ANUS Book List

[Graven Image]

Sadly, I have no books to add to the list compiled by kontinual, and of those, I've only read a handful.

Has there been any discussion of an ANUS book reviews section?

In the same way that there is a Heavy Metal section (the Dark Legions Archive) with a list of bands and reviews, I'd love to see a Literature section with a list of authors and reviews -- positive and constructively negative -- of their notable works.

EDIT:  Link added.  Thanks.

[Trauco]

I should clarify that the present scale is probably pretty close to final.  If we've forgotten anything essential, that is most important.  Any specific feedback on the above is also interesting (unless it isn't).

I see. In that case I would add George Orwell's "1984" and R.W. Emerson's "Representative Men" to the list. I don't know if the content of those is redundant if compared with the books already on the list, but like I said, I'm not familiar with most of the titles.

[kontinual]

I do believe that ALL books and all phenomenon in the world can teach you something. Working onesway through a list like this will merely result in a perpetual confirmation of ones own personal moral prejudices.

Stating tautologically that ALL books and all "phenomenon" in the world can teach you something is useless.  We're not going to abandon creating a list simply because you've decided that a) you are hostile to the ideas of this site and need to harp endlessly about it, and b) without having read even a majority of the books, you are positing that they will all result in "perpetual confirmation of one's own moral predjudices," whatever that could possibly mean with a list as diverse as the one that has been presented.

Please grow up.

[kontinual]

Has there been any discussion of an ANUS book reviews section?

That is a tied-in possibility with this.  Talk of it actually led us to put this initial list together.

[kontinual]

It looks to me like a general library. Just interesting stuff through history. Not all of it agrees with the ANUS paradigm, apparently.

Indeed.  I probably caused some confusion as it seemed to go without saying -- simply by skimming the titles -- that not all of the items on the list "agree" with ANUS, or even have the possibility to do so.  It remains an "ANUS list" by virtue of its creators, regardless, and will inevitably have to be understood as part of it.

It is the same universe, whether seen through ANUS or the interest and inspiration provided by such books.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

I should clarify that the present scale is probably pretty close to final.  If we've forgotten anything essential, that is most important.  Any specific feedback on the above is also interesting (unless it isn't).

I see. In that case I would add George Orwell's "1984" and R.W. Emerson's "Representative Men" to the list. I don't know if the content of those is redundant if compared with the books already on the list, but like I said, I'm not familiar with most of the titles.

I would tentatively say "1984" is unnecessary given that "Brave New World" is on the list.  And in my opinion, "BNW" is the superior book, anyway.

[Trauco]

I should clarify that the present scale is probably pretty close to final.  If we've forgotten anything essential, that is most important.  Any specific feedback on the above is also interesting (unless it isn't).

I see. In that case I would add George Orwell's "1984" and R.W. Emerson's "Representative Men" to the list. I don't know if the content of those is redundant if compared with the books already on the list, but like I said, I'm not familiar with most of the titles.

I would tentatively say "1984" is unnecessary given that "Brave New World" is on the list.  And in my opinion, "BNW" is the superior book, anyway.

It could be...it's been 10+ years since I last read BNW, so I can't say I wholly remember it.

[death metal black metal]

It could be...it's been 10+ years since I last read BNW, so I can't say I wholly remember it.

It's worth re-reading. BNW is not a rightist book, but it's realist like Plato: if we pursue only individual desire, all meaning collapses and in exchange for an idealized social design, we get soulless existences. It was also written in 1932, while "1984" was written in 1948. What does this mean? BNW is anti-crowdist, and so seen as anti-leftist; as a result, the leftists had to write their response.

In general, I have to say the realists (who are exclusively anti-leftist) write the best books, but the leftists write the books that have the most immediate effect in the world.

[Abyssal]

It could be...it's been 10+ years since I last read BNW, so I can't say I wholly remember it.

It was also written in 1932, while "1984" was written in 1948. What does this mean? BNW is anti-crowdist, and so seen as anti-leftist; as a result, the leftists had to write their response.

No way! I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but this is misinformation.

BNW and 1984 are in total agreement with each other about central issues, and only really disagree about minor particulars. BNW very much anticipates the inevitable result of capitalist, consumerist state society while 1984 anticipates the inevitable result of socialist, bureaucratic sate society. The societies described in both books could very easily coexist in the same world. Huxley pretty much said as much in a letter to Orwell. Both are "anti-crowdist", but not for the sake of being so - only because they're a study in how modernist utopian ideologies (capitalism, secularism, liberalism, humanism, all the various isms) all inevitably result in essentially the same demon - paranoid, control obsessed ideologies which regard their original purposes with cynicism and only really exist to perpetuate themselves.

[Metal POWER!]

1984 is the superior read. BNW is like: caste system + overman + implied freedom + areas of total freedom + some wanker who can't adapt to a new society and ends topping himself = OMG DYSTOPIA. Jesus CHRIST that is a terrible mish mash of ideas. BNW is obviously written by the leftist (check out some of his moralist rambling in Perennial Philosophy), 1984 by an awesome motherfuckin' gay fish.

[Abyssal]

1984 is the superior read. BNW is like: caste system + overman + implied freedom + areas of total freedom + some wanker who can't adapt to a new society and ends topping himself = OMG DYSTOPIA. Jesus CHRIST that is a terrible mish mash of ideas. BNW is obviously written by the leftist (check out some of his moralist rambling in Perennial Philosophy), 1984 by an awesome motherfuckin' gay fish.

That is without a doubt the most shallow, uncomprehending interpretation of that book I have ever heard.

[ASBO]

BNW and 1984 are in total agreement with each other about central issues, and only really disagree about minor particulars. BNW very much anticipates the inevitable result of capitalist, consumerist state society while 1984 anticipates the inevitable result of socialist, bureaucratic sate society. The societies described in both books could very easily coexist in the same world. Huxley pretty much said as much in a letter to Orwell. Both are "anti-crowdist", but not for the sake of being so - only because they're a study in how modernist utopian ideologies (capitalism, secularism, liberalism, humanism, all the various isms) all inevitably result in essentially the same demon - paranoid, control obsessed ideologies which regard their original purposes with cynicism and only really exist to perpetuate themselves.

After 1984 was published Huxley wrote Orwell a letter telling him his book was important but that he was wrong about the world being run with "a boot in the face forever". He said it would be run closer to what he'd espoused in BNW. And it turns out that Huxley will probably be right. Strange how he was so sure of all this in 1945 long before the chemical drugs of the 60s hit the streets - provided by peers of Huxley. Drugs and Pavlovian conditioning seemed to be the way Huxley et al imagined the human creature could be controlled.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerhuxorwell.shtml

I think it's impossible for 1984 to claim any kind of originality. Brave New World predated it by 16 years.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (etext)

[Jim Necroslaughter]

if you look at the last 60 years of history, it is clear that "BNW" is much closer to what is actually unfolding in reality.

[Niko]

I think it's impossible for 1984 to claim any kind of originality. Brave New World predated it by 16 years.

Actually Orwell stated that the major influence on 1984 was the Russian novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which itself predates Brave New World by about 10 years.

[Abyssal]

if you look at the last 60 years of history, it is clear that "BNW" is much closer to what is actually unfolding in reality.

This is something I used to be certain of, but recent developments have sort of thrown that into question. The way I used to see it was that while BNW described something which was more likely to become a universal reality, 1984 described something which has at various times partially come into existence in parts of the world, notably in nations which are nominally "communist".

If I were a high-school level literature teacher, or something, I would assign BNW and 1984 as complimentary readings. It really doesn't matter how "original" 1984 is, because it describes the other side of the coin that BNW is one side of. The near future is likely to look like a synthesis of these two fictions. In terms of the credibility of BNW vs 1984, the one thing that seems doubtful about BNW being a better representation of reality is that the dystopia it illustrates is actually dependent on an almost sublimely efficient social-design. There's actually very little bureaucracy involved, as Huxley's imaginary social order is really self-sustaining and automatic. The kind of (retarded/deranged/cowardly/etc) genius that such a feat would really require is actually beyond the powers of our society at the moment, even if we do possess (or will soon) the technology to pull that kind of shit off. For that reason, a lot of the direct, "in your face" police-state totalitarianism described in 1984 is actually more likely, perhaps as a kind of intermediary stage.

Anyway, no valuable comparison between the two books can really be made without also understanding that Orwell designed 1984 to look like the mutated outcome of leftist state control. Despite his own leftism, Orwell was suspicious and critical of state communism. Readers familiar with some of the ideological drama related to events in the Soviet Union will quickly recognize "Big Brother" as a representation of Stalin, while the "Goldstein" red-herring is obviously a stand-in for the real-world red-herring, Trotsky.