Could V for Vendetta challenge the government of 1984

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, I think you are wrong about fear. Consider that that world was designed specifically to keep people on edge. They were constantly 'at war' (A lie to keep people thinking there was a perceived threat and enemy from 'over there'), they were observed at all times (Big Brother, giving you no privacy at all), there's a Red Scare for traitors always on (Which means everybody's hardwired to point fingers and scream like Body Snatchers, essentially, if they find an inconsistancy), and there is a specter of a consequence held in total mystery (But we know it to be the fear room, which is designed to absolutely break you or you die).

I think "I Love BB" was as forced as "I Love Stallin" (although there would be fanatics, no doubt). If you didn't grin to the tune, you quickly find yourself in a position most ungratifying. To me, 1984 is no new challenge to a guy like V. You see, his time in prison was already the breaking point...which he utterly destroyed in chemical explosions and mustard gas. You might argue that because he's in the society, that he can be dealt with, but he's NOT in the society. He's under it. Hell, I'd lay odds on him staking out the fear room as a secret entrance to his new Under Gallery.

Ah, ok, if you are interpreting "I love BB" as something you say because you fear retribution if you don't, then V can simply cause more fear and take it's place.

I personally believe that it was meant genuinely, although people might fear it, they have been conditioned to accept the system, which was one of the main themes of the story in my view.

 

[Pseudonym]

So, to sum up, in a discussion as to whether V - the comic book character - can take out the government of 1984, you are saying no because you are discounting everything that ever happened in V For Vendetta and why, among other things.

How am I discounting everything that ever happened in V for Vendetta?* I said for example the following: V is a single individual without superpowers. He can be killed by ordinary bullets, he cannot turn invisible, he cannot conquer the entire ministry of love by himself. (and even if he did, that wouldn't be enough) Do you deny that these are limitations that V has in his own story?

If you want to tell me I am discounting things, I'm going to ask you for specifics. What exactly am I discounting? Because at this point that just sounds like bluff to me. I'll give some examples of specifics for why I suspect you haven't actually read 1984. I know you are discounting a whole lot of things that happened in 1984: you are discounting the fact that there is no central system to infiltrate. You are discounting the fact that the telescreens are not one centralized machine but many machines operated by a bureaucracy. You are discounting the fact that the citizens of Oceania are not primarily motivated by fear.

*I'm certainly willing to discount the entire story as painfully na?ve, as I don't buy that any single person could topple a government by shooting some guys, blowing up some buildings, tapping into some systems and making some speeches, nor do I buy that the only reason people don't rebel against dictators is fear but I don't need that for my argument at all.

Well then, you have ended discussion because you are not willing to entertain discussion as per subject. You have to accept IN the line of discussion to discuss it, ergo if you do not...you're not on topic.

I honestly haven't a clue what you mean by this. Your grammar is so poor that your sentences have lost coherence. I get the feeling that between the words 'accept' and 'IN' there was supposed to be an object of that sentence but I can't be sure. You conclude that my post was off-topic. I can conjecture that this is because you think I am ignoring canonical facts about V and his world but maybe you meant something entirely different. In any case, besides being incomprehensible, you are also hopelessly general and vague about what you take issue with.

I think "I Love BB" was as forced as "I Love Stallin"

Just read the last four words of the book. Just the last four words. Notice how they aren't a quote by anyone and are clearly the author speaking directly, or at best, Winstons inner monologue.

 

[FalloutJack]

Ah, ok, if you are interpreting "I love BB" as something you say because you fear retribution if you don't, then V can simply cause more fear and take it's place.

I personally believe that it was meant genuinely, although people might fear it, they have been conditioned to accept the system, which was one of the main themes of the story in my view.

Well, it actually depends on a key factor. I'm sure you know of the Quisling Effect, the act of associating with your enemy out of a psychological need or at least self-preservation, to the point where the Quisling will become even more fanatical than the most devoted regular. The conditioning is there, but the field is not a loving one. A number of science fiction authors back in the day tended to reference events current and project the result of them or the parallel to them into their books. H.G. Wells did alot about the World Wars. George Orwell is no exception. His book was published not long into the Cold War era, which of course has the World Wars behind it, so the bleak look into a possible future of man where we are controlled and dehumanized is easy to reach for. It's also a commentary on repressed society, which America was around the same time. Suffice to say, I think the 1984 country is under Stockholm Syndrome and such-like.

Any 'love' for Big Brother I can see is a conditioned response, no doubt, but by fear. BB isn't a charismatic force. He's an enigmatic face. He's a symbol of government, and what does he do? He watches. He watches everything you do with unblinking eyes. Adam Susan had the decency to hide the cameras and listening devices. The Party likely has a second layer of subtle security, BUT...it was entirely cruel of them to make everyone aware that everything they do is being watched by something more prevalent than Kilroy. Do you know how easy it would be for V to cause a stir? To get security to come ANYWHERE, block up a camera. To cause civil unrest? A gas bomb of hallucinigenics. Get through a secure area quietly? Use any guard from an aforementioned blocked-up camera issue by killing the guards, destroying the bodies, and taking one of their place. None of this is new to V. A little different in orientation, but I think he could overthrow any dictator or party that is to some extent human, and this one is no exception.

 

[SeanSeanston]

Gonna just put something out here now and see if anyone agrees or has anything to say about it... perhaps to change my mind even...

Who here has read both 1984 and Brave New World? I'm guessing a lot of you, since they're very much talked about in the same breath.
They're both quite similar in many ways, but perhaps could be described as stories with a very similar premise that is tackled from different angles, and IMO I think I like Brave New World better and I think it has a more realistic and perhaps scarier vision of a dystopia.

What I mean:
- Even before I'd read BNW, 1984 seemed somewhat clumsily written and overly direct with trying to push its message. It really beats you over the fucking head with it, leaving very little room for implication or the reader to read between the lines IMO. Does a whole lot of telling and not enough showing.
There is one section in particular that still stands out for me even though it's been years since I read 1984 and I've only ever read it once. The book is talking about world politics or w/e and then it seriously just goes off for what I remember as pages and pages of the author speaking directly to the reader about the global situation and the hypothetical things that might happen. Part of it went something like "Oceania could attack Eastasia. but then blah blah blah" as it goes through various possibilities and straight up spells the implications out for you instead of working it into the story somehow more implicitly.
I honestly feel like you'd be criticized rather harshly for writing like that in school. Seemed terrible to me.

- The entire concept as a whole follows the same pattern. i.e. 1984 has a very direct and explicitly controlling regime, versus BNW's more... shadowy, implicit and hands-off approach. Sure, both try to control people's thoughts ultimately and want people to follow them willingly if possible, but IIRC the difference was along the lines of the regime in 1984 would be more likely to ban certain books outright and pressure people into not doing certain things, whereas BNW was more focused around creating a situation where the government didn't even need to do that because people were more inclined not to see the point in the first place and even if they felt bad they could pop those soma pills.
I think in many ways that's more frightening and perhaps more realistic and advanced a concept than 1984's which seems a bit more naive by comparison IMO, in that it's like "bad guys with guns tell people how to live" compared to BNW being more like social engineering and the power of suggestion and more subtle brainwashing, or even avoiding having to really brainwash altogether.

So I dunno... I enjoyed 1984 reasonably enough but I feel like the story was rather poorly written or really took a backseat to Orwell trying to get across his vision of the future and I think the story suffered due to how much he seemed to want to make sure his ideas were getting across.