Originally published in 1932, this outstanding work of literature is more crucial and relevant today than ever before. Cloning, feel-good drugs, antiaging programs, and total social control through politics, programming, and media -- has Aldous Huxley accurately predicted our future? With a storyteller's genius, he weaves these ethical controversies in a compelling narrative that dawns in the year 632 AF (After Ford, the deity). When Lenina and Bernard visit a savage reservation, we experience how Utopia can destroy humanity. A powerful work of speculative fiction that has enthralled and terrified readers for generations, Brave New World is both a warning to be heeded and thought-provoking yet satisfying entertainment. - Container.
Read in and for English class in school. Would likely not have read it on an other occasion, although the themes and things discussed are thought provoking, I didn't really enjoy the book.
Esse livro é um clássico do gênero ficção científica distópica, e já em 1932 já previa algumas desgraças em nome do progresso científico. Aliás, se tem uma coisa em que o livro acerta, é na crítica implícita (ou até mesmo explícita) sobre ciência e o progresso obstinado. O dilema moral principal do livro, escrito mesmo antes da Segunda Guerra ou da ameaça de caos nuclear da Guerra Fria, é: ser livre e sofrer, mas poder apreciar a arte e a liberdade e tudo o que implica, ou ser condicionado, manipulado e viver em uma sociedade de castas, mas sem sofrimento e uma vida relativamente digna e feliz (mesmo considerando as castas)?
Na minha opinião, esse dilema moral é realmente interessante e se prova atual mesmo 92 anos após o lançamento do livro. O que eu não gostei foi:
1) A narrativa: achei chata, não me interessou, os personagens não são …
Esse livro é um clássico do gênero ficção científica distópica, e já em 1932 já previa algumas desgraças em nome do progresso científico. Aliás, se tem uma coisa em que o livro acerta, é na crítica implícita (ou até mesmo explícita) sobre ciência e o progresso obstinado. O dilema moral principal do livro, escrito mesmo antes da Segunda Guerra ou da ameaça de caos nuclear da Guerra Fria, é: ser livre e sofrer, mas poder apreciar a arte e a liberdade e tudo o que implica, ou ser condicionado, manipulado e viver em uma sociedade de castas, mas sem sofrimento e uma vida relativamente digna e feliz (mesmo considerando as castas)?
Na minha opinião, esse dilema moral é realmente interessante e se prova atual mesmo 92 anos após o lançamento do livro. O que eu não gostei foi:
1) A narrativa: achei chata, não me interessou, os personagens não são bem trabalhados e o Selvagem é um saco. Não aguentava mais citação de Shakespeare de um pseudocristão. Mas talvez esse fosse o ponto mesmo. Então não vou criticar o autor;
2) O cristianismo implícito: é sério que a liberdade de sentir que o autor sugere está vinculada ao cristianismo e o sofrer por boa vontade? E que um dos sinais do fim dos tempos é a tal da promiscuidade sexual, em que foi influenciado por uma suposta promiscuidade entre jovens norte-americanos? Sei lá, na minha opinião há muito mais nuances entre liberdade, felicidade e sofrimento do que existe entre ateísmo e ciência e cristianismo e fé.
Enfim, o problema é que eu fui com expectativas demais para um livro de uma pessoa anti-comunista de 1932. Acho que meus olhos, mente e coração de 2024 tornam difícil de analisar esse livro sem certo anacronismo, considerado o nível da distopia neoliberal que vivemos. Há promiscuidade (e que bom), mas o cristianismo é muito mais castrador da nossa liberdade do que qualquer promiscuidade...
I guess it might be the point of the book, but I couldn't feel that any character was real, everything felt stereotypical; while at the same time that "prediction" of the future does not seem plausible to me.
And I repeat, it might be the point of the book, so, if that is the case, then great job. I just did not enjoy it or gained any interesting insight.
See review title.
