>orwell was wrong, huxley was more accurate is there a plebber

File: benjy.jpg (132KB, 634x360px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 634x360px

>>9161563
>believing fictional works are written as prophecy

is there a more retarded opinion one can hold

>>9161563
1984 was not an instruction manual!!!

>>9161563
>huxley was wrong, orwell was more accurate

There you go, opie

>>9161572
Exactly. 'Nineteen Eighty-four' is a satire, not a prediction.

But it's true, Orwell's fictional world was only in place for a while in Europe, Huxley's world is what our society strives to become.

>>9161802
Then where's my smell-o'-vision?

>>9161809
>Tfw no sex when I feel sad

>>9161563
Comparing Orwell to Huxley in terms of who was 'right' or 'more accurate' is a silly thing to do. Niether Orwell nor Huxley were attempting to prophesy the future; they were both intending to outline the MODES and METHODS which could get us to ANY type of dystopian future. The details of either Orwell's or Huxley's particular dystopian visions are not as important as the way they are enabled.

Orwell's postulate that linguistic control is fundamental to narrowing the flow of free information that produces the stymying/chilling effect on autonomy and sovereignty was and still is incredibly poignant. If you're using the term "Orwellian" as a synonym for "big-government dystopia," you're missing the entire point. Orwellian is a descriptor of the environment which precipitates a wide variety of big-government dystopias. Namely, by choking language/semiotics and thereby everything that follows from it.

>>9161832
Huxley was totally trying to prophesy the future. He's 20x the more didactic writer; he's the child of Voltaire and the father of DFW. You can read his sentiments on the arts in his book Island: at one point in the book, the islanders explain how Oedipus Rex was at odds with the self-help/ community psychology of the island, so they rework the play to where someone sits Oedipus down and says "Hey, it's not your fault, these things were out of control. Now you need to hit the ground really hard and let it all off your chest and know that you didn't know the bad you were doing," etc. etc. Orwell is more the artist, and therefore the better at expressing of his time and the future, though by means of symbols. Huxley uses art to express himself, but can't create art, really. And his philosophy isn't really sound enough, systematic enough, or interesting enough, to be presented any other way than through his "art". Like I said, very similar to Voltaire and DFW. Orwell's more with your Pynchons or Bolaños, though for a much younger or less well-read crowd.

>>9161563
Brave New World is better and more accurate, because Orwell's best was his essays.

True patrician opinion.

>>9161577
!!!!!!!!!!!

>>9161865
Good post anon, thanks. I still think there is a lot to be said for Orwell's work inasmuch as I described his take on narrowing the flow of information. I'd hesitate to split off the works into 'tiers' which is what it seems like you're moving toward at the end there(?) I'm also not sure I follow what you are saying about art in this context, can you elaborate on that?

>>9161802
it's actually a combination of both, just not so obvious like both Orwell or Huxley said it would be

>>9161563
with such a question you are practicising ideology. Eager for a immanent reading and you will discover that Orwell has written a paranoid narrative.