Looking back on Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
A story about a man trying to find his place in the world while ‘dating’ a brainwashed girl. On a trip to an Indian reserve, they bring back to London a lost woman and her son.
Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, was… an original book, to say the least. What I understood from it (because I did not understand it at all) was that there is a strong fight in the individualism versus communism aspect. But who won between independence and dependence? I don’t know. I cannot understand. There was absolutely no structure in the story, it was almost impossible for me to make the difference between the beginning, middle and end. Somehow Bernard and Lenina (two characters in the book) end up in an Indian Reserve in Mexico. There they meet a not so “Indian” man, who said that his mother got lost while on a hike in the forest, and was found by the people living in the reserve. Both the young man and his mother are brought back to London (where the woman used to live) and the son tries to cope with the communist life of London, just like Bernard. Do they succeed? The story does not tell.
There were no main characters really, the story had too many different points of views. Who was the main character? Bernard; the man with original thoughts, John; the rebellious “Indian”, or Lenina; the girl that society has devoured (metaphorically speaking). All three of these characters are important to the story, but none of them seems to be the most important one. Why is that?
But the characters aren’t the only confusing part in this novel. Not only did it have no climax or plot, it had no consistency. In the first few chapters, there are many little flashbacks that I supposed they should explain certain things in the book, but it just makes the reading more confusing. For instance, to explain that experiments to teach children during their sleep were abandoned, a flashback of a small boy, Tommy, is inserted. In these five paragraphs, the readers learns that Tommy was exposed to a tape recording about the Nile River during his sleep. The next morning, he was able to recite word for word the tape recording, but if he was asked "what is the longest river in Africa," he would cry and say that he didn't know. The conclusion of this experiment was that "you can't learn a science unless you know what it's all about" (page 22). This flashback would have probably worked really well in the text if it was inserted properly, but it wasn't. It was just, you know, there. To go from the present to the past and back to the present again was puzzling. You don’t believe me? You think I am exaggerating? See for yourself:
“‘You’re hopeless Lenina, I give you up.’
‘The Russian technique for infecting water supplies was particularly ingenious.’
Back turned to back, Fanny and Lenina continued their changing in silence.
‘The Nine Years’ War, the great Economic Collapse. There was a choice between World Control and destruction. Between stability and…’
‘Fanny Crowne’s a nice girl too,’ said the Assistant Predestinator.
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…’” (Page 43)
You still don’t believe me? You want some more? Okay, here’s some more:
“‘All crosses had their tops cut and became T’s. There was also a thing called God.’
‘It’s real morocco-surrogate.’
‘We have the World State now. And Ford’s Day celebrations, and Community Sings, and Solidarity Services.’
‘Ford, how I hate them!’ Bernard Marx was thinking.
‘There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.’
‘Like meat, like so much meat.’
‘There was a thing called the soul and a thing called immortality.’
‘Do ask Henry where he got it.’
‘But they used to take morphia and cocaine’.
‘And what makes it worse, she thinks herself as meat.’” (Page 47)
To its credit, the book WAS written in 1932, so of course it is not crystal clear. In eighty-three years a lot can change, that includes language and vocabulary as well as the literary techniques. There were many words in the text that we no longer use today, and there has been certain literary features inside the book that I have never seen in my life. For example, the end of chapter three is just a series of sentences that do not match, the point of view goes from one character to the next at every two phrases. There are too many things going on at once and it is extremely perplexing.
The end of the novel was even more confusing than its beginning, if such a thing is possible. It seems as though the author was running late and tried to finish the book on time, or he simply ran out of ideas. In any case, the ending was very rushed and under detailed. There was simply too many loose ends. We do not know what happens to many characters like Lenina and Bernard, who simply disappeared. John, the “Indian”, is there until the very final page, but his personality changed so much in the last few chapters that I am not even sure if it IS him anymore. He seemed to have turned into a blood thirsty monster who wants the death of everyone.
