Who was Right? Orwell or Huxley?

[vangogh]

Found this interesting comparison between George Orwell and Aldus Huxley today. It's a series of cartoons comparing what each predicted about their future or our today. If you read 1984 and Brave New World you'll definitely enjoy this, but you don't need to have read either to understand what's going on.

Orwell and Huxley: Who was right? (http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html)

What's really interesting is seeing the things they feared would happen to society juxtaposed against each other and the world today.

It's a quick read and worth the visit regardless of whether or not you've read their books.

[Spider]

Interesting but not especially enlightening -- so, are you a product of Huxley's world or Orwell's world? : )

[cbscreative]

I'd say Huxley was very insightful (probably studied ancient Rome for his predictions). I'm not totally sure it was Orwell who said this, but I think it was. If so, it would help explain the purpose of his 1984 book. "I wrote not so much to predict the future but to try to prevent it" (paraphrased quote because I don't know the exact words).

[vangogh]

Frederick why not enlightening? If you mean because there isn't anything new that the books didn't already cover, I agree. I thought seeing the contrast side by side was interesting though and I also know many people never read either book.

I don't see myself as a product of either world. If anything I was born before either of their worlds existed. I do think Huxley's predictions have been the more accurate for the most part, though our current world certainly has elements from both 1984 and Brave New World. Think of all the data collection going on now and you and I were just talking about place data Facebook among others is collecting. Has a very Orwellian feel to it.

Interesting quote Steve. Maybe that's why many think Huxley's predictions have been closer to the way things progressed. Both their visions for the future were on the frightening side. I think Orwell's more so since change seemed out of our control where as in Huxley's world we were more the cause (as opposed to the government) and so had more power to change things.

I'm kind of wanting to grab each book and reread them again.

[Spider]

We are all products of our environment, and that has little to do with when and where we were born. We are also instrumental in creating our own environment. I don't really believe either author was set on predicting the future. To me they were storytellers and just followed their thoughts where they went. They were predicting the future to the same extent that George Lucas did in Star Wars, or any other fiction-writer who sets his story in the future.

We all predict the future every time we imagine what will happen to our industry and adjust our businesses to suit - and in making those adjustments help create that future.

[cbscreative]

Frederick, shame on you! Lucas made no attempt to predict the future. His story took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Get the facts straight, dude. Posting stuff like that could get you in trouble with Star Wars fans. :)

[Spider]

You mean we were supposed to read all that stuff that scrolled up the screen at the beginning of the movie? I was still in line for the popcorn when that happened!

[dynocat]

Thanks for link, vangogh. I read both of those in high school well beforfe 1984. Yes, I am that old! :)

I agree it's interesting, in fact, printed the 4 pg pdf for hubby to hang in his shop.

ETA I think they were both right, depending on an individual's character and inclination.

[vangogh]

We are all products of our environment

Yes, to a degree, but neither of those two books was the environment I grew up in. That's what I meant about when I was born. Since neither of those books was the environment while I was growing up, how could I be a product of either of them.

I agree both were storytellers and predictions probably wasn't the best word choice on my part. However both offered visions of a future that was rather realistic and much of the their visions have come into being since the time they wrote the book. I think both were doing a little more than simply setting a story in the future. There's a big difference between setting something long into the future and setting something in the near future. If we were talking about pop fiction then sure I could agree, but neither of these books are pop fiction nor were their authors pop fiction writers.

Literary works aren't just following a story. They're filled with commentary about how things were, are, or will be. Both Orwell and Huxley absolutely created great stories, but their works are a lot more. With these two novels both are expressing concerns about the future through story. Would you suggest that another Orwell novel Animal Farm was just a story and any similarity to the Russian Revolution was just coincidence? I hope not. That book is 100% commentary on the Russian Revolution told through story. Same thing here.

Yep about Lucas. C'mon even if you didn't see the movie, it's hard to have been alive these last 30+ years and not know those words. By the way Lucas wasn't predicting anything regardless of when the movie is technically set. He was trying to put forth his own philosophy about life and the Universe, again told through story. He choose a science fiction setting, though the story could just have easily been told as a Western or Chicago prohibition in the 20's story or a Battle of Hastings story. The details would have had to change of course, but the subtext could have been in any setting.