Disfruta de millones de libros electrónicos, audiolibros, revistas y más

A solo $11.99/mes después de la prueba. Puedes cancelar cuando quieras.

Feliz Mundo Nuevo

Feliz Mundo Nuevo

Escrito por Aldous Huxley

Narrado por Laura García


Feliz Mundo Nuevo

Escrito por Aldous Huxley

Narrado por Laura García

valoraciones:
3/5 (14,676 valoraciones)
Longitud:
2 horas
Editorial:
Publicado:
1 ene 2002
ISBN:
9781611553925
Formato:
Audiolibro

Descripción

La novela sorprendente mundo feliz, originalmente publicado en 1932, presenta la visión mítica de Aldous Huxley de un mundo del mañana completamente transformado. En oscuramente Huxley satírico aún escalofriantemente profética imaginación de un "utópico" el futuro, los seres humanos están genéticamente diseñados y farmacéuticamente anestesiado para servir pasivamente una orden dominante. Una obra de gran alcance de la ficción especulativa que ha cautivado a los lectores y aterrorizados durante generaciones, sigue siendo muy relevante para el día de hoy tanto como una advertencia a ser escuchado y como entretenimiento a la reflexión aún satisfactorio.
Editorial:
Publicado:
1 ene 2002
ISBN:
9781611553925
Formato:
Audiolibro

Sobre el autor

Aldous Huxley was an English writer and philosopher. He wrote nearly fifty books—both novels and nonfiction works—as well as wide-ranging essays, narratives, and poems. Born into the prominent Huxley family, he graduated from Balliol College, Oxford with an undergraduate degree in English literature.


Relacionado con Feliz Mundo Nuevo

Audiolibros relacionados

Artículos relacionados


Reseñas

Lo que piensa la gente sobre Feliz Mundo Nuevo

3.0
14676 valoraciones / 318 Reseñas
¿Qué te pareció?
Calificación: 0 de 5 estrellas

Reseñas de lectores

  • (4/5)
    Aldous Huxley predicted an eerie future for mankind. A future where love is a taboo, parents do not exist, censorship is rampant, and a mood-enhancing drug is legal. Paired with Pavlovian conditioning methods, genetically engineered humans are stuck in their designated stations for life. Their views hardly ever change. Death is not feared, it is just another day. Then there's the "erotic games" part, where children are encouraged to act on whatever sexual desires they might have—because "everyone belongs to everyone".

    Brave New World is a must-read, at least once in your life. At times, the novel is creepy, sometimes downright scary, but most of all, Brave New World is still relevant today.

    It's highly enjoyable, especially if you have free time to actually consider the words Aldous Huxley use to describe this fantastic world.
  • (4/5)
    Eerie. Fun to teach.
  • (4/5)
    Story of a future dystopian world where all people are genetically engineered.
  • (4/5)
    Ultimate form of gentic engineering. Everyone is happy.
  • (4/5)
    I think for my tastes Huxley was perhaps a bit too entranced with showcasing his own vision of the future to properly craft the story set in it, which I personally found a bit uneven and not serving much function other than to underline to various points he was trying to make about his setting. It never really carried me away the way I'd like to be by a narrative (though in fairness, a few individual sections or chapters did, for shorter bursts of time). But that said, there's no denying the author paints a very intriguing result of taking a rather benevolently intended focus on consumerism, mass-production and physical well-being to an absolute extreme (and all the more impressive for having been done as early as the beginning of the 1930s). I also think it a great take on a dystopia in that it is by design populated almost entirely by people tailor made to be happy in it -- unlike most fictional dystopias, where the average person showcased is, at least on some deeper, secret level, rather miserable. But even so, in the end, I unfortunately found it to be a novel more worth reading for its cultural significance than for the actual reading experience.
  • (1/5)
    I always say, there are too many books in the world to continue reading one that doesn't grab your attention from the start. That being said, I am abandoning this audiobook after only 1.5 CDs. I have no clue what is going on and it is not keeping my attention.
  • (3/5)
    I'm enough of a cynic to believe that if our leaders had access to the kind of technology that would make Huxley's Brave New World a reality that they would use it in the case of the characters in the book I just didn't care enough about them to hope that they would be able to break free from this brave new world and experience sadness, pain, illness etc or as we call it life and not just the mindless simplistic happiness that is on offer.
  • (4/5)
    The fourth and last book in my list of dystopias (1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, Brave New World), I found it to also be the weakest.

    That is not to say that it was a bad book. I have read many books that were worse than this one. But, compared to the other books, it just does not hold up. Maybe it is because only one character really struggles with what is happening. Maybe it is because of the sometimes weird and confusing style in which the book is written, with multiple scenes happening simultanously, one paragraph at a time. Maybe it's because the setting just isn't all too dystopian (and yes, I realize that that was the point).

    Yes, the general idea of the book, of a society completely complacent, conditioned, unquestioning, is scary. But for me, it cannot really transport its scariness like 1984 or Fahrenheit did. Which is sad.

    I like the final ~20% of the book a lot more than the previous 80%, just because there is actually some reflection on the setting, comparable with the dialogue between Guy Montag and his Chief in Fahrenheit 451, or The Book in 1984. Those are the parts of the respective books I liked most. But I found it hard to really identify with "the savage" in Brave New World, because he was just so different from me. That is probably by design, but that does not make me like the character more.

    It's still a decent book, but I would recommend the other three books from the list over this one, in the order in which they are given in the list.
  • (3/5)
    There’s little I can add at this point, so I’ll keep my review very brief. This was an easy read. I can see why it is a classic, and I was not bored while reading it, despite the influence it’s had on the dystopian subgenre. I really liked the prevalence of images drawn from music theory (I’m eyeing his Point counter point as my next read by Huxley).
  • (4/5)
    Learning that Grant Morrison is writing a screenplay of BNW, it was time for me to finally read the book. The world building is patchy and incomplete (by modern standards). The character focus is meandering. Some scenes are incongruous. But, it stands strong, despite faults that would tank a weaker story.

    IOW - it's such a powerhouse, that it shrugs off critique of plot and narrative.

    It stands as a Yin to the Yang of 1984 (Huxley having been Orwell's teacher and clear influence), and John (The Savage) is a thumbnail sketch for Michael Valentine in Stranger In A Strange Land. These facts alone make it a must-read. The ideas in BNW are ultimately stronger than the two books (tip of the iceberg) it so clearly influenced. It earns the "truly great" label with one arm tied behind its back, esp. when you consider it was written in the 1930's. Can't bring myself to go to 5 stars for some reason, though - - probably b/c Huxley spoiled me by influencing so many authors to run with the ball.
  • (4/5)
    Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.


    As I noted before, it is odd to finally read this famed novel and find oneself bombarded by quotes from (Walter) Benjamin on barbarism. As BNW unfolded I was trying to find the fault lines, guessing that the solitary minded character (Benjamin Marx or maybe the other bloke?) would be eventually given access to behind the curtain. Alas, it is fitting that agent be someone outside the pale, a stranger in a, well, you know.

    Was any reader ever actually surprised that John had access to the Bard's Complete Works? My wife turned on the Golden Globes as I made my way to bed to finish this. That ballroom of Alphas was a shining reminder of our own iceberg social model.

    I finished this last night and then swiftly tumbled into a well of slumber. By the grey beard of Ford (I know, I know) I was not greeted by Minerva's Owl. There was no prophecy on that charred road to Damascus and I didn't discover what Goldstein's designs for reverse engineering. Stumbling awake and staring at my first four shots of espresso, I have considered whether matters are sufficiently stable.
  • (3/5)
    I liked hearing about the way the world worked. I have noticed I like the actual utopian society best in most dis-topia books. I got a little bored when they went to the reservation. But it was a relatively OK book and I enjoyed it enough to remember most of it years later.
  • (3/5)
    Interesting novel. It has a very strong start - perfectly painting a world so different from our own. As the beginning chapters went on, however, the book began to drag for me. It seemed void of purpose, to some extent. But by the half way mark that started to change around, at least for me. The story at this point began to turn into a "fish out of water" story. Except, unlike so many other stories of similar structure, you - the reader - are the fish out of water. For me, this was the most intriguing aspect of the novel and what brought me to continue reading it. Well worth the read, though Huxley's writing style may be tedious at times.
  • (4/5)
    This time consumed as an audiobook. Audiobook is a little hard to digest as it doesn't lend itself well to the work, or I guess the work is not good as an audiobook. Also, you can hear the narrator (Michael York) swallowing at and stopping the recording in several spots. Listened to this immediately after Orwell's 1984--great for comparison. Lots of connections can be made to our present society in both.
  • (4/5)
    I wonder what Aldous Huxley would think of his books being read on a hand-held electronic device? At the time he wrote this he could not conceive of the technology that would arrive in less than a 100 years after he had written it. And although his descriptions of advancement in technology are out-dated and clearly based off what was available or popular in the early 1930s (like helicopters), the concepts he talks about are not. There are so many layers in this book.

    I wonder why this book is not studied in schools rather than the likes of Lord of the Flies and The Handmaids Tale, which are not as well written or as philosophical about civilisation in their storylines - although Aldous Huxley's constant use of the word 'Pneumatic' might have something to do with it. A word that he seems to think covers a wide range of things, but is not really a word used in this day and age. This is one of the few down falls of this novel, along with its steampunk and old fashioned feel, which is common in Science-fiction from the turn of the century - it's dated. The same thing will happen in a 100 years with modern day sci-fi. The pictures authors paint of a modern future are tainted by the current state of technology and fashion.

    It could also be the underline message in this novel that is so disturbing. The idea that to keep a world of genetically engineered people believing they are happy, they have to be conditioned through subliminal audio dictations while sleeping as children, and once they reach adulthood to give them access to a drug that they can take when they need to obliterate any emotion other than the pretense of being happy. They are conditioned that it is not normal to spend time alone and to always go out and socialise. And that everyone has sex with everyone else whenever they like - it's impolite not to. There is no risk of pregnancy or disease or aging. Their salary is the drug, to keep them under control and civilised, and at no time feeling anything negative. It's the ultimate horror novel - and why I enjoyed reading it so much. The ending is the other extreme of what happens when someone not raised in such conditioning tries to live and function there, and to some extent the outcome of such false living. I could say suppression but really, are they, with access to anything their hearts desire? Although that debate is in itself what makes this novel so intriguing.

    I remember the film which doesn't really put across the depth of the novel, as movies of books often don't, and I think of movies like The Island which are influenced by this novel in the concepts of genetic engineering and cloning.

    I understand why others might not enjoy this novel, with its outdated language and style, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it to any science-fiction lovers.
  • (5/5)
    Brave New World is a view of a world taken by the Left; a world where "science" is the religion; a perverse, singularly cold world where humans have been “freed” from conventions and norms (sexual and behavioral); a society encroached by an almighty, overreaching government. Albeit in George Orwell’s “1984” the government, Ingsoc (English Socialism), shapes a dark, brutal society, and in BNW it furnishes a mock religion, drugs and sex in order to make the emptiness of society palatable and working bearable (panem et circenses comes to mind), both societies have in common the fact that they are a product of Leftwing (highly controlling) governments. Nothing could be farther from Conservatism and Capitalism; nothing could be closer to a Leftwing view of the ideal society. This book is actually an exposé of socialism. Anyone who would like to understand what socialism or communism is, should read this book and the following: 1984, The Gulag Archipelago, Animal Farm, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.
  • (3/5)
    I have mixed feelings about this book. I loved the first half or so, which was really setting the scene of this future society. I loved the decanting process, the obscenity of childbirth and motherhood, the groups of 72 and 84 genetically identical "twins," the weird ritualized promiscuity, the "Everyone says I'm awfully pneumatic." So many fantastic (in the fantasy sense rather than the super-great sense) and fascinating ideas wrapped up into a pretty cohesive vision of a future society.

    Of course the plot wouldn't have any real tension without the massive drama unfolding between the Uncivilized Savage and the Civilized Society. But I actually was disappointed in his rejection of everything -- self-flagellation aside, it all seemed too easy. Wouldn't it have made things far more interesting if he had, say, fallen in love with the girl, and had to struggle to reconcile himself to living in Society amongst things he hated, figuring out how to "fit" in a contrasting way to his previous efforts to fit into the savage culture? For him to just retreat and spend the rest of the book punishing himself was a disappointing turn of events. I also am not sure I really get his extreme aversion to sex and sexuality... even if he was raised in a mostly monogamous culture, there still must have been sex, and his Shakespearean self-education also seems unlikely to have pushed him to such extreme conservative views.

    Maybe I just didn't like the Savage character. I was much more interested by, and pleased with the treatment of, Bernard and his friend the would-be writer who managed to get sent off to an island somewhere to realize his dream.

    Also, what happened to the girl?
  • (3/5)
    Uitgekiende toekomstvisie, knap bedacht. Het verhaal zelf heeft een eerder flauw verloop, met vooral vanaf hoofdstuk 9 minder spankracht en een onbegrijpelijke ommekeer bij de hoofdfiguur Bernard. Ook de pointe niet helemaal geslaagd
  • (3/5)
    A difficult book to rate. First let me say that I now understand why my high school students all talked about not enjoying this book at all in their English classes. I feel like it would over the top of their heads with its philosophy. I also was surprised to see the amount that sex and open relationships were discussed considering this is required reading at many high schools. I am not saying it should be censored, but it is interesting that it is a book of choice for many high school classes.

    The book itself if a classic so there is not much more I can say. I felt the plot was simply a thin way to expound on various social ideas and philosophies. In some of the later chapters, there is simply a conversation discussing philosophy of the fictional world compared to the beliefs of what would have been the author's contemporary world.

    Interesting concepts to think about, but not a page-turner.
  • (3/5)
    People in the future are manufactured and designed to be happy.2.5/4 (Okay).The story is unfocused and poorly structured (it doesn't even start until a quarter of the way through the book, the closest thing to a protagonist doesn't show up until close to halfway through, and the ending is awful). Which is a shame, because it's actually pretty good when its about the characters.
  • (2/5)
    I get that it's a classic and all but it just did nothing for me. This I'm sure was the first, but it's approximately the third book I've read in the last few months with this dystopian society where they have figured out how to have everything perfect and nobody ever has to experience any uncomfortable feelings, or really any feelings at all. [The Giver by Lois Lowery and Scythe by Neil Shusterman] I will now credit this book for starting the whole process but by this point in my reading I'm just over it.
  • (5/5)
    I am not sure which "must read" book list I found this on. I must say that it is an excellent read. I am amazed that it was written in 1931 because the parallels to modern society were fascinating. Consumerism, manipulation of the population, societal control, restricted education, attacks on liberty, science and art, etc....
  • (5/5)
    BELIEVABLE SCIENCE FICTION
  • (4/5)
    It's a few days since I finished listening to this book. I needed some time to process my feeling about it and I'm not sure I've given it enough time yet. It's a little surprising that I've never read this book before. I remember lots of my contemporaries taking it in literature classes and discussing the ideas but somehow I never picked it up myself. One of the best things about trying to read books from the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list is that I discover books that are certainly part of the canon of Western literature.The book is set in a future time when civilization has been transformed to a peaceful and generally happy era. Most people are conceived in vitro and the fetuses are manipulated so that the resulting child will be slotted into a job that fits their intellectual state. Alphas are the highest functioning and have the most responsible jobs. (Huxley doesn't explicitly say that only males are alphas but that seems to be the case--remember this was written in 1931.) Most people are sexually promiscuous and do not form long-term relationships. A drug called soma is dispensed freely; it allows users to quell negative thoughts and enjoy life or even take a "holiday" when they are too stressed. There are no aftereffects to soma as there are for alcohol and drugs in our society. Bernard Marx, an alpha-plus who specializes in sleep learning, is something of an anomaly. He is unhappy with his life and career and he has a fixation for a female, Lenina Crowne. He asks Lenina to go with him to New Mexico on a holiday. New Mexico is a reservation that has been allowed to remain natural. While there Bernard and Lenina meet John, a young white man who was born to a woman from the civilized world who got left behind on a visit. Bernard gets permission to take John and his mother back to civilization. It is John who calls civilization Brave New World from the speech by Miranda in The Tempest as he cherishes an illicit copy of Shakespeare's plays. As John discovers his Brave New World has significant problems even though it is supposed to be Utopia.
  • (3/5)
    I read this work given its status as a "must read" 20th century novel. The social commentary on utilitarianism gone too far is interesting- more so the many examples created in this futuristic dystopian world, e.g., mass produced drugs to keep all the population happy, brainwashing, synthetic reproduction of classes of persons specifically geared for their best and highest use. The contrast of the "modern world" with those from the "old world" now restricted to reservations was also appealing.However, I found the writing style choppy and disjointed and generally mediocre. In addition, the author's dialogue at the book's end between an "old world" and "new world' representative was a lazy way to compare and contrast the differing ideologies.
  • (3/5)
    An amusing utopian counterpoint to "Nineteen Eighty-Four" but it hasn't got the continued relevance. This is what the future looked like in 1932: it isn't what it looks like now.
  • (3/5)
    This is a very thought provoking book, especially right now with the political upheaval in the U.S.! The test tube babies and their predestination and predetermination of their caste order is super creepy, though not entirely implausible! And the sterilization of society, the sameness of it all, seems a little too realistic to be comfortable for me! No art, no science, no individualization - just take a drug and be happy! I know of one political party right now that would love this type of society! But I'm with the Savage - I like reality! Like I said, lots to think about in here, but it's not the best story ever. Too much philosophy and Shakespeare for me! But I'd say it's a must read, and a must think, if you are inclined to do so!
  • (5/5)
    I read this back in high school but it turns out that I had forgotten almost everything about the plot so I am so glad that I revisited it with this audiobook edition.Michael York was wonderful as the narrator (though I now have the urge to watch Logan's Run!)
  • (3/5)
    "Brave New World" is a chilly dystopian story that is a bit similar to "1984". I guess the future is going into one direction: no more freedom, individuality, culture and ideas. Our future will be mundane, boring and repetitive basing on the 2 books. This story is an eye-opener indeed.
  • (1/5)
    Giving up on this classic. Several chapters in and no main characters, no real plot, just a heap of exposition. At least 1984 had a clear protagonist and plot to follow. If I'm going to be bashed over the head with world building and social criticism I want it to be engaging.