Notice how every time I write the word “Indian” I use quotation marks? Well that is because I am quoting the racism of this book. Yes, there was a lot of racism in 1932, which means that there is a lot of racism in a book written in 1932. Not once were the aboriginal people called “natives” or “aboriginals”, they were called “savages”, “creatures”, or “Indians”. Even John was mostly referred to as “Savage” or, prepare to be charmed (note the sarcasm), “Mr. Savage”. Can you believe it?! I most certainly cannot. They were constantly being mistreated, almost like animals! Constantly dehumanized, as though they were dogs doing tricks. On page 95 the tour guide of the reserves tells Lenina: “they’re perfectly tamed; savages won’t do you any harm,” and he seems pretty serious too. As though people can be tamed… This really disgusts me and I am extremely infuriated at Huxley for writing such words in his book! Of course, my opinion is based on the way I was raised. At school, we are always told that words like “savages” or “Indians” are stereotypical and racists. We have learned about assimilation, and the boarding schools for the native children. I simply don’t know what to say… How can people go so low?
I hope this book sets an example for any young writers in this world. An example of what NOT to do when writing a book. DO NOT make a story without a structure or proper characters. DO NOT write a confusing beginning, plot, and ending. DO NOT be racist or propagandist in your novel, unless you are trying to prove a point, and only if that point is about how people can be dehumanized so easily or how racism can harm and shows prejudice.
About the author:
Born on July 26th, 1894 in England, Aldous Leonard Huxley became a young writer at the age of seventeen, when he wrote his first book. He is known for many novels such as Brave New World, Island, Pointer Counter Point, The Doors of Perception, and The Perennial Philosophy. He was an intelligent man, he was very interested in parapsychology (the study of inexplicable mental phenomena, such as telepathy), and philosophical mysticism (the belief in God and spiritual phenomena). He won multiple prestigious awards, and was also nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature several times. Huxley died at the age of 69 years old on November, 22nd, 1963.
My judgement on Brave New World is just one opinion out of thousands. While I may find this novel extremely confusing, I think that Huxley was a wonderful, bright man with a lot of ideas… and racism. But I can’t blame him, he was raised this way.
Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, was… an original book, to say the least. What I understood from it (because I did not understand it at all) was that there is a strong fight in the individualism versus communism aspect. But who won between independence and dependence? I don’t know. I cannot understand. There was absolutely no structure in the story, it was almost impossible for me to make the difference between the beginning, middle and end. Somehow Bernard and Lenina (two characters in the book) end up in an Indian Reserve in Mexico. There they meet a not so “Indian” man, who said that his mother got lost while on a hike in the forest, and was found by the people living in the reserve. Both the young man and his mother are brought back to London (where the woman used to live) and the son tries to cope with the communist life of London, just like Bernard. Do they succeed? The story does not tell.
There were no main characters really, the story had too many different points of views. Who was the main character? Bernard; the man with original thoughts, John; the rebellious “Indian”, or Lenina; the girl that society has devoured (metaphorically speaking). All three of these characters are important to the story, but none of them seems to be the most important one. Why is that?
But the characters aren’t the only confusing part in this novel. Not only did it have no climax or plot, it had no consistency. In the first few chapters, there are many little flashbacks that I supposed they should explain certain things in the book, but it just makes the reading more confusing. For instance, to explain that experiments to teach children during their sleep were abandoned, a flashback of a small boy, Tommy, is inserted. In these five paragraphs, the readers learns that Tommy was exposed to a tape recording about the Nile River during his sleep. The next morning, he was able to recite word for word the tape recording, but if he was asked "what is the longest river in Africa," he would cry and say that he didn't know. The conclusion of this experiment was that "you can't learn a science unless you know what it's all about" (page 22). This flashback would have probably worked really well in the text if it was inserted properly, but it wasn't. It was just, you know, there. To go from the present to the past and back to the present again was puzzling. You don’t believe me? You think I am exaggerating? See for yourself:
“‘You’re hopeless Lenina, I give you up.’
