NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, picking up from another topic thread, IMHO "1984" is a great book.

In it, Orwell is a master of the English language and the subtle use of it. To wit, the various Ministries in Oceania: The Ministry of Plenty (which is concerned with shortages/rationing), the Ministry of Peace (War), the Ministry of Truth (Propaganda), and the Ministry of Love (Secret Police). As the government of Oceania narrowed the choices of it's people, it narrowed it's use of language by removing words from the dictionary and mishmashing other words together. In Orwell's Newspeak, "MiniPlenty" not only meant the "Ministry of Plenty" but told the truth that the Ministry was not about sharing wealth and that there was "little" plenty. Likewise the other Ministries.

There were some developments that I still wonder about in the book. I've always wondered if Julia was in on the entrapment of Winston Smith.

I haven't read it yet.

No, Julia wasn't in on the entrapment.

You'll also get a better appreciation for 1984 if you read "Coming Up For Air" as well.

I haven't read it yet.

Someone like you definitely should.

No, Julia wasn't in on the entrapment.

You'll also get a better appreciation for 1984 if you read "Coming Up For Air" as well.

A better appreciation?!?!? I appreciate Orwell's genius already. Care to put a brief take/synopsis on CUFA?

As for Julia's involvement, we will never know. Orwell didn't write a companion work with her as a protagonist, but even Winston Smith wonders at her mind which works logically to pierce one truth about the government, but apparently is just as sheep-like as any other follower.

Someone like you definitely should.

Well, Orwell was very prophetic. :tongue:

Well, Orwell was very prophetic. :tongue:

Especially for Britain.

I like 1984 because of the subtle hints that the Party won't retain its hold on power. Even if O'Brien tries to claim it will dominate reality for the foreseeable future, there are hints provided by Julia and others that the Party is more corrupt and self-serving than anyone can imagine, especially among members of the Inner Party.

Yet, Also go the impression that that very corruption had been turned into a strength for the Party. With the elimination of nationalism, idealism and love as means by which to hold people's loyalties (at that level - such aspects were still used to control the Proles), only self-interest, enlightened or otherwise, remained. The Inner Party must work together to maintain control over the Party (which could so easily turn on them) or perish.

But I agree that the Party's rule is much less secure than it would have it's members believe.

Yet, Also go the impression that that very corruption had been turned into a strength for the Party. With the elimination of nationalism, idealism and love as means by which to hold people's loyalties (at that level - such aspects were still used to control the Proles), only self-interest, enlightened or otherwise, remained. The Inner Party must work together to maintain control over the Party (which could so easily turn on them) or perish.

But I agree that the Party's rule is much less secure than it would have it's members believe.

Very insightful. Cliff's Notes or book report?

I tend to think the most likely destruction of the inner party would be factionalization within the inner party. A power struggle.

A better appreciation?!?!? I appreciate Orwell's genius already. Care to put a brief take/synopsis on CUFA?

It's really just a trip down memory lane by the protagonist George Bowling. But if you read it, you'll get an idea of the England that was lost to airstrip one. It adds context.

Also, it foreshadows 1984. At one point George is sitting at a meeting of the left book club, and he starts to wonder about what life will be like after the war he knows is coming. He imagines a brutal england, full of padded cells and thugs with rubber truncheons.

You should read it anyway, just because it's probably his second best fiction book.

That said, I prefer his non fiction. Homage for Catalonia, Road to Wigan Pier and his essays.

As for Julia's involvement, we will never know. Orwell didn't write a companion work with her as a protagonist, but even Winston Smith wonders at her mind which works logically to pierce one truth about the government, but apparently is just as sheep-like as any other follower.

I think it's pretty clear at the end when they meet for a final time that she wasn't an agent for the government set out to trap him. And if she was, it would lessen the impact of him screaming to do it to julia, not him. It would make it less of a betrayal in other words.

Well, Orwell was very prophetic. :tongue:

George Orwell wanted to call it 1948, ie the year it was being published. It was meant to be a satire on the Soviet show trials of the era. His publisher suggested swapping the 4 and the 8 around so the book wouldn't be dated within a year. So, I'm not sure 1984 is about prophecy at all.

I like 1984 because of the subtle hints that the Party won't retain its hold on power.

There's a school of critical analysis that holds that the book ends on a relatively optimistic note because the appendix on newspeak is written in the past tense, thereby demonstrating that the Party eventually fell.


I agree with those who've already argued that Julia wasn't in on the trap.

Far more interesting to me is the question of whether the war is real (something which Julia herself raises) or indeed whether Eastasia and Eurasia are themselves 'real'.

1984 was great... compared to the rest of the tripe the school system makes us read to complete assignments. While it was a good book and while many of its ideas are true today, it was just a little slow and drawn out. While the ending was good, it was a little unsatisfying. It leaves you with that feeling of 'what could have happened if...' rather than a sense of closure. While i don't think that an ending where Winston et al overthrows the Party would have been as good, i think it would have felt more final.
But because of the way Orwell wrote the story it could have ended on a small victory such as exposing the fact that the supposed 'bad guy' didn't actually exist. While it wouldnt have destroyed the Party it might have made a resistance much more plausible in the imagiunable future.

Excuse my spelling and lack of actual knowlege on how to make a convincing forum argument. I am a 'newbie' after all...

I hated it, but only because I already knew all the interesting ideas from pop-culture, and I thought Winston was an idiot (when O'Brien said he was working for the two minutes of hate guy Winston should copped straight away that he was working for the Party).

Excuse my spelling and lack of actual knowlege on how to make a convincing forum argument. I am a 'newbie' after all...

Best newbie ever?

Far more interesting to me is the question of whether the war is real (something which Julia herself raises) or indeed whether Eastasia and Eurasia are themselves 'real'.

That is open to debate. It's possible that Airstrip one is just a north korea that drops bombs on its own people. Or the entire world could be Oceania. There seems to be no war veterans, and obviously nobody outside the inner party travels to any extent.

However, Obrien's servant is Asian - or at least described as possibly chinese. His presence fits with Goldberg's description of the never ending war and its purpose (presumably he was captured in the disputed territories). So I tend to think it is unlikely. Hard to say one way or the other though.

Very insightful. Cliff's Notes or book report?

I tend to think the most likely destruction of the inner party would be factionalization within the inner party. A power struggle.

Probably. Traditionally, that's how tyrannical oligarchies have fallen in the past.

I never got to do a book report on 1984. I'd've liked to, but it was taken off the curriculum the year before.

Excuse my spelling and lack of actual knowlege on how to make a convincing forum argument. I am a 'newbie' after all...

Best newbie ever?

Sensible, thoughtful points. Couple of typos but grammar and spelling is good. Polite, no gun smileys, name that is a slightly obscure sci-fi reference.

I'd say he's definitely in the running. I'll give it a 100 posts before he picks up bad habits from the rest of us:tongue:

I enjoyed it, it is much more readable than a lot of other dystopian literature. Reading Kafka is literally a trial. Brave New World I read around the same time and it just hasn't stuck in my memory in the same way.

That is open to debate. It's possible that Airstrip one is just a north korea that drops bombs on its own people. Or the entire world could be Oceania. There seems to be no war veterans, and obviously nobody outside the inner party travels to any extent.

However, Obrien's servant is Asian - or at least described as possibly chinese. His presence fits with Goldberg's description of the never ending war and its purpose (presumably he was captured in the disputed territories). So I tend to think it is unlikely. Hard to say one way or the other though.


But in counterpoint to the Asian servant argument:

A) If the entire world is ruled by a single tyrannical one party state, there's no reason why a trusted Inner Party member couldn't have a servant from another region of that state.

B) O'Brien explicitly states that the knowledge exists to change the physical appearance of individuals - though to what extent anything O'Brien says is true is open to debate.

Shit I don't know. I read it at school for English, but that was way back...Actualy that was way back in 1984!

I can't really remember it.

It's a cracking read.

Especially for Britain.
Not really. A Brave New World is more accurate a depiction of tyranny today than Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Not really. A Brave New World is more accurate a depiction of tyranny today than Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I don't know the US seems to do the giant military industrial complex and a constant state of war so well.

Shit I don't know. I read it at school for English, but that was way back...Actualy that was way back in 1984!

I can't really remember it.

Yea i had 1984 assigned to me in High school, in 1984.

Yea i had 1984 assigned to me in High school, in 1984.

Was that also the year you left school?

Yea i had 1984 assigned to me in High school, in 1984.

They thought they were being so clever...

I enjoyed it. One of my favourite books. There was always an inkling of hope that Winston would overthrow the party or get help to. I think that's why the book worked. Orwell created a story where you wanted the good guy to win and you shared his feelings, then you are left with nothing but the broken shell of a man.

