Talk:Brave New World/Archive 1

Zamyatin
I believe it's dishonest to cite only 1984 as a similar novel. You seem to forget that Zamyatin's "We" came in 1920's and was taken as the base by Huxley and Orwell. If Orwell openly admitted this in his comments to 1984, Huxley never said about such connection. But it's evident that he read "We", they are very similar in many facets and I believe "We" is actually more complex than "Brave New World".

Ford
We need a consensus on which Henry Ford the book refers to. The first that comes to mind, Henry Ford, is often mentioned here, but the book refers to "Our Ford's 'My Life And Work'", a book written by Henry Jones Ford. If anyone thinks there is a separate mention of Henry Ford the automaker, say so now. Otherwise, I'll be forced to remove any mention of the automaker.Deltabeignet 23:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

There are several references to Henry Ford: the first Year of Our Ford is the date when the Model-T was first produced. The Ford worshipped in the story is an amalgamation of Henry Ford, Henry Jones Ford, and Sigmund Freud. All three are explicitly referenced: Henry Ford's mass production, Henry Jones Ford's writings and Freud's oedipal theories.

-Dan

---

It appears that A Brave New World is a better depiction of the future than anything Orwellian, if it isn't much scarier. Leon Kass, of Yale, has been working his heart out, with a New Republic essay and a new book, on getting Huxley's all-too-accurate "drug me, love me" future into the minds of people still considered with the still-all-too-possible dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The problem is that while we actively seek out threats to our liberties, PATRIOT II for example, we readily accept benefits to our well being, i e medicine. I plan to review Kass' work as well as Francis Fukuyama's and add a good bit to the entry, though hopefully someone will beat me to it as I am a bit of a snail on promises.

[http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ry_R. Ry R.]

Short of the genetic engineering, its already here. Seriously. The end of the book, with the reporters harassing Savage was too close to reality for me.

--Alan D

In a BBC Radio 4 documentary in the past week, it was stated that dispite the book's dystopian view Huxley was actually an advocate of eugenics. Andy G 19:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I feel that Brave New World was about Huxleys opposition to philosophy as he saw it, namely utilitarianism or some political theory such as marx and the rest, and tried to paint a world where everyone had equal happiness. There are several clues of this, the biggest being that all the characters last names where based on philosophers which presumably he controllers had chosen due to their respect towards them.

Maybe someone can add something about this to the main page? I don't feel comfortable enough to do it myself :)

-Anon

This is exactly the thesis of the essay I'm writing.. the question is: what devices did he use to voice his opposition?

-Smkatz 22:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following paragraph doesn't sit quite right with me.
 * The title of the book is a quotation from Miranda in Act V of Shakespeare's The Tempest, when she is joyfully reunited with her family. In Brave New World, the "savage", John, is a keen Shakespeare fan, which sets him further aside from the vast majority of humanity in Huxley's dystopia, as most of them are illiterate, and Shakespeare's works are banned and unknown in this society to everyone but the World Controllers.

I'm removing the comment about most of the population being illiterate. Huxley doesn't give us detailed census figures, so we can't tell whether the Epsilons comprise a numerical majority of the population. If we look at the castes which we know are literate&mdash;i.e., from Delta to Alpha&mdash;we miss Huxley's message if we attribute their lack of comprehension to "practical" issues, like the rarity of Shakespeare's works. The dialogue between Mustapha Mond and John Savage makes clear that, even if antique art "like Othello" were available, the Brave New World's superb conditioning would make sure that no one understood them.

On a slightly different tack, does anyone else get the feeling that Brave New World describes an ideal Objectivist state? Perhaps I'm missing a key point in Ayn Rand's theory of sex, but I can certainly see that the "horror scenario" its detractors imagine looks pretty much like the world Huxley describes: dissolution of families; free and unlimited coupling; heck, everything except prostitution&mdash;and only because it isn't necessary. . ..

One of my friends described the hard-core Objectivists in our circles as "pre-Nash, pre-Keynes economists who don't want to change their theories, so they change reality to fit the theories instead." Funny that&mdash;sounds exactly like what the World Hatcheries do: developmentally modify human beings so that they become perfect participants in laissez-faire capitalism. The only activity we see the World Controllers conducting is the suppression of scientific research; most of everything else seems to be taken care of, hypnopaedically. For example, the lower classes are conditioned to "consume transport", through the simple expident of making country vacations psychologically compulsory. Biological regulation renders governmental regulation obsolete.

