Is it a downfall or him being rescued from falling too far back into the community?
John, by refusing to go meet with the crowd, saves Bernard's individuality from threatened annihilation and offers Bernard real consoling. Helmholtz welcomes him back without a hint of real judgment.
Bernard is placed at the center of his conflict: true authenticity and the highs and lows of that existence that are always uncomfortable, or comfortable mediocrity. And what's great about BNW is that it makes the comfortable and average VERY appealing, because in truth, they ARE very appealing.
To me, even viewing him as having a downfall is part of the genius of this book. He really didn't lose or gain much --- fairweather friends, cheap sex. But that feeling of comfort and acceptance is shown to be very powerful, and Bernard is so angry at it being taken away that he lashes out. It's not unlike soma. The way he berates John is like an addict going through withdrawal.
But ultimately, comfort and "happiness for its own sake" are nothing more than drugs keeping us from our true lives.
However, Bernard's continued criticism and -pride- are actually his saving virtues. Because they ensure that he will never succumb to that addiction. "Mend your ways, young man." The main reason people were so angry at Bernard is because of how he talked down to everyone and anyone about the society in which they lived. He bit the hand that fed him when the getting was good.
He even wrote a report to Mustapha Mond that had him angrily amused at Bernard's chutzpah.
Further, let's not forget that Bernard --- despite his behavior --- comes out with two true friends. One friend is, for all we know, the only other individual (however limited) within the society. The other is the most interesting person within the society. And both are his loyal friends.
And Mond even characterizes his punishment as a reward.
I tend to think of this story as a straightforward hero triumphs over evil story. But, the people reading are left to regard it like the society in BNW would regard Shakespeare (or like you say, Greek heroes): "they wouldn't understand it."
They can't process a hero who expresses his emotions. They can't process individuality being identical with pride when viewed through the lens of social conditioning, etc. etc.
These things are hard to process. Huxley, I'm convinced, made sure of it.
Re: Bernard
John, by refusing to go meet with the crowd, saves Bernard's individuality from threatened annihilation and offers Bernard real consoling. Helmholtz welcomes him back without a hint of real judgment.
Bernard is placed at the center of his conflict: true authenticity and the highs and lows of that existence that are always uncomfortable, or comfortable mediocrity. And what's great about BNW is that it makes the comfortable and average VERY appealing, because in truth, they ARE very appealing.
To me, even viewing him as having a downfall is part of the genius of this book. He really didn't lose or gain much --- fairweather friends, cheap sex. But that feeling of comfort and acceptance is shown to be very powerful, and Bernard is so angry at it being taken away that he lashes out. It's not unlike soma. The way he berates John is like an addict going through withdrawal.
But ultimately, comfort and "happiness for its own sake" are nothing more than drugs keeping us from our true lives.
However, Bernard's continued criticism and -pride- are actually his saving virtues. Because they ensure that he will never succumb to that addiction. "Mend your ways, young man." The main reason people were so angry at Bernard is because of how he talked down to everyone and anyone about the society in which they lived. He bit the hand that fed him when the getting was good.
He even wrote a report to Mustapha Mond that had him angrily amused at Bernard's chutzpah.
Further, let's not forget that Bernard --- despite his behavior --- comes out with two true friends. One friend is, for all we know, the only other individual (however limited) within the society. The other is the most interesting person within the society. And both are his loyal friends.
And Mond even characterizes his punishment as a reward.
I tend to think of this story as a straightforward hero triumphs over evil story. But, the people reading are left to regard it like the society in BNW would regard Shakespeare (or like you say, Greek heroes): "they wouldn't understand it."
They can't process a hero who expresses his emotions. They can't process individuality being identical with pride when viewed through the lens of social conditioning, etc. etc.
These things are hard to process. Huxley, I'm convinced, made sure of it.