1) Plot (3 stars) - In a future where genetic manipulation, subconscious conditioning, and drugs have made everyone a perfect cell in the social body, one man feels an inner emptiness and the need to explore it.  However, when he finds another choice, is it really any better than his current situation?  The overall plot was good, but I found the tension in scenes low, and the pace a bit slow.

2) Characters (3 stars) - Bernard Marx is the brooding individual in a smiling collectivist society.  Pushing aside social norms, he explores the difficulties of life--loneliness, confusion, delayed gratification.  But does he really value these difficulties, or are they just a way for him to re-cast his shortcomings into a feeling of superiority over his fellow man?  The other main character is John, the man raised outside the society, only to return to it with wariness and contempt.  Both were fine, but neither one showed me Huxley's ideal for the heroic.

3) Theme (4 stars) - All of our energy seems to be focused on getting rid of the nastiness of life--disease, desolation, inconvenience.  But what of life will be left when we trade the possibilities of truth and beauty for the guarantees of comfort and happiness?  And, is only tasting the pleasurable half of life really a better experience in the end?  This was the major moral I pulled out of the story, and it's a good question that made me think, even 80 years after it was written.

4) Voice (3 stars) - The prose was fine, readable, but I didn't mark any particular sentence as beautiful, insightful, or poetic.

5) Setting (3 stars) - Huxley spends a lot of time describing the details of his future society's structure--the human hatcheries, the conditioning centers, etc.--but for all the detail, I didn't feel transported there.

6) Overall (3 stars) - It's impressively imaginative (especially for 1932), and has an important message about whether we're numbing ourselves from a very important part of life, but the plot and characters just didn't grip me enough to recommend it.
1) Plot (3 stars) - In a future where genetic manipulation, subconscious conditioning, and drugs have made everyone a perfect cell in the social body, one man feels an inner emptiness and the need to explore it. However, when he finds another choice, is it really any better than his current situation? The overall plot was good, but I found the tension in scenes low, and the pace a bit slow. 2) Characters (3 stars) - Bernard Marx is the brooding individual in a smiling collectivist society. Pushing aside social norms, he explores the difficulties of life--loneliness, confusion, delayed gratification. But does he really value these difficulties, or are they just a way for him to re-cast his shortcomings into a feeling of superiority over his fellow man? The other main character is John, the man raised outside the society, only to return to it with wariness and contempt. Both were fine, but neither one showed me Huxley's ideal for the heroic. 3) Theme (4 stars) - All of our energy seems to be focused on getting rid of the nastiness of life--disease, desolation, inconvenience. But what of life will be left when we trade the possibilities of truth and beauty for the guarantees of comfort and happiness? And, is only tasting the pleasurable half of life really a better experience in the end? This was the major moral I pulled out of the story, and it's a good question that made me think, even 80 years after it was written. 4) Voice (3 stars) - The prose was fine, readable, but I didn't mark any particular sentence as beautiful, insightful, or poetic. 5) Setting (3 stars) - Huxley spends a lot of time describing the details of his future society's structure--the human hatcheries, the conditioning centers, etc. --but for all the detail, I didn't feel transported there. 6) Overall (3 stars) - It's impressively imaginative (especially for 1932), and has an important message about whether we're numbing ourselves from a very important part of life, but the plot and characters just didn't grip me enough to recommend it.