Be Huxley and Orwell

>be Huxley and Orwell
>both were in the same secret club that runs the world
>tried to warn people about the plan for the future in 1984 and Brave New World

Attached: Huxley1.jpg (628x427, 37K)

Am I wrong to think those two books are highly underappreciated? Not to be needlessly suspicious, but I feel these books are forced on children very early so that it desensitizes them rather than educates. The books are no longer considered possible worlds to be feared, but *middle school books* that you're supposed to have gotten over long ago, regardless of how relevant they might be. It serves more to discredit the ideas than to give them importance.

Not wrong at all. What is better at killing peoples' appreciation for critical thought than forcing them through the rigors of a grossly incompetent system?

The books are not the be-all-end-all, but they are definitely intentionally relegated to being pop culture on par with crap like Salinger.

Attached: Smug.jpg (225x225, 12K)

This

Bad writers, intresting theorist
Simple as

I read 1984 for the first tine last summer at 23, and expected a reddit meme, but absolutely shocked how profound it was. There were lots of ideas such as the secular state, and masochism that were very interesting. It also was redpilled on women.

>par with crap like Salinger.
Why would you not extend your theory to that? How is Orwell profound but Salinger not you midwit dog

>It also was redpilled on women.
Elaborate?

They're memed to death by retards who can only grasp the censorship and muh oppression angle. In that sense they are perhaps the most popular books around, but their real value lies in the much more complex ideas they present. Unfortunately, these are overshadowed by the above concepts.

>he doesn't know about tavistock

Julia kept falling asleep and wanting sex or chocolate when Winston was reading the pamphlet.

why is it so hard to find glasses like that?

did brave new world have a censorship or oppression angle I got anti-hedonism from it?

From what I remember, the controller was highly obsessive with preserving "order" and censoring anything that might cause "chaos". A good example of it was when he reviewed the biology report and commented that the research was sound and might solve the mystery of life, nevertheless it produce chaos and so must be censored.

Both books deal with two forms of censorship. In 1984 we had 'editing' that is typical in totalitarian regimes, whereas in BNW, we have the censorship of the free market. In Huxley's view, some ideas become uncoo/outdated because they don't make people happy. With Orwell, we have the illusion that we have the same books, nothing is changed apparently, when everything is changed.

which print of BNW is best?

That's because she was trapped under the influence of the situation, not because she was a woman. If Winston were gay his partner would have had the same fault for the same narrative purpose.

>That's because she was trapped under the influence of the situation, not because she was a woman
Shut the fuck up simp, they were both in the same situation, she was just a retard woman that wanted to fuck and have chocolate

>If Winston were gay his partner would have had the same fault for the same narrative purpose.
"Durr imagine if something else happened, my speculative hypothetical will surely throw him off!"

>retard woman
then explain every man in Oceania who fell under it too?

Retard mass-men, she was faced with the truth and just wanted to sleep and have chocolate. They'd probably deny it because they were bureaucrats.