Just One

Bernard has begun to express his disgust towards the values in the society  which he pertains. He is a semi-pioneer in his thinking which makes society hate him, Colombia´s ex-president Alvaro Uribe depicts a similar beginning.
When Bernard takes Lenina out to the Channel, he finds himself forcing his date to appreciate the beatiful scenery but to his deception he fails. His failure and his enforcement of the correct way makes Lenina kneel to society´s pressure of never thinking beyond the normality of society. A society which had lost its way ages ago. In Uribe´s autobigograhy, No Hay Causa Perdida, he states that he grew up in a scoeity where war  had generated the depreciation for conserving a fruitful nation had perished years before he was born. Even though war is not prevalent in Brave New World, mechanization of scoiety´s mind is. In both scenarios society had conformed with an idea of not striving for anything more or slight change. Uribe and Huxley do not describe failed-states but describe a failed daily philosphy. Bernard finds himself forcing Lenina to appreaciate the beauty in which they lay but the daily conformism has blinded any profound thinking. Uribe finds himself being the witness of a society who has confrmed to extreme violence and unlike Bernard he does not fall into the trap of mainstream society. Uribe strives to change his enviroment, which produces more hate towards

Kurtz Starring as Ford

The creator of it all: Mr. Henry Ford. The personification of efficiency and the mechanization of society, a system created to maintain Community, Identity, and most of all Stability. Ford has become: the goal, the mystery, the man to meet, much like Kurtz becomes the holy grail in The Heart of Darkness. 

The Hatchery is much like the Thames. It shows the way to reach Ford or at least it symbolizes a path to uncover the mystery of Ford but it leaves doubts as to whether it is the best way of solving the mystery, just as the Thames´ waters leave an untrustworthy wake.  Ford even has "Ford´s Day"(31) a day in which kids play "erotic" games, something that "before the time of Our Ford..." was thought to be "abnormal" and such a idea is received by the Directors´ students with a "roar of laughter."(32) It becomes clear that anything before Ford is invalid and is blatantly humiliated by the future leaders (Alphas) of society. The capitalized "Our Ford" strongly correlates with "Our Father"; a term heavily practiced in the bible which starts to express not only an idea of perfection physically in society but a spiritual phenomenon. Ford has become the messiah of the world: the physical and mental aspiration,  maybe not all want to achieve it but everyone knows it and wants to meet it, just as Marlow through every station becomes even more hypnotized by Kurtz not in a physical manner but as a greater being. The difference between Kurtz and Ford is that no "alphas" support Kurtz, his ideology is not the mainstream or the ultimate goal in perspective with the leaders such as the owners of the Belgian Company; Kurtz´s bosses. Kurtz is the mystery man in Africa, a playground which no one really cares to organize. The chilling fact about Ford is that the world has been mechanized to only know and only want to be Ford, he is the ultimate goal, his spirit and ideology is what the "Belgian Owners" want. He is what the elite  (Alphas) desire and what the poor (Epsilons, Deltas, and Gammas) are genetically trained to crave. For an Alpha like his Fordship Mustapha to express "Our Ford- or Our Freud"(39) reflects a society that has built such a utopian character that it has revolutionized into a failed state. Freud; the father and pioneer of physcoanalysis has been transformed by not only one but all leaders of society,  into a shadow of Ford´s mental manipulation game. The word analysis should not even be mentioned when talking about "Our Ford. or Our Freud" because the possibility of actually thinking is non-existent. 

Even to the reader Ford  becomes an unceasing figure, in every page his name appears like a somewhat fascist governmental propaganda. Ford leaves no space for thinking nor dwelling. Not even Freud´s thinking survives. Every year; just like "632 A.F." will become a year of even more "stability" as the preachings of "Our Ford" become more engraved genetically and socially into the test tubes of the "Bokanovsky Process."

Too many Big Nurses

Alphas, Chronics, Deltas, Acutes. Huxley, just as Kesey, starts his novel by illustrating just how "perfectly organized" the Directors operate society. Huxley flashes from the very beginning the machinations of society. At first with apparent glamour but it doesn't take the reader long to remember that Chief Bromden was right to fake deaf and dumb. 

There is no need to read further than the first couple of lines to begin falling in to the suicidal trance of the utopia. Phrases such as: "World State´s Motto" begin to render flashbacks that became abundant while reading Kesey´s novel but this time "machination" is not the appropriate word to apply; homogenization is. What seems to be happening in Brave New World in contrast to OFCN is that a system has not been imposed physically but genetically. Fields trips or tours guided by Ms. Ratched were nonexistent, her ward was not depicted as the "giant leap of mankind" nor was a sense of pride dispersed throughout the civilian population on the system enabled in the ward. Huxley proposes a new; much more complex problem with the system. Students aspire to and conformation is not even an existent term because society has been genetically modified to be "mechanized", the "Chiefs" in this new world have not become deaf and dumb but have been made to be dead and dumb. The Chief had something to aspire to, he had dreams and memories he could dwell on, that sense of begin able to fight the system by thinking or even wanting to purse happiness is scientifically impossible to achieve in Brave New World. 

The ideology of the Director therefore of society seems to be expressed in one single sentence: "Not philosophers but fret sawyers and stamp collector compose the backbone of society."(Four) It is neither Stalin nor Hitler; it is Ford´s assembly line. 

Be...The Biggest Looser

Weight. Procrastination. Two words that were born from the same mother. The article expresses procrastination as a "curse," a curse that unfortunaelty comes hand in hand when talking about weight. There exists only one example of procrastination with weight loss other than my father. Especially correlating with what the BBC article states: "Procrastinators are less happy." 

As the minute hand ticked away and the pounds kept flooding in, my dad would always say: " Tommorow is the day I start exercising." No one has detected that lie as many times as I have in the last seventeen years. Just as BBC put it is a "crippling indecision" -literally-crippling. That "crippling indecision" flourishes every day as one gets older. That "curse" ripens into a snowball effect. With weight; the longer you keep practicing the art of prasticination the bigger you will be and work load will just keep on soaring. Seeing it from an analytical perspective it almost seems like suicide. Taking an adjective used by BBC; gazing. It becomes a "gazing suicide."

There is no need to probe the connotations of a gazing suicide, it is evident that "procrastinartots are less happy." Besides loosing self-esteem, my dad would be mad, obvosuy at himself but the majority of people don't take out their anger on themselves. The repercussions of his anger were met by my family. Such feelings personify what the article didacated as a "curse" and the source of "unhappiness." It became a nightmare because as the article states: "20% of the population of the world are chronic procrastinators, complicating their lives, and probably shortening them..." The thought of shortening his life due to his own action was unthinkable, let alone, insane. And like every human, the insanity only reminds his victim with a heavy blow. 

What I still have not been able to comprehend is why humans leave things until its a matter between life or death, flunking or not flunking. That "crippling indecision" is what bites you and some are lucky to learn from such a nibble, others never get to change the course of their "curse." Thankfully my Dad managed to learn from the nibble and change the course of his self-inflicted curse. But seventeen years later. My message is that the human race must perform some sort of mutant operation to remove the procrastination cells from our genes. We cannot let the "curse" prolong the "crippling indecision" that can bite at any moment and leave us without a chance to ever change.

Prosecution

Something is truly rotten in the state of Denmark. 

Unfortunately our Queen has failed us. She has forgotten our justice system and unfortunately has conspired to rid us of our dearest of princes; Prince Hamlet. 

In Act three scene Four, line 220, to be exact the first scents of conspiracy to murder can be deduced. Claudius comments with Gertrude on sending Hamlet to England, to not have to deal with his "madness."  Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius coincide in spying on Hamlet´s conversations and then promising Hamlet of never opening her mouth to Claudius.  Then after Polonius´s murder in Gertrude´s presence Claudius confirms that Hamlet´s death will come by sending him to England. ( Act 4 Scene 4) 

In consequence not only conspiracy to murdering her own child will be prosecuted but also Obstruction of Justice, Negligent Murder, and Habeas Corpus will be present in the prosecution. 

Obstruction of Justice will held on the accounts of Act four scene 1 where in Gertrude´s presence Claudius orders Rosencrantz to hide the body in the Chapel so the trial system cannot be executed. 

Habeas Corpus will be pressed on the accounts of Act four Scene four where in the presence of Gertrude, Claudius orders Hamlet to England, besides sending him off to his death, Gertrude does nothing to stop Claudius from evading the right to a fair trial for the murder of Polonius. 

The prosecution will call to the stand: King Claudius, Polonius, and Rosencrantz to prove the case. 

After conspiring to kill her own son and evade our blessed constitution whose purpose is to serve all citizens with a righteous justice system; Queen Gertrude should face a minimum of one life sentence in prison. 

Thank you Your Honor and God Bless Denmark. 

Mother

Experience. In This American Life, there is one question that produces the "freshness" as the Daily Herald described the essence of the play. The question is: what are you in for? That simple five worded questions packs in the trigger mechanism for the revival of all sentiments and experience from all the inmates in the High- Security Prison.
All the feelings that spark by the simple question brings back and touches the feelings of even the most "evil" of criminals. These feelings are what make Hamlet a custom-fit to the inmates. All the inmates can dwell on the actions that put them in prison, many with regret. Therefore the "reading" of Hamlet causes a much different connotation compared to your typical "free" American. The inmates can connect to Hamlet´s perplex state of mind, in fact, not even seven minutes into the podcast and an inmate, after disclosing his crimes said at that very moment of his life "...I was confused...¨ All the inmates had also in one stage of their lives endured such bewilderment and the sole cause of such bewilderment was: "To be or not to be...To rob or not to rob...To kill or not to kill...¨ All these questions have been the cause of their misfortunes, individuals who weren't able to cope with their perplexity, unfortunately they decided "To be" or it may not be so unfortunate for Hamlet fanatics.
One can think of the inmates as the new "voices" in Hamlet´s head, not so much as in a paternal aspect but as a life-coach. Knowing the causes and effects when in complex mental situations the inmates by how they read the lines can try and put Hamelt on a path they deem to be the most viable option. Their own experience can help Hamlet´s figure question Shakespeare´s lines more appropriately.

As Pink Floyd once begged his mother for guidance in a world of nuclear siege. Hamlet can now turn to the five voices of experience to choose how he expresses himself in times of trouble.

Walk the Walk?

The underlining question in both works,J Alfred Prufrock and Hamlet, comes down to the simplicity of whether  it is worth it or not? Eliot uses  "Do I Dare" while Shakespeare uses "To be or not to be." Both authors illustrate young men possessed with the eternal curse of doing or not doing. Both characters are afraid of what consequences will come due to their actions. Nevertheless each character manifests their crisis in a different manner. 

Sexual distress is a blemish that both Hamlet and Prufrock endure throughout their odysseys´s. In an age where most men should flourish in both their sex-life and liberty to chase after whom ever they choose both men are placed under a chastity-belt. Both men; whether it be Hamlet´s perverted jokes to Ophelia or Prufrock´s craving for a "cheap night" indicate a resentment towards society. A resentment that starts to form a blood-shot blindness, an obscuring red that signifies hate towards human society. In Hamlet´s case it is hard to fully interpret his true intentions, due to the fact that his perspective on being the Prince of Denmark impedes him from showing true emotion, from being a human. Thus leading to the eternal speculation that what may really be behind Hamlet´s rage towards society might be the jealousy that his uncle to away the biggest love of his life, Gertrude. The reader is left to puzzle the pieces together. 

On the other hand, Prufrock´s bombardment of emotions leaves the reader wondering if so much thought is actually healthy. Prufrock opens himself up to the public, he does not doubt whether to state everything he feels contrary to Hamlet. But what both fail to do is act. Neither Pruforck nor Hamlet ever act on their maladies, as some say "they talk the talk but do not walk the walk." While both criticize  society´s maladies, Shakespeare and Eliot make it clear that their characters are the personification of society´s true problems. While one cannot even make up his mind to kill himself while others die by the thousands for nothing. The other questions love when asking "What is it?" as though afraid of getting hurt when not having the slightest idea of what love really is. 

When reaching the end of both works, just when the reader is convinced that the message of the play is dare to act, everyone dies. Thus leaving the questions: why? why bother suffering if at the end every one dies? why try to change society? Prufrock closes by saying that "till human voices wake us, and we drown." Hamlet ends by the death of even Hamlet himself. Neither Hamlet triumphs on his mission of vengeance not even Prufrock´s lover survives because with the first hint of transparent humanity, no one stays afloat. Both authors leave the audience with a terrible or better stated insufficient grounds to conclude what society should do. Or maybe it shouldn't do anything at all.