NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you read George Orwell's classic? How has it influenced your political perspective?

Poll coming :D

there was a thread about this last week mate :confused:

Have you read George Orwell's classic? How has it influenced your political perspective?

Poll coming :D

Read it many times; taught it at least five. Given that it's an indictment of what happens when people allow the government too much power, and possible reasons for war being advantageous to the government, (any government, anywhere) it's been extremely interesting to read post 9/11.

Students often see it as prophetic -- I have to point out that A) it's set in London and B) the point is it could happen anywhere, and more easily than people think.

Scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary book! Especially room 101!

there was a thread about this last week mate :confused:

But, did it have a cool poll?

I read some of it because I had to write an essay based on the use of technology in it. But I couldn't be bothered to finish, so I just read a summary of it on a website.

Maybe the question should be who hasn’t read 1984?

As for influencing my political perspective, I was already aware of the complete asshatery of governments before I read 1984. Along with Brave New World and We, it’s a startling argument for the suspicion that should be cast on any authority.

And on a literary note, I think Down And Out In Paris And London is a better novel.

You poll fails for it's lack of a "I just haven't bothered to read it" option.

You poll fails for it's lack of a "I just haven't bothered to read it" option.

*sics the rats on Ifreann*
There, now you have a poll option :D

*sics the rats on Ifreann*
There, now you have a poll option :D

Yay!

No I have not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/img/hiero_D10.png Remember, Horus is watching you.

I've started reading it. I'm about halfway through now.

I've read it. It certainly contributed somewhat to my ideas. The war was an important factor, but apparently it doesn't always work in real life, as people seem to abhor this president for it.

I think CCTV is closer to a loss of freedom than even the patriot act is. I dont understand why people tolerate that.

I've read it as it was part of my coursework in English Literature last year. So I read analysed it and did a 3000 word essay on what happens to liberty decency and justice within the '1984' world.

I've read it. It hasn't influenced my perspective all too much, the lines of thought it presents not being all too new to me, though it was still an interesting read.

Yes, yes I have. And it does my head in when people say things like "OMG MY STREET GOT BROKEN INTO AND NOW THERE ARE CCTV CAMERAS GOING UP - 1984, 1984, THOUGHT POLICE ARGH!"

etc.

I read it as a kid (pre-teen), well over a decade ago, so my memory of it is a bit hazy, but even after all these years it remains one of the scariest things I've ever read. I do remember the rats...

And on a literary note, I think Down And Out In Paris And London is a better novel.
I prefer A Homage to Catalonia, simply because it meant he got shot and a bit injured, rather than getting TB and dying, which is what happened in the process of that particular book.

Yes, yes I have. And it does my head in when people say things like “OMG MY STREET GOT BROKEN INTO AND NOW THERE ARE CCTV CAMERAS GOING UP–1984, 1984, THOUGHT POLICE ARGH!”
Well, we may not be in the exact world of 1984, but with 4.2 million CCTV cameras, one for every fourteen citizens, in the UK alone, we are one of the most closely watched societies on Terra.

FFS, we’re on par with China!

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm).

Well, we may not be in the exact world of 1984, but with 4.2 million CCTV cameras, one for every fourteen citizens, in the UK alone, we are one of the most closely watched societies on Terra.
Only if you live in London. Hardly any cameras for us up here in the North. London, however, is quite 1984-esque I quite liked the whole SURVEILLANCE IS SECURITY thing. Nice campaign right thar.
FFS, we’re on par with China!
Err only in terms of "there are lots of CCTV cameras", rather than "we have execution buses merrily pootling around, you will get sterilised if you dare to have a child without permission and we may or may not have to investigate if you have an "accident" around our police".
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm).
It's bad, s'true.

i've read it, for a school asignment, but we were free to read any (serious) book we liked. it didn't influence my political views that much, because i already was quite anti-authoritarian. I found 'homage to catalonia' more interesting, and it did change my views more than 1984.

i think it pretty much just confirmed the politics i'd already developed. i read it fairly late on, 17 or so.

Only if you live in London. Hardly any cameras for us up here in the North. London, however, is quite 1984-esque I quite liked the whole SURVEILLANCE IS SECURITY thing. Nice campaign right thar.
Well, that’s true.

Perhaps the 2005 bombings may have had something to do with that?

Err only in terms of “there are lots of CCTV cameras”, rather than “we have execution buses merrily pootling around, you will get sterilised if you dare to have a child without permission and we may or may not have to investigate if you have an ”accident“ around our police”.
I was only talking about surveillance.

I do realise the difference between PFI shittyness and disappearing people. :p

I read maybe 4 chapters because I got it when I was trying out ebooks

roller coaster tycoon > 1984

Currently reading it all the way through now :).

Have you read George Orwell's classic? How has it influenced your political perspective?

Poll coming :D

Yeah.

I read it, but it had no political impact on me whatsoever. Like most dystopian novels, everything in it is pushed to such extremes it is really hard to take seriously.

'Course, a novel could be understatedly dystopian, too...

"Winston, you are a flaw in the pattern...you will be made to eat bananas under your tongue feels starchy.

If you want an image for the future of mankind, it is this:

A man, his face mildly downcast as he realizes his pizza does not include the correct toppings."

there was a thread about this last week mate :confused:

No there wasn't. And talk like that could end you up in room 101.

I haven't read it. Why would I? I've seen and heard enough references to it to know what it's about and the points that it makes.

'Course, a novel could be understatedly dystopian, too...

"Winston, you are a flaw in the pattern...you will be made to eat bananas under your tongue feels starchy.
I was thinking more about the Anti-Sex League, the fact that the Inner Party has nothing better to do with its time then dick around with low-level operatives, and other things I can't remember now.
Really, what was so significant about Winston that he couldn't be quietly shot as soon as he was brought into the Ministry of Love? Breaking his spirit was a complete waste of resources. Sending that guy to pretend to befriend him, and in the process making him even less sympathetic to the government, was a waste.
If you want an image for the future of mankind, it is this:

A man, his face mildly downcast as he realizes his pizza does not include the correct toppings."
Kwality, with a capital "K", and not just because it is as the beginning of the sentence either.

Damn good book. Naturally I've read it, and Animal Farm as well. I'm not sure how it's affected my politics or outlook on life. I was already a student of journalism when I read it, and keen on the nuances of word use and reading between the lines when it comes to politics.

I was forced to read it for my drama, as I did a performance piece on George Orwells Animal Farm. I crammed reading it into as short as time possible and never really took it in properly. However, I did enjoy it and have actually stolen the copy from 6th form and intend on reading it again!

Really, what was so significant about Winston that he couldn't be quietly shot as soon as he was brought into the Ministry of Love? Breaking his spirit was a complete waste of resources. Sending that guy to pretend to befriend him, and in the process making him even less sympathetic to the government, was a waste.

Even a nobody could become a martyr. The Party didn't seem to have a habit of making exceptions for people.

Even a nobody could become a martyr. The Party didn't seem to have a habit of making exceptions for people.
But a martyr for what? The revolutionary group was just a lie that the government made up to direct people's emotions. Martyrdom also requires for people to know that you died for something, the only other person who knew that he was harboring dissenting feelings was his (also captured) girlfriend.

But a martyr for what? The revolutionary group was just a lie that the government made up to direct people's emotions. Martyrdom also requires for people to know that you died for something, the only other person who knew that he was harboring dissenting feelings was his (also captured) girlfriend.

That is not how repressive governments operate.
The Party is existing in the aftermath of its own revolution. When it first came to power, it would have had to contend with all sorts of covert opposition. Just because the opposition has been crushed does not mean it will suddenly change its policies.

Also, the fact that its fake resistance movement is able to gather adherents at all indicates that it has something to worry about.
Remember the line: 'If there is hope, it lies with the proles'? This suggests that the potential for revolution is there.

I haven't read it. Why would I? I've seen and heard enough references to it to know what it's about and the points that it makes.

you really ought to read these things for yourself, otherwise you can't know what you really think of them yourself. otherwise you'll end up just like the fools who talk about things like 'the satanic verses' or 'the origin of species' or the mohammed cartoons without ever having read them but simply repeating what others have said about them. never trust the interpretion of others without checking the facts first because those who talk loudest about these things generally have an agenda to push and are often deliberately disingenuous.

But a martyr for what? The revolutionary group was just a lie that the government made up to direct people's emotions. Martyrdom also requires for people to know that you died for something, the only other person who knew that he was harboring dissenting feelings was his (also captured) girlfriend.

I'm assuming the Party would recognize that there would sooner or later be a form of dissent. The most efficient way to discover who was harbouring such sentiment, was to give those dissenters exactly what they wanted, and take care of the problem of dissent proactively. This is a world where the characters don't dare tell each other what terrible thoughts are in their minds, so the likelihood of any large group forming is unlikely... but not impossible. So therefore, if the Party created the organizing force for revolution, they effectively control it before it can happen.

As for making Winston suffer... who knows. I'm guessing it has to do with the Party wanting complete control over everyone, to the point that they wouldn't be satisfied until every dissenter changes their mind about the perfection of the Party's system.

As for making Winston suffer... who knows. I'm guessing it has to do with the Party wanting complete control over everyone, to the point that they wouldn't be satisfied until every dissenter changes their mind about the perfection of the Party's system.

Ah, good point. The Party is ideologically driven, so isn't always bound by practicality and logic.

Haven't read it.

you really ought to read these things for yourself, otherwise you can't know what you really think of them yourself. otherwise you'll end up just like the fools who talk about things like 'the satanic verses' or 'the origin of species' or the mohammed cartoons without ever having read them but simply repeating what others have said about them. never trust the interpretion of others without checking the facts first because those who talk loudest about these things generally have an agenda to push and are often deliberately disingenuous.
In the end, all that matters is the loudest interpretation, not whatever the actual meaning is.

And on a literary note, I think Down And Out In Paris And London is a better novel.

Aye, personally I rate DaOiPaS and Homage To Catalonia above 1984 and Animal Farm - they seem so much more tangible, being more firmly rooted in reality, and more powerful because of it.

In the end, all that matters is the loudest interpretation, not whatever the actual meaning is.
How very defeatist.

Some of the worst atrocities in human history have been committed under the jurisdiction of what you aptly refer to as ‘the loudest interpretations’ of certain texts. And less dramatically, is it not better to take away the author's true meaning, rather than a bastardisation of his or her text?

In the end, all that matters is the loudest interpretation, not whatever the actual meaning is.

Death of the Author theory is so 1980's.

When I came up with my stories "Persephone Skye" and "Think of the Children!!" a lot of people said that they sounded like 1984 (well, the latter did, the former is the prequel of the events that lead up to the latter). So I was curious and read it. It didn't really influence my politcial view, but the Junior Anti-Sex League kind of helped me with the Goodteens in TotC. :D

DaOiPaL
That’s one catchy acronym. :p

Incidentally BWO, is your nation named after the band or the theory?

Death of the Author theory is so 1980's.

1984? :eek:

Read it, found it quite booring. Brave New World is so much better.

Incidentally BWO, is your nation named after the band or the theory?

The theory. I'm not a massive fan of D&G, and consider that their constant reference to metaphor somehow undermines their extreme materialist project, but at least they make the ride interesting. However, when you start taking odds and ends of their work and sticking it next to Virilio, then things start getting fun.

1984? :eek:

Yeah, well technically '67 and '69, but it didn't really catch on in the anglophone world until the eighties.


And, no, I didn't miss the joke.

Death of the Author theory is so 1980's.
I wasn't alive for more than a year of that, so I wouldn't know.
How very defeatist.
Yep.
Some of the worst atrocities in human history have been committed under the jurisdiction of what you aptly refer to as ‘the loudest interpretations’ of certain texts.
Knowing that doesn't change anything. The loudest interpretation still wins through.
And less dramatically, is it not better to take away the author's true meaning, rather than a bastardization of his or her text?
Of course, but no one else will care.

I read it on my own in junior high, and then we read it numerous times in my English classes through high school, and I read it once in college. I randomly come back to it, so I'd say I've read it a whole fuckin' lot of times, yes.

The theory. I’m not a massive fan of D&G, and consider that their constant reference to metaphor somehow undermines their extreme materialist project, but at least they make the ride interesting. However, when you start taking odds and ends of their work and sticking it next to Virilio, then things start getting fun.
Mmm.

I’m re-reading Anti-Oedipus at the moment, trying to get a better grasp on Guattari and Deleuze’s works. I returned to them after, completely out of the blue, my mother got me a copy of Alain Badiou’s Metapolitics last Christmas.

Anyhoo, cheers for that hijack.

I wasn't alive for more than a year of that, so I wouldn't know.


And I was too young to be reading Roland Barthes. I still had the dubious privilege of reading his work in later life.

Yeah, well technically '67 and '69, but it didn't really catch on in the anglophone world until the eighties.


And, no, I didn't miss the joke.

:D

In the end, all that matters is the loudest interpretation, not whatever the actual meaning is.

What happens if the loudest interpretation is that authors' actual intentions are most important? Where do we stand then?

I wasn’t alive for more than a year of that, so I wouldn’t know.
Ch-check it out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author)

Knowing that doesn’t change anything. The loudest interpretation still wins through..
Criticism isn’t stagnant. Differing interpretations of texts or philosophical treatises come and go.

Of course, but no one else will care.
Boo hoo you.

What happens if the loudest interpretation is that authors' actual intentions are most important? Where do we stand then?
On a very large pile of bullshit because everyone will simply argue that their pet interpretation is the author's actual intent, and the person who argues best and loudest will win.

Ch-check it out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author)


Criticism isn’t stagnant. Differing interpretations of texts or philosophical treatises come and go.


Boo hoo you.

Wow, thanks for the link! I kinda like that idea!

But condescension is unbecoming

On a very large pile of bullshit because everyone will simply argue that their pet interpretation is the author's actual intent, and the person who argues best and loudest will win.


Welcome to the wonderful world of lit crit.

Welcome to the wonderful world of lit crit.
...Welcome?
I'm an English major because I enjoy writing long arguments quibbling about this sort of stuff.

Welcome to the wonderful world of lit crit.
And that’s why I steer as far clear of Eng Lit students as a degree in the Faculty of Arts will allow.

Baudrillard, my arse.

In the end, all that matters is the loudest interpretation, not whatever the actual meaning is.

only to the people who don't think for themselves.

Yep, good book.

Well after reading it, I was extremley anti Totalitarian/Authoritarian, and I still am now, but I was like that before, I guess it just reaffirmed what I thought before.

Yes, yes I have. And it does my head in when people say things like "OMG MY STREET GOT BROKEN INTO AND NOW THERE ARE CCTV CAMERAS GOING UP - 1984, 1984, THOUGHT POLICE ARGH!"

etc.

I like the idea of mass surveilance (though I do think that it is those in the higher positions that should be monitered more).

yep. Good book.

Yeah, it's one of the best books I've ever read. I think it's so great because it's written so well, that the whole situation sounds very realistic. The large number of unsolved 'mysteries' (does Big Brother exist? If no, who wrote his speeches, who manages everything??) also make it exciting.

One of my nations is based on it. :p

Of course I have read it.

But after 1984 rolled around and few of the prophecies came true, I lost interest. Not really as timeless as The Prince, right?

On a literary note, I agree with the other person who said it wasn't as good as Down and Out in Paris and London. Better than Clergyman's Daughter, and on par with Burmese Days.

I don't understand why it's so popular here at NSG, though. It was good, but not doubleplusgood.

I have to go, I have a 9:00 AM rat helmet...(Lenny, was it? Or Karl?)

Read it, loved it - it's one of my favorite books. But it's not my favorite 'Eric Blair' book - that would certainly be 'Coming up for Air', because it includes perspectives that 1984 doesn't - how we bring it upon ourselves.

I didnt like it at all.

I love 1984 and brave new world. I also love Paranoia, which is a pen and paper roleplaying game that distills the essense of pretty much all dystopian settings.

I love 1984 and brave new world. I also love Paranoia, which is a pen and paper roleplaying game that distills the essense of pretty much all dystopian settings.

I think you have to be ultraviolet to post on NSG, don't you?

The computer wants to know...are you feeling happy today?

[QUOTE=Gift-of-god;12647735]Of course I have read it.

But after 1984 rolled around and few of the prophecies came true, I lost interest. Not really as timeless as The Prince, right?

This is why Walter Cronkite wrote in the preface to the book "It has been said that 1984 fails as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning -- Orwell's terrible vision has been averted. Well, that kind of self-congratulation it, to say the least, premature. 1984 may not arrive on time, but there's always 1985."

It is important that the main character in 1984 states he doesn't actually know what year it is. It could be any year. The book was written in 1948 and Orwell got 84 by reversing the last two digits.

I think you have to be ultraviolet to post on NSG, don't you?

The computer wants to know...are you feeling happy today?

Of course. All alpha complex citizens are happy. Failure to be happy is treason. All alpha complex citizens are hygienic. Failure to be hygienic is treason. All alpha complex citizens are loyal. Failure to be loyal is treason. Dinner is ready. Dinner may be partially composed of executed traitors. Failure to partake in dinner is punished by becoming dinner.

I think I'ma make a new nation now...

Move along citizen. Nothing to see here. Everything you might have seen here is above your clearance. So you didn't see anything, did you?