I liked this Chatelaine interview with Margaret Atwood, Canada's most celebrated author & novelist, because of a few comments she says about prison-industrial complex, political infatuation with terrorism when more people die of cancers & car accidents in the West, & modern-day change in people's behaviours towards family & work commitments. I, however, am more interested in the first 2 points than the third.
1. As she says about prison-industrial complex that "now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals." As I've blogged earlier that we can clearly see in US prisons that are being transferred from government care to private companies' care, who do everything in their power to lower their costs & increase their profit margins. This is also shown in the Netflix's series, "Orange is the new black," where female prisoners in Litchfield minimum security woman prison are being fed unhealthy slop, experienced full-time correctional officers are being replaced by inexperienced part-time guards, & prisoner rehabilitation is not even a word in new company's operation manual.
On top of that, the justice system is being skewed towards lowering the bar for crimes to the point where more criminals are somehow actually good for the society. Since when creating more criminals & destroying the lives of people, instead of trying to "address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes" is the new norm?
2. Some 3,000 people died on 9/11 some 16 years ago, & it become a rallying cry for American politicians, & every other politician around the world, to "fight terrorism". Majority of the public also blindly supports whatever the politicians come out chanting for the day. Although, that incident & several terrorist attacks after that one, around the world, are reprehensible, one has to wonder why the public & government don't try to tackle vehicle accidents, gun deaths, & numerous other fatal diseases with as much intensity & commitment as much as they do with "terrorism". Terrorism has never killed so many people as much as thousands upon thousands die every year, unlike a terrorist attack, due to non-terrorism causes.
Main reason is that in the guise of terrorism, military funding can be increased, & the government can easily put in place strict draconian controlling measures for the public. As we all know (or should know) that fear is the best way to control the public. All other non-terrorism activities don't help in increasing military funding, & hence, no new "toys" for the army to play with & the government can't control its public since it can't generate that life-ending fear with the promise of that miraculous cancer cure.
3. For the 3rd point, I am not going to blog too much but I really liked what she said about the sad state of modern human's isolation; "the ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been." Isn't this what "YOLO" is all about that hence I am only going to live once, why should I listen to someone else & instead follow my own head & heart. Well, we can very well see where that is leading us?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Heart Goes Last", Margaret Atwood’s latest book & her first stand-alone novel since 2000’s Booker Prize–winning "The Blind Assassin", follows suit. Set in an only slightly alternative contemporary America, it tells the story of Stan & Charmaine, a married couple left homeless after an economic collapse. Enticed by the offer of good jobs & a nice home, they sign up to participate in the Positron Project in a corporate-run town called Consilience. The catch? Residents spend every other month in their civilian Pleasantville paradise, & the rest of their time as inmates in a massive & mysterious work prison.
As she did with "The Handmaid’s Tale" & the "MaddAddam Trilogy", Atwood pushes current, real-life dilemmas to their logical & darkest conclusions. In the case of "The Heart Goes Last", she takes on income inequality, the privatization of the justice system & government surveillance. As Atwood explains, “No one is ever really writing about the future, because we can’t know the future. My speculative fiction is a commentary on the past and the present.” Here, she reflects on free will, feeling safe & super-realistic sex dolls.
...
Chatelaine: Let’s get to your writing & "The Heart Goes Last". It takes place in the fallout of an economic recession much like the one that began in late 2007, which was around the time you were writing "Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth". Has the issue of economic collapse been long on your mind?
Margaret Atwood [MA]: Actually, when I was writing Payback, the economic collapse hadn’t happened yet, but the book came out in 2008, just as we were really feeling its effects, so everyone thought I had a crystal ball — which I kind of did. I had been looking at ads on the subway, as is my habit, for all those credit relief & payday loan companies, & I could see something was happening.
But for "The Heart Goes Last", I had been thinking more about prisons, in part because of protests over the shutting down of prison farms. [In 2009, the Conservative government announced it would be closing its operating farms at six prisons across Canada. The program was one of the country’s most successful prisoner rehabilitation projects.] We haven’t really decided what prisons are for. Are they to punish people, to rehabilitate them, to give them a fresh start? Are they to protect the public? In some cases, the answer to the last question is yes — you don’t want Hannibal Lecter running around eating people. But in many cases, there is a knee-jerk reaction to imprison people, without looking at other options to address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes.
One of my models was Australia’s history as a penal colony. With only men at first, it was quite unruly, so the idea was to settle men down by sending them women. But there simply weren’t enough women in prison to meet the demand, so they lowered the bar, criminalized more behaviours & sentenced women more harshly to supply the demand. Today, now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals.
