I often hear Brave New World called a dystopia, but from what I gather from the book, all the characters (with the obvious exception of the savage) are totally content with their surroundings. I wonder then how the book is considered "dystopian fantasy".

This is something that's always bothered me, so I figured I'd let you guys tear at it a bit.

easy...

BLISS.

nuff said.

it's because people like to pretend they wouldn't be happy living in a world like that.

Or perhaps people are rather fond of sticking to the human race's ideals of the struggle for improvement, the development of free will, and the ability to shine and be recognized, rather than being content with what's given?

I don't feel that the drive to be excellent and be recognized would exist in Brave New World. It's wiped from peoples minds through their subconcious tape learning, and the culture's ingrained class system.
The citizens of Brave New World would never say, "I wish I was an Alpha..." and then defect. The Betas and Gammas and whoever all learn that the people who shine are meant to, and if you don't then you were bred not to be special.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

And, funny enough, a lot of people think these class struggles are what propel our societies, not hinder them.

I'm not just speaking of class struggles. I'm speaking of the desire to elevate oneself, to achieve what hasn't yet been reached. Surely that's a noble human impulse that shouldn't be quashed simply by breeding people for set levels of achievement, ala Brave New World?

i think that impulse is a product of our times. we haven't always ahd political systems which allowed such social mobility. look at feudal times. you wouldn't expect a serf to rise and become king. he would be a serf for the rest of his life.

Perhaps so. Would you consider the world to be a better place if it were that way? After all, suppose you were a serf and had an intelligent, curious child, with all the potential to be something great. Yet due to your position, all they would be able to garner from life would be the same as you had. Now think about the fact that before the middle ages there were many cultures that allowed upward social advancement. Many of the political features of modern times have their roots in writings and procedures from Classical Greece and the Roman Empire. I'd say the impulse to improve oneself is not simply a modern thought.

I agree with random# that it doesn't seem quite right to refer to Brave New World as a dystopia. The savage John tries his hardest to show people that they can live outside what their society has molded them into. In the end he realizes, especially after prompting by Mustapha Mond, that the society is well balanced and will not change from it's current state.

However, one can note that many of the alpha characters are not quite as content as the "lower" classes. It's almost as if by being in the higher, priveleged position, they are subconsicously realizing the truth.

An official definition of dystopia: "An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror."

Deprivation and opression certainly fit with the society presented in Brave New World. Terror, not so much. Though one could theorize that without soma, the people of the society might come to realize the position that they are in.

Hmmm... After a bit of research, I think maybe Brave New World could easily fit into the definition of dystopia. Thoughts?

It is said that humans are a very social species. Indeed, the culture in Brave New World is very social, albeit promiscuous. But there is a great lack of one emotion, love. In fact, the idea of loving another person is looked down upon and punished if found. Ponder this: would it be possible to supress love this much in an entire society?

I suppose one could argue that certain attachments are shown in the novel itself that could answer this question, but I want to go beyond that.

From the inside, Heaven. Fromt he outside, Dystopia. Still, it is a society based on totalian agriculture, so all would go to fuck soon enough there no matter what. Essentially, though, the Brave New World would be a Nietzschian nightmare. The drive to achieve is not one that is natural and ingrained in our heads. The urge to thrive and to find luxury is not something that "all animals have, but we have the intellect to find." Nietzsche thought it would be best if we would go back to greek city-state days when we could be actively involved in government without playing games, when one would not be hindered by society to achieve. Of course I don't agree with that. Nietzsche would probably say a "Dystopia" is anywhere where people are completely fettered from personal and grand achievement. I would say that a "Dystopia" is anywhere is which one cannot see reality, where lies and engagements and vanities clog our minds of freeing elements.