Orgy-porgy! (Brave New World - Aldous Huxley)

Member Name: Brett Bligh

Product:	Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Date:	03/08/02 (3029 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Clear and disturbing vision, fresh and relevant perspective, a surprisingly light read given its serious message and its reputation.

Disadvantages: No strong female roles, The Savage is too knowledgeable and eloquent given his life experience, readers will probably be put off by author Huxley’s very ‘literary’ reputation.

What will the world be like in ten years time? Fifty? A hundred? Four hundred?

As a genre, much of science fiction is set in the future, but most authors are simply attempting to entertain, not to seriously predict what form humanity’s future will take. And unfortunately, even the more skilful of the authors whose intention is to look at the actual *form* of the future often create visions which go so hopelessly out of date so quickly that one could almost ask why they bothered.

‘Brave New World’, therefore, is something of an oddity, perhaps because Huxley was not really part of the sf ‘scene’; not only was he writing this before the genre was seriously established, but Brave New World was one of the few pieces of speculative fiction of an sf kind he ever produced. Written more than a decade before George Orwell’s seminal dystopia ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, Brave New World should actually seem far more plausible to the modern reader than that celebrated tome. Huxley genuinely believed that his vision could happen, and looking around at the state of the world in the formative years of the new millennium, I would say he has an outside chance at being right. (Not, of course, that Huxley would have been pleased at his foresight).

The book is set in a future (A.F. 632, where ‘AF’ stands for “After Ford” and indicates the number of years after Henry Ford first introduced mass production of cars) in which people are no longer a product of a mother-father union, are no longer born into a family unit and take their place in a society which is, seemingly, utterly alien to that in which we now live. Born in a Hatchery as one identical member of a large batch of babies, humanity’s young are then subjected to a rigorous routine of subliminal learning, aversion therapy, verbal indoctrination and chemical alteration, each of which are specifically tailored to the pre-determined c
aste of the child — from Alpha to Epsilon-Minus.

Having grown up in this state the children then enter adulthood as members of a society whose individuals know nothing of history or indeed anything outside their direct sphere of employment besides a succession of meaningless games — each of which must have been pre-approved on the basis of consuming sufficient equipment to be of use to society — casual sex with as many partners as possible — since monogamous relationships are now taboo — and distractions such as television, ‘feelies’ (a form of cinema show in which the audience can physically feel the sensations experienced by the protagonists onscreen) and the omnipresent ‘soma’ — a hallucinogenic drug which can either make someone feel happy or (with larger doses) as though they have taken trips outside their own sphere of consciousness (a ‘soma-holiday’), with no side-effects whatsoever under normal usage.

To provide a window upon this strange world of the future, Huxley presents us with two main viewpoint characters. The first, Bernard Marx, is experiencing dissenting thoughts, thoughts which would no doubt be considered counter to societal stability and could lead to the rather ominous punishment of being ‘sent to a secluded island’ if discovered. This dissatisfaction and dissent has seemingly arisen in the first place because, although officially and mentally an Alpha (one of the highest caste), Marx has a somewhat diminutive physical stature, and in a society in which the populace has a forcibly induced respect for large individuals as members of superior castes, this appearance is causing Marx to feel inferior and unhappy (unhappiness which he is unwilling to dispel with a simple dose of soma). That this was caused by alcohol being poured accidentally into the young foetus Marx’s blood-surrogate is a malicious rumour which is not altogether implausible
.

At the start of the novel Marx has started to experience genuine feelings for a woman called Lenina Crowne. She, of course, does not know this and would be horrified if she did, but is quite open to the idea of spending some time with Marx for the much more honourable reason of pure sex and for the fact that Marx is one of the few people whose profession allows him visits to the Savage Reservation; it would be quite a novelty for her to go on holiday there with him.

After overcoming some initial discomfort at the way in which Marx seems to take interest in aspects of the natural world and in the ancient ways of humanity rather than in games such as Obstacle Golf and the consuming of soma grammes, Lenina finally goes with Marx to the Savage Reservation, in America.

The Savage Reservation is a wilderness enclosed by mesh fences within which a small group of humans, obviously descended from Amer-Indians, steadfastly cling to their ancient traditions and ways of life, including a religion which seems to be a hybrid of ancient Amer-Indian spiritual beliefs and Christianity. Whilst there, much to their horror, Marx and Crowne discover that a female member of civilised society, now very aged, is living with the savages after having been left behind many years ago by an excursion and having been unable to contact the outside world. Marx and Crowne have so far been astonished simply by the state of the ancient savages since they have never seen elderly-looking people before. That a member of civilisation could have thus degenerated is even more unthinkable — and this is when the hammer falls: the civilised woman now has a son(!!!).

