BNW

ROOF!

Am I trying too hard?

This, basically

As a novel it just isn't very good. I guess it makes sense, since when you here somebody talking about it is is always just about the ideas inside it.

I like the writing, what's wrong with it? The names aren't particularly subtle, they're a bit obnoxious I guess.

Tbh the book made living inside the panopticon more appealing than grotesque, especially if you consider there was an out for special snowflakes who didn't like soma.

The "genuine" lifestyle is explicitly not appealing unless you are perfect in everyway like Helmholtz or in charge like The D.H.C. Anyone else will end up like Bernard.

Also his understanding of politics was normie tier anyway

>Tbh the book made living inside the panopticon more appealing than grotesque
that was the idea. BNW is not a condemnation of the ideas of the future Huxley posits; it merely addresses the question of how these ideas would be perceived by people of different backgrounds

It doesn't seem that way based on what he says in interviews and what fans of the book say.

Only man children read dystopias.

Yes, we know you don't read, no need to remind everyone.

It's the go-to Reddit novel now that they've realised there's a book that's slightly less well-known than Nineteen Eighty-Four.

He's right though

I personally found it kind of hard to follow. The perspectives seem to switch from sentence to sentence, and Huxley describes things in a very brief way where you don't get the full gist. Many times I just could not picture the scene in my mind

This, 1984 was interesting all the way through, I was slogging all the way through, I finished it for 2 reasons
1) Its reputation
2) The monologue at the ending was interesting.

But it feels like one of those movies where the trailer hype its ideas but once you actually watch it nothing makes sense until the last 20 minutes which fail to redeem it.

I wish it had a more competent writer behind.

Could be updated for modern tech and society.

Someone get to it.

Instead of cutting off oxygen to babies to make them dumber as adults, its junk mefia and junkfood that makes them dumber.

are you referring to We by Zamyatin?

I'd say it had more similarities with 1984

Not hard enough, that copy of Les Miserables is too thin to be unabridged.

If you want prose and similar ideas, read We by Zamyatin

absolutely

the philosophical problem was worth it, but the writting was kinda shit

WE

Farenheit 451 > 1984 > BNW

Discuss

Kek my list would be in the opposite order

I don't understand how people STILL miss the point of 1984.

It's not >le dystopia maymay xD!

It's essentially a post-modern masterpiece where the individual in society cannot be certain of anything in reality, for powerful people with less than noble intentions will always try to deceive you for their own gain and control. But the truly sinister aspect of the novel is all the different ways this is done: by destroying culture, rewriting history, language policing (as Orwell knew too well that control of language is control of thought), and physical/psychological torture. The amount of power we actually have in this world is miniscule, and Orwell knew this was more a fact of nature than a mistake. This is why he offers no real solution to the problem in his book.

It is not a prophecy. It is a commentary on human society, and truth, which he posits is really a function of the wills of those with power.

But the kids of Veeky Forums who think they're hot shit for having read Macbeth will think it's just about >le epic Thought Police!! oh no!!

It's a powerful novel because it's a simple allegory for why people choose enjoyment over truth. That it was written in 19XX should also indicate this idea didn't start with Facebook and Snapchat (I always have to remind myself of that).

MЫ :^)

Yea, my copy takes up a quarter of the fucking shelf

I enjoyed this in the audio book

>Tfw no epsilon semi moron gf to cuddle with

Yes, YES: A master piss of shit.

I've never understood this point of view. Orwell is obviously a better writer than Huxley, but I've always found that he had a great humour in the construction of his scenes, and also great descriptive and rhythmic abilities.
He certainly did intend to present the new world as inherently good or bad, but instead to show the faults of both, and therefore the faults of both impulses in human nature - the yin of the old world to the yang of the new. However, he didn't really see either as good, prompting him to write "Island" as a third path for humanity.
Agreed.
I would never shame anyone for reading anything, especially a genre that allows for so much debate and relfection. However, I agree that there are some people who never get beyond dystopias and think of them as the pinnacle of all literature, and they need to move on from that.

And what do real men read? Dense unintelligible shit that they don't understand but they think it makes them look smart?

The communist manifesto is a very easy reading, I read it in one night.

I found the sex scenes bretty hot, so that was nice.

And I found it strange that people hold it alongside 1984 as the worst dystopia ever put in writing. People are happy in the book, most of them anyway.

And the ones that aren't, like Bernard, have an out, they can go to the islands and flee all the normies that make up the bulk of their civilization. It really feels like a stretch to me to call that society a dystopia.

You're supposed to read them in highschool so I guess I'd agree.

If you ONLY read distopias you have a point.

Hmm the communist manifesto is overrated unlike the rest

MURRRR MURRRR MUH FORD MUH GENETICS MUH SOCIAL STRUCTURE MUH SAVAGE

wtf i hate brave new world now

Technology is incredible!