(another) Brave New World Bread

[Anonymous No.10405781]

Just finished this. Wtf is up with that ending? Is the reader supposed to be cheering for Johnny boy? People keep telling me that he's supposed to represent pure humanity but he seemed like a inept, misguided retard to me.

[Anonymous No.10405832]

>>10405781
>represent humanity
>inept, misguided retard
there you have it OP, you answered your own question

[Anonymous No.10405835]

>>10405781
are you a fag?

[Anonymous No.10405880]

>>10405781
DESU it wasn't even a dystopian society, much more utopian. That Mustapha Mond fella had the right idea. Would you rather
>be genetically engineered to be happy and content with life
>be assigned duties that you specifically are perfectly suited for
>bang a million different broads whenever you want
>get some hype ass soma whenever you feel like shit
Or
>live in a mud hut hunting for rabbits and whipping yourself to a delirious state of senility because someone tried to fuck you once and
>blame yourself and "muh evil society" for your degenerate mother's death instead of realizing that she's a garbage human
>read Shakespeare once and base your whole life philosophy on shit you don't even understand
>and then finally kill yourself cause "muh degeneracy"

[Anonymous No.10405893]

>>10405835
n-no. Does sucking cock make it easier to understand the book?

[Anonymous No.10405895]

>>10405781
He wasn't supposed to represent a pure society; no such thing can exist. John the Savage was no more different from the programmed individuals of the utopia; his supposed culture that revered Jesus and other supernatural things was no better or worse than the city. He was an experiment; failure or success depending on who the observer was (in this case, Mond).

When John realized that it made no difference, and that he could not escape society, and be truly free, he killed himself. He was never pure, but he longed to be so badly; to cast off the society that raised him and the society he inherited.

[Anonymous No.10405902]

>>10405880
humans arent machines enineered to feel pleasure.

if you disagree try using opiates and hiring hookers every day you idiot

[Anonymous No.10405907]

>>10405832
Yeah but I feel like Huxley wasn't purposely portraying him like that. It felt like he was trying to show him off as some kind of pure hearted martyr that succumbed to the degeneracy of society at the end there when that wasn't really the case.

[Anonymous No.10405923]

>>10405902
>humans arent machines enineered to feel pleasure.
They are in the book ;)
>if you disagree try using opiates and hiring hookers every day you idiot
I have and I would still be doing it to this day if it wasn't so expensive. Why don't you try my friend? Maybe you'll learn something.

[Anonymous No.10405939]

>>10405781
>>10405880
If you genuinely believe feeling good should be the end goal of humanity I feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.10405949]

People who think BNW is a utopia should be gassed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap

[Anonymous No.10405952]

>>10405939
Lets all feel bad instead.

[Anonymous No.10405961]

>>10405952
That's not what I'm saying at all. Improvement necessitates stressors. You really think being in a drug induced haze is a noble pursuit?

[Anonymous No.10405968]

>>10405949
Would you rather live in a cozy 18th century Chinese village or hellish and filthy Industrial Revolution London

[Op No.10405972]

>>10405939
I'm not that guy. I don't believe feeling good should be the end goal of humanity, I just felt like John was supposed to be a vessel for "true humanity" with all of its faults and yet he didn't come off that was at all to me. The ending seemed a bit hurried to me, the whole part where John sets out to live alone and then starts whipping himself happens in the span of like 1 or 2 chapters. I would've liked it if he developed his situation a little more Before jumping into the final whipping frenzy scene and John's subsequent death. The character of John just felt a little too try hard without having substance. It's like "oh he reads Shakespeare, look everyone he's so smart." I get that literature is banned so it sets him apart but even so it's kinda obnoxious how the book portrays him as this intellectual figure. Huxley only briefly highlights his incompetency when he is talking with Mond and realizes he doesn't even know what "science" is.

[Anonymous No.10405978]

>>10405968
I'd rather live in the modern day than an 18th century Chinese village. Can't get to today without some chaos.

[Anonymous No.10405987]

>>10405978
>I'd rather live in the modern day than an 18th century Chinese village
That's because you're a pleb

[Anonymous No.10406000]

Why was Bernard such a bitch? He is one of the most pathetic characters I've ever had the privilege of reading.

[Anonymous No.10406001]

>>10405972
Science aptitude isn't the only indicator of intelligence. I'd say flaws are an important characteristic of the individual human. John was a "true human" and intellectual in relation to the rest of the population. The bar is low. I remember the ending being kind of hasty too.

>>10405987
Enjoy getting steam rolled by a local warlord, turbopleb.

[Anonymous No.10406132]

>>10405880
That's the central tension that the book is about, dingus. Huxley was exploring what our ideas of a utopia would actually require, and whether humans can really thrive without struggle. In exchange for base happiness, all art, science, and philosophy are lost.

[Anonymous No.10406389]

>>10405972
>It's like "oh he reads Shakespeare, look everyone he's so smart."

Literally every anglosaxon pseud author ever.

[Anonymous No.10406409]

>>10406389
I think it was an effective way to create a connection from Johnny to people in real life. We're supposed to recognize a bit of the vitality and humanity we presently have inside him, because he's been gifted with a piece of culture which is so ubiquitous to us but astonishingly scarce in his reality. It could have been anything, save for the allusions to Shakespeare, but it's good that it was Shakespeare imo.

[Anonymous No.10406415]

>>10406132
>In exchange for base happiness, all art, science, and philosophy are lost.

Except they aren't.

Mond and others purposefully decide to ostracize them because they don't need them, but the society still produces geniuses of all kinds. It just puts them away because it doesn't need them. Instead they get to live on islands with other like-minded individual.
Even the works of arts aren't destroyed, just hidden. Mond is a highly cultivated scientist who decides that keeping the statu quo was a better solution for everyone.
Dissidents are set free from what they perceive as an oppressive society and can do whatever the hell they want, while said society can stay in their idle (highly technological) hedonistic society, but retains the possibilitie of calling them back.

If Huxley wanted to state that innovation in sciences and arts required human suffering, and that a society without suffering -and therefore without innovation- was doomed, then he fucked up hard.
Even john, supposedly the humanest human, doesn't do jack aside from spouting le memespeare

[Anonymous No.10406430]

>>10406409
Maybe it completely passed me by because I'm not anglo, but I just found it extremely ridiculous and forced. Like seriously, the only book -which symbolizes the lost pre-ford civilization- the Noble Savage encounters "just happens" to be the complete oeuvre of shakespeare? And he can understand it perfectly despite the only person teaching him english being his uncultured mother who isn't able to comprehend any of the things shakespeare writes about due to cultural differences?

[Anonymous No.10406453]

>>10406430
you're like the guy who watches horror movies and weighs in with arrogant disbelief by saying 'psh, what kinda fucking retard gets scared by that? everyone knows ghosts aren't real'.

[Anonymous No.10406459]

>>10406430
I agree that it is sort of inexplicable, but it doesn't really matter. What >>10406453 said.

[Anonymous No.10406464]

>>10406453

Strong strawman game

[Anonymous No.10406494]

>>10406464
>not an argument!!!
lmao @ you

[Anonymous No.10406495]

>>10405880
>instead of realizing that she's a garbage human
But anon she was just a normal individual in society off the reservation,so by that logic aren't every single other person at the very least in her caste garbage human beings?

[Anonymous No.10406554]

>AKSHUALLY TECHNO-SOCIALIST HEDONISM WITH A CASTE SYSTEM IS A GUD THING AS LONG AS ITS NOT RAYCIST

[Anonymous No.10406587]

>>10406494
Not my fault if it indeed isn't one, and if you're a retard. Guess i'll have to effortpost a bit.

I'm not expecting "credibility" from a fairy tale or a book like Alice in Wonderland. I do from a book like BNW where the entire premise and point of the book is that the society it portraits is believable and logical.
It's because a dystopia is credible that it can drive its point home.
In terms of the meaning BNW wants to carry, there wasn't a need for many of the things in the book. John didn't have to be half-british, they could have taken any random guy to play the noble savage. The indian's religion didn't need to be a syncretic mushup. Bernard didn't need to have fetal alcohol syndrom, as long as he was shunned by society, his character would have worked. Etc etc. And the token of a long-lost civilization John brought didn't need to be shakespeare's complete oeuvre.
It actually didn't need to be anything, and I think it would have made the point stronger by not linking john's reasoning to a relic of the past, but instead letting him figure it out by himself.

Huxley goes through great lenghts to create a credible society because it allows for creating parallels with our own. He sets the tone for a specific tone of verisimilitude. And then he just breaks it because he, like many anglo authors, wants to stroke his dick in rhythm to Shakespeare, which not only was unnecessary in terms of the meanings conveyed - as either John didn't need a relic from a bygone era, or if he did, it needn't be something as ridiculously cliched as a comprehensive edition of Shakespeare.

Basically, you're telling me that "hurr durr it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense because it doesn't change the point xDD". Well guess what wouldn't have changed the point? Simply publishing an essay saying "hey guys, I think human suffering is key to artistic and scientific innovation". Which makes for a far less interesting reading. Which is why Huxley surrounded it with a relatively complex logical and credible fictional frame. And when you create a credible frame, not breaking it by magically dropping books from your favorite author is a pretty good idea, because if you do, you just undermine the believability of the fiction your ideological point runs on.

[Anonymous No.10406601]

>>10405902
>if you disagree try using opiates and hiring hookers every day you idiot

Please how do I get this lifestyle

[Anonymous No.10406602]

>>10406587
Hey man, I'm the dude (>>10406453) who you think strawmanned your position with that horror movie simile. I'm not the guy (>>10406494) who claimed your response to my post was not an argument.

I'm not going to read what you wrote, but it's great that this got you to expand on your thoughts and articulate them.

[Anonymous No.10406618]

>>10405902
That's a shitty combo desu good lucking wanting to fuck on opiates

[Anonymous No.10406622]

>>10406587
i think you’re just criticizing his writing ability which everyone knows is suspect and aren’t concerned with whether its actually a dystopia. Your Op could have been formulated more clearly tho, but i agree with your criticisms

[Anonymous No.10406712]

>>10406602
>I'm not going to read what you wrote
That's kind of a faggy move, don't reply to the lad if you're not gonna read his shit.

[Anonymous No.10406819]

>>10406712
mate, you're on 4chan, worse injustices have happened, but I commend you for standing up for what's right
>>10406587
Okay, I'm back. I guess my main point of contention is your point of agreement with the other anon, in that you take the books as an allegory for "hey guys, I think human suffering is key to artistic and scientific innovation". I think you're missing the point, which is why you might be autistic about the author's choice of Shakespeare. The book is an epistemological treaty, it's a manifesto against hedons and utilitarianism and its conclusion is that truth and happiness of that kind are ultimately incompatible. Which is exactly why Shakespeare's oeuvre is used as the lens through which our boy understands the world. Nay, the language through which he understands it. Think of the plays that document the breadth of human suffering. Also, think of the works' contribution to language and view it on the truth-Logos continuum which might provide yet another clue as to why Shakespeare was the right choice for John's newfound 'language'. And yes, the book's main audience might have been the Anglosphere, which is why sanctity is a value that is necessary for the kind of anti-utilitarian truth that the book posits - and sanctity as a symbol can only be drawn from the past -; another argument in favour of Shakespeare.

To sum it all up, I think your reading of the allegory is wrong. It's not 'suffering is a catalyst for artistic and scientific innovation', it's 'unconditional/unburdened happiness is incompatible with Truth'. The second reading sheds some light on Shakespeare.

(P.S.: Not even an Anglo, but I also think you should put your clear beef with the Anglosphere aside as it clearly robs you of meaning)

[Anonymous No.10406984]

>>10405880
>it wasn't even a dystopian society, much more utopian
It was poking fun at the utopia Huxley and his Atlanticist fellows really wanted. The dystopian elements are meant to be amusing, but plebs will never understand.
>>10405902
>humans arent machines enineered to feel pleasure.
Read H.G. Wells (nonfiction), Bertrand Russell, Charles Galton Darwin, Jonas Salk, etc. They all talk about engineering humans to be malleable pleasure-seeking bots.
>if you disagree try using opiates and hiring hookers every day you idiot
How about the millions of "normal, healthy people" who take prescribed amphetamines and masturbate to pornography every day? Sit down to a Little Caesars pizza and Diet Pepsi for dinner.
>>10406132
>In exchange for base happiness, all art, science, and philosophy are lost.
Read the people I listed above. It's the tension they feel because they believe it's necessary to turn us plebs into that, while the elites remain "wild men". The plan was to increasingly file the plebs away into little specified niches, while the elites live a life of art, science, and philosophy. We the plebs are allowed nice packets of facts to repeat and learn to respond to bells. Clock in and clock out. Some of us will go on to dumb manual labor. The more intelligent of us will be shuffled into esoteric specialisations, where we are permitted to perform retarded manual labor or plug numbers into computers. The elites get the trivium and quadrivium, and go on to rule us and pursue their hobbies however they see fit.

That's the joke of Brave New World. That is the utopia they want. It does seem a little dystopic through a pleb's eyes though. Nothing a little adderall, porn, and corn syrup can't fix.

[Anonymous No.10407036]

>>10406984
they are miserable. human happiness is more complicated than poking dopamine receptors, and it can be mechanically detailed. the mechanics just dont happen to involve pleasure seeking

[Anonymous No.10407045]

It's a book about the absolute optimization of our current system, you can see it as sort of satire but in the end the bast majority is happy. Those that are outliers, either by being too good or too bad, are sent to try and do their own society and see how well they do.
I find it super interesting that people consider this a dystopia when it's in every sense a better sense of modern society.