Historical Revolution

“History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” ― Mark Twain

As much as people like to declare themselves as progressive, open-minded thinkers, society as a whole hasn't changed much from colonial times. In fact, in some ways it seems to have regressed. The literature of colonial times we read through was surprisingly familiar. It was the same stuff we see today--journals and love letters, religious sermons and oppressed minorities. We've collected a few fancy new toys along the way, but the same questions and themes are still relevant. It's ironic how Americans, after freeing themselves from British "tyranny," turned around and started keeping slaves. Equiano wrote to inform the world of its cruelty. Although not as severe, didn't proponents of same-sex marriage and women's rights have similar goals?  As for Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," the basic message is still relevant today, if not more so. He'd probably have a heart attack if he saw something like the recent VMA's. The present may not be a carbon copy of the past, but they do share similarities.

It seems that human nature is hard to change, for all of our technology and education. 

“But here's some advice, boy. Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions.” 

― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch

Moore's Paradox

It never really occurred to me to question how nonfiction writers created such detailed accounts of a situation. That isn't to say that it makes sense to me; I just didn't think about it. I knew, on some level, that parts of The Glass Castle were fabricated; however, I read it as if it were completely true. It's an interesting paradox, how it was possible for me to believe (against logic) that everything Jeannette said was factual. It's like doublethink in 1984 almost, knowing something is both fiction and truth. Jeannette's memoir served its purpose in the end though, didn't it? It was an entertaining read and a fascinating account of her childhood.

How much fiction is acceptable in a "nonfiction" book?

On one hand, we have The Glass Castle, with minor(?) fictional filling-in. On the other hand, we have James Frey, with the vast majority of A Million Little Pieces made up. And on a third hand, we have metafictional like The Things They Carried, which claims to be both truth and fiction. Where does the actual truth come in? What exactly is truth?

Nonfiction books and documentaries probably wouldn't be very interesting to read without a storyline. In fact, I think those are called textbooks. So whether it's Sherman Alexie publishing fiction with rooted in truth or Tim O'Brien publishing truth rooted in fiction, it all comes down to pretty much the same purpose: a better understanding of the world.

(Garfield would not be quite as funny if it were true)

(Source)

Godwin's Law

How much power does an individual wield? 

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Everyone is, by definition, an individual. Why then, does a group of individuals behave so differently? It seems only logical that a larger number of people could achieve more. In practice, however, the social and intellectual bottlenecks that arise actually make groups less efficient. 

Individuals have more potential than most people realize.

One recurring theme in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is racism. Many of the characters are racist simply because that's how they were raised. Aunt Sally, for example, disregards the black man that was killed in a steamboat accident. She casually states that "sometimes people do get hurt" (223). Aunt Sally is by no means a vicious person; she's just behaving how everyone else is behaving. The feud between the Shepherdsons and the Grangerfords is a similar situation. Buck dies without even knowing why he was fighting. Colonel Sherburn's speech exemplifies the kind of mob mentality that is so prevalent in the novel. He scornfully disperses the crowd, knowing that most are "afraid [they'll] be found out to be what [they] are—cowards" (149). Sherburn is able to think clearly because he's not caught up in the mob.

Throughout history, there have been people who profoundly impacted the world, for good or evil. Their names are still common knowledge today--Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein. Very rarely, if ever, is a group remembered the same way. It's always been individuals whom the world has immortalized. Godwin's Law states that the longer an online discussion lasts, the higher the chance that Hitler is brought up. This is a testament to how an individual can affect the lives of many, although in this case we would have been better off without his influence.

1984 and Brave New World, two dystopian novels, both depict the general public as mindless subjects, subject to the laws and regulations of higher powers. The point Orwell and Huxley make is that groups are easier to control than individuals, as shown by Big Brother's ruthless treatment of Winston.

The individual wields power because they aren't bound by social rules or obligations. Individuals are free to innovate and/or act on convictions without having to worry about what others will think of them. They are usually the people heading a group and creating change.