Satisfaction In Brave New World

Likewise, dissatisfaction regarding government ruling is a prominent theme in Brave New World; specifically expressed by Bernard Marx and Helmholtz Watson, while less so by John the Savage and Lenina Crowe. Bernard is considered compliant, as he insists there is no freedom - conflicting against Huxley’s utopian world. Bernard’s idea of freedom is to be an individual apart from society, in his own way “not in everybody else’s way” (6.1.79). This dissatisfied comment presents an anomaly in a seemingly ‘ideal’ society - a utopia - straying Bernard from the ‘norm’ and therefore actively rebelling. The use of the pronoun ‘everybody’ separates Bernard from his fellow citizens, suggesting he is much more complex and unsatisfied, thus is erect. Yevgeny

Zamyatin, a Russian Author significant for his similar works of political fiction and satire to Huxley and Orwell, insisted that Brave New World “shows less political awareness and is more influenced by recent biological and psychological theories.” Again, although a valid point, it is yet another that I disagree with due to the fact that Brave New World is as much a satirical pedagogy as 1984. Littered with queer illustration, the novel presents customs that are sparse and disparaged in today’s society – such as the glorification of sex, encouragement of polygamy and promotion of drugs. The detachment from such activities (form of rebellion) is what aligns the views of pivotal characters to those of ‘traditional’ audience members; whilst the endorsement of such escapism appeals to many ‘modern-day’ audience members. The notion that Brave New World has “fresh significance” nonetheless is significantly relevant with the rise of polygamous relations and substance use. Brave New World also utilises omniscient narrative, except this technique allows Huxley to delineate the thoughts of multiple characters, whilst Orwell’s ‘limited’ use solely portrays Winston’s thought process. Providing multiple perspectives from within the degenerate society and allowing readers to not only experience a ‘softer form of totalitarianism’ through the viewpoint of different ‘caste’ members, but also from the position of a male and female is how Huxley successfully utilises this narrative method.

Though Bernard and Helmholtz are similar due to the fact they both yearn for ‘more’, a distinction can be determined between the root of their desires.

Bernard’s emotional dissatisfaction depicted through his longing “to feel something strongly” (6.1.81), separates him from Helmholtz dissatisfaction which “stems from cerebral boundaries” . The use of sibilance, places focus on the strength of Bernard's desire to experience empathy, causing readers to feel increasingly sympathetic towards him. The presence of ‘strongly’ also evokes It can be presumed that the restrictions in terms of freedom, individuality and love posed in Brave New World could be anecdotal references to Huxley’s own life; as Huxley frequently took psychedelic drugs, explaining ‘Soma’ and the constraint of emotions consuming it resulted in. Bernard does not receive much joy from taking Soma as he would “rather be [him]self” (6.1.77) – an insult to the World State and further affirmation of his deviation from the majority. The line also exposes Soma’s ability to strip an individual of their identity, creating a façade which consumers use to escape from the inevitable oppression. Huxley’s ability to be precise when describing the emotions of characters is what distinguishes his craft from others. Like Bernard, Helmholtz also becomes “aware of his difference from the people who surrounded him” (4.1.58) – the specificity of the thoughts leading up to this revelation successfully exhibits Huxley’s proficiency in controlling displays of emotion and thoughts. Alternatively, in 1984, the destruction of thought/language is implemented by Orwell to control the emotions of Oceania. Newspeak, a controlled language of limited words, additionally restricts freedom as Winston branded “[newspeak] narrow(s) the range of thought” (1.5.23). Both authors provide the opportunity for their characters to rebel, but their attempts are futile as the respective Government bodies continue to abuse the vulnerability of

citizens – eventually causing them to become unsusceptible to the gross misuse of power.