1984 VS Brave New World

clarke2001 wrote: The Quiet One wrote: Both classics, and surely the most acclaimed from the dystopian-genre. Also, both influenced by 'We' by Zamyatin. So, which book do(did) you prefer? Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although Orwell was familiar with Zamyatin I'm unsure how much it affected his novel.

A lot! Trust me, unless you've read it yourself too, you must know that the plot and setting of both 'We' and '1984' are very alike, though got to admit I enjoyed more 1984, you really can't deny that without 'We', 1984 couldn't have been released or at least have been as it is.

I voted 1984. In all fairness I read Brave New World almost 5 years ago for a school research paper while 1984 was only a couple years ago for fun so that may skew my view of the two. I wasn't going to vote because of this fact but I saw that the score was at 11 - 5. My favorite numbers are 5 and 12 and any combination of the two so I finally cast my vote for 1984 to make it 12 - 5.

Vompatti wrote: 1984. Brave New World has good ideas in it, but the plot is awfully dull.

Exactly this. Plus, what I read from Brave New World had the tendency to be so plump that it either seemed to be written totally for plain action or for philosophical and political discussion - 1984 does not keep both that strictly apart and is more compelling in style and story.. on the other hand, though, I could enjoy Brave New World as a satire..

By the way, I'm not a big fan of the dystopian genre.. it has the tendency to have what might be called "warnender Zeigefinger" in German.. somehow I have the feeling that the auther is constantly pointing his forefinger on me and warning me (and of course any other reader and even the non-readers) "Watch out! That's bad! Don't do this!". And, honestly, after 1984, We and Brave New World (and even in those) it feels like a road of warning signs for me eyes - in other words, it just hurts..

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.

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

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

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)

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: 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.

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

same