2019 EDIT: A classic dystopian novel that I barely remember and feel is inferior compared to other books of its kind, especially '1984'. 'Brave New World' is kind of boring. I don't even remember the characters' names, let alone what they actually did, when they did appear at all. 'Brave New World' is more a series of ideas than a story. It is also sexist, misogynistic, racist and homophobic. 1932 publication - no excuse.
I wouldn't want to read it again.
Final Score: 2/5
Original review:
'Brave New World' - one of the earliest works of dystopic fiction I had been putting off reading for years, even though I love most dystopia novels from 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' to 'The Hunger Games'. And when I saw a copy at a local charity shop for £1 I couldn't resist, in spite of the ghastly Flamingo cover edition.
When I finished it, I realized I strangely enjoyed it.
Strange, because I found the writing of 'Brave New World' to be overall pretty terrible. Long prose explaining complicated scientific methods mashed jarringly with little character moments. There isn't much of a plot as there is the author going out of his way to introduce aspect after aspect of his vision of a totalitarian future, instead of letting the story introduce them naturally. It does flow better when stakes become high close to the end, however.
We are made to believe that Bernard Marx is the protagonist, but he is pushed to the background near the end of the novel to allow character development for John (whom the author constantly refers to as "the Savage"). Bernard doesn't even appear in the climax.
Yet 'Brave New World' contains very interesting and disturbing ideas of the future of humanity. It asks questions such as:
How far would you go just to be happy?
Can happiness be controlled and forced onto a person, without them even being aware of it?
Can a person be conditioned indefinitely into being happy regardless of where he or she is and what they are doing?
Is being happy enough to stop war and all the world's problems, since people will have nothing to complain about when they feel life is perfect?
Can love in any form - maternal, paternal and romantically - really lead to unhappiness? Or to happiness that doesn't last, so crime rates rise?
Can everyone truly belong to everyone else, with no worry or thought for the consequences?
Is forced and conditioned happiness right for everyone? When there are no challenges, struggles and feats earned, is this sort of happiness even real? Does humankind become like hollow shells - and not human anymore?
A world without consequence and real love - and therefore without unpleasantness. Ignorance is bliss, especially when nothing unpleasant exists at present that can be met with ignorance. This is the idea of a dystopian society in 'Brave New World'. The title is an ironic reference to the line delivered by the sheltered Miranda in 'The Tempest'.
It's a world where brainwashing (through a process called hypnopaedia), casual sex (and yet homosexuality is still taboo) and artificial reproduction (parents don't exist, as they are not allowed to) are the accepted norm - at least in rich countries like London.
I love how Aldous Huxley brought in passages from Shakespeare plays in order to combat this world's conditioning laws. This is where John, the otherworldly "Savage", comes in (though his parents are from London - he was raised in an Indian society by his mother who was mistakenly left there before he was born). Poetry, stories and other works of art are born out of an artist's passion and pain and suffering, after all. In a world where everything is artificial - where people are without passion and who are blindly satisfied all the time - true art cannot come to form (Bernard's poet friend Helmholtz Watson secretly wishes to write something different and meaningful, so he is an individual character as well).
The characters are memorable and interesting, despite not being terribly complex. Even Lenina Crowne shows a few instances of depth - she could be more than just another consumption clone in a society that controls individuality. But her fate at the end of the book is disgusting, and brings her down to a misogynistic level. That the book was published in 1932 shouldn't excuse this.
Not that Bernard is any better. He turns out to be a pathetic attention seeker. Although I understand that this was perhaps intended to show how an individual can still be influenced by mainstream fame and fortune, and still be a massive hypocrite.
Besides, it is John who steals the story when he appears in the middle of the book. He has a fascinating backstory and a solid personality. He grows and changes naturally throughout his development, and he quotes Shakespeare at relevant moments without coming across as a show-off or a bore. His conversation with Resident World Controller Mustapha Mond is one of my favourite moments of the book. As it turns out, John drives the story and exposes the brave new world for what it truly is, not Bernard. I'll give the book an extra point for surprising me like that.
'Brave New World' is a complicated piece. It is short at about 250 pages, so the parts containing descriptive prose don't become unreadable, since they are short enough. I guess you'll end up either loving it, liking it or hating it, depending on your tastes. I like it, even though I think the writing could have flowed better so that the structure and the ideas presented concerning human progression could have been absolutely incredible to read about.
As it is, it's good. A brave new world in its own right.
Final Score: 3.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment