Assign Q.2

1. What was the climax of the story? Some of you have already talked about this in class, but I want each group to come to a consensus.
2. What was the social commentary?
3. Why did you like/dislike the novel? Don't just say "I thought the story was good"... I want some opinion and thought, here! Also, I don't want you to write "it sucked" without backing up your opinion with some good, critical comments. Think of a movie review. Those reviewers never just say "it sucked"... they give evidence and details.And... it's okay to dislike your book!

The climax of the story is in my opinion when the Savage decide to go against soma and toss them out while people are distrubuting it. I say it is so because after that event, it become like a point of no return thing, meaning the story can't turn back. This is like a breakthrough and force the antagonist to take action to put a stop to the main characters. After this event, the Savage is left alone as his friends are seperated from him and he himself goes crazy soon after.

The commentary I think could mean is that no perfect world is accepted by everyone. The world in the book sound like heaven, no worry and pain, but the Savage see it as madness, because he believe life without pain isn't life anymore, but is a false reality. The world shouldn't be control by one person and everyone should be free to create their ideal world by working toward it. We have to see that there are other people and they have their ways of thinking that is different from ours, and that is what make us unique and a human being.

I find the story hard to read at time because the words are something hard to understand and at random point the author "jumps" around, switching focus randomly. I get confuse around those point and I also didn't like how many characters get very little development. Many seem to be thrown in just to fill up some pages or something, for example, while Lenina seem important at the beginning, she doesn't change nothing in the end. She was ignored toward the end of the book when I thought she was going to play a big role. Other than my few compains, the book present a nice story of how our futurn could be and how it is not truly a perfect world like the controller claim it to be. It give me a odd understanding of while how something is bad at time, like pain and sorrow, we need these negativity to live for it remined us of what we need to do and what is right and wrong.

Assign Q

QUESTONS: Why do you think the author put some appealing characteristics into his hypothetical world?In what ways does Brave New World match (or stray from) the satire model we discussed in class?

The author is trying to tell us by using positive traits that a perfect world is just one person's definition of perfect. Other people see "perfect" with different meaning then the one that rule the world. Bernard is an example because he wants something more than sex and false happiness. He wants to be free and gain something he can call his own. This mean the perfect world the book introduce is not really perfect because some people are still not satisfy with it. There is no perfect world no matter how good it is because someone is going to be unhappy about it.

The satire model is related with the book because the world in the book doesn't have what people don't want in our time. Things such as war, sickness, oldness doesn't exist, but in exchange we must give up our freedom to gain complete control over everything so people can live in the most ideal life. This book shows what happen if people's wish for negativity goes away and stay away.

Antagonist

The story begins with an artificial world where everyone is in control by the antagonists, the controllers. These people are the ones who manage the balance of the world, like gods. They can do literally anything they want and play with living being as if they were toys. Some examples are, cloning people to increase population, drug people with soma (anti-depress drug) to keep people control, dividing people in to different classes by intelligence, and controlling people's behavor. This story seem to aim for a perfect ideal world where everything is peaceful because it is in control. However, I think something should be left alone because this sort of peace is no different then suppressing the world and change it to one's bias liking. I get the idea of like playing legos, where one person can do what ever he want with it and no one can stop him. It doesn't matter if its right or wrong and in this book, things are more extreme because these toy legos are living being called humans.

I think the social commentary is that people who have too much power tend to abuse it. They become arrogant and believe their every action to justify and attempt to attain peace which everyone wants, but that is a lie blind by having too much power. That is why government should never have their power uncheck, because if left alone this futurn just may happen if government are as capable and powerful as this story go.

1st Post!

Created on 4/11/07. HI!