Talk:Brave New World

Dystopia, or Utopia

I know this is a terrible thing to say, but isn't this not very much of a dystopia? All they have to do is treat their children and elders better. Their material needs are met, they'd be at peace, there's plenty of soma, sex, sports and TV, their intellects match their careers, and if for whatever reason you dislike it, there's reservations where you can escape. It would have gone over a lot worse in real life, it really would have. Maybe Brave New World is actually a bedroom farce affectionately parodying dystopian fiction.125.212.120.201 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The author himself consider the book a dystopia, expressed concern about the possibility of materialization and latter written a utopia based in the same subjects: Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.92.252 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the writer calls the novel a dystopia, does not necessarily mean it is. The word dystopia has a definition which is independent from huxley's own opinion, and the novel should be categorised by deciding whether it falls into this category or not. For example if I wrote a poem, it would fall into the "poem" category even if I called it a novel. So I actually agree with the first commenter, I think this is a utopia, and the wikipedia article is currently wrong. Salabok (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

its the chosen death like in romeo and julia that makes it a distopia after all, together with his loved one he just would be in love and teach others to be in love by being in love. 85.149.83.125 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

thats how the 1980 BBC miniserie ends, thats TV and not the book, does it differ ?? 85.149.83.125 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Dates?

…Orwell believed that Brave New World must have been partly derived from the novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. However, in a 1962 letter, Huxley says that he wrote Brave New World long before he had heard of We… Orwell believed that Huxley was lying.

Orwell was long dead by 1962. Valetude (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Huxley died in 1963, on the same day as JFK. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

and wasn't Nineteen Eighty-Four published in 1949? (See anonymous edit of this day altering the date of publication from 1949 to 1984) Nick_cool (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

History: believed appropriated from Haldane

The article states 'The scientific futurism in Brave New World is believed to be appropriated from Daedalus by J. B. S. Haldane'.

Who is it that believes this? And should the article have a brief description of their reasons for so believing?

Guyal of Sfere (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Grahambell

In this Wikipedia article the DHC is given a last name (Grahambell) which I couldn't find in my book. Does that last name appear in any Brave New World edition? Moangu3 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

13951399 130.255.236.252 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Moangu3: I believe you may be correct. Grahambell appears to have been invented for the film but does not appear in the book. I will do some more digging. MarcGarver (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It was added here diff with no edit summary or reference. I have removed it. MarcGarver (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Fifi Bradlaugh" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fifi Bradlaugh has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Fifi Bradlaugh until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Germline genome editing

I've just worked around a broken link to Germline_genome_editing, a page that has been deleted. I don't see the reasoning behind the deletion, since potentially the topic is of interest, but I'll leave it to somebody more experienced in Wikipedia politics to do the right thing. Groogle (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Common Misunderstandings

The current section on "Common Misunderstandings" seems to be, in my view, sort of biased and unnecessary. The entire section consists of the opinions of one geneticist about how human genetic enhancement is fine and good and Huxley's dystopia actually condones it. We can disagree on the validity of the reading So (the aforementioned geneticist "debunking" the interpretation of the novel) puts forward, that there is no genetic enhancement in Brave New World (I would argue there is, the "Alphas" are all explicitly described as especially tall, muscular, and intelligent, the Betas are described as relatively normal people, etc), but it seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia article on the book. It undermines the neutrality of the article and makes it look like part of the article was written by someone who is especially interested in promoting human genetic enhancement.

In my view, this seems to be a counterargument to an interpretation of the novel which has not been given any place in the article. At best, there should be a section entitled something like "Interpretation," in which some common interpretations and criticisms of them would be discussed, much like the Interpretation section for The Metamorphosis. Cahmad25 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)