Chatelaine: The shadow that hangs over the book is the choice between freedom & security. Stan & Charmaine have been in terrible circumstances, pursued by gangs of rapists & murderers. They opt to give up their freedom to have some sense of safety & stability. Consilience would have an appeal.
MA: The good side for Stan & Charmaine is they’ve finally got a nice house.
Chatelaine: And the bad side is that they spend half their lives in prison. That’s the compromise.
MA: It’s a serious compromise & one that’s so old in how it’s played out over time. It’s one of the most primal questions: “What do I have to do to keep my family safe?” If we didn’t have those feelings, the human race wouldn’t be here. But the real question should be: “What is safety?”
Chatelaine: Because those fears tend to get exploited?
MA: Yes. Way more people are going to die from car accidents than terrorist attacks [but we’re more afraid of terrorism]. If you really don’t want people to die, reduce the speed limit or install blood-alcohol monitors that would prevent drunk people from driving.
...
Chatelaine: In the novel, Stan & Charmaine also grapple with commitment & freedom in the context of their marriage.
MA: It’s not just a political question. It’s a fundamental question for all of us — how much free will we actually have & how much we actually want. The answers are going to be individual. Some people don’t want that much choice. They want other people to make choices for them. Other people want infinite choice.
Chatelaine: Speaking of infinite choice & intimacy, I want to ask you about sex in the book. Without revealing too much, there is a subplot involving the manufacturing of elaborately realistic sex dolls, which people have designed to look like anyone or anything they desire —
MA: Which are in process right now. In Japan, they’re making them so realistic that they have goosebumps on their skin & human body temperature!
Chatelaine: What’s the appeal?
MA: I think that people are afraid of rejection. But I read an article about people who buy these expensive sex dolls, & they say that they like them because there’s no hassle. No one’s bothering them, no one’s nudging them, no one’s laughing at them or asking them to take out the garbage.
Chatelaine: That seems like a sad statement about modern romance.
MA: It’s a sad statement about human isolation. The ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been.
I love the quote that I put at the beginning of the book from the journalist Adam Frucci. He wrote a story for the website Gizmodo in 2009 called “I Had Sex with Furniture,” about all about these weird new sex toys that are being developed. And he says in the story, “I did the deed with an inanimate object so you don’t have to.” In a consumer society, where it all comes down to whether or not you can pay for something, it all becomes acceptable. So the question is: How do you measure normal?
1. As she says about prison-industrial complex that "now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals." As I've blogged earlier that we can clearly see in US prisons that are being transferred from government care to private companies' care, who do everything in their power to lower their costs & increase their profit margins. This is also shown in the Netflix's series, "Orange is the new black," where female prisoners in Litchfield minimum security woman prison are being fed unhealthy slop, experienced full-time correctional officers are being replaced by inexperienced part-time guards, & prisoner rehabilitation is not even a word in new company's operation manual.
On top of that, the justice system is being skewed towards lowering the bar for crimes to the point where more criminals are somehow actually good for the society. Since when creating more criminals & destroying the lives of people, instead of trying to "address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes" is the new norm?
2. Some 3,000 people died on 9/11 some 16 years ago, & it become a rallying cry for American politicians, & every other politician around the world, to "fight terrorism". Majority of the public also blindly supports whatever the politicians come out chanting for the day. Although, that incident & several terrorist attacks after that one, around the world, are reprehensible, one has to wonder why the public & government don't try to tackle vehicle accidents, gun deaths, & numerous other fatal diseases with as much intensity & commitment as much as they do with "terrorism". Terrorism has never killed so many people as much as thousands upon thousands die every year, unlike a terrorist attack, due to non-terrorism causes.
Main reason is that in the guise of terrorism, military funding can be increased, & the government can easily put in place strict draconian controlling measures for the public. As we all know (or should know) that fear is the best way to control the public. All other non-terrorism activities don't help in increasing military funding, & hence, no new "toys" for the army to play with & the government can't control its public since it can't generate that life-ending fear with the promise of that miraculous cancer cure.
3. For the 3rd point, I am not going to blog too much but I really liked what she said about the sad state of modern human's isolation; "the ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been." Isn't this what "YOLO" is all about that hence I am only going to live once, why should I listen to someone else & instead follow my own head & heart. Well, we can very well see where that is leading us?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Heart Goes Last", Margaret Atwood’s latest book & her first stand-alone novel since 2000’s Booker Prize–winning "The Blind Assassin", follows suit. Set in an only slightly alternative contemporary America, it tells the story of Stan & Charmaine, a married couple left homeless after an economic collapse. Enticed by the offer of good jobs & a nice home, they sign up to participate in the Positron Project in a corporate-run town called Consilience. The catch? Residents spend every other month in their civilian Pleasantville paradise, & the rest of their time as inmates in a massive & mysterious work prison.
