For Wednesday, Nov. 5th, BRING FINAL ESSAY # 2 to class!!
Also, please read and respond to the following (blog response to questions due by Monday, November 10th):
Begin reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (can also be found online at http://www.huxley.net/bnw/index.html):
Discuss some of the similarities and dissimilarities between Frankenstein and Brave New World. DO NOT simply compare each and summarize the two – ANALYZE and DISCUSS the two in relationship to each other (talk about WHY you think the two texts might be similar or different and what the texts might be trying to do, suggest, or imply). Use examples and/or quotes from the text to illustrate your points!
Some topics/ideas you might think and write about are:
1) the creation of a “being” versus the conditioning of a being – what’s the difference, in terms of the impact each has on the “being” itself and/or the society in which such a being is being created or “conditioned”?
2) What were the goals of each creator/controller (Dr. Frankenstein’s goals versus Mustapha Mond (the World Controller in Brave New World) in their attempts to create another being versus condition other beings? Make sure you reference the text.
3) How did these concepts (of creation and conditioning) forsee any of what is happening in digital media technology today? MAKE SURE YOU REFERENCE BOTH TEXTS.
4) Compare what each text implies or suggests about human “feelings” and independent thinking. Do you think it is important to either feel or think independently in either of these two texts? Why or why not?
5) In Frankenstein, everyone is miserable; in Brave New World, supposedly, “everybody’s happy.” What does “happy” mean in Brave New World? Is it really an emotion? And how does that experience of happiness in Brave New World compare to the misery both Dr. Frankenstein and the monster feel?
6) In Frankenstein, the “monster” is feared and hated because he’s not at all human-like. Conversely, in Brave New World, it is “John the Savage” (and all from whence he came) that are feared and hated because they are TOO human. What do you make of this radical narrative difference? And which, in your opinion, more closely resembles our current societal fears and perceptions (and why, do you think?)?
For Friday, November 7th: please read up to Chapter 5. (http://huxley.net/bnw/two.html).
For Monday, November 10th: please read up to Chapter 10.(http://huxley.net/bnw/two.html).
For Wednesday, November 12th, please read up to Chapter 14.
Friday, November 14th, instead of meeting in class, please use that time to work on your last essay.
On Monday, November 17th, you should come into class with a full paragraph or two that describes how you plan to approach your last essay. (Could even be a rough draft version of your final paper’s first two paragraphs). Also, please finish reading Brave New World, so we can wrap up discussion of the book.
16 responses so far ↓
izamojda // November 5, 2008 at 9:08 pm |
In Frankenstein, the characters are mainly in a state of anguish. It is interesting to contrast this miserable mood to the mood in Brave New World, which is deceptively happy. On the façade, the characters are worry free, disease free, are well fed and enjoy frequent intimate encounters with the opposite sex. However, the reader is soon introduced to the soma pill, and realizes that these individuals operate in a state of constant chemical flux. That is to say, when the effects of the pills start to wear off, the reader can start to see serious cracks forming in the foundation of the Brave New World society. Also, if a character has a particularly “bad” day, often their first reaction is to take an extra dose of the soma pill, as opposed to acting like an adult and solving their issues in a proactive manner. For example, “Lenina felt herself entitled, after this day of queerness and horror, to a complete and absolute holiday…she swallowed six…tablets of soma, lay down on her bed, and within ten minutes had embarked for lunar eternity” (140). Therefore, the emotional state that we understand as happiness does not apply to either set of characters (characters from Brave New World or Frankenstein).
The next question is, why aren’t they happy? In Frankenstein, the reasons for being miserable are glaring: abandonment by ones creator (dare I say father?), revenge, loneliness, rejection and physical deformity. Of course the opposite is true in Brave New World: no illness, no old age, everyone is part of the collective, “everyone belongs to everyone else”(40). The fact is that in both instances, the individuals/characters in question are separated from the human experience due to the abuse of technology. For instance, Frakenstein the creature, longs for a companion, a kind word, a friend. He is isolated and alone due to his unique condition which is a result of technological advances by Dr. Frakenstein. In Brave New World, the characters are isolated from the human experience via advanced techniques that mimic the body and manipulate the mind: embryos are created in a petri dish (no mothers or fathers) and children are socially predestined through a series of carefully constructed neo-pavlovian experiments and sleep-teaching methods.
Due to the rapid advances in technology today, we as humans will need to decide for ourselves what aspects of the human experience cannot be improved upon or substituted in any way.
marycreed // November 6, 2008 at 6:51 pm |
What I found most interesting, decidedly appalling, is the dates in which these two books were written. Frankenstein in 1818 and Brave New World in 1932, long before the explosion of scientific breakthroughs that have happened since, yet both novels deliver a remarkably accurate portrayal of the growing capacities of science. The specific events and breakthroughs entailed in both of these novels, as we know, have not yet occurred, however give an eerie foreshadowing to the future.
Shelley and Huxley did not write these novels as fanciful science fiction, they are much more serious warnings to future generations rather than whimsical prose solely meant for enjoyment.
Mary Shelley writes very explicitly of the risk at stake in the drive to human advancement. She clearly illustrates the danger and even suggests how to avoid such circumstances. “I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule. If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say not befitting the human mind” (pg.56).
Aldous Huxley does the same, but in a much more implicit, nearly satirical manner. His novel exemplifies the dire consequences of this in a programmed society. A strong parallel is made when Bernard tells a boy from a reservation of unconditioned people that he would try to bring him to visit the world outside the reservation he is elated. “O brave new world that has such people in it. Let’s start at once” (pg.139). Quoting from Shakespeare’s The Tempest, creating a strong ironic comparison between Miranda and the boy’s naivety to this new world. Creating yet another parallel with humanity’s ignorance in it’s pursuit of unclaimed knowledge.
Strangely, there is a certain danger in trying to do right. Morality is ambiguous when looking for an answer within oneself, for all people are, inherently corrupt. This danger does not lie in science alone, political righteousness is also easily taken to extremes, as clearly seen in Brave New World.
The question that logically follows of course, is where is the balance? Have we already crossed the line, or are we helplessly spiraling out of control downward to destruction, all in the name of progressiveness?
Ian T // November 9, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
The role of “happiness” in each novel is not as cut and dried as it states in the proposed question. In Frankenstein, the supporting characters are indeed happy much of the time. Even in times of sorrow their attitude seems light when placed in comparison to that of the protagonist. Frankenstein’s overwhelming sorrow is only pierced by the relative elation when he convinces himself that everything is going his way (as when he decides that the monster is not going to follow through on his morbid promise. In Brave New World the populace is in fact portrayed as happy, while the protagonist (Marx) seems dejected and unsatisfied with his lot in life for the duration of the story. Even John, as he takes over in the leading role, seems to be unhappy with his experiences (as referenced in his conversation with Mustaffa Mond in chapter 17.)
The unhappiness referenced in Frankenstein is, I think, simply a true description of the melancholy temperament of one man exacerbated by his experiences. The happiness referenced in Brave New World bears much more specific analysis. The population is assumed to be, and probably is in fact, generally happy due to genetic alterations and early age training. With such overbearing focus on satisfaction, it would be difficult for one to override one’s training and assume the melancholy that is evident in the protagonists of both novels. The happiness that exists in Brave New World is viewed from an outside point of view. Marx is presented as a character with whom normal people can relate. We take his point of view as truth because his thoughts most closely mirror our own. This version of happiness is, as John describes, “A false lying form of happiness.” (chapter 12) In his conversation with Mond, John shows what he means. Without the availability of the decision to be unhappy, the happiness means nothing at all.
cteran // November 9, 2008 at 9:17 pm |
1) the creation of a “being” versus the conditioning of a being – what’s the difference, in terms of the impact each has on the “being” itself and/or the society in which such a being is being created or “conditioned”?
The creation of a being is the attempt to reconstruct nature. The conditioning of a being is the attempt to control nature.
For a being to know that it can be created at will would alienate it. For a society to know that a being can be created at will would desensitize it to nature. Just as the Alphas and Betas show no remorse for purposefully ruining a delta or gamma or epsilon at creation because they are so many and can be easily created. Conditioning people isolates them, a being taught that everything is a certain way will hide their true thoughts and feelings if they are contradictory to what they have been conditioned to believe. Conditioning can serve to destroy free will turning people into objects.
Frankenstein’s monster was created but never conditioned. It was able to experiance life first hand and draw its own conclusions. This of course led it to ponder its own misfortunes and to wonder why it was doomed to wretchedness. It is human in that it can reason and be concious of its reality.
The people in “Brave New World” are conditioned at creation. Beliefs, ideas, fears are instilled in them. They are kept busy by work, and soma use. They are not taught to question and are never left to ponder life for themselves. They become complacent, resigning themselves to the beliefs shaped for them. In this way they arent human they become detached and dont think of themselves as individuals but rather as caste members. They are not concious of their reality because there is nothing to compare it against.
thang08 // November 9, 2008 at 9:53 pm |
In the Brave New World, Aldous Huxley expresses that God has been replaced by science and technology like a source of value and meaning in life. Here is a good quote: “Call it the fault of civilization. God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness. You must make your choice. Our civilization has chosen machinery and medicine and happiness. That’s why I have to keep these books locked up in the safe. They’re smut. People would be shocked it … (Chapter 7).” This quote tells that the introduction of the Model-T Ford is applied like the opening date of the new era. The author believes that this change in highlighting is given great movement when Henry Ford revolutionized manufacturing with his assembly-line technique. This shift in emphasis is represented by the changing of God to the Ford T.
In the Frankenstein, the quote “Remember, that I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed (Pg 103)” tells what the idea of the author that Dr. Frankenstein wants to compete with his creator. When we look the life Adam in the Christian Bible, he and Eve want to be like their creator, the God. Then, the fallen angel, Lucifer, also tries to compete his God. After all, the ideas of the two books are similar in some ways that the characters in the books are against their God.
vsanad // November 9, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
The ending of Frankenstein was unexpected in that the monster regretted what he had done, weeped, and repented over his “creators” death. I found a couple of similarities and differences in Brave New World. “If you have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of behaving better next time.” -BNW. This is parallel to the ending of Frankenstein. Also, Dr. Frankenstein took a decision to not create the monster a partner because of the realized consequences. In BNW the author affirms that “The badness should be haunted out, acknowledged and, if possible, avoided in the future.” The Doctor did just that. At one point in the story, he acknowledged what he has done, he haunted out the monster, and avoided creating many more at a later time.
The differences between them are in the science. In Frankenstein the experiment was done through secrecy. In BNW it is out in the open however; one can argue that there remains to be secrecy in BNW because of the separate grade differences. in BNW “the sciences of matter can be applied in such a a way that they will destroy life or make the living of it impossibly complex and uncomfortable”.
As a side note, I found it very interesting that in Frankenstein Dr. Victor made it clear that “he is not a madman”. In BNW “the people who govern the BNW may not be sane; but they are not madmen.” It seems as though those who assert they are not madmen come out to be just that.
HB // November 10, 2008 at 12:15 am |
Creating a being or conditioning a being are two different aspects. Creating a being is more to deal with the scientific roots. Not everybody dealing with it in general. On other hand conditioning a being is common in our lives. I ask you one question that “who is not conditioned in this world?” From child to an elder everyone is conditioned, bounded or follower. We conditioned our children if they do anything wrong, we punish them, we enforce them. Something same the creators of those kids in “Brave new world” are doing with them they bounding them not to read books and, touch the flowers.
If we talk about the effects of these two things on their lives or the society are also a way different and huge. Let’s talk about if somebody create someone life using science, which is no doubt common in this modern world like cloning; where the fertilization or later stages like embryo and fetus are develops under laboratory environment with the use different techniques. By using these techniques or doing all this that person or the scientists neutralize the some drawbacks the human body includes when it grows naturally. In my opinion this is a huge scientific development, some people calls it a challenge to nature, its right that after doing this or by making this enhancement some fools call them “God” who is the real creator. But on my point of view this process of creation human being by using science is a great breakthrough and is a big boom for this modern world.
On the other hand conditioning a being has good and bad effects on person’s life or, society as well. If we say good there are number of reasons one is we condition/bound our employees, our child’s, citizens, and etc. for not do things which are bad or harmful for them or for society for their well being. Let’s take example of children, we condition our child or children to not to do some things, which are not good for them or for society; for doing this we using methods like explanation; in psychological point of these this is called induction. These methods are good for human being or for society. The book “Brave new world” is not presenting this kind case. The book is dealing with bad effects of condoning. Same case of children, where we condition our children not to do something which they want to may be good or bad, but by using wrong methods, by punish them or by enforce them. In psychological point of view this method of conditioning is called ‘power assertion.’ By power assertion or frequent physical punishment, it is associated with greater aggressiveness in children, reduced empathy, and poorer moral reasoning. Researches shows that those children who get enforced are always are always followers means can never deal, always depends upon someone for their decisions. In the book the child’s who are conditioned are falling under this category and it ruining their career and they are facing enormous problems.
cbaileyb // November 10, 2008 at 12:43 am |
1) the creation of a “being” versus the conditioning of a being – what’s the difference, in terms of the impact each has on the “being” itself and/or the society in which such a being is being created or “conditioned”?
The creation of a “being” is simply that, the creation. It is the putting together of parts to make a whole, and we tend to say “being” as object in the living sense. Like Frankenstein and pieces together the parts of his “being”, or the parts of a baby being forged inside of their mother’s womb or bottle to grow into a being. This is simply the act of creation. The conditioning happens after the being has been brought to lift. Conditioning is what forms the “personality”, the “being’s” likes and dislikes. Frankenstein’s monster was a victim of circumstance. He had no one there to condition him, so he was conditioned by his environment. We as beings ourselves are conditioned by our families to develop the values and the views that are typically held by our families and by the society that we are to be brought up in. In “Brave New World”, the beings are “conditioned” to be what they are “created” to do in this Utopian society.
rachel5702 // November 10, 2008 at 12:53 am |
In response to question 6, I find it interesting the vast difference between the way John the Savage and the monster were viewed. They were both feared and hated in similar ways, but were two totally different characters: one being more of a human and other being more of a monster. If you look at the the characters in relation to the characters in both stories, you find that John the Savage and monster were both minorities which is why they were viewed so differently. They were not “normal” and did not fit into the what the average person was like in both stories. It shows the power of people as a whole, and although there might be nothing wrong with the individual that is different, they are still viewed differently and apart from the others because they do not mold in with the rest of society.
In my opinion, A Brave New World more closely resembles our current societal fears because it’s perspective is much wider and it focuses on a society as a whole, not just an individual. i think that because it looks at the big picture and what it’ll do, instead of just focusing on a specific one person.
farhan23 // November 10, 2008 at 1:10 am |
I think that John and Frankenstein (the monster) are very similar. They are both outcasts of society. But is it because they are different? or because society just refuses to accept them for who they are. To me, frankenstein seemed like a person more than a monster. A person who had just been introduced to this world. He wanted to fit in just like any other person would, but the people wouldnt let him because he was a “monster” and he seemed to threaten their safety and what not. Same thing goes for John. He is obviously like an outsider to the people of london, but what about his reservation? They treat him like an alien too. They do not see him as one of them, despite the fact that he is rooted in their culture just as much as they are. They, instead decide to judge and discriminate against him based on his past, and where/who he came from. They judge him based on his mother’s beliefs. So what if she sleeps around. She thinks its fine, because that’s what she’s been “conditioned” to think. I believe that both Frankenstein AND John are good examples of how society is today. I don’t wanna be ‘that guy’, but nobody’s perfect. and its clear that nobody’s 100% politically correct either. we all judge and we all like to talk about a person as soon as he/she leaves the room. Its just that we all do it at different levels. Even today, people look at certain people and instantly have a certain image in their minds. We like to think that everyone should be the way we are and that’s just how it is. If i were to walk in to class one day with bell bottams n platform shoes and a huge fro, i doubt people would think its “hip”. I dare you all, come in to school one day wearing something that nobody else would. something nobody would want to. We’re told that those trends are “out” and the jeans and polos are the shit. My point is, Brave New World illustrates how society THINKS, and puts into practice. Let’s just say that Huxley had the balls to say what we all think. Just in a different way. Frankenstein is like that one loner kid you always see around but you don’t wanna go and say watsup or something because he seems wierd. What if he’s new, or what if he’s not very social. Does that make him wierd? or just different. Arent we all different? We’re supposed to be. All im saying is, that we all have these tendencies to see the world throught he same eye. We all wanna talk about toehr while they’re away and we all wanna judge. It’s just that the best of us, don’t do it out loud.
-FC
jassgroce // November 10, 2008 at 3:18 am |
5) In Frankenstein, everyone is miserable; in Brave New World, supposedly, “everybody’s happy.” What does “happy” mean in Brave New World? Is it really an emotion? And how does that experience of happiness in Brave New World compare to the misery both Dr. Frankenstein and the monster feel?
In Brave New World the meaning of happiness, is contentment. The element of happiness is just being in a stable economy, stable enviornment, and with stable communities all around. In Brave New World the creatures are use to having nothing to worry about because everything is already presented to them. Happiness in Frankenstein is none existing. No one is happy in the novel, the creation is never happy in life, or the so called life they live. Dr. Frankenstein was never one to be happy unless he was with his family, but once they were being killed there was no happiness to be found in the environment. Happiness for them is not really an emotion in the society they live in. An emotion is something one feels but the emotion, or so called emotion that they feel in Brave New World is none existing. Brave New World is an installed emotions that they are taught to feel, they are taught to keep emotions tight, unshowable. The happiness, or so called happiness in Brave New World is compared to the misery of Frankenstein is the fact that in Frankenstein there was no hope for happiness. There was no enviroment to be happy.
berniechung // November 10, 2008 at 6:27 am |
Conditioning in both Frankenstein and Brave New World are very important. In Frankenstein, the monster learns how to be human from his “protectors” as he observes the father, brother, and sister from his cave. He learns human emotions from the watching them and reading the books he finds in the woods. In Brave New World, though, hypnaepedia serves as the main method of moral socialization. Everyone learns the norms of society through this sleep, subliminal, subconscious programming. In the Frankenstein the method of socialization seems more traditional as he learns his emotional range, language, and mannerisms by watching this exiled family. In Brave New World conditioning is learned through constant bombardment.
It seems that Shelly was laying out the road map to how people are socialized. I am sure that this was studied when she published her novel, but sociology and the creation versus conditioning arguments would come to a swell when the human genome project and other attempts to actually manufacture humans would become a real possibility. Until this time it could only be theorized and although the great failure of the human genome project has been recently realized, the thought that predestination and a cafeteria line method of reproduction makes the creation versus conditioning argument a serious one. Moreover, although Brave New World’s reproduction center seems like something that would resemble what the human genome project will produce in the future, I think Huxley actually shows insight into the society that would be created in the future when greater connectivity allows better control for socialization. Facebook and Twittering allow constant monitoring by people you know so that if you do things like “monogamy” then people can instantly respond and see that you are being weird. As more sources of information become real-time (i.e. blogging from political events such as presidential debates to election night), it gives people less time to actually form their own opinions and think for themselves. Instead people take on the opinions of the media as their own and thus individuality is erased further. And that is the whole point, most of society watches from their caves and read their books to learn how to be human. As technology evolves and connectivity increases, it will be easier to create one homogenous school of thought and socialize everyone to dress, think, and act the same way.
fazizi2 // November 10, 2008 at 8:28 am |
In Brave New Word the word happieness is very vague. It is almost like it does not have a true meaning behind it. Everyone is conditoned in every aspect of their lives. Brave New World is full of characters who do everything they can to avoid facing the truth about their own situations. The universal use of the drug soma is the most pervasive example of such self-delusion. Soma clouds the realities of the present and replaces them with happy hallucinations, and is thus a tool for promoting social stability. According to Mustapha Mond, he believes that people are better off with happiness than with truth. Happiness for the characters in Brave New World is a stable economy, stable enviornment, and a stable community.
In Frankenstein however the there was no such thing as happiness for the monster or the creator. Both were unhappy in the situation they were living in. The monster did not have the capability to know what happiness was because he could not expierence what true happiness is due to the fact that he was “man-made”. The creator was never too happy with Frankenstein because it was not wat he wanted and he felt unhappy at his results. Happiness never existed in Frankenstein
sableotey // November 10, 2008 at 11:08 pm |
1) The creation of a “being” versus the conditioning of a being – what’s the difference, in terms of the impact each has on the “being” itself and/or the society in which such a being is being created or “conditioned”?
