What's the deal with this book? Why do plebs fawn over it like a bolshevik psued in a women's studies class?

What's the deal with this book? Why do plebs fawn over it like a bolshevik psued in a women's studies class?

We don't.

You said it yourself, they are plebs.
Also, just because something is pleb doesn't mean it's bad.
It's just obvious, generic, and safe.

A lot of classics are pleb tier. Gotta start somewhere.

>a bolshevik
>caring about identity politics

hmmmm

But why's though? There's nothing truly profound about this book. It's lame. Forced, even.

It's not like saying you read Kafka or Joyce; why do people gobble it up and project, this book in particular, their superiority based on books that a toddler could understand?

The 20th century novella and novel of ideas are ideal for teaching English – relatively insightful works written comprehensibly and in the vernacular. Plebs take to Huxley, Orwell, and Fitzgerald not because these authors are bad, but because they read these authors in high school, and they haven't read meaningfully since then.

The only reason that these writers seem shallow to you is because they made concessions for a general audience. There's a certain amount of hand-holding involved in delivering the central themes in these genres, and the authors' observations are presented in as intuitive as possible a fashion, so it's easy to feel like not much is being said. Try to avoid this trap. Huxley in particular is an excellent political and philosophical thinker, and his analysis in BNW is very thorough.

tl;dr It's easy to understand and they learned it in school. That doesn't mean it's bad, though.

>why do people project their superiority based on books
How does it feel to be this insecure?

/thread

Well said, user. Thanks for not making feel like a pseud for still having Gatsby in my top ten.

Except there's so many people who didn't get BNW, even on this board (but then there's a lot of stupid hedonists on this board these days so that's not surprising).
Orwell has to use caricatures and unscientific hypnotism and an essay out of nowhere just to get to an exaggerated "muh power" message. Huxley is so much more subtle, he doesn't have bad guys, all characters have relatable points, and the message about how Society is heading down a bad path with Fordian efficiency never really sunk in with most people.
BNW is misunderstood, not dumb.

Its the Matrix of Literature. One of the most important "modern" (in the sense of, contemporary, futuristic, new) works of writing.

Who said BNW is dumb? My argument was centered on the premise that all these authors were excellent. Orwell may see fewer shades of grey, but he's still awfully prescient, and Fitzgerald might have the least interesting analysis of the three, but his prose is peerless. They're all great in their own ways.

>SORT YOURSELF OUT
>SOLZHENITSYN

This book is the first on this here nigga's reading list. For good reason.

There's a culture of popular = bad here. You're not special and obscurity does not equal quality. Stop being a fucking retarded child.

>book predicts the future
>nothing profound
buddy you're practically playing bumblepuppy RIGHT NOW

>There's a culture of popular = bad here
absolutely, anyone who's ever been to /mu/ will tell you the same

it's the nature of a counterculture website. it attracts people who violently dissociate from what is traditional and normal because those social circles tend to reject them. the need for validation takes over and people exercise their individuality through their taste in media, eschewing "common" entertainments as beneath them (even if said common media is common BECAUSE it is good) in an effort to find a social circle that is not only accepting, but uplifting or "better" than the one that rejected them initially.

>At the beach
>Still looks like he's going to hang himself any minute

Classic Jordan

>There's a culture of popular = bad here

And it's here to stay, you fucking pleb.

We're aesthetes here. The democratisation of education/culture/etc was a mistake.

Not as fawned over as 1984. And as far as fictional dystopias go, Brave New World is the most plausible of the two.

>Shakespeare was incredibly popular and successful in his day, and continues to be now.
>Popular = bad.
>Therefore Shakespeare = bad.
Lrn 2 aesthetics m8. The only qualities which make a work good are bad are qualities intrinsic to the work.

GBS > Shakespeare

>Missing the point this hard.
They're both giants who produced incredible works. I used Shake Shack as an example because he's probably the most popular (and, by 's definition, the worst) playwright.
Patrician pick, though.

...

>tfw you will never be as patrician as Mustapha Mond