Heart Of Darkness

We are guided throughout Marlow’s journey by an nameless passenger listening to Marlow’s tale, as well as Marlow himself.   As Marlow starts his journey and directs his way into the Congo, the cruelness of human nature and finally understanding, we begin observe an unforgettable journey into the depths of the darkest part of our human heart. In Heart of Darkness, there seems to include the Supernatural Aid, Call to Adventure, The Crossing of the First Threshold, and the Belly of the Whale  in Marlow's journey in Africa. The Call of Adventure first appears as the snake of the Nile River with its tail "lost in the depths of the of the land." He claimed it "charmed him" (Conrad 5-6). In his journey, Africa was probably unexplored by the Europeans at this point in time that marks the beginning of his journey as he travels within the depths of Africa. 

The Supernatural Aid surprisingly comes from Marlow's aunt that aided him in his journey by getting him a position on the riverboat. Have not known the place he was traveling to, Marlow becomes embedded into the center of the Earth and becomes a savage himself, leaving his own country behind. This is known as the Cross of the First Threshold because Marlow forgets his own world as he journeys on to Africa, not knowing the dangers of what's within. 

Heart of Darkness

The one significant line that imposes power of the European that believes to be following colonialism is,

"I had no difficulty in finding the Company's offices. It was the biggest thing in the town, and everybody I met was full of it. They were going to run an over-sea empire, and make no end of coin by trade."
 

This line gives a significant impression to me because it does not just directly speak of power of the company, but it is, as well, referring to the power that Europeans possess in their hands. "The biggest thing in the town" could be portrayed as the mother country of London and that colonialism will "run an over-sea empire," which is Africa. Europeans were inspired in a mad pursuit of riches regardless to the outcome on the indigenous people and regions. The description by Marlow about the structure of the home offices and the city in general can be interpreted as a metaphor to imply excess riches. By implying that "everybody I met was full of it," Marlow tries to condemn the Europeans that every common man will at least have riches in the big city in order to expand their empire in obtaining goods.

The Fall Of Love

          As I approach Part 2 in Wide Sargasso Sea, the narrator seems to be a mysterious character of which is Antoinette's husband. However, we should already know that the narrator is Rochester from the novel Jane Eyre. This transition of point of view is to allow Rochester to explain the search for love that he spoke of in Jane Eyre. Jean Rhys tends to construct different point of views to avoid the single narrative voice like how Bronte did for Jane Eyre. She wants the readers to fully know the conflict of Antoinette and Rochester and their relationship. From Rochester's point of view, we know that his father would not divide his wealth to him and that he must undergo the marriage in order to gain wealth. To close his mouth, Richard Mason quickly gave him 30,000 pounds so that the marriage can persist. However, Rochester seems to have internal conflicts with himself of what he notices about his wife. So long after the marriage, they both had the urge for sex, but why would he even do that if he barely knew her and her backgrounds? By all means, this guy seems to be looking for lust rather than the love he constantly been seeking in his life. First, it was Bertha, the three mistresses, Adele's mother, and then Jane. So far in the novel, there is a lot of foreshadowing going on that contributes to the demise of Bertha Mason. Antoinette seems to at have a lot of doubts about the marriage that Rochester might just leave her somehow. But one thing that I noticed about the two is that the moodiness still persists from Wide Sargasso Sea to Jane Eyre. Antoinette would always act happy and cheerful during the day while she becomes abrupt at night. Same with Rochester. He would be nice and kind during the day and become aggressive during the night. If this story was to prolong, predictions will show that Rochester, when married to Jane, will become just like Bertha Mason since certain actions or traits are carried on to Rochester.

The Other Perspective..

         There is a whole new perspective upon Bertha Mason (Antoinette) as I read Wide Sargasso Sea. From the novel, Jane Eyre, Bertha has already endured madness of which we question the author as of why she has become as such. We may criticize her and her mentality, but we forgot one important factor of why Rochester would lock her up in the attic. Her brother is mental and her mother is undergoing the state of being mad, which both will eventually die at the end of Part 1. The reason why fire was mentioned repetitively in Jane Eyre was from this novel, the origin of Bertha Mason. The fire that destroyed her home followed by the death of both her relatives caused her to depict the same image in her head when she caused the fire in Rochester's mansion. Ironically, the fire that we know so much in Jane Eyre that stands for loving, warmth, and positive, is actually negative in Wide Sargasso Sea. Bertha Mason is overall, the other side of Jane Eyre, where she suffers everything that Jane Eyre does not or fully experienced. She has no friends because apparently, they betray her and also she has no one to love her because of her mentality. Antoinette, I say, is now the most pitied character in Jane Eyre now that we know how she was already placed inside the attic.

So it finally ends here..

         To come to a close, Crime and Punishment ends very dramatically with most of the characters drifting away from each other. Svidrigailov suicides and fakes it by concluding that he's going to America. Rodya's mother falls ill and dies. Dunya and Razumihin get married while Rodya and Sonya go to Siberia for eight months of hard labor. It fascinates me how religion is the focus point near the end of the story to bring a sinner to the righteousness of humanity. However, Rodya still thinks and believes that what he have done wasn't wrong at all. This will definitely support the trial play for next week by bringing up Rodya's confession and his same beliefs after confession. 

          As Dostoevsky, the author of C&P, ends the story with Rodya still in prison and leaving the story without much of an ending, poses a question that may change the story. What if Rodya did, which he did, comes to Sonya for help, but religion was excluded? The author relied on a single "female" character holding figures of God/Jesus to enlighten Rodya's mind and liberate his sufferings of guilt. What if religion and love wasn't the climax of the story, but rather an input on justice or heroism? In evidence, Rodya evicted this way because he had lacked the influence of care and love, which in the whole story he had barely, spoke to his mother. Apparently, Sonya was the only one who actually revealed love even after he confessed about his crime. But that is what I loathe about the story. I understand that she's very religious, but we're talking about a murder here. How is she not petrified by the way he killed the pawnbroker and her sister? There is hardly anybody in the world that would actually convince a person into confession when the murderer is right next to you. That will give you some cutis anserina. 

          Overall, the story does introduce heroism in a great factor, but it didn't necessarily be regarding murder because there are, in fact, many ways to show heroism into the society deprived of causing harm. I presume it was Dostoevsky's way to indicate how crime is truly unscrupulous and that everyone deserves punishment at a degree of whether we know what we see to was erroneous or having acknowledged. "An error" is what Rodya have said.  

The Egg is Cracking!!!...

          Near the end of the story, Crime and Punishment, Rodya finally confesses his murder to someone he dearly loves, Sonya. He specifically looks upon her for help because he feels that he can relate with her. Maybe because she has a figure of Jesus. By telling him,"Accept suffering and redeem yourself by it," suggests that if he wants to seek salvation, then going "to hard labor" would get rid of his sins and hopefully obtain redemption.This seems to be a theme about death because he says, "I killed myself, not the old crone," which means he has lost his life and not the life of the pawnbroker. The motif about Ubermensch seems to define the personality of Rodya throughout the story. But when he confessed his murder of Lizaveta, he first lied to her by saying he did it to rob. He then speaks the truth and reveals that he wants to be another Napoleon and by experimenting murder, it will justify himself as a "louse" or a hero of the impoverish society.
          Katerina Ivanovna's death is very significant in a way that symbolizes the dream that Rodya had about the old horse. She forces her children to dance and sing in the street and how the crowd of people spoke badly about her. With the miserable children of hers, who starves and rely on prostitution to feed the family, was the cartload that increases. Ivanovna is constantly being taunted by the guests at her husband's funeral, like the mare who gets whipped by those people. But the more she fought back, the faster her illness devours her.
Truly the overall theme that I’ve recognized in these two factors is the anguish that the society had put on the shoulders of both Rodya and Ivanovna. They both face the pain and suffering and they try to prevent those things to happen. However, Rodya took it the serious way by committing murder to show the society and he the power of heroism. Ivanovna did not try to make any changes of the society, but rather adapted to it to live the days she have. I guess in any case, the society could be a major influence in a person's personality. But I would think that Rodya committed murder because he is slightly educated (law) and Ivanovna is just a poor lady.

A well-planned out accusation but failed horribly..

          At this point in the novel, Crime and Punishment, has seized to bring action and the thoughts of Rodya into play and introduces our new villian, Luzhin. He is confined by the hatred that Rodya has brought upon him and the story begins to foreshadow his actions against Rodya. What I noticed in the book and how Luzhin would obviously dislike Nietzsche, is the idea of Nihilism. He felt as if it was just a mere battle of children going crazy. "younger generation." But what actually profound me into the chapters were the conversation between Luzhin and Sonya. I had a strange thought, why would Luzhin request for her approach to him when he despises Rodya and having relations with Sonya. I began to think ahead. He might be using Sonya to get revenge for what Rodya had done to him. By making a fool out of himself in front of Dunya and his mother and getting kicked out of his own interview. I knew something was wrong. And suddenly it struck me. To relinquish a girl of her destitute relative and giving her ten roubles was to make her look bad. I thought I read the text wrong when I saw ten roubles. I mean why a wealthy being like him would, goes to a funeral and not attend the lunch and spoke privately to a girl and give her only ten rouble? And yet, something did go wrong. It also struck me that Sonya's stepmother would uphold such invitation and dramatic lunch and constantly berates her guests. She used all the money Rodya gave her for the funeral for some lunch, where those who attended were low class including Rodya-a former student of a university..(educated) 

          Though, Luzhin leaves with embarrassment, I think he might try to imply another act of revenge against Rodya and maybe this time, Lebezyatnikov. Oh, and another thing. I have noticed that both Royda and Lebezyatnikov hold similar names that end with nikov and the idea of them being atheist when Luzhin insults them during his departure.

Are you saying there's no point in living?

          Friedrich Nietzsche and his Nihilism beliefs actually portrays the thoughts and beliefs of our main character in "Crime and Punishment," Raskilnokov. By claiming that " death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth," Nietzsche speaks of which the world would collapse and decline if such beliefs were to have died. Nihilism indicates his support on how life is meaningless with no certain value and no purpose or goal to strive for. Yet, he believes in morality for those who are "extraordinary" people, according to C&P, has a meaningful purpose in what they do. Raskilnokov, in C&P, constructs his thoughts in murder because there is a purpose for him to approach such actions. He believes that he is the Ubermensch of the society and has the right do so because his actions has a meaning, a purpose, and values that he seek.
However, philosophers are philosophers and beliefs are opinions. One's being on the face of Earth, whether without purpose or values, will begin to develop thoughts and values that they seek to be precious and important.

Psychopath Test Result

I was actually excited to see my result in this Psychopath test because I know clearly that I'm not a psychopath.(i hope) The test seem to be flawed in a way because the questions asked is too deep and forceful. The test includes words like "self-importance, belligerent, reckless impulse, and essentially." I'm quite satisfied with my result,"The test results don't suggest strong psychopathic tendencies," but the questions do include small quantities of those natures but not as severe as the questions asks for. I just think that the test doesn't necessarily determine whether a person is a psychopath or not. It is hypocritical for a person to think that criminals will be psychopaths prior to taking the test. And only a few questions(18 is not considered enough for psychopaths) is enough to qualify a person's appearance or trait. The test is only like a survey, anyone can input false claims and not prove it. Even if a person took that test and is qualified as a psychopath, they may never ever commit a crime.

It can't be helped...

Through the readings of Dick's short story, "The Minority Report," the MSNBC article on the neuroscience of criminals, and the lyrics to "I Don't Like Mondays," it hardly surprised me of these informational outcomes. The article and the short story spoke of criminal preventions earlier than what will happen, but their justifications cannot overpower destiny. "The Minority Report" has a Precrime system, where names of individuals will be predicted as a "criminal" through the evaluation of precogs. However, the founder and creator of this so-called Precrime is yet to commit a murder in the end to make sure his system is correct.(Sounds like a dystopian society) How flawed is that?..Yet the article, on the other hand, demonstrates brain scans to reveal the criminal minds of people. The fact that using an illness or mental disability as an excuse to lessen the punishment of causing a murder is yet to be obsequious to the laws of crime. The correlation of the two readings seem to have one main point: preventing or lessening the act of crimes. But the lyrics seems to differ and relate more to Crime and Punishment than the other two. The lyrics speaks of a young girl with no morality in killing children at the playground. She has no reason in doing so except the dislikes of Mondays. (Is that even considered a reason?) Crime and Punishment also has killing reasons, but unlike all of these, guilt is actually the role play here. The short story is what I would say, retarded. To come up with a system of preventing crimes to happen and show names of people doing so, will bring the thought of them planning to do it.Understand? If not, then shall we mention Anderton, the creator of the Precrime System. His mind was never embedded into the act of murder, but since his system showed his name, it finally brought up that thought. (How exciting..)
         However, the three readings are so vague in revealing the destiny of crimes. There will always be crime no matter how much we try to restrain it from happening. Yes, it is good to lessen crimes in our society, but think about our freedom. We can't predict whats going to happen today or tomorrow so don't rely on such things and call normal people criminals. All brains are significant in their own way and it cannot specify whether it will cause a crime or not. So please, keep the mental ones on this side, and us on the other.(Don't jump the border)

Redemption of A Murderer???!!!NEVER!!

As far as the novel goes, Rodya has not yet been providing any goods for his poor neighbors. Then why does he think his reasons of murder were good? After Dr. Zossimov has been going on his tails about the case, he seems to recollect his mind into ending it all and give himself to the police. But after seeing a woman's attempt to suicide, he changed his mind. The question lies here, "What if he does surrender to the police? How would he atone himself of his guilt?" He thinks that turning himself in will end everything, but has he ever thought about his father and how they will react? Back in the days, there was no way to redeem someone's guilt, but rather taking their life in return. We have laws now that reduces the penalty of crimes at a limit. In my opinion, he shouldn't be redeemed or atoned for his doings. How can he? He killed a person, a living person who dies forever. I feel that killing things that has a heart beat is a crime and not a crime to things that doesn't have one.
The values that I treasure is the values that I've been taught. Anything that doesn't belong to me means that I cannot touch them or steal them for my own cause. Everyone has likes and dislikes and we know everyone can't agree with one decision. That is why we all have arguments and debates. In the end, no one is right/wrong because it's how the opinion we think is embedded in our minds through experience. We may think this is right because we saw it happened or we may think its wrong because we that happen. Its all in the head!!

Dostoyevsky's Life and Relation to His Own Book

Part A: The life of Dostoevsky seems to connect with the setting of his book, Crime and Punishment. He feels bonded with the lives of patients at his father's hospital, which strives his compassion in the society of the poor, criminals, infants, and mental people. This ties to the way he wrote his book that makes the main character as poor, makes him a criminal, quite lunatic to me, and abandoned children like that of the drunken man. Wikipedia also talks about his attendance at the Military Engineering Institute, which refers back to the mentioning of services and duties in the story.
Part B: In response to the question,"Is it a crime if someone other than yourself
benefits?", brings up another question in mind. HOW THE HECK DOES IT BENEFIT YOU?! You're just taking a life of someone who helped you by accepting that dang-o watch. The pawnbroker, Alyonda Ivanovna, and also her half-sister, Lizaveta, was murdered for what? OHHH..Because she only gave him a few copecks off. Like that's a good reason why he killed her. Back to being serious, I see no point in killing both the sisters when he doesn't get anything from it. Yes, it's true that he does steal the goods, but only reserved for the poor. He feels as if she's cheating them in their goods, but that still is committing a crime. It's always a crime if you try to take someone's else belonging even without murder. Your reason is your reason, and if you don't own it then don't touch it. We all have laws in which we live in and we must abide by those laws.

New Book, New Crime, Same Punishment

Surprisingly for the first 30 pages of the book, I feel the mood of the story is kind of binding, and has a connection of family commitments for each other. The author introduces the story with a student in debt of his rent and a drunken man who can't seem to get over is ridiculous drinking habits. The author's perspective was to show two different worlds: one as a young man who is a student and another as a man who has a family and constantly loses his job by drinking alcohol. He characterizes these characters to show how indifferent they are to the world. One shows commitment and the other shows dishonesty and unaccountability. But how does crime and punishment really ties into this two worlds? Basically who will be the one that falls into insanity and commits a crime. It will be interesting as I read further more into this story, but so far, the author gives clues and hints on who will be punished.

Along The Road

I came to realize something as I continued my way through the book, The Road. It was the mentioning of names because throughout the whole story, there is only one name that is given to us. It was Ely, an old man on the road who spent the night with the protagonists. But the odd thing is that it wasn't his real name, but rather a fake name to tell people whenever they ask him. Just in case he gets hunt down. The funny thing about this part of the book is that both the man and the boy begin to face phenomenal sites that just catches their eyes. The man's days is coming to an end as they find foods in houses to last for a couple of days as they travel to the coast.
How ironic about the road toward the coast can lead them into seeing more and more people. There might be a reason why the coast is the reason why they try so hard to survive at that point. Maybe because they want to see the sunlight to everything. They came to face a thief who took their wheelbarrow with the food and tracked the man to a point where he had to take off all of his clothes. Basically naked. The story speaks of bad people and good people, but the things that the man does is not actually a good doing. I feel like he's drifting himself in by trying too hard to protect what belongs to him and his son. What aspects does he gain by stripping a man naked and taking his clothes for warmth? Also, the guy who shot him with an arrow. Why shoot him with a flare gun when you can do something else? They might've been good people who thought the man and the boy was cannibals. Basically they were protecting themselves at any cost. If the end of the story results the death of the man then I believe that's a good thing. Foreshadows a new life for the boy.

Just Part A & B

Part A:
Despairingly, the novel The Road is definitely a world ending catastrophe where we know that anything can happen, anything we imagine that is impossible can happen. I never thought that out of all people, normal/regular and typical people would give up on anything they love. How can we define love? Love can be portrayed as a missing puzzle in our heart that we want something we adore to contain it. But how is love shown after the life for oneself is determined? By the quote," I've taken a new lover. He can give me what you cannot. DEATH is not a lover," shows us that life is hopeless. Our mind says that we should give up the things that we have since there is nothing left for us to live.
If a world was to end with no family, no relative, and no friends, can you really begrudge to something that has power over you? The loneliness inside of everyone during that sake can drive people into disillusions. "The one thing I can tell you is that you wont survive for yourself." This quote is actually right. You can never survive a post-apocalyptic world by yourself, but rather with someone you love dearly. That is the only reason for survival. For the lack of change in the world, a world where something must change in order for all to have a stabilized living.
Part B:
How can we all classify the end of a world? Desolation, starvation, destruction, supernaturals, and/or natural disasters? We all have our opinions and images of how the world would be if it would end suddenly. I have known two poets and one author that shows how the world can end and partake the condition of society. Yeats' and Eliot's poems reveals an omen of the world, but they expressed it more naturally rather than McCarthy's The Road novel. He talks about a world of which humankind eats off others for survival and the love of both father and son, basically salvation.
As for the two poets, they talk about how the world ends naturally, something that we believe can happen and that we expect it to happen. Eliot's poem, "The Hollow Men", I believe talks about war and the remembrance of their death. Only men on the battlefield can be inane to show merciless factors. Dead as the grass and silent as the winds, their graves lie on a tomb stone engraved by the kisses of the loved ones and the newborn babies. The ending of this world is the cause of mankind. The aftermath of war itself leaves behind a trail of memories and love, something The Road lacks of. What the novel leaves behind is just insanity and impassive behaviors. But none of that matters because either way, the end of the world is just the end of the world. Who the hell we will care how the world ends? If it ends, then it ends...But we can always try to make changes. If one person can make a difference, then a million can make a change.

Post-Apocalpytic/The Road

The Road written by Cormac McCarthy, I would say, is considered a post-apocalyptic and a dystopian novel. According to Wikipedia, The Road portraits all of these characteristics and how it set foot into a society of all humanity becoming extinct except a father and a son. Seeking for life, the bond between them is an important figure concentrated in the story after a tragic incident of the world. The style of McCarthy's writing is very interesting to me. The story seems as if the father is the narrator and the setting begins to be on the road. It is mysterious to readers that the characters in the novel has not yet been revealed, but we do know their relationship and the goals they seek. All demises of these societies were driven from apocalyptic causes that resulted from a dystopian society. This reminds me of the movie I am Legend. That society had a belief of curing cancer, but in fact, created human beings who were infected and became zombie-like creatures. There is no reason or difference of a dystopian society to have different meanings. The answer of all those societies to be regular people and a society that is balanced. Even nature is balanced in a way, a way that is stablized no matter how much is changed.

Happiness Or Truth

As the book ends with John's suicidal death, he faces many spectacular events that contains truth and happiness. The events that led to his death brought up the topic I had in class about truth and happiness. When someone faces a truth in reality, they begin to avoid that truth and seek opportunities of happiness. I believe John is no different than that society because he, in the end, seeks death to be happy. When he thinks about the past events about Linda, feelings for Lenina and also her perfume, he begins to harm himself so that he can avoid the truth of what has happened. Usually when that society has gone into depression, they would always take an amount of soma. But since John did not believe in soma and actually threw them out of the window, the only choice was to hit himself.
This book is awesome, but the end is just ridiculous. John thinks that the society that he lived in did not use soma to avoid depression and seek happiness, but he in the end did use soma and chose suicidal to escape the truth. I mean why would anyone be as crazy as him? You say your not like these people living in this horrible society and says "I ate civilization...It poisoned me". I just really think hes impulsive. A moron who tries to seek a better society, a society that fits him but when he knows that the other civilization is just as bad, he starts to go mad. I wonder if that's how Huxley portraits this society when he wrote the book. People just seek death when they know the truth of something and to seek happiness is death. So he created a society in Brave New World to take a drug that gets rid of depression and receive 100% happiness all day. Its like getting high. Overall, the book is good and it has a lot of meaning towards life and death. To able to predict the future during that time period was pretty amazing.

Fortune, Faith, Future

As Freeman Dyson's "Can Science Be Ethical?" have said, technology is basically doing harm for our world. He questions the use of technology and gave explicit examples of technology and how it was used in the past and the present. To be able to disagree with his argument will not be an easy task to accomplish. His idea and argument makes sense in many ways, but I believe whether science can be ethical or not can be varied. The prime example is the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Vonnegut and the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In both these stories, we are introduced in a society of technical advanced equipments that is used to alternate the society and its people. Freeman Dyson constantly argues the fact that technology only does good for the rich but not the poor. This may not be true. Technology in my definition, is to provide support and enables less work to be performed in the society, but the technology created in both of these stories are actually implied towards the people directly. It does not do them any good, but rather confines them of their abilities. They are neither rich, nor poor to begin with.

Relations of Dystopia

Along with the fact that Brave New World has a society that totally perfects in technology and the idea of mass producing babies, why are they made to do a certain task for the future and the society? Say for example, the mvoie "I, Robot". Why is the people in that society especially the police force rely so much on the robots to do the jobs of the people in that society? Is it to make the society more peaceful? Or more happier like the novel Brave New World? I seriously don't think having robots installed in our homes will make us feel secured and safe. Haven't all these scientists ever thought about the flaws and technical difficulties it may have? The odd part of both these dystopian society is that the people in those societies actually cope with the changes. For the film, I noticed that the creation of human technology actually changes the way people in the society acts.
I believe this dystopian society defies the laws of nature because it is always true that what nature creates, nature can destroy. But what about the things that human creates? Can it be destroyed as easily as nature can or will it actually go against us? Same thing for humans. Nature creates us and it can destroy us, but the actual mystery is that we can prevent nature from destroying us. As I' am typing this now, I have just noticed one amazing similarity that both the novel and the film shares. The character Bernard Marx in Brave New World and Det. Del Spooner in "I, Robot". I felt they are the same exact character is because both characters showed an element of uniqueness that both readers and viewers can distinguish. What I mean by that is that Bernard Marx is an Alpha but is different than any other Alpha by being able to think in his own way, not the way he was made to think, which is happiness all the time. As compared to Det. Spooner in "I, Robot", he is a half robot, half human who does not believe robots should be used in the society. Basically, the things that we create can never ever be what we image it to be. An overpowered society will always be abolished by the inferiors who believe that there must be a change in the society. Not just dystopia, but also in our living society. We live with a law and we can always change the law to make the society a better place for all to live in equilibrium.

Brave New World

The novel Brave New World shows many exciting aspects about the future and how it regulates society to be stabilized using the all-reliable technology. It begins to introduce the reader how the society produces babies through factories without the process of sexual activities of male and female. I began to link the mass production idea of Henry Ford and the novel's idea about baby production and it's necessities for the future. I particularly feel that the assembly line and the novel's use of dividing the baby productions into segments that would specify their future roles for the society in which they live in.
Dystopia also plays a significant role in the novel by showing the reader how the society in the book adapts and abuses technology to make the society what they call "happier". This type of utopia concentrates on the ideal society that is believed to be unnatural of the regular society that we live in. Laws are not changed in this society, but rather alter what nature has created for the world. The author of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, have experienced through his life about what the people of modern society want as a perfect society. Thus, he creates a world of which he and only himself can create inside this novel, Brave New World.