5 ms·

> What Sense-Wilson and her daughter seem to be having trouble grasping is that the "savages" in the book are only called "savages" because the mainstream socie

by alanh 16y ago

> What Sense-Wilson and her daughter seem to be having trouble grasping is that the "savages" in the book are only called "savages" because the mainstream society which they aren't a part of is so perverted. In reality, Huxley's savages are indeed the heroes… Indeed. The “savage” reads Shakespeare, which no one else in the book does anymore, for example. It’s just like people wanting to ban Huck Finn because it uses the word “nigger,” without realizing the friendship between Huck and Jim shows just how silly racism actually is, or how the novel basically satirizes slave ownership by making Huck explicitly contemplate the “immorality” of helping a slave escape.

burgerbrain 16y ago
What we really need is some good civil disobedience on the part of teachers. When my highschool schooldistrict banned Huck Finn, my 10th grade english teacher assigned it as an optional assignment with a shitton of bonus credit. He explained why he was willing to do this by pointing out that teachers have an absolutely nuts union. They couldn't do more than give him a slap on the wrist. Now, is Huck Finn that important as a piece of literature? Arguably. However what definitely was important was that all his students learned a good lesson about censorship and having a proper disrespect for authority when needed.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. Civil Disobedience is a tool to draw attention to a broken system. So in the 1950s and 1960s I don't believe most white Americans realized segregation was a problem (remember segregation was largely gone from the North and West by 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States#In_the_North http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_Unite...). So Civil Disobedience was necessary to draw people's attention to the problems still in the South. Here almost everyone knows this woman is crazy they just don't want to confront her on it. So the civil disobedience you suggest would draw attention to the wrong problem (censorship) and leave the right problem (crazy people getting their way) untouched.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Is it really "crazy people getting their way" when the crazy person complains, the school says, "oh yeah, it's banned, uh huh", and then everyone reads it anyway? To me, that sounds more like getting the crazy person to STFU as quickly as possible. Sometimes you have to pretend to throw your principles away until the next shiny object comes along.
    - pmr_ 16y ago
      Yeah, and the next shiny thing that comes along is personal freedom, free speech and some "crazy person" complains and you just "pretend" to throw away your principles to make them shut up. 'and then everyone reads it anyway' And when the time comes some simpleton that just takes orders and follows the law to the letter will come and throw you into prison for reading it. Are you serious?
      - jrockway 16y ago
        What I'm saying is this: Person A: "I hate foo." Person B: "Oh, yeah, me too, it's banned." Person A: "Great!" Person B: "NOT!" but person A is already bored with the issue, so everyone is happy.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  They also learned that having a good union makes it difficult to be fired.
NathanKP 16y ago
It seems to me that in case such as this the ones who ban the book haven't really read it. Anyone who reads "Brave New World" and actually thinks about it will see its true message, and anyone who reads "Huck Finn" and actually thinks about it won't find its use of the word "nigger" objectionable. The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think.
- djacobs 16y ago
  The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think. Which is, in some ways, a theme in Brave New World.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  > The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think. I think the problem is that our society gives in to stupid people if they scream loud enough. There always has been and always will be fools in the world. People who don't think, don't read and jump to anger as their first reaction. The difference here is the fool got her way because a school board full of people not wanting to cause trouble backed down rather than confront her.
  - ascuttlefish 16y ago
    I think you've nailed it. Bill Maher asked the media '[C]ould you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate."' Acknowledging ignorant views and handling those who hold them with kids gloves is just another of many possible paths to Idiocracy.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Careful. One of the cornerstones of democracy is that the ignorant will chose who also governs the educated if they are numerous enough.
      - knieveltech 16y ago
Alex3917 16y ago
"In reality, Huxley's savages are indeed the heroes…" The savages aren't the heroes, but rather are there to show the lack of realistic options. Huxley himself favored a psychedelic society, which he wrote about in Island.
- rglullis 16y ago
  Did he actually "favoured" the society in Island? I know that he personally experimenting with drugs during the time he wrote it, but when I read the book I saw it as "Brave New World, governed by a leftist-idealist". The same principles to manipulate the society on Brave New World are applied on the people of the Island. You still see people being conditioned to obedience/compliance ("Pavlov used for the good, for love"), you still see use of drugs as a way to escape reality, etc... Not to mention that is pretty clear that the society is not sustainable. A society that is not able to defend itself from the first menace is like a living organism without an immune system: it either lives in a bubble, or it is not viable.
rbanffy 16y ago
> Indeed. The “savage” reads Shakespeare, which no one else in the book does anymore, for example. Keep in mind John is the son of Thomas and Linda, both from outside the reservation, and shares very little with the natives.

