I finished the first book on Modern Library's Top 100. Well, not the first, but my first. I am skipping around. But, I finished reading Brave New World last night. I didn't like it. I fully expected to, given my past record, but I just didn't. I would say that it was because the main characters were not able to break through the soma-induced haze of government propaganda and control into a true understanding of life and their place in it, but I think that would be incorrect. In Anthem the hero was mostly able to escape the State's control, and in The Giver, while he did not escape, he was able to see through the world as he knew it into the past. But, in 1984, Winston did not succeed. He came so close, but he was weaker than Big Brother and became a drone, just like they wanted. So, because of this, I do not think the weakness of the characters and lack of a triumphant escape from the Civilized World is at the root of my dislike.
Perhaps part of the reason I did not enjoy the book was that I hated all of the characters. Lenina was too stupid to realize her instincts were telling her there was more to live. She says at the very beginning that she hasn't been into all the activities required for social conformation, but when confronted with the possibility of change, she runs back to her soma. And Bernard was just an idiot. He, too, feels the stirrings of unhappiness, but he makes no effort to break free. I thought Helmholtz was the only admirable character. He felt the need for more than the shallow, consumerist existence he was fed, and he felt he had the power to do something about it. So he throws in with the Savage in the fight against soma-rations, and when thus forcibly transferred out of Society (so as not to pose a threat) he willing takes his punishment and plans to use it to explore his individuality and power. I'm not sure what to make of John the Savage, to be honest. He felt at home neither in Society or on the Reservation. I suppose I applaud him for his attempts to live in isolation, but he was weak. He was not able to see either world for what it was, he was too wrapped up in Shakespeare's view of the world. Referencing the past is great, but he was unable to chose his own views and follow his own heart. And, of course, in the end he went completely nuts and killed the woman he loved and himself. He lived and died by Shakespeare, which, is always a mistake.
So I didn't like most of the characters, and the plot was slow to get started. I thought the entire first half of the novel was an introduction into the world of the future. It made harsh comments on consumerism and technology, but I think it would be possible to make those comments while still moving the story forward. Also, Huxley put random scientific-sounding words in front of everything. "Acetate-silk," "ferra-concrete" and "vibro-vaccuum." I know it feeds into the image the Government was trying to create--scientific progress without any real experimentation, and feeds into the image Huxley was trying to create--an un-reality fed by consumerism, but it pretty much just annoyed me.
This is all my take on the book. I have no idea if I am interpreting anything correctly, because, after all, I chose not to be an English major because I hate analyzing literature, but I do know that I did not enjoy this book, and though probably every one should read it, if it weren't on ML Top 100, I probably would not recommend it.
But, I'm on to The Maltese Falcon which I am optimistic will be better. I do love a good femme fatale.
No comments:
Post a Comment