Went to an English board school with caning (beating with a bamboo walking stick) that was applied frequently but relatively fairly (not that I thought so at the time). (For the best example of caning on film, see "If", also with Malcolm McDowell.)
The issue was not the caning (the "masters" were fair and humane; they genuinely regretted doling out corporal punishment).
The issue is the atmosphere of harsh punishment, which tends to create a harsh world that sees the world as black or white and therefor be much less compassionate. Or tolerant of deviation from the standards. That translated into bullying, intolerance towards those who could not "take it", and a manly contempt towards the weak.
As the proud recipient (mark of manliness) of several beatings (with the cane), I developed a fairly harsh view towards those who did not fare well in that environment.
One quick anecdote about that culture: "S" couldn't take the atmosphere; he announced that the was leaving. We all gathered at the head of the drive and jeered him on his way. He walked to the bottom of the drive, realized that he had nowhere to go (his father had slapped him and brought him back to school after a previous "collapse"), and walked all the way back, being catcalled by his tormentors.
Did that give S a moral compass? Doubt it. But I bet that in later years, a shrink made a good living off that incident.
Tenuous link between that brutal environment and corporal punishment, but the attitudes that consider corporal punishment "dulce et decorum" tend to accept the manliness of a harsh environment. Those of us who thrived considered ourselves to be above those who did not fare so well.
Remember, we were between 14 and 18; hardly mature enough to process these rules without more moral guidance than we got.
I'm really liking the book! I was expecting the moral philosophy stuff to be a lot drier, but it actually feels nice to read. And I agree, DuBois is totally referring to the world of A Clockwork Orange back there. This was a perfect choice for book #2. IMO Heinlein surpasses Burgess because his point at least seems consistent with the story he's telling (Alex did not go through a moral choice - he just followed his desires).
But what I appreciate the most is how well the book explains the virtues of being a soldier. When I was a conscript I hated the army and just wanted out. After I was out the whole thing still felt pointless and cruel. I think I'm probably one of the people who would never make a good soldier, but in some way this book kind of makes me understand.
Another thing: what's up with giving us one chapter of an ongoing war and then immediately jumping to a long sequence during peacetime? Is the war something that will happen later, or is it something that's constantly secretly being waged in the background? I haven't watched the movie so I really don't know! If nothing else, Heinlein really knows how to keep a reader interested.
ST predates CO by 4 or 5 years (the books I mean, not the movies). But the US & UK were in a continuous state of moral panic from the mid 50s to the early 80s when Saints Ronnie & Margaret saved us all, so they were writing against the same backdrop. Like Erik I like how both novels try to address the relationship between individual moral agency and society.
But what's intriguing is how they go about it in opposite ways: Heinlein (pro-state) writes an almost classical (ie Greek/Roman, not Christian) depiction of the cultivation of a moral sense, while Burgess (anti-state) depicts the destruction of Alex's free will through BF-Skinner-style conditioning.
I guess my point is that both authors are moralists, but who value free will. One advocates the "gentle banhammer of correction" (John Scalzi) while the other laments correction so complete that it's not even morality anymore.
[btw, Clockwork Orange reminds me a little of Orwell's 1984, but instead of Winston (good guy vs the state, "how many fingers am I holding up?") we have Alex (bad guy vs the state, hit people and you'll puke).]
Torn about corporal punishment.
Went to an English board school with caning (beating with a bamboo walking stick) that was applied frequently but relatively fairly (not that I thought so at the time). (For the best example of caning on film, see "If", also with Malcolm McDowell.)
The issue was not the caning (the "masters" were fair and humane; they genuinely regretted doling out corporal punishment).
The issue is the atmosphere of harsh punishment, which tends to create a harsh world that sees the world as black or white and therefor be much less compassionate. Or tolerant of deviation from the standards. That translated into bullying, intolerance towards those who could not "take it", and a manly contempt towards the weak.
As the proud recipient (mark of manliness) of several beatings (with the cane), I developed a fairly harsh view towards those who did not fare well in that environment.
One quick anecdote about that culture: "S" couldn't take the atmosphere; he announced that the was leaving. We all gathered at the head of the drive and jeered him on his way. He walked to the bottom of the drive, realized that he had nowhere to go (his father had slapped him and brought him back to school after a previous "collapse"), and walked all the way back, being catcalled by his tormentors.
Did that give S a moral compass? Doubt it. But I bet that in later years, a shrink made a good living off that incident.
Tenuous link between that brutal environment and corporal punishment, but the attitudes that consider corporal punishment "dulce et decorum" tend to accept the manliness of a harsh environment. Those of us who thrived considered ourselves to be above those who did not fare so well.
Remember, we were between 14 and 18; hardly mature enough to process these rules without more moral guidance than we got.
I'm really liking the book! I was expecting the moral philosophy stuff to be a lot drier, but it actually feels nice to read. And I agree, DuBois is totally referring to the world of A Clockwork Orange back there. This was a perfect choice for book #2. IMO Heinlein surpasses Burgess because his point at least seems consistent with the story he's telling (Alex did not go through a moral choice - he just followed his desires).
But what I appreciate the most is how well the book explains the virtues of being a soldier. When I was a conscript I hated the army and just wanted out. After I was out the whole thing still felt pointless and cruel. I think I'm probably one of the people who would never make a good soldier, but in some way this book kind of makes me understand.
Another thing: what's up with giving us one chapter of an ongoing war and then immediately jumping to a long sequence during peacetime? Is the war something that will happen later, or is it something that's constantly secretly being waged in the background? I haven't watched the movie so I really don't know! If nothing else, Heinlein really knows how to keep a reader interested.
ST predates CO by 4 or 5 years (the books I mean, not the movies). But the US & UK were in a continuous state of moral panic from the mid 50s to the early 80s when Saints Ronnie & Margaret saved us all, so they were writing against the same backdrop. Like Erik I like how both novels try to address the relationship between individual moral agency and society.
But what's intriguing is how they go about it in opposite ways: Heinlein (pro-state) writes an almost classical (ie Greek/Roman, not Christian) depiction of the cultivation of a moral sense, while Burgess (anti-state) depicts the destruction of Alex's free will through BF-Skinner-style conditioning.
I guess my point is that both authors are moralists, but who value free will. One advocates the "gentle banhammer of correction" (John Scalzi) while the other laments correction so complete that it's not even morality anymore.
[btw, Clockwork Orange reminds me a little of Orwell's 1984, but instead of Winston (good guy vs the state, "how many fingers am I holding up?") we have Alex (bad guy vs the state, hit people and you'll puke).]