Please direct your comments to respond to the following prompt:
In chapters 3 and 4 Huxley juxtaposes several conversations together to create a somewhat confusing scene. One conversation is between Lenina and Fanny, one is between the World Controller and a group of students, and one is between Bernard and a couple of Alpha Plus males. Why would Huxley blend these conversations together? What does it add to the story, what does it reveal about his larger themes?
Your comments should be at least 200 words long! I'm dying to know what you guys think about this question...
Post is due by midnight, 1/16/09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
In chapters 3 and 4, Huxley juxtaposes several conversations from different characters together to create a scene that strengthens themes found in the book: the idea that everyone is an equal contributor to the society and that every member of the society belongs to everyone else.
By combining the conversations of the characters in this scene, Huxley gives us the impression that none of these conversations is more important than another, all of the conversations are of equal value because they are all helping to create the story. This follows the theme found in the novel, that every character in the story, no matter their caste, has an equal amount to contribute to the society, every job is important to the overall growth of the society that they inhabit. In once scene of the book, Lenina comments to Bernard about how much she would hate to be an Epsilon, and Bernard responds by saying that even the Epsilons are important too because they have a job, just like Lenina, that keeps their society running smoothly.
The other theme that the "blended" conversations help to illustrate is the idea that every member of the society belongs to one another. The conversations between these characters is a jumble, it doesn't belong to one person, the conversation belongs to everyone. Not only are the people sharable physically, so are the discussions and thoughts they have with one another. Its like, your own body doesn't just belong to you, it belongs to EVERYONE, and neither does what you say...it is a part of the whole body or being. I just really think that in these two chapters, Huxley is trying to show us that the characters in the book aren't individuals, they are almost like one person, the individual thought/being isn't important; it is about the running of the whole/or big picture.
H.A.
Response by Webel to H.A.
I thought your ideas were good! I wonder if, even though they say they believe in equality, if they don't still have a basic believe that the Alpha's are better. No doubt they are taught that all people are necessary, but don't they also always think to themselves, "I'm glad I'm not a Delta!"? They are conditioned to believe that their social standing is something that should satisfy them, and that the other classes are not desirous. What do you think?
It seemed to me that Huxley mixed these different conversations together during chapters 3 and 4 in order to give the reader a better understanding of how characters in the ‘Brave New World’ interact and think socially. In the earlier chapters, he shocked the reader by showing how all infants and children were trained to like and dislike certain things. He expands the reader’s view to a more adult world in chapters 3 and 4 when he shows how the effects of hypnopædia and sexual encouragement have molded these people to be very similar mentally even as adults.
Huxley uses the World Controller’s dialogue to contrast that of Lenina, Fanny, Bernard and the Alpha plus males. As the World Controller tells forgotten history to the students, they shudder and are sickened. The reader relates to these facts told by the World Controller, but at the same time Huxley mixes in conversations that are weird to the reader. This gives the reader a wide understanding of how different Huxley’s world is compared to ours. I think the author used this type of writing format to make these chapters more thought-provoking. Huxley shows that a change in perspective can turn around an entire society. We think the actions described in the ‘New World’ are wrong, while the characters dislike our way of life.
I think that Huxley added these conversations together because each conversation deals with the World State values. For instance, Franny is warning Lenina to see other men because she doesn't want the Director to view her behavior as abnormal. As Lenina and Fanny are having their conversation, Mustafa Mond is giving a long speech to students about conforming to the state. He is lecturing that individual institutions are unstable and produce divided allegiances. Also Bernard Marx is talking in a separate conversation about his discomfort with the system,especially the sexual promiscuity. He almost acts as a contrast to the two other conversations that are simulatneously going on. Each of these dialogues reveals the theme of social conformity. They illistrate the lack of personal connections like friendship and love, in order to gain social stability. Through conditioning and medical manipulations, the State gains control over the individual making them unable to even have individual thoughts. Another basic theme these chapters reveal is the abuse of technology. Everyone in the society is brain washed to think and behave in specific ways given the type of schema they are classified into. This only adds to the social conformity. -SM
SM responging to TAS-
I think that it's interesting how you connected the early events in the book to the events in chapters 3 and 4. I aslo think that your comment about "the change in perspective can change a soceity" is extremely thought provoking. I do, however, wonder if their are more people in the society like Bernard Marx that believe that sexual promiscuity and other confromity acts are unsettling, and if so how many others. Could these perspectives be infuential in the society?