Not really. A Brave New World is more accurate a depiction of tyranny today than Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I think that Fahrenheit 451 is the most relevant of the classic dystopias. It's the only one which actually scared me as I read it, due to how close it was to reality.

Not really. A Brave New World is more accurate a depiction of tyranny today than Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I did not mean that it was totally 1984, but that rather that it is drifting in that direction-whereas the U.S. is going a different, but equally problematic, direction.

I had my term paper when graduating on 1984. I'm tired like hell right now, but a couple points I'll ellaborate on later:

1- Winston never had a chance. The whole point of the story is about how you do not escape the Party.

2- The Party would be unlikely to fracture. The main reasons are it wanted power for its own sake and its people HAD TO BE orthodox or they'd die.

3- The Party is all-encompassing - enough to be able to know someone's fears and thoughts. In that sense, they are like gods, and that's what entices the people of the Inner Party.

I had my term paper when graduating on 1984. I'm tired like hell right now, but a couple points I'll ellaborate on later:

1- Winston never had a chance. The whole point of the story is about how you do not escape the Party.

2- The Party would be unlikely to fracture. The main reasons are it wanted power for its own sake and its people HAD TO BE orthodox or they'd die.

3- The Party is all-encompassing - enough to be able to know someone's fears and thoughts. In that sense, they are like gods, and that's what entices the people of the Inner Party.

I don't know about the rest, but certainly 1 is true.

I never felt like there was hope for him in the sense of overthrowing the party, but I did hope for him, in a personal happiness/freedom sort of a way. Its been awhile since I read the book, but it seemed the vast majority of people simply gobbled up the party's propaganda, so I couldn't really see the possibility of a popular uprising.

I don't know about the rest, but certainly 1 is true.

I never felt like there was hope for him in the sense of overthrowing the party, but I did hope for him, in a personal happiness/freedom sort of a way. Its been awhile since I read the book, but it seemed the vast majority of people simply gobbled up the party's propaganda, so I couldn't really see the possibility of a popular uprising.

You can only escape someone that knows less than you about yourself and your whereabouts, etc.

You can only escape someone that knows less than you about yourself and your whereabouts, etc.

Hm, I suppose so, although I would say they can have all the knowledge they want, without the power to enforce their will, its sort of pointless. I just remember the use of children to inform on their parents (its been awhile since I read it) and that horrified me, I didn't want kids for a couple years because of that...

but it seemed the vast majority of people simply gobbled up the party's propaganda,

I never thought so. I got the distinct impression (and I haven't read it in maybe 2 years) that everyone knew that the meetings and announcements were full of shit, but that no one could admit it to anyone else, lest they be de-personed. That, to me, seemed a lot scarier than just having Winston be one of the handful of people that could actually see the problem.

Good book, if a bit scary.

The book is over read and over referenced. It really isn't prophetic, people just won't shut up about how every government thing that they disagree with is "just like 1984," so the idea that the book was prophetic gets lodged in everyone's brain.
Otherwise, it is a joyless slog. There's never even a glimmer of hope for anyone, so when it all ends miserably there is no impact.

I never thought so. I got the distinct impression (and I haven't read it in maybe 2 years) that everyone knew that the meetings and announcements were full of shit, but that no one could admit it to anyone else, lest they be de-personed. That, to me, seemed a lot scarier than just having Winston be one of the handful of people that could actually see the problem.

I haven't read it in at least 5 years, so maybe you have it right. I find it hard to believe all the lower class people could really tell it was a load of BS though.

its just a rehash of we (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)) which for some bizarre reason it gets rid of a few brilliant things like how the state implements sexual equality, everyone being shit scared of irrational math (because they life in a society of math), a hint of the after effects of nuclear holocaust despite being written in the 20's

and the side story of a woman in love with a man who doesn't love her back who has taken to chasing another woman

I did not mean that it was totally 1984, but that rather that it is drifting in that direction-whereas the U.S. is going a different, but equally problematic, direction.

no I try to refuse comparing the current world to the satirical one of a socialist in the 40's after WWII

The book is over read and over referenced. It really isn't prophetic, people just won't shut up about how every government thing that they disagree with is "just like 1984," so the idea that the book was prophetic gets lodged in everyone's brain.
Otherwise, it is a joyless slog. There's never even a glimmer of hope for anyone, so when it all ends miserably there is no impact.

this.

