Orwell's 1984

[QuikSand]

After a little musing about the coming election, and a bit of frustration with my own lack of enthusiasm for just about any candidate who will appear on my own ballot... I decided to make a bit of investment in my own citizenship, for lack of a better phrase to describe it.

I have always been guilty of being a shortcut kind of guy with this sort of thing -- I generally would be perfectly happy to read the two-page synopsis of a great book, intending to capture the main ideas and move on with my life. Many, even most, or my academic pursuits seem to built around some future appearance on Jeoparddy! or the like -- I'm basically building my academic knowledge mostly for some sort of great cocktail party in the sky, where small talk on many subjects is the real goal.


Anyway -- so I have gotten through about 2/3 of 1984, and I (to a certain extent) see the error of my ways. There are certain things that literature can illustrate far more effectively than a summary essay. I generally fancy myself to be a pro-liberty person politically, though I seem to find myself emphasizing different elements of that political philosophy than many of those who claim the same thing, but who seem to be more focused on monetary issues. I find myself offended by a number of decisions made and stances taken by our current government, but I find it hard to find firm and persuasive arguments about them.

Orwell, I think, is far more articulate on these issues than I ever could be. We all know the general construct of his troubling vision of the future... "Big Brother" and the thought police and so forth. We all know its underlying message... but at the same time it has probably been an unfair victim of my Jeopardization mentality. I've always been able to answer basic trivia questions about 1984 or Orwell, but I confess I had never read the book. And by abridging, or synopsizing, or otherwize bastardizing his work... I find that I've done him a great disservice.

I am finding many of the arguments in 1984, some of which must be inverted to make sense, and others which are stated quite plainly, to be very, very compelling in our current political landscape. It's the richness of his writing, the fabric of the work, that makes it so -- not just the slogans or the catchphrases. He invests a lot of time explaining why excatly the state has seized such total control, why it makes sense for them to do so, why people essentially put up with it, and the like. It's a profound work... and at the same time, it's awfully worrisome to see so many of the elements he predicts/warns of having very strong parallels to contemporary political debate.


If you, like me, feel like you might benefit from a "recharge" on your battery of political ideology, there are far worse ways to spend a few hours of your free time.

[ISiddiqui]

Heh... you know I did the same as you recently. About a month ago, I read 1984 for the first time and really understood that the work was far better than any words used to describe it would be. I found out there was a reason it's been described as a classic.

The most jaw dropping thing for me was reading parts of "Goldstein's book" and how they jived with the current state of affairs (not exactly, of course... I'm not claiming we live in a distopian 1984-ish world, but there are some similiarities, especially with the WoT).

[wade moore]

I read 1984 about 5 years ago and througly enjoyed it for many of the same reasons for you.

Unfortunately for me, unlike you, I have a seriously difficient memory. Particularly when it comes to the fine details of books, movies, tv shows, etc, etc. So, in reality I probably know about as much right now about 1984 as you did before reading it.

Might be worth a re-read.

[cthomer5000]

I reread it every few years. Arguably the best book I've ever read, and heavily recommended to anyone.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm a former English major married to an English PhD student, so I understand completely the power of (well written) stories to describe a truth that simply cannot be conveyed by descriptive or didactic essays.

Indeed, I think that, in the final analysis, (great) art speaks to a truth that does not fit within the model of rational discourse. I don't think that we would have art as a species if it did not fill a gap that cannot be filled through pure logic.

As just one example, the art of Edward Hopper does more to communicate the truth of urban loneliness to me than any essay or descriptive account could.

We, rightly, view with skepticism any "truth" that cannot be described with "axiom + axiom + logic = answer." We, however, close our minds to a whole area of truth when we don't take the time to listen to the artists.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

As my high school English teacher put it: The play-writers knew that we wanted to fuck our mothers thousands of years before the scientists figured it out.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As just one example, the art of Edward Hopper does more to communicate the truth of urban loneliness to me than any essay or descriptive account could.

Interesting analogy...

“If you could say it in words there would be no reason to paint.” -Edward Hopper

[KWhit]

I have read 1984 3 times and have found it fascinating every time. Orwell's incredibly insightful points about language are particularly apt right now.

I had a number of examples that I was going to list here to illustrate how language is being controlled and manipulated today for political gain, but I removed them to try to keep this from becoming a POL-Flamefest. But needless to say, I think that the Republicans are "better" at this than the Dems, which is a big reason why they have been more successful over the past few years.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If you, like me, feel like you might benefit from a "recharge" on your battery of political ideology,

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but to me ideology is a treacherous place. It has always seemed to me that the American political system is about what works, rather than about adherence to any ideology (at least since the Civil War, and obviously only in broad terms). In fact, isn't that one way to read 1984 - as an attack on ideology, rather than any particular ideology.

[ISiddiqui]

Though one could argue that Winston had his own ideology, that was smashed by the Party.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but to me ideology is a treacherous place. It has always seemed to me that the American political system is about what works, rather than about adherence to any ideology (at least since the Civil War, and obviously only in broad terms). In fact, isn't that one way to read 1984 - as an attack on ideology, rather than any particular ideology.

If your "ideology" (and perhaps you are finding fault with my word choice there) is that there is value in the individual, and that personal liberties are essentially important to the flourishing of a society -- then there's an awful lot for you in this book.

[JPhillips]

Simply a great book. The appendix on the use of language is stunning. Orwell put a ton of thought into the political use of language that just astounded me. His contention that removing words from discourse will ultimately remove the thoughts that lead to the words is chilling.

[Crapshoot]

I've always maintained that no one knew quite how to end a book like Orwell - be it Animal Farm or 1984 - the cold chill it sends down your spine is remarkable.

[rowech]

One of the few books from high school I actually liked. Lord of the Flies and Brave New World being the others. I still say Orwell's "Animal Farm" is one of the best books ever written from how it gets a massive point across in such a simplistic and elegant fashion.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I've always maintained that no one knew quite how to end a book like Orwell - be it Animal Farm or 1984 - the cold chill it sends down your spine is remarkable.

What he said.

[Kodos]

I prefer Van Halen's 1984.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Simply a great book. The appendix on the use of language is stunning. Orwell put a ton of thought into the political use of language that just astounded me. His contention that removing words from discourse will ultimately remove the thoughts that lead to the words is chilling.

He put it infinitely more eloquently than I could have. I haven't read it since high school, though I still think about the book almost everyday. Might be worth a re-read some upcoming weekend, to ensure I'm remembering how it really is.

/tk

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If your "ideology" (and perhaps you are finding fault with my word choice there) is that there is value in the individual, and that personal liberties are essentially important to the flourishing of a society -- then there's an awful lot for you in this book.

|
|
|
|
V

[jeff061]

I read this for the first time just a couple weeks ago. The reputation of the book is of course the constant surveillance. But that played a relativley small part, in my opinion, there was a whole lot more going on and other parallels to be drawn.

Goldstein as the enemy of course, but other than being used to expose traitors, it's an idea that has been done plenty in reality and fiction. The language was great. One big connection to be made is the isolation from international events, beyond molded information. Something that's been long in process in the United States and of course a mainstay in China and Korea and making a comeback in Russia.

It's not a Democrat or a Republican thing(unless is helps your argument ), these guidelines are used by everyone in power. It would take a fundamental change in the political system to curve them. Not going to happen anytime soon, humans need to either continue evolve or die out first .

[Senator]

Great book, that I have read many times.

I am reading a similar book for the first time now called, "The Magic Mountain", by Thomas Mann. If someone has read it, please let me know. It is a tough one.

[QuikSand]

Wow... I made a run at Mann in grad school, but admittedly came up way short. It wasn't Ulysses tough, but it was rough going. Best of luck.

[QuikSand]

At the time, I was berating myself for being an intellectual and literary lightweight, so I set out to read the three greatest and most imposing books I could conjure up -- Ulysses, The Magic Mountain, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. I'd give myself about a 30%, 20%, and 50% score, respectively, and felt even worse after trying and failing on all three counts. Never made it through any of them, I regretfully admit. I think I still have all of them sitting on a bookshelf in my home... just sneering at me when I occasionally walk by, knowing I was conquered and remain so.

[Izulde]

Remembrance of Things Past is one of the densest, most delicious reads ever. It's hell to try and finish though.

[cartman]

I tried reading Remembrance in it's original French when I was learning French. It turned me off from the language forever. After attempting to read it in English, I realized maybe I should have picked something lighter to read, like maybe Les 120 journées de Sodome by de Sade.

The Godfather (Il Padrino) was a much easier read when I was learning Italian.

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

|
|
|
|
V to Libertarian signature

I think the goal of all American political parties is, in general, to maximize individual liberty and freedom. Not just the Libertarians. Especially since Orwell was mostly a socialist... the opposite direction of Libertarianism.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

At the time, I was berating myself for being an intellectual and literary lightweight, so I set out to read the three greatest and most imposing books I could conjure up -- Ulysses, The Magic Mountain, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. I'd give myself about a 30%, 20%, and 50% score, respectively, and felt even worse after trying and failing on all three counts. Never made it through any of them, I regretfully admit. I think I still have all of them sitting on a bookshelf in my home... just sneering at me when I occasionally walk by, knowing I was conquered and remain so.

I decided to read "The Magic Mountain" because I have heard so many things about it, and believe I am at my peak intellectually. I am halfway through and every night I wait for some payoff that has yet to happen. I will finish it, though. My mother in law has purchased me the complete "Remembrance of Things Past" for Christmas, and I am wondering if I have the stamina to do it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

I think the goal of all American political parties is, in general, to maximize individual liberty and freedom. Not just the Libertarians. Especially since Orwell was mostly a socialist... the opposite direction of Libertarianism.

"Libertarians" is a political party, which I do not profess belief in. The ideal of "libertarianism" transcends political parties in the question of how much power should be given to governments at all levels. The government can be socialistic, which as you said, is probably the opposite of libertarianism but the people or the community can be socialistic in action without the government. Democracy and socialism are the same at a micro level which can be totally self-governing, achieving the true sense of liberty.

[JPhillips]

Beckett's short novels are the ardest I've ever read. There was one story that was one paragraph. I made it through, but I don't remember a lot from it.

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

"Libertarians" is a political party, which I do not profess belief in. The ideal of "libertarianism" transcends political parties in the question of how much power should be given to governments at all levels. The government can be socialistic, which as you said, is probably the opposite of libertarianism but the people or the community can be socialistic in action without the government. Democracy and socialism are the same at a micro level which can be totally self-governing, achieving the true sense of liberty.

Agreed.

[KeyserSoze]

I've enjoyed 1984, Animal Farm and Homage to Catalonia

If you like this books maybe you would like War with the Newts (Paperback) of Karel Capek. It's another world-going-to-ditch, but it's terrible funny

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If your "ideology" (and perhaps you are finding fault with my word choice there) is that there is value in the individual, and that personal liberties are essentially important to the flourishing of a society -- then there's an awful lot for you in this book.

I've been thinking about the way you phrased that, and it seems to me that most often I hear people reverse the equation - "a free society is important to the flourishing of the individual." I have a theory that Thoreau was the one who changed this, but I'm not sure.

[QuikSand]

Seems to me that's a cyclical argument, and I'm fine with either side of it. Only in a free society will you see individuals flourish, and it is this individual freedom that creates the true gains that ultimately make a society great.

What we learn from Orwell's example is that power can be captured, but it is at the expense of everything else. When you stifle creativity and development in the name of total control, you essentially become the absolute steward of nothing.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I prefer Van Halen's 1984.

OU812?

1984 reminds me of Leaving Las Vegas. Glad I watched it, but never want to see it again.

[timmae]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I prefer Van Halen's 1984.

I prefer Oilers 1984...

err, 1984-85 season to be exact.

The Great One having an eyepopping 208 points.
Jari Kurri and Paul Coffey having 135 and 121 points respectively.
Oilers were 2nd in points behind Philly.
Oilers scored the most goals in the league.
Oilers go on to sweep the first 2 rounds of the playoffs on their way to defeating the hated Flyers 4 games to 1.

Just awesome baby.

[wbonnell]

This post piqued my interest in this book that I thought I knew a lot about, but, as it turned out, really knew so little. What really has my mind working overtime is the idea that my idea of what is right may not actually be what is Right. Moreover, the idea of Right is itself equivocal.

Is the idea of freedom truly superior to the idea of totalitarianism? My common sense tells me it is. But from where did I acquire this common sense? And isn't there downside to freedom, after all? The uncertainty often resulting from the freedom to choose can be paralyzing, for instance.

The primary message I take away from this book is that ideas may exist only in our minds (this appeals to my common sense) and that the world of 1984 is not necessarily any less Right than the western world of 1948.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by wbonnell

Is the idea of freedom truly superior to the idea of totalitarianism? My common sense tells me it is. But from where did I acquire this common sense? And isn't there downside to freedom, after all? The uncertainty often resulting from the freedom to choose can be paralyzing, for instance.

I think we tell ourselves that we want freedom, but a good percentage of people really prefer a totalitarian state as long as it can provide security. You see it now in Iraq where people are saying that things were better under Hussein because of the security issues. It was also one of the issues that the Nazis used to their advantage. They cleaned up the street fighting that was common in the Weimar Republic and the people loved them for it.

[Groundhog]

Wierd coincidence, as I read this book for the first time a week ago. I saw it on a shelf in the bookstore and grabbed it because I'd been meaning to read it for ages.

The first thing that grabbed me is that if you added 80 years to every date in the book and changed some of the details referring to Nazi Germany and other WWII-era subjects (though even this might not be neccessary) then this book could have been written today.

An awesome book.

***** SPOILER SPACE FOR THE 2 PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T READ IT ******
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

I have a nasty habit of trying to guess how books or movies will end, which often ruins it for me when I happen to get it right. In the case of 1984 as soon as he is taken away and tortured and it deals with the 2+2=5 segment, I had this image of how I imagined it would end. I pictured Winston being led up the hallway of the cell, the gunman appearing behind him, and just as his executor pulled the trigger he would shout "2+2=4", thus foiling their idea that no one dies without accepting their truth.

I was glad I was wrong, even though I think the ending I imagined would also have been pretty powerful while signaling a possible end to Big Brother and his party. I just love the absolute hoplessness of the actual ending. Right up until the part where Winston is arrested it has you thinking that there is some hope for him and that maybe he'll succeed, yet it's just not to be.

[JPhillips]

The primary message I take away from this book is that ideas may exist only in our minds (this appeals to my common sense) and that the world of 1984 is not necessarily any less Right than the western world of 1948.

I don't want to start a flame war, and this is in no way a personal attack, but I can't see how you come to this conclusion.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by wbonnell

Is the idea of freedom truly superior to the idea of totalitarianism? My common sense tells me it is. But from where did I acquire this common sense? And isn't there downside to freedom, after all? The uncertainty often resulting from the freedom to choose can be paralyzing, for instance.

"Freedom is Slavery"

Of course, Emmanual Goldstein also wrote that the converse is true, which is part of the appeal.


I really don't buy into your analysis above, but you are certainly grasping onto some of the more elusive elements of this whole discussion. I think it's probably appropriate for a tenth grader to read this as an absolute struggle between black hats and white hats. Perhaps as adults, we might find more subtle meaning as we seaarch the edges between apparent good and evil.

[wbonnell]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't want to start a flame war, and this is in no way a personal attack, but I can't see how you come to this conclusion.

Well, I base it on the foundational idea of the book: that words define our thoughts, and that these thoughts are completely contained in our minds. Indeed, the Party is overtly eliminating words from the language to *constrain* thought. Hasn't the society in which we live slowly done just that to our language (both expanded and constrained it) ?

I'd love to see how the idea of "freedom" has evolved throughout history. Perhaps the idea as we know it today did not exist in the minds of the first men. If not, I wonder if Freedom itself existed.

Anyway, the idea of starting a flame war over one's personal interpretation of a book never occurred to me...

[wbonnell]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I really don't buy into your analysis above,

Well, I certainly value my individual freedom and normally don't question it; I'm definitely not ready to relinquish any of it! But when I starting chewing on the *nature* of ideas, well, I start to see how ephemeral they may very well be.

Nevertheless, this book is clearly much deeper than simple good vs evil.

[wbonnell]

old school dola:

And what about the idea of insanity!? Is not Winston insane from the perspective of his society? He certainly thinks radically differently than most people with whom he comes in contact. I'll have to chew on this one a bit more.

[Daimyo]

I missed this thread the first time around. For whatever reason I ordered 1984 as a throw-in on an Amazon order back in August. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but this thread has re-piqued my interest so I'll bump it up to the top of my reading list.

[terpkristin]

I'm bumping this because I made a downright disturbing discovery yesterday: 2 of my close friends have never HEARD OF this book.

I mean. It's one thing if you've never read it. Most people I know had it as required reading in high school so it surprises me that people haven't read it at least once, but to not have ever HEARD OF IT? I was appalled that these people who are otherwise fairly well-educated didn't know where the "Big Brother" reference came from.

Is this a common thing?

/tk

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

I'm bumping this because I made a downright disturbing discovery yesterday: 2 of my close friends have never HEARD OF this book.

I mean. It's one thing if you've never read it. Most people I know had it as required reading in high school so it surprises me that people haven't read it at least once, but to not have ever HEARD OF IT? I was appalled that these people who are otherwise fairly well-educated didn't know where the "Big Brother" reference came from.

Is this a common thing?

/tk

That is disgusting.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

I was appalled that these people who are otherwise fairly well-educated didn't know where the "Big Brother" reference came from.

Cool! You mean they wrote a book about the Reality Show? Kick ass - I hope it has pictures...

[Senator]

My Magic Mountain fight continues. Please be a payoff!!

[kcchief19]

st. cronin blames teachers for being overpaid as the reason for this oversight.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

st. cronin blames teachers for being overpaid as the reason for this oversight.

No. This, I blame on global warming and the jews.

[Galaril]

I have been trying to find a dvd of the 1984 movie but can't? Anyone know it they ever made this on DVD?