1984 - What's YOUR opinion? Rate here!!! (2 Viewers)

[lazybum]

Thanks for the advice to read 1984 guys.

Although it was a bit tedious and boring as it dragged on, the short nature of the novel enabled me to read the whole thing without skipping parts. ( i got the big type for easy reading - haha!)
The idea behind the book is fascinating - As something to relate to it's a kind of continuation of nazi germany totalitarianism but only worse and scary!!
here there is the Thought Police - trying to get into ppl's minds, and telescreens at every corner. Due to this, an ultimate uprising of the ppl of Oceania or indeed EastAsia or Eurasia, is impossible, as any rebellion is immediately detected and 'vapourised.'
The protaganist, Winston Smith, is a weak character with a questioning character, but instead of geting stronger throughout the novel and instead of overcoming the Power oligarchy of Oceania, is eventually defeated. Sad but Powerful ending!!

Rate it 7-7 1/2 out of ten. What do you guys think???

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Originally posted by lazybum
Thanks for the advice to read 1984 guys.
The idea behind the book is fascinating - As something to relate to it's a kind of continuation of nazi germany totalitarianism but only worse and scary!!
here there is the Thought Police - trying to get into ppl's minds, and telescreens at every corner. Due to this, an ultimate uprising of the ppl of Oceania or indeed EastAsia or Eurasia, is impossible, as any rebellion is immediately detected and 'vapourised.'

On this note, the concept of 'Newspeak' is also fascinating (and frightening), as it represents the elimination of opposition through the denial of a linguistic base. What makes this element even more disturbing however, is how it's represented as an evolving language (Newspeak being the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year ), progressively constraining free thought;

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

It's terrifying, the concept of being trapped not only by ideology, but by language as a constraint upon thought, a state of dystopic stasis that may very well last indefinately. (This is also seen from the opening sentence it was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks struck thirteen, immediately creating a sense of alienation and disorientation.. Quite effective in doing so.)

Of course, that is Orwell's point, and what heightens the social commentary of the text. Having a happy ending with Winston triumphing against the state would have suggested that society can be resisted, and therefore is not all-emcompassing. Instead, by depicting a 'doomed revolt', the state of 1984 is shown to be monolithic and irresistable. As such, the text, as a dystopia, is an imperative towards the responder to prevent this world from being realised, as only prior to it's coming into existence can it be successfully averted.

As for the text itself, it succeeds both as a novel and as a warning, in each of it's textual functions. Despite it being 'hijacked' as being purely a criticism of Communism (As it was interpreted by many during the Cold War), Nineteen Eighty-Four resonates as an indictment of totalitarianism in all it's forms.

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever..

Rather than assign an arbitrary numerical rating, I believe that Nineteen Eighty-Four is doubleplusgood. (

 

[truly-in-bliss]

i find orwell's essays as, if not more fascinating than his novels....

 

[McLake]

Loved 1984 (and Animal Farm for that matter). The construction of the Newspeak language complements the text well. It is frightning that in the internet age, that emails and SMS technology (although I love them both) seem to be dragging us nearer to the idea of newspeak in our everyday language.

 

[lazybum]

Originally posted by McLake
It is frightning that in the internet age, that emails and SMS technology seem to be dragging us nearer to the idea of newspeak in our everyday language.

So true! lately i've been shortening my words, kinda' analagous to newspeak. Soon there will be less words in the english vocabulary as these appropriations are substituted for real language.

 

[mic]

1984 is fantastic. Reading it makes me see parallels with today, esp in the US, where the FBI can check libraries to see what people are reading, among other examples. The thought police have been unleashed.

 

[Alexander]

It was written during WW2 I think, and Orwell was bleakly presenting what he though the future would be (1984). I dont agree with you Samsa about the Cold War stuff. His message was very clear--Fascism or Communism--take your pick! Orwell was definatly a Marxist, but was horrified with Russia's version. He slowly became defeatist, or even nihlist

If you liked '84, you'll also like "Brave New World".

 

[babydoll_]

Originally posted by Alexander
If you liked '84, you'll also like "Brave New World".

yup...

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Originally posted by Alexander
I dont agree with you Samsa about the Cold War stuff. His message was very clear--Fascism or Communism--take your pick! Orwell was definately a Marxist, but was horrified with Russia's version. He slowly became defeatist, or even nihlist.

To be pedantic, it was written just after the Second World War, being published in 1948, shortly before Orwell's death.

What I mean by the 'Cold War stuff' is that Nineteen Eighty-Four became interpreted as a text solely critiquing Communism, therefore being used as an ideological weapon against the USSR. While it is undoubtedly critical of Communism, it also critiques facism and Capitalism within that. (There's a good book about this and other aspects, entitled 'The Politics Of Literary Reputation'.)

Orwell never was a Marxist. He described himself as a 'democratic socialist' (And an anarchist, as seen in his support of the POUM millitia in the Spanish Civil War.. See 'Homage To Catalonia', which also depicts his disillusionment with Communism.)

"The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."-Orwell, 'Why I Write'.

Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics. -Capitalism and Communism; Two Paths To Slavery, 'As I Please', Observer, August 9th 1944.

 

[McLake]

Originally posted by Alexander
If you liked '84, you'll also like "Brave New World".

BNW is nowhere near as good. But if you study the text at school make sure to read Huxely's essay "Brave New World Revisted", where he talks about the inspiration he got from "1984".

 

[Macross]

As many have said before i beleive the novel is excellent in that one can relate it to the world around them, the world to be and the world that was. e.g. telescreens, propaganda, opression and so on.

On a side note i found some aspects of the novel a bit tedious, especially Goldstein's book where there was just a huge exposition of information. It honestly made me sleepy and i just ended up scanning through it.

I appreciate the way in which the novel doubles as a social commentary whilst remaining entertaining, as well as the original ideas within the text. Overall however, i was kind of put off by the ending ~ which emphasised the novel's atmosphere, but really left me the pits

 

[zhouyn]

Orwell never was a Marxist. He described himself as a 'democratic socialist' (And an anarchist, as seen in his support of the POUM millitia in the Spanish Civil War.. See 'Homage To Catalonia', which also depicts his disillusionment with Communism.)[/B]

I don't quite get it, i know Orwell is a socialist who opposed to Stalinism for certain. but itn't socialism and Marxism very similar? The Soviet Union was a Marxist state but their name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

China is another Marxist state and it claimed it's using "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" to manage the country.

Sorry, i don't really know much about politics and could anyone explain to me the difference between socialism, communism and Marxism.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Originally posted by zhouyn
I don't quite get it, i know Orwell is a socialist who opposed to Stalinism for certain. but itn't socialism and Marxism very similar? The Soviet Union was a Marxist state but their name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

China is another Marxist state and it claimed it's using "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" to manage the country.

Sorry, i don't really know much about politics and could anyone explain to me the difference between socialism, communism and Marxism.

There is a difference between Socialism and Marxism, largely consisting of the extreme to which policy is conducted. 'Socialist' in the case of the USSR was largely a euphemism, particularly following Stalinism. (Which is why many Communists still identify themselves as 'Marxist-Leninists'.)

From the Macquarie Dictionary;

Marxism-The system of thought developed by Karl Marx, together with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist state contained from the first the 'seeds of its own decay' and will inevitably, after a transitional period known as the 'dictatorship of the proleteriat', be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Socialism-A theory or system of social organisation which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land etc.:, in the community as a whole.

I believe that socialism does not see this process as historically inevitable (Marx based his theory upon the Hegelian dialectic).

Sorry for not being able to give a clearer explanation, but hey, two pointless facts about Nineteen Eighty-Four.

1.)The book was originally entitled 'The Last Man In Europe'.
2.)The frequent use of 'Victory' throughout is a satire upon governmental 'labelling' throughout the Second World War.. (Victory Gardens etc:..Orwell merely extrapolated, which of course is the basis of almost all dystopian literature.)

 

[hurrotisrobbo]

I'd easily give it 9 or 9 1/2 out of 10.

The appendix is the best bit, by the way.

 

[Bambul]

I read it in year 12 after having studied 20th century Russia in year 11. Anyone who thinks its about Nazi Germany does not know what it was like in Stalinist Russia - ie. the similarities are almost identical.

And it was written after WW2, but before the bipolar world of 2 separate world powers (USA and USSR) developing with many other countries gravitating to one of the two - which was partly predicted in 1984.

I'm also surprised no ones pointed out where the year came from: it was written in 1948, switch the last two numbers around and you get 1984.

 

[Alexander]

That's right, I knew there was a ring to it (with the dates), but only a little after the war, when Germany was being carved up etc. Who knows, maybe he believed that punishing Germany would lead to another war (like it did after ww1)
Im not sure it predicted two world powers, USA & USSR, but it predicted a sort of hell on earth with constant war and virtual slavery. A cycle of revolutions with the same results. You can tell that there's no difference with the other world powers, they all incorporate the worst aspects of Facism/socialism.
Speaking of Tsarist Russia, he used the same figures and similar story---oppressive government with 80% as kind of peasants. He hinted at these peasants overthrowng 'big brother', but the bleak attitude of the book suggests that this might be futile, as it was in tsarist russia (transfer of tyranny etc)

You can make all sorts of comparisons in recent times about the book's truth, most obviously USSR and US, but more recently it has been compared to the US's current role as global policeman.

 

[hurrotisrobbo]

Bambul: I think after he tried to name it 'The Last Man in Europe', he wanted to name it '1948' (the current year), but the publisher made him change it, so '1984' it was.

I think. Maybe.

 

[Serpentia]

Brilliantly written book, never was bothered to finish reading it

 

[glycerine]

Originally posted by McLake
BNW is nowhere near as good. But if you study the text at school make sure to read Huxely's essay "Brave New World Revisted", where he talks about the inspiration he got from "1984".

i think brave new world is "as good" as 1984... it's just commenting on a different aspect of our world

 

[Alexander]

Brave new world is much happier, a world focused on happiness etc. But it was meant to outrage readers by the lapse in ethics etc i.e. little children playing 'erotic games' and the concept of one's body belonging to everyone.