Something that I found interesting about Brave New World was the lack of a 'good guy.' The point of the novel seemed to be that 'this is bad this way, and this is bad this way.' John, The Savage, was provided as a counterbalance to the established civilization; this did not make his way of life better than the civilization. The 'Savage' lifestyle, at least to me, was as flawed as the 'Civilized' way of life. While one permitted only contentment, as prescribed by the central authorities. Dulled happiness is not less good than self-destruction. It seems that if you averaged the happiness of the civilized, and the happiness of the savage you would have the same amount. The only difference is the extremes.
More later.
The two notions of amenities in spatial economics
4 months ago
1 comment:
Perhaps the inconclusively of Huxley's thesis - that there doesn't seem to be a system of civility that actually works in practice - was in elegant parallel to the different character types (some of which show contradictory traits, such as Lenina's attachment to the State but her indulgence of Winston's incorrigibility) on display in the novel. Or perhaps that was Huxley's conclusion: that it is the very differences in goals and dispositions which conditioning cannot control entirely that make us all, in a more or less degree, exist with friction between one another.
(P.S. Forgive me if I got the names above wrong; I read it last year and don't have a copy to hand at the moment.)
Post a Comment