There are some books that you read once, put back on the shelf and then find yourself thinking about years later. Brave New World is definitely one of those for me. Like many people, I first read it in my early twenties, when dystopian fiction seemed like an interesting warning about where the world might be heading. Coming back to it now, with a few more years behind me and a rather different world outside the window, I found myself appreciating just how much Huxley got right about the ways people might be controlled.

And, of course, inevitably shouting ‘It was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual!’

Of course, Brave New World is one of those books that is almost impossible to discuss without putting it into the context of everything that came afterwards. Along with a handful of other novels, it feels like one of the grandfathers of modern dystopian science fiction. So much of what we now recognise as standard dystopian territory is already here. The controlled society, the manipulation of individuals, technology being used to reshape humanity, the suppression of individuality and the idea that people can be conditioned to accept a particular version of reality.

What really struck me on this reread, though, was the idea of control through addition.

That is what makes Huxley’s dystopia so clever. The World State does not need to terrify its citizens into submission. Instead, it gives them things. Constant entertainment. Instant gratification. Consumer goods. Recreational sex. Drugs to smooth away unpleasant emotions. Endless distractions. The population is conditioned from birth to want exactly what the system wants them to want.

And why would anyone rebel when they are apparently having such a wonderful time?

That idea feels particularly relevant today.

In fact, I would argue that our modern world, with its endless short attention span media, is in some ways much closer to Brave New World than it is to 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. Orwell’s nightmare is built around surveillance, fear and the manipulation of truth. Bradbury’s is about censorship and a population being distracted from books and ideas. Huxley comes at the problem from another direction entirely.

What if you don’t have to stop people reading?

What if you can simply give them so much other stuff to consume that they don’t particularly want to?

That feels uncomfortably familiar.

Obviously, I’m not suggesting that modern society is Huxley’s World State. There are enormous differences, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise. But the underlying concept of keeping people entertained, distracted and comfortable enough that they don’t feel the need to question things is remarkably prescient. Every time I find myself mindlessly scrolling through some endless stream of short videos when I could be doing something considerably more useful, I find myself thinking about this book.

Perhaps that is why it feels more relevant to me now than it did when I first read it.

Back then, I was fascinated by the idea of a future society deliberately engineering people into particular roles. Now, I’m much more interested in the question of what people are willing to give up in exchange for comfort. Huxley asks whether eliminating pain, uncertainty and unhappiness might also mean eliminating some of the things that make us human.

Freedom, individuality, ambition, love, family, art and even the right to be unhappy are all treated as inconveniences in the World State.

And that is where the novel becomes genuinely thought-provoking.

The characters themselves are perhaps less impressive to a modern reader. Huxley is clearly more interested in the ideas than in creating the sort of deeply developed characters we have become accustomed to in contemporary fiction. There are also passages where the writing feels very much of its time, and some of the social commentary can be rather heavy-handed.

But honestly, I can forgive a lot of that.

This is a book whose ideas have survived almost a century, and that is what keeps pulling me back to it. Huxley was not simply predicting gadgets or technological developments. He was thinking about human behaviour and the ways technology, entertainment and consumerism could be used to shape what people want.

There is something particularly unsettling about the fact that the people in Brave New World are not desperately trying to escape their society. Most of them are perfectly happy within it. They have been taught what happiness is supposed to look like, and they have very little reason to question the definition.

That makes the book considerably more disturbing than I remembered.

I also think that is why Brave New World has remained such an important part of science fiction. It is not just a story about a future society gone wrong. It is an examination of the compromises we might willingly make if the alternative is discomfort.

Coming back to it after all these years, I found myself enjoying it considerably more than I expected. It is not perfect, and some of the characterisation and presentation inevitably feel dated, but the central ideas remain remarkably sharp.

When I first read it in my twenties, I saw it primarily as a warning about the future.

Now I find myself reading it as a warning about the present.

That makes for a rather uncomfortable reread, but also a thoroughly worthwhile one. Brave New World may be one of the grandfathers of modern dystopian sci-fi, but it certainly hasn’t retired yet. It still has plenty to say, and unfortunately, we may be getting rather better at listening.

Buy your copy here