Discuss

I was talking with a friend earlier and realized that Brave New World came out significantly before 1984. I had, for some reason, always assumed that it had come out in the 50's at the early end of the psychedelics boom.

>Muh feelies.

>you are brand fucking new stop posting
it's a Brand New World out there

>much better than 1984
Why?

tastless shit, empty characters, some shit tier ideas about a dystopian future awkwardly thrown around and somehow the smugness of the author is unbelievable

>Tfw you'll never be an alpha and have soma filled parties after a day of commanding gamma goblins to do your bidings and you'll never fly around in retroesque spaceships to concert orgies

very well thought out and compelling critic user, why don't you kill yourself now because youve clearly not read a single page of the book

>Brave
>New
>World

Huxley is a hack lmao

I hated it when I was a freshmen.
I hated it when I reread it last year.

subjectively the worst of the famous dystopians

I hated how religion is seen as something true somehow at the end by the Ford.
I loved how the only reason the two guys that didn't like society were outcasts because they didn't look like the others because of some kind of fuck up. If they looked the same there would be no story. It makes me think about the importance of looks.

I recently obtained this book. Why should I read it?

1984 was about means a totalitarian government would use at the time. Brave New World was about means a totalitarian government would use in the future (that is now). Why use force to control people when pleasure is much more potent?

Because while the commentary it offers on society has always been relevant, it is even more relevant now if you accept some /pol/-tier opinions about government intrusion in the family.

That's hardly /pol/-tier.

It's the most right out of any other dystopian book made.

>Brave New World is a utopian novel

panem et circensis

It's basically Plato's republic set in the future to a large extent

>man of gold man of silver man of bronze
>everybody gets to fuck everybody
>psyke-polis synthesis resorting into each part minding its own business which, in turn, is what Plato calls justice and causes an equilibrium within the state
>Truly a depiction of Glaucon's critique on Plato's Republic, namely that it is a city of pigs and deprived of what makes us human (art).

Boring story, interesting topics.

Shit you beat me to it

>Be me
>Born Alpha
>Top job at the firm
>Every evening chilling at the feelies
>Beta bitches on my dick non-stop
>Mellow out on some soma before sleep

Sounds like a utopia if you rolled high in the caste system.

Remember, even Gammas are totally content with their career and lives.

About to read Point Counterpoint.
What am I in for?

Didn't want to start a new thread.

It and 1984 are both rather fantastical. The closest thing to 1984 made manifest is North Korea. The World State of BNW is a hypothetical end to human progress if that end is the maximization of human happiness, the facilitation of man's cravings (youth, freedom from pain, worry and boredom, meaning, gratification). O'Brien admits that the Inner Party's aims are self-serving and megalomaniac, while Mond sacrifices his own love for truth to the sake of humanity. BNW is certainly dystopian but it's hard to call the World State a nightmare, though it is obviously undesirable to a normal individual like The Savage who didn't fit into it or anywhere else.

So both bear some truth but the reality is more complex than either book's scenario.

>subjectively

You're my hero.

>you are brand fucking new stop posting
Did you not realize that post was clearly satirical?

Better written, not nearly as petty or naive.

A great portrait of the era's upper middle/high class Brits and lots of conflicting views.

>not knowing how the class system works
Wew lad

Been in my backpack for awhile. It took a backseat while I finished ASoIaF. Started and Crime and Punishment because I forgot I had it. Thanks for reminding me.

psychedelics boom was 60s

What are you trying to say?

This. If you actually wanted to live out of society, youre literally retarded. It worked perfectly and people had.no reason to complain.

I will never understand why people consider Brave New World better than 1984. Huxley's worst fear was planned economy taking over the world and that simply never happened, 1984 on the other hand was a parody of the USSR under Stalin, and so clever in that that people regularly reference it to criticize the behaviour of various governments. The only people I saw actually referencing Brave New World and not just saying something along the lines of "really makes you think" were conspiratards.

a book that's way deeper than you people think. Sadly my English abilities are too poor to describe it how I'd like to.

The fact that we see the world of BNW as dystopia shows how we deeply need a reason to be alive, and in our lives that reason is to try to get better social positions, better jobs and so on. Basically our sole purpose in life is to defat what we hate. Once it's all gone, once we should be "happy" there's no point really in being alive.

I think Brave New World is very relevant. Eugenics was popularized globally around the time of World War II all the way into the 60s. Once the public realized Asylums in America were sterilizing people, Asylums were largely shut down which put mentally ill people on the streets and caused a boom in crime. There are still some people advocating that population eugenics is the next progression for modern countries to reduce crime and promote a healthy and smarter human.

That's not deep, that's entry level philosophy.

by deep I mean that it's not what he meant the book to be, I mean that thinking about that is a side effect of the book, probably not intended; nonetheless I found that between-the-lines topic mroe important than eugenics

besides the pointless racism in one of the opening chapters, i quite liked the book. it was an interesting subversion of the dystopian genre.

You're an absolute idiot. You and every dipshit that thinks BNW is actually a utopia should just lobotomize yourself now.

If anything at all is sacred in this life, it's freedom of information you belligerent fucking retard.

are you retarded?

It's easier with one world government in BNW than with 1984's three mega-nations in perpetual war.

If I found the first chapter boring, will I enjoy the rest of it?

this
how is bnw not utopian?
even if people are happy under what could be considered false pretenses, I fail to see how that wouldn't be a good thing

Would you want to live in that society if you would totally happy with it?

For all we know, it was one only world government and the war was a farce to control the people.

They're only happy until they don't have their shit. Most of them can't even make it through the day without the use of soma. What if there is a shortage of soma?
Also I don't think the lower castes are completely happy with their roles in the society

>Also I don't think the lower castes are completely happy with their roles in the society
have you even read the book

Yes. Even one of the main characters is not happy with his and he's an Alpha plus.

Were the savages also controlled by their happiness, to a lesser degree? They had a version of soma - even if it wasn't as perfect. They also had ceremonies that captivated their senses, even if it wasn't as advanced as the BNW.
I think John was the only one with a right mind in this story

Wasn't the point of the savages to draw that exact comparison with the BNW society? The reader is introduced to these weird practices and rules of this society, it seems so absurd and foreign. Then Huxely introduces the savage as a means of pointing out to the reader that the BNW actually isn't as bizarre and counter intuitive as you might think, right? Though the controllers could have left these particular savage society alive, destroying all others, as a means of propaganda "even savage lead a similar although more basic lifestyle to us".

I believe I could sit on a bayonet.