City Tech, Fall 2016

Category: Brave New World (Page 1 of 6)

1998 vs 1932 Brave New World

There are vast differences in the 1998 film Brave New World that led me to enjoy it more than the book. The removal of characters, along with the infusion of others led to a different feel and smoother storyline. The plot was also changed to be more about Bernard Marx and lenina, with both changing more dramatically after meeting John vs the book. There is also the presences of a sup plot with Deltas and conditioning that was seen in the book. The Director was more of the main villain this time around and the controller seemed less so. The film brought more life into the story, it was able to make it more believable, and was closer to modern times.

Changes to the book are made instantly at the start of the film with the class tour of the Hatchery being led by lenina vs the Director. The setting is also different from what is described in the book, we do not see the assembly line of surrogates and the process of making new people into all the castes from before birth. Lenina completely replaces the Director with the speech she gives on the past world, how people suffered, how they loved, and the dangers of it. Lenina also stays with her class even when they go to bed and are under hypnopedia. Lenina is kept in view much more than the book and she is with Bernard Marx vs Henry. Henry is another omission that changes the story from one in which Bernard is unhappy and ridiculed to the film version where he is a mix of Bernard, Henry, and Watson. Bernard works in conditioning under the Director and is at odds with him but no to the point shown in the book. Due to the removal of many characters that played supporting roles and as points of comparison the remaining characters had to be altered or the story would fall through.

The deduction of flaws with in Bernard Marx leads to him seeming as part of the community and leads to us not seeing anything wrong with the society because he no longer had different views on it. His flaws made him unique and let him be an individual. However in the film he is socially active, follows the society, and has no issues with it. He has everything he wants, lenina, a job, and friends and has fun. The only thing that is different is that he wants to improve things, to make people happier. He has nothing against the current system, he is a part of it, he wants to make it even better and he is nothing like the book. This is where the film losses base with the book, this one change to Bernard Marx being a part of the machine vs being an outcast. This fundamentally changes the plot, until John is brought in nothing we see is wrong, it is the opposite. The visuals of the good society is everything we see today, it is clean, white, city life, clubs, night life, work and normal. Even the fact that people are supposed to be other people or many people at the same time is down played. Lenina gets scolded by her friend once and she just blows it of saying that it’s only been 6 months. The new suave Bernard Marx says “let them talk, they have nothing to say”, while in a club, which he does not mind taking lenina to. Also he gets another girl in the club and sleeps with her, which the old Bernard could never do. The film never gives of the feeling that there is anything wrong with the world, for there is no who complains about it.

The film also down plays the savages, they all wear clothing and simply act like any teenager or young adult ruffians on the streets. The film seems to focus more on city life then any higher meaning that the book tried to create. The good place is the city and the bad place is streets where all those who do not work or have lives hang around. This film could have been shot completely in New York City, with everything in Manhattan building and parks being the advance society and the savage place being the streets like Harlem or more north of the city. This film focuses on the problem of its time, with people wanting fun, excitement, fads, and entertainment. The big trouble at the time was young people acting out and being different and rebelling and pop culture taking control. The other major concern was brain washing, or people being influenced by all the ads, games, films and the internet. That is why there is the whole sub arc of turning people into mindless killers. The fear that the masses can be swayed into taking actions they do not believe, peer pressure and the media going too far.

Then there is johns death, which is tied to the hounding of the paparazzi, the mass wave of people showing up taking pictures, video, asking questions and pushing him to the edge. The last part was taken literally with John falling off a cliff when blinded and startled by a helicopter. Of the two deaths that John suffered I think this one is slightly better, here he did not choose to die. He was full of passion, rage, sadness, but had hope and before any of it could be settled he fell. This felt better, it more of a direct result of society that he died vs him losing him mind. However this does remove his internal conflict with himself that the last part of the book focused on. The film stripes the meaning out of the book in large part with this as well. The good part is that this is not the end

The sub plot that was mentioned before is much more integrated that we are first led to believe. For the most part it only shows up 5 times with the fact that Deltas are not working, that they are starting to question things. They show how they condition people to try and fix it and later how the Director uses it to try and kill Bernard Marx to hid the truth of his son. The fact that the Director is the father of John and kills his mother and by extension John from sadness. Later this becomes a problem for Bernard Marx when lenina get pregnant and they end up in a simile situation as the Director. But that is not true, seeing as they fix it and make it work in the end.

Perhaps this is why I like the film better, it has a more complete ending and ends on hope. On the other hand it completely changed the story to something else and lost its original meaning. Now this also shows how good the writing and imagination of Aldous Huxley was decades prior to allow this film to be able to twist it. However the controller loses a lot of spirit in the film, he becomes a friend and that creates a tone that does not match the book. In the book he was figure of power and cunning, able to play with fire but keep it to himself. Here he just shows up and makes everything fine for Bernard Marx and John. That is the other flaw here, John. John has an impact on lenina but here it is positive and she becomes a better person, wanting to break free for this world after his loss. However other than that change John did nothing, he did not open anyone else eyes and even the Controller said he was no threat. There banter this time was also lackluster. Over all this film was good and well-made but it lacked a shine that the book had about the world it created, even if it was flawed in many ways. There is a lack of gravity in the film, everything seems like it is under the influence of soma and that the book is simply a fragmented dream that we see tiny pieces of.

Brave New World Film

The many adaptations of Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World has given me the pleasure to be able to not only read the novel but to also watch Brave New World (1980) and Brave New World (1998) film versions. Brave new world (1980) is a three hour film which doubles that of the Brave New World (1998). Brave New World (1980) time allotted allowed for a more thorough depiction of Aldous Huxley’s novel than that of Brave New World (1998). Although Brave New World (1980)deviates a little from the the plot and themes of Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World it proves to be more complimentary to the novel than Brave New World (1998).
Brave New World (1998) is a far cry from Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World because it is saturated by the movie structures of Hollywood. It uses the three character structure through the three act structure eliminating the important roles of Helmholtz Watson and Mustapha Crowne. With Helmholtz absence we lose he theme of isolation and Mustapha’s absence we lose the theme of happiness. John, Lenina, and Bernard serves as the three structure characters. John is the antagonist, Bernard the protagonist, and Lenina the relationship character. The film turns Bernard into the main character who’s goal is to find out how the faults in there system can be managed because he himself knows first had that although all should be happy they are not and this seems throughout the film to be because he is unable to have Lenina all to himself. This is a strong deviation of the motifs of Bernard in the novel. In the chapters following the arrival of John you can see he was quite content with being popular. In the film john is then introduced. John is the antagonist and his point that living with this sense of false happiness is not right is made to the protagonist through the films love interest Lenina. This Hollywood structure totally ruins the relationship between Lenina and John because it emphasizes that of Lenina and Bernard.
Hollywood’s want for excessive drama changes the conflict and themes of the novel. For one it changes between Bernard Marx and the director to something totally different on film. Unlike in the novel Bernard Marx does not just come in and embarrass the director and the director storms off. In the film Bernard and the director have a sort of violent conflict because the director tries to condition a beta to kill Bernard. How Hollywood is that. The film also ends happily ever after with Bernard and Lenina happy with child. Definitely different from the novel which ends in the suicide of john in which, the film turns into an incidental death.
Brave New World (1980) was a close depiction of the novel with very little impact on the plot and themes in a negative way. The film did not tell the story in the chronological order of the novel. This film told the story of the director and Lenina right before she was left in the Reservation at the beginning of the film. It gave the audience the sense that the event was an accident, unlike the film (1998) which makes it seem like it was done on purpose. In the novel it is up for interpretation but I as a reader looked at it as a deliberate act on the director’s part. This deviation did not affect the plot in any way however. The telling of Bernard’s childhood was different in the (1980) film however it did not impact the plot and themes negatively. I would recommend Brave New World (1980) to go along with the reading of Brave New World (novel) because it is most true to the novel. Reading the novel is just a way to get more of the intimacy that is not seen through film.

Differences in Brave New World and its 1980 counterpart.

Hey all, I have recently finished watching the 1980 film Brave New World which is based of the book. Overall I found the movie pretty entertaining since it was pretty close to the original source material. Nothing like seeing  colorful catsuits and creepy smiles to get you thinking about how this film differs from the book. On a serious note I feel as though the film focuses more on  specific events and dialogue in order to make the story more linear with whats going on.

The first major difference that we see in the film is how the narration begins in the story. The film starts with a much younger Tomakin and Linda planning their trip to the savage lands.  There we witness how Linda has an accidental pregnancy, and is never to be found in Malpais. Tomakin returns back to civilization where we see how he is connected to Bernard Marx excessive alcohol mistake.  The film focuses 1/3 of its time in order to build on its backstory, premise and connect their main characters to each other. It shows how John and Bernard’s upbringing are vastly different due to  where they lived. Bernard grew up in the comfort of civilization always having what he wanted and going through normal conditioning. At 48 minutes we see a scene with Bernard being conditioned through pain to participate in erotic play with the other children. Bernard still becomes the man who just doesn’t fit in normal society. We also see John growing in the poor slums of Malpais being raised by his mother Linda. In the 46 minute mark we see Linda telling John how wonderful her old home is, making John want to escape  to this happy place. The story sets up the characters in a way where see them wanting to be happy and fit in society. At fifty two minutes the story picks where the book begins and we’re left waiting for them to meet. I personally found allot of emphasis on this part of the story since it was quickly brought up and put to rest in the book. The backstory allows us to understand how the characters will develop in the future and understand who they are better, John wanting to be happy in civilization, and Bernard being unhappy in civilization.

The next emphasis that the movie focused on was Mustapha Mond’s character. In the book we do not see much of him but he plays a bigger role in the movie. Mustapha is not just some character who has a philosophical debate at the end of the story, he actually play’s the role of controller. We first see Mustapha Mond 13 minutes in the movie, when he is talking to Helmholtz about a film proposing new ideas that reflect improvments in conditioning. We then see Mond who really likes the film but with a smile on his face says it must be destroyed. Helmholtz tries to defend the film by saying it shows improvement in society, Mustapha replies with

14:43″recent implies past. improvement implies progress, and if the present is perfect then there cant be progress.”

This scene allows us to capture the ways censorship in the civilization works. All work that does not follow the goals of stability and perfection must not be allowed. Here we see how writers like Helmholtz can no longer work for himself but for the state. In the book we get a similar situation on pg162

“The authors mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and far as the present social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to be published… What fun would it be … if one didnt have to think about happiness!”

I would say in the book Mustapha seems more relatable since the book but feels conflicted when he thinks about why he must destroy it. But in the movie we see Mustapha showing a more strict attitude. He quickly smiles praises the film and deletes it in a apathetic manner. This portrayal of Mustapha definitely makes him seem more like an antagonist. We also begin to see more of Mustapas motives with the other characters. Mustapha plays the controller, and he has a role in each of the characters fate. To explain we first see the scientist in Mustapha when he says

16:18 “I even composed a scandalous readout myself once, I think it was something about the possible benefits of allowing mutational differentiation in randomly selected embryos, an interesting idea but dangerous in the wrong hand.”

He begins following up on this curiosity in many scenes where he allows Bernard to live. At age six he sees Bernard is alive and extremely smart and wants to keep tabs on him. When Bernard request to go to the savage reservations he is called a ” Special project”. Mustapha responds with

58:10 ‘If a random variant like Bernard proves to be socially adaptable, it might mean certain mutations in the assembly process would be useful.”

Here we see Bernard playing into Mustapha’s plan in order to study him. It shows a darker side to the controller than we see in the book since he clearly shows a manipulative side to his character. He clearly hopes to play out those experiments he desperately wanted. Mustapha then shows curiosity in John when

1:25:50 “viviparous birth and an unconditioned environment the perfect experimental subject.” and 1:57:00 ” That is precisely what the experiment is all about. to determine whether or not the savage can adjust to our higher plane of morality… Mr. Marx is now a part of that experiment too.”

Mustaphas’ manipulative views reflect in a scientific way only hoping to learn from John and Bernard’s hardships as they try to accustom to civilization.He is clearly an antagonist since he views them as experiments and not people. Compared to the book Mustapha doesnt show much of a hand in the daily lives of these two men.

Brave New World (1980); how small details create huge theme differences.

Having had just recently read Brave New World, there were a lot of small details that were different about the 1980 version of the film adaptation. Overall, it captured the image of their society very well and accurately, but certain plot points were not consistent with the novel, namely the portrayal of the “savages” and the ending of the film. These differences from the original work create different affects to the audience, and changes some key points that Huxley intended to maintain in his novel.

Let’s start with the obvious example of the residents of the Savage Reservation; they speak English in the movie (the first example can be seen in 28:35). In the novel, the people of Malpais speak Zuni which made John’s accomplishment of learning English from Linda and Shakespeare less amazing. It also loses out on the symbolism that the different cultures have a lose of communication between one another and the “it was only in Zuni the Savage could adequately express what he felt” (p.158) can’t even be touched upon when the only language spoken is English.

One last thing to note about the differences of the Savages in the movie adaptation is that from what I observed, they only worship polytheistic/tribal gods, rather than “the Quakerites” (18:20). In the novel, it was a mixture of Native American ritual and Christianity that encompassed their culture. Even John seems to only respect a god known as “Mecatan” (1:18:30) in the film, whereas in the novel John was willing to suffer self-flagellation for the sake of “Pookong and Jesus” (p.111). While the English speaking savages gives the audience something to relate with and know that they are not in fact “savages” in the movie, the lack of religious similarity (especially with Christianity, since it was such a prominent religion in Western society during the publication of the novel) takes that aback and makes the audience confused. The point of the “savages” was to juxtapose the “civilized” society, making the audience question who the real savages were, and yet the movie seems to paint them in a barbaric way that doesn’t help with relating or justifying the actions of the residents of Malpais.

The last thing I want to discuss in more detail is the movie’s rendition of the ending; though similar to the novel, there are a lot of different nuances that paints a different picture. First off, Mustafa Mond and John did not have their long-winded philosophical discussion in his quarters, which encompassed a large majority of chapter 16 and 17. In fact, Mustafa Mond skips that and determines straight away that John would be showcased for everyone to see (2:43:50). (I think this is done in the movie in order to save time, since it’s already a 3 hour movie and their discussion would make the film way too long.) Although in the novel Mustafa Mond refuses to let John go to one of the free-islands (p.217), he does not outright put him up for display for all to see like he does in the movie; John finds the lighthouse on his own and is then gradually discovered by civilized society. This greatly changes Mustafa Mond’s character from the curious former scientist who occasionally breaks the rules for the betterment of civilization, to a man who is cruel for the sake of creating an example for people in his society. The Mustafa Mond of the novel is confident in his ideals and truly believes he’s bettering society, whereas the Mond of the movie seems to think he needs to eliminate opposition while still maintaining his authority; like with the scene where Mustafa Mond is the one who directs Darwin Bonaparte to make a mockery of John (2:50:00), unlike in the book where society itself was the one that chose how to portray John (p. 226). So in the end, Mustafa Mond is portrayed more as a dictator in the movie compared to the book where he seems more like a figure who over-sees everything and more of a guiding hand of regulation; society is already in affect of their conditioning, Mustafa Mond merely monitors that everything goes according to plan (in the novel).

Another huge part of the ending that needs to be addressed if Lenina’s drastic character development and abandonment of Huxley’s idea that she was a product of “civilized” society through and through. First off, Lenina’s character in the movie isn’t portrayed the same way as in the novel; instead of having her brainwashed and acting more like a reflection of the “ideal” person in her society, she’s more portrayed as “innocent” to her conditioning. What I mean by this is that she seems like she’s only doing the things she does because she knows it’s a societal wrong to oppose it, unlike in the novel where she is truly reliant on civilization and that it’s ingrained in her psyche. Like when Lenina and Bernard go to Malpais without soma (1:15:30), she doesn’t freak out about not having her soma like she does in the novel (p.106). Lenina seems more cognizant of herself and of society in the movie compared to the novel, where she is completely just a product of society and her purpose is to be a summation of representing the values of civilized society in Brave New World.

Moreover, Lenina outright betrays the ways of her society; after discovering John’s book when John storms out in the movie, she starts to read it (2:23:40). This was not in the novel at all, and this set the course of the ending of the film where Lenina believes in John and his ways (2:53:45); although it eloquently is able to recreate Romeo and Juliet with John thinking Lenina is dead and thus commits suicide, this does not happen in the novel. John does not passionately fall back in love with Lenina, in fact it’s the opposite in the novel where he sees Lenina as the object of his repentance, with John whipping her and saying “kill it, kill it!” (p. 230). This drastically differs the reason why John kills himself in the end; the movie version makes it seem like he kills himself out of love and thinking that the one he cared about is gone, just like in Romeo and Juliet when in the original text John kills himself because he fell into the trap of being part of the civilized world. The “need” for having a love interest in movies (which seems to be needed in a majority of films in order to gain female audience attention, as determined by Hollywood) ruins the message Huxley tries to make with John killing himself as a form of ultimate escape from “civilized” society.

As a whole, the movie is very enjoyable, did a pretty good job with portraying the world of Brave New World, and kept a lot of the plot points from the original work. One difference that I especially liked was showing more of Thomas Grambell’s beginning, since it was very well done and was a good way to introduce the audience with the “norms” of the society while also keeping things in chronological order (which is easier to digest when watching a film). However, there are a lot more small nitpicks that I have with the film that bothered me, like with Helmholtz not being an Alpha-Plus (p.70-71) or with Linda not calling to PopĂ© (for some reason called PelĂ© in the film) when having her final conversation with John (2:26:10 in film, p.185 in novel), and all of these aspects can be discussed in greater detail. The ones outlined prior were the major details that eliminated huge themes and plots from the original novel, however, and these changes greatly affect the lessons that can be learned from it. It overall kept the main idea of the novel (how people are manipulated in order to attain happiness/progress) but it misses a lot of reasons why this civilization is wrong in it’s thinking, with the poor portrayal of the “savages” and with the ending that tries to make a completely different message.

Two Extra Credit Opportunities: Movie Versions of ‘Brave New World’

I am offering two extra credit blogs based on two different movie versions of Brave New World (please categorize appropriately). For each blog, you should provide a response based on a comparative analysis of the novel and the particular film (this response can also include your thoughts on/opinions of/reactions to the film).  You may choose to write just one blog or both, but all blogs are due Tu 10/6 by 4pm, should be a minimum of 500 words.

Here are links to the two versions of the movie:

As you watch the film(s) and draft your response(s), you should definitely take stock of similarities and differences between the novel and the film, but this is only a first (pre-draft) step. Your response blog should not only note key similarities and/or differences but also (and this is the crucial part!) discuss the significance of these similarities and/or differences.  Putting two texts in dialogue with each other allows you to create a more nuanced argument about them. Remember, your goal is not to simply list your observations (for example: these are the things than are different in the film) but to critically analyze these differences (how do omitted/added/revised characters, plot details, conflicts, etc. change our understanding of the text?).

Extra credit blogs will replace missing blogs (or count as additional credit if you’ve done all of them already). There are only two grades for these extra credit blogs (100 and 0). If you watch the films & blog your responses/reflections completely (in terms of length and content) and thoughtfully, you will receive 100% (an “A”) for the assignment. If you do not turn in the assignment (or if it is too short/not fulfilling the purposes of the assignment), you will receive a “0.” Don’t forget to take notes during the films, so you can include concrete details from the events in your blogs.

Existential Questions.

Existential Questions. Whether or not life has meaning, and why we exist. I like to think that every single person gives life their own meaning. Based on what you think is important and what you like to follow. I think that Existential Questions are such a big deal because they bother a lot of people. Whether or not life has a meaning, and why we exist, these are things that basically run the world I.E religion. Religions are created to give us answers to those questions and silence the fears.


Many of the existential questions in our life today are brought up in The Brave New world and I find it incredible that the author was able to make predictions and make it such a relatable book based on how old the book is.


What is happiness ? The government in their world government thinks that happiness should be constant at all times and it’s why Soma is taken at the moment someone feels discontent or uncomfortable. People who are kept drugged, and medicated can’t question what’s going on in the world around them. I connect this directly to today’s epidemic of how people are addicted to prescription drugs. How doctors, and policies push these drugs on people constantly and it’s also enforced by our governments through their policies and lobbyist.


One thing that I found interesting and I questioned at the beginning of the book was why they needed to grow human beings at such an enormous rate? Thousands at a time. After getting details about the global war they had the destroyed much of the world it makes more sense because the population of the world was probably decimated. Which is related to World War 2 because the rewrite of the book was introduced after the author witnessed it. So the world government decided to grow humans to repopulate but they found ways to grow humans exactly as needed. Just the right amount of brainpower that they can handle basic functions and not enough for them to be able to understand their situation. And continue to keep them drugged to keep power over them. This whole situation between how they engineered humans as they wished and keeping everyone drugged; I found it awesome that through all this, the human spirit could still persist, could still come out in small ways. In Helmholtz on this want to write and create more important work than what he was doing for the government creating hypnopaedic rhymes. In Bernards insecurities, and also cockiness. How he felt so inferior to everyone but the second he has his hands on the “Savage” the new power goes to his head so quickly he loses it when people start to treat him like they did before.


When it comes to happiness relating to this book if you’re happy all the time, then there is absolutely no way for you to know what real happiness is. If you haven’t experienced sadness, discomfort or anything how can you know the difference between anything if you’re always happy. The reason happiness is great is because it’s different from the rest of the emotions we experience. The only people who experienced TRUE Happiness are Helmholtz and Bernard. When Helmholtz met John the savage and they exchanged rhymes, and John showed him Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. That Was real happiness and emotion that Helmholtz demonstrated, he was ecstatic to hear a different kind of writing, to see the raw emotion even though his hypnopaedic conditioning reared it’s ugly head even then because he thought some of the emotions made no sense. Bernard in feeling sad, in feeling inferior to his peers. This allows him to feel something different. When he finally feels happiness, it’s true happiness. He feels this when he brings John to the civilized world and people are finally wanting to hang out with him. It didn’t last long but it was real and that’s what’s important.

The question of happiness is probably the most important to me.

Something that stood out to me was Bernard’s and Hemholtz’s meeting at the World Controller’s office. Bernard, being the indecisive person, sits nervous until later, while Hemholtz waits as if though he wants to hear the impending news. The man even chooses his place of exile (Falkland Islands). I feel like he chose this fate when he joined John in throwing out soma as well as dishing out some punches to the Deltas. He knew what he wanted, solitude. And in this society, the only way to leave is to stand out in a manner that threatens their way of life. Hemholtz always had something to say and now he has the opportunity to fulfill this desire , in exile.

Class Discussion: ‘Brave New World’

We’re continuing our discussion of Brave New World over the weekend. Feel free to pick up on something we discussed in class, bring in aspects of the text we didn’t get to, raise questions, offer excerpts/analysis, provide connections to our contemporary world (references & links to other texts articles, songs, videos, etc. would be great!), raise (& take a shot at answering) big existential questions raised by the text (e.g., can happiness be “real” if it is manufacturing chemically?), or anything else relevant. The goal is conversation that will lead to deeper understanding of the text 🙂

You should make your at least one comment (just hit “reply,” either to my original post or to another comment on it) by Sunday (9/25). Then go back/read through all comments and extend the conversation by making at least two more comments (of course, more are always welcome!) in response by Tuesday 9/27. 

