I don’t think sex is nearly as prevalent in our time as in the BNW time. There are “feelies” but most people don’t frequent them. A majority of our culture is only focused on ‘what feels good’ but a minority is focused on living a meaningful good life.
We do travel to far away places often because it is so easy even though it negatively affects the environment. Unfortunately, about 70% of CEOs are male. This is like the book because only males seem to be in power.
I think it’s really hard to compare this book to the present because this book could never ever happen. We could never wipe out disease. We could never eradicate every natural unpleasantry while still living in a stable environment. This book is a completely impossible way of life so it was difficult to take it seriously.
I did think about heaven when reading this book. I’ve thought about under the same circumstances before. How could we ever reach a place with no unhappiness while still truly feeling happy all the time? What would the comparison be to feel the happiness? I don’t feel like the book really made an accurate depiction of what life could be like in the future besides complete control from the government. I think Huxley’s point is that we all seek physical satisfaction most of the time. Technology’s goal is to make everything easier and more enjoyable. He’s reached the peak of complete ease and enjoyment. His point is that no one is truly happy. I agree. But like I said, this could never happen in real life.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Soapbox
I am not blogging about any of the four prompts. I did not like this book. I read it completely and quickly. I did not find it difficult or boring. But I did not like this book.
I think that Huxley is trying to say women who have sex either outside of marriage or when they are not in love are going to be treated like meat, mindless, or are “sluts” or “whores”. I do not believe this is so. I could understand if Huxley’s point is that women AND men should not be having sex with anything that moves BECAUSE of disease (STDs) but I don’t think that’s his point. He portrays every woman in this book as completely mindless, addicted to soma, and focused solely on having sex. Which makes me believe that he thinks that if America were to portray sex as morally “okay” then he thinks all men and women would only focus on sex and not intimacy. I don’t think that’s the case. I point out that he places women in a ‘mindless’ light because
1. Only men are in high position in this book.
2. The sole female main character, Lenina, is used as a sexual symbol and as a symbol of someone that has completely bought into the ideals of The New World.
3. The female that chooses to have sex with multiple partners in the “Savage World”, Linda, does not get a disease but rather social retribution. She then does not understand the negative backlash she receives.
4. The “hero” of the story, John the Savage, is male as are the other two pseudo-heroes, Helmholtz and Bernard Marx (Interesting his last name is Marx, like the man who created communism. I don’t think Bernard is meant to be a hero in the book. However, I think he is meant to be one of the few fighting the detrimental ideals of the utopian society. I think he is meant to be pitied and hated. Yet he was the beginning of questioning society and understanding that everyone was conditioned.)
I think that Huxley is trying to say women who have sex either outside of marriage or when they are not in love are going to be treated like meat, mindless, or are “sluts” or “whores”. I do not believe this is so. I could understand if Huxley’s point is that women AND men should not be having sex with anything that moves BECAUSE of disease (STDs) but I don’t think that’s his point. He portrays every woman in this book as completely mindless, addicted to soma, and focused solely on having sex. Which makes me believe that he thinks that if America were to portray sex as morally “okay” then he thinks all men and women would only focus on sex and not intimacy. I don’t think that’s the case. I point out that he places women in a ‘mindless’ light because
1. Only men are in high position in this book.
2. The sole female main character, Lenina, is used as a sexual symbol and as a symbol of someone that has completely bought into the ideals of The New World.
3. The female that chooses to have sex with multiple partners in the “Savage World”, Linda, does not get a disease but rather social retribution. She then does not understand the negative backlash she receives.
4. The “hero” of the story, John the Savage, is male as are the other two pseudo-heroes, Helmholtz and Bernard Marx (Interesting his last name is Marx, like the man who created communism. I don’t think Bernard is meant to be a hero in the book. However, I think he is meant to be one of the few fighting the detrimental ideals of the utopian society. I think he is meant to be pitied and hated. Yet he was the beginning of questioning society and understanding that everyone was conditioned.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)