This. . .article . . .

Both novels bring up striking images of where our society is going. However different the concept remains that humanity and morality will be shattered, no matter if we were to evolve into a society based on sensual pleasures or fear and removal of all sensations physical. The author of Conclusion: The Two Futures" A.F. 632 and 1984 determines that the influence, and the accusations that resulted because of it, were unneccessary because they both could be realistically visualized.

I had brought up in class how I would have liked to see at least one of the novels portray a sense of hope, or at least a hero that maintained a sense of humanity. AFter reading this article I understand my my "glass half full" attitude (as described by Ms. H :-] ) was more drawn to Brave New World. The article explains how in 1984 "there are only echoes of God." and in Brave New World "Huxley's Savage, despite the betrayal of his inmost beliefs, holds fast to the essential core of those beliefs and this adherence gives his death meaning. In The Savage we can still see Christ. In Winston Smitch there is only a Christ who has sold out to the devil." I find extreme truth in this because although the ending of Brave New World showed ultimate defeat of the Savage, it was his defeat to himself that drove him to his own death. He still upholds that sense of humanity until the night before his death, and it is in that moment that he foregoes his beliefs that he realizes he can never be pure again and that he would rather die than go on living as one of them, one who has alienated God, essentially and in essence alienating humanity and the morals that go along with it. With Winston he somewhat carries the illusion and transluscent layer of someone who wishes to uphold a humane image, but ultimately fails. At least in the Savage dies with those morals in tact. I would not go as far to say he was a martyr. He had no one to prove anything to and no one else to set an example for. There were no more like him. The article goes on to say that both Winston and the Savage were "the last of their kind." Anything they attempted to prove would have to be to themselves, and it is in this respect that they both fell short.

I think it was silly on Orwell's part to make any accusations whatsoever based on the influecnes or merit of which Brave New World was created upon. To make an accusation of plaigarism is not only childish but foolish for an author with a published work of the same accord. As the author of the article writes "there is such an unseemly glee in this hasty response and in the crude terms in which it is put that one's suspicions are immediately aroused" (122). It seems almost to the point that he purposely wanted people to further analyze and look into the influences and inspirations that helped to create 1984 and as the article goes on to say "diminish somehow the connection between himself and Zamiatin" (122). It surprises me that such a credited author would feel the need to act like basically a high school freshman and point fingers at someone else for doing something that they were afraid of getting caught with. It's like liar liar pants on fire. And the author of the article is right. While there are even similiarties and speculations between Orwell's influence of Huxley and the connection between the two novels it is clear that wherever they came from doesn't matter because what they portray and paint a picture of is what is going to make the difference. It's the overall piece, not the paintbrush that makes the impact. They say if you can dream it and imagine in then it can come true. These horrifying depictions of a future society have been dreamed up and put out there for us to experience through words. Let's hope it stays that way now that we're aware where our need for power can take us.