‘The Russian technique for infecting water supplies was particularly ingenious.’
Back turned to back, Fanny and Lenina continued their changing in silence.
‘The Nine Years’ War, the great Economic Collapse. There was a choice between World Control and destruction. Between stability and…’
‘Fanny Crowne’s a nice girl too,’ said the Assistant Predestinator.
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…’” (Page 43)
You still don’t believe me? You want some more? Okay, here’s some more:
“‘All crosses had their tops cut and became T’s. There was also a thing called God.’
‘It’s real morocco-surrogate.’
‘We have the World State now. And Ford’s Day celebrations, and Community Sings, and Solidarity Services.’
‘Ford, how I hate them!’ Bernard Marx was thinking.
‘There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.’
‘Like meat, like so much meat.’
‘There was a thing called the soul and a thing called immortality.’
‘Do ask Henry where he got it.’
‘But they used to take morphia and cocaine’.
‘And what makes it worse, she thinks herself as meat.’” (Page 47)
To its credit, the book WAS written in 1932, so of course it is not crystal clear. In eighty-three years a lot can change, that includes language and vocabulary as well as the literary techniques. There were many words in the text that we no longer use today, and there has been certain literary features inside the book that I have never seen in my life. For example, the end of chapter three is just a series of sentences that do not match, the point of view goes from one character to the next at every two phrases. There are too many things going on at once and it is extremely perplexing.
The end of the novel was even more confusing than its beginning, if such a thing is possible. It seems as though the author was running late and tried to finish the book on time, or he simply ran out of ideas. In any case, the ending was very rushed and under detailed. There was simply too many loose ends. We do not know what happens to many characters like Lenina and Bernard, who simply disappeared. John, the “Indian”, is there until the very final page, but his personality changed so much in the last few chapters that I am not even sure if it IS him anymore. He seemed to have turned into a blood thirsty monster who wants the death of everyone.
Notice how every time I write the word “Indian” I use quotation marks? Well that is because I am quoting the racism of this book. Yes, there was a lot of racism in 1932, which means that there is a lot of racism in a book written in 1932. Not once were the aboriginal people called “natives” or “aboriginals”, they were called “savages”, “creatures”, or “Indians”. Even John was mostly referred to as “Savage” or, prepare to be charmed (note the sarcasm), “Mr. Savage”. Can you believe it?! I most certainly cannot. They were constantly being mistreated, almost like animals! Constantly dehumanized, as though they were dogs doing tricks. On page 95 the tour guide of the reserves tells Lenina: “they’re perfectly tamed; savages won’t do you any harm,” and he seems pretty serious too. As though people can be tamed… This really disgusts me and I am extremely infuriated at Huxley for writing such words in his book! Of course, my opinion is based on the way I was raised. At school, we are always told that words like “savages” or “Indians” are stereotypical and racists. We have learned about assimilation, and the boarding schools for the native children. I simply don’t know what to say… How can people go so low?
I hope this book sets an example for any young writers in this world. An example of what NOT to do when writing a book. DO NOT make a story without a structure or proper characters. DO NOT write a confusing beginning, plot, and ending. DO NOT be racist or propagandist in your novel, unless you are trying to prove a point, and only if that point is about how people can be dehumanized so easily or how racism can harm and shows prejudice.
About the author:
Born on July 26th, 1894 in England, Aldous Leonard Huxley became a young writer at the age of seventeen, when he wrote his first book. He is known for many novels such as Brave New World, Island, Pointer Counter Point, The Doors of Perception, and The Perennial Philosophy. He was an intelligent man, he was very interested in parapsychology (the study of inexplicable mental phenomena, such as telepathy), and philosophical mysticism (the belief in God and spiritual phenomena). He won multiple prestigious awards, and was also nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature several times. Huxley died at the age of 69 years old on November, 22nd, 1963.
My judgement on Brave New World is just one opinion out of thousands. While I may find this novel extremely confusing, I think that Huxley was a wonderful, bright man with a lot of ideas… and racism. But I can’t blame him, he was raised this way.
Reading response on 1984 by George Orwell
The theme of George Orwell’s novel 1984 is not merely just totalitarianism, but rather how one reacts and survives under a totalitarian regime. The author’s message would be that no matter how one tries to fight back and rebel, the government is always too strong. It is not a happy message, but it is the truth. For totalitarian government, at least. Winston and Julia thought that they were safe, thought that they could fight it. What they did not know was that they were going to get caught, and that those who they thought were their friends were actually their enemies. For example, Mr. Charrington, the old shopkeeper they would always go to when they needed privacy, was a member of the Thought Police. And O’Brian, whom they thought was a member of the Brotherhood, who gave them the book, who they trusted, he was the one who “cured” them, who made them betray each other, who changed them entirely.
The theme was nicely presented throughout the book, but it only became completely clear at the very end. For instance, on page 289, we learn that Winston "could not fight against the Party any longer", which tells us that the government truly has won. But before the end, during Winston and Julia's little rebellion, we can notice that the lines “the Party is invincible” and “Big Brother cannot die” are repeated several times during the course of the novel. These lines support the theme because they clearly state that it is impossible to overthrow the government. O’Brian also tells Winston about how the Party’s only goals, which is to get all the power, and only that. He also tells him about how the Party can control everything like people’s memory and the past, that there is no such thing as the laws of nature, and that the Party can make anyone believe anything. This is done so that the reader understands the true sinister motivations of the Party, and how powerful it is. But the reader only truly realize the gravity of the situation at the very end of the book, when Winston is revealed to be transformed into a soulless creature. That is when the reader understand that the Party has won.
Ayn Rand’s novella, Anthem, presents a similar theme. In it, the protagonist, Equality, is hopeful that he will be able to change the way things are going in the communist society he lives in. Just like Winston, he is different, he is an individual, and he is out of the ordinary. He had thoughts of freedom, originality, and individualism. But still he failed to defeat the government. When he presented his invention to the Home of the Scholars, he was treated like a sorcerer, was called ‘The Damned’ and was banned out of the society. He was not able to change the government. But this time it was not because it was too powerful, but rather because it was too close minded. However, this close mindedness had some sort of power over the citizens, because that meant that the citizens were close minded too. Changing one person is already a lot of trouble, but imagine changing a whole society. That would be impossible, it is just too powerful. For example, when Equality presented the light bulb to the Home of the Scholars, he thought that he would get to finally be a student, that his sins will be forgiven, when actually one of the reactions he got was: “How dare you, gutter cleaner”. When Equality said in chapter one: “It (his curse) has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden,” it made me think of thoughtcrime from 1984. If a government is powerful enough to say that there is such a thing as thoughts that are crime, then how could this government ever be abolished?
The only difference is that even though Equality was not able to defeat the government, he was able to create his own little world, whereas Winston was totally, completely, destroyed by it. The theme was better presented in 1984 because Winston was changed and hypnotised by the government. This made us realize the superiority and power of the government and how it is impossible to overthrow it.
Orwell has used multiple codes and conventions in 1984 such as description, symbolism, repetition, flashbacks, conflict, and much, much more! But it is symbolism and repetition which do the best job in supporting and explaining the theme. I think that Orwell has decided to add description and flashbacks in his book because he wanted the reader to have a good image or description of the situation going on, and to understand Winston’s acts and thoughts through his flashbacks, memories and dreams. He also inserted repetition in the novel so that the theme of the story is always brought back up and so that the reader never forgets it, while he added symbolism because it hides deeper meaning in simple words or places.
