Brave New World
We’re huddled around a candle-lit table at the Headless Horseman bar in Union Square. I’m disappointed because everyone around me has a head and I don’t see any horses. My friend Matt is being a pig though because he’s the only one that orders food. This is our first book club meeting (me, Matt, and Will), and we each hold a copy of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World in our hands, eager to talk about what the moral code of a dystopic society looks like as long as the waitress keeps replenishing our beers.
I read this novel for the first time four years ago, while watching the sun rise through the slit in my deer stand as I hunted with my dad. I finished the book right before I shot and killed a coyote. I’m from Texas, so I can say these kinds of things. At the time--blinded by the picturesqueness of the moment and the thrill of a first kill--I really enjoyed it. Now that I’m older and have read more dystopian lit, I think the book is very meh. I only truly started to enjoy it when the bookclub squad teased out some of his ideas; standing on its own, the novel is (sometimes) repetitive, dull, and a bit simple in retrospect.
Before I rant about its shortcomings and rave about its successes, I’ll offer some context. Brave New World uses a third-person perspective to introduce a society that seeks efficiency and stability. Anything (or anyone) that disrupts those objectives is eliminated. Humans are mass-produced--genetically and emotionally conditioned to behave and think in a specific way that best fits their role in the socio-economic system. There are castes distinctly identified by dress and appearance, but people do not have the capacity or opportunity to experience undesirable emotions, so they are not jealous of other castes. If they begin to feel any tingling of discontentment, they take a ration of “soma”, a hallucinogenic drug that transports the user into a blissful state of mind without any hangover. Despite being published almost 20 years apart, “soma” sounds eerily reminiscent of Huxley’s mescaline descriptions in The Doors of Perception.
Huxley wanted to jazz things up, so there are select disgruntled citizens within the well-ordered society. Here are the types that Huxley chooses to focus on:
Bernard Marx (think Karl Max): He’s hella tall. He is dissatisfied with the nature of society not because he is fundamentally, philosophically opposed to its structure, but because he doesn’t belong. He is a stagnant character-- more non-conformist by fate rather than choice.
Helmholtz Watson (think behavioral psychologist Watson): a propaganda writer at the College of Emotional Engineering. He’s the popular, cool guy, but he begins to feel that there is more to life.
Lenina Crowe (think Lenin): suuuuuuch a basic bitch. She is lucky to be surrounded by intelligent men in a sea of sameness, yet she can’t break out of the bubble. She is a victim that you don’t feel sorry for—a woman with the tools to contemplate life seriously who doesn’t end up picking up the wrench.
John (think John the Baptist): a “savage” who comes from a reservation that doesn’t abide by the rules of the “brave new world”. He refuses to forgo emotional intensities for the sake of blanket, unquestioned, disingenuous serenity.
When Huxley wrote this novel—in 1931 during a depression in Britain—he truly believed that a world like this was imminent. He felt this all the way up to 1963, when he asked his wife for some LSD at his deathbed (swag). While I see some resemblances in terms of large-scale consumption, information overload, and pleasure-seeking habits, I am not as fearful as he was. I think (hope) that humans value freedom of choice enough to reject such a system. I’m sure that at the time of publication, this novel introduced unheard of cultural ideas and radical notions of government control. Now, having been more readily exposed to dystopia as a genre, I also considered the plot itself, which is wasted and lackluster. He focused so much on providing a philosophically shocking setting that he failed to make anything actually interesting happen within that setting.
As a philosopher, Aldous (if I may) is brilliant. As a novelist… I’m unimpressed.
Because he did present such a thought-provoking framework from which to bounce off of, the novel served its purpose well as a “book-club book”. We discussed the consequences of abolishing the spectrum of emotions, how Huxley incorporated religious tenants, what “true freedom” means, how Huxley felt about “extremes” in general, the sarcastic nature of the title, and where we should go to dinner to watch the Rangers hockey game. I was initially inclined to give the book a “2” because of my disappointment in the story. Instead, I give it 3 out of 5 flames. I think the fact that it is a classic “must-read” in the dystopian fiction world bumps it up a hump. The book might not have much value independently, but it is a strong launchpad for interesting philosophical discussions.
If you enjoyed this review, please consider purchasing this book from my Amazon Associates link: https://amzn.to/2RBt8hM. The commissions I receive from your purchase help pay for the costs of running this website. Thanks for your support!
