Hero in BNW

A hero is defined as “a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.”  A hero is usually the protagonist and is responsible for either changing or maintaining the balance of the plot and themes throughout the story. 

In Huxley’s Brave New World, the hero who is able to maintain the intelligence and humanistic qualities that we see in our own society was John. As we see throughout Brave New World, John is challenged and constantly put into situations where he is ridiculed for being different. Yet it is through these challenges that he is able to stay true to his nature and demonstrate that he is a hero able to step up and not conform to the masses.

            There are many reasons that John is put into a hero category that not many characters are associated with. He challenges common and basic thinking within the society and always wants to learn more about why people act and live the way the do. Because he was not born in the society itself he was not conditioned with the certain mindsets that the Alphas and Betas and so on, were crucially brought up to understand and believe. This causes him to question the methods and thinking that is considered normal. In a way he still has that basic human condition of curiosity. Challenging common thinking also leads to John’s uncertainty of his role in the society once he gets there. Because of this, John is left with a desire to be wanting more and more from the society and the people that make it up. There is a shift in John’s attitude toward the end that almost resembles a sense of depression. This depression sends John toward a path that uses all of his energy just to maintain his “normal” self and not fall into the same routine that every other member of that society has done. In essence he became that which he despised. He shouts “oh, my God, my God,” (259) at the end of the book after he realizes what he had become. John also does not fall into the so-called “soma” collapse until the very end. At various points in the novel, soma has caused him a lot of pain and he does not understand why it is so vastly important to the functioning nature of the society. “The savage stood for a moment in frozen silence, then fell to his knees beside the bed and, covering his face with his hands, sobbed uncontrollably.” (206) John has stayed away from the so-called "herd-poising" talked about in Huxley's article "Propaganda Under a Dictatorship," mainly because he is not part of the group.

            Yes, John has a falling out in the end of the novel where he partakes in an orgy and then commits suicide. But only because he can’t take living in this society that is considered a utopia. But I feel that he commits suicide because he understands that he can and will never be able to live in that particular kind of society because he has an unquenchable thirst for the knowledge and being his own person. He lost his mother and there is hardly a single person to talk to about it because that term is considered disgusting and the support from a family is obsolete.  

            As I stated earlier, a hero is usually the protagonist and is responsible for either changing or maintaining the balance of the plot and themes throughout the story.  John fits this role because once he arrives in the society; he immediately causes a stir and continues to do so the entire time that he is there. He fascinates the citizens and he, in a more or less way, is the center of their attention until he kills himself. John is a hero because in the time that he was there, he stirred debate and caused doubt within members of the society including Helmholtz and Bernard, and brought a change of pace that more or less disrupted the flow of the society for a little while if not forever. 

Works Citied:

·     Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World,. New York: Harper & Bros., 1946. Print.  

        "Hero." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero>.      

          

Phase 3 post Civilized vs. Uncivilized

In Huxley’s “Brave New World” the society that is made up of prefabricated babies and citizens brainwashed by hypnopeadia is referred to as “Civilized”.  The society in the book that is referred to as “uncivilized” is the Indian reservation.

To me being Civilized in the book means to have technology, recourses, money, and just an overall sense of direction for your life, even if your life is decided for you. People who are “civilized’ such as Bernard and Lenina have all of those things in their lives. They have nice clothes made of acetate silk, helicopters that take them anywhere they want to go, they are never unsatisfied, and if they are soma take care of it right way and all they have to do is take it. Not very much work on their part. The book kind of describes being “uncivilized” as being dirty, smelly, poor, old, and actually having to work for the things you desire, and there is also never a shortage of feelings of despair or disappointment and things like that and having to deal with those feeling on your own.

The “civilized” people live in a society where as they say “…cleanliness is next to fordliness” and “…civilization is sterilization.” (110) This is a far cry from the animal carcass and litter filled streets of the reservation. As I stated before they wear clothes made up of a synthetic material called acetate silk and accrding to Lina who used to be a “civilized” person “…it never used to be right to mend clothes. Throw them away when they’ve got holes in them and buy new.” (121)  Compared to the “savages” who wore turkey feathers, and deer skin moccasins. “Civilized” people also have the luxury, as they saw it, of never having the symptoms of getting older in age. During their visit to the reservation Lenina and Bernard catch glimpse of an old Indian man.  Upon seeing his wrinkly, toothless, and emaciated body as Huxley described him, Lenina asks Bernard “Whats the matter with him?” (110) As if she had never seen a person in this condition, as if he was suffering from some kind of disease or sickness. After questioning Bernard’s answer of him just being old, Bernard tells her the difference between what I see as being “uncivilized old” and “civilized old”. He goes on about all of the processes their technology allows them to do to their citizens for them not to look and feel like their age tells. After watching the old Indian man Lenina gets feeling of sorrow and disgust so she decides she doesn’t wann feel that any more, reaches to get a soma capsule to take, only to find out she has none on her person and is stuck with those feelings. To me being “civilized” in the book is being able to always take the easy way out. Not having to deal with everyday emotions, like anger, sadness, and others of the same nature. The main difference I see between the 2 societies is that the “uncivilized” people do not have all of the luxuries’ that “civilized” people do. If they are sad, they stay sad until they decide to do something about it, not until the soma kicks in, then just moving along with their day.  

The whole issue of family is also very different between the two societies. The sight of women breast feeding their children on the reservation makes Lenina blush and turn her head away with disgust, while the Indians just see it as a way of providing for their children. Bernard says “What a wonderfully intimate relationship.” And “…what an intensity of a feeling it must generate! I often think one may have missed something in not having a mother. And perhaps you’ve missed something in not being a mother, Lenina. Imagine yourself sitting there with a little baby of your own…” (112)  Lenina again reacts with surprise and disgust saying “Bernard! How can you?” and “Lets go away, I don’t like it.” (112)  Another time being a mother and having a child is see to be frowned upon in the “civilized” world is when Lenina and Bernard meet Linda who used to be civilized but now lives on the reservation. In talking about the embarrassment and shame in having a child says “Just think of it: me, a Beta-having a baby: Put yourself in my place.” “The mere suggestion made Lenina shudder.” (120)

One thing I did find very interesting was when John was introduced in the book and in meeting Lenina and Bernard says “You’re Civilized, aren’t you? You come from the other place, outside the reservation?” it makes me think why would he call them civilized? What has he seen, or been taught to call them that?

In my opinion I feel like the “uncivilized” savages actually are more human.  Being human to me is not about coasting through life never wanting anything more than what you have in terms of accomplishments and knowledge and goals. Its about working hard for what you want and overcoming obstacles that are preventing you from getting it. To me having feelings is part of life, they tell you why you are doing what you are doing, give you a sense of being not just going with the flow and getting trough it, and with soma that is not possible. In the “civilized” society people don’t get to “live their lives. They are pretty much programmed to be born, merely going through life, then dying. That’s not living to me. I see them as more machines than anything, and machines aren’t human. The “savages” on the other hand have families, problems, accomplishments, highs, and lows. They don’t merely go through life, they live it.

Works Cited:

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publications, 1998. Print.

Phase I for Oct. 1

Alexie Vividly Evokes the Fragility of the Tribal World

Storytelling has long been an American Indian tradition.  From the book “Buried Roots and Indestructible Seeds: The Survival of American Indian Life in Story, History, and Spirit”, authors Lindquist and Zinger recant hosts of stories with comic and tragic themes.  Exploring and discovering an “imagination of meaning.. the use of storytelling to interpret events, to seek meaning in the chaos of life, or to create understanding of the happenings of history. So every act of making a story, in its creation of meaning, is an act of survival.” (Lindquist 4).   The Lone Ranger and Tonto FistFight in Heaven, by author Sherman Alexie, gives us a glimpse into the bleak perspective of American Indian life.  Alexie fills us with many emotions that vividly evoke a sense of fragility of the tribal world as seen through the character’s eyes, and the tone it takes through their various touts of humor.      

In one passage a character named Junior reminisces of times “back when there was good fry bread to be eaten at the powwow, before all the old women died and took their recipes with them.. Sometimes it feels like our tribe is dying a piece of fry bread at a time.” He gives a clearer indication of the current status of reservation life when he continues on to describe Norma as always trying to save the tribe, “like a lifeguard, watching out for those of us that were so close to drowning” and was painted in this light many times by Alexie. (Alexia 199).

We gain a great deal of insight through Alexie’s characterization of Norma as a stoic yet flighty character, through which we grasp this sense of tribal frailty through the broken and shared relationship of the characters Norma and James Many Horses, in the story “The Approximate Size of My Favorite Tumor”.  James Many Horses has a jovial reputation and an incessant tendency to cope with pain by making jokes of the harsh reality of death.  James Many Horses tells us the story of how he has to come to be dying with cancer in the form of several large baseball-sized tumor, prefaced with his angering of his wife through joking about his death.  She leaves him for a few months because of his joking. He moves on through treatment for a few months, getting in touch with his pain, making jokes to the doctor, saying sometimes he laughs because that’s all two people have in common, and sometimes because you’d rather cry.  In the story, James Many Horses comes to tell us the story about his wife Norma, whom upon losing her mother in the story, becomes filled with a sense of deeper tribal sorrow, compelling her to visit elders at retirement homes, and as they passed, succumbing to weeping violently and throwing books and furniture. Norma is quoted as stating “Every one of our elders who dies takes a piece of our past away, and that hurts because I don’t know how much of a future we have.” (Alexie 167).  Junior Many Horses sits at his death table writing letters from his death bed under a false name, James Many Horses III, making a passing joke that there is a certain dignity to any kind of fake tradition, a clear indicator that he was joking about not having a heritage, nor offspring, making vivid for us this frailty through his lack and therefore loss of identity, a form of extinction.  He and Norma joked about having children, but did not.  Upon her return, James Many Horses and wife Norma discuss briefly her whereabouts, and her reasons for returning.  After some beating around the bush, and James’s really sort of pressing the point on her reasons, jokingly delivering us into the reality she has returned to help him die the right way.  James was agreeable with this.  She leaves off saying, “And maybe because making fry bread and helping people die are the last two things Indians are good at.” To which they laughed.  It was a comically relieved resolution, inevitably leaving behind   widowed Norma, with no parents and no children, in search of the next Indian to help die.       

"The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven" Alexie Sherman, 1993.

"Buried Roots and Indestructible Roots" Lindquist, 1993. 

P.S. I would like to offer my humble apology for the delay in presenting this to my peers. I have had the flu for the past week. I appreciate any feedback. Sincerely, James Gifford

V for Brave..... or is it Brave New Vendetta

        

         Brave New World and V for Vendetta, show strongly contrasting fears of what the future will hold, and how modern societies’ demise will come about. Brave New World, published in 1905, shows the fears of industry and technology in the early 20^th century and late 19^th century.  Meanwhile, V for Vendetta, shows modern day fears of oppressive governments, corrupt officials, and news controlled by the government.

            In a Brave New World, government is lax in regards to how its citizens are controlled, as programming in children's upbringing, called hypnopaedia, governs the way people act. this causes the population (for the most part) to want to do what the government wants them to do. This is in stark contrast to V for Vendetta, which shows a government using brutality and other aggressive tactics in order to control the population. The most iconic representation of this being, Natalie Portman being attacked by policemen, for being out past curfew at the beginning of the movie. This is the fundamental difference between these works of fiction. Brave New World is all about wanting to fit in to society, while V for Vendetta is all about being forced to fit in.

            This choice verses force is what leads to Brave New World having the potential to be considered a utopian society,  while V for Vendetta is a blatantly dystopian society. In Brave New World, things work, people tend to be happy, and the majority of people do not want to change their world. While we may be discontent with their society, they are and that is why it can be considered a utopia. V for Vendetta, however, shows us a world where people know their society is not as great as it could be, but revolution does not seem like a real viable option. And when it does become one, people seize it immediately. I think this really illustrates how each era views government. Brave New World comes from an era where government was viewed as very successful (completion of all sorts of public works, such as the Panama Canal were occurring around then).  While V for Vendetta, comes from our era, where it is often viewed as ineffective and poorly managed. The governments predicted in the early 20th century, would have all the ability in the world to make people happy. Modern times, in contrast, view government as a major pain, which would have no hope of making people happy.

            Finally hope, hope for change. V for Vendetta ends with a society that is attempting to make thing better and different. This same hope does not exist in Brave New World, with the only characters who wish for change being subdued into complacency, or dead.  This change of the government, seems to underline society's current desire and need to be able to change its government. It seems to me that Brave New World's era was much happier and thus less in need of the idea (or ability) of changing government.

            The differences between these two works a fiction say a lot about the time periods they were produced in and the views of government. Each giving us a glimpse at what society saw and thought at the time. "The Empires of the future are the empires of the mind." -Winston Churchill

            

Devil's Advocate: Huxley's Utopia (Phase 2)

            The Society that Aldous Huxley has created in his novel Brave New World is disturbing to many even at a casual glance. It’s apparent amorality is completely at odds with everything we’ve been led to believe are universal truths, but these opinions are also a form of conditioning similar to those we scoff at in Huxley’s novel. The Society we’ve read about causes such dissonance because are own conditioning has programmed us to be repulsed by it’s alieness. Huxley’s society may be dystopian to John and us (Bernard is simply unsatisfied with it, not oppressed) but to its inhabitants who will never go hungry, will never know unpleasant feeling, will never know need only want and then immediate satisfaction, who’ve each been perfectly fitted for a purpose it’s paradise, otherwise known as everyday life. In our reality free will means free to suffer, but are we really better off for it? John at least seems to think so, but even his conditioning is vastly different than our own. By contrasting our real society to that of Brave New World’s, or more specifically their failures, we hopefully can look beyond our conditioning and biases to break down the components that make a utopia and see why the people of Huxley’s world are better off than we’d otherwise think.

