Jump to content

Talk:Brave New World/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ill-defined characters?

This statement doesn't seem very NPOV. - 24.252.131.209 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four

it says "The dystopian world of 1984 is all-encompassing, the world Brave New World includes "savage reservations" and "the islands". The latter are places of exile for freethinkers but they are also to some extent a haven. No such places exist in 1984." if im not mistaken in 1984 the world of the proles is comparable. although its not a clean comparison there is a place in society that is not under constant opression. 69.76.80.162 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell, the whole section is original research and should probably be expunged. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not the WHOLE section, but there is a lot of it that is less than properly cited. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The prole area isn't comparable on the basis that they are the symbol of the working class in 1984, they are still subject to social control (for example Julia works in the prole pornography section) and they don't know thier own personal power within the society they live in. Prorole areas are also subject to attack, so they aren't stable areas to live, they aresubject to low paid work and mulitple birth and such. The only freedom they have is a freedom they can't grasp due to thier low social setting... If you read Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited" even Huxley states there is little room for comparison due to the use of rulership over the societys in question. So, in short the proles could only be free thinking if they chose to be... user:femalegeek —Preceding comment was added at 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Adaptations

Someone needs to revise the adaptations. While several of the movies are direct adaptations there are several that should not be listed if anything they should be put under 'see also'. These would include Equilibrium, The Island, and Demolition Man. Yes they share a similiarity but all sci-fi utopia works share a common theme. The Island especially has nothing in particular to do with Brave New World and Equilibrium may have used it for inspiration or even alluded to the novel where as Demolition Man has some allusions it falls short of the comparison. Brave New World is all about consumerism, drugs, and overt stimulation. Where in Demolition Man drugs are prohibited, people do not have sex, where in a brave new world they have government ordered orgies, and other very distinct differences. Stellrmn 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

- Huxley's The Island was as a direct juxtaposition or contradiction to his earlier related work(s), Brave New World, Revisited, etc.; it is a utopia and at no point in the novel does it contradict itself towards the negative (dystopia) which Brave New World is quite good at bringing about - contradiction. The two are made to make us think - Huxley was a man who would often pose his ideas by sometimes clumsily encrypting them into a novel - he does a better job in The Island. However, both novels get us to think about the pursuit of happiness and mechanistic society. Perhaps Brave New World gets us to think even more so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.27.2 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Soma: A Stimulant?

I thought soma made the characters sleep better. I would think it would be a narcotic hallucinogen or something. Boris B 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt pharmacology in 1932 was that specific.

As I remember it soma is a drug much like a mixture of the pot of today and something along the lines of cocaine and even heroin. Huxley might've had opium in mind, and some of the aspects of it does make it seem like opium. Zeerak.w 08:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No soma does not make characters sleep better, it simply regulates their their emotions, whenever they experience any negitive emotions. It is a drug provideing them with a false happiness

Ummm... the Soma link loopholes to the Brave New World page (i.e it just refreshes the page)

If you ask me, it's a hallucinogen (considering the characters hallucinate many times while on it, going into dream like states etc) Helmetlad 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In Huxley's Brave New York Revisited, he discusses his experimental use of LSD and its effects. He later suggests that it influenced his idea of soma in the novel. Also, the effects of soma can be found consistent with the effects of LSD in his book, The Doors of Perception written in 1954.

I noticed that the link "Soma" redirects to the "Brave New World" page. It's redundant and provides no extra information. Should this be changed? (Sethc87 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, Soma (Brave New World) was changed to a redirect a few months ago. Looking at it's history it seems it failed WP:FICT. -Verdatum (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In explaining the word soma the article concentrates - IMHO erroneously - on the greek sóma (body), whereas the (mysterious) drug drink soma plays a great role in both Vedantic litterature and Avesta (as Haoma). See e.g. Soma. --Sokoljan (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the comparison to Heroine or cocaine stated above. It was not addictive physically, and Linda did not state going through withdrawl symptoms, other than being depressed.--Blckhawk1234 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Soma equates pretty closely to present-day Prozac or Zoloft IMHO. Everything old is new; esp. the statement that it "regulates their their emotions, whenever they experience any negitive emotions. It is a drug provideing them with a false happiness." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.172.68 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dystopian?

I hear this book's setting frequently referred to as a dystopian future. However I personally have come to doubt such a straightforward labelling of the fictional society. Is it truly dystopian if, (assuming we are to believe the characters) the majority of the planet's population is in fact, happy all the time? (Now it's been quite some time since I'm personally read the book so if this is inaccurate, feel free to correct me). While culturally passive and day-to-day life was banal, generally the situation was excessively bearable to most people, (with a few exceptions in the case of the protagonists). I'm not saying it was perfect, but of all the "dystopian" futures I can think of, Sexy Drug Party Universe really doesn't sound too bad!--24.141.134.4 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The standard of living and happiness of the individual are not the only driving force of something being a dystopia. A few definitions from a "define:dystopia" search on Google:
*"Unfortunate "accounts of imaginary worlds, usually in the future in which present tendencies are carried out to their intensely unpleasant culminations""
*"an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives; an imaginary place or state where everything is as bad as it possibly can be: or a description of such a place."
*"Polar opposite of utopia. A society in which social and/or technological trends have contributed to a corrupted or degraded state."
Or, even from Wikipedia's own Dystopia page: "A dystopia (alternatively, cacotopia, kakotopia or anti-utopia) is the antithesis of a utopian society. Dystopian societies are usually characterized by extreme governmental tyranny and an exploitation of the people."
While it can be seen that unhappiness and a low standard of living and whatnot can be factors of a dystopia (or may define a dystopia), it is also safe to say that there are several other possible conditions that I believe Brave New World easily fulfills. -- Masterzora 02:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been commented on before that many people seem to sense a bit of ambiguity in BNW. I did, too. And I suspect that this ambiguity was intentional on Huxley's part. This in contrast to Nineteen Eighy-Four, which I think is unambiguously dystopian. --Kvaks 11:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that BNW is a dystopia. By the dictionary definition of dystopia, it is not a dystopia. there is no squalor, depression or unhappiness in general, no exploitation of the masses by a select few, only a general amnesia of what we consider to be important in our own society. in fact, this society manages to maintain a very good standard of living for everyone (except the savages, who are not a part of the society). I feel that it is important to remember that the people of BNW are used to their society and enjoy it. Even the world controllers don't truly know what it is to live outside the society. Tippyc (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I suppose not only we feel the ambiguity but that makes this book so great. If we could say that this is only a bad dream it would be meaningless. But as it is a utopia/distopia that aims towards the making of a better world we have to choose which kind of life would we prefer. The one that the Bible states to be where obviously there's pain (Genesis 3:16-17) or the one in a brave new world where there is no pain at all but no content as well.

In thinking about Brave New World, it's important to remember that is was written a few years before WWII, and that at that time the debate on eugenics was popular in intellectual circles before it became all but taboo following the war and in particular the horrific experiments of Josef Mengele. Also, the influence of Huxley's grandfather Thomas is highly relevant to seeing Brave New World in context. Thomas Huxley was a friend and supporter of Charles Darwin, involved with Darwin before the publication of Origins, and a vigorous promoter of the theory of evolution. Aldous Huxley grew up in an intellectual world deeply embroiled in the debate over the nature of man, and the emerging view of man as an animal and a product of evolution and of his environment. An intellectual world in which, also, Marxist philosophy is new and very much debated. It's also worth noting, in respect of examining Huxley's soma, that after moving to the USA in later life, Huxley became highly involved in the LSD sub-culture; not the action of a man who was warning against recreational drugs. My personal belief is that Huxley's book was not so much intended as a warning in the way the Nineteen-Eighty-Four was, but that Huxley was suggesting that the society he painted in Brave New World could actually be better. Later, Huxley was outspoken against that sort of interpretation, but I believe he changed his position, as did many intellectuals, in the light of the atrocities of WWII. Consider the fate of Bernard Marx: He experiences a sort of 'awakening conscience,' the gradual realisation that something is amiss in society; however, unlike Winston Smith in nineteen-eighty-four he does not end up in Room 101, he is sent to an island of alpha-plusses who "know the truth," and do not need to have their lives controlled by the state. But the fate of John the Savage, who cannot accept that society, is suicide. For the first half of the book, we are shown characters (e.g. Lenina) who 'appear' to be happy. Bernard is not happy, and Huxley leads us to suppose that Lenina et al. are happy only in the ignorance of their being controlled. However, the twist in the tale is that in the final analysis, Lenina actually was happy, and Bernard becomes happy. The only unhappy man is John the Savage who cannot accept the intellectual management of society. The question it forces us to ask of our own western society, is do we agree with Huxley? As was pointed out above, we have 'soma' in the form of TV, cannabis, playstation etc. We have a generally more promiscuous attitude towards sex. Self-gratification is constantly promoted to us in advertising. Being genetically programmed to love our job would guarantee that we love our job. Nineteen-Eighty-Four is a more dire warning than Brave New World, and indeed, much has come to pass, CCTV everywhere (Big Brother), political correctness (thought police), and newspeak (as above). Brave New World is more subtle, and raises questions more than it gives overt warnings. Certainly much of it has come to pass. Oliver Low 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, in response to the question, "Is it truly dystopian if, (assuming we are to believe the characters) the majority of the planet's population is in fact, happy all the time?", yes it is dystopian if you're regard not possessing an identity and essentially no civil liberties, let alone rights, as dystopian. Sure, the characters may be happy, but happiness is hardly all that matters; in the society that's presented in BNW, people are confined to one path - of one job, of multiple partners and sex for the fun of it (as opposed to relationships and love), of soma, of orgies and Community Sings, and of hedonism. Qwerty (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A 6 year old conversation, but worthy of another 2 cents. The discussion over whether or not Brave New World represents a dystopian or utopian society is entirely a matter of Point of View. From our POV, subjectively giving importance to ideas such as free agency and true love, the society is rather dystopian. But from the perspective of the membership of the society, it's definitely a utopia. I think that's the whole point that Huxley tries to make, first by introducing the reader to "civilized" people and demonstrating their attitude towards "savages", then followed by introducing the "savage" to "civilization". I think Huxley appreciated the merit in both perspectives (though, perhaps, he leaned towards John's more humanistic attitude), and the novel does a fair job of leaving it up to the reader to decide which perspective has the most merit. Considering the way that western society has migrated considerably towards Huxley's vision suggests that, in spite of our humanistic ideology, we do not consider it wholly dystopian. As far as classifying the novel, dystopia is probably more accurate than utopia, though the intentional ambiguity lends itself towards the creation of a third category.---Puff (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Characters

I think Linda (John the Savage's mother) should be included on the list. I mean, some of the characters included have no bearing on the plot. I haven't read the book in a while, so if someone else could add her that would great. FruitMart07 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

oops. I just missed it because it didn't have a bullet. FruitMart07 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters merge discussion

These should all be merged per WP:FICT and WP:NOT#IINFO. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. The four above articles are entirely consist of plot summary. They also do not say anything more htan what this very-long plot summary already does. They are better covered in this article. If it can be proven otherwise - if they have been the subject of multiple, independant sources - then my reasons will lack merit. hbdragon88 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging of the characters?

