Horse and buggy, more like.

Recent posts by Hunter at KOS and recent discussions of various topics related to sex raise the question whether we ought to take another look at Aldous Huxley’s classic, Brave New World.

Critics even as late as the current century, smart critics who should certainly be able to see the noses in front of their faces, commonly think of Huxley’s book as if it were just another in the wave of postwar (the Second World War) attacks on “totalitarianism.”

But it was written in 1931 and published in 1932, and that was not its theme, at all.

And anyway, compared to the social revolution contemplated by Huxley, the endless alternations of dictatorships and democracies of the modern world are, on the whole, quite superficial changes.

Perhaps more surprisingly, we have yet to see emerge in the public view of this book, and Huxley’s repetitions of the same themes in other books, recognition that it is very much a Tory attack on the kind of society post-Christian, secularist liberals and feminists, together, seem hell-bent on building.

Contraception, abortion at will (and particularly late term abortion at will) at the sole option of the mother, infanticide likewise at mom’s sole option, no-fault divorce at either party’s option, the rise in single-parent – usually, mom only – families, fewer and later and much less stable marriages, more cohabitations with the institution of common law marriage carefully abolished, and the like, are just a few relevant bits of evidence.

So, regarding the world of Mustafa Mond, which side are the liberals on, again?

Huxley thought he was writing a dystopia and that is how the book has been viewed - anyway, throughout my lifetime, so far.

But now?

Could this book be written as a dystopia, today?

What would be its reception by critics, liberal or conservative, and particularly feminist?

Wouldn’t it be revealing to have a set of lefties and a set of righties, most certainly including representatives of the fair sex, provide political criticisms of the society Huxley envisioned, rather than merely literary critiques of his book?

It most certainly would.

Both what they did criticize and what they did not criticize would be revealing.

(Love and marriage, horse and carriage?)

Aldous Huxley

None of which is to recommend what I suppose we have to call "the positive vision" of Huxley.

Not actually a Tory, he was silly in 1931 and became sillier as he got older.