web
counter
 

Cannonball Read IV: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

By NateS1973 | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (27)



bravenewworld.jpg

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m used to my imaginary futures being more dystopian. The fact that 99.9% of the inhabitants of Aldous Huxley’s future are, in fact, living in a true utopia strikes a strange tone. It’s a major chord resolution that nevertheless sounds discordant. My senses don’t really know what to do with it.

Huxley casts a future that has been given wholly over to industry and pleasure. Everyone is bred and conditioned from the time their egg is artificially fertilized to their last, drug-hazed breath to accept their place in life, to pursue their duty joyfully, to consume as much as possible, and to partake fully and guiltlessly of their pleasures. Any hint of negativity is washed away by prodigious use of the drug soma, which takes them on a peaceful holiday of the mind.

Of course, not everyone gets along well in this world, and this is where Huxley’s narrative kicks in. Members of the Alpha class, the highest caste in the government-controlled society, have the capacity for independent thought although they are highly conditioned to fit in to the rest of society. Despite their conditioning, some few individuals begin to find themselves dissatisfied with the current life and begin to act out in various ways.

One of these malcontents is Bernard Marx, an Alpha-plus whose angst begins, rather predictably really, in a poor self-image due to some physical failings uncommon in those of his caste - he’s somewhat short and scrawny. Because of his differences, he has less success in pursuing his pleasures, and so despite his conditioning becomes fixated on one particular woman. Finally convincing his much-sought-after prize to join him on a holiday into uncivilized territory, they encounter the expected savages and an unexpected, previously-civilized woman and her grown son. Their lives are changed forever, yada, yada, yada, and the book ends along a fairly predictable vector. (What, you think I’m going to spoil the book for you?)

What I’m left with as a reader are confusion and highly conflicting emotions. On the one hand, all the marketing hype on the back of every copy of the book I’ve seen talks about how Huxley’s vision is “terrifying” and “disturbing”. Frankly, I just don’t get that. Compared to say, Orwell, Huxley’s version of authoritarian regime is positively cuddly.

Huxley’s future seems, in fact, a hell of a lot like our present, minus the factories producing the next generations from a test tube. Rampant consumerism, check. Hedonism as a prime motivator for living, check. Dubious nature of any true free will, check. The primary difference seems to be that we haven’t abandoned some of the things that Huxley’s world cast away long before the events of the book: familial love, philosophy and religion, ideals of independence and self-governance.

All of this, given the similarities, makes me wonder whether Huxley has really cast his net that far. Granted, it was pretty radical for 1932 society, but in the end how brave or new is his world? Or was Huxley incredibly adept at anticipating the forces of change at work around him, letting him open for his readers a hazy window into our present day?

For more of NateS1973’s reviews, check out his blog, Along the Pathway.

This review is part of Cannonball Read IV. Read all about it.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Dear Children of the 80s: Do You Recognize The Latest Cast Member of "Young and the Restless"? | They Keep Hacking Akira To Bits, But The American Remake Just Won't Die









Comments

Been meaning to read this. I imagine it'll be much like when I finally read On The Road: underwhelming. But that's the drawback of reading these revered, modern classics, I suppose. Mindblowing in 1960, tame in 2012.

Posted by: the new transported man at January 6, 2012 8:11 AM

It's not an Utopia if you have to take drugs to maintain the impression it is one.

Posted by: FabMax at January 6, 2012 8:21 AM

O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
Shakespeare, The Tempest

It isn't that the world is new or brave, it's the people in Huxley's new world. Mindless drones, conditioned to seek only pleasure and shy away from any hint of discomfort. Nothing more than animals, they exist to consume.
I would say that Huxley was eerily prescient.

Posted by: astounded at January 6, 2012 8:27 AM

It's not an Utopia if you have to take drugs

Except they don't have to. No one forces anyone to do much of anything and the one character's attempt to incite uprising only causes annoyance and anger among those who just want their drugs and their four-hour workday.

If anything, I think Huxley was being too kind in thinking it would take all that much conditioning to make it happen.

Posted by: twig at January 6, 2012 8:41 AM

you Sir, just gained another reader.
I love to read dystopian literature and Huxley's book didn't impress me as much as say "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin or Orwell's work. But I enjoyed this review and look forward to reading the next one. Perhaps next year I'll even tackle CBR V.

You can still sign up for CBR4 - until midnight on Jan. 7! --mswas

Posted by: catherine at January 6, 2012 8:48 AM

I read this book when I was 12 and I was absolutely horrified by Huxley's utopia. FabMax hit it on the head - they're all too doped up to really be alive. They're mindless cattle, never really feeling anything or thinking for themselves. That's always haunted me.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at January 6, 2012 9:07 AM

Plus, this book introduced me to the phrase "Impudent strumpet!" which I find is an excellent curse.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at January 6, 2012 9:09 AM

I love to be that guy, so it's a Utopia not an Utopia. It's a rule for written English based on pronunciation, not spelling,e.g. a hair, an heir.

I re-read BNW last year (and did not write it up for CBR, oh, shut up!) and found it incredibly elitist, racist, and offensive.

I'd give my eye teeth for some Soma right now.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 6, 2012 9:38 AM

Like MelBivDevoe I was also horrified by the characters in Brave New World. Everyone may be out having pleasure, but no one had any passion about anything. Maybe it's because I can be a very passionate person and non-passionate people confuse me. At least some characters in 1984 still had some passion and emotion left in them. I see Brave New World having a better look into our future than 1984.

Also, for my English class in high school, everyone had to "teach" the class one classic. This one was mine, so it has a special place it my heart. I also served ice cream with "soma" sprinkles during my lecture. Maybe the excuse to eat ice cream is another reason I love this book.

Posted by: Quorren at January 6, 2012 9:55 AM

Brave New World isn't "terrifying", but of all the early 20th century distopic novels it definitely is closest to what actually happened/is happening to Western Society in the present.

Posted by: Keven at January 6, 2012 10:07 AM

Been meaning to read this. I imagine it'll be much like when I finally read On The Road: underwhelming. But that's the drawback of reading these revered, modern classics, I suppose. Mindblowing in 1960, tame in 2012.

Did you just call On The Road tame!? I, I just never...

I keep meaning to re-read On The Road, but I'm afraid it'll make me quit my job. I think most classics are classics for a reason. They may have been dulled a bit by time, but they'll still cut you.

Posted by: pissant at January 6, 2012 10:28 AM

Thanks for reading, gang. :-)

Yeah, this one really surprised me. In part, I think my reaction was informed by an interesting philosophical book I've read that argues that humanity isn't, in fact, sentient nor does free will exist. If one reasons from that assumption, then Huxley world is really just an natural, and rather pleasant result.

Posted by: NateS1973 at January 6, 2012 10:41 AM

Maybe it was because I read Brave New World and Sluaghterhouse Five at about the same time, but I always felt like something was missing from the narrative in Brave New World.

But maybe that's part of the overall dystopian feel.

Either way, great review NateS1973!

Posted by: faintingviolet at January 6, 2012 10:45 AM

... all the marketing hype on the back of every copy of the book I’ve seen talks about how Huxley’s vision is “terrifying” and “disturbing”. Frankly, I just don’t get that. Compared to say, Orwell, Huxley’s version of authoritarian regime is positively cuddly.

It's "insidious." Are you saying that soft controls you don't notice are less disturbing than hard controls you do? Velvet or steel, someone in either kind of handcuffs is just as bound.

Remember the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man?" I'm not sure I want to be a programmed consuming unit any more than I want to be a programmed missionary.


Huxley’s future seems, in fact, a hell of a lot like our present ...

That's the scariest thing, to me.

...minus the factories producing the next generations from a test tube.

Well, more insidious than decanting fetuses, the recent discussion about "education" deficiencie in the US is about making good little economic units. "How many trade school grads do we need vs. college?" What's that but selecting and programming people for their "roles?" So trade school grads are what, beta to beta-plus?

Particularly appalling to me is idea that a 4-hour work day leaves people unable to fill the remaining time with anything besides drugged-up sex, of which I am also a fan. Just not all the time.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at January 6, 2012 11:25 AM

Thank you for this review, NateS1973. Sorry, I forgot to say that.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at January 6, 2012 11:27 AM

My takeaway from all of this is, and the Postmodern philosophers would support this idea, that ALL of us are programmed. There is no way to avoid it.

We are not born into a vacuum which allows us to develop individually according to our own free wills. We are born into a soup of culture, religion, family tradition, experiences, failures and triumphs, pains and pleasures.

They are the forces that make us - our programmers, if you will. Even our setting up personal freedoms and identities as more desireable than various alternatives are programmed responses. The question is not whether we are programmed, but can that programming be altered over time and what is the limit on our ability to affect our own reprogramming?

Posted by: NateS1973 at January 6, 2012 12:59 PM

It's terrifying because it's so similar to today. Terrifying because it forces us to notice how truly fucked-up the modern world is.
(One of my favorite books.)

Posted by: abysmal at January 6, 2012 1:04 PM

That was hella-eloquent NateS1973.

All of our worlds have been messed up. Are we not now simply indulging in new opiates for the modern masses? The blend of pop culture and self-medication is simply a new version of older sops to all of us just trying to get through our day and make sense of our world. Doesn't our very awareness of that also mean that we are somehow better off? Self-aware self-indulgence. We are in a better position now to reject what we have been taught because we know have the right, and the time, to question it. It seems to me a very First World luxury to get to mull such things over.

We are not born into a vacuum which allows us to develop individually according to our own free wills. We are born into a soup of culture, religion, family tradition, experiences, failures and triumphs, pains and pleasures.

But isn't that the biological function of culture? It's intrinsic to being human. We are programmed biologically for culture. Free will is a lovely notion, but, for better or worse, a child requires the bubble of culture to become a person.

If we all break from our programming does society simply breakdown, or does a new one simply rise up in its place? How does one even test such a hypothesis?

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 6, 2012 1:25 PM

One of my favorite books ever, I take it as Huxley's fictionalized fear of technology becoming so prevalent that it overtakes all aspects of our lives and is eventually used as a means of cultural and social control (I know, with the Internet/TV/etc. it's going in that direction, but we aren't growing babies in labs yet). I don't see how you can see this as a Utopia when everyone is systematically conditioned from birth (where they are grown) through subconscious conditioning, ritualistic drug use, and technological controls of culture.

That people are "happy" is besides the point; if you don't have a choice in being "happy" or not, than are you really capable of actually being in an emotional state, or are you just in a conditioned state of the ever-lasting pursuit of pleasure? It's like North Korea; talk to any of the people there and 99% will tell you how happy they are, though if you ask 99% of the world outside North Korea what they think of it they would probably not be too kind.

Check out Huxley's last novel, "Island," which is the counter-point to "Brave New World" and discusses his perception of a utopia (as Brave New World is his perception of a future dystopia created by means of technological exploitation).

Posted by: Devin at January 6, 2012 2:36 PM

I love to be that guy, so it's a Utopia not an Utopia. It's a rule for written English based on pronunciation, not spelling,e.g. a hair, an heir.

I learned in school that if the word after an a starts with a vowel, you say/write an. Shows that my English teachers sucked.

Posted by: FabMax at January 6, 2012 3:19 PM

I suck, I just happen to be right about this.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 6, 2012 3:36 PM

Huxley's world is dystopian because it deprives people of one right - the right to be miserable. Unhappiness is (insofar as it can be) bred out of them; the inhabitants of the World State are conditioned to be good little consumers - in fact, they're programmed to consume, shedding clothing left and right every day to keep the factories humming along.

