NationStates Jolt Archive

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

5 years since I read it, in that year I read it 5 times but I cant recall it too well now. Im guessing since he had no other thing/person/ideal to love in his life all he could love was Big Brother, to venture further, although Big Brother wasnt exactly loving, it would reciprocate his love as he was an extension of it, he became big brother as he had nothing else, his identity was destroyed and so he became a loyal party member.

I think Winston couldn't make the choice not to love Big Brother. Because of the whole re-education thing, his concious mind no longer saw dissent as an option.

He was tortured that badly he would have loved anything to make it stop.

best book ever by the way.

if you havent, do. no other 20th century book has contributed more to the english language, big brother, though police etc

I prefer Brave New World.

To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?It never struck me that he had any opinion after visiting room 101; he was just utterly and totally broken. Love or not of big brother was made irrelevant.
It's been a while since I read it, though.

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

He didn't QUITE "love" B.B.

To love, you must love with faults; he didn't. He saw B.B. as perfect. Of course, in a state that defines "loving the country" as "finding nothing wrong with it", that would count as love. Reeducation worked quite well, as it would - Winston isn't a hero, Winston is us. The most disturbing thought? It would happen to us as well in such a dystopia. The problem is, it WOULD.

Winston "loved" Big Brother because he had been taught to believe B.B. protected him. That love, however, isn't anything like the love WE define as such.

Edit: Also, as SR pointed out, loving or not was irrelevant. Then again, WINSTON was irrelevant. A true dystopia is one from which one cannot escape, and against which one can do nothing. And Oceania in the book is a true dystopia. The power of the state was such that they could tell Winston's phobia. Indeed it's quite conceivable that they CAUSED it somehow. The State becomes godlike. As pointed out in one of its mottos: GOD IS POWER.

if you havent, do. no other 20th century book has contributed more to the english language, big brother, though police etcI'm sure that wasn't meant as a factual statement but rather as a hyperbole confession of love for the book; however, it would be interesting to see some stats on the influence of books on language (if only new phrases and words). Is there any institution that tracks these things, and do they have a website?

But was Big Brother a real person? Or was he just an image created by the unseen government? Or was he a real person who died a long time ago?

...And, most importantly, does Oceania really control a large portion of Earth, or is that just government propaganda, and really only Britain is in Oceania's control?

And which superpower do you think is the "best", let's say if you had to live in one of them? I'd probably live in Eurasia.

I preferred Burmese Days.

And whoever said that he didn't love big brother at the end; that's just plain wrong. He did. Go reread the passage at the end where he meets Julia for the last time.

...And, most importantly, does Oceania really control a large portion of Earth, or is that just government propaganda, and really only Britain is in Oceania's control?
What would suggest that it didn't?

And which superpower do you think is the "best", let's say if you had to live in one of them? I'd probably live in Eurasia.
Ultimately, their differences were negligible. Though I'd also like Eurasia best. ;)

I preferred Burmese Days.

And whoever said that he didn't love big brother at the end; that's just plain wrong. He did. Go reread the passage at the end where he meets Julia for the last time.The last few lines seem more telling; at least in outward appearance (self-delusion seems a real option too).

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn
what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless
misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast!
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all
right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won
the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

But was Big Brother a real person? Or was he just an image created by the unseen government? Or was he a real person who died a long time ago?

...And, most importantly, does Oceania really control a large portion of Earth, or is that just government propaganda, and really only Britain is in Oceania's control?

And which superpower do you think is the "best", let's say if you had to live in one of them? I'd probably live in Eurasia.

1- That didn't matter, really. B.B. was whatever the Party wanted him to be. B.B. probably existed once as a not-leading member of the Party and was fit for that role, but all the options are nearly equally alike. Not - again - that it mattered.

2- Hard to say. However, a vast empire is REALLY hard to keep under the level of control the Party had. Yet, other countries would start acting against Oceania, so it IS quite possible that the situation was, indeed, that one.

3- The "unworst" superpower would be Oceania itself. Due to size, they wouldn't usually hit their population TOO deep in the old America or the old Canada, so it'd be one of the safest areas. That, assuming Eastasia and Eurasia even EXISTED and the Party didn't control ALL the three places...

HOLY COW I FOUND IT!!!

But was Big Brother a real person? Or was he just an image created by the unseen government? Or was he a real person who died a long time ago?

...And, most importantly, does Oceania really control a large portion of Earth, or is that just government propaganda, and really only Britain is in Oceania's control?

And which superpower do you think is the "best", let's say if you had to live in one of them? I'd probably live in Eurasia.

I'm pretty sure he was either fictional or dead. If he wasn't around, they could just keep adding to his mythos, eventually being able to make him a superhuman. Which couldn't have happened if he was real. He was just an image to rally around, with very little background. Just something to make people support the government and their Five-Year Plans and the endless war.

Just as an interesting aside: You know how at the end of the book, he writes out with the dust on the table, "2 + 2 = 5"? Well in earlier editions of the book he never finished it. That's right, he just wrote, "2 + 2 =".

Significant?

The last few lines seem more telling; at least in outward appearance (self-delusion seems a real option too).

I was including that part. (I would have said the end, but people might have read the appendix).

Anyway, the point is, for whatever reason, he had genuine feelings of love towards big brother.

Just as an interesting aside: You know how at the end of the book, he writes out with the dust on the table, "2 + 2 = 5"? Well in earlier editions of the book he never finished it. That's right, he just wrote, "2 + 2 =".

Significant?

Yes. His mind was now a palimpsest. 2+2 = whatever the government wanted.

But perhaps when he says that he still loves Big Brother he is using doublespeak, and so he actually hates him?

But perhaps when he says that he still loves Big Brother he is using doublespeak, and so he actually hates him?

Doublespeak? Or doublethink? Anyway, I think you're reaching a bit here. This is a hopeless novel, it needed a hopeless ending. A boot stamping on a human face forever.

Winston gets to be the human face.

Winston gets to be the human face.

But I wanna be the human face! :(

But I wanna be the human face! :(

No face for you!

No face for you!

It's the Soup Big Brother! @_@

I have, to my shame, never got round to reading it.

I do advise anybody to read "The Remains of the Day", however. Strangely warming, compelling read for a discussion of death and the emptiness of one's accomplishments. For a bloody good laugh, read "The Hippopotamus" by Stephen Fry.

I only read it a few months ago but I can say it is one of those books you have to read

my only criticism is though that it does drag on a tad especially when he reads the brotherhoods book but once you get over that hurdle its all good especially the character O'Brien and his arguments that you really can't argue with

I wish someone would write a happy ending to it, I doubt it could be pulled off but still I'd happily pay money to see the small man win

I wish someone would write a happy ending to it, I doubt it could be pulled off but still I'd happily pay money to see the small man win

The appendix is the happy ending. Newspeak is always referred to in the past tense, implying that INGSOC failed and was replaced at some time in the future.

I only read it a few months ago but I can say it is one of those books you have to read

my only criticism is though that it does drag on a tad especially when he reads the brotherhoods book but once you get over that hurdle its all good especially the character O'Brien and his arguments that you really can't argue with

I wish someone would write a happy ending to it, I doubt it could be pulled off but still I'd happily pay money to see the small man win

It takes a hero to beat a dystopia, and Winston isn't one.

The appendix is the happy ending. It's in the past tense.

Unlike "The Handmaid's Tale", the past tense in that scenario means "how it came to be", not "how it was".

1- That didn't matter, really. B.B. was whatever the Party wanted him to be.

What makes you think the party had any control over things?

The appendix is the happy ending.

Only if you consider whatever came after to be a better thing.

What makes you think the party had any control over things?

...Seriously? The book makes that very clear.

...Seriously? The book makes that very clear.

No, I'm not asking whether they were in charge or not, but whether they actually had any freedom to act as they willed, or were they too swept on by waves of received wisdom, dogma and propaganda. Could the party have decided to hold their own forms of Glasnost and Perestroika?

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

I personally believe he doesn't. He gets a power trip off of convincing others to love him, but I believe that he himself knows that Big Brother is evil. Its like the men who worked for Saddam. They all knew he was a bad dude, but the power he gave them was so enticing....

What makes you think the party had any control over things?

The entire book, why? o_O

I personally believe he doesn't. He gets a power trip off of convincing others to love him, but I believe that he himself knows that Big Brother is evil. Its like the men who worked for Saddam. They all knew he was a bad dude, but the power he gave them was so enticing....

Winston got no power WHATSOEVER from the Party.

The entire book, why? o_O

Because power is not something which works purely from the top down. Within a totalitarian system although those at the top may experience certain privileges, extra liberties and material comforts, they are not entirely free: they too must somehow live within the totalitarian framework.

