The Ideal Society That Was Not Sexual orgies, frequent drug use, and a repugnance towards babies are the key qualities of an upstanding citizen. Well, they are in fictional dystopias anyway. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 are novels that provide examples of a perfect nation that is more horrifying than innovative, but Huxley’s story appeals to more readers by showing how even a satisfying existence in dystopia is problematic. This essay will discuss both novels separately, then in comparison to one another to support the argument that Brave New World better holds the readers’ interest through the use of shocking cultural norms. Brave New World opens in a “hatchery” in Central London. This building is where specially
…show more content…
It is a fascinating take on dystopia, although it takes a different manner of proceeding than Huxley’s. Orwell embraces the idea of citizens that are scared and beaten into submission. Huxley, however, makes his government’s intentions seem less selfish and nearly justifiable. While the majority of the citizens in Brave New World readily accept their situation, it brings up the argument, “If they were conditioned into believing this is permissible and enjoyable, does that make it so?” They are relatively happy, but more or less in the way a victim of Stockholm Syndrome loves their captor. Can they truly consent to their futures being pre-determined if they were hypnotized into doing so? Taken even further, one might consider that in reality everyone is, to a degree, conditioned by the perspectives they are exposed to, albeit in a far less obvious manner. It makes one question the origin of morality and personal values, as well as question if it is better to be happy, useful in a community, compassionate, or independent. With Orwell’s depiction, being miserable is practically inevitable to the majority of the population and that makes it simpler to demonize the perception as well as not applying the notions as directly to their own
It is a fascinating take on dystopia, although it takes a different manner of proceeding than Huxley’s. Orwell embraces the idea of citizens that are scared and beaten into submission. Huxley, however, makes his government’s intentions seem less selfish and nearly justifiable. While the majority of the citizens in Brave New World readily accept their situation, it brings up the argument, “If they were conditioned into believing this is permissible and enjoyable, does that make it so?” They are relatively happy, but more or less in the way a victim of Stockholm Syndrome loves their captor. Can they truly consent to their futures being pre-determined if they were hypnotized into doing so? Taken even further, one might consider that in reality everyone is, to a degree, conditioned by the perspectives they are exposed to, albeit in a far less obvious manner. It makes one question the origin of morality and personal values, as well as question if it is better to be happy, useful in a community, compassionate, or independent. With Orwell’s depiction, being miserable is practically inevitable to the majority of the population and that makes it simpler to demonize the perception as well as not applying the notions as directly to their own