Huxley blends the multiple conversations together to show how everyone has a part to play in the society. Each person in the blended conversation provided an important part to the story. Lenina and Fanny showed us what their society now believes about relationships between men and women. The controller and the student’s conversation showed that, in Brave New World, the past is forgotten and you should only look towards the future. Bernard and the Alpha Plus male’s conversation leads us to believe that the society has tried to make everything purely about sexual desire and nothing else. This desire and the baby factories is erasing people’s true emotions and allowing the state to decide what people feel. However we can see that it is not entirely that way with Bernard, because it can be seen by his irritability that he loves Lenina. At first the conversations are fairly easy to follow because it says who is saying what, but as you read farther on all of the conversations become one big story because they are all jumbled together. We can see equality in this conversation because no one’s true story can be correctly recognized in the end, which leads to the theme of equality and “everyone belongs to everyone else.”
The blended conversation also reveals that the community is based off certain stability. This stability can be between men and women, Alphas and Delta, the future and the past, and many other things. We can see how this stability allows the society to function because the frivolous relationships between men and women allow for emotions to be cast to the side so that they don’t interfere with the work that must be done (such as making the babies, priming them, and many other things) for the society to continue in the correct path. The relationships between all different castes make the society run smoothly as well because everyone has a specific job and they stick to it, and don’t mess around with the other groups, which again allows them to get their work done. The future and the past work together though in order to prevent no one from going astray, or thinking in a different way. Not to mention everyone’s past has primed them to have certain likes and dislikes, keeping them on a certain path, and inhibiting any free thinkers.
Overall though, Huxley is trying to show us that no one in this society is a true individual, they are all pieces to the bigger puzzle that allows the society to function as a whole.
KP
Out of all of the conversations, I find the conversation between the world controller and the students the most interesting. One of the most disturbing thoughts so far is that a human would purposely poison a fetus in order to develop a caste system. Bernard is troubled by his body. Rumors are floating around that he was accidently poisoned by a nurse, in order to become a member of a lower caste. Also, I’m disturbed by the control that the world controller has over the population. Originally babies were shock treated to love nature and flowers and once the government found out that this was hazardous to the economy, the babies were shocked to hate nature and flowers. Another conversation that disturbed me was the conversation between Lenina and Fanny. Their discussion is about Lenina’s “unusual” relationships. Lenina is considered abnormal for dating the same man for four months, as women are supposed to be more promiscuous. Overall, these troubling conversations lead to a larger more troubling theme.
The theme behind the conversations and through blending the conversations is conformity. Throughout the book, it is understood that every one belongs to one another. That is why women are supposed to be more promiscuous. Also, every baby in the same caste is grown in the same fashion. Babies that are supposed to be in lower caste are drugged while in the fetus. This brings up another theme in the book, the caste system. In today’s society there are no specific castes, but there are castes economically and socially. In today’s society there are the lower class, middle class, and upper class. Through controlling the caste system the government can have total economic power over society as specific castes are assigned specific jobs. In addition to castes, the government controls transportation as they electrically shocked babies to enjoy country sports. Overall, Huxley introduces new, disturbing ideas of a progressing society that are hard to comprehend.
Jake B.
Theres supposed to be a paragraph between ". Overall, these troubling conversations lead to a larger more troubling theme." and "The theme behind the conversations and through blending the conversations is conformity"
Jake B.
KP in response to SM
I agree with you that this society lacks personal connections in order to gain social stability. And that by making their lives only about sexual desire with out meaning the state is able to control individuals. But I want to know what would happen to Lenina if the Director found out that she and Henry were “exclusive.” Would she be taken to the psychologist like the little boy that wasn’t playing with the little girl? Or would there be some sort of more severe consequence? Also to the people that live in Brave New World the technology may seem normal, so to them it may not be an abuse of technology, rather something they just live with because they don’t know any other way. The reason for this could be because they don’t know anything thing that happened before A.F
In the Brave New World Aldous Huxley juxtaposes several conversations together creating a confusing scene for the reader. This was done on purpose to reflect the theme that being naïve to the problems of the world can bring peace to the mind. Chapters 3 and 4 show this because in each scene no one seems to know the whole picture just the part that includes them. For example, in the conversation of the World Controlller, Mustapha Mond, and the students he describes the old world as something negative. The students have obviously been brain washed by society so much so that the word ‘mother’ would make one feel sick but children engaging in erotic play seems normal. Lenina and Fanny also don’t seem to get the whole picture, Franny more than Lenina however. Lenina has been exclusive to Henry who is advising her to take the pregnant substitute. She believes that he is doing this because he cares but really Henry though naïve to the Word Controllers intent to become all powerful does know that he is treating Lenina as a sex object but social norms allow this. Bernard seems to have a gut feeling that the World State is corrupt and unjust but is not sure why. This leaves him feeling depressed and confused because right now he knows what he thinks is right but is unsure about society’s ways. These conversations add to the book because they let the reader see how they people really are not sure about what is going on which explains why they would allow this to happen.
