I don't come to /lit/ much, but I wanted to see what you

Yes an excellent book. It was, not to put it down at all, catharsis to me at the time and spurred me into reading literature.

This guy's sentences run on so long. I read Doors Of Perception and it was pretty good, but fuck. His writing style, characterized by his liberal use of commas to clarify what he's saying, has made his books, in my eyes, very terse, difficult and, if you'll let me throw in another comma, shit.

I liked it as well. Without bringing in the savage this might have been painfully average, but that viewpoint really highlighted the dangers of consumerism and the "drug" of mass media that Huxley was really trying to highlight rather than muh dystopia. He did admit in an afterword that John should have been no way able to argue on such a philosophical level having come straight from a reservation.

It's obvious which world one would want to live in if they had to choose between BNW and 1984, but like Winston said in 1984 there is still yet some hope left in the "proles" of the society, but in BNW there is none as society has not degenerated but rather "evolved" to some neo-Marxist caste system where the lower castes literally cannot form their own opinions. Anyone who tries to rebel against a society like that will only be met with opposition, as no one wants their comfy life ruined

It's mostly just the inane ramblings of a sexuell repressed catholic mixed with a pinch of noble savage.
>oh noes people are having fun with SEX instead of muh Shakespeare, they can't TRULY be happy

Also why does he need to insert the word "crimson" into every second page?

>>9009895
OP here, this is a really good analysis

Perhaps one of the things that (pleasantly) surprised me was the lack of an oppresive/violent government. I wholly expected some sort of "escape from the government" sequence/climax like Fahrenheit 451. But no, the "government" was very passive, even polite towards Bernard and John/The Savage. And that is what makes this one of the most realistic of these novels: society and the common person created, and supported this brave new world. It wasn't the result of an extreme dictator/ruler.

Yes, they were being controlled, but they knew it and they supported it. It's the result of a world where everybody gets what they want.

And as Neil Postman put it:

>In short, Orwell feared that our fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

>>9010020
Everyone gets what they want, and that's terrible for some reason.

>>9009862
This. I've always thought Huxley wrote to deliberately lose my attention.

>>9009895
Is not explored much but in 1984 Orwell does say similar things of the proles. The oppressive end of things is for party members like Winston.

The proles themselves fuck and fight quite happily as if they were animals, their discontents go nowhere because "without general ideas" they have nothing to hang them off. The party wastes no effort on them.

The hope from the proles is that they will of course understand their power to change things but really, there isn't much indication they want to either.

Here is what Huxley thought though (I think he misread 1984 on the above point but what do I know)

http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/huxley-to-orwell-my-hellish-vision-of-the-future-is-better-than-yours.html

>>9009431
>massive philosophy argument between John and Mond toward the end
That's the whole point of the book, to show that Mond was right, and John was just a vestige of a superior society.

Yeah, Brave New World was pretty great. It got me into literature.