Hbdragon88 decided to redirect all the characters individual pages to the novel page. Most other novel articles on WP have allowed for characters to have their own pages. It seems appropriate that at least the major characters have their own pages, uch as Mustapha Mond and Bernard Marx. What are people's thoughts?—Gaff ταλκ 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)\\

Lenina, conjecture about the reader =

"Her behavior is sometimes intriguingly unorthodox, which makes her attractive to the reader." This seems opinion not citation??? 96.31.177.52 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Lenina's social class

I was just curious, is Lenina not a Gamma, I have come to this conclusion by the fact that she wears all green. And green is the color asociated with the Gamma caste. From Brave New World: .....Gammas are stupid. They all wear green. Just wondered if anyone could shed some light on this. 76.27.6.206 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Lenina is an Alpha But do you have any proof?

Actually Lenina is a beta. When she is flying in a helicopter with Henry, she states that "Khaki is a hideous color", then says "I'm so glad I'm a beta" --GTPoompt(talk) 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lenina is an alpha. She does say "Khaki is a hideous color", but not "I'm so glad I'm a beta".
She does say "I'm so glad I'm not a gamma"
The gamma colour is leaf green while the alpha colour is bottle green.
This should be fixed in the article. 10:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Lenina is a Gamma. She does say "I'm glad I'm not a Gamma" in the helicopter, but I think that was an author's mistake. Everything points to her being Gamma green. Alpha wears grey, Beta mulberry, Delta khaki and Epsilon black --150.101.121.94 06:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The chances of that being an "author's mistake" are slim to none. Huxley did nothing without intense purpose. I've searched the internet and have found almost equal results for her being either a beta or an alpha. She is not a Gamma.Lilianjames 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lenina is a beta, not a gamma and not an alpha, beta's are like the not-so-bright, hot chicks that the 'alpha' males cant resist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.10.208 (talk) 5 November 2007

Yes, she is a Beta/Beta-Plus; like Linda (before the latter entered the Savage Reservation), she's an embryo worker. (I'll try to find the exact quotes that support this. Of course, there's the hypnopaedic mantras that she utters.) She certainly isn't an Alpha, though. Qwerty (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I just skimmed through the first few chapters (1-11), and I can't seem to find any evidence for Lenina's class. I did, however, find something on the BNW website:

Lenina
a young, beautiful and sexually liberated Alpha. Lenina is a popular and promiscuous vaccination-worker at the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. Somewhat quirky - she normally dates only one person at a time - Lenina is basically happy and well-conditioned. She uses soma to suppress unwelcome emotions. Lenina has a date with Bernard, to whom she feels ambivalently attracted; and she goes to the Reservation with him. On returning with relief to civilisation, she tries and fails to seduce John the Savage. The Savage loves and desires Lenina; but owing to his quixotic nature, he is repelled by her forwardness and the prospect of pre-marital sex. So he casts her aside as an "impudent strumpet".

This is very conflicting, to say the least. Qwerty (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so while I assumed that Lenina was just an ordinary Beta, it looks like she's actually an Alpha. She wore a bottle green (Alpha) outfit (Alpha kids wear grey, though), not a leaf green/Gamma-green one. On the other hand, she's said to be wearing lots of colours; from pink, to white, to green (but I'm not sure if she wears mulberry or any colour similar to that in BNW). (Perhaps I assumed her to be a Beta due to the description ascribed to her eyes ('lupus and the purple eyes') and then the assumption that she was a Beta, like Linda, so that she'd better empathise with the latter. Lenina's definitely not one of the 'lower castes', as she calls Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons. Qwerty (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the colour of her clothes has no significance at all as I always thought higher castes (alphas and betas) are free in their choice of clothing. Moreover, the fact that she's an embryo worker which really isn't an intellectual work does point to her being a beta in my opinion. Tummel (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, Tummel. Should we take Huxley's word, or at least the words on the official Huxley website, as the truth? Qwerty (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I say book first, websites second. Or maybe we should cite both? hbdragon88 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still not sure what class she is, but shouldn't it at least be consistent in the article? It says "Beta-Minus" in the "Synopsis" and "Beta Plus" under "Characters", which makes it even more confusing. 87.234.137.7 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Another point to think about. In the book, no women is Alpha. So Lenina must be a Beta. Only men can be Alpha, check it out for yourself. It's depressing, I know. but shouldn't it be mentioned? (85.147.128.78 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)) (Michael)

Not unless it is explicitly pointed out by a critic or other reputable source. If it is just synthesized from the facts of the book itself, then it's WP:OR. -Verdatum (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The book never implies that women cannot be Alphas. We don't see any female Alphas, it is true - but then again we see this society through the eyes of Lenina, who considers only men in a sexual context, and through the men's non-sexual interactions among themselves. The friendships we see are all single gender, perhaps because those kinds of friendships can't lead to sexuality (in the Brave New World) and don't carry the same expectations to share around. Gender is still a stronger divider in some things than any other conditioning.

Lenina herself is a deliberate foil to Linda, the Beta Minus. We get it backwards, in several parts. In chapter 4, Lenina reacts to seeing a Delta gymnastic display by saying, "What a hideous colour khaki is." Later on she reacts to the "leaf-green Gamma girls" by saying, "I'm glad I'm not a Gamma," and then, in the next chapter, she adds, "I'm glad I'm not an Epsilon."

