Despite the age of author's observations, they are as relevant today as they were then. There are things in the book that are of historical interest and currently not a threat or clearly outdated but the warnings of propaganda and manipulation are a greater threat than ever ( )

Despite the age of author's observations, they are as relevant today as they were then. There are things in the book that are of historical interest and currently not a threat or clearly outdated but the warnings of propaganda and manipulation are a greater threat than ever ( )

I read this books when I was young and loved it. When it came up on the banned book list I had to read it again. Though clearly I knew why it was ban but in re reading it, I realized it was not well written. To some extent that is because with age and experience my reading taste is more...say mature, but putting the writing aside, the ideas hit me differently now. I saw things in the book differently and saw things I don't remember seeing before. Should the book be ban? No. But there are other books now that might be better at exploring the same ideas. ( )

In my opinion, this is just a different (and poorly executed) take on Orwell's 1984 where instead of everyone living in a kind of abject misery the majority of the populace live in ignorant bliss. In this universe, there are no parents or siblings because everyone is created through a complicated stem cell process wherein the entire operation is almost entirely executed via test tubes. (There's also entire underclasses of 'subhuman' beings purposefully made malformed and possessing low intelligence to complete tasks of drudgery. Yes, it's horrible.) The upper echelons are afforded every privilege including a drug called soma which acts as a mind-altering substance to keep the populace compliant and happy. (And let's not forget to mention the rampant promiscuity that is encouraged from childhood in the form of 'erotic play'.)

This book is like if you took all the worst things you can think of, threw it into a blender, and ended up with a load of sludge that for some reason is touted as a delicious milkshake. (Yowza that metaphor got away from me.) I think what really got my goat the most (I was going to say frustrated me but if I'm honest I'm pissed I wasted my time with this one) was the ending. If you bother to read this (and why would you unless you have to for a class?) then please let me know what you thought of the ending because I swear I finished the book and said to myself, "Am I an idiot? Did I miss something here?"

To soothe my soul and remind me how a classic can truly earn its moniker I'm now rereading A Tale of Two Cities by my fave Charlie D. ( )

A travelogue through an imagined future dys-/u-topia.

From what we are told in the story there was a long war that led to a strong desire to reform everything about society and eliminate every possible source of disruption and discomfort. Thus there is no more parenthood; people are bred in specific tiers (alpha through gamma) to participate in society at various levels and are trained to do specific kinds of work. They are given drugs to make them feel happy and entertainment to satisfy them. Science is exalted, and Ford is apparently the materialist god of these people; but even then all in moderation, and knowledge is heavily controlled.

We meet certain individuals who happen to go on a trip to see some "savages" in New Mexico, USA. While there they come upon a woman who had lived among them but had been abandoned; in the meantime, she has given birth to a son, named John, also known as "the Savage." Permission is granted to bring them back to London and to the "civilized" world. He is paraded around; he is desired; he ends up having a long discourse with the head honcho which ultimately is really the point of the book: a frank discussion of why knowledge, literature, etc. has been so circumscribed, and what happens when security is always chosen over autonomy. The System is maintained; the Savage eventually runs off and becomes a greater spectacle. He ends himself in a fit of violence while those watching him mimic the violence.

If you're expecting a great story, you will find this book disappointing: the narrative isn't great. The text screams the late 1920s and early 1930s: cynical and despondent as after 1918, yet before the horrors of the mid-1930s and afterward, set in a bourgeoisie world in which Marxism remained an acceptable liberal fantasy.

But the reason for the perseverance of the work is certainly valid: a secure utopia is really an individual dystopia. One can compare and contrast Huxley and Orwell, and one will likely realize that we're already realizing a synthesized version. So come and read for the depressing legitimacy of the fictive endeavor, but not because the story is that great. ( )