In Brave New World, Huxley has multiple conversations going on almost simultaneously. The three conversations, one with Lenina and Fanny, one with the World Controller and a group of students, and one is between Bernard and a couple of Alpha Plus males, are all different but seem to be like a collage, mixing and mingling together. The dialogue within the conversations becomes shorter and shorter until one can’t truly know which conversation is taking place without the help of the subject matter. Huxley uses this literary technique to show that all of these people are a part of the “big picture.”
Huxley seems to have many themes throughout what we’ve read so far. One most definitely is the lack of individuality that is portrayed. Being a part of the whole and being controlled by one body is a major idea that Bernard goes against as the protagonist in the story. But even as he and his friend Helmholtz talk about rebelling, neither of them actually take action to go against the system. They’re both Alpha males making them on the top of the food-chain, and so even though they feel isolated, they feel so for different reasons and they are still connected with the rest of the community. They may not be content with their “after Ford” life-style, but Huxley makes it clear with juxtaposing the three conversations, that each group is a small part in the grand scheme of things where a controlled society could lead to an unhappy existence.
Jake B. in response to SM
I like what SM said about brain-washing, and also leads me to think if we are beginning to become brain-washed ourselves. One thing I forgot to mention in my post is the abuse of technology. Are we as a society also abusing technology? It seems like we spend hours a day either on the computer or watching television. Also,it seems like the characters in the book are more robots than actual human beings. Overall, it seems like Huxley is making a plea that if we don't change our ways, our grandchildren will become sick when they hear the word "mother".
TAS response to 44215-kav:
I like your big-picture theme: Being naive about the world can make you feel more comfortable with it. This theme makes me think about how naive we are in our own world. Our own individual understanding of what's happening in this world is based on what? Maybe 3 or 4 large companies that control the news on TV... It seems to me we don't really have a way to actually see the big picture of our world. You would be impossibly busy around the world to actually understand its themes on a large scale. I think this theme is true in Brave New World and our own world.
I see HA's point but I got the feeling that in the book they weren't equal and that the World Controllers were brain washing them to believe that they were all equal and important to society so they would all be content and believe that they and their counterparts were equivalent so the injustice of the caste system they were biologically creating wouldn't be questioned. I do agree about what you said that everyone believes they belong to everyone although again here I think they really belong to the world controllers. I like your analysis and it gives me something more to think about.
I see kav-44215's point but I don't think that they are completely naive to the situation because everyone, even Lenina, seems to have that gut feeling that there is another way but that way makes her uncomfortable so she shuts it out. Even Henry, one of the minds of the operation had a gut feeling about the world controller and his books. If the characters weren't so separated I think they would realize that there needs to be a change. I wonder if Lenina will talk to Bernard and he will make her see that its ok to question the world they live in and if together they will do something about it or if they will just sit back and let it continue.
Altogether, each of the separate conversations added together at once is kind of a reiteration and example of the brainwashing that occurs in the future. The conversations all serve to reinforce the way the children are fed thoughts and ideals; they allow insight into the future's society, but they give information all at the same time, with Lenina's interaction set up to illustrate the World Controller's lesson. Even as the World Controller is describing how strange and unusual the past--our present--was, Lenina's own words show how different they now think from us. Only Bernard's individualistic thoughts stick out amid all the similar thoughts of the others; this gives his dissonant thoughts more of an impact.
Huxley's larger theme, that all individuals are really not individuals at all, is given a stronger emphasis. Had he simply stated that everyone thought the same and were influenced to not think otherwise, it wouldn't have had strong an impact on the reader. When the point is structured this way, however, Huxley can illustrate more easily how all the people of the future are so different from us.
The way Huxley wrote it is also a contrast and comparison. It contrasts the lack of emotion the people feel because the conversations are a barrage of words, causing a sense of tension and confusion to build. It compares to the way things are done in the future, however, because the children learn to think by being given a series of statements without any really making sense; they are disjointed, and yet the adults grow to repeat them and think them despite that.
Overall, the disconnectedness of it all simply gives Huxley a way to show how different the nature of the future is.
In response to GLS
I think that they make a good point about how by mixing all the different conversations together shows how the society functions as a unit. I like how they also noticed that each segment of conversation kept getting shorter until they were almost indistinguishable showing the "big picture" and that to be a part of it, people must lose their individuality. It is also interesting that even though the castes keep these charaters separated they all have a feeling that something is not right. I wonder if it is nessary for people to be unhappy for this technological society to function as one stable community?
Huxley blinds together multiple conversations in chapters 3 and 4 to show that the society all blinds together and everyone has a different role. Lenina and Fanny’s conversation allows the reader to see how female in this society look at other males and relationships. When the controller and students are talking the reader gets a feel of how the society rather look forward with things rather then looking back at the past. Finally the conversation between Bernard and the Alpha Plus males allows the reader to see the way men in this society look at females, which is based off nothing but peoples sexual desire towards one another. However when looking at the babies, this new world is wanting to take control over people rather then people living their lives from their emotions. Although, as the chapter goes on the conversations seem to get confusing on what is wanted from the society. This is because when Bernard is talking you can tell he has feelings for Lenina, but the members of this society are not suppose to have feelings towards one another.
It seems to me that Huxley is blinding these conversations together to make a point that although everyone has their own body to do whatever they please, everyone is still part of the whole and will never be considered individuals. This allows us to see the theme that everyone is part of a whole, the relationships between men and women based with little emotion, and the caste system. This revels that the society is not able to function unless everyone is dealing with the same information from the past and future and everyone has their own spot in society, which allows them to associate themselves with people that are exactly the same as them.
LJW
LJW In response to TAS
I like the connection that you made throughout the entire book so far. I also liked the fact that you are looking at the book compared to our society today. However I wonder if the characters from the book could correspond with people in our society, such as Bernard, Lenina, Fanny, and Henry. They tend to have a little correspondence to a high schooler who is dealing with several emotional feelings.
In chapters 3 and 4 Huxley blends together three separate conversations mixing together the time period of the book and the past. This is done to compare the two different time periods. While Lenina and Henry are having different conversations about their relationship, the Controller is giving a lecture to the students about relationships of the past. I found it ironic that the reader is suppose to feel appalled at how Lenina and Henry are not expected to have a stable relationship and that they're suppose to have a lot of casual sex while at the same time the Controller is speaking about how horrible relationships where in the time period the book was written. The reader feels the same discontent for this future society relationships that the future society feels for them the past.
I think that this is meant to further portray the theme that it is not about the individual but the society. This is shown by the way that Lenina's friend states that she should not just sleep with one person but many because she belongs to everyone. The Controller's conversation is included to strengthen this by condemning the past for being individualistic with stable relationships. Any type of feeling for another is considered horrible because it does not work to benefit the group. It is interesting how Huxley portrays a harmonious stable world community as stripping all of its members of their individuality. Is it really best to sacrifice yourself for the benefit for such a society?
H.A. responding to KP
I agree with the comment you made about how Huxley uses the conversation to show the way the society runs in Brave New World. The conversation is very blended and smooth and it transitions from one group of characters to the next, and some of the time you cannot even tell which conversation you are reading; kind of like their society. The individual doesn't matter, it is the "overall" idea that is important. So I definitely agree that the juxtaposition of all of these conversations is a way of symbolically representing the theme of stability that the culture in Brave New World "seems" to have.
I believe that Aldous Huxley juxtaposes several conversations together so that the reader can better understand the overall feeling of the book. With these different conversations mixed together you get the sense that all of this is happening at the same time. It gives you a better sense of time in the book and helps you to realize that although there may be horrible things going on, like the babies being shocked in order to teach them what to like and dislike, there are people that don’t totally agree with everything that is going on like Bernard. Bernard isn’t really sure why he feels the way he does about everything but there is something inside him that is saying that everything that’s going on from shocking babies to altering them to be dumber so that they stay in their caste just isn’t right. I also believe that with mixing all these conversations you really see that the individual’s story isn’t as important as the overall big picture. Everyone has been trained to think the same and act the same and so the author writes the book so that you can see that no one really lives individual lives but that all their lives are mixed together and form one story.
KR
KR in response to LJW
I agree with you on the fact that while everyone is their own person, they are all together to make one story or society. It’s sad that no one can really be an individual and have thoughts that go against the World Controller. With everyone thinking and acting the same how will new discoveries be made? Or how will society ever evolve? But I guess that’s exactly what the World Controller is trying to stop from happening. If people evolve and make their own decisions then he wouldn’t be needed.
Huxley blends these conversations because he is making a comparison between the two societies, even in the contemptuous manner of the story. This society believes that the old way was completely wrong that because people let out there emotions and showed there affection to only a few people. They believe that bottling up of emotion to be the reason for violence and instability. The Controller made the comparison of "the old way" to water under pressure in a pipe, when only one or two holes exist, the release is powerful and violent, like a geyser I suppose. Their society can be compared to a showerhead, lots of holes (holes being people to share emotion with) = gentler flow.
So Huxley is saying that to pent up emotions were the cause of the instability of the "old way". In a way saying the emotions are the cause of all the problems. Take for example the soma tablets. In these "happy pills" I see such a commonality with the movie Equilibrium. Christian Bale is a..super agent I guess, in a society in which emotion is outlawed. People suppress their emotions with drugs of some kind. But that isn't where the commonality lies. The similarity lies in the view that, in a sense, emotion is the root of human evil.
This view is reflected in Bernard’s input when he talks about wanting to hurt Henry because of the way he and the other guy were acting. The angry way he expresses this view reflects the “old way’s” excess of emotion in the expression of the beliefs. Huxley is showing that the “old way” is almost savage in their views of self-respect and pride of individuality.
B.Schill in response to KR's response to LJW
I believe that Controller isn't trying to stop evolution, merely control it and direct it in a path he desires. Improvement seems to be the job of the alphas but merely in the improvements in the decanting process. However I doubt even the controller believes he has control over the progress of society; no doubt he went through similar conditioning processes as alpha-pluses. So it seems their society is doomed to a future of endless repetition. But progress doesn’t really seem to be the goal of this society; they seem to believe they are already in a perfect society, believing there is no room for improvement. This society compares to a bee hive, everyone has their job, and everyone does their job, simplicity through caste systems. There seems to no longer be a place for individualistic emotions like pride and self-respect, it is only a place for drones.
KAH
In chapter 3 when Huxley takes snippets of the conversations between Fanny and Lenina, the Controller and the students, and Bernard and the Alpha plus males, he is giving us an insight into what their world is really like. What they think of each other, what they like or dislike about the standards and regulations placed upon them, and also the questions that need to be answered about the history of humankind.
The students shudder at hearing the word, “mother.” Fanny expresses her dislike for Lenina solely being with Henry by saying to her, “After all, every one belongs to every one else.” And it seems to me that Bernard is talking to himself for a good part of the chapter. Lenina tries to fire back at Fanny but has no answer because she was “programmed” to think and behave a certain way. The Controller tells the students that, “stability is the primal and the ultimate need” which he then goes on to say is why they built the Conditioning Centre. The Controller is explaining to the students what life was like before the Centre was built and life was controlled by World Controllers, not men and women, not democracy.
I think juxtaposing these conversations together brings a unique quality to the book. It’s already hard to understand but by switching up order in the chapters, Huxley really makes you think while reading. He is trying to provide us with an inside look at the many differences between the castes and peoples.
It’s interesting at the end of the chapter how all the conversations seem to come together. All the people are tied together by the tubes and it seems to be where most of the controversy is coming from.
Henry Ford, treated almost as a deity in the secular World State, achieved prominence because of his perfection of the assembly line. This assembly line consisted of workers with specific roles, just as Huxley’s Brave New World depicted a society where every individual had a specific role. And just as the assembly line workers worked together to churn out cheap Model T’s, the Alphas, Bravos, Deltas, Gammas, and Epsilons came together to create a ‘flawless’ society.
Huxley uses the rapid juxtaposition of three conversations, containing three different perspectives that all essentially say the same thing, to show not only that the World State members are brainwashed, but also that all members are not individuals, but part of a larger society, a larger picture. It is ironic that London, one of the birthplaces of individualism, would eventually be home to a society completely adverse to individualism. As the children are taught, “Everyone belongs to everyone else.”
While the children are carefully taught and conditioned to function only as members of society, Mond’s explanation of history further shocks students into following their assigned roles. Comparing past society to current, it is evident that emotion has been deemed unnecessary. At the same time, money, what today would seem superficial and materialistic, is cherished. Placing Mond’s detached retelling of the past with Lenina and Fanny’s conversation, which happens to perfectly portray the urgency of remaining a calm, dutiful member of society, highlights the value of productivity and the need to keep personal emotion at bay.
Huxley does well to blend the conversations, eventually combining single sentences from different scenes, because it highlights Bernard’s dissonance. The tumult of unemotional, clearly brainwashed conversation stands stark against Bernard’s passionate assertions about the unfairness of his society. Bernard is painted as a protagonist, then, because his values more align with those of the reader.
KAH responding to KP
I completely agree with what you are saying about how the smaller conversations are all just a part of the bigger picture. It doesn't matter what class you are from or what you are talking about, all the people working together make the world go round.
For these first five chapters gives us a basic understanding for this society, and regarding the morals that we in our society hold verses the ones represented in this book, it is necessary for these many viewpoints to understand the minds of the society as a whole.
I find it really hard to beleive that our society would "evolve" to this. It's in no way democratic because the last thing these people do is think for themselves. Sure you have the intellectual Alpha Caste, but no one is told the history of their own society. From birth, these factories teach you what to think and form your personality through methods that we would think very immoral. The focus is only on, how can we our society better by removing the purpose of life itself.
Even with all the "control" over the lives of their people in the society, there will always be indivduals as represented by the kid in the erotic environment who seems to reassure that there is an absolute morality which this society was trying to alter. Similar thing happening with Lanina and her unusually long 4 month relationship and her friend Fanny who tries to talk her in to conforming to the standards that she knows (which was taught by the controllers).
It all goes back to the Controller's beleif of "Community, Identity, Stability". If the people all work together and these people are happy for who they are, than they will have a stable government. In order to protect that Identity, these people shouldn't be able to think for themselves because they could revolt against the community. To prevent that they use hypnopaedia to keep these people in check. Oddly, it seems like saying that you are happy with who you are and you don't want to be anything else would cause a sort of racism. The Beta kid was being taught to think that he didn't want to play with the Delta kid due to the color of his clothes. How in the world does this sort of mindset towards others provide a stable environment? It is said that the beleif is that everyone is an equal contributor to the society, yet they are taught to avoid other castes for the stupidest reasons ("Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour"), but it makes sense in their minds. Plus, it seems like the Alpha's are still considered the "best", at least to our societies standards...
Kirk's responce to B Schill [January 16, 2009 10:03 PM]
I agree with the idea that they are controlling evolution, but when it comes to progress, that is all their society is doing. For example, they are trying to find a way to speed up the aging process. They had fully grown adults at age 6, but their minds weren't grown and they couldn't use them because at that age, one would have a definite misunderstanding of strength.
The funny thing about thinking one's society is perfect is that there is always a flaw. It's quoted in the bible:
A fool thinks he needs no advice, but a wise man listens to others - Proverbs 12:25
If one things they are perfect, that they don't need guidence, they will fall...
The problem with robots (much like the people in this society) is they have no real purpose. It is a dry, meaningless life. It's a life lived so a society can survive, no more, no less.
In Brave New World, Huxley juxtaposes many conversations together that ends up being confusing. At the beginning of the conversations each is an individual interaction. Lenina and Fanny converse over the relations between men and women, the Controller and the student are talking about always looking ahead to the future and never looking back to the past, and Bernard and the Alpha plus males are talking about how sexual desire has become everything. The conversations then become all jumbled which does get confusing. This shows there is no individualism in their society because not one conversation is more important than the others. No one sticks out more than another. The conversations are all of different perspectives but at the same time there is individualism. The story is also showing how different the future is from the past. The way the conversations go from being individual to all jumbled shows the transition into a new time for the society. They become quite confusing which kind of shows how the people aren’t supposed to understand what is going on but just supposed to follow the rules. Everyone is conditioned to think in the same way. Overall the way the conversations blend all together shows how there is no individualism
In response to LWM.
I really like how you related the conversations with the transition into the future. I agree that what they are doing is conditioning them to think in one certain way. I also liked the way you described the conversations as comparisons and contrasts. I hadn't thought of it that way. After all of this conditioning do you think people are really going to have a purpose in life? No one has any individualism or any new insight to contribute so what is the point of living?
Aldous Huxley wrote three different conversations in the "Brave New World." it really confused me when i was trying to keep up with the story. I think Huxley wrote three conversations to show how people in the World State think and behave when they are arond with different types of people. Henry certainly acted differently infront of his friend than the students. Also, through those conversations, readers were able to see what the characters are really thinking. furthermore, I think the big theme of this book "Brave New World" is that everyone is same, no one is allowed to be different. Just the book described everyone (in each classes) are same and required to do the same and not allowed to think any differently. The society doesn't want anyone to think out of ordinary for their class. And that is why the people in the company for infants ingrave the infants with hatred toward books when they are young so they won't even think about touching the book in the future when they grow up. Three conversations show that all three conversations are equally important to the readers because everything is equally important in the World State. Also through those conversatins, i could see not everyone thought the same because Mond had different idea compared to the Director and Lenina had different opinion on Bernard than Fanny and Bernard was certainly not the same compared to Henry. Therefore, the three conversations' juxtaposition showed the equal importance of everyone and every event and little hint of Bernard is thinking differently than others, which he is not supposed to.
Y.E
SS in response to MM_60052:
I like how you connected Mond’s retelling of relationships with Lenina and Fanny’s discussions about relationships because it highlights the contrast between their society and ours. The idea that everyone belongs to everyone else physically is interesting; perhaps that is why promiscuity is so encouraged. I wonder if the phrase intended to be interpreted so literally. Whatever the case, Lenina’s perspective makes it seem as if their promiscuity is more of a duty than their free choice.
More than anything, the first five chapters of this book stressed that every individual had a role to fill; everyone had to act accordingly if society is to progress. The collectivism of the society is so extreme that, as you said, feelings were considered horrible. I agree when you say that it is interesting that the “harmonious stable world community” has deprived everyone of individualism because our society is based upon the fundamentals of individualism. However, I don’t think the people of World State have actually sacrificed themselves for the betterment of society because they were conditioned to fit their caste. Doesn’t sacrifice have to be done knowingly?
In response to SS:
It's true that each of the individuals sacrifice next to nothing to live (save their own, unique thoughts, but as you said, they have been conditioned out of those for the most part), but what does society as a whole sacrifice? The ability to come up with new ideas, to be innovative out of mistakes, to even make mistakes which have the potential to be helpful to society. In effect, society may have sacrificed the very meaning of life.
If what makes life worthwhile is to struggle through obstacles and still come out at the end having completed a journey satisfying in its results, then hasn't the future society erased that? No one needs to struggle through anything anymore; almost all the diseases have even been deleted. Only when the very infrequent number of people who are dissatisfied with society exist does the struggle to find a meaning to life come about; Bernard, for instance, questioned everything about his life. Lenina, better-conditioned, did not. Bernard wanted to know why things could not be a different way, and in that type of thinking lies the key to innovation. Unfortunately for them, people such as Bernard do not thrive in such a "perfect" society.
But obviously, if such anomalies like Bernard do exist, then the society of the future has not yet reached perfection.
Huxley blends several conversations between the characters to reflect the idea that every character is intertwined in this web of complete social control. In the beginning of the conversations the reader is able to discern each conversation with each character, but as the conversations progress and jumble together the thoughts and mindset start to narrow down with one another and becomes more difficult to distinguish each conversation. This technique may have been used to reflect the idea that every thought and mindset of every conversation comes down to what the world state approves in its dystopia-like society. As the Controller and director explain to the boys how and why the world state was established, scenes of Lenina and the Alpha males show the society at work. We see Lenina attempts in trying to establish her own free though by wanting to keep the relationship with Henry only, but Fanny continual explains to Lenina to engage in multiple relationships with other men. Although this may seem unmoral in today’s standards, the World State was able to engrain what it found suitable towards stability and make the unmoral thoughts into brainwashed ideals. In essence the jumbled thoughts in the conversations serve to show that the world state retains its social control by making its citizens happy and superficially fulfilled that they don’t care about their own free thought. The juxtaposed conversations show this complete social control by blending in the thoughts with another to create a single world-state mindset.
MAM
MAM response to 44215-kav
I kind of agree with your theme that being naive to the world will bring you a peace of mind. We can definitely see that in the world state as it uses this unaffected simplicity with all its citizens in its attempt at reinforcing stability, however we can also see that the World State's control depends highly on making its citizens superficially fulfilled to the point of every individual not caring about their freedom. Some of the consequences of being naive towards your problems is a lose of morals, values, and emotions since everything would seem perfect and no tension would be present in a completely stable society. Without these things, it sorta like a complete lose of humanity. i think we sometimes need some tension or complications to keep society thinking and running.
Y.E response to SS
I loved your connection of Henry's assembly line into World State and how the people in World State thinks. And i never thought of the irony of London either. I totally agree with the idea of irony of London being center of World State when it used to stand for individualism. The idea of bigger picture which is not being an individual but just become part of society is, i think, the main theme of this book. however, did author intentionally chose London to be the setting becuase he knew it is ironic? What was he trying to say about our society through the World State in the book? Is he trying to warn us? Is it that we should try to avoid to be like peoplein the World State?
Comment by CK:
It's obvious the society in "Brave New World" does not value individuality. The society is so set on
efficiency and order. They know how they want the society run, and have designed the perfect
people to get that done. They don't allow the people to choose their own jobs. The completely
ignore people's individuality. Almost 100 people can come from just one egg. The Controller
mentions that they take advantage of this because they need people to do these jobs and it's
easier to train them if they are biologically the same. The people are conditioned to like the same
things anyway, so it doesn't matter.
This lack of importance of individuality seems to be a theme in the book and is carried out in
chapters 3 and 4 when Huxley combines the three conversations. The importance of each
individual conversation dwindles as the reader becomes confused with trying to keep up with the
switching back and forth. It also just takes the importance away because it shows that Huxley does
not find the conversations important enough to devote all his attention to it.
CK Response to TAS
I thought it was interesting how you took a different approach to look at the scenes. While I kinda only saw it as taking away their individuality by combining the conversations, you saw it more as Huxley trying to give the reader a better view into the different lives of members in the community. Huxley is able to show the different views in the society, all of which are different from ours. Your comment of "A change in perspective can turn around an entire society." makes you think, can one change in perspective turn around a society? If the society tries so hard to make every one think the same, yet we have characters like Bernard who still questions the caste system, will he be able to change the community?
I think that Huxley is blending the conversations together to give the reader a better picture to the society that Huxley has created. Huxley is a very confusing writer and its hard to get the deeper message from him when his text is spread out and constantly changing like it was in this passage. I think that this scene adds depth to the story and it gives the reader more insight on the individual characters as well as how the society functions as 1. I liked how he showed the views from all the different persons in the society. I think that the way he fused the conversations together shows how the society is fused into 1 and how the society functions as one entity. The futuristic utopia that Huxley paints for you shows that you can brainwash society into serving their function with no other means then to be happy and live the way that they were taught to live. You see that there really aren’t any outside thinkers and that you think about your society as a whole rather then as a bunch of individuals. I think that being an individual and standing out of the crowd is going to be a major theme and that you are going to see barriers be broken in their society that would otherwise never be broken.
