Unconformist critique of the BNW

[Zdravko]

Having read “1984” first, when I read BNW I have realized that, opposite to my prior expectations, BNW is second-class book compared with “1984”. I am not referring only to some dilettante descriptions, like the scene when John quotes Shakespeare, while Lenina wants to make love with him (!?). I agree with Huxley in his criticism of cloning and conformism, but his criticism of overcoming of traditional love (one on one “till death breaks us apart”) is pure conservative reaction on modern liberalism in this area, and I don’t think it is acceptable, apart from the ultraconservatives. Also, it is obvious that Huxley wants to criticize communism. But how childish is he in this! He names antiheroes in BNW according to the communist leaders. That’s all that Huxley can do in his criticism of communism?! How big is the difference with the Orwell’s insights!<br><br>I can go on and on, but let me say the conclusion: Don’t be conformists in saying that BNW is a good book, only because everybody is saying that! Criticism of conformism is one of the rare good elements of BNW. So, don’t be conformist in the evaluation of this book. It is against its spirit. <br>

[qrx]

Upon first glance, one would think BNW is a criticism of communism. However, when a closer look is taken, one realizes that this is a criticism of capitalism, incessant consumerism, and religion. The people in BNW are very materialistic, taking large amounts of soma, and going on expensive vacations, using expensive perfumes and colognes, etc. But most of all, one wonders at the almost religious worship of Ford, an advocate of consumerism and capitalism. Ford is regarded as a god, almost, and people perform the sign of T and other strange rituals, hence my above reference to religion.
Also, to the comment on conservatism about traditional love, I must say that I agree with Huxley. The people in that "utopian" society are hopeless shallow, indulging frequently in casual sex, with no notion whatsoever about a deeper feeling called love. Their existence is frightfully incomplete without the more intense and real emotions.
In conclusion, BNW does hold many important insights to capitalism and consumerism (not communism), which I think we should consider today.

[Snukes]

Heh heh heh. Pst! Taliesin! Zdravko used the word "antihero!"

I'd simply like to point out that if you read BNW expecting it to be another incarnation of 1984, it's no wonder you missed the many offerings BNW has. QRX's comments were apt, and there are many other avenues of thought that can also be explored. If you really have any interest in other people's perspectives, Zdravko, you might check out the Book Club conversations dedicated to this book. On the other hand, I get the impression that you just feel a bit contentious today. It's very odd to criticize readers of being conformists for enjoying a book.

[peret]

BNW and 1984 are like apples and oranges and you can't compare them directly. BNW is a work of pure science fiction, set 700 years in the future. It would have been highly topical in 1930. The social order had been completely upset by the 1914-18 war. Mass production was new, and the Model T Ford was the wonder of the world. People were worried about population growth, and contraception was fairly new. Eugenics was fashionable and not yet politically incorrect, and the 1920's were a time of great prosperity and conspicuous excess. Huxley just projected the trends of 1930 for 700 years in a straight line. He was a pacifist, not a communist, but he wasn't criticizing communism. His choice of names is for atmosphere, a tie-back to history long forgotten by the inhabitants of BNW. Sure there's social commentary, but so is there in hundreds of later science fiction stories that imagine future societies, and it wasn't the purpose of the book.

1984, on the other hand, was a deadly serious political parody, set in the near future but really representing the state of the world in 1948. It's a criticism of Stalinst communism, and a warning about the Cold War mentality in the West. You'd expect this book to be the more significant work. It was written for a purpose besides entertaining.

[Loki]

I am not referring only to some dilettante descriptions, like the scene when John quotes Shakespeare, while Lenina wants to make love with him (!?).

John has a very high set of morals and would never do this unless he was married to Lenina. He cannot accept the values of the modern society of England - that "everybody belongs to everybody else." Considering John's "conditioning", if you like, it is a perfectly natural reaction. John is a hero, a knight of another century. I agree on his view of love as sacred; today's constant changing of partners etc. seems to me to be not unconditional, romantic love but simply animal instinct. People are, biologically, animals, yes; but we are developed to a certain extent, surely this is enough for us not to act like them? And yet, humans are worse than animals...animals kill for food, humans kill other humans for power, for land.


Don’t be conformists in saying that BNW is a good book, only because everybody is saying that!

Zdravko, I don't think people say BNW is a good book "just because" other people seem to have that idea; a lot of people love the book without consulting the opinions of others. I read the book on my own, I saw it was on the Book Club reading list and yet did not take part in any of the conversations, so I didn't have a clue if it was "meant" to be good or bad. I read it, and loved it - loved Huxley's intellectual style, his piercing use of words, his thought-provoking ideas...BNW is, I think, a warning for us, especially now in the twenty-first century. We should try to draw a line between scientific experiments and "improving" or "modifying" life.

That's my three cents.

Loki

[Edmond]

you fallacious man, how dare you assume that I like BNW just because everyone else does? I didn't know about Huxley before, nor did I know the reputation of the work, but it is the profound message of the novel that made me its follower.
Huxley is a genius, he critcized his society (Mass Comsumption, hidonism) and inadverdently predict the future, look around us, look at U.S, how many of us really have real friendships? How many of us realy even have real love? It is all mechanical, and inhuman.

[BabaYaga]

I agree with Huxley in his criticism of cloning and conformism, but his criticism of overcoming of traditional love (one on one “till death breaks us apart”) is pure conservative reaction on modern liberalism in this area, and I don’t think it is acceptable, apart from the ultraconservatives.

You're placing modern situations on a work completed before their existence and/or general acceptance. Perhaps you are victim of political conformity looking to lash out in literature threads. I feel 99% correct on this as is evidenced by you placing yourself above all others here by employing the hit-and-run approach.

[sadeyedboy]

you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad....aldous huxley...i think he meant mad in the common street sense.. not crazy!
you fallacious man, how dare you assume that I like BNW just because everyone else does? I didn't know about Huxley before, nor did I know the reputation of the work, but it is the profound message of the novel that made me its follower.
Huxley is a genius, he critcized his society (Mass Comsumption, hidonism) and inadverdently predict the future, look around us, look at U.S, how many of us really have real friendships? How many of us realy even have real love? It is all mechanical, and inhuman.