Read brave new world by Aldous Huxley Online


Alternate cover for ISBN 0586044345Far in the future, the World Controllers have finally created the ideal society. In laboratories worldwide, genetic science has brought the human race to perfection. From the Alpha-Plus mandarin class to the Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons, designed to perform menial tasks, man is bred and educated to be blissfully content with his pre-destinedAlternate cover for ISBN 0586044345Far in the future, the World Controllers have finally created the ideal society. In laboratories worldwide, genetic science has brought the human race to perfection. From the Alpha-Plus mandarin class to the Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons, designed to perform menial tasks, man is bred and educated to be blissfully content with his pre-destined role.But, in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, Bernard Marx is unhappy. Harbouring an unnatural desire for solitude, feeling only distaste for the endless pleasures of compulsory promiscuity, Bernard has an ill-defined longing to break free. A visit to one of the few remaining Savage Reservations where the old, imperfect life still continues, may be the cure for his distress…A fantasy of the future that sheds a blazing critical light on the present--considered to be Aldous Huxley' s most enduring masterpiece. "Mr. Huxley is eloquent in his declaration of an artist' s faith in man, and it is his eloquence, bitter in attack, noble in defense, that, when one has closed the book, one remembers."--"Saturday Review of Literature" "A Fantastic racy narrative, full of much excellent satire and literary horseplay."--"Forum" "It is as sparkling, provocative, as brilliant, in the appropriate sense, as impressive ads the day it was published. This is in part because its prophetic voice has remained surprisingly contemporary, both in its particular forecasts and in its general tone of semiserious alarm. But it is much more because the book succeeds as a work of art...This is surely Huxley' s best book."--Martin Green...

Title : brave new world
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9676610
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 206 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

brave new world Reviews

  • Kemper
    2019-12-30 08:05

    Warning! The following review contains humor. If you read it and actually think that I'm being critical of Huxley, try reading it again. (Here's a hint. Look for the irony of the italicized parts when compared to the previous statements.) If you post a comment that asserts that I'm wrong/ stupid/ crazy for this and/or try to lecture me on all the points you think I missed then I'm going to assume that you read it literally, missed the joke, didn't read the other comments where I've already answered this about a dozen times, and I will delete your post. I have to apologize for this review. The concept of this book was so outlandish that I think it made my mind wander, and you may find some odd random thoughts scattered in it. Anyhow, this book was so silly and unrealistic. Like any of this could happen. In the far future the babies are genetically engineered and designed for certain stations in life with a large workforce bred to be happy with menial jobs that don’t stress them physically or mentally. I really should look into getting that data entry position I saw in the job postings. It’d be a lot less stressful than what I‘m doing now. In addition to all the genetic modifications, the children are raised by the state, and words like ’father’ and ’mother’ are considered obscenities. Subliminal messaging through infancy and childhood also condition people to repeat idiotic platitudes as if they are genuine wisdom. I’ve been in a bad mood today. I need to turn that frown upside down. And since the world economy depends on constant consumption by the highest classes, they’re encouraged to be wasteful The collars on a couple of my shirts are a little frayed. I should go buy some new ones and throw the old ones out. and to engage in activities that demand spending and resource use. Should I get a new set of golf clubs? I lost my old ones when we moved, but I hadn’t played in a long time. But would I play more if I got new clubs? There‘s that really nice looking course right down the street. I don‘t know how they keep the grass that green in this heat. The population even gets to zip around in their own private helicopters rather than cars. Man, when are they going to come out with jet packs for everyone. It’s 2011 and I’m still driving around in a car like a chump. I want my jet pack!Casual sex is actively encouraged. Wow. These condom commercials on TV have gotten really racy. The population is also programmed to be constantly partaking of some form of entertainment and to never just sit quietly and think I’m bored. Writing is boring. or to be alone Let’s check Facebook and see what all my friends are doing.One of the sillier ideas is that the foundation of this society is Henry Ford’s assembly lines and that Ford has become the most revered figure in history. Like a businessman could ever become that popular. Is Steve Jobs making any announcements this week? I get itchy when there‘s no new Apple products. While everyone seeks to be constantly entertained, all of the entertainment panders to the lowest common denominator. Hey, Jersey Shore is on! and the emphasis is on presenting it with gimmicks to engage the audience like ’the feelies’, movies that the audience can also smell and feel the sensation from. I wonder if they’ll re-release Avatar at the movies so I can see it in 3D again like James Cameron intended? At one point, a character complains about the feelies, “But they’re told by an idiot….works of art out of practically nothing but pure sensation.” I should go see that new Michael Bay Transformers movie.Perhaps the most far fetched idea in this is that the population has been trained to sedate themselves with a drug called soma that relives any potential anxieties and keeps people from thinking about anything upsetting. I want a beer.I guess this Huxley guy might have gotten lucky and predicted a few things, but he was way off base about where society was going.

  • Stephen
    2020-01-20 09:22

    I need to parse my rating of this book into the good (or great), the bad and the veryfugly because I thought aspects of it were inspired genius and parts of it were dreggy, boring and living near the border of awful. In the end, the wowness and importance of the novel's ideas as well as the segments that I thoroughly enjoyed carried the book to a strong 3.5 star rating.THE REALLY GOOD/EXCELLENT - I loved the first third of the book in which the basic outline of the "Brave New World" and its devalued, conveyer belt morality is set forth. The narrative device employed by Huxley of having the Director of Hatchery and Conditioning provide a walking tour to students around the facility as a way to knowledge up the reader on the societal basics was perfect. We learn of the cloning/birthing process, the caste system and the fundamental tenets upon which the society is organized.This was as good a use of infodumping exposition as I had come across in some time and I was impressed both with the content and delivery method. The reader gets a crash course in world and its history in a way that fit nicely into the flow of the narrative without ever feeling forced. This was easily the best part of the novel for me, and Huxley's mass production-based society of enforced hedonism and anti-emotion was very compelling. Sort of like...Now, long jumping to the end of the novel...I also thought the final "debate" near the story's climax between John (the "savage") and Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, was exceptional. This last chapter/ending of the book, while abrupt, was masterful and struck the proper chord with the overall theme of the book. Thus, a superior 4.5 to 5.0 stars for this portion of the book. THE BAD/AWFUL - I thought the middle of the book including both the trip to the "reservation" and John's initial return to London was a sleeping pill and felt disconnected from the rest of the narrative. Throughout this entire portion of the book, all I kept thinking was...The only purpose of this long, long.....LONG section seems to be to allow the reader to see Bernard Marx do a complete 180 in his views on the society once he finds himself in the role of celebrity by virtue of his relationship with John the savage. Sorry, this just did not strike me as a big enough payoff for this dry, plodding section. It was a test of endurance to get through this portion of the book, so I'm being generous when I give it a weak 2.0 to 2.5 stars. I could just have easily summed it up by just saying...Bottom-line, I think this is a book that should be read. It's important book and there is much brilliance here. Plus, it is short enough that the stale boring segments aren't too tortuous to get through. However, as far as the triumvirate of classic dystopian science fiction goes...1984 is still the undisputed champ.3.0 Stars. Recommended.

  • Erin
    2020-01-14 10:56

    remember that last semester of english class, senior year, where every class seemed painfully long and excrutiatingly pointless? when everybody sat around secretly thinking of cute and witty things to put in other people's yearbooks? when the teachers realized we were already braindead from filling out three dozen student loan applications and college housing forms? that's when honors english started getting a little lazy. not that i minded. everybody got a book list. then everybody got split up into groups. you were responsible for reading all the books on your own, but one in particular was chosen for your group to present at the end of the semester. you know--- as a refresher for the rest of the class. because of course EVERYONE was gonna read EVERY book.i can't remember what i did instead of reading "brave new world", but it was probably fun and involved copious amounts of sweet tea and a gigantic paper mache cow. fortunately it didn't matter because the only group to take their presentation seriously was the "brave new world" group, and the way they presented stuck with me long enough to compel me to read the book later.maybe it was the weird music they had playing during their presentation, maybe it was the fact that super hot chris mayns had to sit in my group (the alphas) but i was seriously attracted to the world this group created in our classroom. we drew cards randomly to determine our class, then sat accordingly and wore cute little colored wristbands. everybody got pez (soma!) and *gasp* a birth control belt. throughout the presentation people were moved next to someone and lost a packet on their belt (listen, this is scandalous for a bible belt high school, ok? by the way, i did NOT get to sit next to chris, which is probably good because i would have been mortified and choked on a pez) anyway, the presentation was fun, but i didn't get around to reading my (now ex) boyfriends copy until a year ago. and i started getting a small, evil thought exactly the same as i had in class so many years ago... maybe some people would actually like this system. maybe some people would actually BENEFIT from this system. people don't have to think? they aren't expected to do much, go to college, become something bigger than what they actually are? they're rewarded with good feeling drugs? they are proud to have accomplished what they have? and they... DON'T HAVE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!?I know i'm going to get slammed for saying this later, especially because i never do actual reviews or completely delve into what i'm thinking (so shoot me) but haven't you ever been roaming the world wide inter-web and found a little troller you thought "well, this person is a poor use of a human brain?" yes, you have. admit it.just think, a little test tube tweaking and that person wouldn't mind manning the cash register at piggly wiggly for the rest of his life, saving the rest of humanity from noxious online rants about the hotness of avril lavinge and the brilliance of starcraft (apparently its a video game thats KOOLER THAN U!!!!1#)you're tempted, i can tell...