An example of symbolism would be the room Winston has rented from Mr. Charrington. This room represents freedom and privacy because there are no telescreens in the room to spy on them and Mr. Charrington was a man whom they could trust. It was a small room infested with rats, but there the lovers could do absolutely everything and anything they wanted because they knew they couldn’t get caught. They are caught eventually, since Mr. Charrington is part of the Thought Police, but still they get to enjoy privacy for a little while.
The line “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4” (page 261) is also very symbolic. For almost every citizen in Oceania, if the Party says that 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 5. No one will question it, everyone will believe it. O'Brian had held up four fingers to Winston and asked him how many. He answered four. But when O’Brian had asked Winston that if 2 + 2 = 5, how many fingers was he showing, Winston answered four again and he got shocked. Every time he was asked the question, he would answer four, and he would get a jolt of electricity. Then he screamed five, but O'Brian knew that he didn't believe his own words, so Winston was shocked again. This continued until Winston no longer saw four fingers, but rather a bunch of them criss crossing, and it was impossible for him to count. So he shouted: "I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six-in all honesty, I don't know." (Page 264) That was when the shocks ceased. By making Winston go through all this pain, O’Brian had taken away his freedom of saying that the sum of two and two is four, not five. This short phrase is a symbol of freedom and free speech, because by saying that the sum of two and two is four, one is capable of thinking openly and freely. But the party has taken away this freedom.
Symbolism supports the theme of the story because it shows the consequences of living in a totalitarian era, but especially that the freedom one can have in a totalitarian society does not last for long. Winston and Julia had the room for merely weeks before Mr. Charrington turned them in. Winston did not have a lot of freedom in his thoughts either because O’Brian had succeeded in controlling Winston’s mind and forced him to believe the lies. In the end, the government always wins. The theme was clearly presented through symbolism because it was easy to understand that freedom doesn’t last for long in a totalitarian society.
Repetition is also used a lot in 1984. The lines stating that the Party holds all the power, that the citizens are nothing, that the Party are indestructible, and so on are often brought back up. This is done to ensure that the reader does not forget the theme of the novel. For example, a passage from the book states that:
The theme was nicely presented throughout the book, but it only became completely clear at the very end. For instance, on page 289, we learn that Winston "could not fight against the Party any longer", which tells us that the government truly has won. But before the end, during Winston and Julia's little rebellion, we can notice that the lines “the Party is invincible” and “Big Brother cannot die” are repeated several times during the course of the novel. These lines support the theme because they clearly state that it is impossible to overthrow the government. O’Brian also tells Winston about how the Party’s only goals, which is to get all the power, and only that. He also tells him about how the Party can control everything like people’s memory and the past, that there is no such thing as the laws of nature, and that the Party can make anyone believe anything. This is done so that the reader understands the true sinister motivations of the Party, and how powerful it is. But the reader only truly realize the gravity of the situation at the very end of the book, when Winston is revealed to be transformed into a soulless creature. That is when the reader understand that the Party has won.
Ayn Rand’s novella, Anthem, presents a similar theme. In it, the protagonist, Equality, is hopeful that he will be able to change the way things are going in the communist society he lives in. Just like Winston, he is different, he is an individual, and he is out of the ordinary. He had thoughts of freedom, originality, and individualism. But still he failed to defeat the government. When he presented his invention to the Home of the Scholars, he was treated like a sorcerer, was called ‘The Damned’ and was banned out of the society. He was not able to change the government. But this time it was not because it was too powerful, but rather because it was too close minded. However, this close mindedness had some sort of power over the citizens, because that meant that the citizens were close minded too. Changing one person is already a lot of trouble, but imagine changing a whole society. That would be impossible, it is just too powerful. For example, when Equality presented the light bulb to the Home of the Scholars, he thought that he would get to finally be a student, that his sins will be forgiven, when actually one of the reactions he got was: “How dare you, gutter cleaner”. When Equality said in chapter one: “It (his curse) has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden,” it made me think of thoughtcrime from 1984. If a government is powerful enough to say that there is such a thing as thoughts that are crime, then how could this government ever be abolished?
