Brave New World is not a dystopia because there is no tragic flaw. The citizens are happy. They don't know that their lives are devoid of love and family, so they can't long for it. I live a life devoid of telepathy, but I don't suffer for it. I've adapted. I've accepted that telepathy is an impossibility and don't worry about it.
Most of the citizens of Brave New World lack awareness of what they are missing, but should readers think that the novel is a dystopia because of the few characters like Bernard Marx and Helmholtz Watson who are aware of their situations and are outcast from society because of their awareness? You'll learn as you continue to read that this society as mechanisms and procedures for dealing with dissidents.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Not a Dystopia Part 1
Many scholars consider Aldous Huxley's Brave New World as a dystopia and therefore a warning to our society that we are at risk of becoming godless, image-obsessed, pleasure seeking consumers. Although the warning is duly noted, I'm not yet ready to say that this fictional future is a dystopia. "Dystopia" refers to a perceived "Utopia" with a tragic flaw. In the movie Equilibrium, a perfect world of peace exists, but its citizens have to sacrifice strong emotional feelings. In The Giver, the world is at peace, but its citizens have to sacrifice feelings and memories. What are the citizens in Brave New World sacrificing for a stable community? Family, commitment, intellect, love? Sure, the majority of citizens in this world are devoid of many of the experiences we take for granted, but is this such a terrible situation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)