the future in a novel? i hope not.

In his extraordinary analysis essay titled “Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984”, Ward thoroughly discusses the similarities and diversities between the two anti-utopian novels, 1984 and Brave New World. Obviously, Orwell and Huxley had an urgent message to relay to all generations about the impending future. It is not, after all, impossible to succumb to tyranny, ignorance, and power (or any lethal combination of the three). What we must rest on to secure a stable future is our intelligence, strength, and stubbornness (but only when resisting such awful powers, right?).

As part of his discussion, Ward analyzes communications (direct and in-direct) between the two master writers. The topic is boiled down to this – which future would be most probable, the one described by Orwell, or the one crafted by Huxley? In a sentence, the author determines, “The political system envisioned by Nineteen Eighty-Four is simply not efficient, and, all other things being equal, efficiency leads to stability as inefficiency leads away from it” (119). Power is terrifying and certainly not a tool to be toyed with, yet can a man efficiently terrorize a country into stability? Cuba, Iran, and North Korea are definitely not countries I would jump to call “people-friendly,” or models of well-organized governments. Man will most certainly relinquish his free will in response to fear; the instinct to survive is simply too great. But what these types of close-minded governments refuse to tolerate is, essentially, the free thinker, the rebel, the revolutionary. And one will always exist. Some men are not bred to surrender their individuality as willingly as others. This is why, as Ward stated, a system ruled by terror can never truly achieve stability.

In this same debate, Huxley maintains that his dystopia has a greater chance of existing, “…the lust for power can be equally well satisfied by inflicting a humiliating pleasure rather than a humiliating pain; and the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing” (120). This statement is true. Man reacts more willingly to pleasure than he does to pain. Therefore, he is almost more willing to adapt to control than he would be if he were tortured into it. In a sick sense, the characters of Brave New World still possess free will, no matter warped it may be (conditioning, after all, had a strong influence on their this concept of “free will”). They have no fear of reproach simply because they believe the mantra, “Everybody is happy now.” And what of the rebels of this society? There is no torment, no painful punishment. They are sent to an island, which is framed to be an escape from cloned happiness and ideals. These “free thinkers” are removed from society as to not “corrupt” the minds of the rest of the herd. Stability, in Huxley’s world, is key, not power.

“For Orwell, the most potent intoxication is power; for Huxley… it is sex. But for Orwell, as for Huxley, only a state that takes the ultimate intoxicant into prime consideration can achieve stability” (125). In order for any given society to be successful and stable, it must first identify man’s ultimate weakness. Then, it must expand its availability and once man has bitten, claw at his declining strength and resistance. Suddenly, man is convinced that the government’s way is the right way, the only way, and will succumb to their every order. Obedience equals stability, and that can only be conquered if the government is aware of the people’s needs, and more importantly, the people’s wants. Huxley manipulated man’s desire for lust, which is why his “brave new world” was so stable when compared to Orwell’s future. Orwell relied on the knowledge that man will eventually surrender to fear. But what happens when there is an uproar? Would man actually surrender so quickly? And if so, is it possible for the government to remain? Would there not be intervention by other nations or groups of people? For these reasons, I find Huxley’s potential future to be much more realistic than Orwell’s.