/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7543359]

why do you guys like 1984 more than brave new world?

[Anonymous No.7543367]

>ranking books because they're 'similar'

go back to /a/ you autist.

[Anonymous No.7543374]

>>7543367
i'm not ranking them. i'm asking why people here tend to like one more than the other. they're both dystopian novels from a long time ago. i don't see why they shouldn't be compared to one another

[Anonymous No.7543375]

>>7543359
>this pleb fodder

>>>r/books/

[Anonymous No.7543379]

>>7543359
i don't
i don't think either is particularly good, though

[Anonymous No.7543380]

>>7543367
>>7543375
christ you guys are assholes. go to hell

[Anonymous No.7543389]

>>7543380
ARE YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH 4CHAN????
>>>r/books/
FOR REAL
YOU MASSIVE BLUBBERING VAGINA

[Anonymous No.7543397]

>>7543389
i post on /mu/ which is a notoriously rude and pompous board. but they would have at least answered my question, even if they had to call me a pleb and redirect me to reddit a couple times in the process.

[Anonymous No.7543405]

>>7543359

It's been a long time since I've read either, but for my money it's really the layer of linguistic theory in 1984 that sets the two apart. As anyone who has worked in government institutions can tell you, political language is not so much about communicating thoughts and opinions, as much as about making it difficult for people to think differently.

[Anonymous No.7543406]

>>7543397
your problem is that you didn't even ask a question, rather you made an assumption
a proper thread would have started like so:
"brave new world is superior to 1984 for the following reasons [reasons, including prose quality, impact, interesting themes] -- would anyone care to suggest books that are similar in merits/present more evocative dystopias/can we argue about what is important in constructing books designed to be politically potent? these are just a few ideas
if a thread is shit, it's your own fault
you failed
you are welcome to try again

[Anonymous No.7544932]

>>7543406
Slow your roll cowboy, if you recall, the writing in brave new world was shit. I would go as far as to say that the greatest flaw in the book is that Huxley was the one to write it.

[Anonymous No.7544941]

>>7543359
I think both of them are a tedious read

[Anonymous No.7544946]

i think you should go back to reddit OP

[Anonymous No.7544949]

>>7543359
Honestly I don't get why the two are compared so often. To me 1984 was a warning of the potential of big government, whereas Brave New World was a critique on the exploitability of human nature, as well as a look at how you should live your life (hedonism vs ascetism?).

I'm new to /lit/ and reading in general guys, am I doing this right?

[Anonymous No.7544955]

>>7543359
I read these when I was like 10. They are the quintessential high-school summer reading books.

Why are they mentioned here so much.

>>7544941
This. Read darkness at noon or teatro grosseco if you want a real dystopian vision. or something.

[Anonymous No.7545355]

to everyone asking why i'm comparing the two, i just read a book called amusing ourselves to death for college where the author compares and contrasts the two books. he talks about how huxeley's dystopian vision in brave new world is more plausible than orwell's. it helped me to really appreciate brave new world because it showed me that the future huxeley envisioned was so accurate, that it isn't even that far from what our society is today. i realize that from a literary standpoint, 1984 is usually regarded as the better book, but i was curious to hear what you guys had to say. unfortunately it seems like most of the people here are too far up their own ass to say anything of worth

[Anonymous No.7545377]

>>7545355
you mean you read the gay little webcomic and want people to validate your facile, shoplifted views on two pieces of utterly entry level literature?

[Anonymous No.7545398]

>>7545377
man i hope you're not actually like this in real life

>>7544949
>1984 was a warning of the potential of big government, whereas Brave New World was a critique on the exploitability of human nature
you're right, but in order for a big government to take power, the nature of the masses must be exploited and tricked into thinking they need such a thing. on the other hand, brave new world is also a warning of the potential of big government. in the end it all just boils down to positive reinforcement vs negative reinforcement.

[Anonymous No.7545401]

AOTD has some good points but that comparison is overly simplistic. People in BNW aren't controled by entertainment, they are masterfully exploited to get the best capitalist results, it's a critique of what would later be called biopower and a metaphor of how poor people end up living around factories where their sons will be born with birth defects and have poor alimentation making it harder to grow properly, while rich people have better conditions and are by design meant to be a superior class. In a sense it's the utopy England was aiming for at the time. Meanwhile 1984 isn't entirely about repression, the MC is put through a psychotheatre to destroy his ego. Probably many others went through the same, it's a narrative you are made to play into that creates a desire to revel just so they can scuash it.
Both are pretty different books and usually dumbed down so HS kids can feel smart reading them.

Also, some other post reminded me this, if anything you should read The Society of the Spectacle.

[Anonymous No.7545405]

>>7545398
but the citizens of Brave New World didn't accept totalitarianism because they were tricked, they were bombed with Anthrax. Just like in 1984 the government took hold by force.

[Anonymous No.7545436]

>>7545405
good point, but you're just further proving the similarity of both books.

>>7545401
i can agree that it's overly simplified and there are factors such as the ones you listed that weren't taken into account, but i still think that when taking a step back and looking at the books from a general perspective, there is a lot of truth in what AOTD says.