The creation of being versus the conditioning of a being: In Frankenstein the Dr. created a monster from different things and body parts. Parts where gathered from different places, one major source was the cemetery. The being was created and brought to life through nature (electricity/lightening). In Brave New World, beings were created initially through the normal reproduction process, and then later manipulated. They were manipulated by using Podsnap’s Technique which speeds up the ripening process of eggs within a single ovary. In the book, “Frankenstein,” the monster was very afraid and lonesome. He was conditioned to be this way because of his external environment. When he was seen or approached by others, they were frightened and would scream and run away. This shaped his personality. Because of the way that the monster was created (physical features) this impacted the society he lived in causing him to become this fed up monster that everyone was afraid of monster, when in actuality, all the monster wanted to be a part of a family, and to be loved. In the Brave New World, these eggs were manipulated internally and externally. Before they were even beings they were shaped into whatever it is that was expected of them to be. One example would be the, “Fetuses destined for work in the tropical climates are heat conditioned embryos, and during childhood, they undergo further conditioning.” This is an example of internal and external conditioning which, in turn, produces adults that are emotionally and physically suited to hot climates. The difference between these books, in terms of creation, is in Frankenstein, the monster was created because the Dr. wasn’t satisfied with the normal process of life, he wanted to learn more about nature and create his own being. In the Brave New World, beings weres created in the normal reproduction process, but was manipulated so that he/she could portray what it is that he or she was needed to portray when he became an adult.
d3stin3d // November 12, 2008 at 3:13 am |
5) In Frankenstein, everyone is miserable; in Brave New World, supposedly, “everybody’s happy.” What does “happy” mean in Brave New World? Is it really an emotion? And how does that experience of happiness in Brave New World compare to the misery both Dr. Frankenstein and the monster feel?
In Brave New World “happy” means indulgence in self seeking pleasure to the Alphas and Betas. “Happy” doesn’t have a meaning to the Gammas, Epsilons, and the Deltas because they are conditioned to believe that whatever purpose they have in the Brave New World makes them “happy”. Certainly if they were truly “happy” no one would have to tell them that they are. I think “happy” for the Gamma, Epsilons, and the Deltas truly means misery. Because they have been conditioned to believe what has been placed in them, they don’t have a thought of their own, only what someone (repeated recording) told them. Even the Alphas and the Betas. I don’t think they are truly “happy” either because they have been conditioned as well. If they were so “happy” then why would they have to take a soma every time they are not having a good day or feel like they need a vacation? Soma is just like any other drug that takes you on a high, make you feel good for that particular time, and then drops you so hard it feels like you fell on a bunch of rocks. That doesn’t make anyone “happy”. It only keeps someone satisfied for the moment and that’s why they had to continue to take the soma pills because it only lasted just for a moment. Some “happy” time! After that moment has come and gone that person in Brave New World is just as miserable as Dr. Frankenstein and the monster are. Dr. Frankenstein is miserable due to guilt for creating such a monster and sees nothing but death all around him. The monster is miserable because he struggles with loneliness, rejection, acceptance, revenge, and abandonment. In Brave New World each group accepts one another as their colleague or their equal yet the Alpha’s mistreat Bernard Marx as if he is of a lower class causing him not to feel “happy” but lonely, rejected, and wishing to be accepted by his own. The monster feels the same way because he just wants to be accepted by his creator and the people just like his creator. “Happy” is not a real emotion in either of the books. “Happy” is an illusion, somewhat like a dream. Despite how much Dr. Frankenstein desires to be “happy” in reality it is only possible that he is truly happy when he is dreaming. No matter how much someone says that they are “happy” in Brave New World it is only a cover up. When I look beneath the cover I see frustration, resentment, anger, and all the miseries the people are really dealing with. Their “happiness” lies in the soma pills that they take, in the many men/women they sleep with, and in the repetitive recording they have been conditioned with. Without all these different “happy” tactics they are as I stated before just as miserable if not more miserable than Dr. Frankenstein and the monster.
sbr291 // November 17, 2008 at 1:01 am |
Happiness affects every one in instance, the question why aren’t the characters happy? In Frankenstein, the reasons for being miserable are glaring: abandonment by ones creator. revenge, loneliness, rejection and physical deformity. Of course the opposite is true in Brave New World: no illness, no old age, everyone is part of the collective, “everyone belongs to everyone else”(40). The fact is that in both instances, the individuals/characters in question are separated from the human experience due to the abuse of technology. For instance, Frakenstein the creature, longs for a companion, a kind word, a friend. He is isolated and alone due to his unique condition which is a result of technological advances by Dr. Frakenstein. In Brave New World, the characters are isolated from the human experience via advanced techniques that mimic the body and manipulate the mind: embryos are created in a petri dish (no mothers or fathers) and children are socially predestined through a series of carefully constructed neo-pavlovian experiments and sleep-teaching methods.
Due to the rapid advances in technology today, we as humans will need to decide for ourselves what aspects of the human experience cannot be improved upon or substituted in any way.
You must be logged in to post a comment.