  • Madeline
    2019-12-31 05:02

    Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1932. That's almost eighty years ago, but the book reads like it could have been written yesterday. (especially interesting to me was how Huxley was able to predict the future of both genetic engineering and the action blockbuster. Damn.)I think I liked this one better than 1984, the book traditionally considered to be this one's counterpart. Not really sure why this is, but it's probably because this one has a clearer outsider character (the Savage) who can view the world Huxley created through his separate perspective. In this light, I will give the last word to Neil Postman, who discussed the differences between Orwell and Huxley's views of the future: "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 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 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' people are controlled by inflicting pain. In 'Brave New World' people 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."

  • Emily May
    2019-12-31 04:19

    Mr Foster duly told them.Told them of the growing embryo on its bed of peritoneum. Made them taste the rich blood-surrogate on which it fed. Explained why it had to be stimulated with placentin and thyroxin. Told them of the corpus luteum extract. Showed them the jets through which at every twelfth metre from zero to 2040 it was automatically injected. Spoke of those gradually increasing doses of pituitary administered during the final ninety-six metres of their course. Described the artificial maternal circulation installed on every bottle at metres 112; showed them the reservoir of blood-surrogate, the centrifugal pump that kept the liquid moving over the placenta and drove it through the synthetic lung and waste-product filter.

  • Clare
    2020-01-06 04:19

    As a teenager I went through a period of reading a vast number of distopian novels - probably all the teenage angst. This is the one that has continued to haunt me however, long after the my youthful cynicism has died it's death. It's basically a book about the utopian ideal - everyone's happy, everyone has what they want and EVERYTHING is based on logical principles. However, there is something very rotten at the heart. It's about how what we want isn't always what we should get. It looks at how state sponsered "happiness" can entirely miss the point. Perhaps, most importantly, it makes the case for individual freedom rather than authoritarian diktat. It should be read hand in hand with Mill's Utilitarianism to get a good idea of the philosophy that inspired it.Incidentally, I gave this book to my boyfriend as a present for his 18th birthday ( a rather depressing gift I know). At the time he wasn't particularly freaked out by it and said that it didn't hold the same level of dread as say, 1984 or "The Handmaid's Tale". As he's got older however, he's found the idea more and more frightening. Six years later it has more of a sting in the tail for him. I don't know why this should be but I'll hazard a guess that as you get older you're idea of "happiness" becomes perhaps more complex, making the ideal of "Brave New World" even more disturbing.

  • Huda Yahya
    2019-12-27 12:10

    ‎I am I, and I wish I weren't. إن كان راي برادبوري في روايته الأشهرقد اخترع عالما تُحرق فيه الكتبفهسكلي قبله بسنوات طويلة توصل إلى فكرة أشد شناعةففي عالمه الناس لا تُمنع من القراءة ‏فهم أصلا لا يرغبوا فيها‏ ولا يعرفوا لها قيمة أو معنى ‏:::::::::::::::تخيل نفسك تعيش هنا في هذا العالم‏‎ عالم السعادة الزائفة .. سعادة العقاقيرعالم يبتسم فيه الجميع ‏عالم ألمه مخدر وعقله مغيب‏عالم بلا مشاعر أو علاقات إنسانية‏ عالم يقوم على التقسيم الطبقي البحث ‏عالم خال من العاطفة والجمال‏تصور أننا صرنا أجنة مرصوصين في القوارير‏ننتظر ترتيبنا إلى واحدة من الطبقات الخمسوالتي يحددوها لنا من قبل حتى أن ننشأ ‏لا خيار لك في أن تكون واحد من الخمسة التاليين‏*الفا ثم بيتاوالذين هما الأعلى مستوى اجتماعيا وفكريا ‏فمن ألفا يأتي قادة العالم وأعضاء الحكومة‏*ثم جاماوهو من يقومون بالأعمال المكتبية والإدارية‏*ثم دلتا وهم من يقومون بالأعمال اليدوية التي لا تتطلب مجهودا ‏فكريا‏*وأخيرا إبسيلون‎ ‎الأغبى والأدنى مرتبة –عمال نظافة وما شابهوهم يشكلون أغلبية الشعبلا تحاول أن تختارليس لديك هذا الحق أصلا!:::::::::::::::‏" ولكنني لا أريد الراحة..‏أنا أريد الرب..أريد الشِعر..أريد خطرا حقيقيا..أريد الحريةأريد الخير..أريد الخطيئة" !‏إنه عالم ينشد سعادة آلية ‏همست بها أزار إلكترونية في أذنيه منذ مولدهفبات لا يعلم عن شيء سواهالا فن لا دين لا أدب لا حب لا أسرةوأيضا لا حزن لا ألم لا معاناة لا فقرهذه أشياء لا يفهم لها معنى:::::::::::::::وعلى الجانب الآخر هناك مجتمع الهمج المنبوذ الذي يتكاثر بطريقة ‏طبيعية ويعرف عن معنى الله والأسرة والحب والخوفوالذي منه يطل أمل يائسفلربما تتغير الأوضاع يوماأو تحدث ثورة من نوع ماعلى الأقل هذا ما يدور في ذهنك أثناء القراءةولكن أملك يخيب مع نظرة هكسلي اليائسةوتنتهي الرواية بنهاية أكثر بؤسا من أحداث الرواية:::::::::::::::‏ فالمدينة الفاضلة الخالية من الروحالمغرقة في المادة لا تزال هنامبتسمة في سخرية وهي ترمق جثة جون المشنوقةوالشعب لا يزال يبتسمفحبوب السعادة تكفي لإلهائهم عن الحقيقةإنه شعب لا يحتاج قوة ليُحكم ‏لقد تم تكييفهم منذ البداية على الاستسلام‏ولكن الباب لم يغلق بعدعلك تريد الهروب من هذه الآلة الكبرىعلك تريد العودة إلى كل ما هو حار وحقيقي ومؤلعلّك .. وإن كان الثمن موتك‏ ‏------------------‏على الهامش‏#1‏‏=يستمد المؤلف عنوانه من أبيات شكسبير في العاصفةHow many goodly creatures are there hereHow beauteous mankind is!O brave new worldThat has such people in 't!‏#2‏في عام 1958كتب هكسلي كتابهBrave New World Revisited ‎مبديا فيه في عدة مقالات أراؤه التي أودعها الرواية السابقةإن أحب أحدكم المزيد من الإطلاع‏#3‏‎ ‏ المرة الأولى التي قرأتُ فيها الرواية كنت في نحو السادسة عشركان كتيب مختصر ضمن سلسلة مكتبة الأسرة للناشئينتحت عنوان عالم رائع جديدوهي مترجمة أيضا بعنوان العالم الطريف –دار المدىكاملة دون اختصار ‏ولكني لم أقرؤها ولا أعرف هل ترجمتها طيبة ام لا

  • Elyse
    2020-01-17 08:00

    Given that dystopian books are generally not my first choice ‘run-to-books-to-read’.... and I’m sure I didn’t understand the full depths of this book - which was written 21 years before I was born....even I can see Aldous Huxley had a brilliant mind.I was trying to wrap my thinking around the conspiracies that it looked liked the author was trying to warn us were happening in the world —�trying to visualize the already futuristic setting —( was he thinking of 2017?)....and follow the story itself, trying to get inside the heads of the created characters. See... I’m not very good at this. This type of reading is challenging for me. It hurts my brain!!!! are a few things I think I got from this book:.....thousands of little babies got born from one cell.....but not from a mothers womb....and these were the SORRY SUCKERS...( too bad for you Johnny - you’re pretty much a worthless bean- and you get to have all the shitty underpaid jobs in the world). .....embryos were incubated in bottles in laboratories......there were no traditional ‘Leave It To Beaver’ families in this society - there were no families at all - no sexual reproduction at all! .....there is a REASON for all this. Embryos were divided by their social status. There were five castes: alpha, beta, (THE LUCKY SUCKERS).....and delta, gamma, and epsilon.....(the SORRY SUCKERS)......Oh but wait the SORRY SUCKERS won’t feel sorry for themselves because this is utopia....where everybody is made to be happy - as all personal identity has vanished. DRUGS ARE COOL.... even encouraged! Everybody must get stoned.So? How am I doing? Am I understanding this book somewhat?...that what Aldous Huxley was saying is that the FUTURE LOOKS SCARY?/!....It looked scary in 1931.... and it still looks scary in 2017. One of Huxley’s predictions was spot on: Bombastic- pretentious -pompous RIDICULOUS senatorial entertainment! ( Huxley was more kind and didn’t use all those adjectives)....but he might have if he knew how right he’d really be! Lots more in this slim-jim novel - we get enlightened on history - religion - consumerism- emotions ( not to worry - you won’t need to worry - it’s a no worry society).... we’ve become deadbeats!PLEASE read other reviews- I have NO idea if I read this book right. However ...seems like I shouldn’t worry about it all according to the brilliant man himself...Aldous Huxley! VERY WORTH READING! ( even for a girl who understands nothin) Whew.... now I can start my day.... as all is well in the world. 🌏