The only difference is that even though Equality was not able to defeat the government, he was able to create his own little world, whereas Winston was totally, completely, destroyed by it. The theme was better presented in 1984 because Winston was changed and hypnotised by the government. This made us realize the superiority and power of the government and how it is impossible to overthrow it.
Orwell has used multiple codes and conventions in 1984 such as description, symbolism, repetition, flashbacks, conflict, and much, much more! But it is symbolism and repetition which do the best job in supporting and explaining the theme. I think that Orwell has decided to add description and flashbacks in his book because he wanted the reader to have a good image or description of the situation going on, and to understand Winston’s acts and thoughts through his flashbacks, memories and dreams. He also inserted repetition in the novel so that the theme of the story is always brought back up and so that the reader never forgets it, while he added symbolism because it hides deeper meaning in simple words or places.
An example of symbolism would be the room Winston has rented from Mr. Charrington. This room represents freedom and privacy because there are no telescreens in the room to spy on them and Mr. Charrington was a man whom they could trust. It was a small room infested with rats, but there the lovers could do absolutely everything and anything they wanted because they knew they couldn’t get caught. They are caught eventually, since Mr. Charrington is part of the Thought Police, but still they get to enjoy privacy for a little while.
The line “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4” (page 261) is also very symbolic. For almost every citizen in Oceania, if the Party says that 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 5. No one will question it, everyone will believe it. O'Brian had held up four fingers to Winston and asked him how many. He answered four. But when O’Brian had asked Winston that if 2 + 2 = 5, how many fingers was he showing, Winston answered four again and he got shocked. Every time he was asked the question, he would answer four, and he would get a jolt of electricity. Then he screamed five, but O'Brian knew that he didn't believe his own words, so Winston was shocked again. This continued until Winston no longer saw four fingers, but rather a bunch of them criss crossing, and it was impossible for him to count. So he shouted: "I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six-in all honesty, I don't know." (Page 264) That was when the shocks ceased. By making Winston go through all this pain, O’Brian had taken away his freedom of saying that the sum of two and two is four, not five. This short phrase is a symbol of freedom and free speech, because by saying that the sum of two and two is four, one is capable of thinking openly and freely. But the party has taken away this freedom.
Symbolism supports the theme of the story because it shows the consequences of living in a totalitarian era, but especially that the freedom one can have in a totalitarian society does not last for long. Winston and Julia had the room for merely weeks before Mr. Charrington turned them in. Winston did not have a lot of freedom in his thoughts either because O’Brian had succeeded in controlling Winston’s mind and forced him to believe the lies. In the end, the government always wins. The theme was clearly presented through symbolism because it was easy to understand that freedom doesn’t last for long in a totalitarian society.
Repetition is also used a lot in 1984. The lines stating that the Party holds all the power, that the citizens are nothing, that the Party are indestructible, and so on are often brought back up. This is done to ensure that the reader does not forget the theme of the novel. For example, a passage from the book states that:
A party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in his bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristics movements of his body, all are jealously securitised. (Page 219)
All of this has already been said earlier in the book. Winston had reflected that one’s worst enemy and betrayer is his nervous system, because any small mistake you sell him. “Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your own nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptoms.” (page 67) He had already known that he was never truly alone, that he was always being watched. There is a lot of repetition about these things in order that the reader is always reminded of the theme. Repetition in this story has been used to highlight the theme, the reader must understand the gravity of the situation. The theme was nicely presented through repetition because I, as a reader, understood how it was impossible for any man to win against a government who would never let the citizens be alone, and that his simplest acts could betray him.
In conclusion, 1984 is a very interesting novel of a totalitarian society with the theme of how the government always wins shown through symbolism and repetition, just like in Anthem.
In conclusion, 1984 is a very interesting novel of a totalitarian society with the theme of how the government always wins shown through symbolism and repetition, just like in Anthem.