Kyle’s review of Brave New World > Likes and Comments

Yay!

*fist pump*!

So, have you read Chapter 3 yet? I just finished and I think I have to read it again.... the spacing, I think, is key to understanding, and my crappy ebook copy really screwed that up. Let me know what you thought of the style and Huxley's intent in setting up Chapter 3 that way.

Kyle wrote: "Even more revolting? I was even, for a moment, envious of such a perception of death."

Now that's tempting. I've been dying to read a dystopia that manages to make the very worldview it condemns seem compelling. Shame on me for looking in the YA section...

Great review as always, Kyle!

A very powerful review, Kyle. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Wonderful, personal review, with so much feeling in it. Thank you for that, as I tend to forget that this book can engender feeling. I regularly have to help non-native speaker students with their struggle through this - especially those early (clunky) chapters where Huxley has the director explain this world to visiting students, and it can be a gruelling process.

I think what I take from it each time, what really has stood the test of time, is soma. We call it mass entertainment TV nowadays, but here we are, entertaining ourselves to oblivion - well some people are. Opiate of the masses and all that stuff.

And what makes it such a classic is that openness that you note - it isn't absolutely clear what Huxley thought of this world he created. It is inhuman, I agree with you, your focus on the inhumanity of death in the novel is spot on, but you can also argue that the people are (superficially) happy. And the great problem is that the alternatives are equally unattractive.

Margaret Atwood, no mean demiurge of dystopias herself, wrote a fantastic evaluation of this and 1984 if you're interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/...

Aubrey wrote: "A very powerful review, Kyle. Thank you for sharing it with us."

Thank you for reading it, Aubrey. :)

Karen wrote: "...especially those early (clunky) chapters where Huxley has the director explain this world to visiting students, and it can be a gruelling process."

Oh yeah, I can especially imagine chapter 3 being tough for non-native English speakers.

Thank you very much for your kind comment, and thank you for your thoughts on the book! I like everything you said about it.

What you say about soma is interesting, and I can see what you mean. I initially thought of it as a kind of "fail safe" for the society; even when the carefully orchestrated workings and conditioning of the society leave an opening for unwanted behavior, there is the safety net of soma to catch them. Though, that might still very well be like mass entertainment too!

Thank you for the article link, I'll check it out. :)

Jocelyn wrote: "Kyle wrote: "Even more revolting? I was even, for a moment, envious of such a perception of death."

Now that's tempting. I've been dying to read a dystopia that manages to make the very worldview ..."

If that's what you've been looking for, definitely try this then!

Karen wrote: "but you can also argue that the people are (superficially) happy. And the great problem is that the alternatives are equally unattractive. "

Definitely, and it was my favorite aspect of the novel; It seems Huxley really only asks questions, and leaves the answering up to us.

Awesome review, Kyle. Thanks so much for making it personal and relating your feelings about death, pain and loss. I think just commenting on those important subjects is what Huxley would hope his readers would do.

Kyle wrote: "Oh yeah, I can especially imagine chapter 3 being tough..."

Chapter 3 is the one where the narrative point of view keeps swapping isn't it? Actually, that's not the worst for foreign students: they struggle far more with all the pseudo-scientific terms in the Director's disquisition at the Hatchery Centre.

I think the rather distanced and neutral view of death taken in this book is precisely what was needed; sometimes, reading a certain book makes us despise aspects of it. But, as such, we think more about them. Most of your review concerned your hatred of this representation of death, but toward the end you thought that maybe such a view would be preferable. This is why it has power - because it goes against everything we currently believe, or would like to believe, if just for comfort. As I read the Hitchhiker's Guide, I despised how Adams treated the human condition as an object of ridicule, and the absurdity he injected into the entire human enterprise. It goes against nearly everything I think about the world, but damn, did it make me question. This is, sometimes, the point of a book. To take our worldview, and throw it back into our face.

Anyway, nice review, once again.

More soma, please.

I appreciated your personal responses and insights on the book. Inquiring minds would like to know your personal response to your open question if the book serves to reveal the "nasty futility of pursuing such poetic individualism".

The difference in his vision compared to Orwell's "1984" is fascinating to me--no Big Brother. When Bernard represents a potential threat to order in this society, it was a surprise to encounter a "Wizard of Oz" type of ending instead of a brutal forced fit of a round peg into a square hole.

Great review. I'd say he was arguing against consumerism, but a lot of that comes from Postman's discussion on this book vs 1984.
'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.'
We let ourselves be lead by what gives us pleasure.

Talbot wrote: "I think the rather distanced and neutral view of death taken in this book is precisely what was needed; sometimes, reading a certain book makes us despise aspects of it. But, as such, we think mor..."

Definitely. If I had been able to comfortably reject everything I read, it would have been a far less impactful book, but because it made me squirm it achieved far more than any novel could with mere depictions.


Karen wrote: "Actually, that's not the worst for foreign students: they struggle far more with all the pseudo-scientific terms in the Director's disquisition at the Hatchery Centre. "

Ah, that makes sense.

Michael wrote: "Inquiring minds would like to know your personal response to your open question if the book serves to reveal the "nasty futility of pursuing such poetic individualism"."

Heh, I'm not sure what Huxley's real motivation was, but I felt like it may have been part of it. The story of "The Savage" seems to be, on some level, an attempt to show that if one tries to throw off community so much, then it only brings tragedy and unhappiness upon one's self. The Savage rejected all of society, and tried to find happiness entirely on his own; as "his fordness" spells out, he is choosing anguish, pain, and regret (which is exactly what he gets).

I feel like an attempt to focus purely on one's own individualism instead of the group's, can be just as destructive as focusing on the group's well-being without regard for the individual.

Thank you for your words and thoughts!

s.penkevich wrote: "Great review. I'd say he was arguing against consumerism, but a lot of that comes from Postman's discussion on this book vs 1984.
'But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there wa..."

Good stuff, Steve! In the edition I read there is included a letter Huxley wrote to Orwell where he hints at some similar things.

Kyle wrote: "Good stuff, Steve! In the edition I read there is included a letter Huxley wrote to Orwell where he hints at some similar things. .."

Oh yeah, I remember laughing reading that. It's so cordial, yet so very 'and yeah, this is why my book is smarter than you' at the same time haha. Oh, Huxter.

Kyle, thank you for this review. I read the book long time ago and don't remember much. It is one of my sister's favorite books.

The questions you raise about what Huxley intended are very intelligent.

But of course, the best part of the review is the more personal musings and meditation on death, and to which the book invited you and that you have shared with us.

s.penkevich wrote: "Oh yeah, I remember laughing reading that. It's so cordial, yet so very 'and yeah, this is why my book is smarter than you' at the same time haha. Oh, Huxter. "

Haha, yeah that basically sums up my impression of it. It was basically a thank-you note, but there was a big part of me thinking "wow, I hope I never get a thank-you note like this."

Kalliope wrote: "Kyle, thank you for this review. I read the book long time ago and don't remember much. It is one of my sister's favorite books.

The questions you raise about what Huxley intended are very intel..."

Thank you very much, Kalliope. I haven't even picked up another novel after reading this, and though most of that is because of the circumstances in my life since I finished it, part of it is admittedly because I was simply flooded with too many emotions while reading this book that I have had to let some things fade and dull before I can continue on with another book.

I miss your reviews.

That's a very moving review. You have my sympathies re: your grandmother.

When I read it, the thing that struck me most was the implicit denunciation of our society, driven as it is by shallow entertainment, rampant consumerism, and a sanitizing of the experiences of hardship, suffering, and loss. I've heard it compared to 1984 thus: the citizens of 1984 crave information, but are ultimately ignorant due to the machinations of the general government, but in Brave New World, the people themselves crave nothing but idle pleasures, and by their own hands have they been made ignorant.

Looking at the global scene, we know that both books are based in reality, but in the United States, we are especially doomed by the apathy and ignorance as talked about by Huxley.

Anyway, that's my primary lens for interpreting this book. Sorry to hear about your grandmother, as well. I find Wilde's De Profundis strangely comforting when I'm in a dark spot. Hope all improves.

My best,

Talbot