Jon Clark
The writing technique used by Huxley throughout chapters 3 and 4 demonstrated just how accurate he was on technology and the future. Reading the fragmented conversations reminded me of a movie or T.V. show—alternating scenes flashing across the screen to ingrain one central idea. I was amazed to find that Huxley’s book was published in the 30s; both television and movies were really just beginning and very uncommon.
Through his very futuristic style, Huxley was also able to give the reader a real feeling of the society he created. The people of his civilization are conditioned through the repetition of whispering voices. Likewise, the reader absorbs the norms of this society through the repetition of key quotes from the juxtaposed conversations. By the end of the chapters, three things are made clear: Monogamy or any real relationship is shunned (learned through Lenina and Fanny’s conversation), the castes in society are all happy and more importantly, progressive (learned by following the world controller and students), and anything deviant from standard is wrong (demonstrated by Marx and his Alpha Plus peers). Huxley is fully able to show us how his society came to be by essentially hypnotizing his reader on the concepts the characters were hypnotized with.
-K.W.Y-
KWY response to H.A.
I found it interesting how I would have never seen your interpretation of Huxley’s style the first time I read through the chapters, but how it makes complete sense after hearing your idea. However, the conversation between Bernard Marx and the other Alpha Plus males focused so much on Bernard’s inferiority that it made me wonder if by repeating how important the idea of equality was, Huxley was really showing how it will never realistically happen (even in the most rigid of societies). Bernard gets all the privileges of the other Alpha Plus men, but still fails to fit in—leaving him an outcast. Is Huxley really demonstrating equality here? Or maybe just the opposite?
I think that Huxley juxtaposes several conversations from different characters in this montage like section in chapters 3 and 4 to communicate the importance of the ideals of the World State. In the conversation between Mustapha Mond and the children, Mond describes the world before the World State's policies in an almost chaotic light. In the conversation between Franny and Lenina, Franny warns Lenina seek out other men because she doesn't want the Director to view her behavior as abnormal, showing how the World State's ideals are on the citizen's minds. In the last conversation between Henry and the Assistant Predestinator, they are talking about Lenina and Henry tells the Predestinator that he should "have her" some time. Noticing the look on Bernard's face, they offer him some soma, which infuriates Bernard. This shows how those who don't fully conform to the ideals of the World State are ridiculed against.
All of these conversations share the common bond of the subject of the World State's ideals.
Response to H.A. by J.L.S.
Your thoughts on how the passage communicates that everyone is an equal member of contributor to the society is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure I agree. These conversations, while all told at the same time, show a clear separation in rank, power, and contribution to society. Mond, a man of great power and responsibility, is speaking with children of almost no power or responsibility. The alpha's are laughing at Bernard's "unorthodox" views of sexual relationships and do so keeping in mind, most likely, his insecurity about his size and status.
I think that with blended conversations, the point is to understand while they are from different people and represent different ideas, they are close enough together to have bits and pieces pulled from them in order to form a conversation that has thoughts from several mindsets conjoined into one. While Franny is talking about other men, Marx seems to be the midpoint between that and the speech to the students delivered by Mond. All three schools of thought in three different environments combined seem to shed light on everybodys feelings combined. I like how the author did this because in my mind I can contrast the different people and their ideas. What all these fused together make me wonder, is whatever happened to common knowledge of modern times, where love and relationships could lie separate from friendships, enabling more stability and constant happiness to all those who choose to live this way. Since this is not the case in this book, it seems that these conversations, while durastically different, mean hardly anything. Everyone must conform to the lifestyle of promiscous or loosely formed short term relationships. The way Huxely talks, it seems as if he is suggesting that the whole population thinks as one group, not so much individually (almost like the Borg in Star Trek)..Haha
Response to Jake B.
You said it would be disturbing to think of why someone would possibly want to poison a fetus in order to create a better link in a caste system. I couldn't agree more. Under this system, who can actually come into the world with their own purpose, thought, and ideas? Nobody. One particular thing that is odd is when the government changed their minds about flowers and nature. They wanted babies to immediately love both, until they realized it could hurt the economy. So they changed all the babies. Doesn't this sound like living in a world of robots, not humans? ... (even if they are programmed before birth)
Alprazolam is also known as Xanax for its brand name. Xanax 1mg and other medications by Xanax falls under the category of drug called benzos or benzodiazepines. When talking about how it feels when taking Xanax Tablets, the consumption of Xanax 1mg Tablets does not make one feel high or out of sight.
Xanax-1mg-180
Xanax-1mg-180 Pills
Xanax-1mg
Xanax Medicines
Xanax Tablets
Xanax Pills
Call us: 231-221-2887
For more info:https://72hrspills.com/xanax-1mg-180/
Post a Comment