It is here we meet the second major viewpoint character. John (or the Savage as he is often known thereafter) accompanies Marx and Crowne, as well as his now-decrepit mother, back to civilisation to see first-hand the society of which he has been told from birth. Of course, John is a complete outsider an
d he is frankly appalled at what he is shown. Marx, meanwhile, has increased his standing within Alpha society as a result of his discovery and is treating John as little more than an exhibit. As the dissatisfaction of the pair increases their alienation from society becomes inevitable, as it seems that the differences between the natural human state to which John has been used and with which Bernard sympathises and the World Control state which now controls civilization in the name of Stability, are irreconcilable.

The world surrounding me in this new millennium is one in which the majority of the people are told, and not even particularly subtly, what to think, say and do in almost every aspect of their lives. In an earlier time, refugees were viewed as people fleeing from persecution and hatred. People possibly under threat of death in their own country, who have come to our shores seeking help and some human compassion. But now the Daily Mail and The Sun tell us these people are actually Evil and that, despite our ability as a nation to find the funds to bomb to dust any country we wish, we simply cannot afford to pander to such scroungers. The shocking thing is simply that, given the opinion polls, most of our people swallow this line without even a question — so, if we can be made to abhor people fleeing either starvation or men with machetes by a few well written press editorials, then what else can we be made to abhor given a little effort by our ever benevolent rulers? If it were in the interest of the ruling class to persuade us that having babies was bad, would they really have any difficulty in achieving that aim? Frankly, I do not think so — Brave New World, step one.

Our society is also one in which we are told what to enjoy. Whether it be mindless soaps, game shows, televised sports, actually playing sports, or whatever, we are fed a constant drip, drip, drip of items which are, objectively, pointless and whose main purpo
se is in actuality to distract the average citizen from the fact that their life, in the main, consists of constant drudgery, of thankless tasks which are performed in a desperate attempt to either pay necessary bills or to fuel yet more of the distractions. Once again, the press, both national and specialist, exists to surround such trivia and provide a sense of community and continuity. In reality, the difference between a PlayStation and a game of Obstacle Golf, or a heavy night at the pub and a few tablets of soma, is purely superficial; the function served within the life of the person actually engaged in such an act is actually equivalent. Brave New World, step two.

Our society is now almost entirely market driven, and thereby, by implication, consumer driven. Once again this, we are told unanimously by the mainstream press on every minute of every day, is undoubtedly a good thing. The market provides what people want — what could be more desirable? So, of course, every set of huge job losses announced is received by the Government with a resigned shrug of the shoulders, and the market becomes an altar on which the livelihoods of ordinary people are routinely sacrificed. Of course, the fact that the market does not provide what people want, but only what they are able to *pay for*, and the associated fact that the market therefore tends to discriminate decisively against the less well off (i.e. ordinary people), is something not mentioned very often at all. For, indeed, we should not now consider ourselves as people with inalienable rights, but as consumers whose power to affect the world exists in direct proportion to our wealth. Encouraged, therefore, to increase our own power by being as active a consumer as we possibly can, we take yet one more step towards Huxley’s Brave New World.

“Two hundred repetitions, twice a week from fourteen to sixteen and a half”, was an example of how a member of Huxley’s society
received their ingrained knowledge. Of course, his lot had it easy: we get as many repetitions as we can possibly handle, every time we walk down the street or turn on the television, for all of our lives.

In many other ways, the world which we now inhabit contains the ominous foreshadowings of Brave New World. Anyone able to raise their level of critical thought above the daily dross, and to look at our society from a moral standpoint derived from outside the daily dose of tabloid wisdom (repeated nowadays, albeit more subtly, in the broadsheets) finds that the society in which we live has serious problems, contains a multitude of internal contradictions and is, quite honestly, not something of which anyone could be rightly proud. Of course, this kind of thought process does not happen very often — we are not trained to genuinely question the circumstances in which we live save for a certain amount of predesignated ‘safe’ common complaints — and when it does occur it either passes safely unnoticed or else is duly stepped on, hard.

As an example of this, I ask the reader to consider the following question: when was the last time a major newspaper genuinely and critically questioned any fundamental aspect of British foreign policy? The answer, of course, is that it is difficult to remember any time at which the press generally decided that Britain was ‘in the wrong’ in its dealings with another country. It is, therefore, considered acceptable to moan about comparatively safer matters (such as anything domestic and trivial — the Millennium Dome? — or anything committed many years ago, such as the actions of our oh-so-glorious Empire or even the events of Bloody Sunday), but anything genuinely regime-challenging is Out Of Bounds.

Of course, some would argue that the newspapers should not support the stance taken by another country against the UK out of patriotism, but I also have a problem with
this view. Firstly, I think it unjustifiable to take an immoral stance simply because it is the one currently taken by one’s own country — and in the long run this is actually harmful to the country in question given that that nation eventually gets a poor reputation for its dealings with others (although given the current international reputation of Britain, it is hard to see how we could make things any worse!).

