Name: Le meilleur des mondes
Rating: 3.886606189967983 (1874 reviews)

Aldous Huxley

Le meilleur des mondes

Aldous Huxley’s most enduring masterpiece, Brave New World, presents a darkly satiric vision of a “utopian” future that has both captivated and shocked readers for generations In the far future, the utopian World State seems like the ideal society—through the use of genetic engineering, the human race has been perfected, and all citizens are well provided for. There is no violence, babies are created in laboratories, and everyone consumes daily medication to fight depression and spends their time constantly seeking bodily pleasure through “Feelies”—movies that stimulate sight, hearing and touch. Humans are bred to be completely content with their assigned roles in society. However, not everyone is satisfied with the system. In the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, Bernard Max is unhappy, feeling that something is missing from his life. Shunning the shallow pleasures of promiscuity and mindless entertainment, Bernard longs to break free. It is with this goal in mind that he plans a visit to a Savage Reservation, where the past way of life is preserved. But his visit there will prompt dangerous questions and ignite a series of events with far-reaching consequences. Originally published in 1932, Brave New World presents a chilling imagining of a future in which humans are genetically designed and constantly drugged to be happy citizens who passively serve the ruling order. In his almost prophetic work of speculative fiction, Aldous Huxley predicted much of our current technology and social practices. His powerful novel is still as relevant as ever, both as a cautionary tale of the dangers of technology and as a provocative yet entertaining read.

Brave New World

While this is a good dystopian novel, I couldn't get past the racist packaging.

debra reads

This book starts off as a dystopian novel highlighting seggregatoin racism and lack of emotions...end ends up ditching the dystopia into something nonsensical. I couldn't relate to half of the ideas brought up by the author and it all felt dystopian just for the heck of it: just make any ideology and expect the writer to follow it. No elaboration, no depth, nothing. Just some stupid rules without any crux. This lasts for the first one third and later it just ends up into a big mess, which is truly undesirable to the reader. The characters are bad, the chemistry is awful, the plot goes for a toss, and in the end there is alot of preaching in the name of conclusion. 

This book has only taught me one thing: how not to write a dystopian novel. 

Aarush Arora

This book starts off as a dystopian novel highlighting seggregatoin racism and lack of emotions...end ends up ditching the dystopia into something nonsensical. I couldn't relate to half of the ideas brought up by the author and it all felt dystopian just for the heck of it: just make any ideology and expect the writer to follow it. No elaboration, no depth, nothing. Just some stupid rules without any crux. This lasts for the first one third and later it just ends up into a big mess, which is truly undesirable to the reader. The characters are bad, the chemistry is awful, the plot goes for a toss, and in the end there is alot of preaching in the name of conclusion. 
This book has only taught me one thing: how not to write a dystopian novel. 

Huxley's classic prophetic novel describes the socialized horrors of a futuristic utopia devoid of individual freedom

Hugo

One of those books that you read and find matches with the current times, no matter when you read it. I can’t imagine the author being alive and comparing his predictions/theories against our lives in this century 🤓

Tim Pendry

Regarded as a classic of 'serious' science fiction, Huxley's 1932 novel of an alternative future is a didactic, sometimes satirically funny, British elite polemic that grossly simplifies the issues it deals with in order to make its impact. What that impact was intended to be may have been misunderstood. Like Orwell's '1984' and 'Animal Farm', it is speaking to the converted or rather it is articulating the barely spoken fears of an educated liberal upper middle class about their relevance in a world of rapid technological and political change in which their only potency lies in 'writing' and 'reading'. We are now going through another phase of intellectual anxiety amongst the entitled 'educated' scribbling subalterns below those who rule us where the issue has become the cognitive revolution promised by AI and the fear is of populism and the voice of the people rather than communism. In Huxley's case, the evident target is not so much any particular ideology but the general ideological trend towards seeing technology alone as the means of bettering society. It is, in short, another strike, much like E. M. Forster's, at the presumption of that petit-bourgeois Mr. Wells. The book certainly has merits. It is often witty in its war on the progressives, Huxley has a novelist's eye that mitigates the tendency to stereotype and the Huxley family tradition of innovation in the biological sciences is put to good use ... the early chapters are 'hard science fiction'. But we are left not only with social stereotypes (albeit that the 'hard science' enables him to fix these as 'truths' in his progressive dystopia) but with ideological stereotypes - the ultimate 'pursuit of happiness' commercial culture, the brutish savagery of his Indian culture and the 'Savage'. These are as extreme and simplistic in their expression as the totalitarian nightmare in '1984' and the simple fable told in 'Animal Farm'. They are not possible real states of social being (even the New Mexico Indian polar opposite to England) but symbolic states to be argued over didactically. In fact, the 'free' New Mexico alternative to the England of happy totalitarian class structures is not presented as better. It has its communal horrors as well as a needless level of human suffering and obscurantism. But what does Huxley offer against both? Very little in the event. His 'hero', the Savage, is actually just an Englishman raised in the savage society instead of the public school system. He takes all his thoughts from Shakespeare, quite literally since quotations from the bard take up rather a large part of his conversation. Is this man free in his rebellion? The Savage turns out to be a disturbed masochist type who belongs to neither world and who descends into the quasi-madness of sexual disgust, barely concealed misogyny and a belief in redemption through suffering. He certainly gets his comeuppance eventually. So where does the story leave us, with none of the worlds on offer - brutish and communal, technologically 'perfect' but soulless or as semi-deranged quasi-religious negative ecstasy - presenting a solution. In the event, Huxley proves himself a cynic. It seems that the very top of the happy tree in the perfect guided society is not run by sinister murderous men with secret police on hand (the police handle riots with consummate skill and kindness) but by calculating cynics who know precisely what is true and what is not true. The rationalising super-elite know all about God, art, literature, science and what-not but this is regarded as pornography locked away like heresy in the Vatican Library. Naturally they can access it but they have reasoned its value (rather articulately in fact) out of existence. If 'alphas' emerge who question things or want to write poetry or think, the solution to the problem is simple - not drugs, not prison camps, not the barbarity Orwell was to concentrate on but exile to islands where they can be non-conformist without disrupting the totality. There is thus an ambiguity in Huxley's messaging. While his audience of literary types in London is picking up one thing (the terror of technology at the service of mass society), he seems to be saying that, wrong as it all is, there is a home for intellectuals outside the social. Alphas can rebel safely. The Platonic Guardians can thus go on doing their relatively benign guarding. It has to be said that the actuality of life in the new world order does not seem quite so bad once we get past the problems of behavioural science dictating our will and bio-engineering defining our capacity. If you look at today's society, an awful lot of our fellow humans behave as if they had already been engineered into social conformity while evolution has certainly had something to say about our capacity and nature. In Huxley's brave new world, technocrats simply take over from nature. However, it seems (in Huxley's mind) that some Alphas can rise above both behaviouralism and bio-engineering and, if they do, in this story, they get rewarded for their rebellion but in ways that ensure there can be no change to the system. Hmmmm! Bet a lot of intellectuals would not mind that! Huxley, born of the elite, a critic of the society over which elites rule, ends up positioning matters in a wholly elite manner. The 'hero' might be thought to be John 'the Savage' in his rebellion but, in reality, with hapless Bernard as foil, it turns out to be the creative individual Helmholtz. Well, isn't that interesting? The novel turns out to be an exercise in covert narcissism given that Aldous Huxley is also an elite individual, an Alpha, trained in the nest schools and honoured, like Helmholtz for his literary creativity. Helmholtz not Savage is the key here. So, we have a paradox that a tale that is ostensibly a tale told against, if not fascism, then totalitarian society (and so the species as 'hive') ends up rejecting all alternatives as futile (New Mexico) or self-destructive (individual self-assertion) to promote a form of Voltairean 'garden cultivation'. The Savage might seem to be the epitome of culture with his constant appeal to a good book (Shakespeare standing in for the Bible) but he is a dead end of self-destructive fanaticism and sexual negativity. It is hard not to see him as a satire on Christianity itself. A note is necessary here on the role of sex in the novel used both as the clinical process of breeding all the different grades of human necessary to maintain the human 'hive' but also, with disease and child-bearing eliminated, as pleasure in the pursuit of happiness. In some ways, the 'free love' approach of the new society is not entirely unattractive. It is certainly more attractive than the brutish possessive sexuality of our normality (in New Mexico) or the Savage's deranged fear of open sexuality in favour of an extreme 'normal' monomaniacal ideal. But Huxley (who curiously does not pursue the matter to any serious conclusion) does (in the idea of islands for non-conformists) open the possibility (though never stating it) for some sort of 'love' (emotional engagement with all its pains) in such sanctuaries. Huxley's approach (which fits with his later shift to mysticism and grumpy partial isolation in the desert) is that of a man beginning already to withdraw from society, from the English hive, because of a realisation of his own impotence in the face of it and yet his own unspoken superiority. Although the book is a satirical view of humanity that has been interpreted as some kind of warning about society (there is something of that), it might be better seen as a frustrated intellectual's attempt to convey something of his own path from social butterfly (in his novels) to thinking individual. From this point on, it seems that he lives in two worlds - outside the social in his natural pride and belief in his own righteousness and yet unwilling to cease to intervene in that world as that notoriously parasitical creature, the 'public intellectual'. A quarter of a century later, in his mid-sixties, Huxley wrote 'Brave New World Revisited (1958) [reviewed by me elsewhere here] which was a turgid example of the public intellectual ranting to his captive audience. That book was lurking under the surface of this more entertaining one.

Dani

 “But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” 

Bit dry and difficult to read like Orwell's 1984 - but glad I read it. For a book written in the 30s, it touches upon some themes that exist today. 

Cassandra Tang

Aldous Huxley's profoundly important classic of world literature, Brave New World is a searching vision of an unequal, technologically-advanced future where humans are genetically bred, socially indoctrinated, and pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively uphold an authoritarian ruling order–all at the cost of our freedom, full humanity, and perhaps also our souls. “A genius [who] who spent his life decrying the onward march of the Machine” (The New Yorker), Huxley was a man of incomparable talents: equally an artist, a spiritual seeker, and one of history’s keenest observers of human nature and civilization. Brave New World, his masterpiece, has enthralled and terrified millions of readers, and retains its urgent relevance to this day as both a warning to be heeded as we head into tomorrow and as thought-provoking, satisfying work of literature. Written in the shadow of the rise of fascism during the 1930s, Brave New Worldd likewise speaks to a 21st-century world dominated by mass-entertainment, technology, medicine and pharmaceuticals, the arts of persuasion, and the hidden influence of elites.

"Aldous Huxley is the greatest 20th century writer in English." —Chicago Tribune

I wouldn't exactly say that I enjoyed reading this, but I can definitely understand its merits. I was really surprised by how timeless it felt and how many relatively modern concepts made it into a book from 1932.

Sivani

This was honestly a but of an uncomfortable read. I enjoyed it, but the entire concept of ‘mass production applied to biology’ throws me the fuck off from the start. Most warnings Huxley gives are still SO relevant today.

I read 1984 first, which was obviously written later, and although the themes are different, the message is the same: don’t take anything for truth because the once in charge tell you so- overall, the next time you think ‘the government wouldn’t do that’, oh yes they fucking would. 

The names were clever, the book includes some fire quotes and in most aspects there was great world building. I thought it was interesting how Huxley explored the perspective of multiple of the characters. Alongside that, the ending was strangely disappointing. All in all a great read, would recommend if you’re starting to get into the historic dystopian/ science fiction scene.

Indi

This was honestly a but of an uncomfortable read. I enjoyed it, but the entire concept of ‘mass production applied to biology’ throws me the fuck off from the start. Most warnings Huxley gives are still SO relevant today.

I read 1984 first, which was obviously written later, and although the themes are different, the message is the same: don’t take anything for truth because the once in charge tell you so- overall, the next time you think ‘the government wouldn’t do that’, oh yes they fucking would. 

The names were clever, the book includes some fire quotes and in most aspects there was great world building. I thought it was interesting how Huxley explored the perspective of multiple of the characters. Alongside that, the ending was strangely disappointing. All in all a great read, would recommend if you’re starting to get into the historic dystopian/ science fiction scene.

Terrifyingly accurate. Was slightly disappointed by the ending.

Jesper Nellemann Jakobsen

Terrifyingly accurate. Was slightly disappointed by the ending.

Michael York is an exceptional narrator.

Gwenifer

Kind of glad I reread this, but definitely disappointed with it.

This and "1984" are the big dystopia books, I've heard it said that "Brave New World" is the more realistic one and I guess I'd agree. Admittedly, Mustapha Mond really does make it seem like a paradise, even if it just makes everybody dumb cattle. You're just popping pills and having sex all the time, interrupted only to play some sports or fly helicopters. The prayer meetings are weird, but worth it. Sign me up, dude.

Mustapha Mond is probably the most interesting character, actually, and he doesn't really get enough time in the story. In fact, I'd say just about everything about "Brave New World" feels like half a story in varying ways depending on the aspect. Mustapha, for instance: the guy's very interesting and we barely see him. Despite his lengthy dialogue with The Savage which acts as a both pretty well-written and ham-fisted exposition dump, I wish I saw more. The Savage? He has potential to be interesting, but he goes from philosopher to madman in like three pages. The world, the government, "Society"? There are some writings on it but nothing much happens there, instead we focus on characters like Bernard who are just horrible. Intentionally, fine, but the guy is intolerable. Helmholtz gets the spotlight on him for a brief instant as it passes from Bernard to The Savage, the guy is basically pointless to the story (which seems like a shame). Lenina only exists to make The Savage have a cringe-inducing meltdown, one that wrecks his character's point.

I don't know, outside of a few funny moments and I suppose a pleasant nightmare for how society could be shaped to be "idyllic", this was a slog for me. I don't see myself ever picking this up again. I didn't care for it in middle school but I was just a child, right? No, apparently I was painfully precocious. Not really, this book is just sort of undeserving of its praise.

Evan

Kind of glad I reread this, but definitely disappointed with it.

This and "1984" are the big dystopia books, I've heard it said that "Brave New World" is the more realistic one and I guess I'd agree. Admittedly, Mustapha Mond really does make it seem like a paradise, even if it just makes everybody dumb cattle. You're just popping pills and having sex all the time, interrupted only to play some sports or fly helicopters. The prayer meetings are weird, but worth it. Sign me up, dude.
Mustapha Mond is probably the most interesting character, actually, and he doesn't really get enough time in the story. In fact, I'd say just about everything about "Brave New World" feels like half a story in varying ways depending on the aspect. Mustapha, for instance: the guy's very interesting and we barely see him. Despite his lengthy dialogue with The Savage which acts as a both pretty well-written and ham-fisted exposition dump, I wish I saw more. The Savage? He has potential to be interesting, but he goes from philosopher to madman in like three pages. The world, the government, "Society"? There are some writings on it but nothing much happens there, instead we focus on characters like Bernard who are just horrible. Intentionally, fine, but the guy is intolerable. Helmholtz gets the spotlight on him for a brief instant as it passes from Bernard to The Savage, the guy is basically pointless to the story (which seems like a shame). Lenina only exists to make The Savage have a cringe-inducing meltdown, one that wrecks his character's point.

I don't know, outside of a few funny moments and I suppose a pleasant nightmare for how society could be shaped to be "idyllic", this was a slog for me. I don't see myself ever picking this up again. I didn't care for it in middle school but I was just a child, right? No, apparently I was painfully precocious. Not really, this book is just sort of undeserving of its praise.

I do not recommend "Brave New World".

Diction and themes feel like it could be written today. 

Shohini Gupta

  Celebrul roman Minunata lume noua porneste de la ideea unei societati distopice care, pentru a‑si controla cetatenii, recurge la orice subterfugiu: de la transformarea rasei umane si manipularea ei genetica, pina la mascarea minciunii in adevar absolut. Rezultatul este o combinatie de realitati orwelliene si scene din cel mai pur SF, in care cartile sint arse si singura cultura acceptata sint preceptele unui conducator megaloman, in care aparitia unei editii de Opere complete de William Shakespeare poate duce la rasturnarea unui regim absurd, in care oamenii sint conceputi in imense incuba­toare, iar cei neatinsi inca de morbul acestei „civilizatii“ sint izolati in rezervatii.

Minunata lume nouă

Alexandra 

I-am dat 4 stele, deși am ținut cont de faptul că e scrisă în anii 30, altfel i-as fi dat mai puțin. A fost usor de citit și m-a prins din primele pagini, dar nu m-am atașat de niciun personaj, “mesajul” nu m-a impresionat deloc, iar personajele și povestea în sine au fost lipsite de complexitatea la care mă așteptam. Lumea distopică descrisă a fost destul de interesantă. 
 Nu o să o recitesc niciodată, dar poate o să o recomand cuiva cândva.

Patrick Book

Aldous Huxley's profoundly important classic of world literature, Brave New World is a searching vision of an unequal, technologically-advanced future where humans are genetically bred, socially indoctrinated, and pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively uphold an authoritarian ruling order—all at the cost of our freedom, full humanity, and perhaps also our souls. “A genius [who] who spent his life decrying the onward march of the Machine” (The New Yorker), Huxley was a man of incomparable talents: equally an artist, a spiritual seeker, and one of history’s keenest observers of human nature and civilization. 

Brave New World, his masterpiece, has enthralled and terrified millions of readers, and retains its urgent relevance to this day as both a warning to be heeded as we head into tomorrow and as a thought-provoking, satisfying work of literature. Written in the shadow of the rise of fascism during the 1930s, Brave New World likewise speaks to a 21st-century world dominated by mass-entertainment, technology, medicine and pharmaceuticals, the arts of persuasion, and the hidden influence of elites. 

Vince Hilahan

brave new world revisited included after the book reeled back in all my interest after reading it 

W copy tbh

lala

Finished this book last month but haven’t gotten around the chance to write the review. For a book from the 1930s it explores topic that are still relevant to this day. Reading this reminds me of Divergent or Hunger Games where people are split into different categories depending on their strong suits. I’d like to say that this is the Ur-dystopian social science fiction novel. What’s more interesting for me is the use of genetic engineering to guarantee that everyone in the society has a function that benefits the other; they are then conditioned to never regret their positions in society. Except for Bernard Marx, who find life within the stability in the society boring. He refuse to take the recreational drug, soma, which can make all your troubles go away in a soma vacation. We then see how his story unfolds. The peak of the novel is where Marx brings two savages or people who are not conditioned to the society from the Savage Reservation. Overall i think it was a pretty interesting read, but not one that I particularly enjoy very much. I think the message the book is trying to say is too on-the-nose. But if you like dystopian novels maybe this is your cup of tea.

Le meilleur des mondes

Reviews

Highlights