A Clockwork Orange And The Concept Of Conformity.

Throughout the novella conformity is used as an antagonistic force to free will, and to show how civilization will force conformity on humanity for its own ends and ensure the loss of individualism. Anthony Burgess achieves this through many different methods within the novel. The most obvious is the use of the Ludovico technique to show a literal enforcement of conformity within the society of A Clockwork Orange. However there are many other examples as well. Others are within part three like the constant displays of evil from other members of society towards Alex; Where the citizens of London within A Clockwork Orange break the conformity of their everyday lives by acting evil and beating on Alex. This shows that the citizens are genuinely just as evil as Alex, but act kind due to the force of conformity. Even the language within the A Clockwork Orange forces conformity. Due to Anthony Burgess' creation of a practically new language with which many of the characters speak, he is enforcing conformity on the reader. All readers must learn and understand the language to be able to read the book, thus forcing all the readers to conform to the same understanding. Thus in conclusion, conformity is used as an antagonistic force to free will, and to show that individualism, our birth right, is removed by society.

Why Evolution Is True; entry 2

Another interesting factor I found was within the writing, and the quality and quantity of evidence which he presented within 245 pages of a book.
He had managed to cover fossil records indicating past species and the historic links between them and even older prehistoric species. The location of an original species' population and how if parts of it were isolated, different factors based on location would cause the isolated lifeforms to change visibly from each other in the fossil records over time.
He also managed to cover embryology and that as a life form progresses through its embryonic state, it can shares an extremely similar appearance with other species' embryonic states, indicating an original common body plan that is only altered into the final species at and nearing the end of development.
He even managed to put in vestigial structures and suboptimal design. Where vestigial organs are unrequired organs within the bodies of a species that could have only been used by a previous or different species. He tied this in within suboptimal design, where he shows that most species if designed by an intelligent creator could be designed for their purpose in a much superior fashion then they currently are. The prime example he used for this was the human spine and how it is not designed for how we sit, or optimal for standing upright.
It amazed me that he managed to get the major supporting points for evolution (as seen here) with large amounts of evidence for each within 245 pages, and how easily he managed to do so.

Why Evolution Is True; entry 1

I found it rather interesting that Jerry A. Coyne, unlike many other authors, has also provided psychological hypotheses as to why many people choose not to accept evolution. This is different from other evolutionary non-fiction books that I have read, where they just state that evolution is right and creationism/ intelligent design is wrong.
"Evolution is also thought to erode morality. If, after all, we are simply beasts, then why not behave like beasts? What can keep us moral if we're nothing more than monkeys with big brains? No other scientific theory produces such angst, or such psychological resistance" (Jerry A. Coyne, pg 16"
This provides a possible insight into the mind of those that can't believe in evolution. Perhaps there is a perception that we are special to the point that only a divine being could create us and that to compare us to everything else is clearly an err. Perhaps they just fear that with the acceptance of evolution, morality will go out the window as "We are nothing but beasts". However now that I have put thought to it, it is indeed very likely that there is a psychological opposition to evolution and that's what creates most of the opposition.

The New is Really Old.

"I'm saying that everything is new, and yet recognizably the same kind of thing as the old"

I believe that this quote represents the chapter, and the real situation fairly accurately. I believe this as literature the more books you read the more you can predict the twists of future books. This is due to the fact that for all stories to remain interesting they must consistently throw twists in the plot.

This leads to concepts used in an old stories to be used in new ones as well, and thus even if new stories are formed, to appeal to human drama they must follow these twists. Thus the old will always be equal to the new.

Frye and McCullough: Authors For Life.

"Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (Frye, p. 9)

What I think Frye means by the above quotation is that unlike science or mathematics, literature does not evolve and advance over time. Instead literature remains constant and may be good or bad relying entirely on the author\s ability. This is is due to literature being entirely based off human emotion, and thus it's up to the authors ability to purvey the emotion clearly, that determines the quality of literature.

I agree with this quote, as readers today can go back and read Shakespeare and still view it as a great piece. This is unlike science and math where the thoughts and theories of one can be viewed as wrong post mortem, and be viewed as unintelligent.

Yes this quote is comparable to McCullough’s speech “The Love of Learning”. It is comparable as both works emphasize that literature helps develop human emotion and culture while remaining constant, teaching many generations all the sides of one coin from one work. Both also state that science and math although advancing do not help one truly learn of the world, but help explain the world around them.