Basic Plot:
This novel takes place in the year 632 A.F. The government controls the population of Utopia, there are only test tube births and an artificial process for multiplying the embryos. Marriage is forbidden. There are ten World Controllers; these people control the government and all of their plans. In the very beginning there are students being given a guided party line tour through the London Hatcheries. Two employees that work there are Henry Foster and Lenina Crowne, they have been dating each other too much and are discouraged by the state. So Lenina’s best friend, Fanny, picks on her because of this. Lenina then meets Bernard Marx, and grows to like him so much that she agrees to go on a vacation with him to a New Mexican Savage Reservation. This is a place where people are sent to if they do not abide to the laws of the Utopian world. This is where problems begin to happen and the Director of Hatcheries, Tomakin, threatens exile to Marx if he does not mend his ways, for he has become very out spoken.
While at this reservation Lenina and Bernard meet a savage, John, and his mother Linda. From talking to John and Linda, Bernard pieces together their past. He finds out that Linda traveled to the Reservation with Tomakin years ago and became pregnant; therefore Tomakin left her at the reservation never to see her again. Linda gave birth, to John, therefore breaking a law and never being permitted to enter Utopia again. Bernard and Lenina brought Linda and John back to Utopia with the permission of one of the World Controllers. When they arrive home Bernard finds out that the Directors o Hatcheries is about to exile him, then which Marx produces
John and Linda that greet him as son and wife. Tomakin then resigned in disgrace.
Bernard and a friend, Helmholtz Watson, help to adjust John to Utopia, and spend each day showing off Utopia to him. John becomes more disgusted and appalled with each passing day. Mean while, Lenina has become infatuated with John and made sexual advances toward him, and this ruins his image of her as an object of worship, so he spurns her. Soon his mother died and John went berserk and tried to lecture the Utopians back to sanity. A riot takes place and Bernard and Helmholtz are exiled, but John is ordered to stay behind. John is determined to escape Utopia and flees to a deserted spot outside London. But Utopia come...
... middle of paper ...
... book I felt both shock and disappointment. The ending shocked me, but I have to say that it was my favorite part of the book and I really don’t care for any other parts of the book. I was disappointed that the book ended like that and so suddenly. Also I was sort of hoping and thinking that there would have been a happy ending, where both John and Lenina ended up together, or that the Utopians would of changed their ways of life.
I would recommend this book to someone whom likes to read science fiction books about the future, because this book could be a possibility of how the future will be. Also a science fiction book like this would be enjoyed by people who like to read science fiction books because it is a very technical and realistic novel, written by a descriptive author.
In the year of 1932 quite a lot was beginning to take place nationally and around the world. In the U.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt had just been elected the Presidential Office. The open-air theater opened with ‘Merrie England’. And over in Germany the beginning of Nazis was starting to take action, with Adolf Hitler as their leader. This is just a few events that were taking place during the year of 1932.
undermine the realisation of utopia. Within these texts, it can be realised that no population
The outcome of what happened to Bernard forced him to see that mistakes were one reason a Utopian Society could not exist. The Character Bernard Marx is an example of human imperfection, not because he was referred to as deformed, but because the person who created him messed up. Individuals were decanted according to specification. Any deviation was evidently the result of some mistake, a mistake made by a human. These technological developments weren’t advanced enough to create such a perfect society. Bernard was an example of this undesired reality. He was deemed an outcast due to his imperfection. Being an outcast, however, allowed him to see the world differently. He was able to realize how everything was being manipulated and he was able to discern that it was wrong.
The actual process of creating humans is made possible through the use of a single ovary which makes thousands of identical people. Since these people are similar in appearance, thought and relations, they are able to live in perfect harmony with each other. Huxley uses Lenina and Fanny, two of his female characters who are distant relatives from the same ovary, as people who get along well and are on the same page on issues concerning Utopian lifestyles. This is how the government of Utopia, made up of only ten controllers, is able to maintain stability among its people. Since stability is part of the brave new world’s motto, it is a crucial deal for the government to uphold.
Life is a very valuable asset, but when lived on someone else’s terms its nothing but a compromise. The seemingly perfect image of Utopia which combines happiness and honesty with purity, very often leads in forming a dystopian environment. The shrewd discrepancy of Utopia is presented in both the novel ‘The Giver’ by Lois Lowry and the film ‘The Truman Show’ directed by Peter Weir. Both stories depict a perfect community, perfect people, perfect life, perfect world, and a perfect lie. These perfect worlds may appear to shield its inhabitants from evil and on the other hand appear to give individuals no rights of their own. By comparing and contrasting the novel ‘The Giver’ and the film ‘The Truman Show’, it can be derived that both the main characters become anti-utopian to expose the seedy underbelly of their Utopian environment which constructs a delusional image of reality, seizes the pleasures in their lives and portrays a loss of freedom.
The first time Professor Marx mentioned that we would be given the opportunity to witness a pig slaughtering, I immediately decided that I would do it. I chose the Abattoir because I wanted to be informed about the process. As I walked down the path to the Abattoir I tried not to think about what I was about to witness. After passing through the huge metal doors, stepping in the soap water to disinfect the bottom of my shoes, putting on the hair net, the apron, and hard hat, I felt like I was about to walk on to the production floor of a large factory. The room was an obsessive-compulsive person’s paradise. Everything was spotless and in top condition. On the ceiling were a series of wheels on rails that connected to hooks, which moved the pigs from station to station. Other than an assortment of carts, a monstrous machine in one corner, four butchers, and an inspector, the room seemed empty.
The working class--the proletariat--must work to survive. Conversely, the bourgeois own the means of production and exploit the proletariat for their labor as well as the goods produced as a result (Ollman). The characters of Fuenteovejuna fit easily within this dichotomy. The townspeople exemplify Marx’s proletariat class, working tirelessly only to have the fruits of their labor--the crops they have harvested--taken by the Commander and the other nobles. Then, the Commander and his fellow nobles exemplify the bourgeois
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World portrays a society in which science has clearly taken over. This was an idea of what the future could hold for humankind. Is it true that Huxley’s prediction may be correct? Although there are many examples of Huxley’s theories in our society, there is reason to believe that his predictions will not hold true for the future of society.
Bernard Marx is an intriguing character in the book Brave New World. At the beginning of the book, he is a very main character, but as the book goes on he is put more and more into the background of the story. The reason for this can be explained by the way his character changes as the book progresses. Aldous Huxley makes an interesting point by showing how a person can be changed by obtaining something he desires. It makes the readers wonder whether success would change them in the same way or if they would be able to maintain their character.
"'God isn't compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness.'" So says Mustapha Mond, the World Controller for Western Europe in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World. In doing so, he highlights a major theme in this story of a Utopian society. Although the people in this modernized world enjoy no disease, effects of old age, war, poverty, social unrest, or any other infirmities or discomforts, Huxley asks 'is the price they pay really worth the benefits?' This novel shows that when you must give up religion, high art, true science, and other foundations of modern life in place of a sort of unending happiness, it is not worth the sacrifice.
Huxley applies the above techniques to warn against the loss of meaning in a world of societal conformity. For the first movement of the novel, Bernard acts as an outsider who does not take pleasure in regular societal activities. After his first date with Lenina, Bernard longs for something missing from his life. “I want to know what passion is,” he says. “I want to feel something strongly” (Huxley 94). Huxley uses Bernard’s feelings at the beginning of Brave New World to expose a severe lack of meaning in Bernard’s own life. Huxley later shifts his focus to John the Savage to support his warning. In his climactic conflict with Mustapha Mond, John demands that things should come with more emotional cost in the World State society, arguing, “What you need is something with tears for a change” (Huxley 245). It is with this argument that Huxley confirms his warning: the loss of meaning in life. Mond says of society, “We don’t [like inconveniences]. We prefer to do things comfortably” (Huxley 246). But as John points out, an overemphasis on comfort leads to the sacrifice of responsibilities and hardships that make life meaningful. On the other hand, Vonnegut applies the same techniques to warn against the loss of purpose in an age of automation. Vonnegut’s vision of Ilium, New York, sees that automation has displaced thousands of citizens to menial jobs in construction or the army, while only the citizens with the highest evaluation scores are eligible to be hired for high-paying engineering jobs that oversee the machines. A father’s personal tale of heartbreak reveals this flaw to the protagonist, Paul Proteus. “[My son] just about killed himself studying up for [the National General Classification Tests],” the man says, “but it wasn’t any use. He didn’t do nearly well enough for college. There were only twenty-seven openings, and six hundred kids trying for them”
Within Brave New World social stability means everyone is identical and has a preset purpose to life. A tour guide at the Central London Hatchery And Conditioning Centre explains they”…predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human beings, as alphas or epsilons, as future sewage workers…” (Huxley 13) Bernard Marx was born by the same Bokanovsky process as everyone else. He is forced to live in a society where individuality is suppressed for stability by conformity. Marx knows he is unlike many others and tries to fit in. He is prevented to be his true self because he is already looked down on by the conditioned society and risk of exile. His anti-social beliefs include ideas of marriage, emotions and community events which are unmoral according to the rest of civilization.
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley deftly creates a society that is indeed quite stable. Although they are being mentally manipulated, the members of this world are content with their lives, and the presence of serious conflict is minimal, if not nonexistent. For the most part, the members of this society have complete respect and trust in their superiors, and those who don’t are dealt with in a peaceful manner as to keep both society and the heretic happy. Maintained by cultural values, mental conditioning, and segregation, the idea of social stability as demonstrated in Brave New World is, in my opinion, both insightful and intriguing.
Gonerial and Reagan did not receive the same love that their sister did, they found that false love and flattery would get what they wanted.
There were quite a few changes made from Aldous Huxley’s, Brave New World to turn it into a “made for TV” movie. The first major change most people noticed was Bernard Marx’s attitude. In the book he was very shy and timid toward the opposite sex, he was also very cynical about their utopian lifestyle. In the movie Bernard was a regular Casanova. He had no shyness towards anyone. A second major deviation the movie made form the book was when Bernard exposed the existing director of Hatcheries and Conditioning, Bernard himself was moved up to this position. In the book the author doesn’t even mention who takes over the position. The biggest change between the two was Lenina, Bernard’s girlfriend becomes pregnant and has the baby. The screenwriters must have made this up because the author doesn’t even mention it. The differences between the book and the movie both helped it and hurt it.
A lot of authors have expressed their views on utopia in their novels. Some have done it by creating their own perfect world, while others have chosen a different path. They have selected to voice their opinions in anti-utopian novels, or dystopia. An anti-utopia is simply the reverse of a utopian novel. The aim of both novels is ba...