Okay. One the thing I find interesting about this book is everything. The society depicted is so backwards compared to today’s standards that this whole book seems to be one giant compilation of things unfamiliar. However, they have seemingly created a Utopia. How is this possible? Is it because their “backwards” world is so convoluted that is actually works? Maybe. But the question I would like answered is: Is living in a utopia worth getting rid of the individuality of every person?
Now before you pounce on this thought and reject it immediately, think about it. What do they have that we today are always striving for? They have no wars, no conflicts, no crime, unlimited happiness, and the acceptance of who they are on the social ladder. But at a price. And this price is individuality. So my question comes up again is living in a utopia worth getting rid of the individuality of every person?
My answer/thesis to this would be: Taking into consideration all the benefits of living in a world like Brave New World, I would have to say that living in a utopia is not worth eradicating the individuality of every person.
Now that was the primary interest of my concern. Other topics that I would like to explore would be things like why is the structure of the society so indispensable? Why would this society not be a utopia if there was no social order.
Finally, the character Bernard Marx is very interesting. He is like the black sheep of Brave New World. He just doesn’t seem to fit in. While others want sex, he actually wants to get to know the women beyond the physical level. While others want sex; he wants to look out into the ocean. And while others want more sex, he wants to have long midnight walks (or something to that effect). So it is quite obvious that he doesn’t fit in. His abnormality makes him one of societies “flaws.” This is peculiar because his abnormality gives him something the others don’t have; a voice. A voice that lets him state his own opinions, his own thoughts, and his likes as well as his dislikes. Ironically, he is the only person that serves as something “correct” in the society according to our standards.
Other books that I would use to help with this whole process would definitely be 1984 and Postmodernism. Now I haven’t read all that many books in my lifetime but I have seen quite a few movies. And one movie in particular that stood out to me in relation to what we have been reading is The Island. Now I probably wouldn’t be able to quote from this but I think it would serve as a good guide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
WOW i just loved this blog. INFACT im gonnna make it viral by putting it on MY blog and taking credit for it because it is SO DAMNGOOD
ReplyDeleteDang Aman that your blog is pretty dang good. I like how you caught my attention with the first question? it helped me look deeper into the story on certain aspects i hadnt really thought about before Like the way that you stated that they werent having any wars, makes it seem like they are really at peace, even if they are not at peace individually. so i thought that was really interesting, but like you said i wouldnt give up individuality for that type of peace. I think individuality as a person is better than individuality as a whole society. And evidently the people of that society are not really happy, it seems as if they are but at the same time it is evident that they are concealing some type of remorse for the whole society.Because it is seen in the book that the characters truely do have feelings they themselves just dont know what feelings are because they are conditioned to be abstinent from them, but if they were given a slight nudge or form of rebellion i think the whoel society would change sooner or later. over all i think you did a very well job in getting me to think of other ideas which hlep me go into more depth on my commentary of the book.
ReplyDelete