1984 VS Brave New World

UndercoverBoy wrote: Both are excellent, but Nineteen Eighty-Four takes the cake in plot, storytelling, characters and message.  It haunts me on how accurately it portrays the evils of ignorance and totalitarianism, even if its predictions on governments and politics were a bit ambitious (but probably meant as allegory anyway.)   I will say that Brave New World's dystopia was more interesting, even if I found the general point to be a little ambiguous.  I found the sex-obsessed society interesting, as well as the caste system and birthing process.  The plot wasn't as interesting, for sure, but I liked how John was shunned just for having human parents.

I voted for Brave New World.  I like them both a lot. But 1984 bored me at times until the 3rd (last) section of the book...

I've read We and Brave New World but not Nineteen Eighty-Four (but I do now own a copy).

I have also read a Jerome K. Jerome short story which We is slightly based on and next I am going to read H.G. Wells' two versions of When the Sleeper Awakes/The Sleeper Wakes, as apparently that was also an influence of Zamyatin or Huxley.

 I really like 1984 and I've read it many times. Brave New World sucks. My favourite novel in the Dystopian genre is Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury -it's actually my favourite book  period at the moment.

Abstrakt wrote: I though this was about Van Halen "1984" vs Iron Maiden "Brave new World"! Seriously!

same

Luke. J wrote: I hate it when people start to fuse fiction and reality, really. The ones who are afraid of a machine-dominated future are forgetting three things.. 1. machines have got no fantasy. Statistics are so linear, but they never consider the factor "surprise". How could they, anyway, because surprise would not be surprise if you expected it. By the way, Laplace's monster (or however the translation for this one is) has failed because not everything is linear. Besides, maybe, the second rule of thermo-dynamics. 2. machines themselves have no aim. All aim is given to them by human beings. Actually, all machines do is Maths. But up to now numbers have not gone that far that they start to calculate, because they need someone to create an equation. 3. machines can not create a formula. All they do is executing a task given. Sadly, though, Kurzweil says that man will not recognise the future, and that everything will happen without man noticing and by the way sooner than man expects everything to happen. Either he is arrogant or he is a superman to set himself beyond human knowledge. I do not believe people who say that "man cannot know!" and suddenly they do. Also, I fear the two of us are in contact with really different people. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I get the expression that you see people as nothing more but part of a huge machinery. We are, in fact, and it is called Nature. But not the eraser of individual thinking - is there, actually? Is there anything like thinking or individuality? Everytime I see a person it is so unique that I cannot have doubts about this. If you only see the persons in their jobs, however, you might be right, because in a bureau people are doing the exact work that ought to be machine's tasks. Blurring boarders between man and machine? No. Just because I can bark I'm not a dog. Actually, I don't know why I have written that much, because all those words only prove that I am stupid because I don't believe in all this and therefore do not qualify as a partner in conversation. This "everyone's stupid but me and those who follow me" is only an argument for something that in itself is not convincing and therefore has to attack pride. Just some reasons why I totally hate what Kurzweil is "predicting". Cameras everywhere, and they are following me, and, of course, you, yes, YOU! You are watched! Everything you do is written down! They know all about your movement! Even your thoughts from analysing your expressions and conversations! Great, what's the use? Right, nothing. What is done with this data? Nothing. Oh, something will happen with it, in the future! Heidegger says that our thinking is constantly analysing the present moment, but that our acting is aimed to the future. The nice thing about the future is that there is only present moment from which we imagine just another future. Saying "something will happen" only says that it is not happening. Because of this, one cannot argue with what is going to happen because the future has not happened yet (excluding the "World and time's a circle"-theories). You also cannot calculate the future, see Laplace and surprise for this. What I want to say is that I don't believe people who say "Well, nobody knows the big secret but me! Follow me, or you'll be the stupid!". By the way, Orwell, Zamyatin (written from memory, excuse me) and Huxley also were influenced by two World Wars in not even half a century. 1984 and Brave New World are logical continuations from this. Stefan Zweig also predicted a miserable future and thus commited suicide in 1942, if I remember right. Then came surprise and gave the future a new direction. Anyway, I'm wasting my words, I do not believe in all this dystopia and future-masochism. Predicting the worst seems to be a fashion lately, but I am not one to follow them. Read Kafka's "The neighbour" to see how fast we consider everyone an enemy these days and do not believe in the good. Which also does not seem in fashion. Thinking positively is overrated because there is nothing to think positive about. Only, maybe, that pessimists will respect you for being pessimistic. Excuse me for clicking "Post Reply" now, but I feel like sharing this stream of concioussness I just had reading the most recent post. An argument for not posting it would be that I do not like paying attention to what I describe above because this only causes more of what caused me to write here at all.

Toaster Mantis wrote: Judging them as literature (rather than polemics) I by far prefer 1984, better characterization and more of a plot. Brave New World might have a more believable dystopia as it's nowhere as obviously a product of its time, but narratively it's like one gigantic infodump 2/3 through with a plot tacked on in the third act.

Actually, as odd as it may sound, it was just that gigantic infodump which I found fascinating, while the third part of the book was, in my opinion, much less believable. I really liked the depiction of that 'future' society where Ford is worshipped as a god - not as chilling as the one in 1984, but somewhat intriguing in its own strange way.

Luke. J wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: Now, 1984 versus A Clockwork Orange... that would be a poll! Was this an invitation or just a general remark?

I meant that no matter whether its predictions were accurate or not, Brave New World simply isn't a very good novel compared to A Clockwork Orange which I think is much more evenly balanced with 1984 as literature even though both haven't aged that well. (1984 is an obvious satire of Cold War paranoia, Clockwork... criticizes a use of psychiatry that's no longer common)

I've never read the Huxley book.  Did 1984 in high school.  Rather scary when you take into account how things have turned out these days.  Double plus good.  Also a fan of the 1984 movie from 1984.  I'm not a fan of the Eurythmics but they did a nice job on their contributions to the soundtrack.

Today people are so busy saying 'like' after every other word

Like, you know I like got stuck at a table next to some high school chicks who like to say like like waaay too much like a few years back and it was like really rellly annoying. 

I mean yeah, OMG.  We are fortunate that those types have discovered texting.

By the way I do have to go on the record saying I didn't particularly like it, particularly like it, particularly like it, particularly like it, particularly like it, particularly like it...  I mean, yeah, they were kind of cute and all, but rather vacuous.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 21 2010 at 15:12

1984 happens to be my favorite book of all time so that made this poll easy for me.