As she did with "The Handmaid’s Tale" & the "MaddAddam Trilogy", Atwood pushes current, real-life dilemmas to their logical & darkest conclusions. In the case of "The Heart Goes Last", she takes on income inequality, the privatization of the justice system & government surveillance. As Atwood explains, “No one is ever really writing about the future, because we can’t know the future. My speculative fiction is a commentary on the past and the present.” Here, she reflects on free will, feeling safe & super-realistic sex dolls.
...
Chatelaine: Let’s get to your writing & "The Heart Goes Last". It takes place in the fallout of an economic recession much like the one that began in late 2007, which was around the time you were writing "Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth". Has the issue of economic collapse been long on your mind?
Margaret Atwood [MA]: Actually, when I was writing Payback, the economic collapse hadn’t happened yet, but the book came out in 2008, just as we were really feeling its effects, so everyone thought I had a crystal ball — which I kind of did. I had been looking at ads on the subway, as is my habit, for all those credit relief & payday loan companies, & I could see something was happening.
But for "The Heart Goes Last", I had been thinking more about prisons, in part because of protests over the shutting down of prison farms. [In 2009, the Conservative government announced it would be closing its operating farms at six prisons across Canada. The program was one of the country’s most successful prisoner rehabilitation projects.] We haven’t really decided what prisons are for. Are they to punish people, to rehabilitate them, to give them a fresh start? Are they to protect the public? In some cases, the answer to the last question is yes — you don’t want Hannibal Lecter running around eating people. But in many cases, there is a knee-jerk reaction to imprison people, without looking at other options to address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes.
One of my models was Australia’s history as a penal colony. With only men at first, it was quite unruly, so the idea was to settle men down by sending them women. But there simply weren’t enough women in prison to meet the demand, so they lowered the bar, criminalized more behaviours & sentenced women more harshly to supply the demand. Today, now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals.
Chatelaine: The shadow that hangs over the book is the choice between freedom & security. Stan & Charmaine have been in terrible circumstances, pursued by gangs of rapists & murderers. They opt to give up their freedom to have some sense of safety & stability. Consilience would have an appeal.
MA: The good side for Stan & Charmaine is they’ve finally got a nice house.
Chatelaine: And the bad side is that they spend half their lives in prison. That’s the compromise.
MA: It’s a serious compromise & one that’s so old in how it’s played out over time. It’s one of the most primal questions: “What do I have to do to keep my family safe?” If we didn’t have those feelings, the human race wouldn’t be here. But the real question should be: “What is safety?”
Chatelaine: Because those fears tend to get exploited?
MA: Yes. Way more people are going to die from car accidents than terrorist attacks [but we’re more afraid of terrorism]. If you really don’t want people to die, reduce the speed limit or install blood-alcohol monitors that would prevent drunk people from driving.
...
Chatelaine: In the novel, Stan & Charmaine also grapple with commitment & freedom in the context of their marriage.
MA: It’s not just a political question. It’s a fundamental question for all of us — how much free will we actually have & how much we actually want. The answers are going to be individual. Some people don’t want that much choice. They want other people to make choices for them. Other people want infinite choice.
Chatelaine: Speaking of infinite choice & intimacy, I want to ask you about sex in the book. Without revealing too much, there is a subplot involving the manufacturing of elaborately realistic sex dolls, which people have designed to look like anyone or anything they desire —
MA: Which are in process right now. In Japan, they’re making them so realistic that they have goosebumps on their skin & human body temperature!
Chatelaine: What’s the appeal?
MA: I think that people are afraid of rejection. But I read an article about people who buy these expensive sex dolls, & they say that they like them because there’s no hassle. No one’s bothering them, no one’s nudging them, no one’s laughing at them or asking them to take out the garbage.
Chatelaine: That seems like a sad statement about modern romance.
MA: It’s a sad statement about human isolation. The ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been.
I love the quote that I put at the beginning of the book from the journalist Adam Frucci. He wrote a story for the website Gizmodo in 2009 called “I Had Sex with Furniture,” about all about these weird new sex toys that are being developed. And he says in the story, “I did the deed with an inanimate object so you don’t have to.” In a consumer society, where it all comes down to whether or not you can pay for something, it all becomes acceptable. So the question is: How do you measure normal?
No comments:
Post a Comment