Print Page | Close Window

1984 VS Brave New World

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62896
Printed Date: December 12 2018 at 18:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 1984 VS Brave New World
Posted By: The Quiet One
Subject: 1984 VS Brave New World
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 15:30
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?


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)



Replies:
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 15:41
Unfortunately it was too long ago for me to remember why, but I didnt like Brave New World and I liked 1984


Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 15:45
1984. Brave New World has good ideas in it, but the plot is awfully dull.

-------------
http://nervoushorse.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 15:49
^I quite agree with you on the Brave New World statement. 1984 is way more grabbing on the plot aspect compared to Brave New World, while Brave New World is pretty much more original and creative.

My vote goes for 1984.


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:18
They're two of my favorite books. 

I found 1984 more enjoyable to read and more useful as a reflection of actual ideology. 


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:19
If the whole book was on par with the first chapter, Brave New World would have been better, but after the first part it gets a little boring. The ideas were interesting though. I also got tired of the Shakespeare references.

1984 is one of my favorite books.


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:33
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

If the whole book was on par with the first chapter, Brave New World would have been better, but after the first part it gets a little boring. The ideas were interesting though. I also got tired of the Shakespeare references.

1984 is one of my favorite books.


You need to read We, though Wink


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:45
'Brave New World' has proven to be the most clearvoyant in its predictions.


Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:50
Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

If the whole book was on par with the first chapter, Brave New World would have been better, but after the first part it gets a little boring. The ideas were interesting though. I also got tired of the Shakespeare references.

1984 is one of my favorite books.


You need to read We, though Wink

I'm planning on it, I still need to find a copy. I will be in town tomorrow, I'll try to pick it up then.


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:50
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

'Brave New World' has proven to be the most clearvoyant in its predictions.


And that makes it a better novel? Confused


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 17:14
1984. I read Brave New World but it bore me. I read 1984 in no time, it was so great. And more interesting from a political point of view.

-------------


Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 19:32
When I first saw Brave New World I thought we were referring to the Iron Maiden albumLOL I don't read much to say the least, so I can't make a meaningful comment.

-Jeff


-------------

Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime


Posted By: Tsevir Leirbag
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 19:40
I prefer Strawbs' Grave New World Wink

-------------
Les mains, les pieds balancés
Sur tant de mers, tant de planchers,
Un marin mort,
Il dormira

- Paul Éluard


Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 19:40
1984 is probably my favorite novel.
 
When I think of the two dystopias - death by oppression in 1984, death by entertainment in Brave New World - I often think we're heading toward a combination of the two.
 


-------------
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 19:41
Originally posted by J-Man J-Man wrote:

When I first saw Brave New World I thought we were referring to the Iron Maiden albumLOL I don't read much to say the least, so I can't make a meaningful comment.

-Jeff


I started this year being an actual reader "lover", after having read 'The City of Dreaming Books' by Walter Moers, I knew I needed more. So came Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, Billenium, and the rest is historyWink


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 22:12
LOVED Brave New World, it wins simply because it had such a vivid and utterly believable world.


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 00:28
1984.
 
Brave new world was great was about the first half, then took a big dive IMO. If it kept the pace going the whole way through this would be much much more difficult.
 
Not to say 1984 isn't awesome enough on its own to take this battle, because it is.


-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 08:22
Haven't heard 1984 (any of the five known to Wikipedia) but I love Brave New World.

Haven't read Brave New World, but I loved 1984. One of these days I'll read BNW too.


-------------
http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA!


Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 09:39
I read them a long time ago, and I love them both. I choose Brave New World for no other reason than taste.


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 10:20
1984 is a more 'compelling' read, but there is something very significant in the prophecies of Brave New World, when you consider that it was written in the 1930's ( I think) when the idea of producing human babies through any means other than the natural route, was both horrific, and generally percieved to be impossible.

I guess I enjoyed 1984 more than BNW, but I was only 12 or so when I read BNW, so I'll need to give it another go.

I liked the film of 1984 too (with John Hurt) Does anyone remember the US mini series of BNW, back in the early 80's??

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 13:22
Originally posted by The Quiet One 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.


-------------
https://japanskipremijeri.bandcamp.com/album/perkusije-gospodine" rel="nofollow - Percussion, sir!


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 13:26
Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

Originally posted by The Quiet One 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.


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 14:45
I though this was about Van Halen "1984" vs Iron Maiden "Brave new World"! Seriously!


Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 12:33
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.

-------------
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.


Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: January 12 2010 at 09:49
1984 is one of my favorite books,
brave new world bored me as hell


-------------
]


Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: January 12 2010 at 14:05
Originally posted by Vompatti 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..


Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 03:02
We are in the midst of Orwell's "1984" right now. Notice the cameras everywhere? Notice the massive loss of civil rights under the guize of 'Security'? Ya, and then we move into what Ray Kurzweil calls, "The Singularity". Or, put in another way, 'Brave New World'.
 
These guys were certainly not profits but simply paying attention. Today people are so busy saying 'like' after every other word to really have a clue as to what's really going on. It's all right in front of your eyes now. Ah yes, all you had to do was watch Star Trek and you would know. Yup, the 60's show featured what we use now. Cell Phones and fast forward to the Borg and you have the 'collective' and each one unit of the collective has a pod. You know, your pod or put another way, "I - Pod".
 
Hell, ask most people today and they don't even know why we have seasons or why we have leap year every four years. Oh well, I guess it's all for the better for the ones in control.


Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 12:24
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.


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 12:40
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.

Now, 1984 versus A Clockwork Orange... that would be a poll!


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 13:04
1984 happens to be my favorite book of all time so that made this poll easy for me.

-------------
butts, lol


Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 13:57
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:



Now, 1984 versus A Clockwork Orange... that would be a poll!


Was this an invitation or just a general remark?Smile


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 14:53
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.  Tongue

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

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.


-------------


Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 15:56
Originally posted by Luke. J Luke. J wrote:

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:



Now, 1984 versus A Clockwork Orange... that would be a poll!


Was this an invitation or just a general remark?Smile
 
Clockwork Orange for me.  Coincidently (ish) I am reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep at the moment.  Maybe we need a bigger poll?
 
 
 
 


-------------
Help me I'm falling!


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 22 2010 at 12:30
Originally posted by Luke. J Luke. J wrote:

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:



Now, 1984 versus A Clockwork Orange... that would be a poll!


Was this an invitation or just a general remark?Smile


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)


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 22 2010 at 14:12
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis 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.


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 22 2010 at 14:13
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis 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.


Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: January 22 2010 at 19:45
Brave New World by far in my opinion.  It's always been one of my favorite books, I thought it was real interesting.


Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: January 23 2010 at 00:51
Originally posted by Luke. J 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.
 
Hey, I believe we all need to be postive, but I where I sit all I see is a whole generation succumbing to the machine, first via TV and now via the computer and all that goes with that. When we are born we are certainly individuals but easily programmed clean slate individuals. They are now telling children that we humans, yes we humans are directly responsible for so called 'global warming'. It's a theory, yet they are teaching it as fact. So we are being faced with a new truth based on a theory and a theory so full of wholes to make it on par with nice bit of Swiss cheese. We better wake up and fast or that arrogant b*****d Kurzweil will be right. Huxley even said many years ago that people will learn to enjoy their servitude. Hell, in many ways we already do. Those of us that are allowed to serve that is for their is fast becoming a massive amount of people that are of no further use to the 'system'. You see them all over the place pushing around grocery carts.


Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: March 03 2010 at 21:50
1984. One of my favourite books of all time. It's scarily relevant these days. Slartibartfast was talking about how people are wont to use the word 'like' a hundred times in each sentence. It's Newspeak! Reducing the English language from thousands of words into just a few.
 
I've read Brave New World, too, and found it very interesting.


-------------
Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...


Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: March 03 2010 at 21:51
Originally posted by Abstrakt Abstrakt wrote:

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


sameLOL


-------------





Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: March 03 2010 at 21:56
^Haha!
 
If that were the case, I would have voted for Maiden's Brave New World over Halen's 1984; rather than Orwell's 1984 over Huxley's Brave New World! LOL


-------------
Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...


Posted By: motrhead
Date Posted: May 16 2010 at 04:18
 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.


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: May 16 2010 at 10:03
Originally posted by Kashmir75 Kashmir75 wrote:

^Haha!
 
If that were the case, I would have voted for Maiden's Brave New World over Halen's 1984; rather than Orwell's 1984 over Huxley's Brave New World! LOL


You forgot about Anthony Phillips '1984'...


-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 19 2010 at 00:25
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.


-------------


Posted By: Okocha
Date Posted: May 24 2010 at 13:58
Brave New World


Posted By: Mr Greeen Genes
Date Posted: June 14 2010 at 00:09
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...


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 18:56
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.


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:04
Originally posted by UndercoverBoy 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.
 
Totally agree with both points.
 
Have you read We by Russian author, Zamiatin?


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:09
^No, but wasn't he an influence on both authors?


Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:11
She?

LOL


-------------


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:16
Originally posted by James James wrote:

She?

LOL
Yeah, so I know nothing about him.Embarrassed
 
Fix'd it.


Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:25
I can only find copies of We online, which is too bad for me. :(


Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:27
I have a copy but I leant it to my brother... I'm not sure when I'll get it back. Ouch

-------------


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:31
^I lent 1984 to my cousin and still haven't got it back, haha.

-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:36
I don't need to worry about losing my books.  I always borrow from the library.Cool


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: June 22 2010 at 19:46

^like CD's, I like having my own books Wink



-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 07:51
I feel the same way.  I don't know if I'll ever lend books out again from now on.

-------------


Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 12:11
1984, probably because it's more compelling.  I'm not entirely sure why I like it better.   Dystopian literature is beast though, my favorite stuff Thumbs Up

-------------
http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: CinemaZebra
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 13:00
Brazil.

-------------


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 13:06
Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

Brazil.
Well, considering Brazil was inspired by Nineteen Eighty-Four, I guess your vote goes there.


Posted By: CinemaZebra
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 13:41
Originally posted by UndercoverBoy UndercoverBoy wrote:

Originally posted by CinemaZebra CinemaZebra wrote:

Brazil.
Well, considering Brazil was inspired by Nineteen Eighty-Four, I guess your vote goes there.
Yup.

-------------


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 22:49
Speaking of cinema, CinemaZebra, I recently discovered what your avatar came from while surfing Cracked:
Loved that article.LOL


Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: June 26 2010 at 08:41
I'm surprised this quote of Neil Postman, from his book Amusing Ourselves To Death, hasn't appeared in this thread yet.  He makes the case that Brave New World is far more likely to actually happen than 1984:
 
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
 
 


-------------
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 26 2010 at 09:10
Originally posted by zappaholic zappaholic wrote:

I'm surprised this quote of Neil Postman, from his book Amusing Ourselves To Death, hasn't appeared in this thread yet.  He makes the case that Brave New World is far more likely to actually happen than 1984:
 
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
 
 
Interesting.  I find it annoying when some people assume that dystopias are always about an oppressive government (usually a Socialist government, which is ironic considering where Orwell came from), when forms of oppression come from other places as well.


Posted By: Ronnie Pilgrim
Date Posted: June 26 2010 at 10:21
Brave New World. Now, if I could just get my hands on some soma...

-------------
"The pointy birds are pointy pointy
Anoint my head anointy nointy"
Steve Martin The Man With Two Brains


Posted By: motrhead
Date Posted: June 26 2010 at 11:44
 Huxley may have been more accurate....but his writing still sucked.  1984 was a much better story. 
 I still say this poll should have included Fahrenheit 451, which is much better than both.


Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: June 26 2010 at 11:54

Or A Clockwork Orange Approve



-------------
http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 26 2010 at 12:21
Originally posted by motrhead motrhead wrote:

 Huxley may have been more accurate....but his writing still sucked.  1984 was a much better story. 
 I still say this poll should have included Fahrenheit 451, which is much better than both.
I loved Fahrenheit 451!  One of my all-time favorite books, and Ray Bradbury is one of my all-time favorite authors.  Not as descriptive of a dystopia with a real sense of evil, but a beautiful tribute to the wonders of knowledge and the horrors of anti-intellectualism.  If it was on this poll, that's where my vote would go to.Thumbs Up



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk