Having recently finished Aldous Huxley's classic A Brave New World, I find myself liking the book quite a bit but am bothered by one facet of the work that gnaws at my mind.
Upon reflection, I'm not sure that John the Savage was worthy as a character to carry the message of individual dignity and liberty in the face of The World State. To quickly summarize John, he was an 18 year old who was born on an Indian reservation in New Mexico after his mother, a World State resident, was stranded their on vacation and presumed dead. Discovered by the vacationing Bernard and Lenina, John and his mother are brought back to London and the World State.
Almost immediately John reacts negatively against the World State's lack of personal nobility, struggle, achievement and dignity. He correctly notes that by removing art, science, religion, curiosity, etc. from daily life, life itself has no real meaning. He himself yearns for the opportunity to overcome an obstacle, to prove himself worthy both to Lenina and to himself.
This is where the trouble lies for me. John, having been excluded from society when living with the Indians, hopes to be able to find self worth in London. After making some futile attempts to explain his way of thinking and the concept of liberty and dignity, John first tries to live like a hermit and punish himself in a deserted part of England, then, when he gets discovered flagellating himself, crowds of World Staters come to view and mock him in his ritual. One of these onlookers is Lenina, who despite the fact that she was sad and crying for John, whose presence sends John into a rage where he beats the living shit out of her which also triggers a blood orgy among the gathered crowd. The next day after John realizes what he did, he promptly kills himself. This causes two problems for me the reader.
PROBLEM ONE
John validates everything the World Staters think he is. He may talk eloquently about art, music, science, etc. and how they help man excel but when confronted with the scorn of the new world, John reacts with explosive emotion, beating Lenina on multiple occasions, antagonizing the more mindless of new world citizens and hiding in various places. The World Staters created their society to solve the very problems John was causing, i.e. explosive emotional reactions that lead to war and unhappiness. Rather than be the torchbearer of liberty, it's as if the character exists to prove the Controllers right.
PROBLEM TWO
John complains frequently about having a chance to be heroic, about having an obstacle to overcome. Yet, when confronted with the challenge of fighting the World State's lack of humanity, he chooses to kill himself after a relatively few setbacks. Being the student of Shakespeare he appears to be, he should realize how large a role perseverance and failure plays in ultimate success. Especially when you consider that he had already made some progress. Bernard and Helmholtz were already discovering the things John already knew. Lenina, in an infantile way, was feeling the same emotions (love) that he wanted her to feel, she just didn't know what to do with them. Finally, Mustapha Mond admitted to John that people who desire freedom and liberty are frequent occurrences in the World State and that they are simply removed from sight. There have been movements in real life that started with less foundation than that. It seems plausible that if John, not being banished to an island and still free to talk openly about his beliefs, was truly worthy of the hero status he sought, he could've at least fought in the face of all that adversity, especially with the child like love of Lenina so ready to be exploited. Instead, he killed himself, proving the Indians right in their assumptions that he wasn't worthy of their inclusions while simultaneously proving that the Controller's view that heroism only causes instability correct as well.
All together, the book is still a masterpiece of dystopian totalitarianism but the portrayal of John will always strike me as odd given how Huxley was trying to expose this communal/communistic lifestyle as a fraud. I'm sure more knowledgeable scholars than myself can try and find meaning in the subtext that explains John's failings. Perhaps his admission of failure and ultimate decision was the ultimate act of freedom in an oppressive world, I don't know. All I know is that if liberty, dignity and freedom are worthy enough that all people should be granted them unconditionally, then it seems that John should have been worthy enough to execute them as well.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment