rx12851739a935

de Veľká Paka, Slovakia de Veľká Paka, Slovakia

Lecteur de Veľká Paka, Slovakia

de Veľká Paka, Slovakia

rx12851739a935

naaaa.

rx12851739a935

When I began reading BNW, I was charmed by Huxley's use of prose and the horrific irony of his dystopian sterile fertility center in the first few chapters. Having finished the book, I find myself dissatisfied with Huxley's prose. After the first three chapters, the prose isn't much to talk about. He doesn't continue writing with the same depth and artful beauty. I think the initial burst was only a hook, which is a dirty, dirty literary trick. I can understand that he would use simplicity in prose to convey strong ideas, but the way in which he executed it left me unsated and wanting. (Although I will say I am very biased right now, because I'm reading Nabokov) Beyond that, the interesting thing about my experience with BNW was the following: While I was reading, and fully immersed, beyond the context in which it was written, some of Huxley's ideas seemed pastiche. A common dystopic sci-fi. But after being relinquished from the fictive dream, about halfway through (and after a brief peek at the copyright date (1932), I realized my ennui with a book written nearly eighty years ago was rather astonishing. I'm pleased with the sagacity of many of Huxley's ideas. The book resonates with the modern world, and that's why it's so highly regarded today. All in all, I found BNW disappointing. The turpitude of prose bait and switch, the simple plot, the dissatisfying ending.. I would like to know more about the context of the world in which the book was written. I think that would provide a little more insight, a little more appreciation. It's worth reading, it still provides a cautionary tale like all good dystopian novels should, and is quite relevant, which says something, given when it was written, but beyond that, it's not the best dystopic novel out there.