wingedbeast (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wingedbeast) wrote2017-09-18 12:01 am
wingedbeast) wrote2017-09-18 12:01 am
Entry tags:
Brave New World Deconstruction: Part 3 Three of the Major Players
We're still in Chapter three and we're only now meeting two... maybe three of the major characters in this story. All of what we've gone over so far has been exposition. And, let me say that Huxley did a great job with exposition, far better than Orwell.
Orwell just explained the various ministries, which was well enough in getting the information to us. And, hey, it was interesting enough information.
On the other hand, Huxley literally gave us a tour and answered our questions. The exact nature of the responses and which questions weren't asked also gave us information. And, he topped it off with a spite-filled rant about past sexual and familial politics that's well articulated but filled with enough bile that it might foam at the corners of the world-controller's mouth.
Good job to Huxley on that one.
Now, let's meet three of the major players.
First, let's meet Bernard Marx. In initial readings, I identified most with Bernard Marx. Now, despite myself, I still do.
It's no wonder that I identify with Bernard Marx. I'm not particularly short or particularly hairy, but I do feel a youth wherein I was identified as the social outcast, early on, due to reasons out of my control. Bernard Marx is marked with cultural identifiers that make him different in ways other people don't like. Those cultural identifiers are part physical and likely lead to an early start that gave him no benefit to joining in the same interests with everybody else.
As a side-note on Bernard Marx's physical difference from the rest of the Alphas and Betas, Fanny expressed a theory that was shared by rumor. Rumor had it that, in his decanter, Bernard Marx was, by accident, given alcohol in his blood-surrogate.
My personal fan-theory is just the reverse. This story takes place in the Year of our Ford 632. Considering that was written in 1932 and that the new Fordian count would likely start about the same time, this is, giving a generous estimate, 550 years into the future. It could be more, depending on whether or not the Fordian count started while Henry Ford still lived. At any rate, the caste-based distinctions and breeding program can't have lasted longer than the count itself.
Even given an otherwise perfect genetic isolation of the Alphas&Betas from the lower castes, there's no way that it's been long enough to make differences in intellectual capacity inherent to any genetic line. In fact, given the practice of causing brain-damage, it's possible that the Delta, Gamma, and Epsilon lines have had to have better brain-development just to compensate in order to survive to have their gametes harvested.
Thus, an early embryo that was originally destined to become a Gamma was instead placed among the Alphas. This can be due to human error or even due to a lack of Alpha embryos. In either case, a zygote destined to have a few, incredibly minor cosmetic differences from Alphas became slotted among them. And, one thing that could not be acknowledged was how little actual difference there is.
This wouldn't have been a matter of conspiracy. This would have been a matter of social pressure. Nobody would want to admit that a Gamma could, with just the slightest change of condition, be the equal of any Alpha. It's so much easier to say that an Alpha, with those insignificant surface differences, is socially controversial.
Yeah, I still identify with Bernard Marx, even knowing where his character is going. I'm going to hate him by the end of the book, but not yet. In this reread, I thought I was going to have the chance to hate him right away, but I'll get to that later.
Next, we're going to meet two major characters at once. In a quick second, I'll get to Lenina, but I'll note some more science-to-be-forgiven.
The one-scene character, the unfortunately-named Fanny, has discussed some element of her health with Lenina. Namely, she needs to undergo a pregnancy surrogate. This is, allegedly, for her health. Well, I suppose this is a world without pregnancy, being that all reproduction happens in artificial means. But, many a woman goes through life without being pregnant and does not, to my knowledge, suffer health deterioration due to that fact. In fact, pregnancy causes its own whole host of life-long health issues.
Fortunately, this is one that doesn't come much into play. I note it, mainly, because it is so odd a thing to demand and it does suggest some of where Huxley's mindset came from in writing this novel.
Now, let's get to Lenina. Lenina's going out with Henry Foster again.
Here we have Lenina and here we have Fanny acting on behalf of a force that I'm not sure Huxley entirely understood.
Lenina is, we can understand via context and the way men talk about her, attractive and likes having a good time and just isn't as devoted to promiscuity as her culture would like. Good for her. You do you, Lenina, even later on in the book. You do you.
