This will be the longest , by far, of any book review I submit. I wrote this review a year ago and sent it to our beloved "Lostcasters".
I just finished reading Aldous Huxley’s ‘Island’. The following is a critique. It is an unfavorable one. Do not read this if you are planning to read the book. If you have read it, you will probably agree with my assessment. This book will be read only out of a sense of duty, not for pleasure.
Outline
1) Main character, Will Farnaby, wrecks sailboat on island of Pala and is introduced to most of the main characters (pp. 1-40)
2) Will is introduced to the utopia of Pala. (pp.41-350)
i) Pop-psychology
ii) Simplified Medicine/Science
iii) Free Sex
iv) Recommended use of hallucinogenic drugs.
3) The bad guys arrive (pp.351-354)
Reaction
This clearly is not one of Huxley’s better works. It is the pontification of someone with a clear agenda advocating “free love” and drug use. One can see the buffoonery of his ideas as played out by the Hippies. His melding of Pop-psychology and his naive belief in science is ridiculous. The utopia to which we are introduced is philosophically unsatisfying and boring. On one hand we are to believe that Pala is a place of free thinking. All things are relative and everything makes the whole, i.e. light/dark, yin/yang, etc. But at the same time they indoctrinate everyone into “Right Thought”.
I didn’t like or loathe any of the characters. Despite what appeared to be character development all characters seemed contrived. The characters were present only to embellish Huxley’s ponderous sermon on Asian Mysticism, free love and drug use.
I could forgive the pretentiousness of this book if it weren’t for its clear advocacy of drug use. Hallucinogens are supposed to give one insight and a different experience of life. Huxley clearly thinks this is good. You may or may not remember the last time you got drunk. But chances are you had a different perspective on things. Perhaps you became a philosopher or poet. You probably had some “good” ideas that didn’t seem so good later. I like an occasional pint of Guinness but I can’t recommend becoming intoxicated with alcohol, meth, cocaine, or hallucinogens.
The contraception/free sex idea has played out in Western culture to the detriment to women and families. A sexual relationship is a natural and powerful bonding mechanism. The dilution of this would cheapen the responsibilities of any marriage or parenting. Mutual adoptions clubs are illogical. A group or committee is very inefficient and frequently impotent to make any decisions. If everyone thinks somebody will make the hard ‘parenting call’ then nobody will do it. Raising a child is a big job and not one to give to a committee. (Puritanical or pragmatic? I think the latter.)
I find the concept of this society absurd. “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe” plays absurdity better. My opinion is based on experiences in a real world, with real people, and real problems. Perhaps if I was an academic in an Ivory Tower without pedestrian worries of a job, taxes and home maintenance, I would be more sympathetic to Huxley’s tedious blathering.
Association to “LOST”
Pala is possibly a contrivance of the Dharma Initiative where they tried to set up a Utopia based on Huxley’s bankrupt vision
This group of useful fools played into the hands of the preexisting culture of near immortals ruled by a Kurtzian “Him”.
Thank you.
jg
P.S. Whereas this rather long note may have been ponderous in itself I hope you found it more entertaining than “Island”
I also hated this book jg; mostly because I typically enjoy Huxley (Brave New World is awesome) and was excited about the potential pala ferry connection. Needless to say I was very disappointed when I had to frorce myself to keep reading through several chapters of the book until I finally put it back on the shelf about half way through.
It only becomes more upseting with the since revealed Ram Dass Connection.
P.S. Your review while making anyone not read the book was very enjoyable and weel laid out. Much better then the book itself sadly.
I am going to offer a totally different read on this book from the reviewers and from what our Lostcasters said about the book on their "Island" podcast a few years ago.
Put simply, "Island" was one of my favorite books when I was in high school. No, it's not a page-turner and it's not a superb work of fiction. It's not meant to be. It's meant to be a look into an alternative philosophy of living that Huxley believed in.
When I read the first review a few minutes ago, I couldn't help but think that the reviewer had more of a philosophical beef with the book than a literary one. I would caution anyone against taking ANY reviewer at his/her word, especially when he/she makes such bold statements as "this CLEARLY is not one of Huxley's better works." (even though many literary cirtics disagree with you, I am sure you are right).
For a more detailed beef, let's look at the reviewers comments that the book is a "clear advocate for drug use." The book is talking about a very specific kind of drug--psychedelic drugs, and to the point, natural psychedelics like psycilocibin mushrooms---and nowhere does the author or any of the characters talk about freely using all drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
Instead, Huxley, like many others in his time and since (including actor Cary Grant, who used LSD many times and said it helped break him free of lifelong depression), recognized that this class of substances (I hate to use drugs, because it's such a loaded term) could be used in a way that would both benefit the person and the society as a whole.
To compare the experience of psychedelics to the experience of being drunk, as the reviewer does, makes me question everything else he/she wrote. Sure, some people use psychedelics just to party and don't gain any wisdom from it. But that is far from what Huxley wrote about in "Island." And anybody who has ever taken a psychedelic in a quest for greater understanding and not just to get high can most likely tell you that the experience is far more enlightening than downing some Guiness. Sure, sometimes it's hard to incorporate the wisdom of a psychedelic experience into everyday life, but that doesn't diffuse the wisdom.
Anyway, I could go on, but I am sure the reviewer would just say I am not living in the "real world with real problems," despite the fact I am a working man with a family to raise, etc., etc.
Point is, I don't want any Lostcast listeners to be turned off from what is a very thought-provoking (if slow) read. I don't agree with all of Huxley's ideas and formulations, but if you are a person who enjoys challenging your own (and society's) conventional wisdom, I highly recommend "Island."
You are correct, I am right. I don't care for what critics say, be they literary or otherwise.
I am sincerely happy you like the book. That's great. (It's still in print, so somebody must be buying it) And, I am actually glad you responded so strongly. That means I made my point.
You correctly pointed out that I have a beef with the "philosophy" of the book. I found nothing redeeming in the fictional Pala society. There seems to be special disagreement with my opinion on “substance’ use.
There may be 0.1% of the population that can self medicate themselves with hallucinogens and avoid polypharmacy abuse. So, in general,I would recommend Prozac, Wellbutrin, Lexapro, etc. to depressed people, rather than LSD.
LSD and psycilocibin have been extensively researched and no beneficial therapeutic effect has been established. And believe me...had there been any possibility of making $$$ on them, the pharmaceutical companies would have exploited it.
Lastly, I am fascinated by brain chemistry and I have read stuff by and about Ram Dass, but (and I mean no offense) to think changing one’s brain chemistry leads to wisdom is just wrong. It philosophically doesn’t make sense (to me).
No worries, agreeing to disagree is one of my personal philosophies in life.
I just wanted to offer an alternative review to your rather strong critique because I am pretty sure there are Lostcast listeners who would enjoy the book, if for no other reason that it provides a fascinating look into how an alternative society might work (and not work).
As I said, it's not a perfect book and it's not a great read, but rather academic.
Still, for the thousands of people who have had their lives changed positively from the use of psychedelics, the book's exploration of those drugs will be rather refreshing compared to how mainstream society normally treats that subject. I am sure Huxley himself would never say psychedelics are not without their perils, but unlike just about every other class of drug, from nicotine to sugar to booze, their potential for enlightenment and insight have been recorded by professionals in many different fields, from artists to psychiatrists.
I also want to say that to refer to the hippie experiment as a failure as you did in your first post ignores a lot of why it was a failure, which is to say that the movement was up against a powerful foe in mainstream society and some very nefarious forces played a key role in bringing that era to an end, forces that still have too much power in our society today.
But I digress. I want the podcasters to know I love the podcast and the "Island" one is probably the only one I didn't particularly enjoy. So keep up the good work, and for those of you who want a challenging read, check out "Island."
I will agree with the fact, that this is a challenging read.
I was particularly looking forward to reading "The Island" when I first heard about it in a Lost-context. I really tried to get into it, and gave the book many chances, but after reading about one third of it, I had to give up. I couldn't compel myself to turn the page. Th book was, I thought, extremely dreary, longdrawn and - simply - not my cup of tea. This is the first book I had to simply stop reading, because I was completely and utterly not interested in the protagonist.
While the societty of Pala fascinated me, the way in which Huxley had chosen to write the book simply bored me. I believe the book would have worked much better as a non-fiction book, instead of the more old-fashioned way (many of the ancient philosophers told of their ideas in the same way as Huxley uses in this book, and I've always disagreed with this kind of idea-telling (storyteling and idea-sharing in one word. Nifty, eh?)).
If you can look past that, and simply read the book for what it is - a description of Huxley's idea of an ideal society, disguised as a novel - you might be quite enjoyed. But otherwise, I highly doubt it. _________________ Blame any typos, misunderstandings of the basic English language or weird humor on my Danishness.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
