Brave New World

ok, lets have a chat about this book,

Tell me what you think of the style of writing?
what are your thoughts on the world - this Brave New World?
the people?
the so called Reservation and its peoples.


Let me start by saying first off i am very torn by this book. I love the premise behind it, however i find it quite badly written. Both in words and also in love - bear with me. What i mean by this, is that Huxley doesn't really seem to have any love for ANY of his characters and therefore neither have i. I was wanting to love Bernard, then when he turned out to have no redeeming features, i was hoping that John would be the one i could feel for. But alas no.

I wasn't hoping for a hero, i was just wanting a character that i could feel for and love. The only one for me, was Helmholtz, and even that was scraping the barrel

One thing did strike me, Huxley, in some parts, seemed to be up his own bum. one example leaps out from memory, but i am sure there was more than one. When John and Mund are argueing the existence of God. Huxley just rambles and rambles, as if to say 'aren't i clever with all the books i read'

Now in regards to the Utopian world that has been made, initially i was horrified by this world. But the more i read the more i was actually thinking, you know what? the mans got a point. yes the whole civilisation has been made childish, they all look to the Fordom to feed, entertain, drug them. But apart from a very small few they are all happy. Mund himself says they tried to have a society of equals, but the experiment failed and the subjects of this experiment begged for assistance. So although they have played with science to create certain people to do certain jobs, and these people are in a way enslaved to the system, is this so bad when they are happy with their lot?

talking about this however, also makes me think that in todays society we are 'bred' for a certain class of living, and it is only a small few that break out of that to change the style of life they are accustomed to, and we are also to an extent slaves to the system. The only difference is, there are not that many people happy with their lot in life.

One thing i noticed in this Brave new World is that things are not as equal as Mr Huxley would like us to presume, if you read between the lines the women are taken and fucked at the mans descretion. Not the other way around, it seemed to me that the women were used in a very sordid way.

So, onto the characters. I was going to dissect them one by one, but you know what, i had the same problem with each of them. I was hoping one of them would have some passion, some ooomph. but at the end all they cared about was themselves, even John the savage was an annoying irk. Initially you thought he would be the one, the one you cared about. especially after you read his back story. But alas, he turned out to be just as selfish as the rest of them (urgh those ghastly twins - get over it you arse)

And the reservation was for me a huge disappointment, maybe i expected too much. Or maybe this was Huxley idea, to show that nothing is perfect. But what i really wanted from the reservation, was normal life, for him to come across people living normally. As man and wife, mother and father. What i didn't want was a society that was more fractured and broken than 'utopia' I didn't want a society that parralled the Utopian world, where the conditioning was there and where the castes were as set in stone as they were in Utopia**sigh**



All in all i found this book a pleasant read, but i left with a very unsatified feeling.

I would love to know your thoughts, and if i expected too much? or maybe didn't quite 'get' what Huxley was trying to say?

Wow! Great analysis! I wonder if I should even read this at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

What i mean by this, is that Huxley doesn't really seem to have any love for ANY of his characters and therefore neither have i.

I wasn't hoping for a hero, i was just wanting a character that i could feel for and love.

---

I agree. The characterization was almost non-existent. They were poorly written and seemed like just a stepping stone to drive the political tones of the novel home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

One thing did strike me, Huxley, in some parts, seemed to be up his own bum. one example leaps out from memory, but i am sure there was more than one. When John and Mund are argueing the existence of God. Huxley just rambles and rambles, as if to say 'aren't i clever with all the books i read'

---

Yes! Kind of a "Haha, look what I'm writing! Pretty heavy stuff, huh?!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

All in all i found this book a pleasant read, but i left with a very unsatified feeling.

---

I was very disappointed as well. I was hoping for an interesting story (which we certainly got) with well-developed characters, but instead it seems like we got the opposite: Huxley just flaunting around his political views and theories and making them the focal point of the novel, rather than making proper utilization of his characters in order to make it more hard-hitting.

It seems like you kind of feel the same way I did once I finished it.

I will comment later, after I have thought about it for awhile. Right now I just want to make one interesting observation. Has anyone seen Demolition Man? I know that it may seem off topic, but I kept thinking about the dystopian society in that movie. They all have this "be well" attitude, and an "advanced society" in which the advances in science seem to be only for the enjoyment of its citizens. There is a version of "Feelies", which are, of coarse, strongly sexual. The prisoners in the movie are being "conditioned" by "hypnopaedic" messages while in a state of cryogenic sleep. There is a society of rebels "savages" that refuse to conform to the conditioned societal norms that are being imposed on them. They live under the city, almost like on a reservation. Babies are produced by artificial means. All in all there a lot of similarities.

What made me start thinking about this relationship was when I read the name Lenina Crowne, which reminded me of Sandra Bullock's character from Demolition Man, who is named Lenina Huxley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BROWNINGS CHILDE

will comment later, after I have thought about it for awhile. Right now I just want to make one interesting observation. Has anyone seen Demolition Man? I know that it may seem off topic, but I kept thinking about the dystopian society in that movie. They all have this "be well" attitude, and an "advanced society" in which the advances in science seem to be only for the enjoyment of its citizens. There is a version of "Feelies", which are, of coarse, strongly sexual. The prisoners in the movie are being "conditioned" by "hypnopaedic" messages while in a state of cryogenic sleep. There is a society of rebels "savages" that refuse to conform to the conditioned societal norms that are being imposed on them. They live under the city, almost like on a reservation. Babies are produced by artificial means. All in all there a lot of similarities.

What made me start thinking about this relationship was when I read the name Lenina Crowne, which reminded me of Sandra Bullock's character from Demolition Man, who is named Lenina Huxley.

---

huh!!! its been years since i watched it, so didn't immediatley see all of this, but now you have mentioned it - ha i see it!! and especially with the name too:clap:

JB sent this to me a couple weeks ago. Given that we have read both books, I thought that you all would get a kick outa this.

Thanks, BC. :) I love Neil Postman.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was written after World War II, so Orwell had collective experience to draw on. What's really terrible is that even after so many people have fought tyranny so hard, others who haven't had to don't put their freedoms to better use.

I'd like to post a lot more on this thread... sorry that I haven't yet been able to say all that I've had in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

I'd like to post a lot more on this thread... sorry that I haven't yet been able to say all that I've had in mind.

---

i would love to hear more of your thoughts on the book Path:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

I'd like to post a lot more on this thread... sorry that I haven't yet been able to say all that I've had in mind.

---

i would love to hear more of your thoughts on the book Path:)

---

:blush: That's flattering, thanks for saying that. Sorry again for all the delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

One thing i noticed in this Brave new World is that things are not as equal as Mr Huxley would like us to presume, if you read between the lines the women are taken and fucked at the mans descretion. Not the other way around, it seemed to me that the women were used in a very sordid way.

---

Was it not clear that the actual sickness of that society really was the author's point? If you earnestly think the narrative itself was somewhat sexist, remember that he wrote this book in 1931. I myself do think that the idea that sex, to women, is mainly something that's done to please men probably does not have any true natural basis, but even if it comes entirely from social training, that attitude does in fact exist in widespread practice, even today. Further, I am not so sure that promiscuity is indeed so rewarding to the male as we usually think. At risk of sounding judgmental, I think this is one element of Huxley's nightmare which actually has become common. To me, anyway, there's no satisfaction in such lifestyle; I'm not trying to criticize people who might feel differently for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

...i left with a very unsatified feeling.... maybe didn't quite 'get' what Huxley was trying to say?

---

Yes, it seems so to me. I still am not prepared to fully deal with this response --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

Now in regards to the Utopian world that has been made, initially i was horrified by this world. But the more i read the more i was actually thinking, you know what? the mans got a point. yes the whole civilisation has been made childish, they all look to the Fordom to feed, entertain, drug them. But apart from a very small few they are all happy. Mund himself says they tried to have a society of equals, but the experiment failed and the subjects of this experiment begged for assistance. So although they have played with science to create certain people to do certain jobs, and these people are in a way enslaved to the system, is this so bad when they are happy with their lot?

---

A key point, I think, is the idea that something real and vital is lost when people are reduced to mere consumers; that we have certain needs which can never be satisfied economically, even if most people are ready to dismiss these ineffable factors as without meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by candy

And the reservation was for me a huge disappointment, maybe i expected too much. Or maybe this was Huxley idea, to show that nothing is perfect. But what i really wanted from the reservation, was normal life, for him to come across people living normally. As man and wife, mother and father. What i didn't want was a society that was more fractured and broken than 'utopia' I didn't want a society that parralled the Utopian world, where the conditioning was there and where the castes were as set in stone as they were in Utopia**sigh**

---

Try the short story by Ursula LeGuin, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."

[QUOTE=pathoftheturtle;574244]If you earnestly think the narrative itself was somewhat sexist, remember that he wrote this book in 1931. I myself do think that the idea that sex, to women, is mainly something that's done to please men probably does not have any true natural basis, but even if it comes entirely from social training, that attitude does in fact exist in widespread practice, even today. Further, I am not so sure that promiscuity is indeed so rewarding to the male as we usually think. At risk of sounding judgmental, I think this is one element of Huxley's nightmare which actually has become common. To me, anyway, there's no satisfaction in such lifestyle; I'm not trying to criticize people who might feel differently for themselves.[QUOTE]

i did forget the book was written so early:unsure: its something i am guilty of quite a lot when i become engrossed in a book.
My reading of the book was that the whole of society was sick, that instant sexual gratification was the norm to men and women equally, however, the base of the book was leaning towards the men being the source of the pleasure. Maybe i was reading too much into this and i thought the book was trying to hide this leaning towards woman being man plaything, when in fact it was doing no such thing - it was stating it loud and clear?

it was interesting to read your take on todays society, and i do agree that a lot of people are drifting to the same instant sexual gratification that was noticable about BNW, the only thing i would add, is that so far as the book was concerned the women where there as playthings (which is more understandable to me after realising when the book was written) whereas in todays society its across the sexes, with women now becoming quite predatory in getting their sexual kicks.

You very kindly came back to me on my thoughts Path, how did you find the book? was it something you enjoyed reading? did you feel maybe i looked too deeply into the book or were you as involved as myself?

I was very, very involved. Remember that I nominated this one... I had read it for the first time years ago, and I'm pretty familiar by now with a lot of Huxley's other work. I consider BNW an important piece of literary history. I'm very much the kind to put priority on social consciousness.

I also think that if you can see the book as being against this use of women, it might lead you to revise your view of John's supposed selfishness. Maybe.

I ran across this somewhere a while back. It is somewhat relevant.
It is in a spoiler tag because it is a huge image.

Spoiler:

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/im...s-to-Death.png

It's very relevant, but we've already gotten it... there's a link here --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BROWNINGS CHILDE

this.

---

Huxley himself also wrote some non-fiction on the subject of various forms of social control. As I've said, though, I really like what Postman added later in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and related work.
What do you think about all of that, Chris?