[ 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: 22 KB, 526x327, vs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1903749 No.1903749 [Reply] [Original]

Choose wisely.

>> No.1903752

I'll go with the junkie

>> No.1903753 [DELETED] 

huxley had that haircut first, nice job swagger jackin george

mark ass nigga

>> No.1903765

you know what fuck it, i'd rather be happy

>> No.1903763

Huxley had an info dump that I didn't like, but he did a good job with his prognosticatin'.

I'll go with Huxley for futuresight, and Orwell for writing style, if that's okay.

>> No.1903769

Huxley was the better writer. Also, not working for the CIA, which helps.

>> No.1903772

Comrade Orwell, no contest.

>> No.1903778

wh-why do i have to choose?

>> No.1903779

both have six letters in their first and last names

>> No.1903782
File: 744 KB, 570x4550, orwell vs hu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1903782

Semi-related to thread.

>> No.1903788
File: 2.67 MB, 1000x2112, 1290451932490.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1903788

>>1903779
Orwell and Huxley both now confirmed to be trolls.

>> No.1903793

Huxley. Brave New World held my interest; 1984 just seemed preachy as all fuck.

>> No.1903790

>>1903782
>Browses both /co/ and /lit/

Let's form a /co/a/lit/ion.

>> No.1903797

Huxley b/c he covered a wider berth of subjects and he showed a plausible world, and the one we live in (give or take the specifics). Orwell's work is dated now because Communism has largely disappeared.

>> No.1903803

Don't get me wrong, I love Orwell, but Huxley was what, ten times more intelligent? Read his nonfiction. The guy was brilliant. Also the US at least seems more like Brave New World than 1984 doesn't it?

>> No.1903808

this is a intellectually bankrupt exercise

>> No.1903812

>>1903763
Nah, they were talking about different threats, Orwell was a communist talking about the dangers of the totalitarian communist state, and his insight was plenty valid, just not for america. Huxley had separate insight about the threats of the banality of freedom destroying society. Neither's warnings are more or less valuable.

>> No.1903821

>>1903769
Citation?

>> No.1903822

>Asks for Huxley vs Orwell
>Thread discusses Brave New World vs 1984

You guys are aware that they both have many other works, right?

>> No.1903832

>>1903822
So? who cares about comparing the lesser works, the battle is between the magnum opuses

>> No.1903835

>>1903832

Nah man.

Nah.

Nah.

>> No.1903834

I choose both
fuck you OP

>> No.1903852

I've read a lot of Huxley, but only 1984 from Orwell.
so I'll go with Huxley, if only because his ideas of apt society are commendable and quirky in the Island and sometimes in Brave New World.
I can't say I'm often on his wavelength, in terms of his more metaphysical, god is you, you are god side.

>> No.1903855

>>1903793

1984 is just anti-socialist propaganda that got a big publicity push because of the Cold War, and Orwell's notable status as a communist who deserted communism.


>>1903821

I was half-kidding, he actually worked for British Intelligence.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/sep/25/orwells-list/


>>1903822

Only sci-fi mavens do this versus shit with these two writers. Huxley was a great debater of ideas, Orwell was a great yellow journalist, and both were pretty dreadful novelists. I prefer Huxley because he was more intelligent, whereas Orwell was a mere propagandist, but it's probably a tie, in terms of absolute value.

>> No.1903857

>>1903790
I don't like bursting bubbles, but I've never visited /co/. That was posted on here and I thought it was quite awesome, so I "fukken saved" it.

>> No.1903860

>>1903855

>1984
>anti-socialist

Did you miss that whole "the only hope is in the proletariat" business?

1984 was just anti-totalitarian.

>> No.1903862

>>1903855
Orwell didn't desert communism, he just learned of the inherent dangers of abuse in it. As an economic system he still supported it.

>> No.1903863

>>1903832

Brave New World isn't Huxley's magnum opus by any means.

>> No.1903867

>>1903863

What would you consider his magnum opus?

Not trying to be antagonistic. Genuinely curious.

>> No.1903869

>>1903863
Well his other work was crap, so yeah.

>> No.1903870

>>1903860

Nope.


>>1903862

Not reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally, noooooooooo.

>> No.1903875

>>1903870
I bow to your rhetorical skill, sir. You have defeated me in the art of debate.

>> No.1903877

>>1903870

>Nope.

Thank you for that well thought out rebuttal.

>> No.1903882

>>1903867

Ape and Essence, probably.


>>1903869

No more so than Brave New World, that's just the one that became a sci-fi cliché.

>> No.1903889

>>1903875
>>1903877

Christ, how old are you pretending to be? This isn't a debate, it's a 4chan thread. Orwell explicitly identifies Oceania as the result of socialism. Hope lies with the people overthrowing socialism. Yes, just what many CIA agents fervently hoped for. A character raised in a socialist milieu would use the word 'proletariat', but he's hoping for glasnost.

>> No.1903895

>>1903889
Nope.

>> No.1903907

>>1903895

You're deceiving yourself.

>> No.1903922

>>1903907

Nope.

>> No.1903937

>>1903889
Orwell was a member of the Independent Labour Party and only left after they toed the Communist Party line after the Molotov-Ribbentrov Pact. He fought in a Marxist militia during the Spanish Civil War. While writing 1984, he said "I belong to the Left and must work inside it, much as I hate Russian totalitarianism and its poisonous influence in this country."
While he might not have been a communist after the war (although he never publicly renounced communism), he certainly remained a leftist.

>> No.1903939

I'll choose after I get finished reading Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Joyce, Maugham, Fitzgerald...

>> No.1903944

>>1903937

There are plenty of 'leftists' who ultimately serve the interests of capitalism. What I said, that it's an anti-socialist book promoted for its anti-Soviet potential rather than its aesthetic value, isn't contradicted by that.

>> No.1903945

>>1903939

Well said.