This book had a very interesting philosophical look at humanity and how “conditioning” or socialization make that people think that some things are acceptable and that some things are not. It was an interesting concept to consider, in itself. The characters were so extreme that to argue that one persons conditioning was right and another was wrong would be impossible, but to bring to light conditioning in general it was absolutely brilliant.
The argument of the book, I believe, was to bring to light that people’s conditioning (due to elements of socialization and society) determine how a persons beliefs, and what a society will act on as true.
The book brings to light several philosophical arguments that need to be considered, such as: what is best for the average person, was is best for small groups of people, what is needed to maintain a civilized society, what is considered to be a civilized society, can happiness only be achieved through despair, what is happiness, what is loneliness and being alone, is natural conditioning a abandonment of freedom, what is freedom, and many other questions that could be discussed (and have been discussed) forever.
Aside from the brilliant philosophical quandaries that Huxley brings to light his writing style was absolutely fantastic. I have to admit when I began the book I found it to be a bit dense, simply because he jumped in with no reference points and used works that I could only later infer the meaning from continued reading. It’s a common writing technique now, but I found it to be a bit confusing that most. However, by the time I reached chapter three I was in amazed at how well written and how well thought out each of the phrases were. There were many different conversations, thoughts, and recordings all happening at once. You were forced to bounce through Bernard’s thoughts about Foster, Foster’s conversation regarding Lenina, Lenina’s conversation about Bernard , the Hypno-sleep-therapy recoding that the children were listing to and the Director’s discussion of conditioning process. Not only were we forced to read all of these conversations at the same time, but we were able to view them side by side. Huxley brilliantly had each sentence point out the humor, irony, or philosophical quandary in the last. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
If I am suppose to write a critique about this book this would be the only thing. I wished would have happened is that John (aka the Savage) would have been able to understand what happened, and then reject it fully. At the very end of the book the Controller tells the story of how he was forced to make a decision and choose civilized society (much of which was prohibited, old, artistic, and of advanced science). When the controller does this he speaks from experience and his own wisdom. It almost gives more credibility and argument to Control and the civilized society and nothing to the savage because he does not understand. When this happened I felt less for the savage and began to think that the Controller was right (in the instance of the book of course) and the Savage was indeed just an insane man that eventually becomes the special in the lighthouse. With that being said that only applies to if Huxley wanted to bring to light the philosophical points more on both side. If not then it was written perfectly. The only reason I think that I picked this point to change is because I think there is still some unclear-ness in my mind of who exactly is the antagonist and who is the protagonist.
No comments:
Post a Comment