Introduction: Plunging into the World of Dystopia
The world of dystopia is one of those places that seem to be a result of the fruitful work of one’s imagination, yet conceal a number of innuendoes that become tangible only when being analyzed. Despite the fact that there are considerable differences between the works of Orwell, Huxley and Eliot, the three writers actually draw quite similar pictures of the universe of dystopia, which allows to suggest that the latter is a universal flight of fancy, the place that possesses the common features no matter who the author of another realm of imagination is. Drawing parallels between the creations of the above-mentioned authors, one is likely to find considerable similarities concerning the topics discussed in the novels, the interpretations of the then social problems and the vision of the collapsing future world, as well as the doomed humankind with its regressive development.
Indeed, taking a closer look at the issues discussed in the novels, one can see distinctly that four major topics are raised in The Brave New World by Huxley, 1984 by Orwell and The Wasteland by T. C. Eliot – the major creations on the issue of dystopia over the XX century. With their ability to tell the audience “where we are going” (Bloom, 2004, p.8), the authors of the dystopias touch upon a number of issues that used to be topical in the epoch the novels were written, yet somehow manage to remain essential even for the modern world, thus, drawing the literary universe and the reality as close as none of the existing literary genres ever did.
Language and Form as Sources of Inspiration
Among the most recurrent issues that can be considered the most specific in the novels, the language peculiarities are, perhaps, the most outstanding; referring to the deterioration of the linguistic progress and at the same time putting considerable emphasis on the political state of affairs in the dystopian worlds, each of the books offers an enticing journey into the world of language, its forms and the ways they can be used as an expression of the desperate state that the world was in. Each choosing their own linguistic means to express the immense tension and the fears of the people of the future and the weird, shocking structure of the futuristic reality, the writers collide in their choice of literary means at certain points, which is worth considering as something more than merely a coincidence. Hence, the aforementioned language and forms should be considered closer.
It is quite peculiar that both Orwell and Huxley chose the same tool to express the tension and the absurdity of the situation that the people of the future were trapped in, creating the abridged forms of the English language. Short and harsh, they snap and make the most revolting impression. Coining ugly snatches of the English language, both Orwell and Huxley add to the atmosphere of despair in the futuristic world. If considering the futuristic language created by Orwell closer, one will see that every single word helps to build the gloomy atmosphere of hopelessness in the novel. One of the brightest examples of the given instance is the famous newsflash that Winston reads:
- times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify
- times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue
- times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify
- times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite
- fullwise upsub antefiling (Orwell, 2001).
Almost impossible to understand, these short snatches of words make a perfect background for the tragic situation that Winston, as well as the rest of the world, is trapped in. Just as ugly as the reality that Winston lives in, these are not words, but ersatz of speech, just like the life that the people in the dystopian world live is merely an ersatz life. Compared to the Newspeak created by Orwell, the language that the people in The Brave New World speak is the same attempt at taking over the humankind even by means of controlling the speech of the latter; however, in the given case, the words are merely distributed into the positive and the negative ones.
“In brief,” the Director summed up, “the parents were the father and the mother.” The smut that was really science fell with a crash into the boys’ eyeavoiding silence. “Mother,” he repeated loudly rubbing in the science; and, leaning back in his chair, “These,” he said gravely, “are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant. (Huxley, 2002)
It is important, though, that the words that Huxley chooses as the improper ones in his dystopia refer to parents and everything connected with conception. Making mother and father pejorative words in his novel, Huxley puts the emphasis on the gender relations, which sets the further course for the novel.
However, when it comes to speaking about the poem by Eliot, it becomes obvious that the writer has chosen quite different means of linguistic expression. To stress the specifics of the dystopian universe, the author resorts to switching from English to German, which also makes quite an impression:
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Frisch weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du? (Eliot, 2011).
Manifestation of Sex: The Revolution Has Come!
Another issue at which the three works devoted to the worlds of dystopia cross, the manifestation of sex is one of the numerous responses to the sexual revolution taking place in the 60ies and the rapid change of morals from the strictest to considerably loose, which gave vent to a surge of indignation. It is worth mentioning that all three authors deal with the issue of sexuality and the attitudes towards sexuality in rather impressive manner, and at certain points, the approaches that the authors undertake to convey their ideas cross. However, it still must be admitted that the issue of sexuality is one of those elements that each of the writers interprets in his own manner, making it flow with the structure and the plot of the works. For instance, in Huxley’s The Brave New World, the essence of the relationships between the sexes is taken down to a plain cheap physiological pleasure: “We had Elementary Sex for the first forty minutes,” she answered. “But now it’s switched over to Elementary Class Consciousness” (Huxley, 2002). “The brave new world makes promiscuity a virtue: you have sex with any partner you want, who wants you – and sooner or later every partner will want you” (Astrachan & Huxley, 1984, p.22), which calls for a closer consideration of Huxley’s vision of modern morals.
It is quite peculiar that Orwell also describes the delicate issue of sexuality in the dystopian world as the integral part of the Party’s plan. Though it does not offer just as bestial interpretation of love as Huxley’s novel does, it still manifests emotionless relationships for the sake of the population increase: “The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act” (Orwell, 2001). Though interpreted in his own manner, the gender problem is still one of the key themes of the writer’s novel.
Offering a striking contrast to the previous two novels, the poem by Eliot does not discuss any sex or gender issue in the open, which makes it a completely different picture of the dystopian world. Offering quite subtle innuendoes, the poem dwells on the sexual relationships as the final ordeal that a human being has to pass to leave the realm of the earthy world symbolized by fire as Tiresias “Bestows one final patronising kiss/ And gropes his way, finding the stairs unlit…” (Eliot, 2011). The issue of sex takes a more complicated turn from The Fire Sermon and further on develops into a conflict within Tiresias, the protagonist. Offering quite different interpretations of the sexual issues, the writers still consider the recurrent problems in relationships between men and women as the key manifestation of a wrong social structure, which allows them to make the distorted idea of sex the backbone of their dystopian worlds.
Depersonalized, Lost, Forsaken: The Miserable Ones
One more issue that deserves close attention in the three works mentioned above concerns the issue of depersonalization that the totalitarian regime presupposes and that the three authors in question depict so well. Weirdly enough, though the works of the three authors dwell on relatively similar issues, the ways in which the depersonalization manifests itself in the novels is quite different, which makes each of the works a unique piece of the whole and a peculiar matter to dwell upon. Understanding the ways in which the authors of the works communicate the idea of depersonalization is quite essential, sine the latter is the central concept in each of the works and the key to understanding the problems that are discussed by the authors; therefore, conducting the analysis of the three, one can see distinctly if the means of expressing the depersonalization resulting from the totalitarian regime are similar in each of the works.
Speaking of the poem by Eliot, it is necessary to mark that the author displays the depersonalization of people rather vividly. As Laity & Gish (2004) claim, Eliot’s terms and references as well as his poetic voices show an intense interest in the psychology of doubting and depersonalization, which he denigrates and reframes as philosophy, not internal division as an individual condition but the absence of a unified philosophy (such as Dante could assume) that explains the “disintegration” of intellect in a time of fragmented ideas. (p.116)
Therefore, it can be considered that in Eliot’s dystopia, the process of depersonalization takes place on a nationwide scale, which adds to the magnificence of the chaos that takes over the country. It is quite peculiar that the similar processes can be observed in The Brave New World and 1984, the novels in which people are controlled by the superior power completely and, hence, lose the remaining of their personality, becoming a part of the crowd, faceless and thoughtless. In Huxley’s vision of the dystopian world, the process of depersonalization is already complete, and all characters except John the Savage are as bland as they can be, thinking only according to the allowed pattern; they are even born with the mindset that does not permit them to stretch their fantasy beyond the ordinary: “Solved by standard Gammas, unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons. Millions of identical twins. The principle of mass production as applied to biology” (Huxley, 2002, p.8). Introduced in a slightly different way, this issue is also mentioned in 1984 as Orwell depicts people chanting: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” (Orwell, 2001). Deprived of any distinct feature of their own unique personalities, people in each of the three dystopian words are shaped according to the model that has been developed by the totalitarian government; these are no more people, but a world of clones with no ideas, wishes or interests of their own, and that is the most shocking and frightening about Orwell’s, Huxley’s and Eliot’s dystopias.
Weird Philosophy of the Dystopian World: Utilitarianism
No matter how dark and gloomy the irony of the books is, there is still a distinct flair of hope in each of the novels, even though at times it seems that the last flicker of hope has gone. Despite the tragic ending in 1984: “He loved Big Brother” (Orwell, 2001), which actually meant that Winston was doomed to live a dull life of obedience and remain a wreck of a man, the fact that he was an ordinary man from the most ordinary background who found the key to freedom absolutely by chance gives the reader hope that there will be other instances of a rebellion, even though the first attempts turn out just as inconsistent. It is important to mention that Orwell is not saying that the only things that are good are those that we believe are bound to succeed, a simple utilitarianism shared, in his opinion (and that of others) by both Marxists and market liberals. He is saying both that the spirit of the common people cannot be crushed and even when individual are crushed, memory of their spiritedness is good in itself. (p.81)
The same cannot be applied to Huxley’s work which does not leave any remnants of hope. In the given case, the ideas of utilitarianism are pictured less vividly, since the author makes it obvious that a dingle man’s attempts are enough to change a single person, yet are not sufficient to right all the wrongs. The suicide of Savage speaks for itself, leaving little hope for the humankind: “Just under the crown of the arch dangled a pair of feet” (Huxley, 2002, p.176). Likewise, Eliot shares Huxley’s idea of utilitarianism as rather a utopia than a reasonable idea: “London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down” (Eliot, 2011), and there is hardly anything that a single person can do about it, even if taking the right steps. Therefore, the authors of the dystopian novels in question not only claim that the well-being of the world depends on the right course of actions, but also turn the utilitarianism idea inside out, claiming that, once proper actions are not taken, the well-being of the humankind is in peril.
Conclusion: The Prophecy of the Writers
Summing up the above-mentioned, one must claim that there are considerable similarities between the works of the writers; moreover, it can be concluded that the three authors developed the same issues in their works, being influenced by the tendencies of the XX century and the threats that the then backside of progress was posing to the humankind. Moreover, it is necessary to add that there is one major idea that brings the aforementioned creations together, namely, the fear of the post-Apocalyptic future that the humankind is bound to witness as soon as the current policy of the government, the cultural tendencies and the moods in the society reach their climax, making the tension release in a drastic denouement, presupposes a lot of food for thoughts. Despite the obvious exaggerations and the surreal settings, each of the creations sends shivers down the readers’ spines, allowing to take a peek at the future painted as black as it can be, which makes every single line as realistic as it can be. The unmatched specimens of dystopian writing, the three pieces doubtlessly touch upon similar issues, yet each of the authors manages to deliver his point in the most unique way, which makes the novels the pinnacle of dystopian world picturing. The worlds where the social sanity was a complete impossibility (Astrachan & Huxley, 1984, p.5), The Brave New World, 1984 and The Wasteland are the worst fears for the future come true, and once they are voiced, it is up to the humankind to make these fears never burst into the reality.
References
Astrachan, A., & Huxley, A., 1984. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.
Bloom, H., 2004. George Orwell’s 1984. New York, NY: InfoBase Publishing. Eliot, T. S., 2011. The wasteland. Bartleby.com [Online].
Huxley, A., 2002. The brave new world. Instituto de Desemvolvimento [Online]. Web.
Laity, C., & Gish, N. K., 2004. Gender, desire and sexuality in T. S. Eliot.
Orwell, G., 2001. 1984. Project Gutenberg [Online]. Web.