These Dystopia books never get old

This year we have been introduced to various dystopian novels(especially those lucky few in both lit and language), and it is difficult to miss the similarities that exist in each. There seems to always be a tragic hero who is able to overcome tyranny, rebel, then succumbs to the very tyranny he attempted to defy. There are of course, the novels with the almost happy ending such as Anthem and Fahrenheit 451, but in a majority of these dystopian novels, as is the case with Brave New World and 1984, there is the inevitable descent of the protagonist, the hopeless plight of the faulted hero. A.C. Ward observes the similarities between Huxley's and Orwell's most well-known works, dissecting the possibilities of plagiarism and observing the irrefutable influence of Zamaitin's We on Brave New World and transitively Zamaitin's and Huxley's influence on the formation of 1984.
While it is clear that 1984 has many similarities to Brave New World (a fact even Orwell did not deny), the societies created from the same fear(the fear of dehumanization and oppression) are drastically different. Huxley created a world which controlled its citizens by granting them all that they have been conditioned to desire, therefore in content, they never desired beyond what the government allowed. In Orwell's society, as stated by Ward, "...everything...leads to death..." What I found particularly interesting about the article "Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" was the parallels Ward outlined between the characters and structures of the novels. Although I knew similarities existed between the novels, I missed a great many of the parallels Ward described. I was particularly interested in his relation of Mustapha Mond to O'Brien. While O'Brien inflicted acute pain upon Winston, I found his manner very similar to Mond. "Like Mond he is willing up to a point to engage in debate on the merits of his system and even to assign readings hostile to it...Like Mond, he seems to be, some of the time at least, a reasonable man..."(Ward). These two characters are probably the most fascinating in the two works. While Mond is seemingly the villain in Brave New World, he doesn't seem to be intended to evoke hostility from Huxley's readers. Although O'Brien's actions are somewhat demonic, even he is respected by his victim. Perhaps Huxley creates this mild antagonist and Orwell allows O'Brien to maintain a slight degree of this mildness, in order to emphasize the true villain of their novels: the corruptibility humanity. The evil present in these novels cannot be assigned to one individual. Mond, in his passive position of authority, mirrors the passive oppression utilized by the society. O'Brien's actions espouse the violent imposition of power by the society, but it is Winston's respect and submittal to power that is the true villain of the novel.
Another aspect of Ward's article which I found fascinating was his description of O'Brien's observation of Winston. The idea that Winston's "...rebellion is not his own..." that O'Brien had introduced the idea of rebellion to Winston for the sake of experimentation is perhaps the most frightening aspect of Orwell's creation. The idea that Winston has been stripped of his free will, that even his perceived rebellion was orchestrated by the will of the Party is the embodiment of Orwell's society: it controls all facets of human existence. While thought was the one aspect it couldn't control in its entirety, it found a path of control through an individual's subconscious.
Although neither Orwell nor Huxley's vision of the future have yet materialized(to their full extents), both remain a distinct possibility. Despite who influenced who, who borrowed theme and character ideas, these two novels both offer an individual's perspective on the imminent destruction of humanity, a similar fear which manifests itself in the form of two similar, yet vastly different societies. A.C. Ward describes these similarities at length, and while it is clear he finds Huxley's work more compelling, he concedes that both Orwell's vision and Huxley's have prepared us because "...if and when we actually do enter those new and terrible worlds, it will at least be with our eyes open..."

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Over the course of history there are certain topics, phrases, and occurrences which fall in and out of acceptance, vehemently condemned one decade, a social norm the next. Our grandparents balk at the inculcation of sex in nearly every aspect of the media, while, to most of this generation, it has become a normalcy to spot innuendo on Nickelodeon. With the transformation of society, other topics have surfaced, which had previously existed but were scandalous and publicly condemned. Such topics of discussion include abortion. While abortions have occurred over the course of history, never has it been so publicly debated and considered. I am personally against abortion. I believe that life begins in the embryo, and therefore believe that the practice is the destruction life. However, I do not believe that abortion should be prohibited by law. While I believe it is a horrible practice, I would adamantly defend an individual's right to have an abortion. It is not my place to impose my own moral beliefs on another individual, especially when I could not begin to understand the circumstances of an individual's decision. I have always considered myself a person of moderate philosophy and as such, have always had difficulty defining definitive positions on, well, anything. I have, however, always been against abortion. I hold little sympathy for those who utilize abortion as a form of repetitive birth control and do in some respect consider it a form of murder. While many may argue that this notion of murder is the justifiable force behind prohibition, because it is not MY body or my baby, I believe I have no right to tell someone they can't have the procedure done. Sure I think its wrong, but my idea of wrong could be drastically different from another individual's idea of wrong. Whose to say exactly whose right is truly right? Because I wouldn't have an abortion, doesn't grant me the right to force others to practice my own moral conduct. The basis of my moral conduct is primarily derived from my religion, and as such, cannot be utilized as the foundation of a prohibitory law.
The circumstances of abortion must also be considered. While I believe that there are better options available for unwanted pregnancies, this is a conviction which I have established outside of experience. Instances of abortion with pregnancies that happen as a result of rape or incest, or when the woman is somehow in danger(whether medically or otherwise) are often the subject of debate. In these circumstances, I again believe that no one has the right to restrict an individual's decision. No one should have authority over one's body, except the individual. I am able to say that I would not have an abortion under any circumstances simply because I am separated from actual experience. I cannot definitively state what I would do in a similar situation because I cannot possibly anticipate the emotional turmoil which these individuals endure. It is for this reason that I believe that no one is truly justified in making the decision other than the individual. Extremist Pro-Life groups who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion administers are heinously hypocritical. Rallying behind the idea of preserving life, they destroy life. I have considerable compassion for individuals who have abortions out of desperation. It is tragic. It is a decision which they will have to live with for their entire life and while there are those who have abortions repetitively and feel no remorse, there are also those who are tortured by their decision but felt they had no other option.
If abortions were to be prohibited by law, not only would it be an imposition of one group's moral beliefs on society, but it would put individuals in direct danger. While the law would prohibit abortions, they would inevitably still be administered, this time, however, in less contained and unsanitary atmospheres. Some may argue that in future generations abortions and other current practices will be condemned, just as we as society scrutinize the actions of our predecessors. However, we must not look at the practice in terms of our current(or future) perceptions of morality. We live in a country where everyone is entitled to their own opinions and expression of their personal liberties. If one is against abortion, they may say so, and have the freedom to decide against having one. Similarly, one should be entitled to support the choice of having an abortion and personally decide whether or not to have an abortion, without the interference of those who "know" the boundaries of morality.