Wayne and Rebecca Madsen

Amazingly, I survived high school and college English Lit classes without having read this book. I read 1984 three or four times, but never Brave New World. All I can say is that I shouldn't have read the forward for this book. I saved it until the end, just in case it had spoilers in it. Even though I saved the forward until the end, it still spoiled the book for me.

I thought Aldus Huxley was just being cynical in his book; I didn't think he actually believed this world he described was a real threat, a real possibility. But the forward made it seem like he thought it a real possibility. He wrote the book in 1932, and the forward in 1946. Both depressing times to be writing in the history of man, to be sure. Even more depressing was his opinion that we "have only two alternatives to choose from," and neither is a pretty sight: a national, militarized totalitarianism (e.g. Nazi rule, or 1984); or a supranational totalitarianism resulting from social chaos and rapid technological progress (e.g. Brave New World).

I see rapid technological advances being a problem because law can't keep up with technology (for instance, how do you make laws about what kind of websites people can make and how you can advertise for them?). However, I wouldn't exactly say that it results in chaos. Hasn't there been just as much good coming from technology as well (geneaology websites, advances in medicine, etc)? He introduces a lot of the good results: people live longer, never suffer from problems of age, drugs have no nasty side effects, everyone fits in their role in society. But there are no negative side effects. I suppose this is the problem. All the good in his world only results because the government enforces it, none of the bad results because the government prevents it. Ultimately individuals have no control or decisions because that has been taken from their hands "for their own good." I wonder what Huxley would say about all the technology that law can't keep up with now. :)

I think in the end, what bothered me most was that he really underestimated spirituality and moral behavior. The Savage, when faced with a "high society" and "neverending happiness" contrasted this with his romantic and religious upbringing, and claimed the right to "be unhappy." I applauded this choice, of course, for without sadness how can you know happiness? He was choosing to have real happiness, not artificial happiness handed to him on a silver platter. But the end that comes from this is nothing good. I can't say I liked the ending. I guess I'm too much of an optimist to appreciate it.

It was an interesting book, and I enjoyed reading it. But the ending...and reading the forward afterwards on top of that.... At least it made me think, right?