by alanh 16y ago

burgerbrain 16y ago

What we really need is some good civil disobedience on the part of teachers. When my highschool schooldistrict banned Huck Finn, my 10th grade english teacher assigned it as an optional assignment with a shitton of bonus credit. He explained why he was willing to do this by pointing out that teachers have an absolutely nuts union. They couldn't do more than give him a slap on the wrist. Now, is Huck Finn that important as a piece of literature? Arguably. However what definitely was important was that all his students learned a good lesson about censorship and having a proper disrespect for authority when needed.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm not sure that's true. Civil Disobedience is a tool to draw attention to a broken system. So in the 1950s and 1960s I don't believe most white Americans realized segregation was a problem (remember segregation was largely gone from the North and West by 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States#In_the_North http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_Unite...). So Civil Disobedience was necessary to draw people's attention to the problems still in the South. Here almost everyone knows this woman is crazy they just don't want to confront her on it. So the civil disobedience you suggest would draw attention to the wrong problem (censorship) and leave the right problem (crazy people getting their way) untouched.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Is it really "crazy people getting their way" when the crazy person complains, the school says, "oh yeah, it's banned, uh huh", and then everyone reads it anyway? To me, that sounds more like getting the crazy person to STFU as quickly as possible. Sometimes you have to pretend to throw your principles away until the next shiny object comes along.
  - pmr_ 16y ago
    Yeah, and the next shiny thing that comes along is personal freedom, free speech and some "crazy person" complains and you just "pretend" to throw away your principles to make them shut up. 'and then everyone reads it anyway' And when the time comes some simpleton that just takes orders and follows the law to the letter will come and throw you into prison for reading it. Are you serious?
    - jrockway 16y ago
      What I'm saying is this: Person A: "I hate foo." Person B: "Oh, yeah, me too, it's banned." Person A: "Great!" Person B: "NOT!" but person A is already bored with the issue, so everyone is happy.
ghshephard 16y ago
They also learned that having a good union makes it difficult to be fired.

NathanKP 16y ago

It seems to me that in case such as this the ones who ban the book haven't really read it. Anyone who reads "Brave New World" and actually thinks about it will see its true message, and anyone who reads "Huck Finn" and actually thinks about it won't find its use of the word "nigger" objectionable. The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think.

djacobs 16y ago
The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think. Which is, in some ways, a theme in Brave New World.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
> The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think. I think the problem is that our society gives in to stupid people if they scream loud enough. There always has been and always will be fools in the world. People who don't think, don't read and jump to anger as their first reaction. The difference here is the fool got her way because a school board full of people not wanting to cause trouble backed down rather than confront her.
- ascuttlefish 16y ago
  I think you've nailed it. Bill Maher asked the media '[C]ould you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate."' Acknowledging ignorant views and handling those who hold them with kids gloves is just another of many possible paths to Idiocracy.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Careful. One of the cornerstones of democracy is that the ignorant will chose who also governs the educated if they are numerous enough.
    - knieveltech 16y ago

Alex3917 16y ago

"In reality, Huxley's savages are indeed the heroes…" The savages aren't the heroes, but rather are there to show the lack of realistic options. Huxley himself favored a psychedelic society, which he wrote about in Island.

rglullis 16y ago
Did he actually "favoured" the society in Island? I know that he personally experimenting with drugs during the time he wrote it, but when I read the book I saw it as "Brave New World, governed by a leftist-idealist". The same principles to manipulate the society on Brave New World are applied on the people of the Island. You still see people being conditioned to obedience/compliance ("Pavlov used for the good, for love"), you still see use of drugs as a way to escape reality, etc... Not to mention that is pretty clear that the society is not sustainable. A society that is not able to defend itself from the first menace is like a living organism without an immune system: it either lives in a bubble, or it is not viable.

rbanffy 16y ago

> Indeed. The “savage” reads Shakespeare, which no one else in the book does anymore, for example. Keep in mind John is the son of Thomas and Linda, both from outside the reservation, and shares very little with the natives.