• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

July 2013: Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

We were not referring to the same passage.

True," he added, "they might ask for shorter hours. And of course we could give them shorter hours. Technically, it would be perfectly simple to reduce all lower-caste working hours to three or four a day. But would they be any the happier for that? No, they wouldn't. The experiment was tried, more than a century and a half ago. The whole of Ireland was put on to the four-hour day. What was the result? Unrest and a large increase in the consumption of soma; that was all. Those three and a half hours of extra leisure were so far from being a source of happiness, that people felt constrained to take a holiday from them. The Inventions Office is stuffed with plans for labour-saving processes. Thousands of them." Mustapha Mond made a lavish gesture. "And why don't we put them into execution? For the sake of the labourers; it would be sheer cruelty to afflict them with excessive leisure. It's the same with agriculture. We could synthesize every morsel of food, if we wanted to. But we don't. We prefer to keep a third of the population on the land. For their own sakes–because it takes longer to get food out of the land than out of a factory. Besides, we have our stability to think of. We don't want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That's another reason why we're so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science."
 
I think you need to reread my post as I didn't say anything about abolishing work, simply that work was as much a palliative in their society as any of the other forms of social sedation such as soma and their pseudo-religious sex rites.

I did also say that when the first notions of labour rights were mooted, there were similar objections posited, that the working classes would not benefit from an excess of leisure time.

All of this was in the context of Sparkchaser's comment about the mind numbing effects of reality TV.
 
yes but without going to the book and looking it up, there was a passage in which the societ is being explained to the savage and they said that they had tried not working, and that it created problems - dissatisfaction, unrest etc, so they structured things so that there was work, consumption of goods etc + the entertainment and religion - Marx religion as opiate of the masses type idea there - to keep everything in place

There's the post... In there are the words 'they had tried not working'.
 
I'm sorry but you are really stretching what I said to extrapolate 'abolishing' work from 'they tried not working'. The passage I quoted clearly refers to drastically reduced working hours, no hard labour on farms, labour saving devices etc all of which are rejected as the result of an experiment in which work was cut to a mere 3 hours a day. In pretty much any context that is 'not working' compared with a full day's labour.
 
So what you actually mean... is the society tried reducing the number of hours worked, here's my original question.

Do you mean their society did not need people to work all the time because they did need to work.

Sometimes a simple yes suffices...

We both agree the society required workers.
 
I finished the book and I thought it was pretty amazing, written back in the thirties and yet so relevant. There's an ambivalence to it which for me gives rise to a question.

Is it better to be a comfortable ant in a hive or endure pain and misery for the sake of identity?

BNW does not make it easy because it presents the reader with a full range of pros and cons in a game of cooperation versus individuality. Couple of examples, a person born in the society regardless of caste can expect to live in perfect non-aging health throughout his or her life but only have an average lifespan of sixty years and from conception a person will have his or her entire career mapped without any say but will have fair full employment, leisure time and disposable income throughout life.

It's a whole book of dilemmas, no high art but fantastic drugs, uninhibited sex but no love and in the centre of this maelstrom is poor John the Savage, his tragedy being that while growing up on the reservation he wasn't allowed to belong and when he entered the society he could never be alone.

Perhaps the book can be best summed up by it's protagonist Bernard Marx when he answers an optimistic John the Savage.

'And, anyhow, hadn't you better wait till you actually see the new world?'
 
'And, anyhow, hadn't you
better wait till you actually
see the new world?'

That is where the warning is - as John discovers, as, Bernard discovers, as every other Alpha who stops and thinks discovers - at that point it's too late.
 
Personal opinion here (I do not mind if anyone violently disagrees) I thought the book tedious and wondered why it has attained the status it has. As a work for entertainment it did not work for me.
 
Personal opinion here (I do not mind if anyone violently disagrees) I thought the book tedious and wondered why it has attained the status it has. As a work for entertainment it did not work for me.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree. Maybe this is one of those books that you have to frame within the context of when it was written.
 
You both make a valid point. it depends on why you read does it not?
I read for relaxation and entertainment now, my days of study are long over. I was forced to read 'Brave New World' as part of my English School Cert, so I guess it would never have been a choice of my own.

Interesting choice for book of the month even so and a good job we do not all like he same thing.
 
the world would be a boring place if we were all the same ... oh wait wasn't that just in the book?
 
This is one of those books where it's not really required to be read in context, unlike books like Age of Innocence and The Great Gatsby. Well, not entirely. The style may need some getting used too if the primary diet for the reader is contemporary fiction, but not by very much, methinks.
 
Back
Top