so far, so good.

Gilbert Gottfried: Yikes!

It's pretty hard to read this play without constantly thinking of Aladdin, not only because Iago's name appears so frequently on the page but also simply because it's an awesome movie.  Some people forget that on occasion...right.  Anyways, I suppose I'll answer #4 this time (I'm linear like that).

Dramatic suspense is created almost exclusively through Iago's character and his common asides and soliloquies reserved for the audience only to hear.  Because the audience so often knows more of Iago's motivations, true intentions, and diabolical plans than he lets other characters in the play see, they also can look to future potential actions by Iago and other characters in anticipation.  For instance, at the end of Act IV, I know that Iago has convinced Roderigo to try and kill Cassio and Othello to try and kill Desdemona; however, suspense builds as I know not whether these actions will be carried out or not and if so, how.  Because the audience has known Iago's plans all along, and because they have worked out flawlessly up until the end of Act IV, there is suspense in pondering how it all falls apart in Act V, the finale.  And because Othello is a tragedy, you know there are a ton of people who are going to go down.