Aldous Huxley, you, on the other hand, need to sit down and listen to me. I get the feeling that you think you were saying that this was the alternative to the old-fashioned sexual politics that you saw fading away. You wouldn't be the only one. But, I need you to understand that what you created, here, was not an alternative to those values that we, today, call "purity culture". You simply created an alternate purity culture, wherein the relationship with dating and sex is reversed. The bad parts are all the same traditional expressions.
Maybe you were aware of this, maybe. Considering the time of writing, I doubt it.
In an ideal world, the conversation between Lenina and Fanny wouldn't need any of this pressure. If Lenina's fulfilled with a monogamous relationship (even if it's serial monogamy), then good for her. If Fanny prefers her relationships shorter and/or more open, good for her. Of course, the point isn't to make an ideal society. And, my point is that I think that Huxley shares a common misconception on what makes an ideal society.
Still, having noted that this isn't a sex-positive culture so much as a sex-mandatory purity culture, let's look at why I was so ready to hate Bernard immediately.
It's stated explicitly, later on, that he's getting angrier and angrier over the how they're talking about Lenina Crowne. He obviously likes her, but we haven't seen much to indicate that they have any kind of relationship or that he knows her at all well. In fact, we'll see that he doesn't.
All of that makes me think of Bernard Marx as what we now call the classic Nice Guy™. And, I'll have a lot more to say on the Nice Guy™ when I get to The Handmaid's Tale. Here, suffice it to say that, whatever Huxley may think on the matter (and it may turn out that he had a better sense of it than we think), Nice Guy™ is not a good set of behaviors or attitudes.
Sure, I don't approve of the other two casually talking about her using the all-purpose term for "good in the sack" of "pneumatic", but neither do I approve of Bernard Marx having any perceived moral superiority for also not approving.
But, then there's this.
That was put together from amidst the various flashes between conversations and scenes. So, it's possible that the baiting took longer than that. But, regardless of how easy it is to bait Marx into saying "damn", they did it. They did it, because they could, because he looked baitable.
Bernard Marx, part of me wants to hate you just so that there would be more distance, particularly later on. But, despite the fact that your behavior and attitude aren't that much better than that of your peers, I just can't. Like Winston Smith before you, you're in a society that doesn't let you mature. So, here you are, stuck for it.
Bernard Marx, you will be much like Winston Smith for me. Every time I'm tempted to hate you, my job will be to remember how much you are me. Whether that abates the hate, we'll eventually see.
That said, again, to deal with Huxley's unideal society, let's go back to the conversation those men had about Lenina. Marx responds, internally, to object that they're talking about Lenina as a piece of meat. "Oh, you haven't had her, yet? You really should try her."
I'll agree with Bernard Marx on that front, they are talking about her as though she is a piece of meat. The problem is that Huxley seems to present that as the only alternative to a more... chivalrous (for lack of a better term) way of relating to women. Huxley, or at least a common trope of purity culture, would have us believe that the only options are to have the conversation or to respect women.
Well, I think we can rest assured that we all know that there are many ways to disrespect women that include avoiding the conversation. But, I will leave you with this, not a quote from the book, but a thought on how the conversation could go respectfully, between Henry Foster and the Assistant Predestinator.
Of course, that would be a more sex-positive version, rather than what Huxley's going for. As I said before, what we're shown in the book is the just the problems of purity culture with a sex-mandating focus, rather than a sex rejecting focus.
Orwell just explained the various ministries, which was well enough in getting the information to us. And, hey, it was interesting enough information.
On the other hand, Huxley literally gave us a tour and answered our questions. The exact nature of the responses and which questions weren't asked also gave us information. And, he topped it off with a spite-filled rant about past sexual and familial politics that's well articulated but filled with enough bile that it might foam at the corners of the world-controller's mouth.
Good job to Huxley on that one.
Now, let's meet three of the major players.
First, let's meet Bernard Marx. In initial readings, I identified most with Bernard Marx. Now, despite myself, I still do.
In the lift, on their way up to the changing rooms, Henry Foster and the Assistant Director of Predestination rather pointedly turned their backs on Bernard Marx from the Psychology Bureau: averted themselves from that unsavory reputation.
Those who feel themselves despised do well to look despising. The smile on Bernard Marx's face was contemptuous. Every hair on the bear indeed!
"But his reputation?"
"What do I care about his reputation?"
"They say he doesn't like Obstacle Golf."
"And then so small." Fanny made a grimmace; smallness was so horribly and typically low-caste.
It's no wonder that I identify with Bernard Marx. I'm not particularly short or particularly hairy, but I do feel a youth wherein I was identified as the social outcast, early on, due to reasons out of my control. Bernard Marx is marked with cultural identifiers that make him different in ways other people don't like. Those cultural identifiers are part physical and likely lead to an early start that gave him no benefit to joining in the same interests with everybody else.
As a side-note on Bernard Marx's physical difference from the rest of the Alphas and Betas, Fanny expressed a theory that was shared by rumor. Rumor had it that, in his decanter, Bernard Marx was, by accident, given alcohol in his blood-surrogate.
My personal fan-theory is just the reverse. This story takes place in the Year of our Ford 632. Considering that was written in 1932 and that the new Fordian count would likely start about the same time, this is, giving a generous estimate, 550 years into the future. It could be more, depending on whether or not the Fordian count started while Henry Ford still lived. At any rate, the caste-based distinctions and breeding program can't have lasted longer than the count itself.
Even given an otherwise perfect genetic isolation of the Alphas&Betas from the lower castes, there's no way that it's been long enough to make differences in intellectual capacity inherent to any genetic line. In fact, given the practice of causing brain-damage, it's possible that the Delta, Gamma, and Epsilon lines have had to have better brain-development just to compensate in order to survive to have their gametes harvested.
Thus, an early embryo that was originally destined to become a Gamma was instead placed among the Alphas. This can be due to human error or even due to a lack of Alpha embryos. In either case, a zygote destined to have a few, incredibly minor cosmetic differences from Alphas became slotted among them. And, one thing that could not be acknowledged was how little actual difference there is.
This wouldn't have been a matter of conspiracy. This would have been a matter of social pressure. Nobody would want to admit that a Gamma could, with just the slightest change of condition, be the equal of any Alpha. It's so much easier to say that an Alpha, with those insignificant surface differences, is socially controversial.
Yeah, I still identify with Bernard Marx, even knowing where his character is going. I'm going to hate him by the end of the book, but not yet. In this reread, I thought I was going to have the chance to hate him right away, but I'll get to that later.
Next, we're going to meet two major characters at once. In a quick second, I'll get to Lenina, but I'll note some more science-to-be-forgiven.
The one-scene character, the unfortunately-named Fanny, has discussed some element of her health with Lenina. Namely, she needs to undergo a pregnancy surrogate. This is, allegedly, for her health. Well, I suppose this is a world without pregnancy, being that all reproduction happens in artificial means. But, many a woman goes through life without being pregnant and does not, to my knowledge, suffer health deterioration due to that fact. In fact, pregnancy causes its own whole host of life-long health issues.
Fortunately, this is one that doesn't come much into play. I note it, mainly, because it is so odd a thing to demand and it does suggest some of where Huxley's mindset came from in writing this novel.
Now, let's get to Lenina. Lenina's going out with Henry Foster again.
"But after all," Lenina was protesting, "it's only about four months since I've been having Henry."
"Only four months! I like that. And what's more," Fanny went on, pointing an accusing finger," there's been nobody else except Henry all that time. Has there?"
Lenina blushed scarlet; but her eyes, the tone of her voice remained defiant. "No, there hasn't been any one else," she answered almost truculently. "And I jolly well don't see why there should have been."
Here we have Lenina and here we have Fanny acting on behalf of a force that I'm not sure Huxley entirely understood.
Lenina is, we can understand via context and the way men talk about her, attractive and likes having a good time and just isn't as devoted to promiscuity as her culture would like. Good for her. You do you, Lenina, even later on in the book. You do you.
Aldous Huxley, you, on the other hand, need to sit down and listen to me. I get the feeling that you think you were saying that this was the alternative to the old-fashioned sexual politics that you saw fading away. You wouldn't be the only one. But, I need you to understand that what you created, here, was not an alternative to those values that we, today, call "purity culture". You simply created an alternate purity culture, wherein the relationship with dating and sex is reversed. The bad parts are all the same traditional expressions.
Maybe you were aware of this, maybe. Considering the time of writing, I doubt it.
