Omniscient Narrator

How does the third-person omniscient narrator have an effect on the novel?

Understanding the narrator of a novel is a essential in order to understand what is going on. Properly interpreting the narrator, can give the readers inferences on the validity of his/her narration and the sanity of the narrator, by exposing to the audience any deceiving views the narrator may obtain. In Brave New World, there is an omniscient third person narrator, because of this the audience can generate a trust with the narrator since he knows everything about everyone. The narrator not only knows what people think but also knows why they thinks that certain way. The well rounded narrator that has witnessed all the characters development and experiences, allowing him to have an unbiased view towards a certain topic, because of his constant exposure to different perspectives. 

The technique of free indirect quotation is used by Huxley in order for the narrator to truly express to the audience that he/she knows a lot about the certain character. This in depth analysis of the character done by the narrator, almost fools the audience into thinking that they are reading a specific characters though processes in a certain situation. Even though the narrator is unclear, the novel has a constant shifting point of view. The novel can include point of views of characters such as: John, Lenina, Bernard, Helmholtz, etc. It is clear when the point of view is from a specific character because Huxley has clearly created very diverse main characters that all have very different thinking processes and beliefs. So when the narrator is narrating with a John's point of view, it is clear to the audience what John thinks about the Brave New World, for example it is his point of view when he arrives for the first time to the new society. We interpret what he thinks of the world through quotations of Shakespeare, and the narrators descriptions of his actions. Another plus, to the shift between the narrators point of view, is that the audience gets a bit of insight to most of the main characters point of view. This is a way for there to be absolutely no bias in the way the story is being told, because it leaves it all up to the audience to decide with who's point of view they want to go with.

In the end the narrator provides for an accurately told story with now shortcuts, or any attempts of trying to influence the readers attitude towards the topics addressed in the novel. The third person omniscient narrator helps the unbiased truth be told by giving multiple point of views that come from diverse characters that many times have nothing in common other than living in the same time period. The characters can be free to interpret whatever they like about the novel, since nothing is telling them what to think. This style of narration is very unique, because it can allow the audience to infer weather Brave New World is a Utopia or Dystopia. 

Social Conformity

Why is it humans have the need to belong to a social group? Why do people need, to many times change their thoughts in order to gain the feeling of belonging? The novels Brave New World and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest depict this strange but constant necessity through Aldous Huxley's and Ken Kesey's characters. In both novels the majority of the characters conform to what society expects of them. There are the conformers and the conformists, and the only way the conformers plans of having everybody do as told, is if those they plan on conforming are unaware of the different lives they could be living if they had not chosen to live by the rules created by society. The use of fear, power, pleasure, and technology, are ways in which people can manipulate others into thinking that they have no options other than listening to Nurse Ratched, or following the new rules of the New World. It is not until someone with multiple, distinct experiences enter society and brings the process to a cold stop.

The technique to manipulate the populations is different, weather it is in the Ward or in an entire Country. Nurse Ratched uses her oppressing power and fear in order to get people to do what she wants them to do, and the leaders of the Brave New World use technology and pleasure to blind the citizens from the other possible lives they could be acting out. The conforming characters form both novels, are discretely forced to diminish their questioning about the certain roles they ought to fulfill according to society. In the Ward, the strict television schedule, and the terror created by using treatments such as the electroshock therapy as a punishment, or the strength of the black boys, scare the patients into believing they have no choice to do other than what is expected, and if they do not fulfill their roles they will end up like the other patients in wheelchairs, that are considered vegetables. Unlike Nurse Ratched's method of using fear as the primary tactic to force people to conform, the Brave New World incorporates the stimulus that makes people conform as a normal and daily routine. There is no room for questioning, because there is nothing to question about, everything seems absolutely normal for the citizens because it is what the population has been exposed to for long periods fo time. They are genetically designed to fit specific roles in society, so the social groups are already predestined. The Alphas hang out with the Alphas, and the Betas hang out with the Betas. Those with similar genetic makeup form the different groups, and have never experienced any other situation, that makes them question their roles as Betas for example. Why would someone that feels so comfortable cleaning floors, want to be like a scientist that finds new ways to generate babies? Also the use of soma grants citizens instantaneous gratification. So if one is ever feeling down, they simply take soma and they are instantly back on their feet ready to do what society needs them for. This method of gratification will eliminate sad people, and why would happy people question the society they are living in? 

The big worry for conformers like Nurse Ratched and the leaders of Brave New World, is if someone exposed to a different society has joined or infiltrated the conforming population. McMurphy, and John are the people that a conforming society fear the most. McMurphy introduces to the other patients the possibility of freedom, by telling stories he truly believes because he has actually experienced life outside of the ward. McMurphy reminds the patients of the freedom they too once felt before becoming a part of the Ward's system, weather it was by taking them on the fishing tip, or teaching them to stand up for what they believe in by for example, encouraging Bromden to raise his hand in order to vote against Nurse Ratched and watch television. John also brings to the society an entirely different perspective of life. He comes from the savage word, in which his views on life originated form Shakespeare's work. John is a character that has experienced, and knows what others can be doing with their lives, and he could be responsible for sharing this information with the conformed society. He has the most sane view on life, even though it comes from the many times violent works of Shakespeare, John is probably the human being that has the most balanced perspectives. McMurphy and John both open room for questioning, and are the first characters to stand-up against society. 

Without being a part of a group, one is automatically an outcast. John and McMurphy are originally outcasts, but that is because they have a different view of life then what they are told to believe in. The need to belong also contributes to people conforming because many fear that if they don't conform, they will be rejected by society and become outcasts. People like John and McMurphy that don't fear acting on what they believe in, are necessary in order to break the chain of social conformity. If these people never show up in certain societies, we would still fear being alone and alter our beliefs in order to become part of a bigger thing. 

A.F.

Why does the author emphasize by repetition, "A.F., "Year of Our Ford", "My Ford" constantly throughout the novel?

Religion has always been a source of controversial views, and some can say that religion is a faith one can not believe in, because there is no factual evidence of any of the characters the religion mentions ever having existed. The whole point of the Brave New World is to unite everybody. How could everybody bond if religion, is a leading source for anger and fear, fights and discussion? This is why Huxley incorporated, "A.F", "My Ford", and "Year of our Ford" in his writing. The only way the characters would actually unify in his novel in a way that would make sense to the audience, is by having all praise the same being, and something with factual evidence of existing. Something real.

Humans, tend to need something other then themselves, to blame for there failures and positions in life, and to thank for there accomplishments. The Brave New World, could not simply eliminate this very common practice among humans. Instead, they converted all the older religions into one that people can not doubt. In this new world, people can not question who they are praising for because there is proof, of his existence. Also, the affects "Ford" had on the people is still notable, the people live off of all of his creations. The consumer society, thinks of industrialism as their life guidelines. If everybody abides the rules and follows the same rules of industrialism, there is no room for controversial thoughts on who and how they should praise. The simplest answer is that they praise what they can actually see and feel. If everybody believes the same thing, why would there be any sorts of discussion among the people. Also, in the case for people who do not necessarily need superior power to comfort them, the new world uses technology to satisfy the people. Soma is something that brings instantaneous happiness, and who created soma? Industrialization. And who started this new industrial world? Ford. 

Just as Huxley exposes the religion of the novel to the audience via repetition, this suggests that the population were exposed to their new religion in the same way. Nowadays, the majority of people, are taught about multiple religions, and how they are all different, and there really is no right or wrong one. If from the day you were born only and strictly taught about Ford, and how he is responsible for all the pleasurable things in the Brave New World, people will automatically begin to think he is some sort of figure that they should be following. By using religion not only to unite the people, but also as a tactic to have everybody conform with societies rules, people have nothing to question, and eventually end up doing exactly what society expects them to do. 

Different People, More Impact

They say, dangerous people will always be dangerous, that someone who has committed a crime is bound to do it again. Is this really true?This American Life's podcast says otherwise. When prisoners in a high security prison are asked to read Hamlet and take part in its production for the prison, their is a clear change in some of the prisoners. Yet, it is unclear if it is a temporal or a permanent change, one thing that is known is that we are always prisoners of our actions. The following post will discuss how the characters evolved during the six months of rehearsing for their Hamlet performance at the prison. 

The prisoners are being constantly interviewed as the rehearsals go by, and in every interview prisoners begin to look at themselves in different ways. They start questioning themselves, figuring out why they became criminals, and even begin to compare themselves to the world and others. The play brought good feelings to people. For one prisoner his whole world was enlightened. Thoughts of "I can do better" and "if I apply myself I can do anything", began to flood his mind. The characters in Hamlet also are very violent, and one of the prisoners says that they can do the best at interpreting the characters performance because they have been playing these roles their entire lives. Its not that criminals dont know what they are doing is wrong, they are fully aware of how terrible many of their actions are. "Criminals are cowards" is what one fo the prisoners said, "putting a gun to someones face is unfair, and cowardly." The play helped them realize all the wrong that had been done and the prisoners began to truly study themselves as individuals and figure out who they are and why. Dany says "a person changes and I know im not going to commit any more crimes, but I killed a man do I really deserve to be out there again?" Dany knows he was given a chance and he messed it up and ended up in prison, and he knows he does not deserve another chance even though he has changed and grown in ways unimaginable for a man who has never been in prison. That is exactly what the play did it transformed the prisoners to better people but it still kept them thinking about their actions and did not allow them to simply forget about them and wonder why they are currently in prison. 

The story of Hamlet created a hands on connection with the prisoners, each prisoner connected with the characters in all sorts of different ways. Some believed they were just like Laertes, others just like Hamlet or Claudius, etc. The truth is having the prisoners read and experience the story of people so similar to them, changed them in one way or another. Many of the prisoners still want to go back to their violent ways while others will really never commit another crime again, the still violent ones may not have changed their violence, but they definitely could have had a change in knowing their place in the world, such as being the "killer whale". 

Pitiable Thoughts

Hamlet and J. Alfred Prufrock’s pathetic indecisiveness is clearly exposed in both Shakespeare's play Hamlet and T.S. Eliot's poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. The main characters have one task throughout the text; Prufrock needs to ask the womAn he loves out, and Hamlet needs to decide whether or not to kill King Claudius, his uncle, to avenge his father’s death or live knowing that he failed his father. In the end only Hamlet is able to make a decision as he was dying while Prufrock was never successful in putting his thoughts into actions. 

These texts embody both characters’ disappointment and pitiable thoughts towards their own indecisiveness. In T.S. Eliot's poem, J. Alfred Prufrock agonizes over whether he should "eat a peach", similar to how Hamlet grapples with thoughts of whether to take revenge in his famous lament, "To be, or not to be: that is the question" (3.1). The characters are asking different questions, but they both lack the impulsive drive to decide. Should they keep on doing what they have been doing or find another way out such as, suicide? The difference the poems have is, what is causing the characters to be in a position in which they have to decide between two options. In Hamlet, Shakespeare really expresses his frustration by making readers feel the same anger, because the audience is placed in a position from the beginning of the play until the end in which they are simply waiting for Hamlet to decide to kill Claudius and avenge his fathers death or simply keep all the information to himself and have a constant internal conflict. While in T.S. Eliot's poem the frustration with indecisiveness is clear because the questions J, Alfred Prufrock has are so absurd and plain. Everybody struggles while making decisions, especially when the consequences of both possibilities are unclear. Without the pressures of the Elizabethan life, Hamlet would have enjoyed continued indecisions such as Prufrock. 

The differences between T.S. Eliot's poem and Shakespeare's play are not only clear in the characters pitiable thoughts towards indecisiveness but also in the types of indecisiveness and how we enjoy postponing final decisions. When comparing Prufrock and Hamlet, the quick conclusion can be made that, Prufrock is more pathetic then the other because Hamlet's indecision involves a human life, while Prufrock's is simply about his own boring and isolated life. The statement that Hamlet is more pathetic then Prufrock, or vice versa, can't be made, because other factors are involved such as time period, setting, and prior events in their lives. Hamlet is seen as a more pathetic person because a mans life depends on his decision. Yet, before making this conclusion the audience needs to keep in mind that Hamlet takes place in the 16th century, a time in which killing for vengeance wasn't a big deal. Also, they have to keep in mind that Hamlet already killed another man, Polonius, and he did not seem to care even though Polo its was entirely innocent. If Hamlet as an individual could kill and innocent man and not a man that murdered his father for the throne, wouldn't that make him as pathetic as Prufrock. If Hamlet were from the twentieth century and had never witnessed or been a part of any violent act then yes, he would be less pathetic. In the end, the stories of Hamlet and Prufrock, depend on more then just the text. Background information must be done in order to fully compare with no bias the play and poem. 

Looking at the play and the poem as a united whole, they both tell the story of a man that could never make a decision. Even though the questions were different and Prufrock had many more then Hamlet they both struggled with their decision making. Their procrastination could be the result of the pleasure that comes form not making a decision and still being able to go about life like nothing is happening. This is what Hamlet and Prufrock are doing, they ignore the fact that a decision has to be made and try to avoid it at all times so that it would be as if they nerve have to make a decision because the question was never presented. 

Why Wait?

             Why is it that most of us procrastinate? All procrastination does is lead to unnecessary stress and work that cannot compete with work done days before a deadline. Why did I procrastinate until tonight to do this blog post? I know the excuse that sates, "I work better under pressure" is ridiculously inaccurate, yet many others and I use it and make ourselves believe in the excuse that we all know is false. Yes, the excuse could work to certain points, for example if it is 10 at night and the assignment is do first thing in the morning students will tend to work much faster than if the did it over a weeks time. I know procrastination causes not only poor work, but also a unhealthy lifestyle because of all the stress being created, yet just like Hamlet the character who struggles with procrastination and indecisiveness I still procrastinate just like he does. Why, there is no correct answer explaining this phenomena. 

             Could the reason why I along with many others procrastinate be linked with avoidance, motivation and satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction. Avoidance is pretty much another word for procrastination. Why is it we avoid doing tasks? Is it lack of motivation, or are we all just lazy and useless people. I think it is lack of motivation for me personally, because it is not for all assignments I procrastinate for. When it is a subject I really enjoy, or a task that I am excited to do, or a standard I really need to get a good grade on, I am satisfied with the assignment and the amount of time and effort I need to put into it, therefore I have the motivation to do it. For assignments I have no motivation to do I sometimes notice that I fear im going to get a bad grade, or I know the task is to demanding and therefore I will not reach the standards required, also rarely I find myself unmotivated because the task is to easy. It is a vicious cycle that always leads to the same satisfaction if we learn to procrastinate at the correct time. If we are motivated we do it and we feel satisfied, if we are not motivated we don't do it and we still feel satisfied, because we did not make our brain have to think about something we are uninterested in, or have to think too much. Since we delay doing the task we spend less time thinking about it an therefore we are satisfied because our brain goes through less torture. I see how ridiculous this conclusion is, but it is how my brain thinks and even though I know its pathetic I still do it. Hamlet knows from the beginning what he has to do in order to feel satisfaction: kill Claudius. Yet, he gets side tracked because he doesn't have the spark to do it, and therefore begins to procrastinate because he is getting the same amount of satisfaction by not doing it as he would if he did do it. As ridiculous as this sounds, it is true because if he does it he can only feel satisfaction to a certain level because he knows people will look at him as a killer ad he would have to live with blood on his hands, if he doesnt do it the only dissatisfaction he would feel is the fact that he is a wimp, so in the end the satisfaction on both sides of the decision is the same. So the decision he had originally made to kill his uncle gets erased from the picture because he already lost the motivation to do it.


             Procrastination is a "curse" as the author of Viewpoint: Why do we procrastinate so much? puts it. We know it is a damaging action but it is almost as an inexplicable control that takes over the body and stops us from doing something.  I know I have to do it, but I kept putting the blogposts off so I wouldn't have to do it. I waited until last minute to feel the least amount of displeasure possible from doing the assignment, and that time I decided not to do the blogpost, I was getting a false sense of satisfaction because I was not spending my time and effort on a task that I fear of getting a bad grade on and know I will not reach the standards the teacher requires.