Brave New World
人有选择幸福的权利。苦难中创造出可歌可泣的悲剧精神，苦难中创造出高尚与英雄主义。被迫幸福是好事吗？
“当然可怕。与受苦受难付出的高昂代价相比，实际的幸福往往显得卑劣。稳定当然不如动荡来得热闹。知足常乐绝不如与不幸做努力抗争那么有魅力，也没有抗拒诱惑，或抗拒被激情和怀疑毁灭那么引人入胜。幸福绝不是宏伟壮观的。”（第十七章穆斯塔法 语）
同为反乌托邦题材，如果说《1984》讨论的是政治，那么《美丽新世界》讨论的是人性，宗教与哲学。 前者运用着象征，后者运用着对比。野蛮人在书中与新世界的人们形成了鲜明的对比，基督教与新世界信仰形成对比，莎士比亚文学作品中表达的悲剧精神与新世界人们稳定的“幸福”形成对比。
讨论一下本书中唯一有结尾的人物。野蛮人，即“约翰”，这个名字似乎也正代表着他的信仰。正如基督教中第四卷福音书名为《约翰福音》一样，约翰”这个名字的意思是“主是仁慈的”。
“《约翰福音》曾被人指责有诺替斯主义的倾向。基督教诺替斯派所主张的观点是，在实质上，善与恶分别就是灵与物质。那些心中存有天国光芒的人被说成是这个物质世界的囚徒。得救在于懂得怎样脱离物质的界限而进入属灵的界限。”（摘自中国基督复灵安息日会网）
而表现在书中，则是印第安人所信仰着灵魂，与新世界人民富足的物质生活形成对比。
““如果你让自己想想上帝，你就不会让自己被欢愉的罪行所贬斥。你就会找到耐心忍受的理由，找到鼓足勇气做事的理由。我在印第安人身上看到这一点。” “我确信你看到了。”穆斯塔法·蒙德说，“但我们不是印第安人，文明人没有任何必要去忍受任何不快。至于做事——福帝禁止人有这样的想法。如果人们开始按自己的意愿做事，整个社会秩序就会被颠覆。””（第十七章）
“他决定在这里住下，本是因为这里的景色非常美丽，因为从他这个好位置看去，他似乎可以看到圣灵的圣体。然而，他是谁，竟然可以受到如此厚待，日夜与美丽相对？他是谁，竟然可以与上帝的圣体居住在一起？他只配住在肮脏的猪圈或地下的黑洞里。经历长夜的煎熬之后，他的身体感到僵直疼痛，但是因为内心许下的保证，他还是爬上了塔楼平台，向这个旭日东升的光明世界望去。他已经获得了在这里居住的权利。”（第十八章）
（我完全不认同这两个极端的观点。） 本书的结尾，野蛮人从被当成观赏表演的印第安人群中离开，渴望着文明世界。进入文明世界后，却厌恶自己被文明世界吞噬。流亡（或许不够恰当）到伦敦以外的岛屿后，疯狂的信仰驱使着他一遍又一遍道歉，在压抑与渴望中徘徊。新世界的人们惊奇于他的表现，纷纷赶来观看。他渴望的自由不复存在，在前几章中试图帮助德尔塔人群醒悟的愿望失败了，疯狂占据着他的思想，在矛盾与冲突中反反复复鞭打着自己。鞭打着自己的欲望，鞭打着人们欲望。而新世界无法从瓶中逃脱的人们，正如曾经在印第安人群领地中观看表演者被鞭打一样，再次抱着娱乐的心态看着眼前趋近疯狂的“野蛮人”。一次又一次的循环，一次又一次趋近极端，妄图革命的人失败了，被洗脑的人啊，困于瓶中世界永远无法醒悟，正如他们出生前那样，从胚胎到一生，永远存活在瓶中。 有一个很有趣的照应，
“本来应该是我在那儿，”年轻人接着说，“他们为什么不让我去做牺牲？我可以走十圈，十二圈，十五圈。帕洛迪瓦只走了七圈。他们可以从我身上得到两倍的血，大海也会染得殷红。”他伸出手臂做了个夸张的动作，但接着又沮丧地垂下手臂。“但是他们不会让我去的。他们不喜欢我，因为我的外貌和他们不一样。总是这样，总是这样。”年轻人的眼眶里噙满泪水。他为自己感到羞耻，转过脸去。（第七章）
野蛮人希望自己能够代替另外的人承受鞭打的演出，但却因为自己与他人的不同而无法做到。而结尾，野蛮人完全了他唯一的心愿，他在公众面前表演了一次自我的鞭打，只不过，这次仍然是因为他的与众不同。如此讽刺。
2022.4.11
Ps：是的，需要补充的是，在新世界结尾那一段鞭打的描写中，也表现着新思想与旧道德之间的冲突…
好吧，不得不说，我过几年再回看《美丽新世界》大概会有不一样的感受吧，没有不一样的感受才是最可怕的事情。但是从我现在已有的贫瘠知识储备而言，我还是持“人类有追求苦难的权利”或者说，人类有追求多样化的权利，以上。
2022.4.18
Btw，奥威尔和赫胥黎的小说叙事方式完全不一样，在《1984》中以主人公温斯顿为主要视角，通过大量描写温斯顿的心理想法与其所见所闻，来展现出反乌托邦社会的真正面貌。而《美丽新世界》则是通过对不同人物的语言，心理描写。从第一章开始就能很明显看到差别，虽然都是第三人称的叙事，但后者却更近似一台摄像机，以完全的旁观者视角叙事着眼前所目睹的一切。
People have the right to choose happiness. But the spirit of tragedy, so moving and heroic, is forged in suffering. High nobility and heroism are born from pain. Is forced happiness actually a good thing?
"Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand." (Mustapha Mond, Chapter 16)
Both are dystopian classics, but if 1984 is a discussion about politics, Brave New World is a discussion about human nature, religion, and philosophy.
The former relies heavily on symbolism; the latter thrives on contrast. The Savage stands in stark contrast to the people of the New World. Christianity contrasts with the New World's faith. The tragic spirit expressed in Shakespeare's works contrasts with the stable "happiness" of the New World citizens.
Let's talk about the only character in the book who actually gets an ending: the Savage, "John." Even his name seems to represent his faith. Just as the fourth Gospel is the Gospel of John, the name "John" literally means "God is gracious."
"The Gospel of John has been accused of having Gnostic tendencies. The Christian Gnostic view posits that, essentially, good and evil correspond to spirit and matter. Those who carry the light of the heavenly kingdom in their hearts are seen as prisoners of this material world. Salvation lies in knowing how to transcend material boundaries and enter the spiritual realm." (Excerpt translated from the Chinese Seventh-day Adventist website)
In the book, this is mirrored by the Indians' belief in the soul, which forms a sharp contrast with the overwhelming material abundance enjoyed by the New World citizens. "If you allowed yourselves to think of God, you wouldn't allow yourselves to be degraded by pleasant vices. You'd have a reason for bearing things patiently, for doing things with courage. I've seen it with the Indians." "I'm sure you have," said Mustapha Mond. "But then we aren't Indians. There isn't any need for a civilized man to bear anything that's seriously unpleasant. And as for doing things—Ford forbid that he should get the idea into his head. It would upset the whole social order if men started doing things on their own." (Chapter 17)
"He had decided to live there because the view was so beautiful, because, from his vantage point, he seemed to be looking out on to the incarnation of a divine being. But who was he to be pampered with the daily and hourly sight of loveliness? Who was he to be living in the visible presence of God? All he deserved to live in was some filthy sty, some dark hole in the ground. Stiff and aching after his long hours of agonizing vigil, he climbed the parapet and looked out towards the lightening east. He had earned the right to inhabit this place." (Chapter 18)
(I completely disagree with both of these extreme takes, tbh.)
At the end of the book, the Savage leaves the Indian reservation where he was basically treated as a spectacle, yearning for the "civilized" world. But once he enters it, he’s disgusted to find himself being swallowed whole by it. Exiling himself (if that's the right word) to an island outside London, his frantic faith drives him to apologize over and over, trapped in a purgatory of repression and desire. The New World citizens, fascinated by his behavior, flock to watch him. The freedom he craved is gone. His attempts in the earlier chapters to wake up the Deltas failed. Madness takes over his mind, and caught in this paradox of conflict, he repeatedly whips himself. Whipping his own desires, whipping the desires of humanity. Meanwhile, the people of the New World—who can never escape their "bottles"—watch this driven-to-madness "Savage" as mere entertainment, exactly like how they watched the performer being whipped back at the Indian reservation. A loop repeating over and over, pushing further into the extreme. The one who tried to revolt failed. The brainwashed masses remain trapped in their bottled world, never to wake up, living their entire lives from embryo to death in a glass jar.
There’s a really interesting parallel here: "'It ought to have been me,' the young man went on. 'Why wouldn't they let me be the sacrifice? I'd have gone round ten times—twelve, fifteen. Palowhtiwa only got as far as seven. They could have had twice as much blood from me. The multitudinous seas incarnadine.' He flung out his arms in a magnificent gesture; then let them fall. 'But they wouldn't let me. They disliked me for my complexion. It's always been like that. Always.' Tears stood in the young man's eyes; he was ashamed and turned away." (Chapter 7)
The Savage wished he could have been the one to endure the whipping during the ceremony, but he was denied because he was "different" from the others. Yet, in the end, the Savage finally gets his wish: he performs a public self-flagellation. Except this time, it’s still because he’s different. The irony is insane. 2022.4.11
Ps: Yeah, I should add that the whipping scene at the very end also perfectly captures the clash between new ideologies and old morals... Honestly, if I reread Brave New World in a few years, I'll probably feel differently about it. Not feeling differently would be the scariest thing. But with my current, limited knowledge base, I still stand by the idea that "humanity has the right to seek suffering"—or rather, humanity has the right to diversity. That is all. 2022.4.18
Btw, Orwell and Huxley’s narrative styles are completely different. 1984 relies on Winston as the primary POV, exposing the true face of the dystopian society through heavy descriptions of his inner thoughts and what he witnesses. Brave New World, on the other hand, builds its world through the dialogue and psychology of multiple characters. You can see the difference right from Chapter 1. Even though both use third-person narration, the latter reads more like a camera—a total bystander objectively recording everything it sees. And this...