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I feel that this kind of patriotism is often utterly meaningless when examined in the spotlight. As an example, let us consider the near-hysteria created by the recent World Cup proceedings. Now I do not like football; if other people wish to watch and take pleasure from this kind of game then good luck to them (although I still think it is a simple societal distraction of the type outlined above), but I also reserve *my* right *not* to be interested. Imagine the scene, therefore, when, confronted by an avid football fan I am greeted with disbelief when I state that I have not watched a single match of the tournament thus far. “Not even the England matches?”. No, of course not, I don’t like football, and I couldn’t care less what happens, quite frankly.

At this point, I am accused of “not supporting your country”, and here the media-bred, unquestioning mindset comes to the fore in one of its most obvious forms. Because, of course, the England football team is actually eleven men kicking around a bag of air in a game played against another eleven men; this has no genuine relevance to the welfare of England as a country except for the hysteria whipped up in the media and the consequent disappointment as the team made their exit. Something like the Bank of England interest rate, however, has enormous importance — raise the interest rate at the wrong time and watch the thousands lose their jobs. But, strangely enough, this proudly Patriotic England-
fan, who supposedly supported his country through thick and thin, did not have a clue as to the current interest rate level, nor could he be made to comprehend why I asked. It seems that, to him, it is more important to support the symbols which represent this country (which do not actually have an inherent meaning or importance in themselves whatsoever) than to take an interest in those things which affect the ordinary people living within it.

This small-minded attitude, the sense of being told what to think, is, I think, where we came in, and this is also, fundamentally, why I believe Huxley’s seven-decade old vision to be of immense relevance today.

Where George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, used a recipe of human stupidity and his fear of potential political leanings to produce an infamous dystopia, Huxley shows us how those two factors combined with the equally worrying scientific possibilities might produce a society perhaps cosmetically more appealing, but deep down just as horrible and alien to the human condition, if not more so.

I have argued above that the essence of our society in terms of both general attitudes within society itself and within the political establishment is moving slowly but noticeably towards a position equivalent to that described in Brave New World, where people are essentially bred to be content with small lives utterly devoid of meaning and full of mindless diversions and trivia whilst those in positions of authority and power get on with the business of increasing their wealth and prestige, and of course consolidating yet further their said authority and power.

Perhaps where Huxley is most shockingly accurate, however, is actually in the scientific aspects of his work. Cloning, genetic engineering, and other such concerns were hardly staple discussion material within British society in 1932, and yet here Huxley seems to provide a warning from history of the possible consequences of misu
sing this kind of technology which seems hardly dated in meaning even if its terminology is not current. I am certainly no technophobe, however even scientists themselves agree that checks and balances within the scientific world are necessary lest multinational corporations run amok with hideous, but highly lucrative, technological schemes; here, in a fictional society whose inhabitants are trained to be maximum quantity consumers, is a vision of just what could be done.

In many ways Huxley’s choice of name for one of his lead protagonists is an ironic one; *Karl* Marx’s legacy to humanity was a clear understanding of how capitalist society works and a message that such a system was exploitative and should be replaced with all due haste, even though, in the short term, it did seem to have its advantages. Bernard Marx is here presented with a similar outlook — although in some ways World Control society is better than what has gone before, it is still inherently a system which bends humanity to fit the wishes of the system rather than vice versa. In this light the love interest Lenina Crowne’s name also becomes interesting, and this could be a political comment on the then-new Soviet Union hidden within the text by Huxley. That Polly Trotsky is a minor character in the book who is, in fact, a child, provokes amusement on a similar theme.

In general, then, Brave New World is a surprisingly light read considering its reputation, whose message is nonetheless very real and very relevant. The book is a brilliant reflection on the state of humanity and on the author’s pessimistic views about our possible future. It does, of course, have its flaws: as more than one person has previously commented, there are no strong female characters within the book as such, and as Huxley himself admits in his Foreword of 1946 the Savage is considerably too knowledgeable given his upbringing and life experience. However, I would argue that B
rave New World is not primarily a book about characters individually, but about society as a whole. It is on this basis that this novel has become more than a mere book: it is a bona fide cultural artefact.

Indeed, even the phrase “brave new world” has become a common shorthand warning in everyday literary and journalistic usage. Even within the sphere of music the book still has influence: Iron Maiden used the book as the basis of the title track on their 2000 album ‘Brave New World’ (in fact, this is one of the reasons my attention was first drawn to this book), whilst the song of the same title on Motörhead’s 2002 album ‘Hammered’ provides Lemmy an ample opportunity to vent his frustration at the state of society in general in his characteristic take-no-prisoners manner. In this and many other instances, Huxley’s work is used as a ruler-straight stick, calmly pointing at a world gone mad.





 Brave New World has recently been re-issued in stylish dark blue paperback as part of the ‘Voyager Classics’ collection, book 5 in a 36-volume matching collection that includes titles by J.R.R. Tolkien, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick, William Gibson, H.P. Lovecraft and Michael Marshall Smith. It retails at £7.99.

Summary: