/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19307140]

>told my friend I watched brave new world the TV SHOW
>instead of reading the CLASSIC BOOK
>gets upset with me because I dont read books
>told him why read the book when I can just watch it
>he claims reading forces you to learn and think and makes you smarter
>i tell him its just a hobby
>havent read anything except archie comics and shit I was forced to in school
>I basically like buster baxter in that episode of Arthur where he didnt want to read a single book

Why should I read it just seems so boring and time consuming. It's just ahobby

[Anonymous No.19307147]

Why go through the effort of watching a TV show when you can just do drugs that make you feel the same good feelings?

[Anonymous No.19307149]

>>19307140
If you read more books you'd be able to structure a more interesting lie about something that never happened.

[Anonymous No.19307162]

>>19307140
Really good literature takes time to appreciate and understand. Dystopian fiction is almost never that good as literature, nearly every dystopian fiction novel could be reduced to a 100 page novella and contain all the same value. You made the right call this time, but Ulysses the movie, Moby-Dick the movie or any adaptation of epic poetry will never be as good as the original literature because those works contain aspects that don’t translate well to screen

[Anonymous No.19307197]

>>19307149
Kek

[Anonymous No.19307232]

[Anonymous No.19307706]

>>19307162
this.

[Anonymous No.19307729]

>>19307140
Don't worry anon the book sucks as much as the show does (I imagine). Read this instead if you want good dystopian fiction.

[Anonymous No.19307751]

>>19307140
Kill yourself zoomer piece of shit

[Anonymous No.19307773]

>>19307140
>Reading Brave New World when you can just watch Youtube videos of trust fund kids telling you how to be an Alpha and then hop over to pornhub for a bit of orgy-porgy.

[Anonymous No.19307796]

>>19307773
this is literally 198-- i mean Brave New World

[Anonymous No.19309026]

>>19307232
The worst part of this is an anglotrannoids actually believe this shit. I don't even know why I come to this place. There is no point. Nothing of value will come up if there are people who "feel" writing.

[Anonymous No.19309035]

>>19307140
You have no friends. No, I'm not your friend get away from me.

[//\༼ ººل͟ºº ༽/\\ !!klfsKkgJoo9 No.19309036]

>>19307140
(You) should not read.

[Anonymous No.19309088]

>>19307140
Hollywood will NEVER do a good adaptation of BNW since this book is a critique of all Hollywood is about.

The series are the complete opposite of the book and I felt like they were praising this new society.

Some things from the show that has nothing to do with the book.
1. The Savage HATES this new society, in the TV Show he feels pretty comfortable and happy about it once he gets there.
2. No mentions of Shakespeare, in the book it's forbidden to read Shakespeare because "people can't consume old things, they need new things" would say Mustapha Mond. Actually, children are conditioned to hate books and individual thought.
3. The chaste system in the series is not so clear.
4. The Savage lives in a tribal society similar to native Americans, in the TV show they live in a sort of modern small town.
5. There is no "revolution" in the book, people are simply too deep into the system and no one listens to the Savage.
6. The dichotomy of happiness and freedom is never presented in the TV show.
7. No mention of the Fordist religion.

If you wanna a good outline of the book, here it goes.
https://youtu.be/raqVySPrDUE

The fact you reject reading the book only reinforce that Huxley was prophetic. People are already unable to read a 200 page book, that's incredibly creepy.

[Anonymous No.19309094]

>>19309026
Feel is under the music category on that chart.

[Anonymous No.19309097]

>>19309035
Getting a hardon from seeing my butt does make you my friend, I hate to say.

[Anonymous No.19309132]

>>19309026
You're right and wrong, emotions can strongly translate through writing. The main issue I have is its devaluation of aesthetic

[Anonymous No.19310634]

>>19309088
Jesus christ the fucking show butchers the book holy fuck. I didn't even know there was a show. Brave New World's ending as a whole is fucking amazing because that's the way it is. Consequences of society are unavoidable. One must just suffer as the world 'grows'. Removing that alone proves the issues with the Hollywood dystopia.

[Anonymous No.19311883]

>>19310634
If you like the book, don't watch it because it is quite frustrating.
There are many stupid ideas in the show, I never read Grant Morrison but comic fans would praise him, now I doubt that he is that good since he pretty much ruined the point of Huxley's book.

A thing worth of mention, in the show Mustapha Mond is not the one in charge (and Mond is a black woman btw lol), apparently the real person in charge is some sort of AI named Indra. The show ends in a cliffhanger, which leaves open for a second season that will have absolutely nothing to do with the book.

[Anonymous No.19311976]

>>19310634
Let the producer of the show speak for himself.

>"It wasn’t a matter of adapting the book faithfully. It was [about] being true to the ideas,” showrunner David Wiener tells Inverse. “We hit the same places Huxley does. But we get there in different ways."

Same old places, different ways? Keep talking Wiener.

>"A lot of people think the book is dystopian. I think it has a genre of its own," Wiener says. "It’s a Utopian book that exposes the dystopia inside humans."

Oh, you see, it is not a dystopia! You read it wrong! What, the author himself said it was a dystopia? Noooo, it is an utopia, the perfect society with minor flaws, trust me goyim.

And btw, strong womyn:

>"Lenina doesn't evolve in the book," he says. "She is the same at the beginning of the book as the end. That was an opportunity. For our story Lenina is very much at the center.”

And btw, cultural apropriation. We can let people think that spiritual Pueblos had a point, can we?

> Wiener felt Huxley's "savages," described in the book with Puebloan imagery, was problematic. "That didn't seem right in the context of our culture," he says. "He uses race as a way of reinforcing the stratification of New London."

Then he compares John the Savage from the book with Mike Pence because, you know, Orange Man Bad

>"In the book John is kind of Mike Pence-like," Wiener says. "He's got a strict sense of propriety based on Elizabethan ideas."

Then he says that Huxley was sexist because the society that he invented had no sexual consent (uhhhh, I thought it was a dystopia, that's why consent is not a thing...)

>Consent, a foreign concept in a world of free sex and excluded from Huxley's book, has a moment in the seventh episode that reveals how alien the brave new world is to ours. "What does consent mean where everybody says 'yes' all the time?" Wiener says. "It has huge implications, the sexual corrosion of a whole group of people. We wrestle with that."

And btw, he enlighten us saying Huxley is dated. (OF COURSE! CONSOOOOM, don't read the book be cause it is old, we don't need these old things that can last for generations, we need new things that will be quickly forgotten, we can't read things such as Huxley, consoooom lad, just consoom)

>"If you look at the book, it's flawed, dated. We have the benefit of being able to pass the book through the filter of our own time. Everything in the book really lends itself to that."


The best adaptation ever xDD

[Anonymous No.19312009]

>>19307140
I literally read Brave New World for the first time yesterday and it's somewhat hilarious how every single TV/Film incarnation of it rapes the original material.
Stark contrast to John Hurt's 1984 film which is pretty much bang on.

I think it's for several reasons
>The first 3 chapters is more about describing the world, then we finally land on our protagonist, but the final 6 chapters are solely about a different protagonist which makes for an unattractive movie
>The book literally has children fucking and all manner of ostentatious things that would be either impossible or extremely difficult to depict on screen, which kind of strips away the dystopian feel to it (unlike INGSOC which can be replicated rather easily)
>Lenina's entire character is being a vacuous moron, reflective of satisfaction of the world writ-large which modern media simply cannot tolerate
>They cast Bernard as a chad when his patheticness is genuinely my favourite part of the novel. His newfound popularity after bringing John to London made him completely abandon his dissatisfaction of this society immediately. Same happened to me in high school for about a week and I acted the exact same way

I think it's impossible to put Brave New World on camera and pull it off.

[Anonymous No.19312044]

Do you clowns actually think that Aldous Huxley was some bold rebel against the system trying to warn people and wake them up?
He wasn't. Brave New World was basically his blueprint for how the future should be. He wrote it as a plan, not a warning. He and his brother were prominent globalists along with HG Wells and Bertrand Russel.

[Anonymous No.19312059]

>>19312009
>I think it's impossible to put Brave New World on camera and pull it off.

One can film it, but who would pay to film a real quality adaptation of BNW?
It is impossible to have hollywood adapting a work that is all about criticizing what they promote.

Seriously, I am not prone to conspiracy theories but after watching that I started to believe Hollywood does have a conscious agenda and BNW is a threat for them. Especially when one of the writers is a self-declared occultist

>Morrison's practice of chaos magic in Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth.
>The title (The Invisibles, a comic series) was not a huge commercial hit to start with. (Morrison actually asked their readers to participate in a "wankathon" while concentrating on a magical symbol, or sigil, in an effort to boost sales)

>In a 2020 interview with Mondo2000, Morrison mentioned that they had "been non-binary, cross-dressing, 'gender queer' since I was 10 years old, but the available terms for what I was doing and how I felt were few and far between." Morrison uses singular they pronouns, as confirmed by CBR.com shortly after Morrison came out.

Yeah...

[Anonymous No.19312098]

>>19312059
yikes
this only enriches BNW more
Mond & John's dialogue in the 16th and 17th chapters hit hard. Even made me think of my own family when he was discussing the Ireland experiment and how Deltas don't want free time as it would make them dreadfully unhappy.
Similarly to the Cyprus Experiment with how disastrous a society comprised exclusively of Alphas was.

Humanity keeps proving him right.

[Anonymous No.19312114]

>>19312059
>a work that is all about criticizing what they promote.
IT WASN'T. YOU ARE ONLY HALFWAY REDPILLED.
You have correctly realized that Hollywood is evil and Satanic, but you still don't understand that Huxley himself was also part of the conspiracy.
>occultist
Yeah and so was Huxley.
>>19312044
>>19312044
>>19312044

[Anonymous No.19312149]

>>19312114
>You have correctly realized that Hollywood is evil and Satanic, but you still don't understand that Huxley himself was also part of the conspiracy.

Okay /x/chizo, but if you ever read Huxley talking about his own work, you will see that he was concerned about changes in society

>Yeah and so was Huxley.
That's well known.
Huxley never urged people to wank over a sygil so he could sell more books
Chaos magick is the autism of occultism anyway

[Anonymous No.19312186]

>>19307149
>read books so you can better larp about not reading books
sounds like a good idea

[Anonymous No.19312190]

>>19312044

This claim is not consistent with his arguments in Brave New World Revisited.

[Anonymous No.19312204]

>>19312044
>>19312190

"In 1931, when Brave New World was being written, I was convinced that there was still plenty of time. The completely organized society, the scientific caste system, the abolition of free will by methodical conditioning, the servitude made acceptable by regular doses of chemically induced happiness, the orthodoxies drummed in by nightly courses of sleep-teaching -- these things were coming all right, but not in my time, not even in the time of my grandchildren. . . twenty-seven years later, in this third quarter of the twentieth century A.D., and long before the end of the first century A.F., I feel a good deal less optimistic than I did when I was writing Brave New World. The prophecies made in 1931 are coming true much sooner than I thought they would. The blessed interval between too little order and the nightmare of too much has not begun and shows no sign of beginning. . . The nightmare of total organization, which I had situated in the seventh century After Ford, has emerged from the safe, remote future and is now awaiting us, just around the next corner."