What brings it together is that in the Central London Hatchery Conditioning Centre (chapter 2), we hear the Beta children hearing, "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. [etc]"

On the other hand, intelligence in the brave new world is not what you might expect. After all, this is a world which has banned the Bible and Shakespeare, and actively conditions the vast majority of its children against books and anything intellectually stimulating. From the beginning, Helmholtz is uncomfortable with his own job of writing brilliant prose about meaningless things (chapter 4) - "Can you say something about nothing? That's what it finally boils down to. I try and I try ...". To those who feel any kind of ambiguity about this world, consider - in this world, being pneumatic is highly desirable; yet the other meaning of "pneumatic" is "full of air" (airheaded) ... "[t]ill at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too –- all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides –- made up of these suggestions." - Tenebris

Miscellaneous

The song "soma" of the album "Is this it" by the strokes is reffering to the drug taken in the novel Brave New World by Alsous Huxley

History and context

Can someone add some more specific info about the Henry Ford book mentioned in this section? It's almost too vague to be useful. Also, citations for this book and the Illustrated London News article would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaethon 0130 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Classes?

"can be further divided into plus, minus and moron" Moron ?? is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.7.193 (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I only remember the phrase "Epsilon semi-moron," so I think it's just the lowest possible rating. Historically, the terms idiot, imbecile, moron, etc. were actual ratings of mental disability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.83.19 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The page correclty says plus and minus now. The system has a striking similarity to the exam grades given at Oxford and Cambridge. --GwydionM 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceland?

Under the resolution plot section, it says that Bernard was sent to Iceland. Bernard and Helmholtz were supposed to be sent to remote unihabited islands, so I don't think Bernard was sent to Iceland. When Mond said he was going to be sent to an island, Bernard assumed it was Iceland because the Director had threatened to send him there to work there where his ideas would not contaminate other people. I I K I I 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...Helmholtz at least was sent to The Falklands. I'm not sure about Bernard but due to the style of writing in the book it seems they're going together. Geisskane

I'm inclined to agree unless someone else has more information. --LAgurl 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's implied that Bernard is exiled to Iceland (with the DHC's threats), but it's canonical and clearly stated that Helmholtz is to be exiled to The Falklands; in fact, he's given a choice as to where he's exiled: he prefers to be exiled to an island with a harsh climate so as to inspire him in his writings. Mond suggests The Falklands. Qwerty (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
An excerpt from Chapter XVIII of Brave New World, Huxley, A. Longman Literature (no date, no place of publication; though, the WP article on Longman indicates that my version of the novel was published prior to 1968, otherwise it'd probably be a Pearson Longman publication):

"Well, I'm not surprised," said Helmholtz. After a silence, "We've come to say good-bye," he went on in another tone. "We're off to-morrow morning."

"Yes, we're off to-morrow," said Bernard, on whose face the Savage remarked a new expression of determined resignation.

The text seems to imply that they're departing together, but it doesn't explicitly state whether they're to arrive at the very same destination. Qwerty (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is near impossible to tell where bernard went, you only know that he was sent to an island. I would assume that when the two were talking about leaving, that they weren't going to the same place. Helmholtz wanted somewhere dreary to develop his writing. That doesn't mean Bernard is going to go with him.--Blckhawk1234 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Malthusian belt

Is the "Malthusian belt" fashion or birth-control (or fasionable birth-control)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.148.104 (talk) 20 June 2007

Firstly, thanks for using an edit summary; it made it all the easier to identify your edit. The Malthusian belt is used primarily as birth-control, but it is also a fashion accessory. Qwerty (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-apocalyptic novel

I'm removing this from the "Post-apocalyptic novel" category. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it belongs. The "Dystopian novel" category makes sense to me, but this one doesn't.

RevTarthpeigust 06:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading the plot summary now and describing any sort of novel, let alone this one, as "post-apocalyptic" seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding. The very nature of an apocalypse is that there is nothing that would come after it, not a society, a world, or the setting of any possible novels. I'm removing the term from where I saw it. If you have a reason why it's an apt term then let's have a discussion. Rufusgriffin 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC) A second note - I think the entire plot section could use a good revision, but it's early in the morning, so I'll do it later. Rufusgriffin 07:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are so inconsistent. A Canticle for Leibowitz is tagged as post-apocalyptic and it features an advanced civ rising from the ashes. The world of Brave New World suffered very much during the wars that preceeded the current state (mass use of biological weapons ect.). I thik the category was appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.220.174 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Long ago, I removed the list of references from popular media and moved them to their own article, Brave New World in popular culture. However, that article was deleted. It's arguable that what I should have done is simply delete the section, but I want to call this history out in case someone thinks there's something valuable that's been lost, here. -Harmil 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Freud Reference?

The article mentions "Freud's popularisation of the idea that sexual activity is essential to human happiness and need not be open to procreation. It is also implied that citizens of the World State believe Freud and Ford to be the same person."

Now, the book does allude to Freud (I just finished it), but my knowledge of Freud indicates he thought that, although sex was central to the psyche, non-procreative sex would make you extremely neurotic, if not completely insane. His Interpretation of Dreams, for instance, has a long and very Victorian spew about how coitus interruptus causes severe subconscious guilt for 'killing' the child you ought to be having when having sex.

I'm pretty sure that makes the article wrong, but I'm not sure how to rephrase the Freud reference in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.95.219 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And if anyone reads up on Fordism, it will be discovered that the book's society also misconstrues a part of that. There is more to Fordism than mass production, mass consumption, and assembly lines. In psychological matters, hypnopaedia is central to this society, yet Freud never touched that. (Freud's work came before Ford's, the roots of hypnopaedia 23 years afterward.) What a society believes is not necessarily the same as what is, especially when books are no longer available ... nor desired. What Huxley has to tell us is far more subtle than simply a restating of existing theories. - Tenebris

Incorrect Reference to AF Year Zero

In the first chapter the director informs the students that hypnopaedia was first used 23 years after the model T was first put on the market. "Furiously the students scribbled. 'Hypnopaedia, first used officially in A.F. 214...'" The timeline would put year zero at 1717 A.D., the year the Premier Grandmaster Freemason Lodge was founded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.195.5 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, isn't that meant to mean that hypnopaedia was first used in 1908+23, so that's 1933, and then 214 years after, it began to see its usage by the World State, officially? Qwerty (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Check your math. A.F. 214 was the year it was first used. Go back 214 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.115.62 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please reread the passage. It does not say that hypnopaedia was first "used" in 1933, it says it was "discovered" in 1933 but not used until many years later thus the students asking "Why?". Note the following text:

"The principle had been discovered; but many, many years were to elapse before that principle was usefully applied."

