Leonard

So I've read this for the second time now and here are some thoughts about both readthroughs.

Throughout my childhood I've been a total worldbuilding nerd. I made up my own worlds in my head, loves Harry Potter, Star Wars and especially the lord of the rings. But as I grew older I tended towards more reasonable literature. Dune, which still is one of my favourite books, showed me how much philosophy and politics (not just political intrigue but serious critique of religious leaders and fascism. When watching movies I increasingly focussed on the characters. But I also started to regard learning every little detail about a made up world a pointless exercise when there is a real world with real problems to be fixed.

And for some part A Song of fell into that. I have rarely seen such well executed character arcs and the setting addresses both war and how much our actions are influenced by our surroundings. (And so much more)

But A Song of Ice and Fire alsogot me back into enjoying worldbuilding just for the fun of it. I reread the lord of the rings, this time recognising its flaws but I still love it. I even want to interact with middleearth by playing pen and paper (currently preparing).

Unfortunately on my first readthrough I did not know how much I have to weigh every word, thought and expression. The (probable) meaning of Eddards promise to Lyanna eluded me.

The foreshadowing is done so well, Brans wakeup chapter (Brann III I think), among others, gave me the chills.

Will maybe add more thoughts later.

I think Huxley succeeded in providing the reader a wolrd to address the issues of our own. I wouldn't call it belletristic. The distance between me and the characters was great (as they were only role models for the clash between the “brave new world” and our world).

There is a lot going on in this book and at times I didn't feel educated enough to fully understand the author's intentions (for instance he quotes a lot of Shakespeare which I, as a german, haven't read). Nevertheless it gave me a lot to think about:
The perhaps most fundamental pillar of their society is stability. And while the means to achieve it are beyond questionable it can be interpreted in the context of our modern society. As can be seen with extreme right/ fascist parties rising in influence throughout europe and being in power in the US our democracies are not wholly stable. The proposed reasons/ solutions are manyfold (e.g. Billionaires like the Murdochs or Zuck - or the BILD in germany - having the power to determine the opinions and truths of many people by controlling media) and sometimes preventions have been in place initially (like a wealth tax in germany) and removed later.
The point at which I disagree (and the author himself as well?) is the necessities to achieve both stability and happiness for everyone. While noone is given a choice to even want another life there are still people that are more suppressed than others (alphas being the least suppressed through the greek alphabet to epsilon). Like in our world back when the book was written and today. I do wonder however why this “brave new world” is still dominated by white men? The only controller we know is male and all the other leading positions are given to men as well. The only black people there are below “beta” level. Is this an intended caricature or just an artifact of the author's own “conditioning” (another important detail in that world)? It's probably the latter bit in my opinion that doesn't make it less interesting.