Talk:Brave New World

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brave New World article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 2 years

Brave 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
Date	Process	Result
December 21, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
August 15, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 17, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 8, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Novels: Sci-fi Top‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Science Fiction Top‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Futures studies Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was reviewed by The Chronicle of Higher Education on October 27, 2006. (Link to review)
Comments: Grade: B-
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Dystopia, or Utopia

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?

…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]

Grahambell

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

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

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]

Common Misunderstandings

The current section on "Common Misunderstandings" seems to be, in my view, sort of biased and unnecessary. The entire section consists of the opinions of one geneticist about how human genetic enhancement is fine and good and Huxley's dystopia actually condones it. We can disagree on the validity of the reading So (the aforementioned geneticist "debunking" the interpretation of the novel) puts forward, that there is no genetic enhancement in Brave New World (I would argue there is, the "Alphas" are all explicitly described as especially tall, muscular, and intelligent, the Betas are described as relatively normal people, etc), but it seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia article on the book. It undermines the neutrality of the article and makes it look like part of the article was written by someone who is especially interested in promoting human genetic enhancement.

In my view, this seems to be a counterargument to an interpretation of the novel which has not been given any place in the article. At best, there should be a section entitled something like "Interpretation," in which some common interpretations and criticisms of them would be discussed, much like the Interpretation section for The Metamorphosis. Cahmad25 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]