La storia in sé e per sé non è niente di che. Anzi, come scrittura sopratutto nei primi capitoli non mi è piaciuta per niente.
Troppo caotica e confusionaria.
Quando poi, finalmente, comincia a comparire un minimo di trama le cose migliorano, ma mai oltre un certo livello.

No, a livello di storia non mi è piaciuto.

In compenso ci sono le idee che stanno dietro al libro. Idee partorite negli anni trenta, e sulle quali Huxley ha tirato un bel fermino una ventina di anni dopo, quando ha tirato fuori Ritorno al Mondo Nuovo.
Che non è un romanzo, non è il seguito di Mondo Nuovo, ma è una lunga riflessione dell'autore che analizza la società dispotica che aveva immaginato nel suo libro, notando con preoccupazione i suoi semi già nel mondo in cui viveva lui.

Ora, non ho apprezzato troppo l'intera riflessione -troppo basata sulla psicologia, per la quale ho sempre avuto una sana dose di avversione... al limite a volte mi faceva pensare al dr. Bishop di Fringe, per certi esperimenti o certi risultati attesi- e diverse delle sue previsioni si sono fortunatamente rivelate errate.

Ma.

Ma siamo sicuri che siano state errate?
Il mondo distopico di Huxley vede gli esseri umani generati in laboratorio, selezionati e processati adeguatamente: condizioni migliori per chi diventerà un Alfa e si occuperà delle mansioni più importanti e influenti, venendo così dotato di intelligenza e di una minima parte di individualità; mentre gli Epsilon sono ridotti a uno stato quasi bestiale, con un'intelligenza poco più che animale, con doti fisiche adatte al lavoro che faranno, prodotti in serie da pochi embrioni.
E dopo la nascita, per anni subiscono indottrinamenti a forza di messaggi subliminali, frasi ripetute mentre dormono, esperimenti atti a fargli amare o odiare determinati oggetti, colori, suoni. Vengono portati ad amare la vita che faranno, a biasimare la vita delle altre caste, a non desiderare altro che ciò che hanno, ciò che sono.

E per tenerli completamente sotto controllo, ecco il panem et circensem. Il cinema odoroso, il soma per evadere grazie alle droghe quando qualche strana emozione minaccia di minare l'equilibrio mentale dell'individuo, il sesso sempre e comunque dato che tutto è di tutti, e non sono ammesse relazioni permanenti che possano portare a emozioni intense e durature. Non sono proprio concepite.

Ecco, visto come funziona quella società, a dirla tutta non penso si possa dire "cavolate, pensava stesse arrivando già nel '50 e invece niente". A ben pensarci, potrebbe già essere stata realizzata e noi viviamo al suo interno, inconsapevoli, indottrinati a pensare ciò che stiamo pensando.
Un po' come quando ci si ferma a pensare a cose come "posso affermare di non essere in Matrix?", "posso affermare di non stare sognando?", "posso affermare di non essere solo il sogno di un'altra persona". Trip mentali dai quali non si esce.

Un libro che vale la pena di leggere non per la storia ma per il messaggio.
La dittatura distopica non è solo quella paventata da Orwell, con il Grande Fratello che tutto osserva, pronto a punire, o la sua evoluzione londinese di Dita, Occhi e Orecchie in V for Vendetta... una dittatura chiara, lampante, che prospera terrorizzando ma che così facendo lascia spazio a ribellioni.
C'è un altro tipo di possibile dittatura. Una invisibile, una che plagia le menti. Una dittatura non violenta, che promette di fare il bene delle persone, di farle stare meglio, di accudirle. Basta dargli un po' della tua libertà... un po' del tuo libero arbitrio... fin quando non ti ritrovi incatenato alla dittatura. E felice di esserlo, senza pensieri, senza preoccupazioni, senza libertà.

Francamente temo più il secondo tipo che il primo. Il primo bene o male collasserà sempre su se stesso, il secondo invece sarà già difficilissimo che venga smascherato.
Tanto è vero che potremmo già essere sotto un tale regime e nemmeno esserne consapevoli.



Quando un uccello impara a ingozzarsi a sufficienza senz'essere costretto a usare le ali, rinuncia al privilegio del volo e sene resta a terra, in eterno

I ran across a website that had some free books hosted online (legally) when I was bored, and saw Brave New World, so I decided to give it a try.

I read about half of it on my computer and then decided that it was absolutely worth going out and buying it.

There were some times where I found myself mixing up some of the characters- but I think a lot of that comes from starting it at 3am. I didn't find that it detracted from the story though, because the plot was straightforward enough that you could kind of sort things out after the fact. But really, that's the only reason I didn't give it 5 stars. I'm willing to bet that it was probbly due to being sleepless- but still, looking back- it seems as though it was just too easy to confuse the characters while reading. (but again- easy enough to sort out after the fact)




Some books just pop up at the right time. I mean, in a societal sense, it's a great time to revist the message of Brave New World, but even on a personal level- I found myself really challenged by some of the ideas examined by Huxley.

Is an easy path- the path of least resistence, really worth the benefits of hard work that you're giving up along the way? I've been presented with some decisions that are based solely on that exact thought- so hitting these ideas in the book, granted at an exaggerated level, but still- it's been a really good reminder.


I watched Gattaca in my 9th grade Biology class, and I've been somewhat interested in these strange utopian societies ever since...and I've got to say- Huxley's Brave New World only amped up that interest! It's disturbingly creepy, tragic, and absolutely fascinating all at once!


Passion is worth the struggle and the pain. Pain and passion go hand in hand.

Dystopian novels are more relevant than ever, but unfortunately I found Brave New World to be outdated and disorganized with no compelling characters and a haphazard storyline. OprahDaily.com states that the best dystopia novels offer both escapism and "a resistance blueprint for when things go sideways." For me personally, Brave New World didn't provide either escape or guidance.

I'm seeking a fresh vision. I'd appreciate your input. What's your favorite book about the world gone wrong?

This is a continuation of a series on banned books. Unfortunately circumstances have become even more dire. White supremacists are no longer just seeking to ban books. Now they want to defund and close libraries. For example, the state house in Missouri recently voted to defund all the publicly funded libraries in Missouri. BOOK LOVERS NEED TO BE UNITED AND OUTSPOKEN IN OUR SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

In an effort to educate myself, I wanted to read some banned book classics. When it comes to banned books, the only book more classic than Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, but I've already read that book. I read Tropic of Cancer when I was a junior in high school. I can still remember two scenes from Miller's book. One pleasant memory involving a man being lead up a staircase by a woman. One unpleasant memory involving a man in desperate need of a chamber pot. I've been trying to purge my brain of the latter memory for 58 years, but if that memory is the price I have to pay for the former memory, so be it.

I know many people like/love Brave New World (BNW), but I'm not one. I can't give BNW a blanket recommendation, but I can recommend it for several groups of readers. For example, librarians and high school teachers. Also, anyone interested in literary history or fans of the dystopia genre. Classic books like Brave New World give us a shared terminology that assists us in public discourse, so I also recommend BNW to anyone engaged in that public discourse.

In order to give this book a numerical rating, I divided it up into three sections: (1) the Foreword and two Prefaces, (2) the BNW novel itself, and (3) Huxley's Brave New World Revisited discourse defending his novel. I give 1 a 3, 2 a 1, and 3 a 2. Averaging out to an overall 2 rating.

Aldous Huxley and Christopher Hitchens make two main arguments in defense of BNW. First, the novel takes place 6 or 7 centuries after the birth of Henry Ford, and since Ford was born in 1863, we can't yet conclude that BNW hasn't accurately predicted the future. (Essentially, they're arguing that they're right, because we can't yet prove they're wrong.) Secondly, they argue that Huxley did a better job of prediction than George Orwell. I'm extremely skeptical about that assertion. Wouldn't the worlds that Hitler and Satlin tried to create have ended up similar to the world portrayed in 1984? What about the worlds Napoleon and Alexander the Great tried to create? Additionally, does BNW give us insight into totalitarian tendencies or guidance on how to combat them? I certainly didn't find any.

And then there's religion. I've gotten the impression that neither Huxley nor Orwell anticipated a totalitarian regime like what exists in modern-day Iran.

Before I discuss the BNW novel any further, let me tell you about my 11th grade English teacher.

(The story I'm about to tell happened before I read Henry Miller's book, and since I've now mentioned that book again, please allow me to make a brief additional digression. I just listened to a sample from the audiobook of Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, and it didn't sound like a book I'd enjoy today. Also, it didn't sound like something I would now recommend. If I reread it today, I'd probably give it a bad review. But even so, I would never ever tell my younger self not to read it. I mean, if I hadn't read Tropic of Cancer, I wouldn't have that memory of a man following a woman up a staircase. On the other hand, I also wouldn't have that memory of the man in desperate need of a chamber pot. Life is a tradeoff, I guess. [Would it be an additional digression to mention that Max Shulman taught me the art of digression? That also happened when I was in 11th grade. I guess that should be another story on another day. Even Max Shulman knew you had to get back to the main story before you forget what the heck it was. What was it? Oh yeah, my 11th grade English teacher. (Oh, I also met my future wife when I was in the 11th grade. Man, what a year that was! The '64/'65 school year. It was so much better than the fall of '63.) I've digressed too much, I fear.])

Let me get back to the story about my 11th grade English teacher. It was the first day of English class on the first day of school in September of 1964. My English teacher wrote his name on the blackboard, and he explained what we'd be doing that year in English class. He said he would teach us to write clearly and concisely. He said there was nothing worse than wasting the reader's time.

I have a vivid memory of what happened next. He explained his grading system. An A grade meant we clearly understood the assignment, and our execution was perfect. B and C grades meant we understood the assignment, but our execution was imperfect. D and F grades were reserved for students who clearly had problems but who had the competence and good character to succeed in the future if they received appropriate guidance. He told us that if we got a D or F, we should talk to him and allow him to guide us in our future class related endeavors. Finally, he told us that if we got a C-minus, it meant that he felt our effort and character were crap. He didn't want to talk with C-minus students because it would be a waste of his time. At that point, all the future C-minus students loudly expressed their displeasure. They believed that crappy effort and bad character deserved a B-minus.

Consider the 2 rating I'm giving Brave New World to be equivalent to a C-minus. Let me explain. In his two Prefaces and in Brave New World Revisited, Huxley seems to be arguing that Brave New World deserves a B-minus. If Huxley had graciously admitted the novel's flaws, and if Brave New World Revisited had been a serious attempt to correct those flaws, l wouldn't be questioning Huxley's character. If Huxley had done those two things, I wouldn't now be suggesting that Brave New World is worthy of a C-minus.

Brave New World had a very promising beginning. In his first preface, Huxley starts out stating that rather than fretting about past mistakes, we should endeavor to do better in the future. I was impressed with that since it was the same advice my junior varsity football coach had attempted to give me when I was a freshman in high school. He. shouted at me, "Get it right next time, dammit, or you'll be sitting on the bench with the other idiots."

In Brave New World, there's a character called Savage. I knew a guy with the last name of Savage. Let's call him Savage Savage for short. SS couldn't have had a better name. I first met SS at First Church Sunday School, and later on, we went to the same high school. We must've been about four when we first met. It was a Sunday School class for preschool kids. Us little kids basically played while our parents attended the church ceremony.

The boys played with trucks and blocks, and the girls played with dolls and toy beds. There were lots of little cars and trucks, but only one good-sized truck. On my first day, no one told me that only SS was allowed to play with the big truck.

Upon arrival at Sunday School, I immediately noticed no one was playing with the big blocks, so I immediately built a big bridge for the big truck to drive over. When I finished the bridge, I naturally suggested to SS that he drive the truck over the bridge. SS said the truck couldn't drive over the bridge. I assured SS that it could, and I picked up the truck to show SS how it could be done. SS grabbed the truck back and clobbered me on the top of the head with it. I bled for hours.

For reasons I won't mention, I never forget nor forgave SS for clobbering me on the head with a toy truck. Brave New World has taught me I was wrong. I should have forgiven SS, and now I should atone for my sins.

I have prior experience with atonement and atonement ceremonies. In my experience, atonement ceremonies seemed somewhat like an orgy, but since I've never been to an orgy I can't be certain.

One year at church camp during our talent show, one of the ministers interrupted the festivities. He held up a girl's nightgown and claimed that someone had ripped it to shreds. (He never mentioned who or why.) Then a girl I'd never seen before stepped forward. She was all in tears. She claimed someone had ripped up her nightgown. It wasn't long before everyone was in tears, and we were all asking for Jesus to come into our lives. (That was rather strange because we were all regular church goers, and one would assume Jesus was already in our lives.)

That minister apparently didn't realize that many of us kids went to church camp every summer, so when he attempted the same nasty deception the next year with the very same torn nightgown and co-conspirator. Us kids verbally tore him to shreds.

Some months later, this minister asked me for my forgiveness, and I told him it wasn't my job. It's easy to get confused about what your job is and what it isn't. On that day, I didn't have any confusion. It's now my job to finish this review.

Huxley should have had an English teacher like I did in 11th grade to teach him to write clearly and concisely so he wouldn't waste the readers' time. It took him like forever to get his book started, and then he ended the story suddenly.

I didn't complain about the book ending, even though Brave New World left me curious about the Orgy-porgy song mentioned at the end of the book. I did a web search, but the only Orgy Porgy song I could find was the one sung by Fatso Jetson. I listened to Fatso Jetson's version of Orgy Porgy, and I honestly have to admit I did feel something moving inside me. I liked Fatso Jetson's Orgy Porgy song. It got right to the point, and there was absolutely no confusion regarding what he was singing about. Jetson's song reminded me of that scene in Tropic of Cancer where a man follows a woman up a staircase.


15 April 2023

I realize that a two-star rating for Brave New World is sacrilege. That's why I'll be posting my full review tomorrow as part of an atonement ceremony. Your official invitation follows.

Accordion players, pantomime artists, and genre lovers of all sorts are invited to my atonement ceremony on Sunday, 16 April 2023. Bring your own munchies and drinks. Chef Berengaria will provide food for thought. I'll be paying homage to Henry Miller and Max Shulman while dancing on the point of a pen. Clothing is not optional.

Molto belli entrambi. Ritorno al mondo nuovo è un saggio che fa venire i brividi per quanta verità contiene,e ormai sono passati 70 anni da quando Huxley ha riflettuto sui alcuni dei grandi problemi dell'umanità,tra cui la sovrappopolazione. Pensare di essere andati anche oltre le sue previsioni più pessimistiche mette davvero tristezza e ansia al contempo.

I somehow managed to live to age 60 before reading a book most people read in high school. The title is so etched in our culture, I had little curiosity - and now I've discovered just how brilliant this 1932 novel is.

While the specifics of Huxley's Brave New World may not yet be here, or not in the form he envisioned, the picture he paints is frightening. As he says in the introduction: "There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old...A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."

The first element of the brave new world is production-line bio-manufacturing of people - assembly line produced babies: "standard men and women in uniform batches", bio-engineered to fit a particular role in life. Henry Ford's production methods are so revered, the passage of time is measured by A.F. years, or years after the time of Ford.

Then there is the embryonic, childhood and early adult conditioning, explained by a manager: "All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny." My "favourite" conditioning scene had a nurse training infants to dislike books and nature, by terrifying them whenever they approached or even looked at a book or flower. "We condition to masses to hate the country [i.e., non-urban living]", says one manager.

The other means of control was mass addiction to the drug soma, readily distributed to all, more powerful than alcohol or heroin, and producing complete bliss. In one scene, a sub-species group was getting out of control, so police arrive and, rather than wielding batons, spray soma mist in the air. "Suddenly, from out of the Synthetic Music Box a Voice began to speak....The sound track roll was unwinding itself in Synthetic Anti-Riot Speech Number Two (Medium Strength). ..."My friends...what is the meaning of this? Why aren't you all being happy and good together?...at peace, at peace...Oh I do want you to be happy." Two minutes later, the riot was over.

Most of the book is chilling, but for a modern reader, one of the funniest scenes is how Huxley envisioned an on-the-scene live radio broadcast by a reporter in the future: "...rapidly, with a series of ritual gestures, he uncoiled two wires connected to the portable battery buckled round his waist; plugged them simultaneously into the sides of his aluminum hat; touched a spring on the crown - and antennae shot up into the air; touched another spring on the peak of the brim - and like a jack-in-the-box, out jumped a microphone and hung there, quivering, six inches in front of his nose...". Cool!

One of the managers summarized the brave new world this way: "The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want; and they never want what they can't get. They're well-off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strong about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma." It's a neo-fascist's wet dream.

In his follow-up booklet/essay Brave New World Revisited, written in 1958, Huxley compared Orwell's nightmare vision of 1984 with his vision of Brave New World, and describes the differences this way: "In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain; in Brave New World, by inflicting a hardly less humiliating pleasure."

I don't think modern day totalitarians have set aside Orwell's approach, but I do fear the most serious danger in the future is closer to what Huxley envisioned.

Il mondo distopico creato da Huxley e che fa da sfondo al romanzo mi è piaciuto molto. È stata una parte che mi ha incuriosito, interessato e anche sorpreso (nell'orrore di quello che viene descritto).
Ma i personaggi e come il tutto viene raccontato non mi ha entusiasmato molto. È stato come se mancasse pathos. Qualcosa che mi facesse provare delle emozioni.
E mi dispiace, perché l'ambientazione mi aveva davvero conquistata.

10/10

I struggled with whether I wanted to give this book 4 stars or 5 stars for a solid couple of hours. I think if I were to rate Brave New World on its own, I would probably go with 4 stars. The story is incredibly ambitious and has a lot going for it, but I really think the early chapters drag. I find Bernard to be an almost intolerable character to spend time with, and its not until John is introduced that I really become invested in the world and the story. John is, quite clearly, a twisted sort of stand-in for the reader, and it is through his perspective that I think the themes Huxley is exploring really pop off the page.
What really pushed me to give 5 stars here is the second half of this book, Brave New World Revisited. I can not stress enough how interesting and delightful it was to explore the mind of Huxley and his musings on the current state of the world in the '50s in regards to the totalitarian "utopia" he dreamed up back when Brave New World was originally published. If you have ever read Brave New World or if you ever plan on reading it I cannot stress enough how important I think it is to give Revisited a read through also, as it both enriches the experience of Brave New World as well as providing an incredibly engaging exploration of society and the problems we face.

Cos'è la libertà umana che qui si perde assieme all'individualità?
Meglio è viver al proprio posto, in un mondo nuovo, secondo le proprie capacità individuali prestabilite al concepimento in provetta; in una civiltà calcolata che come una macchina ben oliata gira e rigira nell'ignoranza e accettazione individuale e nella perfetta organizzazione collettiva; oppure invece esser selvaggi e saper leggere e citare Shakespeare e provare emozioni disgustose e arretrate?
Cos'è meglio e cosa inquieta di più?

It took me way too long to read this and for no good reason except that I wasn’t itching to pick it up.
I have mixed feelings, it wasn’t bad but I also don’t think I will be recommending this to anyone except for high school English classes.

Basically, Huxley crafts a dystopian society where the government (totalitarian) has control over an overly-organized caste system and the people are subdued through psychological manipulation and positive reinforcement with sex and drugs. They eliminate any tension and sadness so that everything works like a well oiled machine and people know their place and are happy about it.

The beginning was intriguing, but once he introduced The Savage (an outsider to this society) I wasn’t really a fan of the direction the story took. Also the characters are very two dimensional (which is claimed to be on purpose) but by the end I felt like some were acting out of character. The ending was fine, I do think that it could’ve been a little more climactic.

This copy includes “BNW revisited” where the author includes commentary on his story 25 years after the fact and provides other insights on futuristic societies. He has some interesting points on over-organization and over-population, but some other bits were a little out of date and we can’t forget the chapter where he support eugenics (yikes)

Definitely something to marinate on but I’m glad it’s over.

“Date all’uomo pane abbondante e regolare tre volte al giorno, e in parecchi casi egli sarà contentissimo di vivere di pane solo, o almeno di solo pane e circensi”

Like many, I reread Brave New World as the NBC/Peacock series aired. After watching a few episodes, I reread the novel and found so many differences, it's worth a comparison.

I'll forego a retelling of the plot, which can be found anywhere else. What struck me was the satiric tone, the scientific passages making artificial reproduction seem plausible, the authenticity of some Native American tribal customs among the "Savages," and, in a few parts, Huxley's occasional use of inter-relating multiple scenes with a cascade of short sentences; quite cinematic, and a textual way of showing how the inter-connectivity of the dystopian society wove characters together.

The story ends tragically (spoiler) with a reclusive John being literally hounded to death by voyeuristic alphas and betas.

Sidebar: the 1980 series adaptation (three hours on YouTube), while stilted in its pacing and now-corny in production values, stays closer to the book's story.

The 2020 adaptation, however, veers far from the novel. The beautiful cityscapes are a CGI marvel, but the tribal "Savages" are relegated to a white trash Burning Man amusement park with violent revolutionaries. None of the gun violence or SUVs are in the novel, nor is the action-packed escape.

The NBC adaptation does provide interesting back stories about the origins of Indra and the 'society.' It also portrays the circuit-party orgy lifestyle of alphas and betas, and the dull slavery of the lower echelon Gammas and Epsilons.

Expanding the romantic relationship between John and Lenina is to be expected, with Bernard as a fumbling foil. Where it fails is having removed John's knowledge of literature, Shakespeare in particular, as a counter to the city illiterates who've banned all art.

The use of Indra eye contact implants is clever, as are the other technological visualizations.
But where the new adaptation fails horribly is (spoiler) dredging up a WestWorld-styled violent revolution of the underclass. Like the 'Feelies' of both book and TV series, the last several episodes turn the story into exactly what the novel critiqued; mindless entertainment to satiate the drugged masses. By changing the story to give viewers a reassuring fantasy that revolution is even possible, it serves as a betraying cinematic soma.

I wish more people read this book, and not just Orwell's 1984.
This was an amazing, eye-opening read. It definitely isn't a book you read to have a fun, lighthearted time. It really makes you think about a world that Huxley had already imagined in 1932 and that's very close to what we are living now and to what our future might end up looking like. It's dark, scary and unsettling and it's something we all need more of. I was already a hater of radio and TV, but after reading this, I can't stand to have them around me even more than before. Read this. For real.
The book has definitely sparked my interest for other works of Huxley, too. I feel the need to read some of his more philosophical pieces, now, and his books about drugs and hallucinations.
This could definitely be a life-changing book for someone who has never looked at the world in a certain way. Personally, I was already one to have the same view on things as Huxley, so reading this was like finding someone who understands me pretty well.