Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “娱乐至死” as Want to Read:
娱乐至死
by
《娱乐至死》初版于1985年，是尼尔•波兹曼的代表作之一。《娱乐至死》想告大家可能成为现实的，是赫胥黎的预言，不是奥威尔的预言；毁掉我们的，不是我们憎恨的东西，恰恰是我们热爱的东西！
电视时代蒸蒸日上，电视改变了公众话语的内容和意义，政治、宗教、教育、体育、商业和任何其他公共领域的内容，都日渐以娱乐的方式出现，并成为一种文化精神，而人类无声无息地成为娱乐的附庸，毫无怨言，甚至心甘情愿，其结果是我们成了一个娱乐至死的物种。
乔治•奥威尔曾在《一九八四》中预言人类将会遭受外来压迫，失去自由；赫胥黎则在《美丽新世界》中表达了另一种忧虑：人们会渐渐爱上工业技术带来的娱乐和文化，不再思考。
电视时代蒸蒸日上，电视改变了公众话语的内容和意义，政治、宗教、教育、体育、商业和任何其他公共领域的内容，都日渐以娱乐的方式出现，并成为一种文化精神，而人类无声无息地成为娱乐的附庸，毫无怨言，甚至心甘情愿，其结果是我们成了一个娱乐至死的物种。
乔治•奥威尔曾在《一九八四》中预言人类将会遭受外来压迫，失去自由；赫胥黎则在《美丽新世界》中表达了另一种忧虑：人们会渐渐爱上工业技术带来的娱乐和文化，不再思考。
Published
by 广西师范大学出版社
(first published November 25th 1985)
Friend Reviews
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
Reader Q&A
To ask other readers questions about
娱乐至死,
please sign up.
Popular Answered Questions
J
Relevant. Replace television throughout with YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. to see exactly how relevant.
This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
Add this book to your favorite list »
Community Reviews
Showing 1-30
Start your review of 娱乐至死
This really is a book that needs to be read. I’m going to start with the quote that got me to read this book:
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well kn ...more
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well kn ...more
As I sit down to write this, President Trump has just described Frederick Douglass as "someone who has done a terrific job that is being recognized by more and more people." (February 1, 2017).
Frederick Douglass was an African American abolitionist, writer, and reformer who died in 1895. Apparently, the President of the United States has no idea who Frederick Douglass was, since he is referring to Douglass in the present tense.
I have been struggling to understand how Trump got elected. Not just ...more
Frederick Douglass was an African American abolitionist, writer, and reformer who died in 1895. Apparently, the President of the United States has no idea who Frederick Douglass was, since he is referring to Douglass in the present tense.
I have been struggling to understand how Trump got elected. Not just ...more
Mar 19, 2013
s.penkevich
rated it
liked it
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
Infinite Jesters
Recommended to s.penkevich by:
School
‘What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.'
The modern era is an age of endless information and entertainment. Media looks to the public for what they want, and then sells it back to them wrapped up in the most irresistible packaging they can create, and we eat it up. However, if entertainment is what we desire most, and if everything we receive must compete for our atten ...more
The modern era is an age of endless information and entertainment. Media looks to the public for what they want, and then sells it back to them wrapped up in the most irresistible packaging they can create, and we eat it up. However, if entertainment is what we desire most, and if everything we receive must compete for our atten ...more
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) is a book by educator Neil Postman. The book's origins lay in a talk Postman gave to the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1984. He was participating in a panel on George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and the contemporary world.
In the introduction to his book, Postman said that the contemporary world was better reflected by Aldous Huxley's B ...more
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) is a book by educator Neil Postman. The book's origins lay in a talk Postman gave to the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1984. He was participating in a panel on George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and the contemporary world.
In the introduction to his book, Postman said that the contemporary world was better reflected by Aldous Huxley's B ...more
Well, yes, Mr Postman. You're undoubtedly right in much of your analysis. And I suppose it was prescient of you to be so right way back in 1985 when you wrote this book.
But having said that, I'm not sure what else to add. Here we are in 2009. Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor of the state I live in. But the republic hasn't fallen. The barbarians are just an annoyance, not a threat. Newspapers may be undergoing a steep decline, but it would be premature to declare this a complete tragedy. I read ...more
But having said that, I'm not sure what else to add. Here we are in 2009. Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor of the state I live in. But the republic hasn't fallen. The barbarians are just an annoyance, not a threat. Newspapers may be undergoing a steep decline, but it would be premature to declare this a complete tragedy. I read ...more
You there! Are you finding it difficult to make it through this sentence without glancing at social media? Take a moment to consider this book. Have you, while under the enormous strain of way too much speed, found your attention flitting about in a hellish staccato rhythm of non-comprehending (but acutely paranoid) foveal saccades? Breathe. Follow these lines.
Here's the skinny: This prescient book bemoans the corrosive effects of television (specifically infotainment) on public discourse. It wa ...more
Here's the skinny: This prescient book bemoans the corrosive effects of television (specifically infotainment) on public discourse. It wa ...more
Feb 11, 2009
Rickeclectic
rated it
it was ok
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
Not many folks
Shelves:
about-meaning
Disappointing. Read it if you have to (it is considered to be an "important" book for media folks), but otherwise, just read the following and skip the book. Mr. Postman is obviously a well read person and the book claims the values logic and argument, but his arguments are off kilter. This is especially disappointing because the topic is important and he is a good writer in the classic sense of being able to put interesting sentences together.
His thesis is "Some ways of truth telling are better ...more
His thesis is "Some ways of truth telling are better ...more
Jun 06, 2008
booklady
rated it
it was amazing
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
any parent!
I think this was my introduction to Postman and I read this book in a day; it's 163 pages. Yes, I like to read, but even so back then with two little kids, I rarely read that much in month much less a day! I had two nearly-hyperactive (okay yes they were girls) kids of four and five. I only mention this so you know just how big an impression this book made on me at the time.
Up until then I frequently resorted to letting the kids 'do' videos several hours a day--not that they would ever sit stil ...more
Up until then I frequently resorted to letting the kids 'do' videos several hours a day--not that they would ever sit stil ...more
"This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right." - Neil Postman
In 1854 Stephen A. Douglas presented a three-hour speech against Abraham Lincoln's ideas, and in return, on that same night, Lincoln responded with a three-hour argument of his own. The surprise? People actually stayed long enough to hear both men out.
Contrast that with the Republican debate that happened last night: 8 candidates were forced to answer leading, disjointed questions in 30 seconds or less. And th ...more
In 1854 Stephen A. Douglas presented a three-hour speech against Abraham Lincoln's ideas, and in return, on that same night, Lincoln responded with a three-hour argument of his own. The surprise? People actually stayed long enough to hear both men out.
Contrast that with the Republican debate that happened last night: 8 candidates were forced to answer leading, disjointed questions in 30 seconds or less. And th ...more
If someone held a gun to my head and asked for a precise and concise definition of irony (it could happen!), I would say only this: Neil Postman died two days before Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor -thus narrowly missing out on the single best example of what he was screaming about all those years ago. This book was foundational for me. Postman delivers a passioned polemic about the entertain-at-any-cost ethos of our current culture, and how the irrestible siren song of triviality is
...more
Amusing Ourselves to Death is the spiritual sequel to Boorstin's The Image. Postman wants us to realize that there is something inherently inferior about the information we consume through visual media. Forget television designed for entertainment - which is at least honest - and focus in something like a news segment. As far as its creators are concerned, the worst thing that it could possibly do is inspire or provoke you, two horrible emotions that risk you getting up and leaving your living r
...more
I read this book in preparation for my third reading of DFW's Infinite Jest because I am a crazy rabid fan of that book and Amusing Ourselves to Death is often referenced by critics as parallel to DFW's big points w/r/t media/entertainment/culture. Here are Mr. Postman's own words:
"To say it, then, as plainly as I can, this book is an inquiry into and a lamentation about the most significant American cultural fact of the second half of the twentieth century: the decline of the Age of Typography ...more
"To say it, then, as plainly as I can, this book is an inquiry into and a lamentation about the most significant American cultural fact of the second half of the twentieth century: the decline of the Age of Typography ...more
Mar 29, 2008
Anne
rated it
it was amazing
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
non-fiction,
favorites
There's a good feeling you get when you read a book that accurately criticizes something that needs it. If you've ever felt like watching TV was a waste of time, this book will impart such a feeling.
Not to mention, providing an arsenal of reasons why TV is a general waste of time.
Why, just two days ago my 3rd grade students asked me why the 4th graders at our school always get to watch videos in class and we don't.
With Postman's support in my back pocket I explained that TV was nothing more than ...more
Not to mention, providing an arsenal of reasons why TV is a general waste of time.
Why, just two days ago my 3rd grade students asked me why the 4th graders at our school always get to watch videos in class and we don't.
With Postman's support in my back pocket I explained that TV was nothing more than ...more
Oct 03, 2018
Kris
rated it
really liked it
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
audiobooks,
read-write-think
Can’t believe this was written in 1985. It feels like Postman knows of Twitter and Reddit and all the other 2019 news media outlets and social media platforms.
He has some fascinating points, and somehow seems to predict the future. It’s about television, but it’s really about the Internet, before the Internet existed. An easy, short read, packed full of insights. Would recommend.
Read raffaela's 4-star review of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Post ...more
He has some fascinating points, and somehow seems to predict the future. It’s about television, but it’s really about the Internet, before the Internet existed. An easy, short read, packed full of insights. Would recommend.
Read raffaela's 4-star review of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Post ...more
This was an astonishing book. I picked it up from the library but I really want my own copy now. I was nervous about it because it was written a while ago, before the Internet was the all-pervasive force it is today. I thought it's a book about media, it will be dated, it will say television is bad for you, etc. But it really surprised me.
The point of the book is about how the advent of television influenced public discourse and politics. The book speaks at length about pre-television society i ...more
The point of the book is about how the advent of television influenced public discourse and politics. The book speaks at length about pre-television society i ...more
Oct 24, 2011
Brian Eshleman
rated it
really liked it
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
other-nonfiction
I don't know how many commentaries in our culture it could be said to be more relevant now than when they were written 25 years ago, but this one can. If we were distracted and distractible then, demanding television-style stimulation even on serious subjects, we certainly are now. Television's defining role has simply been replaced by stimuli from many different directions. Postman rightly cautions us to be wary of the impact of how a message is delivered on the message itself.
I was disappointe ...more
I was disappointe ...more
I now believe there is nothing wrong with me
Excellent book, full of provoking thoughts. I've always felt so out of place for being a bookworm and a person who tends to think and speak slowly and deliberately (tends, there are exceptions.) I now realize that my speech and thoughts are patterned after the written word and that makes me anachronistic. I'm still odd, but at least I realize why. The recent virus pandemic has revealed the stunning weakness and softness of American culture. This book c ...more
Excellent book, full of provoking thoughts. I've always felt so out of place for being a bookworm and a person who tends to think and speak slowly and deliberately (tends, there are exceptions.) I now realize that my speech and thoughts are patterned after the written word and that makes me anachronistic. I'm still odd, but at least I realize why. The recent virus pandemic has revealed the stunning weakness and softness of American culture. This book c ...more
If Herbert Marcuse was alive today, he would’ve concluded that Trump is a creation of the fraudulent ‘Culture Industry’ that perpetually dupes addict consumers by conjuring up prefabricated fantasies about the endless promise of the ‘American Dream’.
Theodor Adorno first coined the phrase “Culture Industry”. Adorno warned of a western Culture Industry that blurred the distinction between truth and fiction, between the commercial and the political.
Neil Postman prophetically predicted th ...more
Anyone remember the pre-Internet days of the 1980’s when television was still king? That’s when this book was written, so for every rant author Neil Postman made against television, I was wondering, “What would he say now?” He lived till 2003, and a Google search will show you that he railed against the Internet, too, but he never lived to see the rise of social media and texting. What would he have said about summing up your personal news into 140 characters right alongside the world’s celebrit
...more
Well I wish I could explain how much I loved this book in a short paragraph but I don't feel that I would do it full justice. A brilliant exposition of how new forms of information technology; without our consent or even active notice, have entirely rewired our culture. In effect, the explosion of visual media has made us demand everything from politics to religion to science be packaged as 'entertainment'.
Correspondingly, it has led to the trivialization of all fields of human endeavor in the ...more
Correspondingly, it has led to the trivialization of all fields of human endeavor in the ...more
“What Orwell feared was those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. H...more
Powerful, important, everyone-must-read book.
The premise: the US has shifted from a society dominated by print ("the age of exposition") to a society dominated by TV ("the age of show business"), and the result has profoundly degraded politics, news, and all forms of public discourse. I had previously been skeptical of the "TV will destroy society" arguments, but after reading this book, there's really no doubt: society has changed, dramatically, and many of the problems we're seeing today (e.g ...more
The premise: the US has shifted from a society dominated by print ("the age of exposition") to a society dominated by TV ("the age of show business"), and the result has profoundly degraded politics, news, and all forms of public discourse. I had previously been skeptical of the "TV will destroy society" arguments, but after reading this book, there's really no doubt: society has changed, dramatically, and many of the problems we're seeing today (e.g ...more
This book makes two good points: the media used to communicate affects the nature of the communication, and much of modern communication on serious matters is frivolous.
That covers the first part of the book. The rest is a tiresome rant about how TV is ruining us all. The details of the rant are not worth covering, but I do think that Postman misses some important points. First, he never looks to see if there is any good in a visual based communication style. It is true, as he states, that a med ...more
That covers the first part of the book. The rest is a tiresome rant about how TV is ruining us all. The details of the rant are not worth covering, but I do think that Postman misses some important points. First, he never looks to see if there is any good in a visual based communication style. It is true, as he states, that a med ...more
Dec 03, 2019
Ivan
rated it
it was amazing
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
sociology-culture,
technology-and-social-media
A book I’ve long cited—the title and familiar opening lines—but until now have never read. I’m stunned by the book’s continual relevance—perhaps more so than when Postman first wrote the book. The book is tightly argued and convincing. Even though the focus is on modern-day TV and entertainment (in news, politics, religion), the book is laden with timeless wisdom. I especially appreciated the panoramic view of the centuries; how technology is never neutral but has a built-in ideology; and how a
...more
Jul 23, 2019
muthuvel
rated it
it was amazing
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
favorite,
anthropology-cultural_studies
It's still going to be one more nuanced review about the book that talked about the perils of show business and utilizing televised knowledge back in 1985 but still relevant to this very day.
The book, which is brief has around 165 pages, mainly consists of two sections. The first section reflects upon the ways by which people got informed since the remembered timeline starting from Socrates' trial and stopping before the advent of Television which became prominent around the mid-late 20th centur ...more
The book, which is brief has around 165 pages, mainly consists of two sections. The first section reflects upon the ways by which people got informed since the remembered timeline starting from Socrates' trial and stopping before the advent of Television which became prominent around the mid-late 20th centur ...more
Orwell believed the government would hide the truth, ban books, and in essence dominate people. Huxley believed people would have access to so much information they would not know what truth is and there would be so much entertainment no one would read.
Huxley was right.
Postman's work is an extended analysis of television. It is a bit dated since he writes at the onset of computers. Much of what he said holds true, but it would be interesting to get his take on how smartphones have changed things ...more
Huxley was right.
Postman's work is an extended analysis of television. It is a bit dated since he writes at the onset of computers. Much of what he said holds true, but it would be interesting to get his take on how smartphones have changed things ...more
It’s hard to over-exaggerate the prescient nature of this book. If only Postman were around to comment on the “Leader of the Free World” revealing foreign and domestic policy over Twitter. I’d read that. But he provides enough here to occupy our minds so that we may attempt to think through our present absurdities. The Trump administration is low-hanging fruit to use as fodder in light of this book. Mr. Postman speaks to so much more. He speaks to the very nature of our social tapestry. If it wa
...more
Aug 22, 2007
Malbadeen
added it
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
headless people
Shelves:
read-by-virtue-of-proximity
I read a paragraph of this? or a page? or a chapter? or most of it? What I read to the point where Postman said, basically that there is so much information out there that we can not or do not act on that it's pretty ludicrous to keep taking it all in. And I was like cool! I can finally stop paying attention to that war that they're having in that place and all that talk about those hungry people in that one country is now in one ear and out the other. And then I was like double cool cuz I know
...more
“For no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are.”
Considering this book was written in 1985, it can be considered prophetic and accurate in its predictions in almost every way (save when he says the importance of computers is vastly overrated.)
I wish Postman was alive to comment on our constantly connected world, how we have even further built our society and culture on the electrical plug, and, of course, “Fake News” (which perhaps he would argue that almost ...more
Considering this book was written in 1985, it can be considered prophetic and accurate in its predictions in almost every way (save when he says the importance of computers is vastly overrated.)
I wish Postman was alive to comment on our constantly connected world, how we have even further built our society and culture on the electrical plug, and, of course, “Fake News” (which perhaps he would argue that almost ...more
This felt pedantic and dated and messy to me. Although I generally agree that TV can be bubblegum for the brain, I don't think he convincingly proved that it is fundamentally more pernicious than other media. With "creative non-fiction" even books on serious topics now are more entertainment than education of the electorate, so the "medium is the message" doesn't quite cover it. And he's saying newspapers were already ruined by the telegraph anyway. Also, the Lincoln-Douglass debates were a show
...more
| topics | posts | views | last activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Thinking Musl...: Amusing Ourselves to Death | 2 | 30 | Nov 27, 2020 12:45AM | |
| Play Book Tag: [Poll Ballot] Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman | 1 | 3 | Oct 31, 2020 04:36PM |
Readers also enjoyed
Neil Postman, an important American educator, media theorist and cultural critic was probably best known for his popular 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death. For more than four decades he was associated with New York University, where he created and led the Media Ecology program.
He is the author of more than thirty significant books on education, media criticism, and cultural change including Te ...more
He is the author of more than thirty significant books on education, media criticism, and cultural change including Te ...more
News & Interviews
Die-hard mystery fans are always on the hunt for their next supremely satisfying whodunit. To help you stock that Want to Read shelf, we asked...
71 likes · 26 comments
1 trivia question
More quizzes & trivia...
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”
—
855 likes
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”
In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”
—
235 likes
More quotes…
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”
In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”