Emotions, love and sadness !!!

Johns visit to the hospital showed so much truth. Johns finally is known as the character of free will. When Johns mother died he showed sadness and it trigged higher instincts inside of him. It made him act revolutionary. Johns said on chapter 16 soma kills which was true since his mother is dead. This visit lead to exile at the end because of the acts committed in the hospital. Mustafa on the other hand also shows something strange that I consider emotionally non existing. Mustard said since he’s one of the law makers he gets to breaks them. In fact, the situation is quoting Shakespeare work which leaves it stupid. Why would anyone ban that kind of literature. This simply shows how sarcastic was the world they live in. John was experiencing angery emotions that made his response become more harsh toward all things. At the end on exile john was a little happy since he planted gardens and didn’t think about most stuff that happened. When the reporter came to him and says ” hi, I’m the reporter ” showed that it’s unprofessional but it also hinted that mainly this maybe a fake world. At the end I think it’s sad that he dies even if they just hinted it’s not real it wouldn’t make a difference. The truth is that this whole story ends with John being dead. Ironic to begin with and a no happy ending means leaving readers heart broken.

The Source of Social Stability

As we finished reading through the last few chapters of Brave New World, we are exposed to multiple dialogues as to what makes a society stable.  Mustapha explained to John that several sacrifices had to be made in order to maintain a happy and stable society.  John then questions Mond’s beliefs one after another, claiming that these sacrifices for happiness will only contribute to loathsome humans.  Mond’s methods for creating a stable society is not the appropriate way of doing it.  Absolute control over the lives of everyone leads to only false happiness and a society of pure ignorance.

Mustapha implemented a sort of limit when it comes to science, but his citizens never experienced any specific scientific exposure.  A case in point would be when Mond claimed that science is dangerous and must be contained for the good of happiness and stability.  After the claim, Helmholtz questioned Mond about all of the propaganda done at the college.  Which then he replies, “‘Yes; but what sort of science?’ … ‘You’ve had no scientific training, so you can’t judge'”(203).  This quote exemplifies that the citizens of New London are being limited to the knowledge of Science and its capabilities.  All for the sake of stability and happiness, but Mustapha is also hiding the truth from his citizens.  Practically expressing the term “science” as abstract but not concrete.

The need for a God was completely removed by Mustapha, due to his idea that a civilized man doesn’t need to go through anything unpleasant.  John brought up a point that, “‘If you allowed yourselves to think of God, you wouldn’t allow yourselves to be degraded by pleasant vices'”(212).  John is bringing up the idea that if there was a God to worship then there is no need to indulge on atrocities that are allowed within their society.  So that means there will be no need for a hallucinogenic drug(soma), or the need to experience false emotions towards one another.  Mond then replies to John’s comment, claiming, “‘There isn’t any need for a civilized man to bear anything that’s seriously unpleasant'”(212).  Mustapha replies to John with the idea that citizens are preconditioned to enjoy the tasks that they are given.  Yet, whenever there is a sense of unpleasantness present, then soma will counteract that feeling.

The source of false happiness begins with soma.  During the conversation between John and Mustapha on page 213, Mond calls soma, “‘Christianity without tears'”(213).  Evidently, people are always carrying soma, as seen from previous chapters, just in case they begin to feel any sort of discomfort and wish to free themselves from any dreadful emotions.  Leading to a state of false happiness and self satisfaction.  But, using drugs in order to maintain social stability is never the correct way.  In addition, comparing a drug to Christianity seems a bit far-fetched and misleading.  Soma can be seen as a key to keep the civilized people stable, which then leads to a stable society.

In general, sacrifices made for the reason of making a society stable, can be seen as good or bad.  Mustapha took a sort of manipulative approach in order to achieve stability.  It took an outsider like John to question Mustapha and his methods, because only an outsider was able to see corruption within a society.  Mustapha’s methods only led to a society of citizens with false emotions and pure ignorance.

« Older posts