This novel, written by Aldous Huxley, paints an interesting if implausible picture of the future. Despite a few notable omissions and mistakes, this was an overall enjoyable piece of literature. What's even more intriguing is his portrayal of a fascist world, before fascism was widespread throughout Europe.
This story got horrible reviews when it first came out (before the world had seen the power of demagogues and fascism), but has since been recognized as a classic of American literature.
I found the book perhaps a little too disjointed; Huxley couldn't decide which aspects to focus on, and he didn't showcase the loss of humanity enough; he should have focused on three or four of the characters instead of trying to flesh out the entire cast. There's also a noticeable (to me, anyway) shift in tone when Bernard travels to the primitive reserve. I questioned whether a world in which the state controlled every aspect of the people's lives would really allow such reserves to exist, and I didn't like the dynamic the Savage brought to the story.
In the end, however, I was thoroughly pleased by the novel. Despite its flaws, Huxley creates a remarkably accurate possible (though unlikely) fascist world - in 1932, no less. I'm curious to see what the rest of the RvB community has to say about this book.
When it comes to anti-fascist cautionary tales, I'm more of a George Orwell/Philip Morgan person myself, but this is definitely a really good book, and in some ways more frightening than 1984 (to which comparisons are inevitable). In Brave New World, the fascist government is able to seize control simply by manipulating the human race's shortsighted desire for temporary happiness, giving them the medication, direction, and material goods they desire. Unlike 1984, Brave New World actually forces you to ask yourself if the society in the people in the book live in is actually such a bad thing, and that alone is pretty terrifying.
Personally, I found the beginning, in which they describe the Pavlonian conditioning and the methods in which they create thousands of twins - in effect, cloning - to be fascinating. The introduction of the Savage weakened the book for me, by showing that not all was bad in the world - there were primitive reserves and islands maintained for those members of the society that refuse to stay conditioned. It's an odd ray of hope in that desolate yet blissful world.
I would have much rather preferred the book focus on Bernard and his anti-social feelings as he quietyly combats a world of mediocrity and sameness, rather than surrounding him with a cast of like-minded individuals. I did like how Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, was free of conditioning, as that makes sense. We're all created equal, but some are more equal than others (a misplaced quote, I know, but fitting).
While I could easily make a very educated, mature, and thought provoking comment, I'm not going to. I didn't care much for this book. Mostly becasue it disagrees with me in more than one way [regaurding my ideas about humans]. I have a lot of faith in humanity, sometimes maybe too much. I feel that no matter what, the world will always end up in the best possible scenario because, while there is no such thing as right and wrong [only different points of view] there is something in our genes that tells us the basics of good and bad. I think the majority of humanity will always move towards freedom, even if they don't know what freedom is. Huxley doesn't seem to agree with that.
"Implausible?" Are you kidding? A case can be made Huxley's predictions have come true in the USA while Orwell's have not.
The following is the foreword to Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman.
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, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
Huxley's hypnopaedic machine is, undeniably, the Television. We are living in that Brave New World. And we're too fixated on our TVs, too doped-up by artificial foods to even realize we have the power to get up and do something about it.
Believe me, I have no faith in Americans. Yet Huxley paints the picture of a United Earth, something that human nature proves impossible. No matter how happy it makes us, we like hating just a little more.
You do raise an interesting point, though... several of Huxley's ideas do seem very real and possible, maybe even looming on the horizon. We are a nation of distractions, swayed by the latest star scandal but uninformed on the policies of our presidents. I certainly agree that this distraction, this unwillingness to focus on the here and now, the important, will be our downfall.
I say this in no unpatriotic terms, but America is swiftly falling. Japan, China, and India are surpassing us in power, drive, and technology, and we Americans are so damn lazy and distracted by our decadent culture that we don't even notice.
never saw the book as an example of fascist work simply because had no idea what the hell that was when I read it first. anyways, I just took from it the power of conformity and society has over personal identity… really liked the first part with Bernard, and following into the end, because could dive into his identity crisis and self denial (he will never be the person he think he is).
Well, wait.. how does a culture that promotes personal pleasure and unity be fascist. Simply the way its structured?
off topic, but awesome post. i absolutely loved that postman book. was required in one of my college classes and firmly believe that everyone should have to read it.
unity is key to nationalism and nationalism is key to fascism. not saying that you cant have fascism without the others, but its a whole hell of a lot harder. working personal pleasure into the equation even further complicates it since you would be removing focus away from the betterment of the state towards betterment of the individual.
but isn't nationalism just another form of identity? and besides one egg spawning one human (alphas and betas) the only differation between to objects is the English splicing plant and another in the Cribbean in the beginning. everyone else is just a face in the mob... except the key players for plot/conflict.
that supports the mind altering perception that everyone needs to be in a group. it's down to a science from population control to farming produce leading me to think its a product of a stagnet culture, not government (which implies a rule'ing state, either private or public)...
sorry if seem ignorant about the specifics.. swear, could never answer the SAT questions about the writer's motive..
well, liked how Bernard got portray'ed on the reservation, it broadcast how really much is like everyone else dispite whatever he thinks. here he was going to the fantastic wonderland (he thought) and all he thought about was the bill for some scented water back home. and once he got accepted into back into society (b/c of fame), he reverted into what he hated about them before. Really like Bernard.. its like watching a house burn down, not fun, not funny, but still enertains in a(n?) introspection way.
now, to this day, don't understand the motive for calling John as "mr. Savage' unless in mockery. he was less cultured compared to everyone else and loved the aspect that he really was less cultured (because everyone didn't need a meta God or romance). Liked him too.. like a modern man going back in time to Medievel England.. only the other way.
but like the book, just as you.... BUT I don't understand WHY IT's fascist!! why??
I read that book. I thought it wasn't that good, espically all of the sex. It was a little overboard, and it got confusing as hell when Huxley would swap back and forth between six different POVs in not even half a page.
Oooo. *purrs* Brave New World really was a fabulous book. Has anyone heard the Iron Maiden 'Brave New World' album? ^_^ It's actually quite appropriate.
And speaking of visions of the future, has anyone read Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451?
This book is absolutely fantastic. It really rocked my world when I first read it. I had been here in Shenzhen (a modern city in China) and I felt quite shocked haha. Being in a such a modern, quietly Communist city was very interesting after reading this book.
i read it for G.C.S.E english, considering how htey tear books to pieces i was amazed at how much i enjoyed this book, think it was one of the first set books i read because i wanted to rather than because i had to!
The use of those confusing tactics is called style. Without them the book would be dull and uninteresting. And the sex is supposed to bother you. It's a pseudo-apocalyptic foretelling
I thought this was a crap book. It had no real creativity or originality. It seemed like everything in the book had been written so that the author could get the World Controller and the Savage together in a debate. George Orwell's 1984 was much better and far more terrifying.
I liked 451...really good. As for the television being the hypnopaedic machine Im going a different way. Im saying the PC is more accurate. Id say in my generation more people spend more hours in front of the monitor than the TV. Heck, most of my friends watch TV shows on their computers. I think that between Orwell and Huxely you can definately screw with your perceptions.
It took a while for me to read this book as well. It's really the only good book that came out in the years it did. It was really not all that popular back in the old days. But I had to read it for school one time.
