I'm glad you enjoyed! It's one of those books that I think had I had to read it in school perhaps I wouldn't have liked it as much as I did, but at this point it really fascinates me. Seeing points where, even if it's in a more absurd way than realistic, there are aspects of it that's shockingly applicable to the direction our world (or at least, western society) appears to be going. Plus it's always fun getting into new books, especially when you get the chance to really dig into it! It was a very fun surprise learning you recently read the book too, hearing your thoughts on it is a real treat! ^U^
I agree with all your points on Bernard, fake-criticism is the best way of describing him. He's really curious in the way that he clings so strongly to that identity of superiority he builds so much on being intellectually aware/free from the conditioning of their society, yet he is so deeply unaware of his own conditioning. His friendship with Helmholtz is a great example of this. He experiences jealous over the parts of Helmholtz that fits societal expectation and a strange mix of glee from getting to criticize the systems fully and frustration when Helmholtz goes beyond Bernard's form of critiquing. Even going to the reserve and the strange power-play with the (former) Director, showing not just proof of viviparous reproduction but bringing home proof of "the sin of parenthood" (so to put it) specifically of the (former) Director… when, ultimately, it would have been a form of freedom for him to go to Iceland in the first place. It's all about his ego! Ego and an insecurity that borderlines self-obsession, where he defines himself as this rebellious, intellectual figure in his mind while simultaneously hating every aspect of him that makes him "rebellious" and longing for the "bliss of ignorance". I agree, he should go in a food processor.
Many great points about Lenina, the ways in which she stands out from their society's ideal of an Everywoman is really interesting too! I didn't pick up on the clothing detail, it adds a lot considering that compared to other choices she makes (her job presumably is one she can't make any choice in, the people she works with she has little choice about, and the society's expectations are rather limited in personal expression) it's one that she makes entirely for herself, yes! It's funny separating Lenina from "Lenina, the narrative tool" and "Lenina, the person," because so much of their society (especially for women, it seems) is based on suppressing uniqueness. There's a reason why nonconformity is called "being conscious".
In their society anything that can separate you from the majority can be and is a flaw. This is most obvious in how Bernard is treated but also present (like you said) in how Franny considers Lenina odd for being with Henry for so long, or Lenina's taste in Bernard, or her determination to be with the Savage regardless of how many times he's rejected her (truly, in a society where it's established that people have little to any ability to compromise or even wait for delayed gratification, her determination here sets her apart). It even appears in how, as you pointed out, she wears a belt outside of her designated caste colour. If you focus on those aspects of her person, it's curious to see how she could've been a more fully fleshed out character if she wasn't held back by the under-tide of misogyny in the text itself and the sexist ideals held by the author.
This topic especially! The most interesting part of the book is how through our modern day lens, we will perceive the society built in Brave New World as one where sexism is theoretically eliminated. Most routes or pathways of sexism, those which are baked within the expectations found in (straight) marriage and family rearing, are eliminated. Sexuality, something that has been used to control women in all sorts of ways, is now something women can indulge in freely without the fear of pregnancy. Our society now, which views equality in both sex and gender as an ideal we strive towards rather than a mystical "what if," is far more likely to see it as a post-sexist society (or.. the parts of our society that want equality anyways).
As a side tangent; whether it be the influence of the author's own period-typical sexist beliefs and culture or intentionally written this way, the societal structure of Brave New World comes across as deeply sexist. As you pointed out all the Alphas that we know of are male. In the book, society seemingly strictly enforces gender as sex and sex as deterministic of what you should look like, how you should act, who you should be, your roles and positions in life, etc. Truly, if every person was conditioned both psychologically and before even "being born," there's no expectation nor acceptance of diversity nor would there be diversity of experience. Women, then, must fit an ideal of being attractive for men rather than for any other reason. Attractiveness becomes not only an ideal but a so much of an expectation that any deviation from what is considered attractive makes you an objective failure. Bernard gets some leeway with this, for there's equal criticism from others about his appearance and his personality (the former of which no longer gets treated as such a negative once he's famous, and the second not being criticized when he's acting within societal expectations).
Another thing that sets Lenina apart is how she notably takes the first step when it comes to partnerships, seen in how she's the one that pursues Bernard (out of curiousity more than anything else, but it's considered odd enough to Fanny). While there isn't necessarily a fully established societal norm here, what we do read and learn about implies that it's typically men that are expected to be the pursuers. It's the men that take women out on their helicopters, who ask women out, who take them on outings, etc. There's still, in a society where gender roles are (or should be) meaningless, the expectation of men being more "dominant"/provider-esque/proactive while women are more passive and more accepting of objectification. This can be seen in how Lenina, up until she corners John, wants to pursue him but waits for his first step.
There's something insidious about the fact that, as far as we learn in the novel, all the world controllers we know of and people in utmost power are men, and it is those people that influence the physical selection and development of those within the society. It's entirely possible that through using that power they could influence the development of women to specifically be more "pneumatic" (as the novel uses so much). A feedback loop of "what is the perfect women?" and "we've improved her, but what can we make better?" over generations as it's implied the society has been running strong for centuries at that point (with it being some 600-ish years After Ford, placing it in the equivalent of roughly the 2500s in our timeline?). Perhaps this isn't implied at all, but it's worth consideration I think. Considering the Alphas are those that maintain the most independence and control over their minds and Betas are made to be subservient but not "purposefully flawed," such as those in lesser castes.
The way the Director at the start complains that eggs cannot be "bokanovskified" indefinitely, with the potential implication that had it been possible all women could be born "freemartins" without risk of pregnancy… while much of the concept of the "dystopian utopian" of their society hinges on control over the very bodies and genetics of all members of society, the way in which it focuses reproductive control on women (only women needing birth control, seemingly no pressure or effort in finding ways to make men less reproductively viable, and the way "mother" is described as "pornographic" and "smutty" while "father" is described as "gross" and "removed from the loathsomeness and moral obliquity of child-bearing" (paraphrased, page 131)) is curious. And deeply sexist.
The most interesting part of this is whether all that is something the author intended or if it's a byproduct of the culture the book was written within. I will say though, I don't think it's a coincidence that we see all the women in the book either in a nurse-like or place-maintaining roles or involved with caring for children in some way (although very differently in how we'd describe it today, being involved with the "decanting" process and conditioning is perhaps the closest thing to child-rearing their society has, and we see positions of power taken by men first and foremost within those fields too). Even the idea that everything below Betas are some horrifying other but Alphas and Betas can freely mingle enforces the idea that all Alphas (aka men of the upper caste) are superior to all Betas (aka women of the upper caste).
Going back to what you're saying, you're right! The fact that they focus on her weight at all, in a book where physical descriptions (surprisingly) are incredibly sparse is odd. It's of no consequence and never seems to play a role in her character later on. Adding to your point of Huxley's own bias towards weight, not only is the book incredibly withheld on describing anything to do with food in their society beyond some implications, Linda's entire character is practically Huxley flinging every word he can use to describe fat at her. Undulating, bulging, enormous, sagging, bloating, "rolling as she walks," a child screaming at the sight of her as she's described as a terrifying monster, and all of that was on a single page (page 130)!
To make a woman "scary," to make her "unnatural" or "wrong" in the eyes of "perfect society," the biggest choice the author made was to both say she's visibly aged (middle aged, to be exact, which is far from the extreme end of aged) and fat. Very fat. The stranger part is that John describes his life in the reserve as often being poor in food and nutrients (and the both of them being social outcasts), so how did she get like that if food was more of a scarcity there? How does John fit in so well as the "attractive, wild Savage" if he was described as starving as a child? Why isn't he described as being off-putting or strange to their society too?
The way in which it presents it, fatness is perhaps the only thing a person could do to lose their "eternal beauty," so to speak, as aging no longer exists. In a society that indulges and indulges massively (and who, somehow, seems to live in a post food-scarcity world) they absolutely should be binge eating! Yet they have the feelies and perfume fountains and every other form of stimulant for all sorts of senses and largely ignore food. It's strange!