Bernard Marx is, of course, the exception. He's not happy, and can't be. The others pity him, but they can't empathize. The ability to empathize has, again, been bred out of them. It's his effort to try and make people as miserable as he is that causes him to make the trip to the reservation, and everything after that.

Small wonder the Savage hanged himself at the end of the story.

Posted by: The Wanderer at January 6, 2012 6:11 PM

"Rampant consumerism, check. Hedonism as a prime motivator for living, check. Dubious nature of any true free will, check. The primary difference seems to be that we haven’t abandoned some of the things that Huxley’s world cast away long before the events of the book: familial love, philosophy and religion, ideals of independence and self-governance."

This! Family, philosophy, spirituality and self-determination set man apart from all other species. The pursuit of these make us the sentient beings we are...make us human. A world with humans without these traits is a world that's lost its humanity.

Posted by: 1PunkInDrublic at January 6, 2012 7:15 PM

Great review, NateS1973.

I read this back in high school. It was on the senior reading list as an alternate choice. It could not be assigned as a mandatory read because a parent had complained to the higher-ups about all the sex and drug use. Anyone wishing to read it had to present a permission slip signed by one's parents. As I remember, my mother gave permission without much discussion. I'd like to think she trusted me with the subject matter, but maybe I just got her to sign as we were rushing out the door, late for school.

Anyway, you have piqued my interest. I may reread this.

Posted by: rlr260 at January 6, 2012 8:12 PM

This book has Full Metal Jacket Syndrome--the first half is great and then your suddenly catapaulted into something entirely different and not entirely appealing.

I was a touch surprised to hear about the reaction of your school towards this book as I was assigned it for school shortly after turning fourteen, I think. How do students and instructors respond to that type of thing?

Maybe school cirricula are more flexible in Ontario because we saw *everything*. Does anyone have any experiences with banned literature in your schools? I don't want to sound superior or that I'm just bashing things out of haughtiness and assumption, we were just made aware of lists of books that were banned. Part of the learning process was to get us to try to surmise why it would happen. Interesting stuff.

I was surpised to learn many years later that Judy Bloom is all but persona non grata in a lot of American schools, especially when her work was impressed upon us by our own teachers. But we saw some pretty nutty stuff. If you want to know where to see a scene in a opera that included a white man-sized rabbit pleasuring a painted black organ roughly equal to the size of the man in question, I can tell you how. If it's oral sex you want, there's this scene I have haved that's set in Siberia or bathouse gang rape, I can help you.

Nude sanitation workers emerging from the sewers to act as the Greek chorus? Baby juice to us, Jimmy. Girl, boy intercourse her now, and we're done. SCHOOLING! I remember reading a comment yesterday about the contents of Olivia Hussey's corset and the storm that followed and that we were shown that same thing without incident.

Don't get the impression that my adolescent education was entirely smut-based because our instructors saw fit to give the violence incorporation to build our characters. I gotta tell ya, even for the total ineptitude that partners with my buttoned-up self regarding the opposite sex, I just couldn't take Dawn Of The Dead playing in our cafeteria after so many lynchings that morning.

Then again, every Canadian child has experienced an acute level of Farley Mowat fatigue that gives way to Margaret Atwood phantasms which plague your nights with dreams that include a lot of disapproving poetry and an oddly monotone white noise. Blind Assassin, yes. Surfacing, no.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at January 6, 2012 10:34 PM

Have you ever read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman? In it, he compares the dystopian futures created by Huxley and Orwell, and compares soma to television, positing that death by apathy is worse because you don't even really know you're dying. It's a good read.

Posted by: Jelinas at January 6, 2012 10:45 PM

1984 is a better novel; BNW is a better forecast. Orwell was looking at Super Stalin; Huxley was just looking out his window.

Posted by: palaeologos at January 10, 2012 7:29 PM