3 ms·

Neither because they're both fiction books marketed towards a popular audience for their entertainment. They are not substitutes for concrete analysis of histor

Neither because they're both fiction books marketed towards a popular audience for their entertainment. They are not substitutes for concrete analysis of historical facts. "Who got it right, J.R.R. Tolkien or J.K. Rowling?"

rapnie 5y ago
Well, fiction with such clear warnings in them are more like parables.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Neither of these fictional novels are succinct nor simple, like a parable.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Yes, they're fiction but... Obviously the two books are a worse case scenario dystopia played out in a fictional world as a sandbox. Orwell takes communism to the extreme of totalitarianism [1] to shows us what it might look like. Huxley takes late stage capitalism to the extreme of authoritarian capitalism [3] to show what powerful elites running the world might look like in the far future. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism
- pphysch 5y ago
  "Totalitarianism" is as real as Goblins [1] and Orcs [2]; it is a Cold War propaganda term to smear enemy political systems. No person or government identifies as "totalitarian". 1984 and Brave New World are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales, earning the authors a living. They are not accurate representations of reality and anyone who bases their understanding of modern domestic and international politics & power on them is just as deeply unserious as someone who compares China to Mordor or Putin to Voldemort. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
  - robocat 5y ago
    > are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales i believe your cynicism is unwarranted for 1984. That might have been true of a couple of Orwell’s novels, but as he became more political, he spent his life on his socialist ideals. He fought in the trenches fighting against the fascists in Spain. He lived in the north of England for a bit, trying to understand poverty from the inside (although Orwell himself came from an ‘English upper class’ family, a family that lacked the money to keep up their social appearances). Orwell lived socialism, he wasn’t primarily a novelist, which is why his writing is so real. 1984 is written as a political book, using the novel format as the foundation for exposition, similar to many good fantasy or sci-fi novels. Much of his writing is political non-fiction, although 1984 is his most famous work. 1984 was published when he was ~46, near the time of his death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

rapnie 5y ago

Well, fiction with such clear warnings in them are more like parables.

pphysch 5y ago
Neither of these fictional novels are succinct nor simple, like a parable.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Yes, they're fiction but... Obviously the two books are a worse case scenario dystopia played out in a fictional world as a sandbox. Orwell takes communism to the extreme of totalitarianism [1] to shows us what it might look like. Huxley takes late stage capitalism to the extreme of authoritarian capitalism [3] to show what powerful elites running the world might look like in the far future. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism

pphysch 5y ago
"Totalitarianism" is as real as Goblins [1] and Orcs [2]; it is a Cold War propaganda term to smear enemy political systems. No person or government identifies as "totalitarian". 1984 and Brave New World are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales, earning the authors a living. They are not accurate representations of reality and anyone who bases their understanding of modern domestic and international politics & power on them is just as deeply unserious as someone who compares China to Mordor or Putin to Voldemort. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
- robocat 5y ago
  > are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales i believe your cynicism is unwarranted for 1984. That might have been true of a couple of Orwell’s novels, but as he became more political, he spent his life on his socialist ideals. He fought in the trenches fighting against the fascists in Spain. He lived in the north of England for a bit, trying to understand poverty from the inside (although Orwell himself came from an ‘English upper class’ family, a family that lacked the money to keep up their social appearances). Orwell lived socialism, he wasn’t primarily a novelist, which is why his writing is so real. 1984 is written as a political book, using the novel format as the foundation for exposition, similar to many good fantasy or sci-fi novels. Much of his writing is political non-fiction, although 1984 is his most famous work. 1984 was published when he was ~46, near the time of his death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell