It should be stated as a caveat to this review, that I believe that Huxley is one of the most important, intellectual, and enlightened mystics of the 20th century. I originally read this book 8 or nine years ago when my knowledge of spirituality, religion, and literature was sparse. However, it was one of those books that struck me like lightning and forever change the way I frame the world and our society.So a re-read…
Island is an active dialogue between relatively few characters who bring Huxley’s Perennial Philosophy to a narrative form. Will Farnaby , the protagonist is a deranged, self-loathing, confused journalist who finds himself a survivor of a shipwreck and is welcomed into the utopian land of Pala. Here he witnesses Huxley’s vision of a society harmonizing with nature, but also embracing science and compassion. Now that I’m writing this I find it hard to write an adequate summary and so I’ll leave it on a quote that I earmarked. There is really so much wisdom embedded in these pages, that often this novel could be read like any piece of philosophic or religious text.
In one scene the children of Pala are actively moving scarecrows to protect their crops. The scarecrows are representations of gods or enlightened beings such as Buddha, Shiva,… will was confused by this, so he inquired about the purpose of it.
“ He wanted to make the children understand that all gods are homemade, and it’s we who pull their strings and so give them the power to pull ours.”

Aldous Huxley wrote his last novel a year before his death and thirty years after the cult "Oh, Brave New World". The twentieth century was a time of literary dystopias, Huxley's most famous book was often published under the same cover with Zamyatin's "We" and Orwell's "1984" - the classic "anti". But in fact, the "Wonderful World" is much more of a utopia. Yes, it is grotesque, based on selection and chemically stimulated contentment instead of democratic principles, but it is a working model of a society in which everyone is happy.

Here, who hears what drums (or the music of the spheres, if you prefer it that way), Huxley is initially set up for a constructive world order with a minimum of pain and suffering. And equal opportunities, social elevators and other gains of democracy in his coordinate system are not so significant and lead to even greater enslavement. That is, when you broke through to the top, got a prestigious position and a solid income with sweat and blood, what will you do?

That's right, to consume intensively, indirectly contributing to the destruction of the environment. Will it make you happy? No, there is more comfort, but it is not synonymous with happiness. A high position entails great responsibility, the need to maintain relations with unpleasant people, noblesse oblige, representation expenses and deficit are already at another level (soup is liquid - pearls are small) Plus the fear of not holding on to the positions won - a solid neurosis.

"No, guys, it's not like that" and "we'll go the other way," Huxley says. First, and much more importantly, to change the assemblage point, attitude, worldview. Professor Preobrazhensky said that the devastation is in the heads, but there are also neuroses, aggression, immoderate thoughtless consumerism. And so, with his final message to the world, the writer makes a utopia based on the principles of New Ageism with a Buddhist worldview taken as a basis.

Все граждане счастливчики, поют себе мотивчики и все без исключения об острове родном
Раздался звук одиночного выстрела. Затем грянули очереди из автоматов.
Труд целых столетий уничтожался всего за одну ночь. И все равно факт оставался фактом – была печаль, но где-то пролегал и конец всех печалей.
Свой последний роман Олдос Хаксли написал за год до смерти и спустя тридцать лет после культового "О, дивный новый мир". ХХ век был временем литературных антиутопий, самую известную книгу Хаксли нередко издавали под одной обложкой с замятинским "Мы" и "1984" Оруэлла - классическими "анти". Но на деле, "Дивный мир" в куда большей степени утопия. Да, гротескная, основанная на селекции и химически стимулированном довольстве вместо демократических принципов, но это рабочая модель общества, в котором все счастливы.

Тут уж кто какие барабаны слышит (или музыку сфер, если вам так больше нравится), Хаксли изначально настроен на конструктивное мироустройство с минимумом боли и страданий. А равные возможности, социальные лифты и прочие завоевания демократии в его системе координат не столь значимы и ведут к еще большему закабалению. То есть, вот прорвался ты наверх, добыл потом и кровью престижную должность и солидный доход, что будешь делать?

Правильно, усиленно потреблять, косвенно способствуя разрушению экологии. Сделает это тебя счастливым? Нет, комфорта больше, но он не синоним счастья. Высокая должность влечет большую ответственность, необходимость поддерживать отношения с неприятными людьми, noblesse oblige, представительские расходы и дефицит уже на другом уровне (суп жидок - жемчуг мелок) Плюс страх не удержаться на завоеванных позициях - сплошная невроз.

"Нет, ребята, все не так" и "мы пойдем другим путем" - говорит Хаксли. Прежде, и гораздо важнее, поменять точку сборки, мироощущение, мировосприятие. Профессор Преображенский говорил, что разруха в головах, но там же и неврозы, агрессия, неумеренное бездумное потребительство. И вот, своим финальным посланием миру писатель делает утопию, основанную на принципах нью-эйджизма со взятым за основу буддистским мировоззрением.

"Остров": о том, как замечательно все могло бы быть. если бы люди начали жить. относиться к природе, строить отношения разумно. Беспринципный циничный эгоист с отягощенной совестью и кучей комплексов, развившихся из детских психотравм попадает на райский тропический остров. где устроена правильная и справедливая жизнь. Смотрит, разговаривает, знакомится с людьми, вникает в функционирование учреждений и принципы в основе общественных институтов.

По сути книга не роман, а такой философский нон-фикшн на тему "как нам обустроить мир". Тут, примерно как в индийском фильме, где персонажи то и дело принимаются танцевать - всякий герой лектор, освещающий какую-то из сторон местной жизни. Вот так мы учимся осознанному пребыванию в "здесь и сейчас", так утишаем боль, так сублимируем агрессию в полезную деятельность, так учим, так лечим. так воспитываем детей, так устроена наша система призрения пожилых и сирот, так улучшаем генофонд,.так развлекаемся.

Хаксли был адептом ЛСД, много экспериментировал с этим веществом, инъекция 100 мкг которого помогла ему покинуть мир без мучений - писатель умирал от рака горла, а случилось это, к слову, в день убийства Кеннеди. Так вот, островитяне употребляют лекарство Мокша на основе растительных экстрактов. по воздействию схожее с производными лизергиновой кислоты. Название неслучайно, мокша в индуизме - выход из колеса Сансары, освобождение от круговорота рождений и смертей. Не нужно на этом основании делать вывод, что там все торчки обдолбанные. Мокшу употребляют крайне редко, в ритуальных целях и после серьезной психической подготовки длительными медитациями. "Медитация - ежедневная пища, мокша - банкет," - говорит героиня.

Признаюсь, я взялась за эту книгу только и исключительно потому, что аудиоверсию исполнил Игорь Князев, просто слушаю у него все. И да, это превосходное исполнение, хотя формат череды перетекающих одна в другую лекций изрядно утомителен. Ну вот должно в книге что-то происходить, помимо просветительства и психоделики. Собственно, и произойдет, в конце, удивительно созвучном аксеновскому "Острову Крыму", написанному через семнадцать лет.

И эта концовка буквально опрокидывает в "здесь и сейчас". Такое:
Смотри,
это твой шанс узнать, как выглядит изнутри
то, на что ты так долго глядел снаружи;
запоминай же подробности, восклицая «Vive la Patrie!»

When I was a kid I was mercilessly mocked by bullies, because of my introspective passivity. When I was confined to a hospital in my early twenties, the doctors wanted to lift the rocks of my dozy subconscious to uncover my own nightcrawlers.

Trouble was, my only nightcrawlers were the bullies - among whose number these physicians were simply the latest professional examples. But they had blurred their confused ethical lines - and I just liked to be left alone to dream.

Dreamers are good for the soul of humankind. But nowadays, no one shows the slightest interest in dreamers' spiritual sides. Writers, doctors and scientists only want to show you how simple it is to find your spiritual happiness WITHIN the ersatz nirvana of our utopian world.

Nice try, guys. That utopia is glaringly dystopian.

Why even bother?

Such, however is Aldous Huxley in this book. Get this - he thinks nirvana is EASY with chemicals and clinical know-how. He's bought the whole bill of goods.
***

Laura Archera Huxley, Aldous' second wife, wrote a stunningly candid biographical study of their life together amid the coolly intellectual ambience of their South California Hollywood home. It's called This Timeless Moment, and it's revelatory.

She describes in it how she interested him in the supernatural and occult.

She was a firm believer, in her new-agey way, in the afterlife. So when Aldous received a shocking diagnosis of terminal throat cancer in the early sixties, they agreed to try an experiment:

Aldous would send a message, any message, after he passed away to let her know the afterlife was a fact.

And sure enough, shortly after he died, Laura received a personal message, to whit: go to the main bookshelf, third row from bottom, and take the second book from the right. Laura followed the instructions, and came to a book entitled Eternity is Real (or that’s the general idea, as my faulty memory now dictates).

And so what? We believers already knew our "hearts will go on."
***

Now, I said previously that I’m a dreamer. Like Huxley was becoming, too, under the warming influence of his new wife. A second childhood? Except he retained all his traditional intellectual pursuits: modern science, technology and medicine.

So what happens when you combine your playful dreaming with serious intelligence? Well, you get a mishmash - an intellectual smorgasboard of irrelevant arcane trivia, pop thinking, and new age religion - LIKE THIS BOOK.

You see, we can’t take this book seriously. The plot never really progresses, the characters possess no reality, and the religion is flakey and half-baked.
***

Back in the semester of 1972/73, I belonged to my university Choral Society, though I couldn’t sight-read. I needed the credit that went with the contribution of my feeble voice.

Anyway, my fellow singers were either college professors out to unwind a bit, music majors, or intellectual flyweights with golden voices. And I was none of the above. A misfit in the larger academic world, I would take books to our rehearsals.

This was the book I lugged with me that winter.

Quite frankly, I considered it an utter dud. It just didn’t work at any level. I had read Brave New World in high school, but Huxley seemed to have lowered the bar to ankle level with this one.

And now, fifty years later, I read other people’s reviews here on GR and find my discontent verified objectively.

It’s NOT among his best.
***

Did you know Huxley died of mouth cancer the same day C. S. Lewis died of his routine surgery?

Which man, you might wonder, was the wiser of the two?. In other words, which man died within sight of his eternal home in Heaven?

I'll let you guess.

Make believe and disingenuous guys must Face the Fire First!

n  “Lenin used to say that electricity plus socialism equals communism. Our equations are rather different.
Electricity minus heavy industry plus birth control equals democracy and plenty.
Electricity plus heavy industry minus birth control equals misery, totalitarianism and war.” n

Aldous Huxley’s Pala is a beautiful Solarpunk country. I would love to read stories of it’s people, their lives, their dramas.

But that’s not this book.

This is a story of beauty about to be raped.


I’m not in the mood for that.
DNF 47% No Rating

Strange things, these novels of ideas. You read, you read, so charmed and challenged by the intellectual debate that somewhere along the road you completely forget to pay attention to the plot, to the characters and generally to all that makes the essence of a novel. And only in the end you ask yourself if it is a novel what you’ve just read after all. The explanation is of course quite simple: plot and characters are only embodiments of ideas and such writings, while mimicking the narrative structure, with its setup, conflict and resolution, follow subtly in fact either the Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis or the essay questioning parts of what-how-why.

Island, the last Huxley’s book, is the perfect example of such writing. It was seen as the utopian answer to the dystopian Brave New World, but is it? It seems to me both novels develop, in different ways, the same thesis: that mankind cannot stay beauty. Oh, humans may create it, recognize and even admire it for a while, but in the end they always pervert and destroy it. And beauty is not artistic creation, at least not only. Beauty is superior knowledge and constant seek of harmonious relationships – be it in or between people, or between people and nature, or between people and gods. In the name of this coveted harmony was built the World State with its strict regulations and its five casts and its fix-numbered population and its soma to appease any metaphysical anxiety, the perfect, brave new world where happiness was induced artificially from birth and knowledge was forbidden as dangerous. This is civilisation way, Huxley warned then, the Gotterdammerung of mass culture.

Thirty years after, he imagines another way to reach harmony: isolation from civilisation, reinterpretation of all the values of the society, from family to economy and politics. After identifying all the wrongs in human civilisation and finding a solution for every one of them, Pala becomes a true terrestrial paradise, whose inhabitants are in permanent touch with nature and themselves helped by (this time) a beneficial drug, moksha medicine, and by a deep and original understanding of Tantra philosophy:

If you’re a Tantrik, you don’t renounce the world or deny its value; you don’t try to escape into a Nirvana apart from life, as the monks of the Southern School do. No, you accept the world and make use of it; you make use of everything you do, of everything that happens to you, of all the things you see and hear and taste and touch, as so many means to your liberation from the prison of yourself.

But of course, such a society cannot compete with the human genius of destruction. Furthermore, it is not allowed to exist (I cannot help thinking this was Huxley’s foreboding of Tibet's fate). The brave new world is waiting just around the corner for the moment to step in and swallow this world and re-create it in its image. Why?

First, because it simply isn’t possible for Pala to go on being different from the rest of the world. And second, because it isn’t right that it should be different.

And third, because the world as a rule has no place for Karuna, that is for compassion. The people of Pala will always be “the savages” of the World State as John was, to be isolated, ridiculed and finally destroyed. The conclusion is therefore identical in both novels: humanity cannot to be saved, for even when it is shown a glimpse of happiness it does its utmost to destroy it. And it is only natural to be this way, since the purpose of the society has never, never been to turn its members into “full-blown human beings”:

What are boys and girls for in America? Answer: for mass consumption. (…) Whereas in Russia there’s a different answer. Boys and girls are for strengthening the national state. (…) And in China it’s the same, but a good deal more so. What are boys and girls for there? For cannon fodder, industry fodder, agriculture fodder, road-building fodder.

…I close the book with a sad smile and I realize that one day I will probably forget all about Will Farnaby, and Robert MacPhail and Murugan and the Rani, but I will never forget the utopic society of Pala, which really believed that Shiva-Nataraja would forever dance for them, while stamping on Muyalaka, to free them of the world’s malignity.

About a utopian SE Asian island society on the cusp of being corrupted by exploitation of oil. Reads more like a socio-political manifesto than a novel. The plot, such as it is, is just an excuse to contrive situations for characters to explain their life, philosophy, culture etc, rather than the driving force. This also means that none of the characters are very convincing because they are almost incidental caricatures (and many of them are too good to be true).

Ajme meni, al me iznenadila ova knjiga ! Treći susret sa Hakslijem i definitivno najjači utisak za vreme i nakon čitanja..
Nisam se baš interesovala o čemu je reč, očekivala sam manje-više nešto poput Vrlog novog sveta... međutim, dobih sasvim suprotno :) imam je na polici još od sajma 2014, kud je ne uzeh ranije u šake!?

Elem, čovek je pre više od pola veka govorio o stvarima koje me trenutno veoma zanimaju, pa sam se čitajući konstantno oduševljavala govoreći u sebi "da li je moguće, pa upravo o ovom sam razmišljala juče!?"...
Yoga, meditacija, kontemplacija, pozitivan stav, prisutnost i uživanje u trenutku - ( genijalna ptica minah koja poziva na pažnju :) ), život u skladu sa prirodom...sve što se danas može naći u većini knjiga sa tematikom popularne psihologije...a opet pisano toliko ranije.. Znači da je suština ista :D

Aldous Huxley wrote this just before he died and to me this is his swan song. Island is set somewhere in the Pacific and depicts an Englishman's journey of spiritual enlightenment and self discovery. A progressive community takes mind-altering drugs and rejects conventional societal values for their own utopia. Everyone has the freedom to choose their own work, worship their own gods and have sex freely without the taboos of Western civilization. The community are exceptionally kind and open to Will Farnaby and show him that true happiness is found when you embrace life to the full and learn to love yourself and mankind.

Unfortunately, the despotic Colonel Dipa has other plans. The Island is plentiful in natural oil and already, power hungry capitalists are hoping to exploit this nirvana for their own dastardly ends. Aldous Huxley and others of his generation were deeply saddened by the state of the world after the Second World War. Images of brainwashed nazis and the rampant materialism in post-war America are interwoven into this tale as a warning that mankind will ultimately end destroying all that is good and true in the world.