What we remember most is how disappointed we were that the story spun all the wonderful potential benefits of science into a dystopia where class and capitalism prevailed. The book disturbingly portrays how a society with admiral goals can go wrong with rigid and fanatical application. Society, it is to flourish, it needs to be open and alive.
Read this immediately afte reading the Orwell classic, 1984. I admit, I struggled reading this book. The method of story telling, with the switching of character perspective was difficult to follow. The idea of the book became far more clearer as the book progressed and became clear especially towards the end.
However the ideas presented in the book and their demonstration was thought provoking.
Obra sobrevalorada donde las haya. Es cierto que Huxley es un adelantado a su tiempo ya que describe una sociedad que en algunos aspectos se va pareciendo peligrosamente a la nuestra, pero en mi opinión, sigue un planteamiento erróneo. Desde el aspecto político, describe una sociedad en la que el Estado cubre todas tus necesidades (comunismo) y al mismo tiempo somete a la población a continuos estímulos y drogas para que los ciudadanos crean que son felices (capitalismo), una contradicción como una casa. Entre eso y la burda selección de nombres de los personajes (Lenina, Marx, Trotsky…), es evidente que lo que ha escrito este señor británico de familia acomodada no es más que un panfleto con el que difundir la absurda idea de que “los extremos se tocan”.
I find the book fascinating in all the reality that the author created. I felt it as if I was in a nightmare. The pace of the book shifts a bit... I do like some of the moments. The audiobook version narrated by Michael York is very very good.
I couldn't help comparing it to 1984, maybe because my reading of that one is still fresh. In comparison I find this less beautiful and more frightening. The usage of England and the vocabulary of the era strikes as an odd thing. :) I guess this book feels closer to current western civilization than 1984 and I couldn't detach from that feeling. Kudos to Aldous
There is much to be learned from reading this book and it is easy to forget that it was written early in the last century, not this one. Sadly, the warnings Huxley offers about what society was becoming were largely ignored and we've come to a society that so closely mirrors his "civilization" that it could have been a metaphor about our current state of affairs written by a contemporary author.
It is a very short novel but full of warnings and lessons that are as applicable, or even more so, today as they were in 1930. It is a lesson in mass manipulation by the media and big pharma. It is a lesson in treating people ultimately as mere resource rather than persons. And it is a lesson in extremes, extreme pain v. extreme pleasure and the wrongheadedness in submitting to either.
In some ways a rather predictable read (at this point) for anyone who reads dystopian literature; people equal sheep and all that. There were some key differences however between this book and say 1984, V for Vendetta etc that make it extremely intriguing.
Sexuality was perhaps the most obvious. In most dystopian novels the authoritative government has mostly forced people into nuclear family groups that lack any sort of emotional connection and generally squelching that part of human nature. At this point I have no idea what Huxley’s actual views were, but if I had to guess I would say they probably run more conservative then Orwell’s. Of course, as illustrated by this and other books, both extremes are dangerous.
The Utopian element of it all was another strange aspect. In most dystopian novels the society is failing and/or people are miserable to one degree or another. In Brave New …
In some ways a rather predictable read (at this point) for anyone who reads dystopian literature; people equal sheep and all that. There were some key differences however between this book and say 1984, V for Vendetta etc that make it extremely intriguing.
Sexuality was perhaps the most obvious. In most dystopian novels the authoritative government has mostly forced people into nuclear family groups that lack any sort of emotional connection and generally squelching that part of human nature. At this point I have no idea what Huxley’s actual views were, but if I had to guess I would say they probably run more conservative then Orwell’s. Of course, as illustrated by this and other books, both extremes are dangerous.
The Utopian element of it all was another strange aspect. In most dystopian novels the society is failing and/or people are miserable to one degree or another. In Brave New World however, for the most part people are actually happy. Apparently the Matrix got it wrong?
I was actually so surprised by this book that it begs to be reread so I can fully unpack all of the ideas and form opinions about them. Ah well, someday!
