I can't help but think while reading this so far that it's a guidebook for the progressive left. It's the world they want because they think they would be the Alphas. From the everyone doing as they are told, to the destruction and even ridicule of families, to the extremely loose sex and sexualization of children.
I read the first four chapters or so over Christmas, but I should do it again as it's already become fuzzy.
As a general comment, I did not enjoy the writing style or prose. It wasn't necessarily a difficult read, but certainly not enjoyable and I mostly soldiered on because it was "a classic". I guess the 1930s were a lifetime ago.
IIRC from the foreword, Aldous Huxley was British, wrote Brave New World from pre-WWII fascist Italy, became famous, was very disdainful of the rapidly industrializing USA, was invited to the US for a speaking tour, decided to stay indefinitely once stateside, wrote for Hollywood and eventually settled and died in the Southwest.
My book didn't have a foreword, but so far at least I can totally see the disdain of the industrial USA. If anything just from the God-like representation of Ford for example. I guess the book is about where the industrial world was headed, and I'm having a hard time convincing myself he's totally wrong.
I'd like to point out that Project Gutenberg has a copy if anyone that's interested doesn't know where to find one. I'll try to find a link a bit later when I post my discussion of these chapters.
I also found it interesting how Huxley seemed to be quite a prodigious writer in terms of content, though seems to have been a "one hit wonder" as I've never heard of any other work he's produced.
Fictional violence is not applicable as an exception to rule 2 as no definition of what constitutes violence is expressed. None of what you stated is in either rule 2 or 16. Promotion of materials that contains violence does fall under a violation of rule 2 per written definition.
Fictional violence is, by definition, fictional. I expect normal human beings to understand that violence that does not exist in reality is not capable of being violent in reality. This is also not the promotion of violence, and the author's work is an attempt to ward people away from the violence of dystopia.
Again there is no definition or differentiation of what constitutes violence per rule 2. This means anything that can be described as violence falls under rule 2.
The first two chapters remind me of Plato's myth of metals and the "noble lie". Fatherless children with state imposed fates. I hate collectivists and technocrats, they all think the human condition is an engineering problem to be solved.
The first two chapters I felt physical revulsion reading the descriptions of the hatchery and conditioning centre and the normalcy of it all. I'm not sure if I'd have been so revolted if I read this 5-10 years ago, but with the way the world is now, it hits hard for me. Talk of artificial wombs, pedos up on the docket for normalization, indoctrination of children into the progressive worldview, hyper-consumer culture... it's very easy to see how a world ends up like BNW.
I'm interested in the development of Bernie Marx and how Huxley treats characters, but I dont think there's quite enough in chapters 3 and 4 to have any solid opinions yet.
Speaking of chapter 3, was it supposed to be rapidly shifting between 3 locales (the garden, the men and womens changing rooms), or is my old pirated ebook borked? Like there'd be a sentence of the Controller lecturing, then Lenina speaking to Fanny, then Henry talking about what a good lay Lenina is, then back to the Controller again. Only asking because I have noticed some words clearly typoed (Director into Dhector) on occasion, and that sort of discombobulated, simultaneous narrative/conversations seems extremely modern
Yeah. BNW actually has a downer ending, but the penultimate chapter where the leader explains why the world has to be the way it is, is one of the most memorable dialogues I've ever encountered in a book.
I know you hate women enough to inadvertently advocate for the extinction of the human race, and artificial wombs seem like an easy sidestep to that issue but think it through a little. The ova need to come from somewhere. In BNW, the women who donate their ovaries to the hatcheries are well compensated. So now you're paying women to discard one of the few things that may make them take responsibility in their life.
I very highly doubt artificial wombs would ever become a commercial product. You won't be able to just pop on down to the store and pick up a baby making kit. That will be highly gated by pharmaceutical industry and the healthcare system. We've seen how the powers that be (or pharma lobbyists alone if you prefer) already attempt to control your life if you refuse them. Only the subservient bootlickers will be allowed to reproduce. There would never be another white baby outside of the ruling class. It's a death knell for Western ideology and quality of life for the human race overall
I can't help but think while reading this so far that it's a guidebook for the progressive left. It's the world they want because they think they would be the Alphas. From the everyone doing as they are told, to the destruction and even ridicule of families, to the extremely loose sex and sexualization of children.
I read the first four chapters or so over Christmas, but I should do it again as it's already become fuzzy.
As a general comment, I did not enjoy the writing style or prose. It wasn't necessarily a difficult read, but certainly not enjoyable and I mostly soldiered on because it was "a classic". I guess the 1930s were a lifetime ago.
IIRC from the foreword, Aldous Huxley was British, wrote Brave New World from pre-WWII fascist Italy, became famous, was very disdainful of the rapidly industrializing USA, was invited to the US for a speaking tour, decided to stay indefinitely once stateside, wrote for Hollywood and eventually settled and died in the Southwest.
Ditto, of all the dystopian novels I've read it was the least enjoyable one for me.
My book didn't have a foreword, but so far at least I can totally see the disdain of the industrial USA. If anything just from the God-like representation of Ford for example. I guess the book is about where the industrial world was headed, and I'm having a hard time convincing myself he's totally wrong.
I'd like to point out that Project Gutenberg has a copy if anyone that's interested doesn't know where to find one. I'll try to find a link a bit later when I post my discussion of these chapters.
I also found it interesting how Huxley seemed to be quite a prodigious writer in terms of content, though seems to have been a "one hit wonder" as I've never heard of any other work he's produced.
He wrote a Utopian novel called Island.
I'm not the most well read, but I'd never heard of it.
He wrote a book about his drug trips that's kinda neat. The Doors of Perception, iirc.
Incidentally, also the namesake for The Doors.
Reported: Brave New World promotes violence, segregates and discriminates against identity groups as inferior.
Post Reported for:
Post Approved: no
Does the book not glorify violence and segregate people by identity?
No, because it's explicitly portrayed as a dystopia. Furthermore, GoldenPlains isn't endorsing it, and it's also intentionally identified as fiction.
Fictional violence is not applicable as an exception to rule 2 as no definition of what constitutes violence is expressed. None of what you stated is in either rule 2 or 16. Promotion of materials that contains violence does fall under a violation of rule 2 per written definition.
Fictional violence is, by definition, fictional. I expect normal human beings to understand that violence that does not exist in reality is not capable of being violent in reality. This is also not the promotion of violence, and the author's work is an attempt to ward people away from the violence of dystopia.
Again, you know this.
Again there is no definition or differentiation of what constitutes violence per rule 2. This means anything that can be described as violence falls under rule 2.
No, that is your assertion because you are deliberately choosing to define every word beyond all possible meaning.
The first two chapters remind me of Plato's myth of metals and the "noble lie". Fatherless children with state imposed fates. I hate collectivists and technocrats, they all think the human condition is an engineering problem to be solved.
Well Huxley is a good writer for sure.
The first two chapters I felt physical revulsion reading the descriptions of the hatchery and conditioning centre and the normalcy of it all. I'm not sure if I'd have been so revolted if I read this 5-10 years ago, but with the way the world is now, it hits hard for me. Talk of artificial wombs, pedos up on the docket for normalization, indoctrination of children into the progressive worldview, hyper-consumer culture... it's very easy to see how a world ends up like BNW.
I'm interested in the development of Bernie Marx and how Huxley treats characters, but I dont think there's quite enough in chapters 3 and 4 to have any solid opinions yet.
Speaking of chapter 3, was it supposed to be rapidly shifting between 3 locales (the garden, the men and womens changing rooms), or is my old pirated ebook borked? Like there'd be a sentence of the Controller lecturing, then Lenina speaking to Fanny, then Henry talking about what a good lay Lenina is, then back to the Controller again. Only asking because I have noticed some words clearly typoed (Director into Dhector) on occasion, and that sort of discombobulated, simultaneous narrative/conversations seems extremely modern
1984 has an appendix that implies the regime ended by talking about it in the past tense.
Yeah. BNW actually has a downer ending, but the penultimate chapter where the leader explains why the world has to be the way it is, is one of the most memorable dialogues I've ever encountered in a book.
I know you hate women enough to inadvertently advocate for the extinction of the human race, and artificial wombs seem like an easy sidestep to that issue but think it through a little. The ova need to come from somewhere. In BNW, the women who donate their ovaries to the hatcheries are well compensated. So now you're paying women to discard one of the few things that may make them take responsibility in their life.
I very highly doubt artificial wombs would ever become a commercial product. You won't be able to just pop on down to the store and pick up a baby making kit. That will be highly gated by pharmaceutical industry and the healthcare system. We've seen how the powers that be (or pharma lobbyists alone if you prefer) already attempt to control your life if you refuse them. Only the subservient bootlickers will be allowed to reproduce. There would never be another white baby outside of the ruling class. It's a death knell for Western ideology and quality of life for the human race overall
Also, don't forget to ping me in Reddit so I can sticky those.