Ask yourself: could the party decide to institute democracy? could a party member at the highest levels even dare raise the issue?

No, I'm not asking whether they were in charge or not, but whether they actually had any freedom to act as they willed, or were they too swept on by waves of received wisdom, dogma and propaganda. Could the party have decided to hold their own forms of Glasnost and Perestroika?

And that's where we get to the division between inner Party (O'Brien) and outer Party (Winston). It's not unconceivable that there was an inner-inner Party, though.

And that's where we get to the division between inner Party (O'Brien) and outer Party (Winston). It's not unconceivable that there was an inner-inner Party, though.


Historically inner parties must still meet the expectations of the outer parties, or else stage a night of the long knives, no?

Would I be right in thinking you were avoiding my question?

wicked book, and wicked van halen album

Because power is not something which works purely from the top down. Within a totalitarian system although those at the top may experience certain privileges, extra liberties and material comforts, they are not entirely free: they too must somehow live within the totalitarian framework.

Ask yourself: could the party decide to institute democracy? could a party member at the highest levels even dare raise the issue?

Mmm. Well, you're asking something different then: In that case, I'll answer you the following: The Party controlled everything. Its members did not.

Mmm. Well, you're asking something different then: In that case, I'll answer you the following: The Party controlled everything. Its members did not.

...yes, but is the Party actually able to change anything, or is it just carried along headlong by historical events?

Who knows, maybe life in Eurasia and Eastasia really is worse than in Oceania.

Historically inner parties must still meet the expectations of the outer parties, or else stage a night of the long knives, no?

Would I be right in thinking you were avoiding my question?

Well, I answered you now that you made the question clear.

Historically inner parties must still meet the expectations of the outer parties, or else stage a night of the long knives, no?

Would I be right in thinking you were avoiding my question?

No problem there. The Inner party couldn't fail to meet expectations because they were the ones who set them.

...yes, but is the Party actually able to change anything, or is it just carried along headlong by historical events?

Who knows, maybe life in Eurasia and Eastasia really is worse than in Oceania.

The Party is able to control everything by default, I think. O'Brien himself says immortality is in the Party, so I'm guessing the Party DOES have a consensus. And seeing as the Party controls dissent and keeps it well away, there AREN'T people who dissent. So, essentially, the Party controls everything BY being carried along. :p

No problem there. The Inner party couldn't fail to meet expectations because they were the ones who set them.

This we don't know, because we don't know how long the state of affairs has been in existence. The Inner Party may just be fulfilling the legacy from generations before. Big Brother may not be the current incumbents of the inner party's invention, but rather an inherited figurehead complete with sets of rules and regulations for how the state should be run.

This we don't know, because we don't know how long the state of affairs has been in existence. The Inner Party may just be fulfilling the legacy from generations before. Big Brother may not be the current incumbents of the inner party's invention, but rather an inherited figurehead complete with sets of rules and regulations for how the state should be run.

As I said - The Party controls everything, its members do not.

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

You can take it one of two ways. Either his personality has been destroyed, he's been brainwashed, and what used to be Winston loves BB, but what made him Winston is dead...

...or it's the last microseconds of his life, and as the bullet is destroying his brain, it's a dream.

You can take it one of two ways. Either his personality has been destroyed, he's been brainwashed, and what used to be Winston loves BB, but what made him Winston is dead...

...or it's the last microseconds of his life, and as the bullet is destroying his brain, it's a dream.

The first option is MUCH more likely, Kat.

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

The first annual MTV music awards was in 1984. Eurythmics won an award for their hit single and video "Sweet Dreams". Also that year, the Eurythmics did work for the soundtrack to the movie "1984". The hit single from that soundtrack was "Sexcrime" - it's title taken from the Newspeak phrase. This of course lead to it not be played on American radio because the title was just too dirty for the frail American sensibilities (not to mention it was also a literary reference - which is almost as bad!)

Anyhoo.... 1984 (the movie) needs to be re-written for my American needs. I want Keanu Reeves to play Winston. I want him to leave 101 with a sawed-off shotgun. I want him to rescue a dripping wet and clothes-torn Elisha Cuthbert. The only way to beat dystopia is with large amounts of slow-mo violence and jiggling titties. I think Orwell should have realized that.

The first option is MUCH more likely, Kat.

Not really. The main support that it could be a dream would be that the war was almost over.

I want Keanu Reeves to play Winston.
Wasn't Winston a blonde-haired, rather unfit guy? I suppose Reeves could change his appearance accordingly, but still...

...Seriously? The book makes that very clear.
Not really. You have what Oceania is telling you. You don't have the truth. For all anyone knows, Eurasia and Eastasia actually exist. It doesn't make anything very clear. For all we know, the only unnuked city in the world could be London, that's reaching, of course, but we don't need anything.

No, I'm not asking whether they were in charge or not, but whether they actually had any freedom to act as they willed, or were they too swept on by waves of received wisdom, dogma and propaganda. Could the party have decided to hold their own forms of Glasnost and Perestroika?

But the book itself makes it quite clear that they don't have any real freedom to act. The whole point of the inner party is to stay in power forever, and everything that it does must be subordinate to that end. Hence the relatively poor standard of living - compared to previous aristocracies - that inner party members tolerate.

Wasn't Winston a blonde-haired, rather unfit guy? I suppose Reeves could change his appearance accordingly, but still...

Not the American Winston.

1984 is possibly the world's most overrated, over-referenced works in existence and circulation. Everyone, no matter their political background will cite the book as evidence of the tyranny of their opposition whether such a comparison is apt or not and ignoring how their own twisted personal take on major political movements fits the peg in the hole even better. I've also found that most people who cite it for one reason or another IRL haven't even read the damn thing. I liked Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" moar.

But the book itself makes it quite clear that they don't have any real freedom to act. The whole point of the inner party is to stay in power forever, and everything that it does must be subordinate to that end. Hence the relatively poor standard of living - compared to previous aristocracies - that inner party members tolerate.

Thanks for coming in on my side - its been over 20 years since I read the thing so I'm a bit hazy on some of the finer details - now, go have at them who believe the Party has freedom.

I Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" moar.

It certainly has better jokes in it.

Anyone here seen the Tim Robbins-directed play, '1984'?
It's performed by the LA theatre troupe, The Actors Gang (full of minor role movie actors).
It's bloody good, and well-worth seeing if you get the chance.

Also - if you sit right up the front on the left, you'll get to see boobies.

1984 nostelgia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Not the American Winston.

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html

...Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way...He moved over to the window: a smallish, frail figure, the meagreness of his body merely emphasized by the blue overalls which were the uniform of the party. His hair was very fair, his face naturally sanguine, his skin roughened by coarse soap and blunt razor blades and the cold of the winter that had just ended.

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html

Yes, I know that.

It was further to the Keanu Reeves, guns blazing remake that someone suggested.

I probably should have used a smilie.

Yes, I know that.

It was further to the Keanu Reeves, guns blazing remake that someone suggested.

I probably should have used a smilie.

Ah
See I have this stupid idea that if a story is set in Great Britain, British actors should portray the characters, unless you've someone who can actually do a creditable accent -- and if you've American characters, you should have either American actors or actors who can sound American....


...and that if acting is necessary, you should actually hire people who can, you know, ACT.

Ah
See I have this stupid idea that if a story is set in Great Britain, British actors should portray the characters, unless you've someone who can actually do a creditable accent -- and if you've American characters, you should have either American actors or actors who can sound American....


...and that if acting is necessary, you should actually hire people who can, you know, ACT.

Then you objected to Baz Lurhmann's Romeo & Juliet?

Works can be interpreted anyway you want them to.

...if a story is set in Great Britain, British actors should portray the characters...

Whoa! That's like totally racist!

Then you objected to Baz Lurhmann's Romeo & Juliet?

Works can be interpreted anyway you want them to.

Whoa! That's like totally racist!

Really? Wow, then JK Rowling is a racist. Call the news services. She insisted that the actors portraying the kids must all be from the UK.

And you BOTH managed to miss the part where I said that actors should be able, unlike Reeves, to ACT. :rolleyes:

You also managed to miss the part about "or be able to do a creditable accent".

Really? Wow, then JK Rowling is a racist. Call the news services. She insisted that the actors portraying the kids must all be from the UK.

And you BOTH managed to miss the part where I said that actors should be able, unlike Reeves, to ACT. :rolleyes:

You also managed to miss the part about "or be able to do a creditable accent".

You're just still pissed that Keanu was in "Much Ado about Nothing."

He was great in that. Almost as good as Costner in Robin Hood.

Really? Wow, then JK Rowling is a racist. Call the news services. She insisted that the actors portraying the kids must all be from the UK.

And you BOTH managed to miss the part where I said that actors should be able, unlike Reeves, to ACT. :rolleyes:

You also managed to miss the part about "or be able to do a creditable accent".

Except in your previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12869740&postcount=59) you c+p'd a description of Winston from the book - which I, possibly wrongly, attributed to a belief that the actor should resemble the book's description.

You then made the second post - so put together I, again possibly wrongly, took it to mean that you thought a portrayal should closely adhere to the original.

Really? Wow, then JK Rowling is a racist. Call the news services. She insisted that the actors portraying the kids must all be from the UK.

And you BOTH managed to miss the part where I said that actors should be able, unlike Reeves, to ACT. :rolleyes:

You also managed to miss the part about "or be able to do a creditable accent".

Don't get me started on bloody J K Rowling and her stupid 'has to be in England' fetish. She right stuffed up the traffic in Alnwick because of her silly wizard movies.

Everybody hates her. :mad:

Don't get me started on bloody J K Rowling and her stupid 'has to be in England' fetish. She right stuffed up the traffic in Alnwick because of her silly wizard movies.

Everybody hates her. :mad:

Yeah! Rowling's a racist too! Imagine how frickin' hot Hermione would have been if Lindsay Lohan had played her! Double True Dat!!!

http://www.wizardnews.com/stories/images/snl1.jpg

Read it sometime in the 70's. Didn't think it was that great of book, but the concept of being monitored was interesting. And it has come true.

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

Heh it's quite ironic that I left school in 1984, and it was the last school book I read!

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?


Yes, of course.

Winston bellyfeel luv bb. Miniluv work goodest. Miniluv is plusgood!
Unluv bb unexist, unluv bb blackwhite.

Eurasia unluv bb: Goldstein, Eurasia spy, antemake Winston unluv bb. Miniluv make Winston doublethink, good. Now Winston luv bb, party: goodthink.

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html

Since when did Hollywood give a damn about being accurate? :p

Works can be interpreted anyway you want them to.I agree wholeheartedly.
http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/s/superman-indian.html :p

Last time I read it was in 1982, I believe.

Why does everyone love it so much?

The appendix is the happy ending. Newspeak is always referred to in the past tense, implying that INGSOC failed and was replaced at some time in the future.

I always kind of wondered what would happen in the long-after future of a society such as "1984." Clearly, a totalitarian regime such as that one is completely unsustainable in time; all it takes is some border-jumper to figure out, "Hey, wait a minute. I just came from Eurasia, and they say you're at peace with us. Why are you at war with us? I don't get it." Granted, most well-trained underlings would probably just file it away under doublethink, but the really mad one could send a shockwave throughout all of society, bringing down Big Brother.

That or BB gets a little too decadent, one or the other, and starts going Kim Jong Il or Shah of Iran on them. Odds are, the real records are uncovered, people start to gradually wake up out of their trance, and a civil war erupts. At best, for the establishment, it's a Pyrrhic victory and will take decades, if not centuries, to undo the damage. Needless to say, Ingsoc, Neo-Bolshevism, and whatever the hell Eastasia uses will all be discredited and obliterated.

The trials and tribulations of a world order trying to restore a totalitarian grip on the world versus rebels who want other forms of government may have made an interesting sequel to "1984." Perhaps title it "2084," the year Big Brother tries to come back.

Last time I read it was in 1982, I believe.

Why does everyone love it so much?

Because Orwell was prescient.

In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered.


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=49855&in_page_id=34

The UK's first police "spy drone" took to the skies today.

The remote control helicopter, fitted with CCTV cameras, will be used by officers in Merseyside to track criminals and record anti-social behaviour.

The drone is only a metre wide, weighs less than a bag of sugar, and can record images from a height of 500m.

I always kind of wondered what would happen in the long-after future of a society such as "1984." Clearly, a totalitarian regime such as that one is completely unsustainable in time; all it takes is some border-jumper to figure out, "Hey, wait a minute. I just came from Eurasia, and they say you're at peace with us. Why are you at war with us? I don't get it." Granted, most well-trained underlings would probably just file it away under doublethink, but the really mad one could send a shockwave throughout all of society, bringing down Big Brother.

If I remember correctly, there are actual wars going on, it's just that they don't really count for anything, and they're over a few areas that are exploited for cheap labor and switch hands so often that it's not even worth indoctrinating them into any of the regimes.

And apparently I have to leave now, so I can't respond to the rest of that at this moment.

He was tortured that badly he would have loved anything to make it stop.

best book ever by the way.

if you havent, do. no other 20th century book has contributed more to the english language, big brother, though police etcDon't you remember the bit about how... um... the senior party member describes how the Party is different to those which have gone before it - especially the Inquisition.

He's not saying he loves the party to make them stop torturing him, but because he really believes that he has betrayed the Party and deserves to die as penance.

The most unintentionally frightnening book ever.

The most unintentionally frightnening book ever.


Why is it unintentionally frightening? I'd bet Orwell very much meant for it to be so.

I prefer Brave New World.

Oddly enough, so do I. If you want me to hate a society, the best way to do it is pile it high with excessive shallowness, rampant consumerism, casual drug use and meaningless sex.

Oddly enough, so do I. If you want me to hate a society, the best way to do it is pile it high with excessive shallowness, rampant consumerism, casual drug use and meaningless sex.

Just look at Canada or Holland :p

Oddly enough, so do I.
What is odd about it?

If you want me to hate a society, the best way to do it is pile it high with excessive shallowness, rampant consumerism, casual drug use and meaningless sex.
IMO the only moral society. :D

What is odd about it?


IMO the only moral society. :D

That's why.;)

I think Winston couldn't make the choice not to love Big Brother. Because of the whole re-education thing, his concious mind no longer saw dissent as an option.

I agree with said statement. I don't think Winston really knew anymore between yes and not it was only really what he was told. In effect, the state definitely did "re-educate" him.

Because Orwell was prescient.

Nah: he was calling contemporary life as he saw it - take one pinch post-war London and one pinch Stalanist Russia. Blend to taste. Et viola... 1984.

Nah: he was calling contemporary life as he saw it - take one pinch post-war London and one pinch Stalanist Russia. Blend to taste. Et viola... 1984.

More or less. His point was that, at the time, the 1984 "future" to him was a pretty possible one.

I agree with said statement. I don't think Winston really knew anymore between yes and not it was only really what he was told. In effect, the state definitely did "re-educate" him.

Is that any surprise, given the power the State wields in the book?

That book fucked me up good.

That book fucked me up good.

Eww… and to think the library lent that to you… :D

Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

After I read the book, I was wondering: "Is there even an East Asia or Eurasia?" It seems unlikely that a state so controlling would have anything agaisn't some phony wartime patriotic propaganda. The society the government of 1984 has created clearly cannot support itself (the constantly falling rations, for instance). Wouldn't the idea of never-ending war explain all those shortages away?

After I read the book, I was wondering: "Is there even an East Asia or Eurasia?" It seems unlikely that a state so controlling would have anything agaisn't some phony wartime patriotic propaganda. The society the government of 1984 has created clearly cannot support itself (the constantly falling rations, for instance). Wouldn't the idea of never-ending war explain all those shortages away?
Well that's the point of oligarchical collectivism, the perpetual war justifies the regime in keeping the people just above poverty.

I prefer Brave New World.

Same here. I read BNW first and was fascinated by it. By comparison I found 1984 a major let down. I certainly didn't feel it added anything to the discussion provided by the earlier book. BNW was far more prophetic, if a tad conservative in its values.

Same here. I read BNW first and was fascinated by it. By comparison I found 1984 a major let down. I certainly didn't feel it added anything to the discussion provided by the earlier book. BNW was far more prophetic, if a tad conservative in its values.

BNW can seem a bit conservative, but I assure you that Huxley was not. He merely valued the intellectual and emotional world more than the physical.

He wasn't even anti-drug and was a big fan of psychedelic drugs. In fact, on his death bed, he had his wife administer 100 micrograms of LSD. Another interesting fact about his death, he died on the same day JFK was assassinated and C.S. Lewis died.

That book fucked me up good.

In my case it did wine and dine me, but I said "no".

...yes, but is the Party actually able to change anything, or is it just carried along headlong by historical events?

Who knows, maybe life in Eurasia and Eastasia really is worse than in Oceania.
Cory Doctorow implied in one story that life in Eurasia was superior...

After I read the book, I was wondering: "Is there even an East Asia or Eurasia?" It seems unlikely that a state so controlling would have anything agaisn't some phony wartime patriotic propaganda. The society the government of 1984 has created clearly cannot support itself (the constantly falling rations, for instance). Wouldn't the idea of never-ending war explain all those shortages away?
though this does raise the question of why they would change the nation they warring against. If they were fictitious, then arbitrarily changing the nation they're at war at would cause confusion and dissent amongst the peons such as Winston. Surely this is what the Party wants to avoid. Unless of course it (the sudden change) is a ruse to weed out the unbelievers and waverers (in which case I've just answered my own question and so now should ask all to ignore my musings).

though this does raise the question of why they would change the nation they warring against. If they were fictitious, then arbitrarily changing the nation they're at war at would cause confusion and dissent amongst the peons such as Winston. Surely this is what the Party wants to avoid. Unless of course it (the sudden change) is a ruse to weed out the unbelievers and waverers (in which case I've just answered my own question and so now should ask all to ignore my musings).

It would prevent apathy and war weariness from setting in, and would keep the hostility of the people directed towards the outside because they are constantly facing a new threat. If they were constantly at war with one enemy, eventually eventually people would start wondering why their forces were making no progress in the war and begin asking other, more probing questions threatening to the Party.

The book 1984 is one of the most interesting books in human history, I think.
To start the discussion, does Winston really love Big Brother at the end of the book?

Feel free to talk about anything related to 1984.

Something I'm certain few people have come up with: I've always felt that the government completely fabricated Goldstein, since Winston was able to fabricate the hero "Comrade Olgivy" as a "real" person easily (a very subtle implication by Orwell, I think). Also, the government was quite capable of completely vaporizing all traces of a person's existence as if they had never been, so it certainly could do the reverse and no one would ever have a clue. They were the masters of reality, so to speak, and they could mold and shape it at their pleasure. They controlled the past; they wrote and rewrote history however they wanted it to be; and the people were brainwashed to believe that the previous material they had been told was an error. Sometimes, the prior reality was the result of the mischief of Goldstein, the scapegoat, the root of all evil, the "Satan" of Ingsoc, while B.B. was the "righteous God" in constant struggle with him (perhaps some religious symbolism on Orwell's part). Thus, with constant anti-Goldstein propaganda, whether he was real or not, would certainly make many naturally believe that B.B. was good, as the sense of a total, full-out apocalyptic battle between absolute Good and absolute Evil somehow seems fantastic and easily believable to many (like one might say Democrats versus Republicans has basically become to many Americans who believe their party is righteous while the opponents are evil). A scapegoat such as Goldstein certainly would increase the Party's power, so had there been no real scapegoat to use, they could have simply created one from thin air.

I think the book was actually written by the government or perhaps even Big Brother himself (I'm not sure if O'Brien mentions he was one of the writers; I haven't read it in six months) as a tool to catch anybody who harbors the ability to dissent and crush them, just like O'Brien acted as a double-agent to catch Winston. It wouldn't surprise me, as Josef Stalin was, by all meanings of the term, abso-fucking-lutely batshit insane to the highest, most infinite degree, plus one. Well, and he was a paranoid megalomanic dick of massive proportions.

Those are some of my thoughts.

It would prevent apathy and war weariness from setting in, and would keep the hostility of the people directed towards the outside because they are constantly facing a new threat. If they were constantly at war with one enemy, eventually eventually people would start wondering why their forces were making no progress in the war and begin asking other, more probing questions threatening to the Party.

Y'know, like Iraq.

And true. :p

though this does raise the question of why they would change the nation they warring against. If they were fictitious, then arbitrarily changing the nation they're at war at would cause confusion and dissent amongst the peons such as Winston. Surely this is what the Party wants to avoid. Unless of course it (the sudden change) is a ruse to weed out the unbelievers and waverers .

"Why would our government change the nation we war against, if there is no war? The war must be real." Heh heh. Clever government.

(in which case I've just answered my own question and so now should ask all to ignore my musings)
No dice!!! :p

By the way, I think that a lot of the "deeper" meaning of books is actually added by the readers themselves, not the authors. Not necessarily a bad thing.

*snip*

Didn't O'Brien confirm to Winston that Goldstein was just a fabrication? Or did I add that in my head? :confused:

i looved this book it was so tight...

Didn't O'Brien confirm to Winston that Goldstein was just a fabrication? Or did I add that in my head? :confused:
He told Winston that he would never know if the brotherhood was real or not.

He told Winston that he would never know if the brotherhood was real or not.

I had a literary hallucination. Funky.

First of all, the purpose of the wars is exactly for the reasons stated above. The society itself cannot be sustained indefinitely, so the three nations engage in a perpetual war to make up for that fact and effectively cover every imperfection.

Secondly, though it has been a while since I've read, I remember that there was a small group of lands that were disputed territories, the ones that weren't ever part of any of the three, but were exploited for labor by whoever occupied them at the time. I imagine that alliances changed every so often to re-balance the scales so that no one nation had the upper hand.

First of all, the purpose of the wars is exactly for the reasons stated above. The society itself cannot be sustained indefinitely, so the three nations engage in a perpetual war to make up for that fact and effectively cover every imperfection.

My question is whether or not those other countries even need to exist. For the reasons above, war is advantageous for the administration. The Ministry of Peace would happily stage a phony war (including the bombing attacks on their own citizens) to consolidate their government's power.

True, but at the same time, I don't think there was any reason for them to lie to Winston at the end, seeing as how he was going to be reeducated regardless.

BNW can seem a bit conservative, but I assure you that Huxley was not. He merely valued the intellectual and emotional world more than the physical.

He wasn't even anti-drug and was a big fan of psychedelic drugs. In fact, on his death bed, he had his wife administer 100 micrograms of LSD. Another interesting fact about his death, he died on the same day JFK was assassinated and C.S. Lewis died.

Didn't he write a book about his LSD trips? On checking it was called, 'The Doors of Perception' (1954).

Didn't he write a book about his LSD trips? On checking it was called, 'The Doors of Perception' (1954).

He was on LSD?

...well, that explains why I found Brave New World rather dull, uninteresting, and confusing.

Well that's the point of oligarchical collectivism, the perpetual war justifies the regime in keeping the people just above poverty.

The world since----Oh about 1972. Remember in 1984 only the government workers were monitored. By 2007 I suspect everyone will be monitored for their own safety.

Didn't he write a book about his LSD trips? On checking it was called, 'The Doors of Perception' (1954).

That book was great (the half that I read before losing it). I'm pretty sure that he took LSD to write the book, though. I'm pretty sure that he didn't take LSD regularly. I'm really not sure about that, though.

That book was great (the half that I read before losing it). I'm pretty sure that he took LSD to write the book, though. I'm pretty sure that he didn't take LSD regularly. I'm really not sure about that, though.

Mescaline, not LSD.

Having read the book I can say quite frankly that like most drug stories it is a pretty dull exercise, his philosophical speculations notwithstanding.

I'm pretty sure that he took LSD to write the book, though. I'm pretty sure that he didn't take LSD regularly. I'm really not sure about that, though.

No, I think your version of events is closer to the truth.

though this does raise the question of why they would change the nation they warring against. If they were fictitious, then arbitrarily changing the nation they're at war at would cause confusion and dissent amongst the peons such as Winston. Surely this is what the Party wants to avoid. Unless of course it (the sudden change) is a ruse to weed out the unbelievers and waverers (in which case I've just answered my own question and so now should ask all to ignore my musings).


You must goodwise blackwhite. Doublethink is not to "say" that black is white. Doublethink is to KNOW that black is white, and that black is black, and that white is white, and to KNOW WHY it is so, according to the Party's decision.

Yes, the same way North Koreans love their "Great Leader". :fluffle:

The world since----Oh about 1972. Remember in 1984 only the government workers were monitored. By 2007 I suspect everyone will be monitored for their own safety.

There's no reason to. Both Winston and O'Brien state in the book that proles can be left unto themselves, "allowed intellectual freedom because they have no intellect."

Wasn't Winston a blonde-haired, rather unfit guy? I suppose Reeves could change his appearance accordingly, but still...

It didn't stop him playing (blonde and English in the Hellblazer comic) John Constantine...

To love, you must love with faults

Why?

You must goodwise blackwhite. Doublethink is not to "say" that black is white. Doublethink is to KNOW that black is white, and that black is black, and that white is white, and to KNOW WHY it is so, according to the Party's decision.

Also 2 + 2 = 5. Or anything else for that matter.

I'm sure that wasn't meant as a factual statement but rather as a hyperbole confession of love for the book; however, it would be interesting to see some stats on the influence of books on language (if only new phrases and words). Is there any institution that tracks these things, and do they have a website?

It was meant as a facutal statement. I cant think of any 20th century book or film that has given the English language phrases, off the top of my head, like:

big brother
though police
doublespeak (the practice of the suffix -speak in general)
orwellian
war is peace
room 101
thoughtcrime

No other book has invented that many words that are in the lexicon in the last 100 years