How can he reject the comforts and the happiness in London? How can he, John the savage, possibly think it is better to live secluded in a lighthouse than in the civilization of the World State? I presume it is not too insane to comprehend, after all I'm not an Epsilon Semi-Moron. The savage grew up away from this perfect society. He grew up in a society that is, well, savage. A place where unhappiness and unorthodox behaviors are the norm. For him, coming to a civilization so radically different from his must have driven him to madness, causing him to destroy all of the Deltas' soma rations.
I understand why he went mad, but why did he want to a secluded lighthouse and run away from the social stability the World State offers. What does he expect to achieve being in a lighthouse? Perhaps religion and Shakespeare are to blame. He recites Shakespeare like we take soma; that is what makes him happy. Oh yes! I remember now! He said, "I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin" (Huxley 215). For him, poetry and God take priority over comfort and stability. To him, freedom is the ability to read Shakespeare and believe in God. It is strange to think of freedom in this way. After all, in the world state, we feel free the pains of social instability that poetry and God create. As I explained to the savage earlier, "[Shakespeare and religion] are symptoms of political inefficacy. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise" (Huxley 213).
Although we are in very different positions, the savage and I are similar in some ways. We both have read the complete works of Shakespeare, and we can both quote it by heart (however the savage has let the words corrupt his mind). In addition and more importantly, we both have been presented with a major choice in our lives; however, we each picked a different path. I delved too far into my sciences. I challenged too much conventional wisdom, and I was too good at my work, perhaps like Mr. Watson is too advanced for this society. At any rate, my work questioned conventional wisdom, and such questioning would create instability. Thus, I was offered a choice, continue my work on an island away from civilization and surrender comfort, or surrender my studies as a scientist so I could have the opportunity one day to become a world controller. The savage had a similar choice: give up poetry and God for stability and happiness, or give up happiness for poetry. Obviously, our choices have lead us on to very different paths.
He is a failed experiment, like the one at Cyprus. I granted him and his, dare I say, mother permission to enter the World State, I was interested to see how a savage would cope being part of a new society. I hypothesized that, because he was familiar with our society already, he would be able to adjust. However, Ford knows that I was wrong! If he could not adjust, I conclude that trying to civilize other savages would prove just as bad, if not worse. Although, this experience has given me a little rush, a little reminder of what it was like to be a scientist. Oh get a hold of yourself, Mond! For Ford's sakes you know that you gave up experimentation for good reason! It causes instability.
How about the unorthodox Bernard? I haven't given much thought to him. He is quite an odd fellow. I guess it was the alcohol that got in his blood-surrogate.
But I digress. There is no reason to dwell on the past. After all, the books and culture of the past are banned from our perfect society.
I really enjoyed reading your post, Cade! I was able to figure out almost immediately who's perspective you were writing the narrative from. I thought that the tone of your narrative sounded much like that character did in the book. I also thought your introduction was captivating, it was a great way to start off your narrative. You used very specific examples in order to show how John thought differently and how peculiar that the narrator thought his mind worked. Lastly, I liked how towards the end you focussed on other characters rather than just sticking with John. Very creative and insightful. Good job Cade!
ReplyDelete(This is Casey)
ReplyDeleteGreat post Cade. I really liked how your post emphasized the tone and characteristics of Mond in Brave New World. I always saw Mond as a very hypocritical figure because he claims to have been an independent scientist but now censors ideas and is the head of a totalitarian state. Furthermore, I felt that your post emphasizes Mond’s unstable position by constructing the persona of Mond around a series of questions about the characters around him, like John and Bernard. The only critical comment I have is that I think you should increase the seperation between paragraphs and indent more, since the continuity of your post sorta makes it visually overwhelming. In conclusion, your post is very good at exploring Mond’s self-righteous tone and the challenges that Mond faces in Brave New World.