1984 or Brave New World? - which is the most dystopian?

[Eddi]

Which do you think is the most dystopian novel out of:

1984 by George Orwell

AND

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?????

And why????????????

For me:

I think both settings are horrific and bleak (to a person with my values) but at least in Brave New World there is world peace, even if it is a very mindless world peace. In 1984 there is of course perpetual war between three world powers indeed the entire government and society of Oceania seems to be built around maintaining an endless interminable total war. However, in Brave New World there is a consumer economy with consumer goods, etc. - as opposed to a totalitarian scarcity! So Brave New World is less of a dystopia on that count if you like owning things.

 

[anotherneil]

Definitely 1984 by Orwell & it's kinda funny that you bring it up, because I was about to start a thread yesterday or the day before with a question about it, but nixed the idea (I'll explain why, at the end of this post).

What I was about to ask was whether or not Orwell's book 1984 is actually propaganda designed and created to preserve the British monarchy and its religious establishment.

George Orwell's book is a great and impressive work of dystopian fiction, and I don't think I have ever come across a more politically frightening work of dramatic art than it.

It was published in 1949, not long after WW2 ended. This was soon after a period when quite a few European monarchies were being dispensed of, in the early 20th century:

Kingdom of Portugal: 1910
Russian Empire: 1917
Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1918
German Empire: 1919
Ottoman Empire: 1922
Kingdom of Italy: 1946

What I was suspecting or wondering about was that the British monarchy may have been in some sort of panic that they'd be next (or at least soon) on the chopping block, looked for a solution, and came up with or found one in the form of a work of dystopian fiction that made the monarchy look much more appealing, compared to Ingsoc.

Note BTW that none of the remaining European monarchies, which still exist today, ended after the publication of Orwell's 1984.

One reason for why I was wondering about this is that George Orwell is not the author's real name. His real name was Eric Blair. Having a pen name isn't automatic cause for suspicion, but that doesn't mean it couldn't count as a red flag.

Another reason is that Blair was an imperial police officer & this might strike some as a fairly clear red flag, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Supposedly, the reason he used the pen name George Orwell was to protect his family for his writings that were critical of British imperialism.

He worked for the BBC, which is state-owned press with a "Royal Charter" & to me that qualifies as a royal state propaganda mill.

The BBC even made a TV play in 1954 and TV film in 1965 of Orwell's 1984.

The reason I also threw in religion is because the British monarch is also the head of the state religion (apparently this only applies to England & Wales, though), and in Orwell's 1984, there's a brief but rather dramatically peculiar mention of a church in a way that may have been designed to symbolize the death of religion, along with the death of imperialism or monarchism.

The original reason I nixed the idea of starting a thread on this is because of Eric Blair being critical of British imperialism (supposedly).

 

[bobhikes]

Which do you think is the most dystopian novel out of:

1984 by George Orwell

AND

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?????

And why????????????

For me:

I think both settings are horrific and bleak (to a person with my values) but at least in Brave New World there is world peace, even if it is a very mindless world peace. In 1984 there is of course perpetual war between three world powers indeed the entire government and society of Oceania seems to be built around maintaining an endless interminable total war. However, in Brave New World there is a consumer economy with consumer goods, etc. - as opposed to a totalitarian scarcity! So Brave New World is less of a dystopia on that count if you like owning things.

I would tend to agree but my most dystopian novel and scariest based on Today's politics' is Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here

 

[Eddi]

Definitely 1984 by Orwell & it's kinda funny that you bring it up, because I was about to start a thread yesterday or the day before with a question about it, but nixed the idea (I'll explain why, at the end of this post).

What I was about to ask was whether or not Orwell's book 1984 is actually propaganda designed and created to preserve the British monarchy and its religious establishment.

George Orwell's book is a great and impressive work of dystopian fiction, and I don't think I have ever come across a more politically frightening work of dramatic art than it.

It was published in 1949, not long after WW2 ended. This was soon after a period when quite a few European monarchies were being dispensed of, in the early 20th century:

Kingdom of Portugal: 1910
Russian Empire: 1917
Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1918
German Empire: 1919
Ottoman Empire: 1922
Kingdom of Italy: 1946

What I was suspecting or wondering about was that the British monarchy may have been in some sort of panic that they'd be next (or at least soon) on the chopping block, looked for a solution, and came up with or found one in the form of a work of dystopian fiction that made the monarchy look much more appealing, compared to Ingsoc.

Note BTW that none of the remaining European monarchies, which still exist today, ended after the publication of Orwell's 1984.

One reason for why I was wondering about this is that George Orwell is not the author's real name. His real name was Eric Blair. Having a pen name isn't automatic cause for suspicion, but that doesn't mean it couldn't count as a red flag.

Another reason is that Blair was an imperial police officer & this might strike some as a fairly clear red flag, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Supposedly, the reason he used the pen name George Orwell was to protect his family for his writings that were critical of British imperialism.

He worked for the BBC, which is state-owned press with a "Royal Charter" & to me that qualifies as a royal state propaganda mill.

The BBC even made a TV play in 1954 and TV film in 1965 of Orwell's 1984.

The reason I also threw in religion is because the British monarch is also the head of the state religion (apparently this only applies to England & Wales, though), and in Orwell's 1984, there's a brief but rather dramatically peculiar mention of a church in a way that may have been designed to symbolize the death of religion, along with the death of imperialism or monarchism.

The original reason I nixed the idea of starting a thread on this is because of Eric Blair being critical of British imperialism (supposedly).

What do you think about Animal Farm?

 

[anotherneil]

What do you think about Animal Farm?

I also think it's a good work of fiction & is also rather dystopic, but not to the degree of nightmarish as 1984.

Maybe it was some sort of precursor for 1984 in terms of possibly being pro-monarchy propaganda, or maybe it was for an audition by authors to be selected to write such propaganda.

 

[anotherneil]

A really great science fiction version of a horror thriller that at least has elements of a dystopia is Stephen King's Firestarter. I've never read the book, but I like the movie. I'm talking about the one that came out (coincidentally) in 1984. That year seems to be the peak of when great movies came out & I wonder if it happens to be in some way connected to the title of Orwell's book about the last man in Europe - Winston Smith.

George C. Scott, who played General Patton in the 1970 film Patton, and one of the military officers in Dr. Strangelove, was the main antagonistic character in Firestarter, and he portrays quite a scary monster named John Rainbird in the movie somewhat similar in a dramatic way to O'Brien in 1984.

I don't want to get into the dystopic aspects of Firestarter because it could sort of spoil or compromise the story for those who've never read it or watched the movie.

There's a sequel to Firestarter and a 2022 remake, but I've never seen either one. I might look for the sequel to watch it one day, but I'm not feeling it for the remake because the work from Hollywood in the past couple of decades - well - generally just sucks (No Country For Old Men being a bit of a rare exception).

 

[anotherneil]

I would tend to agree but my most dystopian novel and scariest based on Today's politics' is Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here

I've never read it or even heard of it; I rarely read fiction, but I'll look into it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's a long time since I read either, and a radio version of 1984 was on here in the UK just a week ago. Can't remember too much as to Brave New World but I think 1984 would probably be the worst, and is close to what some countries are already experiencing in some ways.