MonkeyCatcher
New Member
I have just finished reading this book and I did a quick search and couldn't find any specific threads on the book. Anyone else read it? Any comments?
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Aldous Huxley: Brave New World
- Thread starter MonkeyCatcher
- Start date
clueless
New Member
It's one of the books I intend to reread, but when I do I'd like to get Brave New World Revisited, a long essay Huxley wrote about 20 years after Brave New World, analysing how far the world has progressed in becoming the type of society he described in the novel.
What did you think about the book, monkeycatcher?
What did you think about the book, monkeycatcher?
Great book, although it's been a few years since I've read it.
"The Feelies" are a good prediction of virtual environments, and state provision of mood-altering drugs doesn't seem too wide of the mark any more... Creepy!
In the essay "Brave New World Revisited" Huxley makes the case for his belief that modern society has moved more in the direction of his vision of the future rather than that of other speculators, particularly Orwell. He makes the point that in 1984, the chief controlling mechanism is for "bad" behaviour to be punished, whereas in Brave New World, "good" behaviour is rewarded. Broad strokes, I know, but I think it's a useful way of looking at the two books. I'm not sure which of the two is my favourite; they're both hugely important.
"The Feelies" are a good prediction of virtual environments, and state provision of mood-altering drugs doesn't seem too wide of the mark any more... Creepy!
In the essay "Brave New World Revisited" Huxley makes the case for his belief that modern society has moved more in the direction of his vision of the future rather than that of other speculators, particularly Orwell. He makes the point that in 1984, the chief controlling mechanism is for "bad" behaviour to be punished, whereas in Brave New World, "good" behaviour is rewarded. Broad strokes, I know, but I think it's a useful way of looking at the two books. I'm not sure which of the two is my favourite; they're both hugely important.
SFG75
Well-Known Member
There are some cool links about it, just click here, and here. The book is prophetic in many ways. Take birth for example. Back then, artificial means of birth were unthinkable, yet we have invitro-fertilization and could possibly do so completley out of the womb if we steered enough resources into doing so. The drugging of the populace is also something worth noting as anti-depressants are flying off the shelves here in America. I absolutely loved this book and it was one that I did not trade back in at the bookstore book-exchange during my college years. Also, you gotta like someone whose early works is credited with Jim Morrison and his band choosing its title as their band name. 
clueless
New Member
And children being raised collectively, with hardly any contact with their parents has come to pass to in some societies, where parents only see their own children when they are on childcare duty in the nurseries.SFG75 said:The book is prophetic in many ways. Take birth for example. Back then, artificial means of birth were unthinkable, yet we have invitro-fertilization and could possibly do so completley out of the womb if we steered enough resources into doing so.
Hopefully genetically engineering different classes of citizens will not happen, but it's technically possible today too.
Keeping people from ageing. That's happened too and will increase, since the cult of youth is so prevalent.
MonkeyCatcher
New Member
I personally really enjoyed it. The beginning was a bit slow for me, and I thought that the technical words used in the book were dumped on you all at once without proper explination, but after getting used to the terms and the atmosphere that the book conveys, I began to really enjoy it.clueless said:
The whole idea of the novel was brilliant, IMHO. I loved the spins that it put on everyday things, such as parents and families, and found myself laughing out loud at certain points in the book because of the reactions towards these things that we consider normal, such as monogamy.
Definately one of the best Sci-Fi/Fantasy books that I have read in awhile. What made it even better is that I felt that it lives up to its expectations, and I was not dissappointed as I have been with other books lately.
Stewart
Active Member
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was inspired by realising that I hadn’t read any of a recent list stating the top twenty geek novels. Given that my impressions of geek literature being hardcore science fiction and adventures in elfworld it was pleasant to discover that this novel, over seventy years after its publication, is still fresh. I would tend to think, however, that its endurance is due to its satirical tone rather than any sort of geeky idolisation as, despite its futuristic setting, it deals more with its characters rather than the world around them.
Set in a dystopian society in 2540AD or, as the book calls it, AF632 (AF meaning After Ford) the novel presents an almost perfect society where war and poverty has been eliminated at the cost of family, culture, and religion. The whole world is considered to be a single state and the central tenets are those, as you would expect, of the industrialist Henry Ford. Fordism is the semi-religious doctrine that permeates this society: his sayings are gospel, his name is said in vain, the cross has been replaced by the ‘T’; indeed, in a motion similar to crossing oneself, the citizens make the sign of the ‘T’. An interesting idea, perhaps, but the incessant expletives (“for Ford’s sake!”, “oh my Ford!”, etc.) do lose some of their humour and power.
It begins, with little narrative, in the Central London Hatching and Conditioning Centre, a place where human beings are raised are ‘bottled’ (raised in test tubes) and then conditioned via radiation and Pavlovian techniques to become one of the five social castes of society (the independent Alphas through to the half-retarded Epsilons). Once fit for society the citizens are then ‘decanted’. The Director of this centre is giving a tour to a group and shows them the bottled embryos passing along a conveyor belt as they are treated with chemicals to determine the future intelligence and physical attributes of the embryo. He then shows them the nursery where some children are being conditioned to loathe, of all things, books and flowers.
Then, moving on, we meet one of the world’s controllers, a man named Mustapha Mond. He tells the touring children about the World State and the benefits that attempts to quash peoples’ emotions and relationships has made on society. Indeed, in this world, there is no marriage, grief, or joy – promiscuous sex is actively encouraged, death is no big deal, and games only serve to further the economy.
More characters, from here, are introduced into the narrative as Huxley’s world escapes the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre and goes further afield. The self-conscious Bernard Marx gets permission from the Director to visit a savage reservation in New Mexico; Lenina Crowne, attracted to him, accepts his offer to join him. Helmholm Watson, a hypnopaedia writer (slogans that are repeated and learnt whilst citizens sleep) shows discontent at his job feeling, as an Alpha, that he is capable of much more. And, in New Mexico, they meet John and his mother Linda, a pair of savages discontent with their world. Returning to London attempts are made to integrate John into society but, his world is shaped by Shakespeare (he found a copy of his complete works) and he disagrees with the dystopian World State, arguing with Mond until each character goes their own way (John to exile; Marx exiled.) and the final denouement.
Brave New World could have been better, there’s no doubt about that. The obvious hindrance was a narrative that never really centered on one character: one minute we were touring the hatchery, the next we’re following Bernard who, in turn, slinked into the shadows when John was introduced. Huxley has ideas, though, and amidst his obvious taste for neologisms (centrifugal Bumble-puppy!) gets his ideas across fairly well although this can be at the cost of the narrative as the climactic argument between John and Mond goes back and forward with neither being right. The World Controller argues that society is better off when nobody reflects on the past, when people aren’t given any time to themselves, and when there is nothing to be emotional about and that eliminated studies (history, religion, science) are wrongs that require control while John, in his misunderstanding of the World State, believes that people should have freedom of thought and be allowed to suffer emotions to make them human. Of course, in a world where people are made to order, made on Ford’s assembly line, he has little chance of ever making a point.
The writing in Brave New World is fine, if a tad verbose at times or scientific at others (dolichocephalic!) with, as previously mentioned, a world of neologistic commodities (pneumatic armchairs, for example). Dialogue is alright and serves to paint a more accurate picture of the characters but it is not entirely realistic and sometimes serves as device for infodumps. The characters, however, are hard to follow as they feature for little periods and, while you get an idea of what drives them, you don’t get a complete sense of their role within the story, especially as to their reactions by the novel’s close.
While I liked Brave New World one of the hardest things for me to do was imagine Huxley’s vision as it would be incarnate. When I think of future societies I am given to thoughts of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis but, when least expected, Huxley would throw in the countryside, savage reservations, and, unexpectedly, a lighthouse. I understand that these elements demonstrate a world that strives to be perfect but suffers from underlying problems (the people are kept happy by use of recreational drugs rather than any utopian positivity) that mean it is still a burgeoning dystopia rather than fully realised with its wheels completely greased. Overall, it’s an attractive novel, full of ideas, but one that suffers from a lack of organisation with them.
Reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was inspired by realising that I hadn’t read any of a recent list stating the top twenty geek novels. Given that my impressions of geek literature being hardcore science fiction and adventures in elfworld it was pleasant to discover that this novel, over seventy years after its publication, is still fresh. I would tend to think, however, that its endurance is due to its satirical tone rather than any sort of geeky idolisation as, despite its futuristic setting, it deals more with its characters rather than the world around them.
Set in a dystopian society in 2540AD or, as the book calls it, AF632 (AF meaning After Ford) the novel presents an almost perfect society where war and poverty has been eliminated at the cost of family, culture, and religion. The whole world is considered to be a single state and the central tenets are those, as you would expect, of the industrialist Henry Ford. Fordism is the semi-religious doctrine that permeates this society: his sayings are gospel, his name is said in vain, the cross has been replaced by the ‘T’; indeed, in a motion similar to crossing oneself, the citizens make the sign of the ‘T’. An interesting idea, perhaps, but the incessant expletives (“for Ford’s sake!”, “oh my Ford!”, etc.) do lose some of their humour and power.
It begins, with little narrative, in the Central London Hatching and Conditioning Centre, a place where human beings are raised are ‘bottled’ (raised in test tubes) and then conditioned via radiation and Pavlovian techniques to become one of the five social castes of society (the independent Alphas through to the half-retarded Epsilons). Once fit for society the citizens are then ‘decanted’. The Director of this centre is giving a tour to a group and shows them the bottled embryos passing along a conveyor belt as they are treated with chemicals to determine the future intelligence and physical attributes of the embryo. He then shows them the nursery where some children are being conditioned to loathe, of all things, books and flowers.
Then, moving on, we meet one of the world’s controllers, a man named Mustapha Mond. He tells the touring children about the World State and the benefits that attempts to quash peoples’ emotions and relationships has made on society. Indeed, in this world, there is no marriage, grief, or joy – promiscuous sex is actively encouraged, death is no big deal, and games only serve to further the economy.
More characters, from here, are introduced into the narrative as Huxley’s world escapes the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre and goes further afield. The self-conscious Bernard Marx gets permission from the Director to visit a savage reservation in New Mexico; Lenina Crowne, attracted to him, accepts his offer to join him. Helmholm Watson, a hypnopaedia writer (slogans that are repeated and learnt whilst citizens sleep) shows discontent at his job feeling, as an Alpha, that he is capable of much more. And, in New Mexico, they meet John and his mother Linda, a pair of savages discontent with their world. Returning to London attempts are made to integrate John into society but, his world is shaped by Shakespeare (he found a copy of his complete works) and he disagrees with the dystopian World State, arguing with Mond until each character goes their own way (John to exile; Marx exiled.) and the final denouement.
Brave New World could have been better, there’s no doubt about that. The obvious hindrance was a narrative that never really centered on one character: one minute we were touring the hatchery, the next we’re following Bernard who, in turn, slinked into the shadows when John was introduced. Huxley has ideas, though, and amidst his obvious taste for neologisms (centrifugal Bumble-puppy!) gets his ideas across fairly well although this can be at the cost of the narrative as the climactic argument between John and Mond goes back and forward with neither being right. The World Controller argues that society is better off when nobody reflects on the past, when people aren’t given any time to themselves, and when there is nothing to be emotional about and that eliminated studies (history, religion, science) are wrongs that require control while John, in his misunderstanding of the World State, believes that people should have freedom of thought and be allowed to suffer emotions to make them human. Of course, in a world where people are made to order, made on Ford’s assembly line, he has little chance of ever making a point.
The writing in Brave New World is fine, if a tad verbose at times or scientific at others (dolichocephalic!) with, as previously mentioned, a world of neologistic commodities (pneumatic armchairs, for example). Dialogue is alright and serves to paint a more accurate picture of the characters but it is not entirely realistic and sometimes serves as device for infodumps. The characters, however, are hard to follow as they feature for little periods and, while you get an idea of what drives them, you don’t get a complete sense of their role within the story, especially as to their reactions by the novel’s close.
While I liked Brave New World one of the hardest things for me to do was imagine Huxley’s vision as it would be incarnate. When I think of future societies I am given to thoughts of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis but, when least expected, Huxley would throw in the countryside, savage reservations, and, unexpectedly, a lighthouse. I understand that these elements demonstrate a world that strives to be perfect but suffers from underlying problems (the people are kept happy by use of recreational drugs rather than any utopian positivity) that mean it is still a burgeoning dystopia rather than fully realised with its wheels completely greased. Overall, it’s an attractive novel, full of ideas, but one that suffers from a lack of organisation with them.
Gem
kickbox
Well thought out review Stewart.
BNW is in my list of favourite books, theres just so much there to think over.
I liked the fact that the narrative wasn't centered on one character, and that whilst we knew things about the characters there was a lot more about them that we didn't know. It reinforced the Society and the fact that the people are really monotonous and pretty much without any distinctive personalities.
Many other things struck me,and if your able to get through my rambling then i'll share some of them;
Community, Identity, Stability. Great goals for a society to work towards, in fact their probably present on the manifestos of all of our political parties.
Everyone belongs to everyone else - well hey don't we all pay taxes to help with the cost of maintaining society?
We may not use 'castes' but we are still classified or grouped together depending on where we live, and what we do - i.e. doctor, lawyer, builder, so forth.
The whole consumption thing - I sometimes wonder whether our respective countries are being run by the government or big businesses. The whole thing in BNW about sports only being approved if they had large amounts of apparatus for people to consume more, brought forth in my mind the not so recent debate about changing team names to make them more pc. Imagine the revenues when new kits and other goodies featuring new team names are put up for sale. advertising, media etc are all designed to make us consume more.
Solid goals, yet the very things that enable us to have close community, clear identity and genuine stability are the very things that BNW have deducted from the equation - mothers, fathers, family units etc.
The whole predestination thing arose a question in my mind - are we not being predestined in a sense already - eg.is someone born in a muslim country into a family of doctors, most likely going to grow up to become a muslim doctor? Doesn't the BNW predestination just put that choice in the hands of a person rather than nature/nuture?
Ok, i think i've probably waffled quite enough now.
BNW is in my list of favourite books, theres just so much there to think over.
I liked the fact that the narrative wasn't centered on one character, and that whilst we knew things about the characters there was a lot more about them that we didn't know. It reinforced the Society and the fact that the people are really monotonous and pretty much without any distinctive personalities.
Many other things struck me,and if your able to get through my rambling then i'll share some of them;
Community, Identity, Stability. Great goals for a society to work towards, in fact their probably present on the manifestos of all of our political parties.
Everyone belongs to everyone else - well hey don't we all pay taxes to help with the cost of maintaining society?
We may not use 'castes' but we are still classified or grouped together depending on where we live, and what we do - i.e. doctor, lawyer, builder, so forth.
The whole consumption thing - I sometimes wonder whether our respective countries are being run by the government or big businesses. The whole thing in BNW about sports only being approved if they had large amounts of apparatus for people to consume more, brought forth in my mind the not so recent debate about changing team names to make them more pc. Imagine the revenues when new kits and other goodies featuring new team names are put up for sale. advertising, media etc are all designed to make us consume more.
Solid goals, yet the very things that enable us to have close community, clear identity and genuine stability are the very things that BNW have deducted from the equation - mothers, fathers, family units etc.
The whole predestination thing arose a question in my mind - are we not being predestined in a sense already - eg.is someone born in a muslim country into a family of doctors, most likely going to grow up to become a muslim doctor? Doesn't the BNW predestination just put that choice in the hands of a person rather than nature/nuture?
Ok, i think i've probably waffled quite enough now.
MonkeyCatcher
New Member
I think that at one time this was true, yes, but not anymore. People are becoming more and more independent these days, IMHO, and are breaking this trend of taking up the religion/profession/political views of their parents. It still happens, and it still will, but not to the extent that it was a few a years back. Not that I've lived that many years to compare it toGem said:
