Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.98 AVERAGE
3.98 AVERAGE
slow-paced
Fascinatingly, Huxley's dystopia differs greatly with Orwell's in the method of control. Orwell's is a dictatorship run by fear; Huxley's state is controlled by pleasure. If you keep people delirious and happy, they won't need to think. Huxley argues that his is the more probable dystopia for that reason, and I have to agree, though I doubt it will be tried.
While the plot of this one is interesting, BNW is a book of ideas. Don't expect too much characterization here. The scene with the Savage and Mond is breathtaking and brilliant.
While the plot of this one is interesting, BNW is a book of ideas. Don't expect too much characterization here. The scene with the Savage and Mond is breathtaking and brilliant.
dark
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
To be perfectly honest with everyone, this was my least favorite of the Big Three dystopian novels of the mid-Twentieth Century, the other two being 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. Do I mean to say it's a waste of time, or that I didn't enjoy it? No. I just think that the other books, from the vantage point of 2017, seem more prophetic. But, in Huxley's defense, this was not supposed to be the "near future"; it was a couple hundred years out. So perhaps in another 25 or 50 years, this will seem like the prophetic book.
However, whatever he may have not gotten quite right in BNW, he nailed in Brave New World Revisited, which was published in 1958 (BNW was published in 1932). There are a couple of weak chapters: Chapter II is about eugenics, which most people now consider a settled issue. Chapter VIII is called "Chemical Persuasion" and contains somewhat weak, or perhaps naive, descriptions of psychoactive drugs, But in between, his discussions of the possible roads to totalitarianism, both of the 1984 type and the BraveNew World type, are spot-on, even while some of the specific terms have become obsolete.
I would say to read this two-books-in-one edition and get both the classic novel and his thoughts on totalitarianism. But if you can't or won't read both, go for Brave New World Revisited.
However, whatever he may have not gotten quite right in BNW, he nailed in Brave New World Revisited, which was published in 1958 (BNW was published in 1932). There are a couple of weak chapters: Chapter II is about eugenics, which most people now consider a settled issue. Chapter VIII is called "Chemical Persuasion" and contains somewhat weak, or perhaps naive, descriptions of psychoactive drugs, But in between, his discussions of the possible roads to totalitarianism, both of the 1984 type and the BraveNew World type, are spot-on, even while some of the specific terms have become obsolete.
I would say to read this two-books-in-one edition and get both the classic novel and his thoughts on totalitarianism. But if you can't or won't read both, go for Brave New World Revisited.
I prefer the essays (BNRW) to the novel because Huxley is a better essayist than fiction writer, in my estimation. Still, the novel predicted (or influenced) many things to come, including designer genes, and entertainment and drugs as methods of controlling a population. But I recommend the essays for their analysis of propaganda above all. Still fresh, still important, even after a second world war and nearly 90 years.
Just wack. The social commentary was there probably but what a wack book.
I re-read Brave New World after many years because of articles like this one, claiming that it and not 1984 is the template for the kind of fascism we are beginning to experience in the U.S. Amusing Ourselves to Death
I can see the point. In 2017, we are bombarded with hypnotic phrases over and over again (although in our waking hours, not while we're asleep, as in the book). We do see truth become malleable, not (as in Orwell) because we are tortured into obedience, but because what's true is irrelevant.
Beyond that, however, I think Brave New World is a brilliant novel that doesn't really connect with our current situation. It's brilliant because Huxley plays fair with his characters. He not only gives the devil his due, he gives him all the clearest arguments. The Controller, Mustapha Mond, is the most likeable character in the book. If he weren't also a hypocrite, he'd be the antihero. John, who is literally a noble savage, is also a traumatized child who's grown up into a bore. I understand his horror at Lenina Crowne's regarding herself as a tool for her own and his enjoyment, but his wanting to whip the strumpet out of her is an even greater horror. By the end of the book, I was rooting for the system--and that shows that we need other options besides the ones Huxley presents.
And I was sad to realize that Bernard Marx, the character with a Jewish name, is gradually revealed as an ambitious, social-climbing outsider with a repulsive physique. What could be more sterotypical? And since the book was published as the Nazis were beginning their rise to power, the antisemitism has tragic overtones.
The book does make me ponder deep questions about what I'd be willing to give up for comfort and to avoid suffering, particularly in old age. It also makes me think about what I'd rebel against, even if all my training and all my neighbors said it was the right way to live. In that way, it is timeless.
I can see the point. In 2017, we are bombarded with hypnotic phrases over and over again (although in our waking hours, not while we're asleep, as in the book). We do see truth become malleable, not (as in Orwell) because we are tortured into obedience, but because what's true is irrelevant.
Beyond that, however, I think Brave New World is a brilliant novel that doesn't really connect with our current situation. It's brilliant because Huxley plays fair with his characters. He not only gives the devil his due, he gives him all the clearest arguments. The Controller, Mustapha Mond, is the most likeable character in the book. If he weren't also a hypocrite, he'd be the antihero. John, who is literally a noble savage, is also a traumatized child who's grown up into a bore. I understand his horror at Lenina Crowne's regarding herself as a tool for her own and his enjoyment, but his wanting to whip the strumpet out of her is an even greater horror. By the end of the book, I was rooting for the system--and that shows that we need other options besides the ones Huxley presents.
And I was sad to realize that Bernard Marx, the character with a Jewish name, is gradually revealed as an ambitious, social-climbing outsider with a repulsive physique. What could be more sterotypical? And since the book was published as the Nazis were beginning their rise to power, the antisemitism has tragic overtones.
The book does make me ponder deep questions about what I'd be willing to give up for comfort and to avoid suffering, particularly in old age. It also makes me think about what I'd rebel against, even if all my training and all my neighbors said it was the right way to live. In that way, it is timeless.
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes