Brave New World

Would a future totalitarian society be all that bad if every single person - from the day they were born - was truly happy with their lot in life? That is the question Brave New World asks, and Aldous Huxley leaves it up to the reader to decide the answer.I've re-read this book several times and each time I'm glad I did. That is because it is an enjoyable story, first and foremost. The characters have sufficient depth, the locales are peculiar and attention-grabbing, and the underlying message is enough to make you stop and think.Brave New World revolves around three main characters. First, there's Bernard Marx, an elite "Alpha Plus" who is uncertain about how he fits into society. Then, there is Mustapha Mond, the World Controller for Western Europe, a man who reads The Holy Bible and Shakespeare, despite his society's ban on these "pornographic books". Finally, we have John (named John Savage when he visits Bernard's world), the son of two World State citizens raised in the remote hostility of a Savage Reservation. The interactions and thoughts of these three characters forms the skeleton of the book, and it is through their eyes that we view the World State of the future. The reader learns about how babies are "decanted" in the future, how they are bred and conditioned for their role in society, how entertainment plays a role in keeping them happy, and how unhappiness can be quickly whisked away by a gramme of Soma, a powerful drug that has no debilitating side-effects. Of course, it would be easy for the author to jab his finger at you from the pages and scream "SEE?!? SEE?!?! See what a society without freedom looks like? Isn't it horrible?", but he doesn't. In fact, the world of Year of Our Ford 632 doesn't seem so bad at all when you consider disease, war, and unhappiness have all been snuffed out of existence.But at what cost?Midway through the book, we meet John. Biologically, a son of the World State, but philosophically a student of the old religions and old literature of the old world. But don't misunderstand. John is not necessarily the book's "everyman". Many of his emotions and actions (like self-flagellation) are still foreign to a modern reader. Bernard - who has at this point accepted that he is "different" compared to his fellow World State-ers - brings John to his home to show him off to his peers. Naturally, many aspects of the World State are appalling to John, and this conflict continues all the way to the book's conclusion.Something I found remarkable is that the author, Huxley, gives us plenty of chances to sympathize with many of the various characters. Bernard Marx is not the "good guy" nor the "bad guy". In another story, the World Controller Mond might have been the evil villain trying to destroy any freedom, and John Savage might have been the passionate hero who wins the pretty girl and ultimately brings that freedom to society. But none of this occurs. The characters in Brave New World are just people, thrust into a world of perfect happiness and perfect harmony, and they each react in their own way. Sure, it's cute to see how the author envisioned the future, and perhaps a bit scary to see some of his "predictions" coming true, but that isn't what makes this book great. What makes it great is that it allows the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. To you, perhaps the World State seems terrifying, or maybe it seems like a nice place to live. To you, perhaps John Savage is the hero, or perhaps the logic and compassion in Mustapha Mond's final words and final actions resonate with you more. Maybe you can relate best to Bernard Marx's flawed personality. I suppose the choice is really yours, because Huxley doesn't make that choice for you.A lot of people say that the story is about entertainment media taking over our society, or about drugs, or about a controlling government, or about morality. I don't think Huxley intended the book to be exclusively about any one of those things, although of course the book makes a statement about them all. As stated above, Brave New World lets you draw your own conclusions about the World State instead of trying to grab you by the collar while screaming "SEE?!? SEE?!? See how horrible a world full of drugs and genetic manipulation would be?"Now, I rate this book a full 5 stars, but here is the "but..." of the review. For the majority of the book, we are treated to a fascinating romp through future science, future sociology, and future beliefs. However, toward the end of the book, John and Mustapha Mond engage in a very lengthy conversation about society and morals and God. To me, I really enjoyed this part. It was a great answer to my lingering question of "Why did society become this way?". To others, it might come off as a preachy, show-offy exposition from Huxley's own heart. Mustapha makes a point about human psychology, and John counters with Shakespeare. Mustapah points to the World State's "happiness", and John counters with God. Mustapha talks about bliss, and John talks about struggling for joy. I enjoyed it, but you might not, especially since it breaks away from the overall pace and feel of the rest of the book.Nevertheless, this book is well worth reading. It can be finished by a diligent reader in a weekend, and it contains a lot of thought-provoking ideas that will stick with you long after the final page.

This is another one of those "dystopian" novels that seemed popular in the first half of the 20th century. It fits in perfectly with novels like "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451". Of those three novels, I believe this came first. The funny thing about this book is that the future doesn't seem completely terrible, unlike the latter two novels, although I might compare the entire population of the earth (in "Brave New World") to the proletariats (in "1984").See, in this novel nobody seems to be unhappy at all. They are literally born to do the jobs they will perform for their entire adult lives, and love those jobs. Each person is born into a certain "caste" and they are happy to be in that caste, and envy no one in any other castes. The lowest of the low are referred to as epsilon - minus, semi-morons. This is interesting, as epsilon is a common mathematical number that defines how much error a function may allow. In this book, the epsilons (as a general class), represent the lowest possible mental and social state of humanity.Of course, their are more intelligent people as well. The castes are, from highest to lowest: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon. That's quite a bit like a typical grading system of A, B, C, D, F. As you can imagine, the Alphas are the smartest, and the list goes down from there. But the thing is, each caste member is truly satisfied by their caste membership. The novel makes a pretty logical reason why the caste members are happy with their lot in life.Sex is treated in a completely pragmatic fashion, and emotions are almost completely subdued.With the help of a super narcotic, the populace is able to enjoy life and extravagant recreation - devoid of all sadness and driven by a natural tendency to "consume". Everything is in place to allow a person to go through life almost without any spikes in emotion. Even death is a conditioned response.The missing element in this picture is humanity. Essentially, those in control have tried their best to keep any highs and lows within a certain amount of error (epsilon). The central question is the running of civilization vs. the individual spirit. It seems that, to keep a civilization going, we need to make certain sacrifices individually - and it's easy to make those sacrifices when we don't realize that we are making those sacrifices.However, there are about 5 major characters, and I think each one represents a different amount of humanity - or at least different levels of humanity. In this version of the future, it's possible to step outside the bounds of what is acceptable, but you are not doomed if you do so. Instead, you are offered a quite reasonable accommodation.Aldous Huxley offers extremely complex characters, but each is allowed to act within a certain epsilon of ranges - he wrote in very delicate shades of meaning. In fact, I'm pretty certain that I've never read an author who has presented me with more "gray areas" within the thinking of each character. Mr. Huxley is a very deep and complicated author who was ahead of his time. Those novels "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" presented dystopias that were easily regarded as undesirable, whereas "Brave New World" presents a future that is not so obviously flawed. In fact, my wife asserts that this future was actually desirable - but she's a bleeding heart socialist, so that doesn't surprise me. "Brave New World" does, in my mind, present a more deviously dystopian future than the other two novels. I believe each of the major characters is meant to ask, in total, all of the questions we, the readers, might have.In the end, this novel was gripping and a serious page turner. Every night, it inspired a great debate between my wife and me, and its overall game plan is one of subtlety instead of shock.I'll bet that, after you read the novel, you will be able to spot this particular plot in many movies - particularly "The Matrix".