66.102.198.62 (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mustapha Mond

The given explaination may be correct, but I suspect this is also a pun. There was a "cracker" popular in the US called "Uneeda Biscuit" (You need a biscuit), which spawned other product names like "Itsagood Soap". How about (Must have a world)? Pustelnik (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's only understandable if the "Mond" bit is interpreted by someone who knows that 'monde' in French means world, or by someone who can see that there's the Latin 'mundus' in it. Perhaps it's 'true'; after all, Mustapha Mond is a World Controller. Qwerty (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the "Brave New World" article: <embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8680508443361146911&hl=en" flashvars=""></embed>. I don't quite know what the video is of; it isn't loading. If anyone feels like checking it and verifying whether it's appropriate and relevant to the article, feel free to add it back. (I can only view the first few seconds; there's an embryo, and that's all, for me.) Qwerty (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary Section

The summary section is an absolute mess. Barely any of it is a summary of the actual novel. 74.37.131.146 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what reasons do you say that, 74.37.131.146? Qwerty (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The summary section is very untidy. It's also extremely long. A summary should be just that--a summary. People who want to read the book will do so, they don't need to get every possible detail on wikipedia. Mllefantine (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong year A.D.

The lead of the article states the story takes place in 2579 AD, but later in the article it is stated it takes place in 2540 AD. Also, AF 632 (as mentioned in the book) + 1908 AD = 2540 AD. I'll edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Viller (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is quite correct. AF 632 = 2540 AD. Chapter 3 tells us explicitly the AF Calendar started on October 1, 1908:
"The introduction of Our Ford's first T-Model [...] Chosen as the opening date of the new era." 66.102.198.62 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lenina's death

In the synopsis it is stated that it is implied that Lenina is killed by John during the orgy. What exactly does imply this? As I read the scene, she is whipped and lies on the ground apparently moving when the orgy starts. Also, there is no reference to a dead body lying around, or any indication that John bears the supposed murder in mind when he decides to kill himself. It might just have been a sense of having commited a sin (in that case: he gave in to his "flesh" by having sex during the orgy) that made him kill himself. Does anyone agree with me or can anyone give reasonable arguments against this? Tummel (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That was added very recently in fact; I reverted it. - ∅ (∅), 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Malthus in Background figures

Shouldn't there be some kind of explanation why the Malthusian belt was named after him, or at least some information on his person like "a demographer, whose views on population growth were widespread in the 19th century" to provide some kind of connection to the use of his name in BNW? Tummel (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to Malthus which should be enough; this isn't the article about him. - ∅ (∅), 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BraveNewWorld FirstEdition.jpg

Image:BraveNewWorld FirstEdition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Braverevisite.jpg

Image:Braverevisite.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ira Levin's This Perfect Day

Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" might perhaps be added to the "See Also" section? Charles Goodwin, Wellington NZ, 8/3/08 122.57.37.83 (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dual-way

This is a well-written and informative article from the view of the books' meaning, but not from the actual content. Nontheless, preserve it. If not for many of the sections marked "This may contain original or uncited material, I wouldn't have read the book.
Professor Plum
11/6/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.49.40 (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It is hardly adequate to mention a claim of plagiarism against Huxley and then fail to give an indication of the substance of the charges. Jagdfeld (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Shouldn't it be included somewhere in the article that the book is critical of utilitarian philosophy. This fact has been referenced in many scholarly articles. --129.128.62.239 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Universal forced sterilization

The table under "Huxley's Island" lists BNW as having "Universal forced sterilization", but, from my understanding, the sterilisation is not universal. In the book there are several references to the fact that some are left fertile and must practice "safe sex" routines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohzer (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Yes, some people are born able to reproduce and are taught safe sex routines. this is proven by Linda having John, even though she was born in this society.--Violarulez (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler notice

Should be a "spoiler notice" on the text talking about the plot? I do not know how to do that... -23 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.102.180 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, A spoiler warning would be nice in the plot section and in that which describes the characters, I wanted to check a character's name and ended up having the ending ruined

77.96.58.71 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The part about John committing suicide should probably be removed from his character description. It happens on the last page of the book for crying out loud! 75.73.57.35 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Character associations

I took them out because they are speculative and could be misleading. Please do not put them back in. There was also no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowmenace (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source

There was a BBC Radio 4 "In Our Time" programme devoted to this novel on 9 April 2009. You'll find the website and a link to the podcast at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml As it was a discussion with three academics it could be a useful reference source. Richerman (talk)

Broadcast is now at [1]. 87.194.239.235 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

I removed the example from Zola in the "Title" section that uses the phrase "brave new world." That choice of words was the translator's, not the author's. The original French is rêve religieux ("religious dream"), which is a completely unrelated French figure of speech.98.111.226.106 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford's reaction?

Is there any known reaction of Ford to this book? That would be really interesting. -- 131.188.24.20 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Freud/Ford confusion

"It is also implied that citizens of the World State believe Freud and Ford to be the same person." is marked as "Citation needed" - the quotation is in chapter 3, "Our Ford–or Our Freud, as, for some inscrutable reason, he chose to call himself whenever he spoke of psychological matters–Our Freud had been the first to reveal the appalling dangers of family life." - 124.168.42.52 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

-This was just a poor attempt at humor by Huxley, it's not noteworthy. BlueRaja (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the confusion was a "poor attempt at humor" or if it was noteworthy: rather, the issue is why there is a "citation needed" tag. Actually, a note referring to the chapter (at least), though not page numbers (since they are likely to be different between different editions), seems to be in order. 169.199.121.4 (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Huxley's Haven

In Peter F. Hamiltons commonwealth and void series' (pandoras star - evolutionary void) there is an isolated planet where gentic eugenics is practiced, to make people all fit into their job within society. This planet is known as 'Huxley's Haven'. On a side note I recommend his books, amazing reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.189.88 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Error

There is an error, I think. Lenina is not alpha, she is a beta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.115.28.2 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary too long?

Really? Its an important work of literature displaying many complex themes so I think 2,000 words should be allowed. I mean I think we can tolerate a bit of length here if you compare it to more trivial (POV?) articles such as List of Power Rangers. If space is really tight how about we go for the following its only 50 words!

"The future; people raised in bottles, conditioned in childhood, sex and soma will make you happy. Bernard's a short loner, who wants Lenina, so takes her to a reservation, they meet John the savage, take him home. Popularity ensues till group sex and his mum’s death drive John to suicide." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.83.9 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Darwin Bonaparte

Would someone like to explain to me why my correction for Darwin Bonaparte's description was reverted? Go read the last chapter of the book again... he films John for a feely. If you don't feel like doing that, scroll to the bottom of this page for a refresher: http://www.huxley.net/whoswho.htm 173.70.116.216 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Protagonist?

Bernard is described as a false protagonist in the text - I think this needs to be cited rather than just asserted. True, the focus is more on John for the second half of the book, but Bernard doesn't drop out as completely as (say) Tristram Shandy or Marion Crane. Bernard is also described as "protagonist" simpliciter by no less an authority than Melvyn Bragg in the In Our Time broadcast referenced above. If there's a proper scholarly analysis that concludes Bernard isn't a genuine protagonist, then we should state what it is, as it's by no means self-evident on reading the book. Tevildo (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Brave New World|b00jn8bc}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Linda didn't give John Shakespeare

It says in the article that Linda gave John the book about Shakespeare, but actually, it was Pope who gave it to him. Linda only had one book, which was "The Chemical and Bacteriological Conditioning of the Embryo" from her work in the embryo-store in the World State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.94.32 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Italian

In Italian translation the book has the title of "Il mondo nuovo" that means "The new world" translating the adjective "Brave" with the adjective "new". Translators later recognized that, at Shakespeare's time, "brave" meant "beautiful" or "good looking".

This is a bit strange: if the adjective "brave" is translated with "new", what is the translation of "new"? I would rather say that "brave" was omitted. Could someone clarify this?
--Kuebel (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1980 Film Adaptation

Why is there a direct link to the 1980 film? Is that even legal? Is the movie in the public domain or something?

JadeBoco (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the entries in this section are trivial. Simply mentioning the title does not constitute being a related work, especially since it originally came from The Tempest. Feezo (Talk) 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Brave New World#Music also appears to be attracting trivial references. Unless some explanation of why the entries can be considered "adaptations" is given, they will be removed. Feezo (Talk) 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ending/definition of orgy

did Huxley ever explicitly say that it ends in a sexual orgy? because when I read it, it sounded more like an orgy of violence, with orgy being used more flexibly than being strictly sexual in nature, it sounded to me that 'orgy' in this context meant a large scale event of indulgence, including many persons, and in this case they are all indulging in violence, at least thats what it sounded like to me, John starts it off by beating Lenina to (near?) death, and it says that everyone else starts beating each other in a similar manor (I haven't got the book on me, so I can't make any direct quotes) --87.177.9.176 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, he does not. It's described as a "frenzy of sensuality", and an "orgy of atonement", which to the Savage means self-flagellation—and to the others, subsuming oneself into a kind of communal eros. There's also no reason to think that anyone but the Savage indulged in real violence; they are described as "striking" and "beating" one another, which is part of solidarity services anyway. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction promises a summary of Huxley's "Island," which is missing

The last line of the introduction was "Huxley answered this book with a reassessment in an essay, Brave New World Revisited (1958), and with his final work, a novel titled Island (1962), both summarized below." There is no summary of Island included here, and the link goes to its own page. I rephrased this to: "Huxley answered this book with a reassessment in an essay, Brave New World Revisited (1958) summarized below, and with his final work, a novel titled Island (1962)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.26.145 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A note on the irony of the title

Forgive me if I'm not going about this properly; I don't edit Wikipedia often. Anyway, I added a brief discussion of the irony in Shakespeare's original use of the phase. I changed:

Brave New World's ironic title derives from Miranda's speech in Shakespeare's The Tempest, Act V, Scene I:[1]

O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!

That has such people in it!

and from Rudyard Kipling's 1919 poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings:

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins...

to:

Brave New World's ironic title derives from Miranda's speech in Shakespeare's The Tempest, Act V, Scene I:[2]

O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!

That has such people in it!

It is interesting to note that this line itself is ironic; Miranda was raised for most of her life on an isolated island, and the only people she ever knew were her father and his servants, an enslaved savage and a spirit. When she sees other people for the first time, she is understandably overcome with excitement, and utters, among other praise, the famous line above. However, what she is actually observing is not men acting in a refined or civilized manner, but rather drunken sailors staggering off the wreckage of their ship. Huxley employs the same irony when the "savage" John refers to what he sees as a "brave new world." Another possible source for or reference in the title is from Rudyard Kipling's 1919 poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings:

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.26.145 (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A Timeline Discrepancy

If 1908 is 1 AF, then 632 AF is 2539 AD, not 2540. If 1908 is considered to be 0 AF (or perhaps 1 "BF"), the assignment of the year 2540 AD to 632 AF makes sense. I'm not sure how widely this has been overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.45.174 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Song?

As Iron Maiden made a song about this book which was used as an album title, should it be mentioned in adaptations or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.66.154 (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Helmholtz Watson

Does his name really only allude to John B. Watson? Couldn't it, perhaps, also reference to ... John H. Watson? After all, in the German translation he was named Helmholtz Holmes-Watson.--91.34.231.110 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Received nearly universal criticism from contemporary critics "- Really?

Where is the evidence that "Brave New World" recieved such a negative response from contemporary reviewers? The book "Aldous Huxley:The Critical Heritage" lists positive contemporary reviews from Rebecca West ("The most accomplished novel Huxley has yet written", Daily Telegraph, 5th February, 1932), Joseph Needham, ("Mr. Huxley's remarkable book", Scrutiny , May 1932 )and Bertrand Russell ("Mr. Aldous Huxley has shown his usual masterly skill in Brave New World "New Leader", 11 March 1932). 176.61.94.25 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Intend to re-work Characters section

The "Characters" section currently has duplicated entries because of the decision to have list for each location. Having duplicate entries is a poor idea. I intend to remove the sub-headings ("Of Malpais", "Others") and merge the duplicate entries. If there's any objections, please explain here soon. The "Background figures" and "Sources of names and references" sections may be promoted to a higher level heading. They are somewhat awkward to deal with but as this article improves the requirement for reliable references should be more stringently enforced. Entries for characters can be merge into the "Characters" section. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Setting year is 2539 AD, not 2540

The article currently says that AF 632 = 2540 AD. This may too specific. As far as I can tell, the best that can be said is that AF 632 = 2539 OR 2540 AD. Plus the action may not have been confined to a single AF year. Let me explain.

The book says (in Chapter 3) "The introduction of Our Ford's first T-Model..." was "Chosen as the opening date of the new era." The important thing, I think, is to realize that it's probably best to assume that — just like the AD scale started with year 1 (there is no year zero!) — the AF scale likely started with year 1, that is, AF 1 = 1908 AD. Always vigilant against "off-by-one" errors, I used a spreadsheet to complete the sequence (1,1908), (2,1909), (3,1910), and so on up to (632,2539). The 2540 value seems to have been derived using AF 0 = 1908 AD to start the sequence. This later year has been widely published in study guides, blogs, and so forth.

Now, there's several caveats. The book does not mention if there was a shift of the calendar day along with the year. Suppose the "introduction" of the Model T occurred on September 27, 1908 AD. Did this same day become September 27, 1 AF or January 1, 1 AF (or something pathological like May 23, 1 AF)? Any case is possible (only the first two cases being reasonable possibilities) but the think the first is the most reasonable to assume. It's also a problem that the phrase "the introduction of the Model T" is ambiguous: does it mean the first day a Model T was produced (August 12th), the first day one left the factory (September 27th), or some other Model T related day of 1908? So far the total number of scenarios is multiplying. Making the assumption that

January 1, 1 AF = January 1, 1908 AD

eliminates a lot of confusion and is probably what the author intended. I shall trust it. Given this, we have

January 1, 632 AF = January 1, 2539 AD

Now it is clear that the novel begins in 632 AF. It remains to be determined if it also ends in 632 AF. To determine this, it's important to figure out when during AF 632 the Director is giving the tour to students, that is, the time of year — The very second paragraph uses some relevant season-based phrasing but it's somewhat opaque to interpretation. I think it is supposed to be summer. — plus it's also important to figure how out how much time was spent on the Reservation and how much time was spent in London afterwards. I'd have to re-read the book for this. I think it was perhaps just a couple to a few months in total. We are asking, when did John hang himself? Was it AF 632? 633? etc. I think the answer is AF 632 but I'm not 100% sure. (The book does say that John is preparing for winter before he hangs himself but I need to the total time spent in the reservation and in London to figure out which winter.) Without having paid closed attention to the passage of time, I think the answer is that it all occurred within 632 AF.

The conclusion would then be that the action took place in 2539 AD, not 2540 AD. The whole point here is that saying the action happened in 2540, may not only be wrong but an oversimplification. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The novel starts in summer of AF 632 which is later revealed to be June ("naked in the warm June sunshine", chapter 3, second sentence). [It also happens to be a Thursday in June ("Alternate Thursdays were Bernard's Solidarity Service days", Chapter 5, Part II, first sentence).] The New Mexico trip is planned "for a week in July" (Chap 4, Part I, forth paragraph) with "at least three days of that week they would be in the Savage Reservation" (Chap 6, Part I, first paragraph). They then do indeed spend three days on the Savage Reservation. I have yet to sum up the passage of time once they get back to civilization. It opens, however, with an unspecified amount of time having passed (but at least a week). Looks as through all the action will occur in AF 632 though. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

German "re-write"

It should be noted that in 1932, Huxley authorized a German translation that was largely a re-write and is still used for German re-prints, with the main differences being that the setting is Berlin and northern Germany rather than London, and most names were changed to make them German or refer to German industrialists. Overall, it seems a similarly loose "translation" into German as the one of Lord of the Rings authorized by Tolkien. --2.240.242.147 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Cover art

These two are great. Larger cover: 1st2nd (Note: Don't upload the larger cover to Wikipedia because it would violate copyright.) — User000name (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot section too long

The plot section here is probably too long and covers non-plot related detail. As per MOS:NOVELS#Plot the plot section should be very concise and not be embellied with extranious material. I will slowly start to trim this section to make conform to our MOS. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've condensed it to an extent and feel it reads better too. But BNW is a polemical novel with a complex philosophical world-view which must be understood to make sense of the story, and it's difficult to convey this very briefly. I'm unsure what you mean by its containing non-plot-related detail, but hopefully my edit will have dealt with this. I've removed the tag but if you disagree, put it back, or better still, condense it yourself! Chrismorey (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
on further reflection, the problem is that the ideology of the World State is mixed up with, and unduly lengthens, the plot section. I've now separated them. This may have led to some duplication but IMO is the way forward Chrismorey (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Feminist Analysis

Has there been any feminist analysis of the book ? The bleak outlook contains an element of misogyny which I think should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.13.64 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting one here, "The Provocations of Lenina in Huxley's Brave New World", focusing on how Huxley fails to fully exploit her more subdued (and, the writer argues, more successful) acts of rebellion against the Fordist culture she lives in than any of the four major male protagonists; then makes her a sexual predator and has the Savage beat and kill her at the end, rather vengefully. He also alludes to another critic (see footnote 8) who noted that it seems that only the men in the novel are allowed to be unhappy to an extent sufficient enough to move the plot. Since it seems to have been published in a reputable academic journal, we can use it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This text does raise some good points, however it also makes some rather curious assertions and is, in some other cases, outright false when referring to the novel. IMO, one should be cautious before including this analysis into the article. 2003:6D:6F45:444:3137:A6CB:C08E:D761 (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brave New World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lenina Crowne Confusion

In Brave New World, Huxley himself made some huge errors. Lenina Crowne, being a Beta, should dress in all Mulberry clothes. However, she always wears green, the colour of Gammas, the third caste. This was revealed by Huxley to be a mistake on his part, as he wrote the entire book in a short period of time. Also, in the Characters section of the Brave New World wikipedia page, it states that Lenina Crowne is a nurse. She is not. She is an artificial womb technician, adding vaccines to the unborn fetuses. I have tried to change this, but the action was undone quite rapidly by another user. Any other details about Lenina Crowne that I have missed? Fabian Caldwell (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Instances of banning/censoring of Brave New World

The first sentence in the section 9 Censorship/banning instances, accusation of plagiarism is The American Library Association ranks Brave New World as No. 52 on their list of most challenged books. The issue is whether this sentence In 1993, an unsuccessful attempt was made to remove the novel from a California school's required reading list because it "centered around negative activity". is illustrative of moves to censor or ban the book. Yes, it is. It is well-sourced, and the attempt was partially successful—the book was, effectively, no longer on the required reading list.

You An unnamed editor made a change to the article, I disagreed with that change, reverted, and you reverted so here we are WP:BRD. The section is awkward, somewhere between a timeline/list and prose, the last line repeats the first, and a better section title would be 'Controversies'. Perhaps we can agree to rewrite the section. — Neonorange (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brave New World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brave New World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling

This article sometimes uses "ostracizes" and "realize" but also "practised" and "organised". This should be fixed so the entire article consistently uses British English, American English, or some variety. (Probably British English, because it has strong ties to England.) Loooke (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

is Soma based on the Somatosensory system ?

is Soma based on the Somatosensory system ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.223.17.74 (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As stated by the author in Brave New World Revisited, soma was a almost impossible drug that booth stimulate and sedate. There was no hard research to create the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.92.252 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Helmholtz and Bernard stop riot...nope.

"Helmholtz and Bernard rush in to stop the ensuing riot" Uhm, what version of the story of being described here? Helmholtz joins John's efforts against soma and beats up Deltas with him. Bernard wants to do something but is a coward and is actually attacked by police for taking only verbal action. Automated systems calm the rioters as well as the police, although the soma 'guns' they wield do help. Can someone read the book before describing it? Zerothis (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusation

It would be interesting if anyone knows of a source that references the plagiarism accusation, other than the book in which the accusation was made. It is a serious enough suggestion that Huxley plagiarised to have some form of secondary source for it to provide some sort of perspective. It would be interesting to find out if the two stories he supposedly plagiarised had been translated into English at the time. It would also be good to get a translation of the part of the cited source to verify that the specific accusation of plagiarism occurred. Similarities are one thing, but plagiarism entails using another's work and passing it off as one's own. It should be supported through evidence that Huxley was aware of the content of that which he supposedly plagiarised, at least in the source.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The plagiarism accusation by Mieczysław Smolarski almost seems like a prank by a wikipedia editor... because after extensive searching I can find literally zero evidence that the book (Miasto światłości) has ever been published in English, and if it ever had it is not available to buy anywhere on the internet today, not even as a second-hand copy or a rare book, a most unusual distinction one would think. So unless Smolarski is suggesting that Huxley learnt Polish purely so he could read and plagiarize a book so obscure that it is apparently not even in print *in Polish* today, I dunno.... (I searched Polish language Amazon, and there is no trace of such a book). There are some contemporary Polish reader reviews of the book (I dunno how they read it, perhaps they found it at the back of a dusty old library) - and many of them seem to think that the plagiarism accusation is bogus. Honestly, Smolarski sounds like a bitter, attention-seeking crank. 95.146.59.117 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The very title of the section seems inept. (I reckon) Huxley would copyright his works, but he did not claim that everything in them was original. This section, less sensationally, could be titled `Influnces'. Nick_cool (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Inner Room referenced

I have removed (for the second time,) the addition of the book, The Inner Room. The person adding it seems to think there is a thematic relationship between the two stories, but has not presented reliably sourced notes making an explicit comparison. As we do not use our own opinions to compare the two, as we are not credible sources.
Without this explicit comparison from an RS, the material cannot return to the article.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Anon. "Brave New World". In Our Time. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2009-04-09.
  2. ^ Anon. "Brave New World". In Our Time. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2009-04-09.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brave_New_World/Archive_2&oldid=1242357380"