Mustapha Mond is such a curious character because you're right, he's essentially a narrative tool almost outside of the actual happenings of the novel and only popping in briefly for philosophical ponders about a perfect society that's almost out of place (and yet, I find I was quite enthralled about how blatant the book was in debating its own philosophical standing). And yes! When I first read this comparison I had to think about it more because it's such an apt description!
Maruki's reality inherently is one without substance, whether it's grief or pain or the act of learning itself that gives the rest of life greater meaning is up to debate, but the result is one that is intrinsically devoid of meaning. Meaning implies there is something to be lost, that consequences exist, and all that implies there is the risk of hurt or pain. And that goes against the perfect, ideal reality (how fascinating would it be to have Mond and Maruki meet?).
Something I wonder is whether he still deals/struggles with his own conditioning, for isn't it the conditioning itself that makes them all so adamantly believe that their societal structure is a perfect one? Is it not conditioning that would drive a person that otherwise could make his own decisions to dedicate himself fully to maintaining the status quo? Is there so little protection to pain that even the act of self-consciousness itself is too painful for him to want others to be exposed to it? Does he do it for control, or out of care? Unlike Maruki, who forced his will on an unwilling society, Mond has a society already waiting for him to control. One that's eager for it even! For Maruki whose been exposed to the suffering and pain of others and knows it himself, does that make his actions to seek a perfect world more justifiable than Mond's, who does so to uphold a false status quo? Does Mond purposefully deny himself the things that would bring him happiness now that he's conscious just so he can justify to himself that an unconscious, unaware life is a better one?
It makes me wish that we got to see even a glimpse of Iceland and how their society functions.
Yes! Something really interesting about Brave New World is that it is sci-fi from a time period where so many things that we treat as expected knowledge now (such as environmental impact, even genetics and cloning, a more expansive view of psychology, or even more diverse thoughts on philosophy) were either unavailable to the author or after the book's time. The way that they say they removed flies and mosquitoes (and presumably any insect that can either bite or be a pest in any way) reminds me of how England purposefully drove various apex animals and predators of the ecosystem to extinction (a little link if you're curious). Wolves, bears, lynx; the ecosystem is deeply damaged and "tamed" there, and having that extend to unwanted insects is the next logical conclusion. No care was ever put into the impact, though you're very right about insects specifically!
From what I understand China once tried doing something similar (curiously happening decades after the book was published (another little link)) under "the Four Pests campaign". Rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows (later replaced with bedbugs as one of the four pests) were the target. Out of the four it was sparrows that got the burnt of the eradication attempts, or at the very least it's the most recorded as far as I know. The ecological imbalance from the decimated sparrow population lead to a huge spike in locusts and general surge in insect activity. All of which is to back up your point here! (<- me playing in the hypothetical sandbox with you)
I do think that their society must have perfected recycling? For it to be as self-contained and independent as it is, recycling must be the norm. New clothes constantly being released means the old clothes have to go somewhere, and if all the clothes are made out of the same material (those that are distinctly based in non-naturally sourced mediums) then recycling would be the best bet? If they can recycle human bodies (mind you there's all sorts of things that can be said about the commodification of bodies and humanity itself and how that plays into the author's fear of growing consumerist attitudes) why not their clothes?
Food is a funny thing in their society because were does it come from? Where does it go? What do they eat? I wonder if, in part, Huxley is equating synthesizing to automation when it comes to food sources? They say at one point they have massive farms for sourcing milk (and beef, presumably), so perhaps those facilities are deeply automated and require little human interaction? With their lack of scientific momentum and complete disregard to growth of any kind (be it personal, societal, knowledge based, etc) whatever they're synthesizing must be a closed loop. For a very out-there thought, maybe they're a cannibalistic society? If they can clone humans in a near indefinite way, they're already in part making something out of nothing, and they do say that if you mess too much with the decanting process the result will be further and further away from a grown human… so maybe they use that process to develop something with as much edible meat as possible?
I wonder how varied their diets actually are…? Even if they were farming everything they'd either need to practice very land-friendly farming techniques or constantly be enriching their soil to produce the crop yields they need to support their large population. Curiously there's no message here about how growth itself is an inherent danger to society, although as you said it's more due to Huxley not thinking about it over any intended message here.
