NationStates Jolt Archive

I am currently researching Orwell for an English paper (which I am now putting off in order to type this). Now this is the question I present to you:

Is Orwell's legacy diluted by everyone's assumption that he agrees with them? He is so often praised for being such an "honest" writer - whose message is so plainly true. If this is the case, how come his writings can be used to justify any number of political opinions? Is it really, really necessary that 350,000 blogs criticize the government in his name? Certainly everyone's entitled to their opinion, I mean, democracy, free speech and such - but can't you people stop equating everything Bush does with an Ingsoc slogan? I love 1984 as much as - probably more than - anyone else, but if you look at any recent, decent literary criticism (see: not other blogs), it's pretty much agreed that Orwell was wrong about the future of the world. 1984 did not happen. 1984 is probably not going to happen, regardless of what you think of Bush, because no matter how hard he tries, he's still going to be out of an office and a job in 2008.

Some of the complaints are valid, I'll say that most of the PATRIOT ACT ones probably are - but some are stupid too. The War on Terror is not the same thing as "War is Peace," because its motive is not the destruction of industrial surplus, but directing the foreign policy of a nation who has to define its foreign policy based on a defined foe. Once upon a time it was Communism, now it's terrorism, and it's not really a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a thing. One site in particular (Students for Orwell, I believe, if you really want to know, I'll find it and give you a link, or you can just Google "Orwellian" or "Orwell"), put up the photo of Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein with the caption "Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." I am not going to defend previous foreign policy, but I have two points to make:

First - Orwellian historical revisionism has not occurred. At most, the government mildly glosses over previous ties with Iraq. There is no direct claim that we never had any dealings with them.

Second - America does not really maintain any cohesive government for more than ten years at a stretch. By that time, a different President is elected and the congressional majorities have usually shifted. It is understandable that our foreign policy therefore is capable of major shifts within a decade as well.

I suppose I sound a bit like a Bush fanatic right now, that's not really the case. If anything, I'm a libertarian, but that's not important.

What is important is that people are wasting webspace and research time with their identical opinions about how Orwell was in fact God incarnate and Bush is therefore, Satan.

I feel better now.

Yay I love George Orwell too. And yes I really agree with you. In fact, I think the people who say George Bush = Big Brother are closer to being brainwashed by their own (crazy) ideas than by the government. But let me tell you one thing - there is NO WAY IN HELL you like 1984 more than I do. I have read it 15 times out of my own will (<-not an exaggeration).

Yay I love George Orwell. But let me tell you one thing - there is NO WAY IN HELL you like 1984 more than I do. I have read it 15 times out of my own will (<-not an exaggeration).

You don't happen to be me, do you?

America does not really maintain any cohesive government for more than ten years at a stretch. By that time, a different President is elected and the congressional majorities have usually shifted. It is understandable that our foreign policy therefore is capable of major shifts within a decade as well.

really? from my vantage point it looks kind of like the same old same old for 60 years or so. they just periodically change the figurehead.

really? from my vantage point it looks kind of like the same old same old for 60 years or so. they just periodically change the figurehead.

Eh... I really didn't want this to turn into a political debate...

Okay, yeah, the government is generally the same with its policy BUT! in some areas there are massive reversals, usually on a smaller scale - i.e. Iraq = ally in the early '80's, enemy in the late '80's, possible chemical weapons stockpilers in the late '90's, OMFG TERRORISTS! in the 00's, friendly embryonic democracy in mid-00's - so you see, small-scale massive changes.

This is what I meant by the changing thing.

I love 1984 as much as - probably more than - anyone else, but if you look at any recent, decent literary criticism (see: not other blogs), it's pretty much agreed that Orwell was wrong about the future of the world. 1984 did not happen. 1984 is probably not going to happen, regardless of what you think of Bush, because no matter how hard he tries, he's still going to be out of an office and a job in 2008.

Huh? 1984 wasn't written as a predicition, instead it was a fictionalisation of the current political climate in England of 1948 when it was written, with elements added from Orwell's own experiences from Burma and Spain.

To state that Orwell was wrong about the future of the world is to miss the whole point of the novel. It was about the then current state of the world in the years of post-war austerity.

Prediction... not a prediction... a lot of debate among literary critics about that. Orwell was trying to discern a trend, I believe, of where he thought the world was headed. Orwell sincerely believed that there were three options for the future of the world -

1. A US nuclear attack against the USSR
2. A US/USSR nuclear war, leaving civilization back in the bronze age
3. A Cold War - which Orwell supposed would be fought between two or three totalitarian superstates. 1984 is something of a prediction - though not this sort of prophetic revelation that many people make it out be.

On the bright side, responding to all this criticism is helping me procrastinate.

tag

I'd challenge that 1984 was not a prediction, but neither was it a reflection of the world in which he lived. Orwell was a writer who was very concerned about his own beliefs, and he partook of far more introspection than the average person.

In this introspection he saw the potential for the corruption of the system in which he believed, democratic socialism.

And so, out of this introspection the book 1984 was born. You see, 1984 is a signpost, a warning to everyone of every ideology. Beware, for that all that you hold dear could be seized by pricks and corrupted. Always be on the look out for your liberties, no matter what you believe. Always look at yourself first, make sure that you aren't blinded by the plank in your own eye.

That's what I get out of Orwell's 1984 at least.

Eric Blair is a great writer.

really? from my vantage point it looks kind of like the same old same old for 60 years or so. they just periodically change the figurehead.

:rolleyes:

Being a work of fiction and not prophecy, whether his novels have turned out to be "true" or not is irrelevant.
His work is important becuase of it's social and political implications.
He warned of a Technocracy in 1984, and in some ways, this may be the case, although nothing in scope compared to his novel.
He's important becuase his books are here to tell us "Don't let this happen to you." What's so hard to get about that?

What's so hard about "don't clog up the internet with so much crap that it's impossible to research an author?"

Being a work of fiction and not prophecy, whether his novels have turned out to be "true" or not is irrelevant.
His work is important becuase of it's social and political implications.
He warned of a Technocracy in 1984, and in some ways, this may be the case, although nothing in scope compared to his novel.
He's important becuase his books are here to tell us "Don't let this happen to you." What's so hard to get about that?

1984 isn't much of a technocracy, to be very precise (as mentioned in the book at places, most common-life technology is in fact supposed to be more primitive as it was in even 1945).

What Orwell depicted is the ultimate totalitarian state. Oh and curiously, the book was forbidden in the Eastern Bloc. :rolleyes:

What's so hard about "don't clog up the internet with so much crap that it's impossible to research an author?"

What's so hard about "use a library"?

Getting back to the original question, I don't think any of this dilutes Orwell at all. One of the reasons he was so brilliant, like many other writeras, is that his stuff can be interpreted in so many different ways. Even the story he intended to tell is not the "true" story, because the true story is a thousand different stories told in each readers head. This happens to all books, because no-one brings quite the same background knowledge to it, but with the good writers it happens even more because it appeals to some basic sense within us, and it's really only the details that we makeour own in order to let us understand the message better.

taggart

The technocracy refers to the all-encompassing telescreens of 1984. It's developed in-depth in the book Orwell's Revenge - basically, Orwell saw technology only as a way for the government to control people, which Huber (the author) attacks vigorously in his thesis, in a manner which I found both correct and incorrect at the same time (Doublethink anyone?).

Getting back to the original question, I don't think any of this dilutes Orwell at all. One of the reasons he was so brilliant, like many other writeras, is that his stuff can be interpreted in so many different ways. Even the story he intended to tell is not the "true" story, because the true story is a thousand different stories told in each readers head.

Face it: the actual narrative of 1984 is pretty much taken in a bleeding chunk from Eugene Zamiatin's earlier (1924) novel We, and relates back to the narrative of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The 'story' there can be little debate of: with regard to the implications and the meaning, certainly.

What's so hard about "use a library"?

Mostly the part that involves people taking out source books you need at inconvenient times.

The technocracy refers to the all-encompassing telescreens of 1984. It's developed in-depth in the book Orwell's Revenge - basically, Orwell saw technology only as a way for the government to control people, which Huber (the author) attacks vigorously in his thesis, in a manner which I found both correct and incorrect at the same time (Doublethink anyone?).

You do know, don't you, that the original real Big Brother was a Charles Atlas like figure that stared out of posters advertising body building courses in post-war London, yes? The feeling of being watched is merely a psychological reaction when confronted with another human face - in the eyes of the other we come to know our own shame.

Face it: the actual narrative of 1984 is pretty much taken in a bleeding chunk from Eugene Zamiatin's earlier (1924) novel We, and relates back to the narrative of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The 'story' there can be little debate of: with regard to the implications and the meaning, certainly.

That reminds me I really ought to read that book. I mean since my nation name, Zamyat, is derived from the guy's name (I saw it printed as Yevgeny Zamyatin).

You do know, don't you, that the original real Big Brother was a Charles Atlas like figure that stared out of posters advertising body building courses in post-war London, yes? The feeling of being watched is merely a psychological reaction when confronted with another human face - in the eyes of the other we come to know our own shame.

No I didn't, although that's interesting, although I'm not sure how that responds to the Technocracy thing.

What's so hard about "use a library"?

Whut's a library?

:confused:

That reminds me I really ought to read that book. I mean since my nation name, Zamyat, is derived from the guy's name (I saw it printed as Yevgeny Zamyatin).

Yeah, it is worth reading: a big influence on almost all the major english language dystopian novels of the C20th. I suspected that your name may have had some connection to him.



No I didn't, although that's interesting, although I'm not sure how that responds to the Technocracy thing.

I responds to the technocracy thing by showing that this whole idea of technocracy doesn't apply to 1984. If you look at the technological infrastructure that must exist behind the state and then look for traces of it in the novel you will find them sorely lacking - for example the need for a second power supply to allow the TV screens to operate during the power blackout at the start of the novel. He isn't talking about technology, instead about the human systems that surrounded him in England and Spain.

A boot stamping on a human face forever is not a technocratic system, it is a simple human one.

Whut's a library?

:confused:

You wouldn't have them inside your radiation zone.

You wouldn't have them inside your radiation zone.

Thank you. Glad someone gets the SFB reference.

For what it's worth, I have library cards from three different cities - each in a different state. Plus two copies of me card from the Library of Congress in DC.
:rolleyes:

I like Orwell's books, but not his political writings. They tend to be anti-pacifist.

Thank you. Glad someone gets the SFB reference.

Damn right. I'm now just set to wondering if anyone has set up nations for the LDR or the Kzinti Hegemony yet.

Aside from my dig at libraries, allow me to present my humble opinion on 1984.

This book was inflicted on us way back in high school. My reaction was the same as the rest of the class - "Wow! What a depressing bit of fiction. So what?" Or in 1986ish speak "that guy is EVIL."

A few years later I stumbled on "Homage to Catalonia." Oh. Oh wow. Now I understand 1984. I think. I reread 1984, and, it was quite clear.

IMHO 1984 cannot be fully understood without reading Homage to Catalonia. It least I think the impact is greater if one reads H. t. C. AFTER reading 1984. It's not that 1984 is simply a description of the Spanish civil war. It's just that he saw, firsthand, the raw social & economic forces of his time & thought deeply of what their ultimate impact might be. He was perhaps not frightened; but, concerned.

"- but can't you people stop equating everything Bush does with an Ingsoc slogan?"

There is quite a bit of excellent insight written by other authors in this thread. I see nothing I disagree with at this point. It is quite a pity to see how Orwell's work is used as a touchstone ( is that the word? ) for political opinions. Quite simply, it is a sorry replacement for critical thinking, pushed to the point of making Orwells' work meaningless. Or, perhaps, right on in the ironic sense. Do me a favor & please, pretty please, read the essay by Orwell - I can not remember the name at present - which includes his comments about " toing ( toeing?) the line, etc." This may be what you are looking for as the final, best, anaysis of all. And another subtle viewport on 1984.

Is Orwell's legacy diluted by everyone's assumption that he agrees with them? He is so often praised for being such an "honest" writer - whose message is so plainly true. If this is the case, how come his writings can be used to justify any number of political opinions? Is it really, really necessary that 350,000 blogs criticize the government in his name?

Can they really or do some modern paranoids who see totalitarianism under modern western governments wrongly hold him up as a hero. I think he was spot on for his age and he did tell the truth. He was a socialist who was disgusted with his fellow socialists condoning atrocities committed by 'their' perceived side.... so, he spoke the truth by criticizing his own side. Very admirable and a sign of a strong personality and man of conscience. If Orwell were around he'd have little patience for the people using him to advance silly arguments...

Certainly everyone's entitled to their opinion, I mean, democracy, free speech and such - but can't you people stop equating everything Bush does with an Ingsoc slogan?

Heh. I agree, but don't blame Orwell for these fools.

I love 1984 as much as - probably more than - anyone else, but if you look at any recent, decent literary criticism (see: not other blogs), it's pretty much agreed that Orwell was wrong about the future of the world. 1984 did not happen. 1984 is probably not going to happen, regardless of what you think of Bush, because no matter how hard he tries, he's still going to be out of an office and a job in 2008.

Ah, but your missing the point. Orwell was not writing about 84... he was writing about 48 and it already did happen. The Stalin reign of terror. This inspired him to write and break with the left...

First - Orwellian historical revisionism has not occurred. At most, the government mildly glosses over previous ties with Iraq. There is no direct claim that we never had any dealings with them.

It happens. Look at all the progressives who try to rewrite history. The USSR was never a danger, neocons, we armed Iraq with bio weapons... They're all BS and examples of revisionism. There is this really powerful psychological phenomenon called projection… I think it is at work here… meaning, these people find historical revisionism an acceptable and useful practice so they tend to see this behavior in others (whether they are practicing it or not)… If they feel guilt, they are especially inclined to see it in others instead of themselves…

Anyway, I love Orwell. Don't blame him for the kooks who misuse his work.

This thread is a tribute to Orwell's writeing. People are looking criticaly at each other's polocies and philosophies, and true wisdom is comeing out of it without much of the flamefests and curseing usualy associated with political debates. Brings a tear to my eye.

Keep it up guys :cool:

On topic now....
I agree with sl0re. Orwell's writing was more of a warning not to become that which you claim to hate than a prophesy. Be aware of the corruption that may seem to be good for you in the short term because it may destroy you and everything you value if you follow blindly.

While historical revisionism has not yet reached the point described in 1984, it is still occuring in subtle ways. This however is not being controled by the government, but rather, is being caused by people who try to take an idealized view of the past and rub off on those surrounding them.

It is this failure to recognized the inherent corruption in human motivations that are in the end always selfish. Even many martyrs are selfish in their own way for wanting to be remembered or desire to enter paridise in the afterlife.

A fine example of this is the American Civil War. The Union didn't go to war with the Confederacy because of slavery, it's leaders were intent on maintaining the Union's power by preventing the south from seceeding. On the other hand, the Confederacy's leaders were not so interesting in states' rights so much as the preservation of the southern states' power in the face of northern majorities in the House and Senate that they belived were subverting them for their own gain.

The Revisionism is not existant in the US as Orwell feared it might be, but it is present in a more stealth form that I belive is equily dangerouse.

Ah, but your missing the point. Orwell was not writing about 84... he was writing about 48 and it already did happen. The Stalin reign of terror. This inspired him to write and break with the left...
I guess you haven't read his essay, Why I write (http://www.george-orwell.org/Why_I_Write/0.html), have you?

Orwell never broke with anything. In his own words:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.
- George Orwell

While historical revisionism has not yet reached the point described in 1984, it is still occuring in subtle ways.
On the other hand, we shouldn't fall into the trap of believing that any and all modifications of the commonly held historical view are examples of "revisionism" meant to brainwash us. Sometimes, the commonly held historical view is itself the result of propaganda (for example, much of the Cold War is seen in the West through the lens of US government propaganda - that doesn't mean that our view of the Cold War is incorrect, but it does mean that it is distorted).

It is this failure to recognized the inherent corruption in human motivations that are in the end always selfish.
That "inherent corruption" is an unproven and completely unfounded claim. You can't blame other people for "failing to recognize" the truth of an unscientific idea that you just happen to believe in. :rolleyes:

Even many martyrs are selfish in their own way for wanting to be remembered or desire to enter paridise in the afterlife.
If selfish motivations (such as the desire to enter paradise) lead to behaviour that is outwardly altruistic, then, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they are indistinguishable from altruism.

Orwell never broke with anything. In his own words:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.
- George Orwell

Yes and no. Orwell was always for democratic socialism, but he really didn't understand a lot of the more complex issues in politics until the twilight of his life. He was generally for equality and for liberty, but he couldn't think of a way to reconcile equality and liberty - the two aren't natural allies. He was against capitalism, of course, but he couldn't come up with a way for collectivism to work without the Ministry - totalitarianism.

Orwell never really broke with the left, but perhaps he was never really part of it either. He liked socialism, but he certainly despised socialists.

I responds to the technocracy thing by showing that this whole idea of technocracy doesn't apply to 1984. If you look at the technological infrastructure that must exist behind the state and then look for traces of it in the novel you will find them sorely lacking - for example the need for a second power supply to allow the TV screens to operate during the power blackout at the start of the novel. He isn't talking about technology, instead about the human systems that surrounded him in England and Spain.

A boot stamping on a human face forever is not a technocratic system, it is a simple human one.

Yes, but the engine by which the Party operates is the telescreen. The telescreen is a major part of the novel - the word (or its synonym, "screen") appears 119 times in the course of the novel (Orwell's Revenge by Peter Huber), more often than any other word related to Ingsoc in the novel - Newspeak garners only about 80 mentions, Big Brother less than forty. Orwell may not have fully explained the telescreen, but that shouldn't fully discount it as a major element of control either. Orwell was deathly afraid of the way technology could be used as an implement of totalitarian control as it was in Russia and Germany. The fact that the infrastructure of the telescreen isn't developed doesn't mean its not important. When lightning knocks out power to my house in a thunderstorm, the phones still work - it is possible to have a dual power source for any piece of technology, really, and I don't think about it in much detail.

If the main character were some sort of electrical technician, or a member of the Thought-Police, then we ought to expect a description of the telescreen and the infrastructure behind it, but this isn't the case. Winston works for the records department of the Ministry of Truth, so his thoughts are almost wholly concerned with "mutability of the past" and the nature of reality. It would be understandable that we get a full understanding of Minitrue's historical "corrections" and just a mere mention of the telescreen because that's the perspective Smith would have, and the one Orwell understands best given his background as a writer. Of course, mutability of the past also makes for a more interesting read than, say, a technical manual for the telescreen, because it's a very sinister concept. But, the fact of the fiction here is that the telescreen is enigmatic and omnipresent - a huge chunk of the world of 1984

Random Trivia:
>> Room 101 was the room in which committee meetings were held when Orwell worked for the Eastern Service of the BBC in World War Two. Orwell hated committee meetings.

I hate bumping threads.

I hate bumping threads.
It is sometime a nessasery evil ;)

Orwell never really broke with the left, but perhaps he was never really part of it either. He liked socialism, but he certainly despised socialists.

No real point, I just love this quotation:

"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

Also, isn't technocracy the method of government where it is the best and brightest that rule. Usually with a rigid hierachy. Rather then anything to do with technology?

I'd like to take two seperate arguments that have occurred in this thread and merge them together.

1) Historical Revisionism
2) Homage to Catalonia

It must be remembered the Orwell's writing grew as he did! As we age, our feelings on certain subjects change. George Orwell wrote homage to Catalonia after being on the "losing side" of a war. His faction was more or less betrayed and rooted out by a new alliance in the shifting power struggle.

If it was not for George's famous accounting of this period, its unlikely people would even REMEMBER that there was such a faction participating. Perception of historical truths depends entirely on accounts of those periods, no?

1984's "historical revision" at the Ministry of Truth reminds us that information and perception of historical events is largely dependant on such accounts; and that those account are subject to alteration.

1984 takes this into an extreme form, but the danger is always there. The "Why did the US invade Iraq" question is a loaded one, you probably cringe at the computer just to read it! Was it WMDs? The plight of the people? Oil and natural reasources?

In the future, the historical perception of our actions becomes VITAL to the next genereation. How they understand our history will help detirmine what they do in the future with that knowledge.