Aldous Huxley must have known that this was going to be his last book as death seems to be a major theme. Will Farnaby learns that death does not have to be depressing or traumatic, it can be a celebration of someone's life as they take a journey into the unknown. I think Huxley must have felt that he too was ready to embark on that last chapter of his life...

Island is a beautifully written book and I would definitely recommend it.

I wanted to like this book more than I actually did. "Brave New World" is one of my favorite dystopias, so I was excited to see how Huxley tackled a utopia, and to see how his thoughts on society matured between his writing of "Brave New World" and "Island"-- his last novel. I felt the result was slightly disappointing.
While all dystopias and utopias are comments on society, and almost all utopia/dystopia authors have an agenda which they would like the reader to come to after reading the work, most do so in a more subtle manner. There is nothing subtle in "Island" which is my biggest problem with it. While I agree with many of the ideas shown in the story, I felt that Huxley didn't present them, but preached them. The book left no room for the reader to form their own opinion on issues in modern society, instead they were told, repeatedly. This preaching seemed both at odds with the ideas Huxley was pushing, and weakened the rest of the story by sacrifing things such as well rounded characters. The reader only gets flat, static, characters who can all be catagorized as either the pro-Western culture characters,who are all portrayed as naive, ridiculus, or greedy, and the anti-Western culture characters, who are all portrayed as smart and sexy ideals.
These elements made it so that while I agreed with many of Huxley's ideas, the heavy handed style weakened the force of both the message and the book as a whole.

Ten pages from the end, sitting at a bar, the bartender asked me: "Are you one of those people who reads the last sentence of a book before they start it, to see if it'll live up to your expectations?"

Uh, say what? I thought. Is that a common practice? Seriously? "No," I replied, "but I can see it might be kinda interesting."

"Yeah," he said, "but it's a pretty big spoiler alert. It can really ruin it."

Digesting that bit of logic, I finished the book, my wine, and the bartender brought the credit card machine over. "You know," I said, struck with utopian-dystopian visions, fully sincere: "I'm really glad I didn't read the last sentence first for this book. It would have completely ruined it." The bartender nodded knowingly.


Endings, in the same vein of logic as my friendly bartender's, can make or break an entire book. The last sentence, though, usually isn't given quite that much credit -- that is, until you're reading someone like Huxley, who is all about the "show don't tell" of literature. Then, every phrase has weight: the first and last sentences more than anything. I was debating my star rating right up until those last few words: 3? 4? And then, sharply, it all finally clicks. Because I don't want to spoil you, because Huxley is best served fresh and read with snarky, attentive eyes, I won't say anything about the last sentence EXCEPT: everything is a circle, and it all comes back around.

Island is more philosophy than novel. Early on, Huxley hangs a lantern on its Erewhon influence: stumble across a weird and isolated society, hear about its utopian elements one by one, the reader must reflect on how garbage their own society is. Done and done.

It's a counterpoint to Brave New World in quite a few ways: ideology (utopia, not dystopia); plot (little to none); theme (potential, not despair); drug amiability (lots). The Eastern-religion influence is massive, and it's clear this was written post-Doors. While that can be a little infuriating at times (like........I get it. Psychedelics bro. Radical. You're not more aware of the universe because you got high, man.), it's Huxley, so there's thoughtful rationale behind it. While none of what I read seemed particularly new, that's not necessarily the fault of the book: it compiles a lot of interesting social possibilities in a fairly unique manner. It smacks of Huxley rethinking some of his fears regarding the world of Our Ford. Soma and sex? Maybe not so bad, as long as they're not mindless...

That's the crux of this book, really -- mindfulness. Worth a read, times twelve, if only to get to the last sentence and see where he was heading. Just don't read it first. Or do. Maybe it won't matter. We all get there in the end.

(shrooms might help though)

As relevant today as it was when it was written. This book digs deep into the battle for indigenous rights and corporate plunder.

3,5 ***
opinião em breve