StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Has anyone ever read Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)? Anyone know whether we are to take John's eventual suicide as an indication that his death will help save the world (Christ figure, feet swinging at last to the East, dies to save mankind, people come to find his body, etc.), or if we are to take it as an indication that God has decided finally to manifest himself with his absence (Mustapha Mond)?

when did god come into the picture?????

SWPIGWANG wrote:when did god come into the picture?????

During the whole climactic scene thing in Mustapha Mond's office, the Savage Reservation with the Indians worshipping Pookong and Jesus, the Arch Community Songster, etc.

But still a good question, Master...From where you got God in this work of Huxley ?
I mean by the time he wrote this book he belong to a intelectual and snoob british elite and was even atheist and highly influencied by Darwin, Marx. His intention (first one) to wrote the book was to made a defense of a high controled society (he was afraid of of the masses revolts) and use of science methods to control it. He truly believed in the intelectual elite like him would rule the others. But like he pointed the book was out of control and he started to doubt of the vality of his views and to defend it. I think the death you refer just mean that a individual may die but a society will preserve or perhaps just to show the influence of the religion in the societies like the natives.
But funny thing is that Huxley changed with time. He started to got blind and medicine could not help him. In dispair he searched for all kinds of cures, even the not scientific ones and found - it seems so - result in California and some spiritism. That changed him and ended as one of the fathers of the Hippie movement (he started to defend use of drugs for example). He wrote another book afther the change called Island which is curious to read (its inferior to Brave new World) because tell the same story, just the comunity perfect is now a hippie like one where everyone have no conflicts and all organization because the way they live and the free and controled use of drugs. Oddly, this book have a darker ending than Brave New World, since in Brave New World the utopia is never destroyed and its even open a space to individual lifes.

Wow, I read that book in my junior year in HS, which was back in 87-88.

All I remember is learning what the word strumpet means.

I vaugely remember someone beating themselves with a whip.

Where do I get God in Brave New World?

It appears to permeate the very fabric of the book. Huxley appears to advocate God with Mustapha Mond, who WINS the debate with John the Savage on all points, except for John's personal preference of a life of misery over one of happiness. Perhaps you guys don't remember the part when Mond tells him about how people, in their old age, inevitably turn to God for assistance. Or the part when Mond tells him that there IS a God, but that he manifests himself in his absence. How about the parts of the book where Mond tells students that there used to be things called God and religion and Christianity? God is, frankly, one of the most persistent themes of the book. He is the focus of no less than five chapters. John himself becomes a Christ figure (though the exact time of his "death" and whether or not he is resurrected is the subject of this thread). The perversion of the cross into a Fordian "T" is clearly another indication of the deep religious overtones, as is the fact that Westminster Abbey alone of all of the old monuments survived into the Brave New World.

Mond is the Governament. In his mouth there is the discuss about religion that was popular after Marx and Weber (btw, Ford and Marx are much more important in this book. Or even Lenin). Huxley argue about religion in society because religion was seen as a part of evolution of society back then. Its not mean to have god, but to show that the new thinking, the now moderm society and intelctual does not need god anymore and they clear reckon the religions in marx way. You do not need god and you realize that Mond is not a tyrant in the Orwellian sense of Governament control.
Jonathan in other hand does not think this way. That is why religion to Jonathan is show, because he is a barbarian to that society. Its this different that is showed in the book. Religon is a trait, not a main point. Communism, Facism, birth control, genetics are. As I said Huxley then had a cynical vision of religion, he would not create a imagery to defend religion.

Over a decade ago, funny thing I read Doors of Preception back when I was tiny, heh

Yeah, I find it scarily accurate in todays world.

It's a great book. Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death refers to Huxley's view of the future.

XPViking

I have the book siting on my book self, never read it. don't know what its about, after reading your reviews of it, I definitely won't.

i read it in english class back in 12th or 13th grade. i cant remember that much but didnt the whole book contain religious parts? the worship of ford, the place where people go at a certain age to die, there´s even a mass (involving a lot of soma) once.

btw
what does soma stand for. i heard is was some sort of abrieviation for something.

I so hated that book.
I had to read it for English class last year.
Ugh

Well Ted, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

XPViking

My lasting memory from that book (which I read way back in high school) was that I was surprised to be the only person who noticed the blatant racist overtones. The Noble Savage was continually shocked and horrified by explicit pornography of white women having sex with BLACK MEN. This was one of the things that drove him crazy.

In other words, the Noble Savage was fucking Arminius!

Brave New World was a mindless reactionary tome against modernization, industrialization, and racial equality written by an eloquent man. And unfortunately, our society always thinks highly of the eloquent, even if they're spouting shit. At the time Huxley wrote it, he and many other social reactionaries feared that modernization and industrialization would lead to an enormous demand for mindless factory drones (obviously, they didn't foresee robotics), hence the genetically engineered castes of BNW.

Darth Wong wrote:In other words, the Noble Savage was fucking Arminius!

Proof that the Noble Savage is a donkey?

The Noble Savage was continually shocked and horrified by explicit pornography of white women having sex with BLACK MEN.

I honestly didn't remember him having a problem with the racial issue. I thought his whole problem with the "feelie" was that it was explicit pornography and the participants were unmarried.

salm wrote:i read it in english class back in 12th or 13th grade. i cant remember that much but didnt the whole book contain religious parts? the worship of ford, the place where people go at a certain age to die, there´s even a mass (involving a lot of soma) once.

btw
what does soma stand for. i heard is was some sort of abrieviation for something.

Yes, the whole book has numerous references to both bastardized religious practices from Christians and Native Americans, and references to "Ford," who has replaced God. In my estimation, the entire book is about God. God is the primary theme of the novel, though it seems many people disagree with my analysis.

Darth Wong wrote:My lasting memory from that book (which I read way back in high school) was that I was surprised to be the only person who noticed the blatant racist overtones. The Noble Savage was continually shocked and horrified by explicit pornography of white women having sex with BLACK MEN. This was one of the things that drove him crazy.

In other words, the Noble Savage was fucking Arminius!

Brave New World was a mindless reactionary tome against modernization, industrialization, and racial equality written by an eloquent man. And unfortunately, our society always thinks highly of the eloquent, even if they're spouting shit. At the time Huxley wrote it, he and many other social reactionaries feared that modernization and industrialization would lead to an enormous demand for mindless factory drones (obviously, they didn't foresee robotics), hence the genetically engineered castes of BNW.

I don't agree with Huxley's views on society, race, or religion at all, but I think it is a very well written book. I think, though, that to an extent art should be independent of viewpoint. Huxley (like many British writers) was clearly an elitist, but that does not detract from the quality of literature that he provided us with. For that matter, MANY American and Canadian and Spanish writers have stunned much of Europe for their traditionally liberal views, sometimes dealing with (shock) gays and racial equality ideals. However, in my experience that has not prevented them from recognizing quality aspects of American, Canadian, and Spanish literature when they see it. I kind of feel the same way about BNW. I think Huxley is utterly wrong on almost all counts, but I also think it is of high enough quality as a literary piece to be worthy of study.

I guess I'm agreeing with Mike in that I think that because Huxley is eloquent we should think highly of him (to an extent, I don't agree with him at all, but I respect him as a writer), but I also disagree with Mike in that I think that his talent as a literary figure should count for something.

Darth Wong:

Brave New World was a mindless reactionary tome against modernization, industrialization, and racial equality written by an eloquent man. And unfortunately, our society always thinks highly of the eloquent, even if they're spouting shit. At the time Huxley wrote it, he and many other social reactionaries feared that modernization and industrialization would lead to an enormous demand for mindless factory drones (obviously, they didn't foresee robotics), hence the genetically engineered castes of BNW.

It is true the book is racist, mostly because the book was under the influence of the "Social Darwinism" and the genetics new research that lead to other thing to give some basis to Nazists philosophy. Huxley trusted in those teories about the better man leading the better society, in civilization.
Now the rest you have an mistake. He was member of intelectual elite and afraid of the masses, who would revolt and destroy with their ignorance the knowledge that he trusted to be the great key form humankind development. He started a book about this, to show and defend a society under control. That would work. He lost control of his book creation, because he faced the conclusions in the book and his own beliefs and found out they would not work. That is why the end of the book is not totally conclusive. Its not a end able to defend or condem with satisfatory certain the social control or the individual thoughts.
He did not feared the modernization in the industries, but the syndicates around those groups are organized in.
Good to know that Huxley kept asking those questions but turned to be a more open person without such prejudices.

Darth Eris wrote:

The Noble Savage was continually shocked and horrified by explicit pornography of white women having sex with BLACK MEN.

I honestly didn't remember him having a problem with the racial issue. I thought his whole problem with the "feelie" was that it was explicit pornography and the participants were unmarried.

It kind of seemed like it could be taken as either way. He seemed to dislike both aspects of the whole, and there are a few other times when they did make references to physiological differences between the different races, especially at the very beginning of the book when they are talking about "Bokanovskification." Many English authors are also racists/elitists. I was not at all surprised the Huxley was the same way.

salm wrote: btw
what does soma stand for. i heard is was some sort of abrieviation for something.

Soma was(is?) actually a hallucinogenic drug used in Hindu religious ceremonies.