And then money! What purpose does money serve when ultimately there doesn't seem to be any need for it? If everyone has a role and there isn't the same sort of rat race to be hired as we have now (truly money is a way to control people, for if money becomes the one thing saving you from starvation, homelessness, and all sorts of issues, then who wouldn't want more money?), what does it do? Their economy is a closed loop, there are no entrepreneurs because there is neither the motivation or the need, and being one would be stressful and that's antithetical to their societal structure. If money controlled access to materialistic goods and all people are designed to be driven to consume more and more materialistic goods, what good would come of limiting money? It's not given much detail, but if I'm remembering correctly there's a conversation between Lenina and Fanny that describes them living in dorms or in a communal-like structure, so housing wouldn't mean much at all. I wonder then if money is more a way of limiting how much one can consume? If clothing is to be consumed rapidly then it would be affordable, with indulgences that are difficult for the World Controllers to constantly provide being more expensive only to discourage people from using it too much? Much to think about, although I too am no economist
Considering the worship of Ford I'd imagine that there's at least one world controller in the united states, and the beginning of the book talks about "tropical centres" that are also pursuing the "bokanovsky" process (with a side of racism). Singapore and Mombasa are two mentioned on page 6, though there may be more mentioned? I think it can be assumed that there's a world controller for Africa (considering how readily many view all of Africa as one place rather than made of dozens of countries), east Asia, east Europe, the USA, as well as the stated World Controller of western Europe? Regardless, I think it's fair to say that wherever there was a strong society at the time of the book's writing there'd be a world controller at that location? If the "bokanovsky" process was a massive tool used for the world controllers to colonize locations, there's the implication that any society pursuing "bokanovskying" is either under the control of a World Leader or partnered with their system. There's a strong likelihood of there being societies completely unaware of their "perfect" civilization, and that raises an interesting picture. Huxley proposes that there's either the option of avoiding all modernization of society and living in strife or living in a perfect society where everything is automated, but what of one somewhere on an axis of the two?
I very much agree with this point and what you're saying. Ultimately everything in their society exists simply to exist and nothing more. There's no point, there's no goal, there's no meaning for the future or the past or even the present. Nothing is given the chance to even have purpose. Even the world controllers, people that would be expected in another book perhaps to be living with untold riches and spoils while everyone else works for their gain, aren't happen. They're stagnant and work to keep society within a perfect bubble where there's nothing to lose and nothing to gain. If it were possible their society could transition to one where there are no controllers, no people involved in the decanting, all automation and nothing more (and I'd imagine Huxley could have imagined such if he was exposed to more than just the earlier stages of automation). It's curious on whether we can even call the people of their society humans, if even the world controllers are Alphas that means they also went through some levels of manipulation in decanting, how similar to us do they think?
It reminds me of a sentiment I read somewhere, "intelligence is a currency (in a world where knowledge is controlled)". Intelligence is afforded to only those that require any level of thought, while we don't actually get to see much of the lives of Gamma, Delta, or Epsilons, it's implied that they work and indulge and take soma in much the same way the Alphas and Betas do. Mindlessly following their conditioning, only through the decanting process they're purposefully manipulated to have even less natural inclination towards wanting anything other than what they have, let alone "becoming conscious". If Alphas can rarely escape it, with Bernard being an example of how deep the conditioning runs, then how much intellect is there left? It takes "ignorance is bliss" to the utmost extreme. Incurious, unknowing, uncaring, mindless; their society thrives off purposeful ignorance. They don't need to know and don't want to know, curiousity itself is a plague to such a society (aka I very much agree with your point because how on earth can people be content with being so incurious? How can they not want to learn? Why not? What good comes from ignoring every opportunity to learn more?)
This turned out long but I very much enjoyed reading your thoughts and opinions on the book (and couldn't help but respond, how rare it is to really dig into discussions over a book like this)! Lots of great points and things to ponder here, and if you want to say more on how Brave New World treats religion and hypnopaedia and racism and eugenics, then please feel more than free to do so! I would enjoy reading it because there's truly is so much to say about all of those topics!
