1984 or Brave New World? [Books]

[Rain]

I need to do a novel study in English class on either 1984 by George Orwell or Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, so I was wondering which book would be more "lucrative" or "appropriate" to read and analyze (I've read both a long time ago) if I were to do it in a historical and societal context? Basically, which one has more "meat?"

Oh, please don't reply if you haven't read both books.

Thanks in advance for your educated opinions. Yeah, they had better be educated and "unbiased" opinions. :)

[CrossboneGundam]

1984 because that's what people always say the world is becoming no matter what year it is.

And you already know I'm biased since I was born in 1984... :lol:

[Leader Desslock]

1984 was the better of the two novels, in my opinion. Either would be a decent book for the paper you need to write, depending on how you go about it.

[Reidar]

Both are wholly relevant to the context that you described. Without need for concern in terms of suitability, I advocate 1984 as the more interesting and involving of the two. For example:

"One of the men had smashed his fist into Julia's solar plexus, doubling her up like a pocket ruler."

[superplough]

i should read 1984

ok thats on my to-do list: find a copy of 1984 and read it

[CrossboneGundam]

i should read 1984

ok thats on my to-do list: find a copy of 1984 and read it

Wow, way to make an on-topic post. :rolleyes:

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Wow, way to make an on-topic post. :rolleyes:


Damn it CBG, posting off-topic to call someone else off-topic? That was sure witty and clever, you really need to try harder. Better luck next season.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

^ *cough*
In all honesty I expected you to say 'Ideon'. You disapoint me Prons. ;)

Both can be, and often are, written about for exams and such. If I had to chose one I'd pick 1984. I did it for my A-level English Literature coursework and there was a lot to write about.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

^ *cough*
In all honesty I expected you to say 'Ideon'. You disapoint me Prons. ;)



Ideon? That show only cool people watch? I don't think you guys would know anything about it.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

I despise torrents. Seriously they won't work for me. If after 10 hours it's still at 0.0% it's not working. Find me a direct http and I'll watch it.

[Reidar]

To further explain, 1984 offers more for critical analysis in its conclusion (or rather, lack thereof). Many of the events leading up to the ending - specifically, the lapses of time the wussy protagonist, Winston, spends in O'Brien's badass confinement - are abstract periods, not detailed in the narration, as the battered man is on his last legs. When the central character in a book is hallucinating, it's a goldmine for essay evaluation. This is followed by the epilogue being of a completely contrasting situation to that of the rest of the book, so what happened to Winston must be important. Because that significance is within such a vague interval (and which, in itself, is a weighty portion of the story, and not just one incident), it's largely subject to your own speculation.

Barring the fact that I thought it completely sucked, Brave New World certainly has symbolism and opportunities for dissection, but it didn't seem as ambiguous as Orwell's novel.

[Bernard_Monsha]

The two are both distopian but deal with the opposite extreme. Brave New World is a permissive society were 1984 is a restrictive society. Orwell is the better writer of the two and 1984 is a better read so you should read it unless you want to go to room 101.

[HSaabedra]

Having read both books at least once every year since the age of 13, I would normally recommend 1984, but I will take the opposite approach and nominate Brave New World. While 1984 deals with government surveillance, political hypocrisy, human nature, sloganeering as a tool of opression, and opinion programming through government distortion of fact and figures (2nd Three Year Plan, at war with Oceania one day, allies the next day.) I would recommend Beave New world because it deals with more contemporary issues such as selective human engineering, class structures, pharmacology as a coping mechanism, deification of industrialism, and consumption as mindless recreation.

[Crusader986]

I would have to say that 1984 is a better book than A Brave New World. Orwell was a better writer than Huxley and had a better understanding of human nature.

[VidelCoolGirl]

I'd say 1984. I read both when I was fairly young, but I think it would be more benefiting for your report if you analyzed Orwell. Although both are great books.

[Soluzar]

1984 is by far the better book in my opinion, but that makes it the "standard" choice. You might get somewhat more appreciation from your professors for taking the road less travelled.

[sailornyanko]

The two are both distopian but deal with the opposite extreme. Brave New World is a permissive society were 1984 is a restrictive society. Orwell is the better writer of the two and 1984 is a better read so you should read it unless you want to go to room 101.

I see someone wants to visit the ministry of love with a fat guy who ate too many beans last night. :lol:

1984 scared the **** out of me and caused a bigger impression on me. Somehow I always imagined the girl of that book to look like that police girl from Zoids Fuzors.

I enjoyed Brave New World, but obviously the book misses out on some things. It has a lot of backwards ideas about human aging (The age of the book shows). It claims people as young as 60 years old were dying slowly of insanity and dementia when most of us will live to that age suffering with heart and bone diseases with mostly clear minds.

But you could alter the age incoherencies of the book and it could work. The book sadly also fails to talk about genetic diseases that can become more rampant because of the ever decreasing variety in the human genepool because they are obsessed with mass creating identical twins (except with the tiny portion of alpha citizens and even they have socially accepted restrictions on who and how their children will be like).
The book seems to give the idea that society is so stable that things wo't change for hundreds of years. However, while infectious diseases no longer exist, the book doesn't show they can control genetic mutations which can stay silent and then screw up hundreds of clones. Many genetic diseases aren't apparent until the person is over 10 years old (Duchenne muscular dystrophy anyone?).

The book also fails in the sense that it doesn't cover the obvious (in our era of course) solution to the few women that are allowed to stay fertile for ova extraction: hysterectomy. They could remove the uterus when they are children instead of giving them contraceptives since the book has the incoherency that the woman that gets pregnant never failed a day when taking her pills. Keep the ovaries but there is a small chance of having ectopic pregnancies (really rare of course). A modern sollution to this plot problem could be that all fertile men get vastectomies. This could work since vasectomies aren't always 100% bulletproof.

The book also fails to explain how could they create cow tissue that doesn't cause an immune reaction against the embryo. The book doesn't even explain what do people think of animals having babies the old fashioned way. I'm quite sure someone must have a dog!! I mean, in this society all sorts of crazy sex is socially accepted. I'm quite sure knocking out a dog wouldn't be frowned at.

[CrossboneGundam]

I see someone wants to visit the ministry of love with a fat guy who ate too many beans last night. :lol:

1984 scared the **** out of me and caused a bigger impression on me. Somehow I always imagined the girl of that book to look like that police girl from Zoids Fuzors.

I enjoyed Brave New World, but obviously the book misses out on some things. It has a lot of backwards ideas about human aging (The age of the book shows). It claims people as young as 60 years old were dying slowly of insanity and dementia when most of us will live to that age suffering with heart and bone diseases with mostly clear minds.

But you could alter the age incoherencies of the book and it could work. The book sadly also fails to talk about genetic diseases that can become more rampant because of the ever decreasing variety in the human genepool because they are obsessed with mass creating identical twins (except with the tiny portion of alpha citizens and even they have socially accepted restrictions on who and how their children will be like).
The book seems to give the idea that society is so stable that things wo't change for hundreds of years. However, while infectious diseases no longer exist, the book doesn't show they can control genetic mutations which can stay silent and then screw up hundreds of clones. Many genetic diseases aren't apparent until the person is over 10 years old (Duchenne muscular dystrophy anyone?).

The book also fails in the sense that it doesn't cover the obvious (in our era of course) solution to the few women that are allowed to stay fertile for ova extraction: hysterectomy. They could remove the uterus when they are children instead of giving them contraceptives since the book has the incoherency that the woman that gets pregnant never failed a day when taking her pills. Keep the ovaries but there is a small chance of having ectopic pregnancies (really rare of course). A modern sollution to this plot problem could be that all fertile men get vastectomies. This could work since vasectomies aren't always 100% bulletproof.

The book also fails to explain how could they create cow tissue that doesn't cause an immune reaction against the embryo. The book doesn't even explain what do people think of animals having babies the old fashioned way. I'm quite sure someone must have a dog!! I mean, in this society all sorts of crazy sex is socially accepted. I'm quite sure knocking out a dog wouldn't be frowned at.

Well, it is a work of fiction, not an advanced biology textbook from the future.

You might as well fault Mary Shelley for not telling us how to create life. :P

[Leader Desslock]

You might as well fault Mary Shelley for not telling us how to create life. :P
Or Melville for failing to write the comprehensive textbook on Cetology...

[sailornyanko]

Or Melville for failing to write the comprehensive textbook on Cetology...

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds funny.

[Soluzar]

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds funny.
Given the context, I'll assume it means the study of cetaceans, such as whales and dolphins.

[Leader Desslock]

^ And the lack of Herman Melville to incorporate modern findings cetological findings in Moby ****.

[sailornyanko]

Ooooohhhh!!! I haven't read Moby **** (with what time do I have to read a 1000 long page book!!), that's probably why the author's name didn't click.

[RPGQueen]

1984 It's my fav book, and it scared the hell out of me.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Ooooohhhh!!! I haven't read Moby **** (with what time do I have to read a 1000 long page book!!), that's probably why the author's name didn't click.



Read Billy Budd the Sailor instead it is the best thing ever.

Well right after ritually disemboweling yourself with a dull hacksaw in a vat of flaming isopropyl alchohol


Trust me it is the best thing you will ever read in your life and your will curs-- uhm thank me.

[VidelCoolGirl]

Read Billy Budd the Sailor instead it is the best thing ever.

Well right after ritually disemboweling yourself with a dull hacksaw in a vat of flaming isopropyl alchohol


Trust me it is the best thing you will ever read in your life and your will curs-- uhm thank me.

I should pick that up since I have yet to read Moby ****. I need to expand my horizons SO much more, and open up to a new world of books! Next time I'm at work, I should check that out...

EDIT: Well, I just checked out a book called "Four Great American Novels" which has Billy Budd The Sailor in it. I can't wait to read it actually.

*Reading Rainbow...Reading Rainbow...*

[Leader Desslock]

^ Make sure the hacksaw blade is rusty, too. Just to get the full experience.

The only Melville work I ever liked was Bartleby, The Scrivener.

[VidelCoolGirl]

^ I...will?

[Haro!]

*Reading Rainbow...Reading Rainbow...*

Take a look in a book reading rainbow. I remember that show. Its a shame I wasn't into children's books when it was on.

As far as Billy Budd goes. I think I was supposed to read it in HS. But I never read any of the books we were supposed to read. Judging by others opinions on it I'm glad I didn't read it.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Take a look in a book reading rainbow. I remember that show. Its a shame I wasn't into children's books when it was on.

As far as Billy Budd goes. I think I was supposed to read it in HS. But I never read any of the books we were supposed to read. Judging by others opinions on it I'm glad I didn't read it.

Billy Budd is American Lits version of Tub Girl, in the fact you can't remove it from your mind and it leaves you scarred for life.

[sazae]

If you read Brave New World do yourself the favor and read the followup Brave New World revisited. It was also written by Huxley and it's him examining his book in the now post WWII world.

And if you want great distopian lit then check out Huxley's "Island", his best book aside from The Perennial Philosophy/

[VidelCoolGirl]

Billy Budd is American Lits version of Tub Girl, in the fact you can't remove it from your mind and it leaves you scarred for life.

I'm sure I can handle it. Although in the book I have, other great American classics in it are Scarlett Letter, Huck Finn, and Daisy Miller.

[Haro!]

I'm sure I can handle it. Although in the book I have, other great American classics in it are Scarlett Letter, Huck Finn, and Daisy Miller.
Holy... I think that might be the exact same book we had in HS!

[Bernard_Monsha]

I'm sure I can handle it. Although in the book I have, other great American classics in it are Scarlett Letter, Huck Finn, and Daisy Miller.

No those are actually readable and generally good. Billy Budd is haveing Trent Lott do a lap dance for you while you are being eaten alive by hissing cockroaches bad.

[Spadesy]

1984 is good but gets pretty boring, and I'm pretty sure Brave New World has more sexual stuff to it. Well, the second one was more interesting anyway...it made me think more, where 1984 just irritated the hell out of me because of how often new restrictions were imposed on the people. I haven't read those books since I was in high school though.

I don't know. I guess 1984 is like, "what would happen if everybody in the world was put under strict Commie rule and hated it, but had to pretend to like it?"

And Brave New World is like, "what would happen if everybody in the world found themselves artificially living life, but loving it because they actually believed in what they were doing to be right?"

Anyway, the second one, without a doubt. There is plenty of media out there that is about a system ruling the people, but never one about the people ruling a system that nobody believes to be flawed.

Edit: And eat me raw all you pro-1984-ians EAT ME RAW! Newspeak has clearly corrupted you, and Orwell is overrated!

That's right, I said it. Lobotomize me b!tches, lobotomize me hard.

[Ikari Warrior]

Read 1984, Rage Against the Machine quoted it, so it has to be good.

"Who controls the past now, controls the future. Who controls the present now, controls the past. Who controls the past now, controls the future. Who controls the present now?"

[Spadesy]

Now TESTIFY! *dun, dun dun dun, dun, dun, dun dun duh* TESTIFY!

I like RATM, but I'd still suggest Brave New World instead. A lot of people today are still under the impression that bigger words + smaller print + lots of pages = better. But in the end, it all depends on what you gather from it. That's all.

[Bernard_Monsha]

That's right, I said it. Lobotomize me b!tches, lobotomize me hard.

http://www.pbase.com/image/75024670.jpg

Dusty's confession for thought crime (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/media/128k/1984-Winstons-Confession.mp3)

[kenshinbebop]

Obviously Catcher in the Rye....



















Ok, 1984. They're both pretty awesome though.

[Spadesy]

Thought crime, that was something from 1984 I thought was dopey. It was as if Orwell was trying to shock readers into thinking "what would happen even if our own thoughts could no longer be our own anymore?"

And I thought, "uh, well, it would suck, obviously, and not make life worth living." Seriously. All I could think about when reading that book was how I'd off myself if I were living in that kind of world. Too boring, too many rules.

Brave New World reminds me of indulging in what isn't real and what doesn't really matter, but not having the defiant thoughts necessary to counter it because the people really love every aspect of their society, they aren't forced to love it like in 1984. Ignorant enlightenment, that's a strong concept to me.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Brave New World reminds me of indulging in what isn't real and what doesn't really matter, but not having the defiant thoughts necessary to counter it because the people really love every aspect of their society, they aren't forced to love it like in 1984. Ignorant enlightenment, that's a strong concept to me.

I always took took Bernard Marx for a whiney emo ***** whose own *****iness made him a rebel.


Winston Smith is more tragic, he remebers what life was like before the state. He desperatly clings to his own individuality by noteing down when the state tells obvious lies ( I.E. chocolate rations). Winston is a much more sympathtic antagonist than Bernard.

[Ikari Warrior]

Hey BM, had you read 1984 recently? I'm curious because a short while back you had this whole 1984 theme going on, with the "Dystopian Beauraucrat" title and "big brother is watching", etc.

[Bernard_Monsha]

^

No I have always been an Orwell/dystopian literature fan, and the fact people complain about Nazi mods. We are Orwellian not Fascist. ;)

[VidelCoolGirl]

I'll read part of Billy to see how it is, if I can't stand it, I'll skip to the next story. I can't help but wonder if its as bad as you say Bernard...

[sailornyanko]

I always took took Bernard Marx for a whiney emo ***** whose own *****iness made him a rebel.

That's because he was uncomfortable with being short. Now, he can join me and all the short Deltas and practise figure ice skating. Cuse in Brave New World, if you're short, you're a low social class, and if you're short, chances are you're good at skating (the book mentions Deltas practised gymnastics), so let's all have a nice cup of soma and have an orgy-porgy on the ice. Yeah emo Bernard, you too. I'm watching you. :ph34r:

:lol: what is that Billy Budd book? I don't even think they have that in my university library, and I ain't gonna spend money on a book that you claim to be crappy. If I visit the US this year, I'll try to remember and rent it at some library or something. Let Uncle Sam pay me for some suffering.

[Leader Desslock]

For those that doubt Bernard's assessment of Billy Budd, here 'tis (http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/36/1006/frameset.html).

Don't say you haven't been warned. It's one of Melville's less gripping works, which in literary terms is like saying "one of Carrot Top's less funny routines" or "one of Uwe Boll's less noteworthy films".

[Little Relly]

Obviously Catcher in the Rye.....
ditto..........but as for the other two........i thought i got more out of Brave New World then i did 1984. i read both within the same school year and i read BNW first and 1984 later, and i liked BNW a whole lot better, and for some personal reasons ended up absolutely hating 1984.........they're both good if you want to do a paper on them though. i did papers on both and although i think both were pretty good, i like my BNW paper a whole lot better and ended up getting a better grade on it also. ^^

[VidelCoolGirl]

For those that doubt Bernard's assessment of Billy Budd, here 'tis (http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/36/1006/frameset.html).

Don't say you haven't been warned. It's one of Melville's less gripping works, which in literary terms is like saying "one of Carrot Top's less funny routines" or "one of Uwe Boll's less noteworthy films".
Hmm...from the descirption, it doesn't seem horrible. Like I said, I actually have to read the first few chapters so see if I can stand it. Although I'm not a fan of blatant Christian propaganda, (albeit I am Christian...) I'll give it a chance. Bad books help you to appreciate the good books. Although maybe I'll just read the others, and pick up Moby ****.

[Spadesy]

I always took took Bernard Marx for a whiney emo ***** whose own *****iness made him a rebel.


Winston Smith is more tragic, he remebers what life was like before the state. He desperatly clings to his own individuality by noteing down when the state tells obvious lies ( I.E. chocolate rations). Winston is a much more sympathtic antagonist than Bernard.

Marx, was, as a matter of fact, was just that. But I appreciate that he might've stood for individual freedom at one point in his lifetime. I like how everybody lives life to find who they really are, emo biatch or not.

I keep forgetting that you are to emo like the SS was to Jewish people.

[Rain]

To further explain, 1984 offers more for critical analysis in its conclusion (or rather, lack thereof). Many of the events leading up to the ending - specifically, the lapses of time the wussy protagonist, Winston, spends in O'Brien's badass confinement - are abstract periods, not detailed in the narration, as the battered man is on his last legs. When the central character in a book is hallucinating, it's a goldmine for essay evaluation. This is followed by the epilogue being of a completely contrasting situation to that of the rest of the book, so what happened to Winston must be important. Because that significance is within such a vague interval (and which, in itself, is a weighty portion of the story, and not just one incident), it's largely subject to your own speculation.

Barring the fact that I thought it completely sucked, Brave New World certainly has symbolism and opportunities for dissection, but it didn't seem as ambiguous as Orwell's novel.

Yeah, I'm aware that 1984 has more historical "meat" and interpretive ambiguity, but I've decided to go with Brave New World.

Still, thanks for the educated opinion!

1984 was the better of the two novels, in my opinion. Either would be a decent book for the paper you need to write, depending on how you go about it.

I was thinking of picking a novel depending on the expository paper I needed to write, but my English teacher refused to spill.

1984 is by far the better book in my opinion, but that makes it the "standard" choice. You might get somewhat more appreciation from your professors for taking the road less travelled.

It's surprising that no one in my English class is doing 1984... I mean, even my English teacher was shocked that not a single person is doing it.

And if you want great distopian lit then check out Huxley's "Island", his best book aside from The Perennial Philosophy/

Thanks for the recommendation.

Now TESTIFY! *dun, dun dun dun, dun, dun, dun dun duh* TESTIFY!

I like RATM, but I'd still suggest Brave New World instead. A lot of people today are still under the impression that bigger words + smaller print + lots of pages = better. But in the end, it all depends on what you gather from it. That's all.

:lol:

Many people in my English class—who didn't know any better, even—chose to do The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka simply based on the fact that it was the shortest and thinnest book out of the selection of books that we could choose from, and that book is pure Hell.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Marx, was, as a matter of fact, was just that. But I appreciate that he might've stood for individual freedom at one point in his lifetime. I like how everybody lives life to find who they really are, emo biatch or not.

I keep forgetting that you are to emo like the SS was to Jewish people.

No I love Emo (http://www.emophilips.com/home), I hate self loathing idiots who project their own misery on you and think you owe them something. Which is what Bernard Marx is.

Back on topic compare and contrast the vision of the world as presented by the main antagonist.

Mustapha Mond

"Our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel-and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get...And if anything should go wrong, there's soma. Which you go and chuck out of the window in the name of liberty, Mr. Savage. Liberty!... Expecting Deltas to know what liberty is! And now expecting them to understand Othello! My good boy!... Of course [Othello is better than those feelies]. But that's the price we have to pay for stability. You've got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art."


O'Brien

"The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men." He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"

Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.

"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in caring human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy -- everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parents, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one cares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. They will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever."

[VidelCoolGirl]

Oh...GOD good writing gives me the shivers...

[sailornyanko]

O'Brien is just a bitter putz whose sole enjoyment in life is drinking wine. At least Mustapha scored hot chicks.

[Reidar]

O'Brien is too busy being subject to the narrator's decorated descriptions of masculinity and ridiculing the size of Winston's biceps to do something like "score chicks", whatever that drivel is supposed to mean.

[CrossboneGundam]

O'Brien is too busy being subject to the narrator's decorated descriptions of masculinity and ridiculing the size of Winston's biceps to do something like "score chicks", whatever that drivel is supposed to mean.

It must be fun, keeping up the online persona of an asexual alien with no understanding of human nature...

[Reidar]

On the contrary: I'd rather not call you an obtuse bovine and tell you to go breed with something, but your "human nature" calls for such remarks more often than not - and yes, even in situations where you don't fail to recognize sarcastic undertone done in jest, unlike this incident.

[CrossboneGundam]

On the contrary: I'd rather not call you an obtuse bovine and tell you to go breed with something, but your "human nature" calls for such remarks more often than not - and yes, even in situations where you don't fail to recognize sarcastic undertone done in jest, unlike this incident.

:lol:

As a general rule, sarcasm tends to work better when it isn't indistinguishable from a person's non-sarcastic statements.

[Reidar]

That would be very true if context didn't exist.

[Tom Servo]

I'd pick 1984 if it were me, as it's easier to analyse in methodical essay-form. Whereas Huxley requires a more intuitive bent, which could prove problematic to convey clearly.

I think I missed the entire point of Catcher in the Rye. Someone lent me a copy when I first got a job after leaving school and I didn't get anything out of it, at all. Was fun to read tho', snappily written.

[sailornyanko]

O'Brien is too busy being subject to the narrator's decorated descriptions of masculinity and ridiculing the size of Winston's biceps to do something like "score chicks", whatever that drivel is supposed to mean.

Come on, it was an obvious Beavis & Butthead homage!!!

I wonder what would it be like if you put those two losers in the worlds of both books. What in the hell would they think of.. Cornholio.

[Rain]

Can anyone recommend me futuristic dystopian novels?

[Evil_Koala]

^ Farenheit 451

Ender's Game

[Crusader986]

Can anyone recommend me futuristic dystopian novels?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. ****
The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. ****
The Trial by Franz Kafka