Talk:Brave New World

(Redirected from Talk:Epsilon Minus (Huxley))
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Groogle in topic Germline genome editing

Former good articleBrave New World was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 21, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 17, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 8, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Dystopia, or Utopia

edit

I know this is a terrible thing to say, but isn't this not very much of a dystopia? All they have to do is treat their children and elders better. Their material needs are met, they'd be at peace, there's plenty of soma, sex, sports and TV, their intellects match their careers, and if for whatever reason you dislike it, there's reservations where you can escape. It would have gone over a lot worse in real life, it really would have. Maybe Brave New World is actually a bedroom farce affectionately parodying dystopian fiction.125.212.120.201 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The author himself consider the book a dystopia, expressed concern about the possibility of materialization and latter written a utopia based in the same subjects: Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.92.252 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the writer calls the novel a dystopia, does not necessarily mean it is. The word dystopia has a definition which is independent from huxley's own opinion, and the novel should be categorised by deciding whether it falls into this category or not. For example if I wrote a poem, it would fall into the "poem" category even if I called it a novel. So I actually agree with the first commenter, I think this is a utopia, and the wikipedia article is currently wrong. Salabok (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

its the chosen death like in romeo and julia that makes it a distopia after all, together with his loved one he just would be in love and teach others to be in love by being in love. 85.149.83.125 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
thats how the 1980 BBC miniserie ends, thats TV and not the book, does it differ ?? 85.149.83.125 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dates?

edit

…Orwell believed that Brave New World must have been partly derived from the novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. However, in a 1962 letter, Huxley says that he wrote Brave New World long before he had heard of We… Orwell believed that Huxley was lying.

Orwell was long dead by 1962. Valetude (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Huxley died in 1963, on the same day as JFK. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

and wasn't Nineteen Eighty-Four published in 1949? (See anonymous edit of this day altering the date of publication from 1949 to 1984) Nick_cool (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

History: believed appropriated from Haldane

edit

The article states 'The scientific futurism in Brave New World is believed to be appropriated from Daedalus by J. B. S. Haldane'.

Who is it that believes this? And should the article have a brief description of their reasons for so believing?

Guyal of Sfere (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Grahambell

edit

In this Wikipedia article the DHC is given a last name (Grahambell) which I couldn't find in my book. Does that last name appear in any Brave New World edition? Moangu3 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

13951399 130.255.236.252 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Moangu3: I believe you may be correct. Grahambell appears to have been invented for the film but does not appear in the book. I will do some more digging. MarcGarver (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
It was added here diff with no edit summary or reference. I have removed it. MarcGarver (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Fifi Bradlaugh" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect Fifi Bradlaugh has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Fifi Bradlaugh until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Germline genome editing

edit

I've just worked around a broken link to Germline_genome_editing, a page that has been deleted. I don't see the reasoning behind the deletion, since potentially the topic is of interest, but I'll leave it to somebody more experienced in Wikipedia politics to do the right thing. Groogle (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply