"'Idiots, swine!' Bernard Marx was saying to himself..." (55). Bernard realizes what a hoax this whole society is. He, unlike others, knows that what is happening, shouldn't. His thinking is similar to Montag's from Fahrenheit 451. Montag also understands that the sort of totalitarian government is not correct. However, different from Montag, Bernard is fine with being quiet and not speaking out against the government. Montag eventually does speak out. However, both go against the government in other ways. Montag reads books and thinks for himself. Whereas Bernard doesn't take much soma and talks to others about his point of view. Both show the reader a new way of thinking as well.

"And the outbursts of an abject self-pity..." (99). This is a way that Hemholtz describes Bernard. Bernard reminds me of Winston from 1984. Both are the protagonists and realize there is something wrong in the world. Winston seems a bit dimmer to me, however. Also, he is more adamantly against the government, whereas Bernard seems to just deal with the life he has and complain in private. Winston is trusted by most of the people he comes in contact with, and Bernard is a bit off putting to some. Their most common characteristic, however, is their way of thinking. At all times, they are both forced to think one thing, but say another, this is due to the power structure in their world and the constant monitoring.

"Bernard swallowed four tablets of soma..." (92). While I was reading this book, the term soma kept showing up, and I had no clue what it was. I later found that it is an allusion to a hallucinogen mainly used in Persian cultures. I think that this is another way that the Government is using to control the people, but they also seem to take it willingly. This shows, in a way, that the people in this world realize that they are living in a corrupt world, so they "escape" it per say. But maybe people take it so often that they don't realize the corruption going on around them. I think both theories apply. For example, Lenina takes it so often that she is the "perfect" citizen. On the other hand, Bernard rarely takes it, and for that reason he seems to be against the world that he is living in.

"Ending is better than mending" (49). Now isn't that us today? In this world, people that when something is broken, just throw it away and buy something new. That seems a bit familiar to me. This isn't the only similarity that I've noticed between this world and ours (see other blogs). But it does seem to be the most predominant similarity. Honestly, when was the last time something was fixed instead of bought? I know that I'm not one to talk, considering the amount of times I upgrade my phone. It's just kind of sad how someone 60 plus years ago was able to write about this dystopia, and not even realize that he's practically predicting the future.

"I drink to the Greater Being" (81). I don't understand people's need for hierarchy. And not just this world, but even our world's need for it. In this world, it seems as though there is just a single higher power that everyone looks up to. But in our world, there's many. I can honestly not think of a single place in which there is not someone in a higher position than any other person. Religions, Government, Education, Work force, all of these have someone who is in charge of everything and everyone else, and it doesn't really make sense. For example: religions-all of them seem to portray this "we're all equal" standard, when in fact there is a very obvious hierarchy: followers to leaders of the religion to god (which ever one it is that the religion follows). It just seems a bit hypocritical.

"Every one belongs to every one else" (40). And so part one is complete. What I'm understanding thus far is that the world is an obvious dystopia. I think that the vast majority of people are brain washed, but I also think that Bernard is going to be the protagonist. I think that he may try and sway Lenina into his way of thinking, but will most likely fail. So I think he'll also be the anti-hero. In my experience with sci-fi novels is that they usually don't have much of a happy ending. I think that it will probably end the same way 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 did, but I honestly don't know. I also think that the D.H.C. is going to become certifiably insane, or he may already be. Overall, I don't have many predictions for the book.

"'And "parent"?' questioned the D.H.C." (23). This quote makes me thing about 1984 by George Orwell. In this book, people don't have parents either, and there are no families. What I don't understand yet about Huxley's version of the family is when it began, or ended is a better term. Were the boys who are walking with the D.H.C. conditioned in the same way the babies in the nursery are? Was the D.H.C. conditioned this way too? In 1984, Orwell makes in obvious that this form of government and lifestyle had been around for a while. Another similarity between the 1984 and Brave New World seems to be the omnipotent figure-Big Brother and Our Ford, respectively. What I am most curious about, however, is if the "brain-washing system" per say, in BNW is any better or advanced than 1984's version. Winston in 1984 obviously broke the system, then was broken himself, so I am curious to see who will be that person in this work, or even if there will be that sort of figure.

"Community, Identity, Stability" (3). This, to me, seem like the beginning of a very disturbed world. Those three words alone don't seem like much, but together have a sort of ominous tone to them. "Individuality" isn't mentioned, which shows what kind of dystopia this book will portray. But when it's thought about, there are still slogans like this in our world today. For instance, about 70 years ago, all of Germany had posters plastered everywhere saying "Work sets you free." Even today a common slogan in Iraq is "Kill and capture." These two sayings are still very well known today. Both these show that our world right now may not be all too different from Huxley's.