An Unconformist review

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>

The criticisms of communism are much deeper than just the names. And by the way, Orwell was a socialist. Don't put him on a pedestal. And 1984 showed only old tyranny, whereas BNW displayed a newer type. It showed that people can be coaxed and programmed to some extent to be obedient. 1984's antagonist, Big Brother, merely ruled through fear, much as the dictators of the past. But the new type of threat is much closer to BNW, namely the total detriment of society and morality.

And, I forgot to mention, it has been societally frowned upon to be a polygamist or fornicator since the beginning of time. Not only "ultra-conservatives" agree with that, it's merely the moral code of humanity. Why do you think spouses get so angry when their husband/wife has been cheating on them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djtru

And, I forgot to mention, it has been societally frowned upon to be a polygamist or fornicator since the beginning of time. Not only "ultra-conservatives" agree with that, it's merely the moral code of humanity. Why do you think spouses get so angry when their husband/wife has been cheating on them?

---

I actually have to disagree. We're conditioned to be monogamous almost from birth. Think about it, we're usually born to parents who are married, and who stay faithful to each other during the marriage. We watch movies and read books where the main characters are often monogamous and where those who cheat are punished. People who are polygamous are frowned upon because we are told to frown upon them and those around us frown upon them. Fornicators are also frowned upon, and even have obscene words describing them. Now, I agree that we usually mate for life, and most love only one person, but hey, who's to say that a polygamist or a fornicator is inherently wrong? It may be normal to be monogamous, but there's always exceptions to the norm.

I am suspicious of anyone who claims that we've been conditioned to be monogamous from birth. In the USA? in the past half century? where half the couples who marry end up divorcing?

Also, Orwell was a socialist. But I think he divided the world into US capitalism, which he abhored, state socialism (like the USSR) which he criticized in 1984, and democratic socialism, which he advocated. See his collected essays ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwfhegel

I am suspicious of anyone who claims that we've been conditioned to be monogamous from birth. In the USA? in the past half century? where half the couples who marry end up divorcing?

Also, Orwell was a socialist. But I think he divided the world into US capitalism, which he abhored, state socialism (like the USSR) which he criticized in 1984, and democratic socialism, which he advocated. See his collected essays ....

---

Not everyone here is from the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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>

---

I would make this argument for 1984, not Brave New World......George Orwell was Huxley's student, and I find that after reading Brave New World, 1984 seems a bit formulaic (if that's a word) in the way that it attacks communism. Brave New World brought so many more dimensions; it attacked much more than just communism.....it attacked technological advances in reproduction, and it attacked Freud, his views on conditioning, and Oedipus complex like whoa, it attacked humanity's quest for continual pleasure, etc.

Most distopian novels are similar, almost annoyingly so, but Brave New World is truly different. In my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwfhegel

I am suspicious of anyone who claims that we've been conditioned to be monogamous from birth. In the USA? in the past half century? where half the couples who marry end up divorcing?

Also, Orwell was a socialist. But I think he divided the world into US capitalism, which he abhored, state socialism (like the USSR) which he criticized in 1984, and democratic socialism, which he advocated. See his collected essays ....

---

I'm from a family that can honestly say that NO divorce has ever occurred in its immediate line...that means my parents, grandparents, great grandparents...as far back as 1654 Europe...thats where the lineage gets blurry. SO I can see a world where people are monogamous...It isn't conditioned, but it happens.

I'm just finishing up the book right now. I do have to be a nonconformist. The person that started this thread thought they were witty, they tried to compare orwell and huxley. What about SOMA....Does anyone see any society that has a pill for everything that ails them? What about the mass consumerism? What about changing time to AF (After Ford)...? This book is brilliant. Those who can't see it, need to stop taking their soma, and maybe go to their own little island...

Personally i believe this book to be much greater and far more scary than 1984. firstly because teh people in 1984 live and conform because of fear, while in BNW the people are never given the chance to choose their own fates. The idea of conditioning developed by Pavlov NOT Freud is used quite ingeniously by Huxley at a time where these things were taboo to be nice about it. Also i think that huxley focused more on warning society of what may happen if we continue to favor efficiency and productivity(two ideas of Ford when he created the assembly line, starting point for where mass production of humans in the book comes from) over humanity and identity.

oh i also forgot to mention that the fear of communism was not as big a deal in the time this book came out. it was published in 1932 before WWII and long before the cold war. so idk how much of it is focused on communism. i geuss i just didnt see that as much as some might.

I enjoyed the writing of 1984 more. The plot was more suspenseful and gripping than Brave New World. As far as plot and suspense go, Brave New World is a little lacking. However, Brave New World presents a much more frightening picture of the future. In this future, most people do not even have the desire to rebel: they have no reason for rebellion because they are completely content. People have lost the ability to think. The idea of not being capable of thought frightens me so much more than the threat of bodily harm in 1984.

It is tougher to be a free individual in BNW than 1984 becuase of conditioning. In 1984, Smith is able to love Julia and is able to intrinsically rebel against the Society, as will have many other people not mentioned in the book. However, in BNW, a person cannot love or think independentally or be creative because of conditioning. Bernard is unorthodox simply because he is an outcast, however he has no deep philosophical conviction and once he is given a status of importance he isn't concerned with rebelling anymore. Helmhotz has a sense that he can do something more meaningful, but he has no means to express it and finds the ideas of choosing one person to have a relationbship with over another, and mourning someones death hysterical. John has come from outside of civilisation but his love for Lenina cannot be reciprocated and his desire to free Deltas from soma is forcefully opposed as they cannot contemplate a life without soma