UK 1982

It would be your fault if it stayed that way.

Cole Sprouse attends the Annual Entertainment Weekly Comic Con Bash Party at Hard Rock Hotel in San Diego (July 21)

UK 1983

UK 1982

see you guys tomorrow

3.5/5 stars Recommended for people who like: old dystopia, philosophy This book is definitely verbose, even if it's just over 200 pages. I think this took me about twice the amount of time it should've to get through, simply because I kept having to reread passages or page over again (I wasn't actually paying that much attention to the clock, but it certainly feels like it took twice the amount of time any other 200-page book would've). There's a lot of science-y talk, especially in the beginning of the book, and it can be kind of hard to follow at times. The scientific language plus the made-up lingo that never fully got explained (like...what exactly a Malthusian drill is other than a form of birth control, for example; and what kind of birth control?) just make some parts difficult to get through. I really liked the penultimate chapter, where John is talking to Mustapha Mond about philosophy, religion, and literature. Obviously, the discourse is meant to be a 'summing up' of a lot of the ideas already presented in the book, but I still enjoyed seeing the two sides laid out and argued with each person's version of logic and their respective belief systems. Unsurprisingly, John comes to the conclusion that happiness is only satisfactory because of pain and sadness. I'm not sure if Huxley meant this when he wrote the book, and I haven't delved into any of the symbolism or analogies of the book, but I thought there was a startling connection between the Savage Reservation and the Völkerschaun ('human zoos') where people from different cultures were kidnapped and placed into exhibits where they were supposed to exemplify the culture of the exhibit, regardless if they were actually from that culture or not. I think the Savage Reservation has a little more subtlety to it than the Völkerschauen did, but the resemblance is still there. On the flip side, however, I think Huxley also managed, perhaps unintentionally, to switch the narrative on what's considered 'civilized' versus 'uncivilized' in the West. In the book, we get to see a futuristic version of end-stage capitalism, where everyone is genetically programmed for the work they are meant to do and nothing else. We also get to see this idea of rampant promiscuity and this casualness regarding death. All three of these things--the idea that people are born to do one job, promiscuity, and casual death--are all things typically considered 'uncivilized' or just Not Western, but in the book they are presented as the 'civilized' form of society versus the uncivilized form, which still has monogamy and makes a big deal about death. Of course, it's also important to recognize that this new version of 'civilization' is painted as being the wrong form of civilization, so Huxley very easily could've known what he was doing and just decided to switch which type of society ('civilized' or 'not') was dystopic. One thing I will note that made me vaguely uncomfortable were most of the male characters. I think Helmholtz is okay, but Foster and Bernard and the others were just skeevy. I didn't like how any of them talked about women and I didn't like how Bernard had this sad 'oh I'm so pathetic because no one will have sex with me' mentality that we can see nowadays in incels. To be fair, I also wasn't a huge fan of Lenina either and thought she definitely bordered on sexual assault with John right before he flips out. I really don't give two shits what time period this was written in or the kind of faulty society it's supposed to be representing. One, using the 'product of its time' excuse erases the people, men and women, who did fight against these kinds of mentalities during the time period. Two, just because it's meant to show faulty society doesn't mean I need to be getting "rape" vibes for the entire book. If I get comments and messages arguing with me about this, I will delete them. Overall it's an okay book. I can definitely see why 13-year-old me wasn't that big of a fan of it, but I can now also definitely appreciate the philosophies explored in it. Just a short side note that doesn't really fit in any of the topics I discuss in this review, but I enjoyed all the little Easter eggs Huxley put in when it came to naming people, so that was a fun little bit I got a chuckle out of. I would recommend it if it's a rainy day and you've got a few hours to sit and read some convoluted philosophy. (also as another side note, and because I will likely implode if I don't mention it, as obvious as it may seem, the science and psychology is way off for what we know of the fields now, though that is something I can forgive Huxley for as being a 'product of its time.')