Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Slightly Courageous New Thoughts About Huxley’s Sci-Fi World


Currently Reading: Tender is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald


There are so many aspects of this novel that I would love to discuss, but I’m pretty sure I can’t possibly fit them all into one post. I’m going to do my best to make this coherent, but this may accidentally become a rambling post.

Before anything else is said, I must say this up front: I absolutely loved this book. Seriously, I’m more irritated now that I didn’t read this in high school because it’s so much better than a lot of the novels we did read. If you haven’t read Brave New World, you really should. It’s absorbing, thought provoking, and powerful.

Now, please allow me to indulge myself in sharing a few random thoughts about the novel…

1. Mustapha Mond is by far one of the best names I have ever come across. Somewhat jealous that Aldous Huxley came up with it first, but also glad he did because it’s fabulous. I’m not sure why, but I think it’s amazingly appropriate name for a man in charge of everything. Plus it’s fun to say.

2. I love that the main “savage” character quotes Shakespeare’s Complete Works throughout, like it’s his religious doctrine. Most likely this is because I am a massive Shakespeare nerd and approve of Huxley’s choice to make his work a revered piece of literature, as sacred or more so than the Bible. I guess it helped me relate to the main character, John Savage, since I feel the same way about Shakespeare’s writing. Plus, I’m a little jealous that John can bust out quotes from it at any point. I wish I knew his writing that well. I feel like I should for the amount that I’ve studied it. However, on that note…

3. It absolutely drives me bonkers that Huxley goes through all this trouble to create a character that knows Shakespeare inside out and backwards, quoting him and referencing his work constantly… and then accredits a quote to the wrong character. I’m almost 100% sure that I’m one of the few people on the planet who would ever notice this, but it infuriates me! On page 158 of my version of the novel, John’s response to the impressive speeds of the transportation of civilization is, “Still… Ariel could put a girdle round the earth in forty minutes.”

FALSE!!! It’s not Ariel, the sprite/fairy creature of The Tempest, who does this. It’s Puck, another sprite/fairy creature, but he’s from A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Again, I know that no one will care about this anywhere near as much as I do. But seriously? You’re going to name your novel after a Shakespeare quote and have his work be central to the novel and then not double check this??? Really Huxley?? Ugh.

I’m such a shameless nerd.

4. While I’m on my Shakespeare bit here, if John uses Shakespeare as his moral compass, I’m not quite sure where he gets his intense sense of purity and chastity… After all, Shakespeare’s writing can be pretty raunchy at times and I’m not sure there are many super pure, chaste characters to be admired… The characters whose chastity becomes of the utmost importance that come to mind are Isabella in Measure for Measure and Desdemona in Othello. In both of these instances, the obsession with these characters’ virginity doesn’t lead anything good. Isabella’s insistence on keeping her chastity almost costs her brother his life and the question of Desdemona’s purity gets her smothered. It’s especially odd to me that John references Othello repeatedly and then lashes out against Lenina, the woman he falls in love with, almost the same way Othello lashes out against Desdemona. I’m pretty sure he missed the point of the play since Othello is a big, flashing warning against men being to jealous of women’s sexuality. He didn’t really have much of a Christian upbringing and instead was raised with a vague, non-specific American Indian spirituality. (High five for that, by the way, Huxley. Way to just merge multiple nations’ varying beliefs into one “savage” race’s belief system.) From what I remember of the American Indian culture classes, I’m pretty sure monogamy wasn’t always the dominant system… It’s been a while, so perhaps I’m confusing information, but I’m pretty sure John shouldn’t have gotten such a strict sense of chastity from that line of teaching…

5. The discussion Mustapha Mond and John Savage have at the end of the novel is one of the most eloquent debates I have ever read. It so wonderfully argues each point of view in the debate between ordered, mindless happiness and beautifully chaotic suffering. In a way, it supplies an answer to one of the ultimate questions that I’m sure has plagued everyone at some point: why do people have to suffer? What is the value of sadness and pain? And is that value worth more than worldwide peace and happiness? I would try to summarize the points they each make, but I really feel it would be better if everyone just read it; it’s so well done.

6. I really wish there was an epilogue to this novel. I’m never entirely sure if it’s a good or a bad sign when I find myself craving more story at the end of a book. Part of me feels it’s a testament to how compelling the plot is and how sympathetic the characters are that I want to know more about what happens to the rest of the civilization at the end. However, the other part of me feels like a really well done novel should wrap everything up nicely so there aren’t any lingering questions. Not sure which is more accurate… I think in the case of Brave New World, it’s definitely more the former situation. And I understand why Huxley ended the novel where he did because it really is the only way it can end and the image he leaves the reader with is powerful and haunting. But I do really want to know more about the aftermath of everything that happens in the end.

Again, there are so many other things I could discuss about this novel! It’s so rich with ideas and themes! Really, you should just go out and read it if you haven’t. If you need a copy, I’m more than willing to lend you mine just make sure you read it J

No comments:

Post a Comment