            I think the most obvious issue that should be addressed first is the ethics of conditioning. It’s very poignant that the novel begins in the Hatchery where even in the “womb” the outside world is already shaping its citizens to fit their allotted purposes. Chapters 1 and 2 do a great job of setting up and explaining the differing conditioning techniques used from pre-natal to early childhood and Chapter 3 elaborates on this by presenting the result. The first question we ask is “is it really a utopia if you have to condition your citizens behave as though it is?” The short answer would be yes. The long answer is that no one exists in a social vacuum and as long as there are other people on this planet there will always be expectations to meet. In our reality we are conditioned to believe and do several things that have been debated over and over to death for several years and will continue to debated over for centuries to come. A few things slightly change as generations come and go but one of the many consistencies (that changes very little themselves) is the belief that to be happy and satisfied with life we must go to school, graduate, get a job, get married, have children, and retire. Even I type this out nothing is actually stopping me from walking away from the computer and sitting in front of the tv for the rest of my life, but social obligations keep me here so I can pass this class and hopefully graduate with a decent GPA. How is that any more ethical than the conditioning in Brave New World? At least their society doesn’t pretend that conditioning doesn’t exist, in fact several times it’s freely spoken of “They’re being death-conditioned…if I have any more of your interference with their conditioning…” (chp 14). It’s no big secret, everyone is perfectly aware of the situation, not in the same way as the rader obviously as the citizens have nothing to compare it to but all the same there is nothing to hide. No one is astonished when Bernard mumbles on about hypnopaedia and Lenina’s job has her injecting lower-caste fetuses with alcohol and disease. It’s simply their reality and like ours it’s completely subjective. What it good to them, consumption, polyamory, etc., is good for the same reason that monogamy and family are valuable to us: because we give them value. This ability to alter our reality simply be giving different value to meanings is why the young men in Chapter 3 are repulsed by the word “mother,” their conditioning has led them to give motherhood a different value than our conditioning would.  Mustapha himself says, “One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them” (chp 17). This means that there is no way Brave New World’s society is any less amoral than our own because both societies come packaged with their own set standards and obligations to force upon its people, making morality completely subjective in the long run. Effectively, we are all products of our society.

            The other question that should be asked is “does this society live up to the standards of what make up a utopia?” I don’t think anyone can put it better than Mustapha Mond in Chapters 16 and 17, specifically the line “Happiness is a hard master,” (chp 16). In that same Chapter, Mond goes to great lengths to name the sacrifices that his Society has made in order to make its people happy and satisfied, such as fine art, literary classics, independent thought, and family. Again, the only reason we feel bad for these people who don’t have these luxuries is because our conditioning has programmed us to give these things intrinsic value. But these trivialities are beside the point. In our haste to condemn this futuristic society for its hedonism and lack of morals we often forget the many accomplishments it’s achieved. In Huxley’s novel, no one in the society goes hungry. No one. Everyone has a job, everyone has a home, and there will always be food on the table, for everyone. In our reality these things are not a universal right. While shouting about the importance of creative expression we often forget that there are people in this world that are lucky to even have clean water and shelter and that roughly 20,000 people die of starvation everyday. Those people don’t care about Shakespeare and they certainly don’t care about “deep feelings” just for the sake of them. They want food, stability, and safety. Huxley knew this and his society didn’t come from thin air. Around the time it was published in 1932 Europe was still recovering from the first World War and second one was just on the horizon. In the novel there was a Nine Years War centuries before the setting that left the world devastated and resulted in the extreme measures taken to prevent it from ever happening again. “What’s the point of beauty or truth or knowledge when the anthrax bombs are popping all around you? ...People were ready to have even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life,” (chp 6). Mustapha Mond understands better than anyone the price modern society has paid for happiness, but he also knows that the alternative is simply deadly.

           

There are several other things, such as petty crimes, murder, conflict in general that have also been done away with and I’d otherwise like to go on about but I’ve made this post far too long as it is. Despite several ethical issues this new society presents maybe we should think of them less as horrific forms of oppression and more as the prices paid for peace and stability. If there’s anything I need to clear up please feel free to ask. I’m sure there will be many arguments against the idea of Brave New World as utopian so please feel free to voice your opinions, I can't hear them!

A few sources for context

An overview on the definition of Utopia and its origins: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Some Statistics on world hunger and poverty: www.statisticbrain.com/world-hunger-statistics/