  • Johannes
    2019-12-27 06:54

    This book presents a futuristic dystopia of an unusual kind. Unlike in Orwell's 1984, Huxley's dystopia is one in which everyone is happy. However, they are happy in only the most trivial sense: they lead lives of simple pleasures, but lives without science, art, philosophy or religion. In short, lives without deeper meaning. Although people are expected to work hard and efficiently during working hours, during off hours people live in an infantile way, never engaging their minds, and satisfying themselves with sex and drugs.The premise of the book I find quite interesting. However, the execution is lacking. The characters are not particularly endearing, and indeed they are quite flat. Worse, Huxley fails to explain why this future of controlled contentment is wrong. The reader will intuit that the this indeed a dystopia posing as a utopia, but Huxley's reliance on this feeling is a philosophical failure. It is the burden of the author to present us not with an account of something we know is bad, but to explain the source of the knowledge.Huxley attempts something akin to an explanation in the second-to-last chapter, a discussion between "the Savage" who grew up outside civilization and Mustalpha Mond, a World Controller. However, the attempt falls short, as Mond has concise answers to all of the Savage's questions, and the Savage lacks the education and/or intellectual power to find reason behind his feelings.During the conversation, Mond refers to philosopher Francis Bradley and credits him with the idea that philosophy is "the finding of bad reason for what one believes by instinct." Perhaps this inclusion is intended to convey that Huxley agrees and will make no attempt to manufacture a "bad reason" why the world he created is evil. However, I find this deeply unsatisfying. Why write a book to tell people what they already know? Moreover, a single reference to Bradley is not sufficient to convince me that this definition of philosophy is correct. If Huxley's novel relies heavily on this idea, he should have supported it with more than a solitary statement of Mond. Indeed, Mond promptly refutes the statement by denying instinct as separate from conditioning, and as the civilized population of the world seems to be controlled largely by conditioning, it would seem that in Huxley's world, Mond is correct!In summary, Huxley crafts an interesting future world where people are blithely content without knowing passion or pain. Unfortunately, he fails both to craft an interesting story to set in this world and to write a strong philosophical argument why such a world would be harmful for mankind. He relies on the obvious faults of the world and the intuitive reaction of the reader, and thus provides no deeper insights.As a social message, as a novel, and as a statement on the way in which mankind should behave, I find Brave New World inferior in almost every way to 1984. The one word of praise I will give to Huxley's novel is that his dystopia is more unusual and more intriguing than Orwell's. If only he had dome something more with it.

  • B0nnie
    2020-01-24 10:23

    Brave New World is a vision of the future where science will (at last) be put full time into the service of our needs. Some of the ideas might seem a little controversial (because of our preconceived ideas) but we must be open minded...! SEX. Biology teaches that sex is meant to be had. To put restrictions on sex is as silly as putting restrictions on which chair to sit. And like chairs, women are meant to be pneumatic. "Oh, she’s a splendid girl. Wonderfully pneumatic. I’m surprised you haven’t had her."BIRTH. Why should modern man have to put up with it? Any informed person will affirm it is gross: all meat and blood and pain. Science will solve this problem with advances in reproductive technology: thinking outside the box. "Which brings us at last," continued Mr. Foster, "out of the realm of mere slavish imitation of nature into the much more interesting world of human invention."CHILDREN. If you've been to a supermarket you will have seen plenty of bad parenting. How often have you wanted to step in and rectify the situation? Let's take the important job of citizen building out of the hands of amateurs. There's a good reason some of the foulest language we use involve the word *Mother*. "Psychically, [home] was a rabbit hole, a midden, hot with the frictions of tightly packed life, reeking with emotion. What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group! Maniacally, the mother brooded over her children (her children) … brooded over them like a cat over its kittens; but a cat that could talk, a cat that could say, "My baby, my baby," over and over again." PEACE OF MIND. This is something we all want. Yet we must contend with traffic jams, lost cellphones, and raised voices. The frustration you feel is the result of a chemical reaction in your brain. Thus it is only natural that Science should offer a chemical solution. "A gramme in time saves nine"DEATH. The problem here is not death per se. It is our poor attitude toward it. Rigorous psychology will help us achieve complete indifference and thus free up a lot of wasted time. "...what fatal mischief he might do to these poor innocents? Undoing all their wholesome death-conditioning with this disgusting outcry—as though death were something terrible, as though any one mattered as much as all that!"BOOKS. These are only needed for reference and factual information. Reading in itself is profoundly antisocial. And, although there is little danger of anyone actually reading Shakespeare, his works are especially egregious in provoking time wasting thoughts."Do they read Shakespeare?" asked the Savage as they walked, on their way to the Bio-chemical Laboratories, past the School Library. "Certainly not," said the Head Mistress, blushing. "Our library," said Dr. Gaffney, "contains only books of reference. If our young people need distraction, they can get it at the feelies. We don’t encourage them to indulge in any solitary amusements."RELIGION. The absurdity of religion is self-evident, as every nonconforming individual knows. If there must be faith, let it be bright. Let it be in science. "As if one believed anything by instinct! One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons—that’s philosophy. People believe in God because they’ve been conditioned to believe in God."LOVE. Love is the unifying idea in each of the above themes - certainly the most destructive concept ever to exist. Shakespeare of course has been largely responsible for its glorification. Brave New World is a world without pain, without hunger, with total comfort. It is a world without love. "Community, Identity, Stability."

  • Lyn
    2020-01-14 05:56

    One of my all time favorites, this set the stage about what a dystopian story should be or not be. “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.”First published in 1932, this is timeless and is as relevant today as when it was first written. Sixteen years before Orwell's 1984 but eleven years after We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, this is a high water mark for the genre, many of its themes could be told today. Truth be said, this could be published today and would be just as good, it rises to the challenge and then towers above it.“If one's different, one's bound to be lonely.”Everyday life makes me think of this book all the time. Huxley does more than describe a bleak and cynical post-apocalyptic or dystopian world, he looks a dystopian resident in the eye and puts before him a mirror to flesh out what is real and unreal. Further, Huxley has turned that same mirror on the reader and we see in his far future fantasy a reality that could be today. Huxley reveals that the seeds of Mustafa Mond and his ilk have fertile ground in our culture and in our souls.“No social stability without individual stability.”Finally, Huxely provides a glimpse behind the curtain, we see the false wizard in his machinations. The world that has been crafted for the denizens of Huxley's nightmare landscape is explained fully and matter-of-factly by Mond. Huxley's sermon is delivered as stoically and deterministically as Jonathon Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"."You all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk."A must read.

  • Dan Schwent
    2020-01-14 12:01

    In a dystopian society of genetically engineered consumers pacified by drugs and conditioning, Bernard Marx cannot seem to fit in. When he visits a Savage reservation, his eyes are opened and he brings one of the savages back to England with him...As I continue my bleak science fiction parade toward the new year, I wonder why I've never read Brave New World before.In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley takes on consumerism, the media, genetic engineering, recreational drugs, religion, herd mentality, individualism, and lots of other socially relevant topics, weaving them into a science fiction setting that our world resembles more every day.The setting and society are the stars of the show in Brave New World. The people live in a caste system based on genetics, conditioned from birth and pacified by drugs, living to consume goods and take soma to forget their troubles. Free love is encouraged but free thinking is not. Bernard Max can't seem to get with the program and winds up nearly causing a revolution.The characters are pretty secondary to the setting but it wasn't hard to feel sorry for Bernard, the square peg in a world of round holes. Even when he gets a measure of fame, he still can't manage to shake the feeling that something's wrong. John the Savage provides a nice contrast, an outsider looking in on a world everyone else sees as normal but he sees as hellish.Huxley may not have thought so at the time but he may have been a futurist. Our culture seems to be moving in the direction of Brave New World all the time. The rampant consumerism, lowest common denominator entertainment, and herd mentality all seem a little too familiar. Is the internet our soma? Things to ponder...There are some classics that are as hard to read as an insurance policy written in Klingon and then there are ones like this. Brave New World is very readable and not at all dense. The ideas are very easy to absorb, especially in this day and age. In these uncertain times, Brave New World is as timely as ever. Four and a half stars.

  • Nataliya
    2020-01-24 12:17

    Brave New World is a classic written to make its readers uncomfortable. It accomplishes its point well. Still, it is only getting 3 stars from me, as I rate books based on my personal level of enjoyment rather than literary value. The characters of this book were not meant to be likeable - I am fine with that concept. The first few chapters made me want to curl up in the corner and cry - that's how repulsive the design of this universe was (mission accomplished, Mr. Huxley). But as we plunge into the depths of the neverending moral message of the story (basically the entire last third of the book), I felt my patience stretching thin. I get the message, no need to beat me over the head with it.I did chuckle at the ridiculous consumerism of this world (inspired by America of the turn of the century) in which, unexpectedly, most characters have distinct socialist names - Lenina, Trotsky, Marx, Bernard (as in G.B.Shaw). I just think it's funny how both of the enemies of Huxley's ideal world - the competing ideologies of socialism and rampant consumerism - were dealt with in one blow. Good try - but come on!I liked the description of the effects of soma drug on the mind. No wonder, as this was written by the author of The Doors of Perception about mescaline effects on the mind - an interesting read, by the way.Of the classic trio of dystopian books (this one, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Zamyatin's We) this one is my least favorite (We is the best, in my opinion, and may have actually inspired this one). Brave New World succeeds at portraying dystopia at its worst and making the reader think, but stilted language and moral heavy-handedness take away from the enjoyment. Yet it's a classic, and should be read, even if not for fun. 3 stars.

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2020-01-26 12:22

    649. Brave New World, Aldous Huxleyعنوانها: دنیای قشنگ نو؛ دنیای شگفت انگیز نو؛ نویسنده: آلدوس هاکسلی؛ (پیام ، نیلوفر) ادبیات؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: سوم ماه آوریل سال 2000 میلادیعنوان: دنیای قشنگ نو؛ نویسنده: آلدوس هاکسلی؛ مترجم: سعید حمیدیان؛ تهران، پیام، 1352؛ در 268 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، نشر واژه، 1368، در 267 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، نیلوفر، 1378، در 295 ص؛ شابک: 9644480686؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان انگلیسی قرن 20 معنوان: دنیای شگفت انگیز نو؛ نویسنده: آلدوس هاکسلی؛ مترجم: حشمت الله صباغی؛ حسن کاویار؛ تهران، کارگاه هنر، 1366؛ در 281 ص؛ عنوان: دنیای شگفت انگیز نو؛ نویسنده: آلدوس هاکسلی؛ مترجم: رضا فاطمی؛ تهران، سمیر، 1390؛ در 312 ص؛ رمان علمی تخیلیِ ست که در سال 1932 میلادی به قلم آلدوس هاکسلی نویسنده انگلیسی منتشر شده‌؛ داستانی خیالی در سال 2540 میلادی، انسانها را کارخانه ها تولید میکنند، و اوضاع دنیا ثابت است و مردم خوشبخت هستند، از پیری خبری نیست.، ... ، و در بخشهای پایانی، «هاکسلی» با قدرت دیالوگهایی که از نمایشنامه های شکسپیر بازنگاری کرده (حتی عنوان رمان را نیز از نمایشنامه طوفان اثر: ویلیام شکسپیر برگرفته)، و ... انگار هنوز داستان ادامه دارد. ا. شربیانی

  • Lisa
    2020-01-08 03:59

    "You all remember," said the Controller, in his strong deep voice, "you all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk. History, " he repeated slowly, "is bunk." The rhetorical skills of the Controller remind me of the Epsilon Semi-Moron who runs one of the bravest new worlds in our current era in bunk. As I had forgotten the major plot of this dystopian novel written just when fascism emerged in the 1930s, some fifteen years before the nuclear age, I spent a day rereading it with mixed emotions. Some things are almost prophetic in all their scary details, for example the efficiency of the childlike custom-made contributor to consumerist society:"Adults intellectually and during working hours", he went on. "Infants where feeling and desire are concerned."The reliable drug - soma - which makes sure that society's stability is not threatened, the focus on entertainment which requires people to spend money on gadgets that keep the economy working, the sexual control mechanisms (for promiscuity is just as limiting as marriage or chastity if you are not given any choice), the early childhood social conditioning in addition to biological selection processes - it all leaves a bitter taste as it rings too many bells.The part of the plot I found difficult to swallow was the juxtaposition of the scientifically perfected "utopia" of drug-induced happiness with the dirty "natural" world of the savages, who follow absurdly ancient rituals. Their world, where "god" is still needed to balance their suffering and to help them accept ageing, hunger and pain, is like a black-and-white contrast foil. Their need for self-denial in God-fearing doesn't generally differ much from the self-indulgence of the consumption society where soma takes care of controlling emotions and actions. In either case, human beings are controlled, or conditioned, by a greater power, and they can fall back into a state of irresponsible acceptance of pleasure or pain, according to their choice (- which of course is pre-destined by early childhood drilling).Call me a hopeless idealist, but there is a third alternative! Human beings can be offered the freedom of choice if they learn to embrace diversity, knowledge and differences of individuals rather than the "utopian" goal of "sameness" of one kind or the other. If sameness is the ultimate goal, any paradise will turn into hell, an automatic regression into robotic behaviour will follow, regardless of the oppressive dictatorship that imposes it (consumerism and religious doctrine are quite the same in Brave New World).Interestingly, Huxley himself commented on the problematic binary world he had created when he reflected on his novel in 1946. His third option, to decentralise power and encourage individual freedom, is still a work in progress in our historical (bunk) era, and his two dystopian visions have merged into one. The worship of His Fordship, the consumerist god of the capitalist world, has been combined with ancient religious rites serving as soma for some people, while others take the more direct approach of over-consumption of food and fun and drug intake against meaninglessness. It made me think of another novel showing two juxtaposed oppressive systems, Things Fall Apart. British colonial rule, with all its religious and social implications, stands against the ancient rites of the Nigerian past, which to me would constitute just as much of a dictatorship against my personal wishes. Two opposing, rigid systems leaving no individual freedom, two doctrines that condemn whatever is different from their own specific tradition. Zero tolerance for individual differences. No compromise or combination possible. It is either or. No third or fourth option."Oh Ford" can be used as casually as "Oh Lord" (of whichever confession), and has about as much impact. Margaret Atwood in her MaddAddam at least insisted that her new deity "Oh Fuck" should only be called upon in emergencies.I finish reading Brave New World with the feeling that it is time to call on Atwood's god, for the bravest and newest of worlds is in danger. The devil is in the sameness, as is god. For they are the same thing, utopia and dystopia being completely identical, turning humans into Epsilon Semi-Morons, children or robots. Even Shakespeare can be destroyed by application in banal situations. If history is bunk, everything is always new and brave. But also meaningless.Oh Fuck!

  • F
    2020-01-21 09:01

    I loved this book. The start is a bit slow but the end is amazing. Like 1984 i wish i had read it when i was younger as I think reading it in my teens would have had a bigger impact on me.

  • Adina
    2020-01-16 10:20

    I finally managed to finish the dystopian classics triangle - 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave new World. For me the winner is Brave New World. Although I find the world imagined is less realistic than the other two it is equally tragic. I finally got that somewhat lost feeling of total happiness when reading a book, that tingle in the pleasure receptors when you find a great book. Even though I recently read many books that I loved I seem to have lost that feeling of satisfaction when being face to face with an IT book. I thought the reason was that I started to read more, a lot more. Before Goodreads I used to read 10-15 book/year max so I had more time to enjoy a book, to get lost in it. Although I was happy that I read more and that I managed to finish books that I wanted to read for a long time the intensity of the feelings that reading stir in me had diminished. I am so elated that I can still get immersed in a book with all my being. I am so happy that I realized the problem is not how many books I read but what I read and the relationship I build with that book/author. I’ll keep reading when/what/how much I want to knowing that from time to time (probably once-twice/year) I will find that book that will make me remember why I read. When I started BNW I thought that it was going to be another one of those books that you know they are a work of art an appreciate them but in the same time are not very pleasant to read. Something like the Hunger by Hamsun or The Stranger by Camus. The beginning was really uncomfortable, especially the descriptions of the embryos and the erotic child games. Brrr. My hair stood up reading that. However, I quickly got absorbed and loved every second spent reading.

  • Dale Pearl
    2020-01-11 06:06

    This book is on many a top 100 reading list. Aldous Huxley has the reputation of being an intellectual giant. His heritage places him in the land of England, the place where all of the great literary giants come. A Brave New World unfortunately does not live up to the credits,pedigree or even the cult following that chases after it. Summary: In a nutshell this book is a mess. I am assuming that the majority of individuals that rate this book high on a novel list or 5 star it on here on amazon do so simply because A Brave New World is filled with satire in a dystopian society. Unfortunately for me that is not enough to warrant a five star rating. Inconsistent plot line runs through this book. The main character "Savage" does not show up until half way through the book. All of the character names are a play on words. The book takes as many shots as it can at the American Capitalist engine. The big negative for me is that it is just unbelievable. Savage, essentially an uneducated or "home schooled" Indian has a high level intellectual conversation with the main antaganist Mustaph Mond. Breakdown Review: Storyline: I give 1 out of 5 stars due to unbelievability. Writing style: 3 out of 5 stars. The satire somewhat works and the writing style itself doesn't fit into the genious category. Depth/Inspiration: 4 out of 5 stars. Despite the flaws this book is bound to inspire the creative gene in others. Unfortunately the humanistic undertones will lead many an individual down slippery slopes Entertainment/Education value: 1 out of 5 stars. Not as entertaining as the hype behind the book and the writer. I do not see any education value in this book aside from how to write satire or how to write a novel to inspire a nation of conspiracy theorists.

  • Markus
    2020-01-27 05:05

    Sometimes a book just isn’t what you want it to be.There is little doubt that Brave New World is a genre classic, heavily contributing to defining the dystopian genre. There is just as little doubt that Aldous Huxley was an important influence on some of the writers I respect the most, among them George Orwell and Steven Runciman, both of whom were Huxley’s students at the University of Cambridge.Unfortunately, I found nothing to appreciate about it.Maybe my general distaste for dystopia hit me like a wave. That is certainly a possible explanation. Maybe I was too stunned by the elegance and the hauntingly powerful message sent by 1984, which, in my humble opinion, is a far better book than this.To me, this was a very slow book containing completely uninteresting characters, an unrealistic dystopian scenario, and writing that was neither engaging nor enchanting. I would have stopped reading long ago were it not for the fact that this book is such a classic.That is also why I am giving it a higher rating than what I feel it deserves. Because it was an important book when it was first released, because it has remained so through the years, and because it contributed to building the foundation that so many later books of considerably higher quality now stand on.

  • Valerie
    2020-01-22 11:01

    This book is frightening. I'll take it to my classroom and subject the innocents to it.

  • ☘Misericordia☘⚡ϟ⚡ϟ⚡⛈ ❂❤❣
    2020-01-17 08:14

    CAREFUL OF SPOILERS! This is a 'viviparous mother' of all dystopian worlds! Yes, 'viviparous', 'mother' or 'father' are indecent jokes in the time of 'Our Ford'. This world is majorly fucked up, just like its 1984 edition. Perhaps even more so! This one is also a cold one. Here, exogenesis, 'Bokanovsky's Process' and 'Podsnap's Technique' have taken over human progenity. Babies are no longer born, instead they are 'decanted'. Here, you get to undergo an operation to remove your gametes 'voluntarily for the good of Society, not to mention the fact that it carries a bonus amounting to six months' salary'. Instead of taking ready-made humans you make them as you like them: pliable and standartised, in neat controlled batches. To do that, you X-ray the poor gametes, freeze them, 'dose almost to death with alcohol'... Along the way, the embryos are even 'simultaneously shaken into familiarity with movement'. Afterwards, they get to be male/female/freemartin and are predestined by some Labelers and conditioned into Alphas to Epsilons by some other perverts. Some of the embryos are even lucky enough to get to love standing on their heads. The electrical conditioning of children on books and roses? Lovely. And the responce from the observers? '"I see," said the student, and was silent, lost in admiration.'The time of Our Ford is the time when ordinary erotic play is OK for small boys and girls. And for big ones. People are astonished that at some point in time 'Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves?' In this world grownups can get reprimanded for 'lapses from a proper standard of infantile decorum'. Here 'hypnopædia' is the way to induce the ready-made formulas replacing thinking. For example, children would get in their sleep 'at least a quarter of a million warnings against solitude'. 'Happiness is the Sovereign Good' is here a must, and if one is not persuaded, they are sternly advised 'to mend their ways'. One way to do that is to take 'soma', induldge in Solidarity Service (Orgy-Porgy), have a Pregnancy Substitute, undergo compulsory Violent Passion Treatment and pursue pleasures, strictly non-intellectual ones. Сonsumerism is the way of all things. And 'there is no escape from a Savage Reservation'.'Those, who are born in the Reservation, are destined to die there'. Q:CENTRAL LONDON HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTRE, and, in a shield, the World State's motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY.(c)Q:For particulars, as every one knows, make for virtue and happiness; generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fret-sawyers and stamp collectors compose the backbone of society.(c)Q:One egg, one embryo, one adult-normality. But a bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide... Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew before. Progress..."bokanovskification consists of a series of arrests of development. We check the normal growth and, paradoxically enough, the egg responds by budding."(c)Quantity not quality is the recipe to a brave new world.Q:"Bokanovsky's Process is one of the major instruments of social stability"... Standard men and women; in uniform batches. The whole of a small factory staffed with the products of a single bokanovskified egg... "Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines!"..."If we could bokanovskify indefinitely the whole problem would be solved."(c)Q:Solved by standard Gammas, unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons.(c)Q:...and already the bottle had passed, and it was the turn of the labellers. Heredity, date of fertilization, membership of Bokanovsky Group–details were transferred from test-tube to bottle. No longer anonymous, but named, identified, the procession marched slowly on; on through an opening in the wall, slowly on into the Social Predestination Room... Told them of the test for sex carried out in the neighborhood of Metre 200. Explained the system of labelling–a T for the males, a circle for the females and for those who were destined to become freemartins a question mark, black on a white ground."For of course," said Mr. Foster, "in the vast majority of cases, fertility is merely a nuisance. One fertile ovary in twelve hundred–that would really be quite sufficient for our purposes. But we want to have a good choice. And of course one must always have an enormous margin of safety. So we allow as many as thirty per cent of the female embryos to develop normally. The others get a dose of male sex-hormone every twenty-four metres for the rest of the course. Result: they're decanted as freemartins–structurally quite normal (except," he had to admit, "that they do have the slightest tendency to grow beards), but sterile. Guaranteed sterile. Which brings us at last," continued Mr. Foster, "out of the realm of mere slavish imitation of nature into the much more interesting world of human invention."(c)Oh, the joy. Grow a beard and go be free from nature!Q:"We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future …" He was going to say "future World controllers," but correcting himself, said "future Directors of Hatcheries," instead.(c)Q:"Nothing like oxygen-shortage for keeping an embryo below par." Again he rubbed his hands."But why do you want to keep the embryo below par?" asked an ingenuous student."Ass!" said the Director, breaking a long silence. "Hasn't it occurred to you that an Epsilon embryo must have an Epsilon environment as well as an Epsilon heredity?"..."The lower the caste," said Mr. Foster, "the shorter the oxygen." The first organ affected was the brain. After that the skeleton. At seventy per cent of normal oxygen you got dwarfs. At less than seventy eyeless monsters."Who are no use at all," concluded Mr. Foster.(c)Q:"Consider the horse."They considered it...Hence, of course, that fruit of delayed development, the human intelligence. "But in Epsilons," said Mr. Foster very justly, "we don't need human intelligence."Didn't need and didn't get it. But though the Epsilon mind was mature at ten, the Epsilon body was not fit to work till eighteen. Long years of superfluous and wasted immaturity. If the physical development could be speeded up till it was as quick, say, as a cow's, what an enormous saving to the Community!"Enormous!"(c)Q:Pilkington, at Mombasa, had produced individuals who were sexually mature at four and full-grown at six and a half. A scientific triumph. But socially useless...They were still trying to find the ideal compromise between adults of twenty and adults of six. So far without success.(c)Q: "And that," put in the Director sententiously, "that is the secret of happiness and virtue–liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny."(c)Q:The first of a batch of two hundred and fifty embryonic rocket-plane engineers was just passing the eleven hundred metre mark on Rack 3. A special mechanism kept their containers in constant rotation. "To improve their sense of balance," Mr. Foster explained. "Doing repairs on the outside of a rocket in mid-air is a ticklish job. We slacken off the circulation when they're right way up, so that they're half starved, and double the flow of surrogate when they're upside down. They learn to associate topsy-turvydom with well-being; in fact, they're only truly happy when they're standing on their heads.(c)Q:You can't really do any useful intellectual conditioning till the foetuses have lost their tails.(c)Q:Books and loud noises, flowers and electric shocks–already in the infant mind these couples were compromisingly linked; and after two hundred repetitions of the same or a similar lesson would be wedded indissolubly. What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder."They'll grow up with what the psychologists used to call an 'instinctive' hatred of books and flowers. Reflexes unalterably conditioned. They'll be safe from books and botany all their lives."(c)Q:Why go to the trouble of making it psychologically impossible for Deltas to like flowers?...If the children were made to scream at the sight of a rose, that was on grounds of high economic policy. Not so very long ago (a century or thereabouts), Gammas, Deltas, even Epsilons, had been conditioned to like flowers–flowers in particular and wild nature in general. The idea was to make them want to be going out into the country at every available opportunity, and so compel them to consume transport."And didn't they consume transport?" asked the student."Quite a lot," the D.H.C. replied. "But nothing else."Primroses and landscapes, he pointed out, have one grave defect: they are gratuitous. A love of nature keeps no factories busy. It was decided to abolish the love of nature, at any rate among the lower classes; to abolish the love of nature, but not the tendency to consume transport. For of course it was essential that they should keep on going to the country, even though they hated it. The problem was to find an economically sounder reason for consuming transport than a mere affection for primroses and landscapes. It was duly found."We condition the masses to hate the country," concluded the Director. "But simultaneously we condition them to love all country sports. At the same time, we see to it that all country sports shall entail the use of elaborate apparatus. So that they consume manufactured articles as well as transport. Hence those electric shocks."(c)Q:You can't learn a science unless you know what it's all about.(c)Q:"What's the lesson this afternoon?" he asked. "We had Elementary Sex for the first forty minutes," she answered. "But now it's switched over to Elementary Class Consciousness."..."… all wear green," said a soft but very distinct voice, beginning in the middle of a sentence, "and Delta Children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta.""Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able …""They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson."(c)Q:Roses and electric shocks, the khaki of Deltas and a whiff of asafœtida–wedded indissolubly before the child can speak. But wordless conditioning is crude and wholesale; cannot bring home the finer distinctions, cannot inculcate the more complex courses of behaviour. For that there must be words, but words without reason. In brief, hypnopædia.(c)Q:Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob."Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too–all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides–made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!" The Director almost shouted in his triumph. "Suggestions from the State." He banged the nearest table. "It therefore follows …"(c)Q:imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption. It's madness. Nowadays the Controllers won't approve of any new game unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games.(c)Q:"Try to realize what it was like to have a viviparous mother."That smutty word again. But none of them dreamed, this time, of smiling."Try to imagine what 'living with one's family' meant."They tried; but obviously without the smallest success."And do you know what a 'home' was?"They shook their heads. Home...No air, no space; an understerilized prison; darkness, disease, and smells... And home was as squalid psychically as physically. Psychically, it was a rabbit hole, a midden, hot with the frictions of tightly packed life, reeking with emotion. What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group! Maniacally, the mother brooded over her children (her children) … brooded over them like a cat over its kittens; but a cat that could talk, a cat that could say, "My baby, my baby," over and over again. "My baby, and oh, oh, at my breast, the little hands, the hunger, and that unspeakable agonizing pleasure! Till at last my baby sleeps, my baby sleeps with a bubble of white milk at the corner of his mouth. My little baby sleeps …""Yes," said Mustapha Mond, nodding his head, "you may well shudder."(c)Q:Our Freud had been the first to reveal the appalling dangers of family life. The world was full of fathers–was therefore full of misery; full of mothers–therefore of every kind of perversion from sadism to chastity; full of brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts–full of madness and suicide.(c)Q:Extremes... meet. For the good reason that they were made to meet.(c)Q:Family, monogamy, romance. Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channelling of impulse and energy."But every one belongs to every one else," he concluded, citing the hypnopædic proverb.The students nodded, emphatically agreeing with a statement which upwards of sixty-two thousand repetitions in the dark had made them accept, not merely as true, but as axiomatic, self-evident, utterly indisputable.(c)Q:"Fortunate boys!" said the Controller. "No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy–to preserve you, so far as that is possible, from having emotions at all."(c)Q:"He patted me on the behind this afternoon," said Lenina."There, you see!" Fanny was triumphant. "That shows what he stands for. The strictest conventionality."..."And after all," Fanny's tone was coaxing, "it's not as though there were anything painful or disagreeable about having one or two men besides Henry. And seeing that you ought to be a little more promiscuous …Lenina shook her head. "Somehow," she mused, "I hadn't been feeling very keen on promiscuity lately. There are times when one doesn't. Haven't you found that too, Fanny?"Fanny nodded her sympathy and understanding. "But one's got to make the effort," she said, sententiously, "one's got to play the game. After all, every one belongs to every one else.""Yes, every one belongs to every one else," Lenina repeated slowly and, sighing, was silent for a moment; then, taking Fanny's hand, gave it a little squeeze. "You're quite right, Fanny. As usual. I'll make the effort."(c)Q:"Lenina Crowne?"..."Oh, she's a splendid girl. Wonderfully pneumatic. I'm surprised you haven't had her.""I can't think how it is I haven't,"..."I certainly will. At the first opportunity."(c)Q:"But his reputation?""What do I care about his reputation?""They say he doesn't like Obstacle Golf.""They say, they say," mocked Lenina."And then he spends most of his time by himself–alone." There was horror in Fanny's voice.(c)Q:"What were you playing this afternoon?" the girl on his left enquired. "Obstacle, or Electro-magnetic?"Bernard looked at her (Ford! it was Morgana Rothschild) and blushingly had to admit that he had been playing neither. Morgana stared at him with astonishment. There was an awkward silence.(c)Q:There was something called liberalism...Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.(c)Q:Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!(c)Q:"Yes, everybody's happy now," echoed Lenina. They had heard the words repeated a hundred and fifty times every night for twelve years.(c)Q:In the nurseries, the Elementary Class Consciousness lesson was over, the voices were adapting future demand to future industrial supply. "I do love flying," they whispered, "I do love flying, I do love having new clothes, I do love …"..."Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending."(c)Q:You can't consume much if you sit still and read books.(c)Q:And round her waist she wore a silver-mounted green morocco-surrogate cartridge belt, bulging (for Lenina was not a freemartin) with the regulation supply of contraceptives.(c)Q:Why don't you make everybody an Alpha Double Plus while you're about it?"Mustapha Mond laughed. "Because we have no wish to have our throats cut," he answered. "We believe in happiness and stability. A society of Alphas couldn't fail to be unstable and miserable. Imagine a factory staffed by Alphas–that is to say by separate and unrelated individuals of good heredity and conditioned so as to be capable (within limits) of making a free choice and assuming responsibilities. Imagine it!"It's an absurdity. An Alpha-decanted, Alpha-conditioned man would go mad if he had to do Epsilon Semi-Moron work–go mad, or start smashing things up. Alphas can be completely socialized–but only on condition that you make them do Alpha work. Only an Epsilon can be expected to make Epsilon sacrifices...Even after decanting, he's still inside a bottle–an invisible bottle of infantile and embryonic fixations. Each one of us, of course,"(c)Q:The depressing stars had travelled quite some way across the heavens. But though the separating screen of the sky-signs had now to a great extent dissolved, the two young people still retained their happy ignorance of the night.(c)Q:He had discovered Time and Death and God.(c)Q:You can't teach a rhinoceros tricks," he had explained in his brief and vigorous style. "Some men are almost rhinoceroses; they don't respond properly to conditioning. Poor Devils!(c)Q:That mania, to start with, for doing things in private. Which meant, in practice, not doing anything at all. For what was there that one could do in private. (Apart, of course, from going to bed: but one couldn't do that all the time.) Yes, what was there? Precious little.(c)Q:B. considered that ... was a waste of time. "Then what's time for?" asked L. in some astonishment..."Talking? But what about?" Walking and talking–that seemed a very odd way of spending an afternoon...(c)Q:People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma...We've sacrificed the high art. We have the feelies and the scent organ instead.(c)Q:I like being myself. Myself and nasty.(c)Q:"Every one says I'm awfully pneumatic," said Lenina reflectively, patting her own legs.(c)Q:"Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,Kiss the girls and make them One.Boys at 0ne with girls at peace;Orgy-porgy gives release." the red twilight it was as though some enormous negro dove were hovering benevolently over the now prone or supine dancers.(c)Ok, I really need that funny stuff that Huxley was high on, when he wrote this.

  • Barry Pierce
    2020-01-20 12:05

    Such a happy tale. Now I remember why I don't read dystopia all that often, it's depressing as motherfuck. I liked this novel but I do think it's the weakest out of the Big Dystopia 3 (the other two being Nineteen Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit 451). I'd recommend it on the basis of just how innovative and subversive this novel really is, along with a good plot and an interesting world. Don't read this if you're feeling shitty though, oh god.

  • Lit Bug
    2020-01-17 06:14

    There are two standard ways of reading ideological science-fiction – to go looking for subtle nuances that characterize standard literary fiction, stressing upon characterization and plot as an integral part of writing; and to seek ideas that interrogate our narrow notions and overlook standard literary conventions in case the work is wanting in literary finesse. Often, the one with the best ideas is not blessed with the best writing, and the ideas, rather than the execution is what is appealing. A third way is to seek into that allegory its own weaknesses, where it fails its own arguments, to open up a discourse that instead of concretely taking sides points out ruptures in the text itself.Along with a conventional review, it is also my first attempt at applying deconstruction as a method to see where the text contradicts itself in the Derridean sense.Brave New World - the title itself is beautiful, borrowed from Shakespeare’s The Tempest, which was a story reeking of colonialism beneath its enchanting poetry and romance. And so is the future Huxley envisions for us. A merry land where science has conquered reason, comfort has defeated struggle and addiction has replaced the zest to live. The addiction to science, addiction to happiness, addiction to indolence overcoming the fear of ‘living’.What a beautiful life! None of the plagues that so profoundly disturb the one single life we’ve got – the freedom from strife, the freedom from life-long sorrow. The happiness of all. Contentment for all. No envy, no failed ambitions. A peaceful world, in every imaginable way. Isn’t that what we are all striving for? Don’t we wish everybody was happy, everybody was justly treated? Would you rather lead a blissful life or a life where you met with trouble, pain and a crippling grief that would haunt you for the rest of your life? What would you choose?Honestly, I don’t know the answer.Brave New World is a technological dystopia that has flushed out every trace of struggle from human-life. Doing away with every kind of moral, social and political structure, it also does away with the capacity to think and form opinions, reducing humankind to a drug-induced infantile state, a haze of brief happiness brought on by SOMA pills to be swallowed at the slightest sign of emotional trouble. A stable and tranquil world conceived on the ruins of all that we value – opinions, ethics, learning, struggles and individuality.This brave, new world mass-produces castes of identical twins with distinctive conditioning to enable them to happily exist in the futures earmarked for them, with Soma to take care of brief spells of departure from expected behavior. It is this loss of individuality, this horror of being replicated endlessly, in a state worse than that of being cloned, which appalls the reader than the notion of not being able to experience life at its fullest, combined with the inability to conceive of a social structure without parents, family and marriage.Frankly, Huxley puts up a poor argument against what was supposedly a major horror in the new world order – the loss of ‘feeling’; genuine, individual feeling replaced by conditioned feeling. It somehow sounds more utopian with the opportunity it provides. Huxley further weakens his argument by bringing in the Savage with his tribal customs of ‘strong feelings’ that seem more repulsive, at least to me, than the soma-induced life of the new world.(view spoiler)[The Indians, to which the Savage belongs, are the jungle tribe, impoverished, sick, a caricature of any tribe you take that is still untouched by our (apparently, allegedly) civilized life – I sure wouldn’t like to live in a world where you had to prove your worth to the person you loved by enduring stupid physical whipping – I’d rather forego it in favor of soma.Huxley could have made it far more believable and effective had it been not so far-fetched, and had more to do with the traditions of our own world – now, I do not object to this representation on the grounds that the former is uncouth and the latter civil, but that it is counter-productive to Huxley’s own efforts. However, if you’d prefer being flogged to near-death to prove your worth than simply declare your love sensibly and begin your relationship, I have nothing to defend my argument with. (hide spoiler)]I enjoyed 1984 - but I loved Brave New World - the world-building is more convincing, more natural, closer to my sense of what the future will be like. A technological future built on Nazi monitoring is less convincing than one in which the subject is always, already interpellated by psychological conditioning. I find the characterization here smoother, more credible.To me, 1984 had an immediate impact which faded away gradually – it had an intense feeling of dread that went away with time. But this book is subtler – instead of being overtly chilling, it is closer to our world – it asks for a critical evaluation of our own world first in order to appreciate the tragedy of the fictional world.I see immense parallels between our present world and the brave new world that might succeed ours, with the consumerist, numbing media drilled into us, a somatic equivalent of pills that we divert ourselves to at the slightest discomfort – the TV, the Internet, GR, the phone, the shopping, the music. How many times do we force ourselves to come to terms with the gnawing pain within instead of trying to divert our mind to something pleasant? How many of us, while nodding in agreement with the Savage when he cries, “the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind. I claim them all.”, really want it all? Do you look forward to having cancer? Are you excited at the prospect of starving? Would you enjoy those “unspeakable pains”?We’re already living in a semi-Brave New World, taking enough Soma to remain happy, content and well-off to the best of our capabilities, taking pride in the mundane sorrows that continually plague our soft minds, venting our worries on GR, and for that added kick of Aristotelian catharsis, read something really horrible and thank our stars for escaping that fate.No, I’m not accusing ourselves of shallowness or any indignation you feel for me right now – for there are many of us who suffer quietly, mourn our own fates silently, taking solace in the little joys that can never liberate us from our shackles of grief. I’m just pointing out that we’re already in a semi-Brave New World, an imperfect Brave New World.Which is why this affects me far more than 1984. The Brave New World has almost arrived, and we have happily embraced much of it. Heaven forbid when we really have enough technology to perfect this semi-world. Of the numerous futures I’ve read, this one is quite credible. Maybe little details will vary – but in essence, well…But this is also exactly my problem with the text - Huxley, in trying to drum in his point, over-reaches sometimes, unlike Orwell who remains strictly in line with the reality of our desires. While Bernard and his friend seem really grounded, realistic, the Savage is made to be a heroic figure, a larger-than-life persona. It only finely crosses the line, but towards the end, my sympathies lie less with the Savage. Or for the ‘real humans’ he belongs to. In his eagerness to return to the natural idyllic life of Nature (like many feminists calling for a return to Nature by discarding all technology), Huxley crosses the line by creating a clear ‘black or white/tech-dystopia or nature-utopia’ narrative, losing the subtlety in plot when he shows finesse in characterization.It is interesting to note how ‘freedom’ to him equates to ‘manhood’, the notion that being a slave to mood-controlling medicines made one less than ‘a man’. The implication, therefore, that suffering makes one a real man, an entity worthy of the life they had. Now, though this does not come across specifically as sexist, it does speak volumes about the absence/exclusion of women from debates about what makes one ‘human’ – clearly, Huxley’s emphasis is on the delicate threshold that defines where science will either question what makes us human, or with a misstep, make our own selves sub-human. But like much fiction of the early days, it is assumed that women function as objects, rather than subjects – invisible and unimportant.Overall, despite everything, I really enjoyed it – it was far ahead of its time in its subtle treatment of dystopia, and its depiction of a credible new social order. It was a bit predictable, though, but given that it was written in the 1930s, it definitely deserves leeway in being judged. SF always carries within itself the guarantee of being outdated. Real science and later SF will invariably render it archaic, and early SF must be given consideration in that regard.I was torn between 1984 and Brave New World’, they sort of complement each other – they both have failings that the other covers up. I quite agree when Huxley told Orwell that his book was better than 1984:Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not to tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is [Orwell's:]. May I speak in stead of the thing with which the book deals -- the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution -- the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at the total subversion of the individual's psychology and physiology -- are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eight-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.Indeed, in these respects it is. But I wish they had written a book together.

  • Foad
    2019-12-27 04:12

    آیا دنیای ما بیشتر شبیه 1984 جورج اورول است، یا دنیای قشنگ نوی آلدوس هاکسلی؟اورول از آدم هایی می ترسید که کتاب ها را ممنوع می کنند.اما هاکسلی از این می ترسید که دلیلی برای ممنوع کردن کتاب وجود نداشته باشد، چون اصلاً کسی خودش نخواهد که بخواند.اورول از کسانی می ترسید که ما را از دسترسی به اطلاعات محروم کنند.اما هاکسلی از این می ترسید که کسانی آن قدر ما را غرق در اطلاعات کنند که ذهن ما مصرف کنندۀ غیرفعّال اطلاعات شود، یا تبدیل به آدم های سطحی خودشیفته شویم.اورول از این می ترسید که حقیقت از ما پنهان شود.هاکسلی هراس داشت که حقیقت در انبوهی از اخبار غیرمرتبط دیگر پنهان شود.اورول می ترسید که ملت ها اسیر و دربند شوند. اما هاکسلی از مبتذل شدن و کم مایه شدن فرهنگ ها می ترسید، از این که عواطف انسانی خود را از دست بدهیم و کم ارزش ترین محتواهای فرهنگی را مصرف کنیم.در 1984 مردم با زور کنترل می شدند.در دنیای قشنگ نو مردم با ترفندِ دادنِ لذت های خوشایند سطحی کنترل می شدند.اورول هراس داشت که چیزهایی که از آن ها متنفر هستیم نابودمان کنند.هاکسلی می ترسید که چیزهایی که دوستشان داریم باعث تباهی ما شوند.عکس بد باز می شد، ناچار لینکش رو گذاشتم!طبیعتاً عکس از من نیست. فکر کنم از کانال صدانت، یا کانال مشابه دیگه گرفتمش. یادم نیست حقیقتش!

  • MJ Nicholls
    2020-01-12 10:53

    Huxley’s satirical utopia is manifest, situated in university halls of residence, where promiscuity is rampant (who can forget the days of swapping partners between lectures, waking up to nubile posh cherubs lapping at your working-class cheeks, ruddy with decades of industrial grime and boyhood labour), and where the morning-after swig of two Nurofen (soma) eliminated any wrongdoing and regret, buoying one up for the further adventures in sex and failing grades to come in the whirligig of life? And those savages, known as parents, preaching on the values of 1930s sexual repression because they can’t bear to contemplate their little darlings receiving sustained penetration from varying partners in varying orifices on varying evenings, quoting Shakespeare to try and seem cultured and mask the reality that education, learning, and knowledge are now things closed to them as the years persist, and the only thing they have to cling to are their own memories of rampant romping in the halls of Eros in the bygone days. In this Brave New World you might earn a 2:2 in Media Studies.

  • Samadrita
    2020-01-10 03:59

    To cut a long story short, the inescapable destiny of every society is to morph into a dystopia. Alternatively, a biting satire on capitalism and consumerism.

  • Leo .
    2020-01-26 05:15

    😈Who are the Puppet Masters? What are they up to?Is this paradigm changing? For me and for you😇Are we dancing to a different song?On this Earth, do we really belong?Will we inherit, this beautiful garden of Life, and Love and Compassion?Are these Puppet Masters, going out of fashion?Is the game up? The lifting of this VeilAre we awakening, from an old, fading, weakening Spell? 🐯👍Who are the politicians? What do they do?Are they like many tics, crawling over me and you?Do they help society? Help the likes of you and me?Are they bringing in secret courts? To split up the happy family?Do they build infrastructure? Organise education for the young?Or are they many tics? Since civilization begun?Do they manage the health system? Build homes for the needy?Are they bowing to the lobbyists? The puppet masters? The Greedy?Are they there for the people, the common, the sheep?Or are they many tics, crawling over the dumbed down and asleep?Is the House Of Commons only for show?Where many tics babble on, and to and froThe power is in the inner circle, higher on the pyramid structure, aboveWith no compassion, empathy, care, understanding or loveAre the higher echelons esoteric? ? Occultic? The inner court? Hidden?Dark corridors of power, to the common, forbiddenWhere Lords and Sirs and Dames and Earls and Ladies entertain RoyaltyAnything goes, unimaginable, these sycophants show nothing but, loyaltySome are born into it, nepotism is rife, so wrongLike families Clinton, and Bush, two sides of the same coin, all alongWho is a Policeman? Or Policewoman? What is she or he?A single parasite, a lice, to likes of you and meNot there to aid you, on the contraryThe copper, is to enforce the law, put up an invisable wall, hemming in societyGive you a ticket, harassment, inconvenience, for your security, your safetyYet a terrorist can easily blow up a building, walk straight in, unnoticed, freeWho is a soldier? What do they do?Don a uniform, become part of a collective, for me and youObey orders, even though their conscience is crying outDo they cringe when the drill sergeant, in their face does shout?Not allowed to answer back, the mind control works, it conspiresTurning young men and women into complete and utter Soul Dier'sThat is what a soldier is, a body without a soul, answering to a lordIn the eyes of the Elites, a pawn upon a chequered boardThat is their job, to die, not return wounded or, maimed To come back to society, a burden, tamedA Royal soldier, really? No help when they return homeSpurned by Royalty, no help, issued with a medal though, then left all aloneSo many soldiers living on the streetNo income, no home, no food, trying to make ends meetRelying on charities, just to get by, diminishing fastWhilst Lords and Ladies sip champagne, just like in the pastBodies piling up in battles, fertilizer for the landA massive population cull, orchestrated by the hidden handOr a mass sacrifice, spilling bucket loads of bloodJust like in the days of Noah, before the Biblical FloodDo politicians help the masses? The people? The mob? The ShunnedOr are they merely prefects? Familiars? Collaborators? Looking out for number oneSelf preservation, like Wormtongue, in the Lord Of The Rings, dancing to Saramon's songAn Arse licker, a pet, a hanger on, hoping to belongSo who are the politicians? What do they actually do?Nothing, they only build imaginary walls, to trap me and youThey are tics, parasites, like flies on a turd, eating shitThen regurgitating, spewing all the rhetoric and propaganda over me and you. And that is basically, IT!! 🐯👍

  • Joey Woolfardis
    2020-01-25 11:58

    O, wonder!How many goodly creatures are there here!How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,That has such people in't!Miranda, The Temptest, William ShakespeareRead as part of The Infinite Variety Reading Challenge, based on the BBC's Big Read Poll of 2003.My reading of this book has been an adventure in itself, not just in a metaphorical sense but in an incredibly boring physical adventure. I began it in September, but then I was marvellously interrupted by the 2016 Rio Olympics and that put any kind of continuation at bay for at least the rest of the year. I was 3/4 of the way through, but once I found myself in a mental state capable of getting back to this book, I read it straight through (with only two Six Nations Rugby Union matches to stop me, this time).I'd not suggest I didn't enjoy the book enough to keep me going, but apparently Sport trumps Utopian-facade Dystopian sci-fi at the moment."A love of nature keeps no factories busy."The setting up of the book is quite a wonderful experience. There are glimmers of our own world here, things that aren't quite so obvious at first but definitely exist. The continuing plundering of hate and fear-mongering by the media is in evident now as it is in Brave New World, though who is doing the peddling is a little different. The time and place are almost irrelevant-whether it is 10 years in the future of 1000-because we can still envision these things are happening now.It is an English-heavy perspective of the future, which is fair enough considering the author, though perhaps off-key a little. The characters are all fairly vague, which only solidifies how non-unique they are, how they are so very much treated like numbers and statistics rather than individuals. Take any poll now, any survey, any service and you'll know how we are all becoming just statistics.But the characters aren't necessarily meant to be anything heavy, and that's the point. Even Bernard is pretty much like anyone else in the end, despite him always feeling (and looking) different. In the end, we all just want to belong, at least somewhere."You can't consume much if you sit still and read books."The underlying message of this book-and of quite a few other futuristic, dystopian kind of books, is that Reading Books Is Good For You. Most of the good books are there to help you think and form your own opinions. The books that throw one kind of opinion in your face and force you to believe it are mostly known as newspapers or comment sections. Thankfully we haven't quite gotten to the point where books are being banned, but we're certainly at a point where opinions are being repressed and, if you have an opinion yourself that isn't quite what everyone else likes, then you're wrong and probably racist."You can't consume much if you sit still and read books" is probably the best quote, not just of this book, but of the whole genre. Consumerism is a rather broad term: under capitalism it is despicable, but under socialism it could be wonderful. We all need to consume to live, but we don't need to consume as much as they do in Brave New World. Not mending, not bothering to even try to think about fixing things, not thinking. Being told what to do, being told how to do everything, being told how to live your life. And for what? Being "happy", without wars and famine and disease? Without ageing, wrinkles-without boundaries. It's almost as if there are no rules."Words can be like X-rays, if you use them properly-they'll go through anything. You read and you're pierced."As for why it isn't quite on par with something like 1984, I suppose it doesn't quite hit as hard as 1984 did. The writing isn't bad, but neither is it wonderful or particularly evocative. There is a kind of poetry missing to the writing, it is missing a sense of doom co-mingled with a certain kind of brightness.It was good, but it didn't quite show me the way after it made me think. Thinking is good and it should be actively encouraged, but there are times when thinking is not always enough and, once opinions are formed, some kind of semblance of what should come next is needed."Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery... And being contended has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune..."I suppose part of my problem with these kinds of books is that without the bad there'd be no good. No thing can exist without an opposite: we need evil to understand good, and starvation to understand satiation, and horrible to understand nice. But Brave New World understands that concept through the use of Soma. No use for opposites in a Utopian society where every one is happy: in fact, no need for the word happy. There is only Being.Blog | Reviews | Instagram | Twitter

  • Fernando
    2020-01-05 07:00

    “Un mundo feliz” es una de las tres distopías más conocidas que uno pueda leer junto con 1984 y Fahrenheit 451, y para mí, más allá del mundo futurista que Aldous Huxley creó, y anticipó en ¡1931!, es de todas la que menos me atrajo.Tal vez será porque la sociedad que muestra Huxley en este libro no es tan opresiva y violenta como la de 1984 ni tan persecutoria como la de Fahrenheit. De todo modos, es increíble descubrir como el autor adelanta con tanta precisión los avances tecnológicos de nuestros tiempos. Por citar un caso: los bebés son concebidos “in vitro”, agregando el detalle fantástico de que se producen a escala industrial, pero con esto Huxley anticipó brillantemente un progreso científico de nuestros días: la clonación. Ya no existe más la condición biológica natural en las figuras de "madre" y "padre".Luego de una guerra cataclísmica el viejo mundo desaparece para darle vida a este otro mundo “feliz”, borrando las creencias religiosas y a Dios como principio de toda fe. Ahora es Ford quien se erige como ser supremo, aunque nunca sabemos quién es Ford fehacientemente, uno lo imagina como un Gran Hermano más suave, elevado un nivel de gurú espiritual y fundador de una nueva religión, pero no queda claro si es eso o unas especie de gobernante supremo de un mundo en paz, puesto que ya no hay más guerras.Lo que sí sabemos es que sustituye a Dios ante exclamaciones como ¡Por Ford!, por ejemplo.Esta distopía no es tan negativa como en los otros libros, aunque lo negativo surge al ver cómo está ordenadas las distintas castas sociales, que va de gestar científicamente y clasificar a los seres humanos de de los de clase alta, los Alfa (y as su vez en sub-categorías Más y Menos), hasta los Epsilon, abandonados a creados a tareas propias de la servidumbre y cierta especie de esclavitud (de hecho son seres a los que les falta incluso parte de la cara o miembros).La vida fácil que llevan, se ve en Lenina, está hecha para no tener sobresaltos ni emociones violenta, salvo cuando se las auto imponen a través de drogas sintéticas, ni que hablar del “soma”, esa especie de “painkiller” que necesitan consumir constantemente para evitar sentimientos depresivos o melancólicos. Esta droga se basa en un planta, también denominada soma, que utilizaban los bráhmanes de la época védica en la India (dato tomado de Wikipedia). En la novela se dice que "un gramo de soma cura diez sentimientos melancólicos y que tiene todas las ventajas del cristianismo y del alcohol, sin ninguno de sus efectos secundarios". Hasta ese punto han rebajado sus necesidades de satisfacción.Y claro, como en toda distopía, hay personajes que no concuerdan o se salen del patrón establecido y este es el caso de Bernard Marx (con ese apellido era lógico que iba a trascender en la historia), todo por culpa de algo de alcohol derramado en el sucedáneo en vez de sangre. Él es una anomalía, un ser "mestizo" dentro de tanta perfección sintética y ello le acarreará problemas.Como sucede con Winston Smith en 1984 y Guy Montag en Fahrenheit, su interacción con el poder y el orden establecido será contradictoria, complicada y desafiante.Otro personaje totalmente opuesto a todo lo que leemos en la primera mitad es el que surge de la visita de Lenina y Bernard a Malpaís, que es un sector olvidado, una reserva india de la época previa a la revolución y en el que viven personas como en la antigüedad, olvidadas a la buena de Dios. Allí conocerán a John, el "salvaje", a su madre "Linda" y este descubrimiento los llevará a más de una peripecia en la historia que no pienso ni debo develar.En resumidas cuentas, como toda novela distópica, nos encontramos con sociedades no deseadas, gobiernos totalmente opuestos a lo que conocemos y sociedades inmersas en una serie de condiciones adversas, ya que en este caso, por más confort y comodidades que posean, por más perfectos que hayan sido "producidos", la mayoría de los personajes, con excepción de Bernard, John y Linda, desde su concepción fallan en la parte más importante que tenemos todos: la de ser humanos.

  • Manny
    2020-01-24 10:18

    There's some provocative discussion of this book in Houellebecq's Les Particules Elémentaires, which I just finished. One of the characters argues that Huxley originally intended his world as a utopia rather than a dystopia, and then changed his mind and tried to convince everyone it was meant ironically. The proof? Apart from the caste system, which has been rendered unnecessary by computers, this is the world we're busily trying to create for ourselves, and which almost everyone would actually like to live in. Huxley's just telling it like it is. I don't believe Houellebecq's argument, but at least it's different!