Brave New World: Literary Reveiw

Brave New being, Aldous Huxley Michael Howard Why do we involve? Thats as funfair a question as any to extract from Huxleys renowned 1932 novel, Brave New beingness. In this book, carrying becomes a anatomy of mythical act of rebellion, a deed charged with betrayal and anger. And Huxley is right -- that is how totalitarian societies of our century have regarded the choice to read freely. And why do those us in democratic societies read a book like Brave New World? Surely we have no need to worry rough the alarmist issues Huxley raises. Right? Brave New World tells the story of Bernard Marx, a man who doesnt kind of fit into a strictly controlled and pacified world. He is an Alpha, the highest caste in a connection that stretches down to the semi-moron Epsilons, notwithstanding he is still not content. He takes Lenina, a charwoman who firmly believes in the status quo, for a vacation in New Mexico, where they meet the gaga. Marx brings back the uncivilized into polite parliamentary law for his own reasons, and the last half of the book details the crucifys encounters with civilization. Huxley neer lets up on the ruthless raillery, and the ending of the book, in its unremitting bleakness, has seldom been matched (perhaps solely by 1984 and The Sheep Look Up). A society modelled on Fords assemblage line has no room for the individual.

The Savage is a sympathetic character, and we often identify most with him when he lashes out in despair. For example, after his mother dies, in peck which further alienate him, he tries to interrupt the distribution of pattern (a powerful drug with no physically harmful side-effects) to a group of Deltas (Chapter XV), vainly. Some of his choices near the end shift into the bizarre, and we overprotect a disturbing glimpse into a mind collapsing into itself to a lower place unrelenting pressures. We begin by liking Marx, the man who brought the Savage into the corrosive forces of civilization, but he too shows his true colour (his decision to bow to the World Controllers allow). And perhaps he is only to be pitied in that his choices have been so thoroughly do by society, in the end, very much the same way as Lenina. Lenina is the pawn of the Fordian society, and or so of the satire to do with her sexuality didnt quite make sense (see next paragraph) and bothered me. Her behaviour is stirred by her relationship with the Savage, but she has no way of perceive outside her perspective (ie, the perspective society assembled for her). Mustapha Mond is the Resident World Controller for Western Europe, and has read Shakespeare, just like the Savage. Bradbury uses much the same type of character in the Fire headland in his Fahrenheit 451. I like how Mond argues -- some(prenominal)times on the Savages level, and sometimes in the idiom of the society he oversees. For example, he exhorts the Savage at wholeness(a) point by give tongue to: You cant play Electro-Magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble-puppy (194). Huxley manages to present some interesting, unique characters in a society that has set to extirpate such a thing in the name of happiness.

The levels of satire jack off very intense, and never let up. Huxley takes the metaphor of the assembly line to the extreme, with lot making the sign of the T and saying, Our Ford. As with Bradburys Fahrenheit 451, the concrete reality of the book, while a cause story, isnt the point. Bradbury was not predicting that people will burn books, rather that they will forget them. Huxley is worried about a state of mind, one that puts happiness into a materialistic paradigm. That human tendency is precisely news, but Huxley saw quite clearly how technology would transport everything.



A look around at our society shows no sign of World Controllers or soma in the veridical sense, but the specific technologies of happiness are just as perturbing as Huxleys fictions. This overarching idea is well-justified and thought-provoking, but I was timid of Huxleys point to do with sexuality, something that he tries to slot into the bigger theme. Is he condemning Leninas actions as part of the false happiness created by this brave new world? Perhaps, but the opposite of what is presented in the book would be a return into the deepest, darkest Victorian era. If Huxley is and so such a neo-Victorian, its hard to believe hes the contemporary of people like Henry Miller or D. H. Lawrence. None of the to a higher place have a comforting view of women, and Miller and Huxley (if hence he advocating the opposite of Lenina) are two sides of the same sexist coin. Is Huxley trying to make his false utopia somewhat attractive (to men, that is)? I didnt get that sense at all, and however smooth Mustapha Monds presentation, Huxley situates his course so that they are obviously ridiculous. The centre of the spectrum between Mond and the Savage is a fine line that Huxley doesnt always find in his haste to let loose another vehement bang up of satire. And Lenina remains the object of happiness or unhappiness.

In some ways, its good that Brave New World is so super nasty and pointed. Huxleys career, long and varied, often gets boiled down to this one book, a book for which anyone would be proud to be remembered. This work out of forgetting an authors body of work, while somewhat understandable, is frightening to contemplate -- Huxley is favourable to have something this good as the touchstone of his career.

If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper