Brave New World

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But I also don’t think the Brave New World Society was much of a communist dysutopia because no one there is oppressed and no one revolts. For a more communist styled dysutopia, read 1984. One of the key elements of the shallow, hedonistic life in the Brave New World is that virtually everyone consents to live that life. They consent to the idea that sex is exclusively for pleasure and should be practiced often and among different partners. They consent to the idea that the aging of the human body is purely a sign of weakness rather than strength and the death is preferable to it. They consent to the idea that recreational drug use of “soma” can render all problems unimportant by dulling the experience of failure and pain and covering them up like reality does not exist. They consent to the idea that religion is obsolete not by force but by indifference. It is the deepest case of removing every ounce of meaning from life I can find.

All in all, I see it as an exhibit of the worst elements of modern American social liberalism taken to the extreme. Now I realize there are pieces of the Brave New World that don’t completely fit that theme, mainly the castes, but all in all, I think it is a great dysutopia for the future of the US to try and avoid.

Put it this way: Brave New World is a perfect compendium of the reasons why my PM social score is as high as it is.

Obviously, given my overall political persuasion I'm not about to thank Reagan for countervailing that, but then, I don't think the problem's quite reached its worst yet. I'm at a school (University of Massachusetts) where it's fortunately pretty easy to find quiet and studious groups (particularly in my department, Asian Languages and Literatures) but whenever I venture outside said groups it's a jungle.

It's to the point where I can't help but wonder if the only reason my social score is negative at all is that most of my best friends over the years have been LGBT. That, and public funding for the arts (though I would have killed Piss Christ at the first opportunity, because that is not art).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Its a horribly nihilistic book, if one concludes that that outcome is inevitable for modernity; if it is, one's better off joining Al Qaeda or Ted Kaczynski off in the woods.  I don't know enough about Huxley to say if that's the case.

What a silly thing to say.

Some necromancy here--but I suppose this board does move rather slowly as it is.

The fact that you found Brave New World unobjectionable doesn't surprise in the least.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think we can safely concede at least that much, largely because of the character of Mustapha Mond and Huxley's decision to write him in a way that can be read as well-intentioned by some definitions and have him attempt to explain and defend himself.