In an ideal world, the conversation between Lenina and Fanny wouldn't need any of this pressure. If Lenina's fulfilled with a monogamous relationship (even if it's serial monogamy), then good for her. If Fanny prefers her relationships shorter and/or more open, good for her. Of course, the point isn't to make an ideal society. And, my point is that I think that Huxley shares a common misconception on what makes an ideal society.
Still, having noted that this isn't a sex-positive culture so much as a sex-mandatory purity culture, let's look at why I was so ready to hate Bernard immediately.
"Lenina Crowne?" said Henry Foster, echoing the Assistant Predestinator's question as he zipped up his trousers. "Oh, she's a splendid girl. Wonderfully pneumatic. I'm surprised you haven't had her."
"I can't think of hot it is I haven't," said the Assistant Predestinator. "I certainly will. At the first opportunity."
From his place opposite the side of the changing-room aisle, Bernard Marx overheard what they were saying and turned pale.
It's stated explicitly, later on, that he's getting angrier and angrier over the how they're talking about Lenina Crowne. He obviously likes her, but we haven't seen much to indicate that they have any kind of relationship or that he knows her at all well. In fact, we'll see that he doesn't.
All of that makes me think of Bernard Marx as what we now call the classic Nice Guy™. And, I'll have a lot more to say on the Nice Guy™ when I get to The Handmaid's Tale. Here, suffice it to say that, whatever Huxley may think on the matter (and it may turn out that he had a better sense of it than we think), Nice Guy™ is not a good set of behaviors or attitudes.
Sure, I don't approve of the other two casually talking about her using the all-purpose term for "good in the sack" of "pneumatic", but neither do I approve of Bernard Marx having any perceived moral superiority for also not approving.
But, then there's this.
"He does look glum," said the Assistant Predestinator, pointing at Bernard Marx.
"Let's bait him."
"Glum, Marx, glum." The clap on the shoulder made him start, look up. It was the brute Henry Foster. "What you need is a gramme of soma."
"Ford, I should like to kill him!" But all he did was to say, "No, thank you," and fend off the proffered tube of tablets.
"Take it," insisted Henry Foster, "take it."
"Damn you, damn you!" shouted Bernard Marx.
"And do remember that a gramme is better than a damn." They went out, laughing.
That was put together from amidst the various flashes between conversations and scenes. So, it's possible that the baiting took longer than that. But, regardless of how easy it is to bait Marx into saying "damn", they did it. They did it, because they could, because he looked baitable.
Bernard Marx, part of me wants to hate you just so that there would be more distance, particularly later on. But, despite the fact that your behavior and attitude aren't that much better than that of your peers, I just can't. Like Winston Smith before you, you're in a society that doesn't let you mature. So, here you are, stuck for it.
Bernard Marx, you will be much like Winston Smith for me. Every time I'm tempted to hate you, my job will be to remember how much you are me. Whether that abates the hate, we'll eventually see.
That said, again, to deal with Huxley's unideal society, let's go back to the conversation those men had about Lenina. Marx responds, internally, to object that they're talking about Lenina as a piece of meat. "Oh, you haven't had her, yet? You really should try her."
I'll agree with Bernard Marx on that front, they are talking about her as though she is a piece of meat. The problem is that Huxley seems to present that as the only alternative to a more... chivalrous (for lack of a better term) way of relating to women. Huxley, or at least a common trope of purity culture, would have us believe that the only options are to have the conversation or to respect women.
Well, I think we can rest assured that we all know that there are many ways to disrespect women that include avoiding the conversation. But, I will leave you with this, not a quote from the book, but a thought on how the conversation could go respectfully, between Henry Foster and the Assistant Predestinator.
Henry Foster zipped up his shirt. "You know, I think you're Lenina Crowne's type."
The Assistant Predestinator paused and looked over. "Really? I don't know. She's obviously attractive, but I haven't had the chance to speak with her."
"Really. She's into pegging... and not aggressively, very tenderly. It's not even my thing and she made it work. I remember you saying that you enjoyed it. Plus, the two of you both really seem to like talking about fashion."
"Hmm. Maybe I should ask her out."
Of course, that would be a more sex-positive version, rather than what Huxley's going for. As I said before, what we're shown in the book is the just the problems of purity culture with a sex-mandating focus, rather than a sex rejecting focus.