A Fascinating Dystopian Tale: Brave New World

I've always been captivated by the dystopian trinity - 'We', '1984', and 'Brave New World'. While I haven't read 'We' yet, I've devoured and re-read the other two. My first encounter with 'Brave New World' about 20 years ago left me with a lukewarm impression. The world seemed like a messed-up system where everyone belonged to each other, was on some kind of mind-altering substances, mocked family and death - it was all quite repulsive. But now, my opinion has taken a 180-degree turn, and I want to share it with you because, honestly, my husband found it quite unusual.

The book's world is a strict hierarchy masquerading as absolute freedom. Anyone can sleep with anyone, there are plenty of entertainment options for any caste, and, of course, there's a caste system - alphas, betas, gammas, and deltas. Alphas are the smartest, the leaders. Betas are not top management, but they're still highly respected individuals who get to do the finer work. Gammas do more menial tasks, providing services for alphas and betas. Deltas are at the very bottom, doing the dirtiest, most uncomfortable work in the dark, heat, or cold. Although, 'uncomfortable' is a word that's already outdated in the Brave New World, since everyone is artificially produced and genetically engineered to love their place. That's probably why we mainly read about the adventures of alphas, who have the highest level of self-awareness, allowing them to engage in higher mental activities and, consequently, exhibit more variability in their behavior.

So, to sum it up, the future world is where everyone sleeps with everyone, regularly takes 'soma' to be happy, goes to the movies, plays tennis, and works at jobs they were created for. They eat well, smell nice, and enjoy their lives.

I've got to say, the characters in this book really stood out to me, but not always in a good way. I found myself feeling for Lina, admiring Helmholz, and cringing at Mustafa Mond's lines, but the rest of the characters just got on my nerves:

Bernard Marx

At first, I thought Bernard was a great character because he seemed to be the only one who didn't like the system, but as the book went on, I realized he was just as bad as everyone else. He's all about tearing down the establishment, but whenever he gets the chance to make a real statement, he chickens out and goes back to conforming. It's like he's got a double standard, and it's really frustrating to watch.

Savage John

He shows up halfway through the book, and I was really hoping he'd be the one to shake things up. He's a bit of a wild card, but at least he's not a total conformist. However, when he starts stalking Lina and gets upset when she doesn't meet his expectations, he loses it and becomes just as bad as Bernard. It's like he's got a split personality or something.

Linda and Pephys and the Savages

Linda's been living with the savages (Native Americans) since she was a kid, and Pephys is a native himself. But the way they treat John is just appalling. They're all about beating themselves up (some sort of ritual, I guess) and acting like savages. In fact, the savage society is even more messed up than the one in the developed world.

Mustafa Mond

The real star of the show is Mond. He's literally the top dog. But the society of the future isn't an empire - I'm not even sure what to call it. A republic? He's in charge of one of the ten zones, essentially overseeing Western Europe. To him, power isn't a privilege, but a kind of punishment. He used to be a scientist (although they artificially cap their scientific progress), until he got sanctioned - either as a punishment or a promotion to chief administrator. He knows the system has its flaws, but he's smart and can't see any other way to maintain global stability, so he goes along with it. And if someone doesn't comply, he ships them off to the islands. There's a nuance to this, which I'll get into later. I didn't find any negative vibes in Mond himself.

Lenina Crowne

Lenina is a lovely girl who's the reason for all the commotion among the men here. I'm not sure what they're after, but they're definitely aggressive towards her. She's kind and friendly, but she's not really special - she's just a girl who exists to decorate the actions of the men. She's a pretty straightforward character, and she's happy with her life as it is. She just wants everyone to be happy and doesn't cause any trouble. She does experience some intense emotions, which suggests she's got a bit of depth to her. She definitely doesn't deserve the way the men treat her. She's a great kid.

Helmholtz Watson

Gelhmoltz is the only male character who elicits sympathy. He's so good that he turns down intimacy with women - not because he's not given the opportunity, like Bernardo, but because he's got a queue of beauties vying for his attention, and he's just had enough. He criticizes the system, he wants to write poetry (which is forbidden), explore emotional themes, reason about feelings, conduct experiments, and he does it all with a smile, knowing he's taking a risk and might face punishment, but he does it because he's free. Gelhmoltz is a true dissident, protesting the system not because it's inconvenient, like Bernardo, but because he thinks it's wrong, because he feels suffocated by it.

xa0

Relevance

When Aldous Huxley wrote the book, it was 1932. I get that it was tough to predict concepts like the internet, computer games, or space travel back then, but wasn't there some level of automation already? He's got a conveyor belt with bottles containing human embryos and future alphas, betas, gammas, and deltas, and you need to inject different chemicals into them. This belt is regulated by a delta with a wrench, not buttons. Imagine having to use a wrench every time you wanted to switch from hot to cold water on your mixer.

At the same time, his strong desire to detail the mechanisms in the book makes it feel like a chore, and even the early chapters are a bit of a slog, especially the one about the bottle with the embryo. I found it more interesting to read about the inner workings of society itself.

Women in his world take birth control pills to avoid getting pregnant, while men do nothing. And if something goes wrong, they're sent to a massive abortion clinic. But wouldn't it be more likely that sterilization operations existed in 1932? If he's writing about genetic intervention in embryos, he could've made children infertile from birth, both men and women.

I've gotta say, it's wild that in this society where everyone's supposed to be free and equal, there's no concept of monogamy. Everyone's polygamous, and it's just the norm. It's pretty mind-blowing, if you ask me.

I was reading the book and it hit me - there's no mention of TVs or mobile phones, not to mention regular phones that don't exist yet. You'd think it'd be a no-brainer, but the way Huxley writes, it's like he's describing a completely different world. I mean, I was expecting some kind of futuristic tech, but it's just not there.

It feels like he took the popular culture of his time and just ran with it - the idea of communism (total polygamy, which is where the Marx and Lenin names come from), socialism (the state has total control over people's lives), and fascism (no criticism of the state or society is allowed). And somehow, it all comes together in this 'Brave New World'. There's no mention of any technological advancements whatsoever.

xa0

Utopia or Dystopia?

After finishing the book, I have to say I didn't find the society all that bad. I mean, in '1984', people are poor, people disappear, and it's a total dystopia. I wouldn't want to live in that world. But in Huxley's world, everyone's happy, and the state is doing its best to make sure they stay that way. Even the working-class characters are genetically engineered to love the heat and hate the cold. And instead of punishing people who don't fit in, they're exiled to islands where they can live freely, read, and learn. It's not a bad price to pay for freedom, if you ask me.

It's wild to think that everyone's just sleeping with whoever they want? And people seem to love that. They don't even know what monogamy is, they don't have kids, they don't have families, they're not getting sick, so what's the big deal about polyamory? It's only scary because our society is set up this way. We value private property and we've got families, we've got family trees. But what if that wasn't the case? What if nobody had kids, nobody had parents, and words like 'mother' and 'father' were just insults? It's all just a shock because we're not used to it.

Imagine sitting a 19th-century aristocrat down at a table with a black worker or a serf from the countryside? Or picture someone in the 15th century saying they don't believe in God? There are a million stories about how, just 150 years ago, women were forced to write books and paint under a man's name just so people would buy their work because they didn't want to buy from a woman, they thought it was gross, they laughed and they didn't trust female creativity. It's all just a matter of time and cultural norms.

At some point - and it's probably going to be this century - we'll have the technology to create kids without human involvement. That'll solve the problem of dying-out populations, especially European ones. But how will that change society? When some kids are born to moms, and they're sitting in the same classroom as kids born in incubators? The world is always changing, there's no point in clinging to the past, and as long as we don't end up living in a world like George Orwell's, I'm okay with it becoming like Aldous Huxley's.