And soma is the perfect tool for handling Rand's issues with Christianity. . ..

I see some problems with the article, based on my recent reading of the book. In particular, I would disagree with a couple of paragraphs. Firstly:

"The protagonist, named John, is the son of two citizens of the Brave New World (he is the result of an accidental contraception failure). His parents were visiting a "savage reservation" when his mother got lost; she was stranded inside the reservation and gave birth to him there. He grew up with the lifestyle of the Zuni Native American tribe and a religion that is a blend of Zuni and Christian beliefs. The culture shock which results when the "savage" is brought into regimented society provides the vehicle by which Huxley points out that society's flaws."

Firstly, I believe it is incorrect to describe John as the protaganist. Bernard Marx is an equally important character. Indeed John doesn't even appear until half-way through the book.

Secondly (and related to the above point), I don't agree that John is the only vehicle which Huxley uses to point out the flaws of the society. Surely, the character of Bernard Marx is also such a vehicle. The character of Bernard, and to a lesser extent Helmholtz Watson too, shows both the rigidity of the society (unable to change) and its inability to entertain differences in individual behaviour. Indeed, it is Bernard's inability to "fit in" (and the subsequent threat by the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning to exile him to Iceland) that spurs him to take "the Savage" back to England with him.

Thirdly, I believe that the culture shock experienced by "the Savage" is not primarily a device to point out the flaws of the society. Many of those flaws have already been shown through Bernard's experiences. This brings me the following parapraph in the article:

"The key moral point of the book revolves around the problem that the people in the society appear, and state that they are, generally happy. John Savage, however, considers this happiness to be artificial and "soulless". In a pivotal scene he argues with another character, world controller Mustapha Mond, that pain and anguish are as necessary a part of life as is joy, and that without the former to provide context and perspective, "joy" becomes meaningless."

The happiness of the population is NOT the problem. The problem is that in order to ensure continuous and (near) universal happiness, society has to be manipulated, freedom of choice and expression curtailed, intellectual pursuits and emotional expression inhibited.

My reading of the dialogue between John and Mustapha Mond (and indeed John's subsequent self-imposed isolation and suicide) was that the moral messages in the book are more complex than stated above; indeed, I would say that Huxley was presenting too opposing extremes (on the one hand universal happiness which is nevertheless "soulless" and unfulfilling, and on the other hand a world of "noble" virtues such as heroism, love and faith which can only exist side-by-side with suffering and pain). In the end, there appears to be no middle way between Lenina's innocent drug-dependent joy and John's noble and rather pointless despair. Unless, it is to be found in the island exile which Bernard and Helmholtz choose.

So, actually, we have two problems. The second is the opposite of the first: freedom of choice and expression (witness the experimental Alpha society in Cyprus), the recognition of (or rather the inhibition of) emotional expression (witness John's self-torture and suicide) and the pursuit of intellectual ideas, result in an absence of happiness.

During the dialogue Mustapha Mond brings a couple of religious treatises out of his safe, and demonstrates point-by-point how religion is incompatible with and unnecessary in a society where everyone is happy, free from disease, strife and suffering, and able to fully and freely enjoy hedonistic pleasures until the very point of death. Surely the moral point of the book, is to present a number of questions: what is the relative value which society attaches to happiness? Is a "meaningful" or fulfilling life compatible with a happy one? Is it moral for an elite to impose values on the rest of society which lead to reduced happiness? Scott Moore 14:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Satire of 1930s society
I tried to clean up the "satire of 1930s society" section, so that it flows a little more smoothly and uses fewer ampersands. In the process, I toned down a couple statements (some Americans do understand what "the Crown" can be a reference to) and removed the line that most of Huxley's references are overlooked nowadays. I certainly picked up on the Marxes, the Trotskys and the Rothschilds, when I was a not-very-remarkable teenager reading the book for the first time. (Overall, I'd say the capitalists are a touch more obscure than their counterparts&mdash;Alfred Mond versus Vladimir Lenin&mdash;but this is only an argument from my own ignorance.)

I also deleted the paragraph about Huxley's use of the word "pneumatic". Not out of prudery, I assure you; it just read like an unnecessary elaboration. Firstly, when we encountre the word, say when Bernard and Lenina are flying through the night&mdash;


 * "Everyone says I'm awfully pneumatic," said Lenina reflectively, patting her own legs.

&mdash;Huxley makes the meaning pretty clear through the context. Second, I've seen it plenty of other places, as far away as Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Huxley wasn't even the first to use "pneumatic" to describe a woman's figure; the OED gives a 1919 example from T. S. Eliot's Whispers of Immortality in Poems:

Grishkin is nice. . . Uncorseted, her friendly bust Gives promise of pneumatic bliss.

I would also suggest that Helmholtz Watson is an allusion to Hermann von Helmholtz, a German physicist who co-discovered the conservation of energy. Helmholtz was very interested in the physics and physiology of sensory perception, and did major work on both color vision and the nature of hearing. His notions of materialism and his conception of psychology as an empirical science distinct from philosophy seem in keeping with the psychology practiced in Huxley's dystopia.

Anville 14:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merging sections -- Lenina and Bernard, The Reservation and the Savage, and Resolution into Synopsis
I'm attempting to merge these sections into the synopsis because as it stands now the article appears to cover the same ground in 4 different sections. Any suggestions, help, or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Beepbeep 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Beepbeep 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Double-Plus
A bit of nit-picking, I know, but it is important in an encyclopedia: 'In addition, a subgroup dubbed "Alpha Double-Plus" appears once, of which Helmholtz Watson is a member.' Where is it indicated that Helmholtz is a Double-Plus? He is always described as an Alpha Plus, the most extreme description saying that he was "every centimetre an Alpha Plus". Double-Pluses are only mentioned twice in the entire book: once was the Alpha Double Plus classroom at Eton, and the second was the Savage asking "Why don't you make every one an Alpha Double Plus while you're about it?"
 * Indeed. Fixed. --Astronouth7303 04:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Charting the castes?
I started reading this book, and I was wondering if maybe it would appropriate for someone to produce a chart: each caste by Greek letter, what color they wear, and which characters belong in each caste. Many thanks. Dan40 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Response from an English Teacher: My students and I have been wrestling with this question because there seemed to be some inconsistencies throughout the novel. I used an online version of the novel and used Explorer's "find" feature to verify exactly what colors each caste wears. This is what I came up with based on my knowledge of the novel and my search results:

Alphas wear grey, Betas bottle green, Beta minuses mulberry, Gammas leaf green, Deltas khaki, and Epsilons black.

Helmholtz and Bernard are Alpha pluses (mentioned explicitly in chapter 4).

Lenina is a Beta and all her outfits are described as green, especially in chapter 3 where she is described as wearing "bottle green acetate". Presumably her friend Fanny is a Beta as well, though her caste is not explicitly mentioned. Linda (on the reservation) is/was also a Beta. My classes wondered, where are the Alpha females?

The Alpha gray and Gamma green, and Delta Khaki are confirmed by the sleep teaching voice in chapter 2. "Alpha children wear grey.  They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able ..."

See how weird that is? If Betas wear green too, shouldn't the sleep teaching voice be explicit about which color green is which?

That Beta minus wears mulberry, epsilons black and leaf green for gammas is suggested in only one place I could find:  “Like aphides and ants, the leaf-green Gamma girls, the black Semi-Morons swarmed round the entrances, or stood in queues to take their places in the monorail tram-cars. Mulberry-coloured Beta-Minuses came and went among the crowd. The roof of the main building was alive with the alighting and departure of helicopters.” (Chapter 4)

Confirmation of Gamma green and Delta khaki comes from a mention in chapter 4 of what the castes read: "In the basement and on the low floors were the presses and offices of the three great London newspapers--The Hourly Radio, an upper-caste sheet, the pale green Gamma Gazette, and, on khaki paper and in words exclusively of one syllable,The Delta Mirror." (Here Huxley doesn't mention the color of the upper caste sheet and the Epsilons don't read. It is odd, however, that there should even be a paper for the Deltas, since they are conditioned to hate books.)

