• .

  • 

  • I was actually hoping for something a little better. I read this thinking it would be as good as 1984, but it just wasn't so. Maybe my expectations were set to high.

    

    Is this helpful?

• ― Dave Sanders said on Feb 12, 2008 about the Paperback edition| Add your feedback

• 1 of 3 people find this helpful

  • Mediocre New World

  • Huxley's characters fail completely to get the reader involved in their well-being. Huxley's scientific references are too dated; e.g., the belt moving at 33-1/3 feet per minute, the private helicopters, etc.

    I discussed this book with a colleague who is an English professor, and I asked him ... Continue

    Huxley's characters fail completely to get the reader involved in their well-being. Huxley's scientific references are too dated; e.g., the belt moving at 33-1/3 feet per minute, the private helicopters, etc.

    I discussed this book with a colleague who is an English professor, and I asked him what I missed while reading this book. It is considered a modern classic, so I thought that I must have missed things which make this a wonderful book. He agreed with me that, while a few references were clever, the book is not worth reading.

    I am happy to have read it only so that I can say that I have indeed read it if a discussion begins at a party.

    

    Is this helpful?

• ― Math Geek said on Mar 22, 2008 | Add your feedback

• 0 of 2 people find this helpful

  • xvii, 270 p. ; 21 cm.1st Perennial Classics ed.

    

    Is this helpful?

• ― Brian Hamilton said on May 7, 2007 about the Paperback edition| Add your feedback

Groups with this in collection

Malaysian Bookworms (36)

Dystopias (7)

50 Book Challenge! (296)

Eclectic Book Club (97)

Margin notes of this book

• fictionTBR1001 books to read before you dieDramaFantascienzahighschoolliteraturesci fiMy favoritesclassics
• See all (33)