"But
it's horrible," said Lenina, shrinking back from the window. She was
appalled by the rushing emptiness of the night, by the black foam-flecked water
heaving beneath them, by the pale face of the moon, so haggard and distracted
among the hastening clouds. "Let's turn on the radio. Quick!" She
reached for the dialling knob on the dash-board and turned it at random.
"…
skies are blue inside of you," sang sixteen tremoloing falsettos,
"the weather's always …"
Then a
hiccough and silence. Bernard had switched off the current.
"I
want to look at the sea in peace," he said. "One can't even look with
that beastly noise going on."
"But
it's lovely. And I don't want to look."
"But
I do," he insisted. "It makes me feel as though …" he hesitated,
searching for words with which to express himself, "as though I were more me,
if you see what I mean. More on my own, not so completely a part of something
else. Not just a cell in the social body. Doesn't it make you feel like that,
Lenina?"
But Lenina
was crying. "It's horrible, it's horrible," she kept repeating.
"And how can you talk like that about not wanting to be a part of the
social body? After all, every one works for every one else. We can't do without
any one. Even Epsilons …"
"Yes,
I know," said Bernard derisively. "'Even Epsilons are useful'! So am
I. And I damned well wish I weren't!"
Lenina
was shocked by his blasphemy. "Bernard!" She protested in a voice of
amazed distress. "How can you?"
In a
different key, "How can I?" he repeated meditatively. "No, the
real problem is: How is it that I can't, or rather–because, after all, I know
quite well why I can't–what would it be like if I could, if I were free–not
enslaved by my conditioning."
"But,
Bernard, you're saying the most awful things."
"Don't
you wish you were free, Lenina?"
"I
don't know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time.
Everybody's happy nowadays."
He
laughed, "Yes, 'Everybody's happy nowadays.' We begin giving the children
that at five. But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way,
Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else's way."
"I
don't know what you mean," she repeated. Then, turning to him, "Oh,
do let's go back, Bernard," she besought; "I do so hate it
here."
"Don't
you like being with me?"
"But
of course, Bernard. It's this horrible place."
"I
thought we'd be more … more together here–with nothing but the
sea and moon. More together than in that crowd, or even in my rooms. Don't you
understand that?"
"I
don't understand anything," she said with decision, determined to preserve
her incomprehension intact. "Nothing. Least of all," she continued in
another tone "why you don't take soma when you have these
dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of feeling
miserable, you'd be jolly. So jolly," she repeated and
smiled, for all the puzzled anxiety in her eyes, with what was meant to be an
inviting and voluptuous cajolery.
He looked
at her in silence, his face unresponsive and very grave–looked at her intently.
After a few seconds Lenina's eyes flinched away; she uttered a nervous little
laugh, tried to think of something to say and couldn't. The silence prolonged
itself.
The first thing I did when analysing your blog was to look at you multiple choice questions because I felt that it was a quick way of helping to refresh my memory of the basic texture of Huxley’s writing by first reading a passage and answering questions about it. I reasoned that by both answering the questions and looking at the answers provided, I would be able to get a basic overview of what kind of devices or ideas to keep in mind when looking at your other papers. While I took the prose multiple choice I felt that I understood the majority of everything except some answer choices to the last two questions. While I believe that your justifications for correct answers were right, I believed that some of the wrong answers too ambiguous on the grounds of too much assumptions made by solely looking at a single passage. This was most evident in answer choice (C) on question “4. It can be inferred from the passage that: (C) Soma does not fall into the norm of the society Bernard and Lenina live in” (Reddy). I believe that the justification that you gave for the answer being wrong wasn’t right. In your reasoning you believe that because Lenina loves the society, she also represents the society. Thus, if she represents the society all her habits, including the use of soma, is popular throughout the masses. I believe that this logic is faulty and it is important to not make assumptions like these when making a quiz or analysing a piece of literature on the multiple choice section of the Ap exam. Other than that I felt that the questions were straightforward and easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteI thought that your interpretation of Bernard’s use of ellipses when talking to Lenina was unique; there was more than just one purpose – one for the reader and one for Lenina. This hesitation on his part implies the power of the World State even when the characters are far away and the influence of their modern society should have negligible effect. And when Lenina repeats the teachings that ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays’, it discourages Bernard’s already fragile desire to conform. The repetition of questions directed to Lenina is not only Bernard’s attempt at forcing his opinions onto her, but also his meek endeavor to convince himself.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s very interesting that you said Lenina had tried to disengage the conversation by peppering the dialogue with short, abrupt interjections but at the end of the passage, it said that she “tried to think of something to say and couldn’t.” Perhaps the abruptness was a result of the mentality of the World State and her silence represented her inability to think for herself. By this point, Bernard had recognized the ideas permanently ingrained in Lenina’s mind and he himself also falls quiet. No mockery, no sarcasm, only acceptance of his weakness against the World State’s brainwash.
Hi Shreetej!
ReplyDeleteI thought your contrast between Bernard and Lenina was an excellent point to make, and one that I overlooked when I was analyzing Huxley’s prose. The idea that Bernard is characterized, at least in some sense, as being an individual—albeit not willingly—and that Lenina is the quintessential New World citizen certainly does allow Huxley to point out the flaws in the New World’s thinking. As Bernard hesitates in sharing his deep thoughts, his feelings and emotions on being an individual, and Lenina shudders to accept that anyone would want to be an individual because of how she has been conditioned, it is possible to see the extent to which conformity permeates the New World society. The contrasting sentence structure is what makes this point that much more visible, so excellent job analyzing from that standpoint!
You mentioned lines of dialogue within your passage that were of great interest to me. I personally chose dialogue as one of the means through which Aldous Huxley conveys his message of conformity and lack of depth in the New World, and I think the prose passage you’ve chosen is an excellent example of that. Bernard is able to make assertions based on his own opinions, and is able to analyze the situation in terms of what “it makes me [Bernard] feel”, whereas Lenina can’t make an opinion on the weather at all (Huxley 90). Instead, she resorts to repeating the hypnopaedic statements she’s been conditioned to believe—she doesn’t have any beliefs of her own. I think the dialogue, along with the sentence structure, both serve as contrasting elements between the isolated, but individual, Bernard, and the conformist, conditioned Lenina.