My conclusion is that Huxley wanted the castes to be identifiable by color, but he wasn't very concerned that the reader be able to remember which color goes with which caste. Otherwise I imagine he would have been more explicit or make further mentions. On the other hand, maybe he was sloppy in creating that element of the story, since he was more concerned with the biology and social implications.User:Tchr98 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Place of exile?
I changed the reference in the article from Iceland to the Falkland Islands. In all the editions of the novel I've read (all US printings) that's the location. Do other language editions or printings elsewhere contain any variations on this, or was "Iceland" a mistake? Ellsworth 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're correct in it being the Falkland Islands. I don't know why Iceland was there, but my only guess is that there were mentions of potential exile to Iceland before, but nobody that we see is ever actually sent there. Masterzora 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that it's Helmholtz Watson who goes to the Falklands (out of choice), and that Bernard is forcefully exiled to Iceland by Mustapha Mond. I can't find my copy of the book at the moment, but can someone check this? Rusty2005 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning does explicitly tell Bernard that he is in danger of being transferred to a "Sub-Centre--preferably to Iceland." in Chapter 6 Part 2. The text seems to indicate that this is a possible demotion and not exile. In Chapter 18 Part 1 Bernard and Helmholtz come to visit John  to say goodbye, stating that they are "off to-morrow," indictating that they are going together, presumably to the same place. Beepbeep 01:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for checking! So I guess Iceland is not one of the reservations and is part of the World State. I'll change that in the World State article :-)  Rusty2005 14:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually while we're on the subject, could someone change The World State page. When you type in "world state" into the search box, you get redirected to the world government page. Can someone fix this so it directs to The World State please? I would do it but I don't know how! Rusty2005 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure that one out myself. I'll give it a shot. Beepbeep 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Henry Ford
How did Henry Ford react to the book? (Conidering Huxley's later, if somewhat forceless, claims that Henry Ford wasn't the Ford of the book, were there legal threats?) --Bonalaw 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Delisted GA
I'm delisting this article from GA status because it doesn't state its references, a requirement for GA status.

About stuff inspired in Brave New World
What about this stuff being inspired in Brave New World?


 * Future Boy Conan: It seems inspired in Brave New World, specially the stuff about Industry, the extreme meritocracy society (remember the point and extremelly ordered social hierarchy) and Conan being some kind of "savage".
 * Beneath a Steel Sky: "The society of the city is a cross between many futuristic, 'dystopian' stories, including George Orwell's 1984, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner." http://www.classicdosgames.com/adventure.html "A point-and-click adventure set in a dystopian future with a hero whose life has obvious parallels to John from Brave New World. As Robert Foster, you are the son of citizens of the city, but you have been raised by a tribe that lives in the wilderness."


 * I'm not sure about that, but I'm pretty sure that The Island contains several allusions to the book, most notably the use of phonetics to designate the line of the 'products', the use of white, grey and black to differentiate the population, and the trance states during 'growing'.
 * I would add such things myself, but I've not read the novel.
 * -- Sasuke Sarutobi 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could people double check all the inspired items; for instance just as a song is called or mentions soma doesn't mean it is linked to the book. Check out the soma (disambiguation) page to see how many things are named Soma. Surely things should only be linked where the title or reference is extended enough to be a certainty, or is actually referenced somewhere. --Neo 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolution (Chapters 16-18)
John DOES NOT kill Lenina at the end, rather another woman in the crowd whom he transfers his love/hatred onto. Lenina is referred to repeatedly as having "Gamma Green" eyes (despite being a Beta), yet the girl that John kills has blue eyes chrisboote 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Racism and the male Alpha
Despite the article's claim that racism no longer exists, I suggest that it does. There are many mentions of anti-black racism within the book. My memory is fuzzy, sorry, but take into consideration a comment that "Africans are more fertile," the fact that the Epsilon in the elevator is a subservient, midget black man, and that all Epsilons wear black. I don't think the black is an accident in alluding to the black race. They are described as "ants" in a black swarm. In addition, the savages are described as bronze-skinned. I don't think this is an accident, and Huxley probably wanted to show that racial equality is an illusion, even with advanced technology and happiness for all individuals, racism as a discriminatory mechanism is still relevant to humanity.

Also, since there are no mention of female alphas, one can call this a male-dominated society. Females are subordinated while males hold all of the true power behind the society. While race can be interpreted in many different ways, the male alpha can be nothing but a metaphor for male subjugation of woman.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blusafe (talk • contribs).


 * This is really interesting interpretation. I definitely picked up on the "Africans are more fertile" comment when I read the book. I wondered whether some of the seemingly latent racism was just a remnant of the racism extant in the larger socity when Huxley was writing.
 * Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so this probably can't be incorporated into the article unless we can find a critic who said this sort of thing (we can then say, "So and so argued that... etc.").
 * Hbackman 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You should also keep in mind that the "antagonist" of the Three Weeks in a Helicopter feely was a black man. John is later reminded that Othello "was like the hero of Three Weeks in a Helicopter-a black man." In Shakespeare's play, Othello commits suicide. The comparison of the black man in the feely and a suicidal character in another book may have been done on purpose.
 * TheGhostChild 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Race is not central to the book, which is mainly about social class and the tendency to categorise people by the work they do and their level of income (the A to E classification mirrors that used in market research). Huxley lived in an all-white, mainly male society and of course this is reflected in the novel. And even the most "liberal" thinkers (such as HG Wells) of those time wrote stuff we'd consider racist today. Not sure there's much to be gained by reading every novel or play of the last 500 years and throwing it on the bonfire if it contains a possibly racist remark or attitude.

Exile 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fanny Crowne is a split needs no explanation"
In the section on people's names, "Fanny" is piped to Vagina. Actually, it might need a bit of explanation. In colloquial American English, "fanny" means "buttocks". Is it slang for "vagina" in British English? Ellsworth 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's different over there. like they think it's quite strange when american tourists refer to "fanny packs".  and "pants", for instance, means "underwear", not pants.  A sibling was working at a clothing store in london for a while, the customers used to get rather flustered when she continually offered to help them with finding "pants" . . . --He:ah? 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fanny Crowne is a split that needs no explanation. Removed this, since it needs explanation. Peter Grey 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Utopian" novel?!
The "Structure" section of this article seems to imply in a couple of places that BNW is a utopian novel. Isn't it rather a dystopian novel? Hbackman 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never found myself falling firmly into the dystopian or utopian camps re: BNW. I think arguments could be made either way, especially depending on which social class you envision yourself being a member of. But aren't most Wikipedians at least Alpha Plusses? (Well, except for the delta-minus vandals, of course.) :Atlant

Taxi for Atlant. Thunder Cat 20:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It satirises the idea of the utopia by examining what it would actually be like to live in a society in which everyone was happy, poverty and war had been abolished and everyone was doing a job to which they were eminently suited.


 * Exile 15:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's kind of a "Utopia, but who wants to live in Utopia?" sort of novel. Applejuicefool 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research
Wikipedia policy is to cite the work of other authorities rather than doing original research. In this article the sections on "Fordism and society", "Possible symbolism", and "Comparison with Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four" all appear (in the absence of references) to be the original work of Wikipedia editors. Please supply the missing citations for the assertions in these sections. --Blainster 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Horrible Bias
Isn't it not NPOV to claim this is a bad book, as is done in the entirety of the structure section?
 * Indeed. I propose a rebuilding of the section, from the bottom up. Whoever wrote the structure section was, for lack of a better word, childish and immature.--64.231.189.118 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism and is now fixed. -- he  ah  04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Periphery
"some 85% of the population" (I quote from 1984 is NOT "the periphery". Hence I removed a paragraph which purported to compare 1984 and Brave New World in this manner. 216.39.182.234 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dystopian
Are we sure the novel was dystopian - is there a verifiable quote somewhere to support this?--Hontogaichiban 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've answer this question myself, there a video of Aldous linked at the bottom of the site where he does say it is dystopian.

History and Context: rise of Nazism, especially Nazi Youth?
Might Huxley have been reacting in part to events in Germany as well? I do not claim they were his primary focus, but might have been a contributing current event-type issues that impacted his writing. How far did he have to look to see budding attempts at utopias that believed in splitting children from their families? The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the vast changes brought about by industrialization... I wonder if Huxley might have also been reacting to or commenting on the fast-growing Nazi Youth Movement’s attempts at replacing family with the state, in order to help create the Nazi "utopia?" During the period just prior to the publication of "Brave New World" Hitler Youth was growing at a phenomenal pace: "at the end of 1932 ... it was at 107,956, and at the end of 1933, the Hitler Youth held a membership of 2,300,000." (from the Wiki entry on Hitler Youth). I found the following quote on the web but do not have a copy of Brave New World in front of me: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude...." Aldous Huxley, Brave New World.

The joyous belief in the state and blind following of the Nazi German population, along with their indoctrination of children being in large part raised by their "youth movement," reminds me quite strongly of the situation in Brave New World, though the latter has access to greatly "advanced" abilities (like completely avoiding the biological family).

I'm tossing this out there in case someone knows more. Bigdoglover 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1984 Outsiders
In the paragraph below it is suggested that in 1984 there is no independant territory outside the three powers;

<>

As I remember 1984 in between the major powers there are strips of land. Although these are poor they are still inhabited, yet independant of the big three. Am I alright to delete this paragraph?

End of 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Those strips of land in 1984 are not independent. They do not officially belong to any of the big three, but their whole territory is constantly under control of the superpowers' armies, serving as the main theatres of war and as sources of raw materials and enslaved labour. If you would like to check the source of this information, see 1984, Part II, Chapter IX, the parts quoted from Goldstein's Book. (In my Finnish translation, ISBN 951-0-10755-7, I found the information from pages 206 - 208, but I'm afraid that will not help you.) --82.181.111.213 (Jippe) 11:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

self-contradictory categories?
I noticed that this article appears in both category:utopian novels and category:dystopian novels. Is this intentional? --Ixfd64 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Both utopian and dystopian worlds are unbearable to live in. Huxley referred to this novel as "negative utopia". ellol 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

the whole point is about asking "would we recognize dystopic conditions if we lived under them?": people think they live in an ideal society ('utopia'), while their condition looks extremely dystopic only to outsiders. The categories are fully justified. dab (&#5839;) 22:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

then wouldnt all books that are considred utopian also be considred dystopian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.80.162 (talk • contribs).


 * There's nothing inherently dystopian about a utopian setting. The problem gets to be that not everyone's utopian ideal is the same.  When a group attempts to impose its idea of utopia on those who find it objectionable, utopia becomes dystopia. But so long as all members of a society honestly agree that it is ideal, then it can truly be utopian. Applejuicefool 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics
While the society of Brave New World is often associated with eugenics there's nothing in the novel that actually falls under the eugenic category. I couldn't find any mention of selective breeding nor genetic modification. All modifications are biological and environmental. Though genetic manipulation was a science field developed after the book was written, selective breeding wasn't, which actually was quite the topic in that time.

What I wonder is if there is a proper/better term for altering humans radically by means of poisoning, oxygen starvation, etc. --Zero g 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's clear implication, though, that (say) an Alpha isn't going to breed with a Delta or Gamma.


 * Atlant 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the Alpha's delivered the genetic material, and that depending on the treatment the embryo would develop into a Delta, Gamma, or Alpha. ALso, there's no traditional breeding to begin with. --Zero g 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

external review
Please see External peer review/The Chronicle of Higher Education October 2006 for the comments of a professor who graded this article as B-. Thanks, BanyanTree 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut scene abuse
It's worth noting in the 'structure' section that .. well, I'm up to the third chapter at present and every paragraph is a cut-scene to one of two threads which, when reading online in a bulk of text, is ambiguous, confusing and quite horrific as far as writing styles go. I find it to be a major negative to the point where the novel is almost unreadable, but I'll press on. But yeah, it REALLY should be mentioned as a criticism. 211.30.71.59 03:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Brave New World and Demolition Man
I recently watched the film Demolition Man with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes - there are many references to Brave New World in this film. I was wondering if it would be worth adding this in something like a trivia section within the article. The name of one of the characters - Lenina Huxley is one such reference, and the whole world in which the film is set is also quite similar to that of the novel. Maybe it's worth taking a look at Demolition Man (film). Xtrememachineuk 01:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Template
I made a template of Brave New World after reading the book. I'm not the greatest at making templates, but I think the red looks pretty sweet compared to the blue. I don't know, you can change it if you think it's ugly. Just letting you all know that there's a template, so feel free to edit.

That's the template by the way.-- aviper2k7 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)