>The Society of the Spectacle
i haven't heard of this but i will check it out. it sounds interesting just from the title

[Anonymous No.7545462]

Lmao some of you niggas in here have tiny penises.

[Anonymous No.7545463]

>>7545436
The idea of the spectacle is that in a modern capitalist society our perception of things is filtered through a media construction of them, to the point in which we no longer interact with the reality in front of us but with the representations fabricated of it. We no longer desire men/women but a constructed eroticism, we go to concerts to rebel for a couple ours and go back to being good slaves, we no longer learn from our elders but from people playing elders a la clint eastwood, we believe more what the news say than what we see, and so on. It's a pretty interesting book, similar to EOTD but much deeper. If it helps I think the author or one of his friends threw a glass of water to Lacan and ruinned his cigar.

If you move away from the source material it will all be the same. The point is that the basis of the comparison isn't related to the intentions of the source material and missrepresents them. If you want to we can discuss the use of entertainment as control, but we can't talk about those books on your terms without ignoring the books.

[Anonymous No.7545466]

>>7545462
I personally prefer the term "girl penis", thankyouverymuch

[Anonymous No.7545481]

>>7543359
>implying we like 1984 more than brave new world
Oh wait you're a moron

[Anonymous No.7545512]

>>7545463
>our perception of things is filtered through a media construction of them, to the point in which we no longer interact with the reality in front of us but with the representations fabricated of it.
that is awesome. i'm a communications major and that's partially the reason why i enjoyed brave new world so much, but from your description it sounds like this one is even more related to mass communication, so i'll be sure to give it a shot.

>>7545481
idk what this board thinks because obviously i don't come here often. i just know that the general consensus sees 1984 as a better book. if you enjoy bnw more then thats cool, but i'm curious as to why

[Anonymous No.7545709]

>>7545512
It's easy to prefer BNW over 1984: it's wirtten by an author with more literary merit, it was expanded in posterior works, it doesn't result in a simple resolution but presents an open end to make your own conclusions, it doesn't oversimplify life, it doesn't depend on shock value.

[Anonymous No.7547389]

>>7545436
Holy molly are u god?

[Anonymous No.7547442]

Anyone who liked BNW should give this book a shot. It's basically the only dystopia I've read since that meant anything to me; a world where universal healthcare is the totalitarian glue that holds people together. Everyone is happy and healthy and no one says anything mean and fiction comes with trigger warnings. I will shill it relentlessly because the author died too young.

[Anonymous No.7547465]

>>7543359
THX1138 is better than both.

[Anonymous No.7547566]

>>7547389
>are u god?
lol what makes you say that?

>>7547442
>>7547465
i will go ahead and look into these. they seem interesting

[Anonymous No.7547617]

>>7545709
i didn't realize that huxley has more literary merit than orwell. but i agree that the ending is more open which is cool

[Anonymous No.7547644]

>>7547617
It's extremely debatable, Orwell has more merit as an active member of society (both acting in war and dealing with being casted into poverty while caring for little kids) but Huxley wrote more and touched a higher variety of subjects. As an author Huxley had a presence for more time and did more with his recognition, a lot of his works can't be considered entry level while the only things that Orwell wrote for higher audiences were his essays. I was making a blanket statement, I hope you can forgive that kind of attitude in a christian imageboard.

[Anonymous No.7547791]

>>7547644
haha i wasn't disagreeing, just curious about your thought process. which of huxley's works do you consider to be geared toward a higher audience?

[Anonymous No.7548290]

I've always loved the first line of 1984:

>It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

It works amazingly because it's simple and immediately lets you know that there is something terrible off with the world. Clocks do not strike 13. Clocks strike 1. I have always appreciated this line.

But then I moved overseas and it struck me that not all countries use a 12 hour clock. Many clocks do, indeed, strike 13, every day of every month of every year. I do not know if England at the time was one such place but I suspect it was.

Was this opening line actually meant to convey the impression I got reading it initially or is it totally innocuous?

[Anonymous No.7548302]

>>7548290
Here are some of the allusions: In Britain, "13" certainly means that something is off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_stroke_of_the_clock#Culture

I remember one essay on translation in literature (possibly by Eco) where the author introduced one especially terrible translation where the opening sentence went "the clocks were striking 1 o'clock"

[Anonymous No.7548307]

I dont. bnw is much more insidious and to the point about how to turn citizens into sheep. 1984 was a bleak projection of communist authoritarianism into the future, bnw was a bleak projection of capitalism and consumer society. a thinking person will be much more scared by bnw, although the cruel totality of 1984 is sheer genius

[Anonymous No.7548415]

>>7544932
you seemed to be suggesting an imagined hive mind was incorrect, and thus that you held the opposite opinion
if you didn't even mean that then your post was completely devoid of meaning

[Anonymous No.7548917]

>>7548290
digital watches do, but analogic watches always go up to 12 or it wouldn't be able to be a small circle.

[Anonymous No.7548920]

1984 may not be as timely, but it is a better novel.