In this thread, we discuss the themes of the two books and also compare and contrast the two. I've read both books twice.

Personally, I prefer 1984 as the better read; whereas Brave New World is far more deep and thought provoking. I found that my first read through 1984 was very basic. I truly didn't grasp anything except that: Thought Police=bad, it would suck, and the ending was the scariest thing that I had ever read. However, the second time through 1984, I really looked for the theme of doublespeak. O'Brien (i think) really exemplified this. O'Brien knows the truth about the Party, realizes its evil, and even hates it; at the same time, he can truly believe in all the Party's dogma, being nothing more than a simple slave to the endless slogans and rallies and blind loyalty.

Brave New World, on the other hand, was more focused on freedom (at least in my mind). The idea that freedom isn't always a path to happiness seemed to be a big theme. The "New World" citizens were happy in a physical, aesthetic sense, but they were never truly happy with themselves. I saw the mental unhappiness of the materialistic "New Worlders" to be a warning towards an increasingly consumerist world. The people are free to do whatever they want, except think. There are no social limitations or taboos, except those that truly matter. They have absolutey no say in what they even want to do. The fact that they are all engineered to be the same could be an indication that social conformity is as unnatural as genetic engineering. The Savage is one of my favorite characters in any book. To me, he represents the select few who see the world as something more than just a playground. The Savage finds meaning in religion, which is important for the reason that it brings into play the fact that there is something larger and more important than his life, something that the "civilized" people can't even begin to comprehend. Soma was another thing that I found interesting, but I have yet to find any real themes in it other than the citizens taking it to simply feel happy, and not have to think.

The society of Brave New World seemed great.

All the sex and it actually looked down upon to be with one partner, atleast at a younger age, does sound appealing. The near constant high didn't sound too bad either. Although even the b's, and a's jobs didn't seem particularily thought provoking.

I still enjoyed 1984 more than Brave New World though. Partially because I love that ending almost as much as any other, if not more so. It also seemed more "endless cycle" and hopeless for change because Big Brother was just more all encompassing. The way that history was altered and the wars were dealt with was also enjoyable for their easy comparison to, well everything.

Yeah, it seems great. Constant sex and constant high.

But its not freedom at all.

Quite to the contrary, if you dont' constantly fulfill the societal norms (and this is where both books unite) you'll be shipped off or executed, or assimilated. The focal point of both books is the lack of choice and destruction of the individual mind. The societies of both worlds are dumb, helpless masses that believe anything told to them and will follow that to the death. Brave New World scared me even more than 1984. 1984 was harsh, but something within me wouldn't accept it as somethign that would happen for long. I thought that eventually someone would rise up against them, though it wouldn't happen. But you can't rebel against your own mind, and in Brave New World, the masses don't have their own minds. All of the dogmatic repitition of slogans just reminds me of zombie movies, and also, life now. I can see all of the preps I know in Brave New World, with all of their knee-jerk dogmatism and conditioned responses. Huxley perfected duckspeak far more than Orwell's Party ever could.

Also, I think OP's interpertation of O'Brien was a bit flawed. O'Brien isnt' anyone's slave, he's Inner Party, he's top of the heap. We know that he's involved with miniluv AND minitruth and he's written the Book, which implies to me he's part of the inner sanctum of the Party. He's not a slave in any sense, except that he's a "slave" to big brother (and its conceivable that to the extent that one person is anyone in Oceania, O'Brien could be Big Brother).

Soma is an interesting thing as well. I think its kinda ironic, because soma to me looks exactly like religion. Also, in the religion in Brave New World revolves around temple prostitution and drug use, almost mocking of conventional religion but being far more effective (or maybe equally effective) in the meantime.

But basically, the two books are the same society. In one, the government rules by oppressing all outlets of personal energy save the government and makes everyone a fanatic nationalist, in the other, the government forces everyone to expel all of their energy by any means neccessary to keep up the economy and to keep the people down.

where does it say that O'Brien wrote the book? However, I still believe that O'Brien personifies doublespeak.

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. Practically every person in the world is required to read one or both of these books in school at some point.

I would think people are tired of talking about them by now.

__________________
"Women and rhythm section first!" - sambob@gmail.com

I thought it was really interesting in BNW the way at the end, the pariahs like Bernard get sent to happy, nice islands, rather than killed or reprogrammed like in 1984.

By the way, does anyone know what "pneumatic" meant in BNW? I assumed it meant good at sex or something, but I couldn't tell.

Yeah, those who dont' conform are shipped off. I suppose that means that in a sense the government is more merciful, but remember, they also believe that they're Controlling for the benefit of the people. Orwell teaches us otherwise.

Pnuematic pretty much means good at sex.

Look through the interrogation, he mentions he was on the commitee for it. O'Brien seems to me to personify power, not doublethink. O'Brien is above doublethink, because doublethink implies the existance of another point of view. O'Brien, as the manifestation of the Party, has no other point of view.

And to the mod that posted, we're discussing this because they're great books. I've read both of them again and again and I doubt I'll ever get tired of either of them. Most other people here probably feel somewhat the same way. If you don't want to contribute, then dont clutter the thread.

ahh yes, but O'Brien (at least the way I saw it) was able to believe in both ways of thinking. At first, he sees the Party for what it is, its evil, and its lies. Later, however, he also shows his complete belief in the Party's dogma. Hence doublethink. He knows the Party's evil truth, but is able to believe in its good wholeheartedly.

I thought 1984 was pretty pathetic - that it said something as a fact that simply isn't one.