Brave New World - Plot/Conlict Question
 | ||||
| "But i don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin... I'm claiming the right to be unhappy" (Huxley 215). |
As John, the savage, has a heated argument with Mustapha Mond he expresses all his viewpoints on the World State Organization, what type of conflict occurred? Where would this be placed on the plot diagram/map and why?
As you said, John (the savage) does indeed have a heated argument with Mustapha Mond in chapter 17 and I personally thought that it represented a “person vs. society” type of conflict since the entire argument revolves around their beliefs towards religion and how it is presented in the World State. In fact, in the argument, John asks “’Then you think there is no God?’ ‘No, I think there quite probably is one’” (Huxley 234). Mustapha quickly followed by saying “’Call it the fault of civilization. God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness. You must make your choice” (Huxley 234). Mustapha clearly believes in a superior figure but also thinks that the entire thought of god within civilization is skewed. This causes a huge conflict for Mustapha since he is torn between what he should believe and what the world state believes. John on the other hand feels differently which causes another type of conflict, “person vs. self” since John is faced with an internal daemon towards the entire issue. To elaborate, in the novel John (the savage) states "But i don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin... I'm claiming the right to be unhappy" (Huxley 215). He truly wants to believe in god and all that is presented by religion, but as Mustapha speaks his viewpoint and that of the world states, he is presented with an internal conflict as he doesn’t know which way to turn. This entire argument would be considered the climax of the story since this is where the entire suspense of the book reached its ultimate peak.
ReplyDeleteShande: Nice job of putting great detail into your commentary. I read your comments and I have to agree that this conflict was person vs. society. It seemed to me that it would be John vs. the whole World State organization. John, the savage, believed that this organization was corrupt and it was really hard being happy in a society where you don’t really get to explore life hood. I also agree when you say that this entire argument was being revolved with their beliefs towards religion and how it was presented in the World State. When in the book it was quoted by John “I went to see the Controller this morning… He wouldn’t let me in” (Huxley 217). This quote to me expresses after all the talk there was yet no compromises between the two. Mustapha was very ignorant on his behalf. The last part that you said was very precise. Not only do you and I believe that this argument was the climax of the story, anybody who reads it will get that because we know that this book was progressing slowly and slowly. But after numerous numbers of conflicts and hard decisions, we came to the climax of the story which involved Mustapha Mond and John. “… Don’t want to be attracted by old things” (Huxley 198), this quote also expressed how Mustapha Mond had to judge John’s character. But yes Shande, your answers are very precise.
DeleteYes, John (the savage) and Mustapha Mond have an intense argument about the World State Organization; talking about the mechanics of this society over the course of chapter 17. I believe that this particular situation represents a man vs. society conflict due to some of the topics John and Mustapha Mond discuss. They begin to argue about God and why the World State Organization does not believe in one. “‘If you allowed yourselves to think of god, you wouldn’t allow yourselves to be degraded by pleasant vices. You’d have a reason for bearing things patiently, for doing things with courage. I’ve seen it with the Indians’” (Huxley 236). Mustapha Mond responds by saying, “‘but then we aren’t Indians. There isn’t any need for a civilized man to bear anything that’s seriously unpleasant. And as for doing things-Ford forbid that he should get the idea into his head. It would upset the whole social order is men started doing things on their own’” (Huxley 236). Both of them also argue the issues with the society as a whole. “‘you can have girls without hoeing for them; and there aren’t any flies or mosquitoes to sting you. We got rid of them centuries ago’” (Huxley 238). John replies with, “‘getting rid of everything unpleasant instead of learning to put up with it’” (Huxley 238). Both John and Mustapha express their opinions on how world states should operate and this is the climax of the story. In my opinion, this section of the novel should be placed in the Climax piece of the plot diagram due to the intensity of the suspense. The reason why I think this is that once the reader figure out all of this information from the argument between John and Mustapha, all of the pieces start to fall together and begins to understand the novel on a higher level.
ReplyDeleteLekai: Very great and thoughtful commentary. The pieces of evidence you gave to support your own opinion was very helpful. It gave me a more in-depth thinking of the type of conflict. As I read and commented back on Shande’s comments I saw that you guys had similar answers. This is good because you guys understood what was going on not only throughout the plot but even the type of conflicts that happened. One thing I would like to add to your evidence is that, when Mustapha and John were arguing back and forth, I mentioned to come across a quote that I thought was fits good with this answer. The quote said “Beauty’s attractive, and we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like new ones” (Huxley 198). I just thought that this goes well with the plot and the climax of the story because we notice that Mustapha Mond is not a big fan of John and his society. Mond has his own viewpoints on John’s society as well and that’s why we believe that this was a person vs. society rather than person vs. person.
DeleteDuring this heated argument, many types of conflicts occur. At the surface level, it could be observed a person vs. person argument as Mustapha and John go back in forth debating how society should function. This can be observed when Mustapha says “’We haven’t any use for old things’” (Huxley 225) and John replies later “’But the new ones are so stupid and horrible’” (Huxley 225). These two conflicting thoughts help to illustrate a person vs. person conflict. Looking a little deeper, it may be considered a person vs. self for Mustapha. During the debate, it is clear that Mustapha does not agree with all of the workings of society and feels as though he made a mistake when he was given the choice of exile or becoming a world controller. This can be seen when he says “’That’s how I paid. By choosing to serve happiness. Other people’s happiness—not mine’” (Huxley 235). Looking a little deeper for John, it can be seen as a person vs. society conflict because he is combating, through criticizing, how the society functions. This can be seen when John says “’What you need, is something with tears for a change. Nothing costs enough here’” (Huxley 245). John, in that last passage, basically criticizes the society for not allowing its inhabitants to have any real passion or purpose in life. To attain passion, John believes, one must work tremendously hard for and that is not possible when things are just given to people as they are in this society. I would say that this debate would be the climax, or the top of the mountain in a plot diagram, because this is where the final showdown between the society and John takes place. As already shown, John and Mustapha go back and forth in an intellectual crossfire about how society should function. Also, in the next chapter the start of the falling action is present. When John tells Bernard and Helmholtz “’I shall go away to-morrow too’” (Huxley 250), that is starting the resolution since John is deciding to escape the society after his debate with Mustapha.
ReplyDeleteChris: As I was read your own personal comments and answer on the question, I came across very good pieces of evidence as well as background information. As I was commenting back on the other two comments, they seemed very similar and very thoughtful in their own ways. The quote that I came across was “Beauty’s attractive, and we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones” (Huxley 198). This quote was mentioned during the heated argument which made us both realized that Mond was very fond of John’s society. That is why this type of conflict is considered as a person vs. society rather than a person vs. person. I also agree that climax occurred during this debate between both of them. Both, John and Mustapha Mond, gave their own thoughts about their own societies and opposing societies.
Delete