I'm reading a dystopian novel right now, and it's got me thinking of two different sorts of dystopianism; Brave New World dystopianism and 1984 dystopianism.
Both novels are masterpieces, of course. I read Brave New World when I was very young (maybe even pre-teen). Although I've never re-read it, many aspects of it have stuck with me. I didn't read 1984 until my twenties, but I've read it several times since. In purely literary terms, I think it's a much better work-- perhaps even the novel of the century after Lord of the Rings, in my view. And I've seen the Peter Cushing film version (also a classic) at least twice.
1984 is, of course, a self-conscious response to Brave New World, and they could be contrasted in many ways. But right now I'm thinking of a particular contrast: the contrast between a dystopia that works all too well, and is horrifying for that reason, and a dsytopia that doesn't work at all, and is horrifying for that reason.
My contrast could be argued with. You could say, rightly enough, that the dsytopia in 1984 does indeed work; that it works perfectly in the way the Party intends it. I concede that. But still, the Party is lying to its people, while the World State of Brave New World doesn't lie to its people (as far as I can remember). It delivers a degrading happiness and a techno-utopia, while the society of 1984 is decaying in every way, including scientifically.
In other words, it's a society that's gone horribly right, and a society that's gone horribly wrong-- to borrow terms from the website TV Tropes.
Although I prefer 1984 to Brave New World, I've always been braced for a Brave New World dystopia rather than an Orwellian one.
For instance, opponents of the European Union often say that the project is doomed to failure because you can't yoke so many different cultures and economies together. But my fear is that the EU will work, that it will go horribly right; that the free movement of peoples and all the other homogenizing tendencies within the EU will indeed erode the languages, cultures, and customs of the individual nations.
Similarly, my fear with artificial intelligence is that it will achieve all the things its champions predict it will. (Although my fear of this has rather diminished recently, since there seems to be widespread acceptance that it's already plateaud-- for now. My fear of the this long predated the current surge of AI, when I read an article by Alan Turing insisting that machines could become intelligent. He should know, I thought.)
I realize this is a difference of temperament rather than an intellectual one.
As a bit of a postcript, Brave New World was actually my very first encounter with the magic of Shakespeare's language. A few Shakespearean quotations used in it captivated me. I've wondered since whether this is because of their inherent beauty of because they came with Shakespeare's prestige, or both.
The first and most powerful is from King Lear: "The wheel has come full circle; I am here". The drama of that still fires my imagination. (Except I remembered it as "the wheel has turned full circle", and I actually prefer that.)
And then there are these lines, quoted from The Tempest: "Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments will play about my ears, and sometimes voices."
And of course, the line from The Tempest which gives it its title: "Oh brave new world, that has such people in't!".
I've always said The Tempest is my favourite Shakespeare play, although I feel a bit pretentious saying it, since I've never even seen a film version, and I've only read it a few times. It's the atmosphere as much as anything else-- and the idea that has grown up that Prospero is Shakespeare achieving a serenity in his final year, as evoked by Louis MacNeice:
When hardly botheringTo be a dramatist, the Master turned away
To tapestried romances, conjuring
With rainbow names and handfuls of sea-spray
And from then turned out happy ever-afters.
I agree that 1984 is better literature, but that BNW was a better prediction - although I didn't really formulate this for myself, but got it from a book by Neil Postman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death.
ReplyDeleteLovely Shakespearian lines that you selected. It's strange and mysterious that Caliban has the best speeches!
My favourite play of Shakespeare is (boringly obvious, I'm afraid) Hamlet. I have enjoyed several versions (including Olivier's excellent film, and Derek Jacobi, live) but my favourite was the movie starring Nicol Williamson; where they did a superb job of shortening it so as to keep all the best bits and actually enhance the dramatic shape. It's actually one of the best films I've ever seen - just as a film. My second faves are Midsummer Nights Dream and As You Like It.
Bruce G Charlton
Chesterton's favourite play was Midsummer Night's Dream! If it wasn't the Tempest, my own would certainly be Hamlet, too. I haven't seen the Nicol Williamson version. I think I've only seen the Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Brannagh Hamlets, and I liked them both.
DeleteInteresting point about Caliban. I identified with Caliban when I first read the play because I was the kind of teenager who always identifies with underdogs and outsiders. And I still do. Of course the postcolonialists love him.
I remember my father said to me several times: "It's a paradox that Polonius's "Above all this" speech is so full of wisdom, despite Polonius being a fool. I am actually tearing up a little at the memory of my father saying: "This above all, to thine own self be true..."
Thank you for the comment, Bruce.
I think Huxley understood the human soul better than did Orwell. He knew that humans seek happiness and spiritual experience and the only way to control this is to give humans a shadow of this reality. Orwell's world in no way provides enough distraction to keep humans from seeking higher things, but Huxley's does. The fact that the human group that does in fact still have some modicum of real beauty in Huxley's world is treated as backwards exhibits that civilized people go and see as funny is eerily similar to today. Today modern people have a twisted relationship with groups that are trying to live a somewhat traditional life. They either look at them with a twisted interest or create conspiracy theories about what life is like for people in those communities. This is true about the Amish, but also Catholic families who have more than 3 kids. Hard has become the greatest enemy in the modern world and distraction is sought everywhere.
ReplyDeleteVery true. I've long been interested in how our modern consumerist world has a kind of ravening appetite for whatever is still outside it, precisely like the Amish or Mennonites or homeschooling families or whatever else. I've even wondered if the popularity of zombie apocalypse stories is simply because people subconsciously want to escape from our banal society.
DeleteBut what do you mean by "twisted interest"?
I primarily mean interest that seems to treat the Amish or others as showman or inhuman curiosities rather than actual human beings. People often do this with history too, when they seek out sensationalism rather than recognizing the humanity of those from the past.
DeleteHmmm. I see your point, but that's sailing a bit too close to "othering", "orientalism", etc. for my liking! It seems natural for people to take an interest in what is picturesque and exotic to them.
DeleteI may be speaking of a very specific thing I have noticed in America. It is not mere appreciation for other groups but rather a interest in them that is always looking for the bad in those groups. It is like the Mormon channels on YouTube that refuse to acknowledge anything good in their upbringing, but only complain. While I disagree with Mormons, I doubt such a characterization is true, yet the bad side of Mormonism is played up for clicks from people feeling superior to the Mormons.
Delete