The paper compares the societies presented in B. F. Skinner’s Walden Two and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. It highlights that, if the criterion of authorial intent, used widely in utopian and dystopian criticism, is applied, Skinner’s novel is utopian while Huxley’s is dystopian, despite significant similarities in the assumptions about human nature that the two societies seem to make. Using the controversies surrounding Walden Two as an example, the paper discusses the relevance of traditionally understood authorial intent for utopian and dystopian literary studies. A different, “three-dimensional” model, is then presented, in which authorial intent, reader reception and an individual critic’s reaction are all considered. It is argued that in the case of controversial works – the number of which may increase in modern times, due to the lack of agreement concerning ethics and values – such a tripartite assessment may be more useful, because it is better at capturing the complexity of a work’s impact.
The article examines four early novels by Aldous Huxley – Crome Yellow, Antic Hay, Those Barren Leaves and Point Counter Point – in connection to each other and to Huxley’s essays, in terms of an overarching theme of a cycle of pain, and thereby connects the novels to Brave New World. In the course of the analysis, the methodological problems of approaching the novels as ‘‘novels of ideas” are discussed, focusing on the problem of reducing characters to type, which makes it more difficult for readers to notice the way Huxley constructs individual characters and the arguments he wishes to explore with them. Finally, implications of the existence of this overarching theme for reading strategies are discussed.
The paper examines the relevance of Aldous Huxley’s widely known comfortable dystopia, depicted in the novel Brave New World – along with some additional material drawn from his other, earlier writings – by comparing it to two relatively recent books from the social sciences: Zygmunt Bauman’s Globalization: The Human Consequences (1998) and Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s Tyranny of the Moment (2001). It then analyzes the differences and similarities between the ideas espoused in the three books and enquires what they might bring to the general debate about our condition, focusing specifically on the problems of our (in)ability to correctly describe and predict the relationships between the present, the past and the future, and on the function and relevance of meta-narratives.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.