[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 36 KB, 327x499, 51zBtn-khlL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10689916 No.10689916 [Reply] [Original]

I just finished reading this, but I cannot figure out if it's a utopia or a dystopia.

>> No.10689925

>>10689916
Starting just now. Give me 8 hours, will respond once I am done reading.

>> No.10689930

>>10689925
Keep me posted. It's a nice lil read.

>> No.10689932

It's a dystopia where we are governed by pleasure and drugs. A dystopia that stays alive by giving the illusion of being a utopia.

>> No.10689954

>>10689932
It's a utopia if you're an Beta or greater, dystopia for any class lower.

>> No.10689968

>>10689916
>this thread again
>no one will define "utopia" and "dystopia" precisely
>no one will clearly state which principals of morality they're arguing from
>thread will devolve into >muh hedonism vs >muh freedom
>it'll get 400 replies

>> No.10689976

>>10689968
A gramme is always better than a damn

>> No.10689987

>>10689916
Do you want this? Yes or no?

>> No.10690006

>>10689954
>

I would argue the opposite, if you are a semi simean epsilon minus you are simply too stupid to feel bad about you situation. You are kept happy with drugs.

Look at the characters of Bernard and Mustapha Mond. Mond knows how bad things really are and chooses to prop up the system he knows is bad for the sake of stability. Bernard can't deal with this and is basically banished to an island filled with freethinkers where they can't destabilize the system.

>> No.10690266

>>10689916
I think that was the point of the book but maybe that's just me.

Personally, I would argue for dystopia. The lack of freedom means people are not allowed to create meaning, but have to settle for happiness. The problem with simply defining it as either however is that some peoples' goal is to be happy. In evaluating this book then, you need to decide if you want to live happily or meaningfully. If happily, this is the best situation for you, and you could consider it a Utopia. If meaningfully, then in this scenario you have lost your ability to create meaning, and therefore this is a dystopia.

>> No.10690449

>>10689916
You're meant to identify with John the Savage, for whom the world is definitely a dystopia.

>> No.10690459

>>10689916
It was meant as a utopia, Huxley said as much. When people starting calling his orgy filled nightmare a dystopia, he had to revise. John was originally meant to be a conservative man who can't get along in the liberal, hippy centric city.

>> No.10690641

>>10690449
But John is described as being very attractive and desired by women. How can I identify with that?

>> No.10690654

>>10690641
in a soytopia, even neckbeard virgins like you are attractive compared to the feminized gigabetas of the future

>> No.10690678

>>10689916

Neither. The novel pre-dates those critical categories, and so it's not influenced by them. It's supposed to be a social science fiction novel, like those of Wells, that examines the potential of a particular (and to Huxley attractive) alternative society. The main character isn't meant to throw the whole thing into irony, to make you think it's a satire, but to realistically represent the limitations of such a society.

Huxley revists it many years later in an essay because of how history changed certain aspects of the novel (the totalitarian aspects of the society) and he is made uncomfortable by it. He later writes another novel, Island, that's basically the same novel but with the totalitarian aspects removed because they distracted from what interested him. He also added some new stuff about drugs.

>> No.10690690

>>10690678
Very good post, thanks for letting me pick your brain.

>> No.10690703

>>10690678
It clearly doesn't predate the categories of Utopia and dystopia. The first dystopia was Gulliver's Travels, which was written in 1726, nearly 200 years before brave New world. Utopia was written prior to that.

Additionally, most define "dystopia" as a setting in which most is effective, but one or few things is fundamentally off. Technically then, Brave New World is a dystopia, as people are happy and productive, but the human element in freedom is lost.

>> No.10690745

>>10690703

I mean they basically don't exist in the sense that we use them, which is derived basically from pointing at BNW and 1984.

There was stuff out there like Utopia itself, Iron Hell, We, all of Wells' work, etc, but the genre isn't around in the same way.

What was around then were basically copies of Utopia and Gulliver's Travels, which were caustic imitative satires/fantasies. (Take Erewhon.) You only really get the "speculative" and realistic quality around the time those two novels come out.

>> No.10691003

its a dystopia and not very good

>> No.10691015

>>10690459
[citation needed]

>> No.10691016
File: 103 KB, 600x1350, 897C1F25-591E-4F6A-AB45-5C770F0DD59F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10691016

It’s a dystopia because of passivity and lack of progress

>> No.10691022

>>10691003
pleb

>> No.10691028
File: 673 KB, 1600x1028, B6D07DC8-B1B8-4AAE-BDE5-787DA622E504.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10691028

>>10690459
Get off this board

>> No.10691073

It's a literal Utopia, everyone is happy and conditioned to be happy with their work.
It is presenting this idea as Utopia actually being a dystopia though due to lack of choice or freedom.

>> No.10691086

The book was based on the actual plans of the elites for us.

>> No.10691088

>>10689954
Not really, its the betas and alphas who sometimes figure out the truth behind their society and end up exiled in islands.
The point of the society is that it keeps everyone happy with drugs and conditioning and the lower classes are not clever enough to ever figure out their happiness is a lie.

>> No.10691602

>>10689916
Its a utopia conpaired to other dystopias

>> No.10691612

>>10691073
brainlet

>> No.10691637

What does it mean to be free to you?

>> No.10691648

>>10691637
Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's the best thing we have right now.

>> No.10691660

>>10691648
What?

>> No.10691666

>>10691660
I said, Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's the best thing we have right now.

>> No.10691679

>>10691022
1984 is better

>> No.10691690

>>10691679
1984 also described a utopian society

>> No.10691729

>>10691666
Oh, thanks. Could you please explain how your response relates to my question?

>> No.10691734

>>10691729
No I cannot, nor will I.

>> No.10691751

>>10691734
Oh. Okay. Have a nice day, anon.

>> No.10691752

>>10691648
The default response for "I can't be fucked to critically think about alternate systems" i.e. "My own life is comfortable enough so the status quo is okay with me".

Read more, think more, and be less narcissistic.

>> No.10691755

>>10691751
Thanks, you as well.

>> No.10691761

>>10689916
If you think BNW isn't a massive dystopia, you aren't necessarily stupid; I just vehemently disagree with you

>>10689954
It's closer to the opposite desu

>> No.10691769

>>10691752
I'm curious, what do you propose as an alternate system?
>>10691755
You're welcome, thank you.

>> No.10691778

>>10691612
Pseud
Brave New world isn't that deep

>> No.10693097

Brave New World is the most perfect dystopia yet written which is why we're having this question of debate at all.

>> No.10693287

>>10689916
Huxley certainly tried to portray it as a dystopia.

>> No.10693384

>>10689916

BNW is a pristine case of dystopia OP. The very fact you are left to question whether or not this system is meant to be desirable goes a long way in showing how insidious a political system based on pleasurable consumption can be. Put that in contrast to modern science fiction where the blatant co-optation of technological advances and crony capitalism is widely employed to make it very obvious that [cyberpunk] worlds like this are undesirable.

BNW portrays a zero-sum game society, that not only does not have any class mobility at all, is also insular to any and all disruption. It would be truly impossible for that civilization to ever develop revolutionary tech, to adequately negotiate with parties from outside, or even to adapt to abrupt local changes in their social environment (abrupt enough to spark a cascade effect). It is in this sense that this apparently perfect society must remain merely "apparent", because in reality it is a management nightmare no one would actually be happy to deal with, simply because you would have to, almost literally, overcome entropy in order to preserve its utopian features.

Huxley does an awfully good job of showing his case on this, and as others have claimed ITT, it is rather ironic and also a cautionary tale, that BNW is an utopia if you're on the lower, ignorant castes, and absolutely hellish to live in if you're one of the people responsible to think freely and take decisions on how to keep the system going.

>> No.10693397

>>10689916
its dystopian you coddled beta faggot

>> No.10693429

>>10689916
>is prostate orgasm, eye-roll ant hive existence debased or ennobled?

>> No.10693431

>>10690678
Huh, that might be why I can't stand Island.

>> No.10693479
File: 26 KB, 480x479, 27750537_2076613279292442_9009927868558410601_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10693479

>>10689916
>>10693384

I'd like to add, in response to most answers in here, that this (that world being a dystopia) has nothing at all to do with freedom to suffer vs enforced hedonism. Soma-induced and sex-induced pleasure are used as tools for control merely because they are the most efficient Huxley could think of (and probably the most efficient in fact), but change everything into people being forced into obedience in more traditional ways (like most cyberpunk dictatorships that rip off Huxley), and none of the dystopian elements are even modified (i.e society is still insular to disruption and mobility is non-existent).

Such a society being undesirable also has less to do with its Human Development Index and more to do with its viability in long term. Both BNW and traditional "obviously nasty" dystopias would realistically be absorbed/destroyed by interaction with external elements, be it nature itself or other societies with different political schemes. You can't be Cuba for too long if you want Cuba to be part of the world, likewise for North Korea, and likewise for Huxley's imagined world. The trope here is not "freedom is above all" but rather "it is impossible not to change".

>> No.10693510
File: 48 KB, 832x624, 1355606421090.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10693510

it was a dystopia

this sort of deliberately shackled existence where humans are deliberately reduced to a cattle-like state of idiocy so as to be kept controlled is a corruption of technology and nature both.

ultimately, BNW shows a society which has fallen to a state of purposeless self-indulgence. why continue propagating the society at all, if this servile stasis is all that can be achieved?

ironically, it makes slaves of the superintelligent and the idiots both, and everyone in between. the savage is right in abhorring it, and there are many reasons to do so.

>> No.10693526

>>10691778
The very fact that it is still discussed shows that it got its message across adequately. I would contend it was a very thoughtful and we'll delivered book.

>> No.10693651

>>10691752
>hasn't read Wealth by Emerson
>hasn't read Power by Emerson
>hasn't read any Sowell
>Hasn't read any Smith

try again.
>t. soyboy