Actually it was entirely accurate about one thing

Revolutions

which also explains why the outer party were monitered far more than the proles or the inner party and why Winston Smith had no chance

The purpose of power is more power
You only have to look into the various western governments to see that, I mean how many MPs actually lose their seats in an election?
50? 75? maybe 90 if you are lucky, leaving over 500 still sitting in their little posoitions plotting their way up the greasy pole.
Or try Wall street.... just how many top execs who've already earned 50 million dollars can spend the money they are paid?
Nope they do it for the power of the position not for the money or the love of it, for the power it gives them.

And just like 1984, those in power at the moment throw their scraps to the proles to keep them quiet and moniter anyone who remotely looks like they could be a threat to the established system

SNIP

no, MP's keep their seats because they won election in the first place to be elected and everyone loves the status quo and top executives continue making money because they are rather good at it

proles are not thrown scraps because even with current corruption scandals the most likely group to receive a benefit from their tax money are the poor-middle class

@ Lacka

You're right. The proles were oblivious to the whole power structure. They had their bread (barely), their beer, and their lottery. The few proles who would notice were culled by the Inner Party. What I was referring to was that the entire Outer Parter (~10% of the population) knew that they were being systematically picked off but couldn't even acknowledge that fact to each other was what was so chilling.

@ Fiddlebottom

I agree that 1984 is over-referenced (often incorrectly), but for many of the same reasons that Romeo and Juliet is: it's the standard of the genre that (rightly or wrongly) everything else is judged against. That doesn't make the book itself any better or worse. I also think the inevitability of Winston's capture makes the book more interesting, not less. YMMV.

Okay, picking up from another topic thread, IMHO "1984" is a great book.
Doubleplusgood duckspeak.

There were some developments that I still wonder about in the book. I've always wondered if Julia was in on the entrapment of Winston Smith.
Julia thinkgooded or persistcrimethinked unmatters: Party matters.
"Entrapment" unaccurate, minitrue reports as oldthinkword duckspeak. Correct: "redeeming". Tool of redeeming unmatters, result matters. Comrade Winston Smith winned over himself and own oldthink.

Good book, although hard to get through at the beginning. Takes a chapter or two to drag you in. And then, you, like Winston, cannot stop...

I enjoyed it. One of my favourite books. There was always an inkling of hope that Winston would overthrow the party or get help to. I think that's why the book worked. Orwell created a story where you wanted the good guy to win and you shared his feelings, then you are left with nothing but the broken shell of a man.

There really is hope in the end, though. It's the dim kind of hope a Soviet dissident might have felt in the late 1940's, but it's still there.

Orwell does provide hints that the Party is far more corrupt and divided than it appears, and at least from my vantage point the very fact that the party needs such, well, Orwellian methods at all is a sign its policies are not working. Decades since the Revolution and they're still forced to reeducate traitors...not to mention Newspeak simply hasn't caught on and won't unless they educate the proles, which would produce the consciousness needed to trigger their rebellion.

They're stuck in the same trap that the Nazis and Soviets were, even if O'Brien wants to downplay it. The party does have a goal and a vision of a "better" future, and that future is its total control over reality. They have a means to an end and they're realizing it is unattainable without destroying the system itself.

I never got the impression that the regime would eventually fall. It felt to be that Orwell was parodying the Soviet Union and the communist 'end of history' it supposedly represented. As much as we sympathise with Winston he is just another part of the dehumanised world -- a target for the mob to centre its attentions on and so prevent it from waking from is reverie of hate. Whilst the world is utterly corrupt the leadership itself won't fail. That is not to say individuals won't fail. Indeed it necessary that the individuals in this society fall -- especially at the top. The leadership seems rife with the paranoia, suspicion and hate of the lower classes. As each individual within the leadership takes more power, they become viewed with more suspicion, they become more paranoid and prone to mistakes and eventually fall to the betrayal of the party as a whole. Finally, abstracting up a another level the same goes for Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia -- each falling to betrayal just as they reach their zenith.

1984, to me, is the dystopian end of history, where humanity is irrelevant and all that remains is the system.

1984 was great... compared to the rest of the tripe the school system makes us read to complete assignments. While it was a good book and while many of its ideas are true today, it was just a little slow and drawn out. While the ending was good, it was a little unsatisfying. It leaves you with that feeling of 'what could have happened if...' rather than a sense of closure. While i don't think that an ending where Winston et al overthrows the Party would have been as good, i think it would have felt more final.
But because of the way Orwell wrote the story it could have ended on a small victory such as exposing the fact that the supposed 'bad guy' didn't actually exist. While it wouldnt have destroyed the Party it might have made a resistance much more plausible in the imagiunable future.

That was kind of the point though, wasn't it? I always felt like it was supposed to be unsatisfying.

It was a great book, I loved it...

Although, I think Animal Farm got the point across a little better...

It was a great book, I loved it...

Although, I think Animal Farm got the point across a little better...

Because Animal Farm was based on real people and events. But Orwell apparently feared that this would "Date" the book badly in ensuing years - a fear that thankfully has not borne out.

For those discussing the downfall of Oceania and the liberation of Airstrip One, has anyone read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier?

It's set after Big Brother falls.

Although, I think Animal Farm got the point across a little better...
They're making different points, though. Nineteen Eighty-Four is, I suppose, sort of what happens after the events in Animal Farm, once Napoleon has set up his rule; ignoring the fact that the characters in Nineteen Eighty-Four are human, and that Animal Farm is much more directly historical.

I think Animal Farm got the point across a little better...
Eh it kind of smashes you over the face with The Point, though.

For those discussing the downfall of Oceania and the liberation of Airstrip One, has anyone read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier?


I'll have to read that now, I just finished an interesting essay on the fall of the Oceanic Empire.

My points were,

- The growth of the oceanic black market
- The collapse of the stable, controlled economy with the rise of the underground economy
- The advent of capitalism
- Oceania's centralizied government in Airstrip One,
- A revolt in the slave colonies of Canada,
- The guards becoming hungry for power, and black market rulers.
- The weak geographical position of Oceania's capital.
- An attack on Airstrip One would be meant with apathy, and the terrible response time from the government because they would be used to the attacks being completely fake.
- Troops were designed for technical warfare not large scale warfare.

Doubleplusgood duckspeak.


Julia thinkgooded or persistcrimethinked unmatters: Party matters.
"Entrapment" unaccurate, minitrue reports as oldthinkword duckspeak. Correct: "redeeming". Tool of redeeming unmatters, result matters. Comrade Winston Smith winned over himself and own oldthink.

I must say I'm duly impressed. Took me a little while to figure out, but I heartily congratulate you sir. One thing though - what's duckspeak again?

For those discussing the downfall of Oceania and the liberation of Airstrip One, has anyone read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier?

It's set after Big Brother falls.

An LXG comic set in the 1984 world? While it may be entertaining, it sounds far too much like the sort of crossovers that make my buttocks clench with literary pain.

As for the book itself, I thought it was absolutely amazing. I was particularly taken by, and frustrated by, the sequence when O'Brien is torturing/'educating' Winston. Just the fact that O'Brien seems to be completely absorbed by the whole Big Brother thing - the way he really does believe it, even while I'm sat there thinking 'surely he must know it's all bollocks'. That was the part that really scared me - that all the doublethink really did work - that these people truly believed the things they said and did.

For those discussing the downfall of Oceania and the liberation of Airstrip One, has anyone read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier?


Yes - and I felt Moore was trying so hard to pack as many fictional and meta-fictional elements into the story that he sort of lost the plot (semi-pun intended). I still think the first League was the best.

But I admit that I found the bits based on the fall of Airstrip One enjoyable, though I preferred the Dan Dare references.


And for those discussing how bleak the conclusion of Nineteen Eighty-Four is, I reiterate my earlier point that the appendix is written in the past tense - if you accept the appendix as part of the novel, the Party did fall.

One thing though - what's duckspeak again?
Speaking without thinking.

An LXG comic set in the 1984 world? While it may be entertaining, it sounds far too much like the sort of crossovers that make my buttocks clench with literary pain.
It's not a crossover as such, any more than the other LXG comics are crossovers of Jekyll & Hyde, the Invisible Man, etc.

The Black Dossier is set long after the events of volumes 1 and 2 of LXG, and in the meantime, Oceania (or a version of it) has come and gone. The titular dossier, included in the comic, is banned material from Airstrip One, containing clues to the formation of the League.

As Archregimancy says above, it has its flaws, but it's a worthwhile read. It'll certainly tide you over till LXG 3.

That was kind of the point though, wasn't it? I always felt like it was supposed to be unsatisfying.

Just like life in Oceania itself.

And for those discussing how bleak the conclusion of Nineteen Eighty-Four is, I reiterate my earlier point that the appendix is written in the past tense - if you accept the appendix as part of the novel, the Party did fall.

everyone knows apple/a female athlete brought down big brother (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNy-7jv0XSc)