You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by isobelvm
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
3.0
"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
I've given this novel three stars not because I was unimpressed by it, but purely because I felt that more could have been done with it (and I'm well aware I'm teetering on the edge of near-blasphemy for that bold proclamation considering all Huxley has done for dystopian literature and how we look at society through it). It is no doubt an incredibly clever, tactful, and inspired novel, but I feel that some of the ways in which Huxley - as a storyteller as opposed to the incredible mind he undeniably is - decided to portray certain plot developments fell somewhat flat - for me, at least; I'm conscious of the fact that I'm very much in the minority in this stance.
I thought the exposition was masterful - a way to world-build concisely and effectively without it really feeling like the info-dump that it actually is. I also thought the DHC had such potential to be a really haunting villain and was rather disappointed when he was dropped so unceremoniously from the plot. I eagerly anticipated the venture into the Reservation which didn't end up spurring on the rebellion or eye-opening realisation in the characters that I'd hoped. I'd even go so far as to say that it was an overly drawn out plot device; as a simple means for showing how easily Bernard could fall into indoctrination simply because it suited him in his newfound fame, it could've been much conciser.
Where characters are concerned I found it increasingly difficult to care about any of them. Bernard is your standard anti-hero at first but quickly becomes unbearable (as was likely intended) but in that same course the Savage (the intended hero, perhaps?) is also rather difficult to get behind. Lenina could have been so much more - which is oftentimes the case with the women in seminal dystopian texts, unfortunately, so I was more surprised at her potential for having real depth as opposed to the fact that it was never allowed to develop - and the only character I was really interested in was Helmholtz, who was shoved in and out of the plot sporadically.
I also find accusations that Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 can be read interchangeably - or, indeed, that Orwell copied BNW directly - to be entirely absurd. It's commonly acknowledged that Orwell took inspiration from BNW (unsurprising considering its nature as a seminal dystopia) but similarities between these two novels are few and far between. Largely, however, I think my main issue with BNW was the fact that I read 1984 before it; 1984 is so brilliant for its uniquely haunting (and feasible!) world. BNW wasn't even a touch as haunting, which is what I generally want out of a dystopia, even though the final chapter did very well to explain why this dystopian society has fallen so far from its intended utopia.
All in all, I thought Brave New World was complex, intelligent, and inspired. It wasn't at all what I expected it to be, unfortunately for the worse as opposed to the better, but I'm still incredibly glad I read it. The novel that introduced concepts of designer drugs, technology abuse, and cloning is a must-read for people who consider themselves interested in the dystopian genre, though where the general population is concerned I will always recommend 1984 above it as the novel you absolutely must read before you die. BNW simply fell flat in its feasibility and fear-factor for me. I also found its lack of the human passion that generally makes dystopian novels so powerful left somewhat of a chasm, though perhaps that's just me. Still, it serves its purpose as a cautionary dystopia and, indeed, has served its purpose in being an influential piece of seminal literature a thousand times over, so it cannot be faulted for that.
I've given this novel three stars not because I was unimpressed by it, but purely because I felt that more could have been done with it (and I'm well aware I'm teetering on the edge of near-blasphemy for that bold proclamation considering all Huxley has done for dystopian literature and how we look at society through it). It is no doubt an incredibly clever, tactful, and inspired novel, but I feel that some of the ways in which Huxley - as a storyteller as opposed to the incredible mind he undeniably is - decided to portray certain plot developments fell somewhat flat - for me, at least; I'm conscious of the fact that I'm very much in the minority in this stance.
I thought the exposition was masterful - a way to world-build concisely and effectively without it really feeling like the info-dump that it actually is. I also thought the DHC had such potential to be a really haunting villain and was rather disappointed when he was dropped so unceremoniously from the plot. I eagerly anticipated the venture into the Reservation which didn't end up spurring on the rebellion or eye-opening realisation in the characters that I'd hoped. I'd even go so far as to say that it was an overly drawn out plot device; as a simple means for showing how easily Bernard could fall into indoctrination simply because it suited him in his newfound fame, it could've been much conciser.
Where characters are concerned I found it increasingly difficult to care about any of them. Bernard is your standard anti-hero at first but quickly becomes unbearable (as was likely intended) but in that same course the Savage (the intended hero, perhaps?) is also rather difficult to get behind. Lenina could have been so much more - which is oftentimes the case with the women in seminal dystopian texts, unfortunately, so I was more surprised at her potential for having real depth as opposed to the fact that it was never allowed to develop - and the only character I was really interested in was Helmholtz, who was shoved in and out of the plot sporadically.
I also find accusations that Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 can be read interchangeably - or, indeed, that Orwell copied BNW directly - to be entirely absurd. It's commonly acknowledged that Orwell took inspiration from BNW (unsurprising considering its nature as a seminal dystopia) but similarities between these two novels are few and far between. Largely, however, I think my main issue with BNW was the fact that I read 1984 before it; 1984 is so brilliant for its uniquely haunting (and feasible!) world. BNW wasn't even a touch as haunting, which is what I generally want out of a dystopia, even though the final chapter did very well to explain why this dystopian society has fallen so far from its intended utopia.
All in all, I thought Brave New World was complex, intelligent, and inspired. It wasn't at all what I expected it to be, unfortunately for the worse as opposed to the better, but I'm still incredibly glad I read it. The novel that introduced concepts of designer drugs, technology abuse, and cloning is a must-read for people who consider themselves interested in the dystopian genre, though where the general population is concerned I will always recommend 1984 above it as the novel you absolutely must read before you die. BNW simply fell flat in its feasibility and fear-factor for me. I also found its lack of the human passion that generally makes dystopian novels so powerful left somewhat of a chasm, though perhaps that's just me. Still, it serves its purpose as a cautionary dystopia and, indeed, has served its purpose in being an influential piece of seminal literature a thousand times over, so it cannot be faulted for that.