Date: 27 April 2014
Location: Gary & Peggy
We spent some time on preliminary facts: That some of Brave New World may
have been plagiarized from Russian, that it was the fifth biggest seller worldwide in
1999, that it was written in 1932.
Gina called attention to the Depression timing and the influence it may have had
on the book. (Gina: what influence did this have? I failed to note down your remarks.
Please let us know.)
There was some consensus that Brave New World was a satire on consumerism.
The BNW culture allowed new things only; used things should not be mended, and
technological progress demanded that old things be thrown away. This attitude
permeates our culture (note especially cell phones), and in fact someone suggested that
Huxley may have been giving vent to a certain anti-Americanism.
(A point of similarity concerning newness: Both BNW and 1984 do away with
history, in 1984 by means of the memory hole. Here the prescience of both books is
accurate; dictatorships usually do dispense with reality and invent a history for their
people to share, to give them something in common, usually something to hate.)
As for the book’s treatment of women, it is not very positive. The “civilized”
culture has taken away from women the act of reproduction, and it treats women as sex
objects. On a jaunt with Lenina, who naturally wants to screw, Bernard in distress
speaks of her as “meat.” We get only the male point of view, to be sure; Lenina is the
only example of a civilized woman, and she is (1) pneumatic and (2) an
airhead, fully conditioned by sleep learning. Her only insights and wisdom are the
slogans from the hatchery. The only thoughtful people are men—Bernard, who is little
more than a malcontent; Helmholz Watson, who wants to write something meaningful
and beautiful; and Mustapha Mond, who knows and understands everything.
As for Linda, the woman who got left behind on the reservation to lead the rest of
her life among the Indians, she has suffered abundantly, but she remains conditioned,
unthinking, uncomprehending. Furthermore she has all the physical deterioration of age
but none of the—whatever we find noble and lovable in aging. And her death generates
no compassion or concern.
Why did the “civilized” people want to go on vacation to see the Indians? I don’t
know that we got an answer on that. Bernard,however, has a reason: He wants to see
what life is like if you don’t have all the smooth, easy happiness of civilization. Being an
imperfect specimen, he is not happy and so he doesn’t believe in that happiness.
The Savage is an unsatisfactory character. I did not note who made this
observation, but I agree with it. Someone observed that the Indians are normal, but I
would have to say that the Savage is not. He is too tormented by hang-ups. Nevertheless
he deserves credit for facing down the curiosity-seekers at the end. He should have been
sent to an island, where he could read Shakespeare.
In the system of soma and conditioning to maintain stability, some saw Huxley
taking a swipe at one-worldism.
Most of us did not particularly the book, including Claudia, who sent word that
she considered 1984 a better book. Nona stood up for BNW and liked the way it took on
major ideas to satirize and criticize: religion (satirized as Fordism), communism,
consumerism, and the distress at the physical side of the human condition as The Savage
characterizes it in the words of Shakespeare.
I apologize for being late with this report. I also apologize for extending our
discussion with additions of my own ideas, thus taking occasion to have the last word.
— John