I have to this day never read 1984 or any work of George Orwell and this is coming from someone who is a major in Political Science.
So there is this one aspect of this book I really like to understand and that is how did the book portrays the dictatoral government, Ingsoc. People I see always emphasises how increadibly Omnipresent the government is, the whole "Big Brother is Watching you" to the point that they can even hear your very THOUGHTS.
But who are they really? Are they just one-dimensionally evil? Is there more to this Ingsoc than meets the eye? Are the even at points justifyed in their actions? Do we even see a person that represents Ingsoc? George Orwell's anti authoritarian stance came from how cruel and ruthless and immoral the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was.
While it has been a while since I've read the work, the impression I got from it was that Ingsoc wasn't one-dimensionally evil. As the nation-states grew into entities large enough to have sufficient resources to support themselves without needing anyone else, the wars between those nations had become more or less perpetual. In that environment, a certain faction had grown its influence and power utilizing a combination of playing on the fear of the enemy nations, the desire for security and stability, and a growing surveillance network (every home has a monitor that watches everything that goes on in the building) to maintain its position and keep scoiety stable (in a fashion that leaves them better off, of course).
At one point in the novel, the protagonist is invited to be promoted in status. One of the perks promised is that you are allowed to turn off your monitor for a certain period of time each day and actually have some privacy. There has been some debate about whether or not the whole thing was just a test to determine the protagonist's loyalties or if the perk was a real thing and the protagonist just didn't make the cut, so to speak.
The whole thing struck me as the fear of the general entrenchment of power into a government to the benefit of the few over the general populace or the best interests of the nation at large. All done in the name of national interest.
Because the novel is done from the protagonist's viewpoint, there is a great deal of background information that is hidden, information that he only gradually becomes aware of through the work. Then, eventually, he is gradually swallowed up by the situation and becomes part of the whole machine.
Great, now you've made me want to go back and reread it. Like I don't have enough books on my to-read list at the moment.
While it has been a while since I've read the work, the impression I got from it was that Ingsoc wasn't one-dimensionally evil. As the nation-states grew into entities large enough to have sufficient resources to support themselves without needing anyone else, the wars between those nations had become more or less perpetual. In that environment, a certain faction had grown its influence and power utilizing a combination of playing on the fear of the enemy nations, the desire for security and stability, and a growing surveillance network (every home has a monitor that watches everything that goes on in the building) to maintain its position and keep scoiety stable (in a fashion that leaves them better off, of course).
At one point in the novel, the protagonist is invited to be promoted in status. One of the perks promised is that you are allowed to turn off your monitor for a certain period of time each day and actually have some privacy. There has been some debate about whether or not the whole thing was just a test to determine the protagonist's loyalties or if the perk was a real thing and the protagonist just didn't make the cut, so to speak.
The whole thing struck me as the fear of the general entrenchment of power into a government to the benefit of the few over the general populace or the best interests of the nation at large. All done in the name of national interest.
Because the novel is done from the protagonist's viewpoint, there is a great deal of background information that is hidden, information that he only gradually becomes aware of through the work. Then, eventually, he is gradually swallowed up by the situation and becomes part of the whole machine.
Great, now you've made me want to go back and reread it. Like I don't have enough books on my to-read list at the moment.
But imo what would be more interesting is seeing this whole story from the governments perspective.
I mean I like to see into the mind of a dictator and his co-horts. I like to understand how do the live their lives as the only people with true free-will in the world they subjugated.
I mean one of the best part of the COMIC BOOK version of V for Vendetta is that they fleshed out the character of the dictator as more than just a power hungry megalomaniac. I mean the character Adam Susan is a facist is because he truly and honestly believes that facism is the best form of government.
Its an allegory of the then present Stalinist cult of personality. The arrest and denunciations of the years of the great terror created and omnipresent fear where it was no longer even safe to talk openly to family members. Many on the left refused to acknowledge the reality of Stalinism leading to Animal Farm and 1984. Its wasn't until the Hungarian uprising of 1956 that the most of the left broke with broke with the Stalinists and even many communists stopped supporting the Soviets.
But imo what would be more interesting is seeing this whole story from the governments perspective.
I mean I like to see into the mind of a dictator and his co-horts. I like to understand how do the live their lives as the only people with true free-will in the world they subjugated.
I mean one of the best part of the COMIC BOOK version of V for Vendetta is that they fleshed out the character of the dictator as more than just a power hungry megalomaniac. I mean the character Adam Susan is a facist is because he truly and honestly believes that facism is the best form of government.
That would make for a very interesting companion story. Unfortunately, George has passed on and can't write it. And to be honest, I'm not certain which authors around today I would trust to flesh out the concepts in that fashion and stay true to Orwell's original vision. There might very well be some who could do it, but I don't know if Orwell left behind notes or information on how he envisioned the 'powers that be' as individuals. I mean, the question still hung in the novel on whether or not Big Brother as an actual person even existed or once existed and his image was still being used.
The details are purposefully left murky in the novel, but it always struck me as a faction doing what they thought was best for the nation by maintaining order and stability while organizing the populace to face off against the external threat, at least at first. The whole thing seems to have become self-sustaining at some point.
The old saying comes to mind, "A villain is never a villain in his own eyes."
Well, they cannot do that. You may be getting the wrong impression from "through police" - they aren't any sort of mind readers but just really good at finding what people are thinking. Or to be more precise, to find out "dissidents".
Samtemdo8 said:
But who are they really? Are they just one-dimensionally evil? Is there more to this Ingsoc than meets the eye?
Not that easy to say. They are a all encompassing authority with the intent on controlling the population. They have a ton of tactics and strategies to do that - just few examples:
1. "We were always at war with X" - there are three large powers in the world that we are told of. And Oceania (the superstate where the action takes place) is always at war with one of them. Which one apparently shifts all the time - the main character confirms this, as he is involved in spreading the propaganda and remarks on how few years back they were at war with the other one, but suddenly all mention of that war was erased and it was replaces with the war against the other superstate. At any rate, the war is used as a background to keep the population in check. Whether the war is real or if the other states even exist is not actually revealed.
2. Newspeak - the government created a new language that is a very simplified version of English. For example, instead of having two words that are antonyms, only one is preserved and the antonym is derived as "not X". There are a lot of other simplifications done and the stated goal is to both stamp out dissident though (by controlling the language) and to make it able to just keep on talking without saying much, which is what politicians apparently use. The term "doublespeak" comes from newspeak and it has grown to be used outside the book - it's about talking in a deliberately confusing manner. So, again, control of the population.
3. Encouraging spying on others. This is to make the population monitor for dissidents among themselves. They are driven to do that out of fear, for if they don't, they might be branded throughtcriminals themselves. This has grown to the point where children are taught in school to monitor their parents and would gladly turn them over, if it seems the parents could be dissidents.
4. The though police, as I mentioned above, are the people who specifically spy on the population to find the thought criminals. They employ stuff from technology (bugs, cameras) to following you and keeping notes.
And so on and so forth. Aside from the overarching "control" theme, it's not really explored what the end goal of the Party is.
Samtemdo8 said:
Are the even at points justifyed in their actions?
I don't think they are. Well, not shown to be, at least. They are just doing this shady business and aren't really given much of a goal, as I said. Still, if I were to qualify the actions of the Party, I wouldn't call them "justified". They stem from insidiously subtle (like newspeak) to incredibly brutal (Room 101) but neither really looks like something that is the only way to accomplish a goal.
Yes, there is O'Brien. He is...creepy. At first, he starts of looking sympathetic towards the main character and trying to help him, but in the end, he just turns into an incredibly brutal torturer. Here is an exchange that is both iconic and probably says the most about the Party:
O?Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
?How many fingers am I holding up, Winston??
?Four.?
?And if the party says that it is not four but five ? then how many??
?Four.?
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston?s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O?Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Four.?
The needle went up to sixty.
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!?
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!?
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Five! Five! Five!?
?No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please??
?Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!?
Abruptly he was sitting up with O?Brien?s arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O?Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O?Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O?Brien who would save him from it.
?You are a slow learner, Winston,? said O?Brien gently.
?How can I help it?? he blubbered. ?How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.?
?Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.?
In fact, you can read the entire chapter after the main character was captured here [https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter3.2.html].
At any rate, the Party in 1984 is only shown as being after power and control but not to what end. Perhaps it is only for the control and the power's sake. It is heavily implied to be entirely nefarious, yet not much is revealed beyond that.
Well, they cannot do that. You may be getting the wrong impression from "through police" - they aren't any sort of mind readers but just really good at finding what people are thinking. Or to be more precise, to find out "dissidents".
Samtemdo8 said:
But who are they really? Are they just one-dimensionally evil? Is there more to this Ingsoc than meets the eye?
Not that easy to say. They are a all encompassing authority with the intent on controlling the population. They have a ton of tactics and strategies to do that - just few examples:
1. "We were always at war with X" - there are three large powers in the world that we are told of. And Oceania (the superstate where the action takes place) is always at war with one of them. Which one apparently shifts all the time - the main character confirms this, as he is involved in spreading the propaganda and remarks on how few years back they were at war with the other one, but suddenly all mention of that war was erased and it was replaces with the war against the other superstate. At any rate, the war is used as a background to keep the population in check. Whether the war is real or if the other states even exist is not actually revealed.
2. Newspeak - the government created a new language that is a very simplified version of English. For example, instead of having two words that are antonyms, only one is preserved and the antonym is derived as "not X". There are a lot of other simplifications done and the stated goal is to both stamp out dissident though (by controlling the language) and to make it able to just keep on talking without saying much, which is what politicians apparently use. The term "doublespeak" comes from newspeak and it has grown to be used outside the book - it's about talking in a deliberately confusing manner. So, again, control of the population.
3. Encouraging spying on others. This is to make the population monitor for dissidents among themselves. They are driven to do that out of fear, for if they don't, they might be branded throughtcriminals themselves. This has grown to the point where children are taught in school to monitor their parents and would gladly turn them over, if it seems the parents could be dissidents.
4. The though police, as I mentioned above, are the people who specifically spy on the population to find the thought criminals. They employ stuff from technology (bugs, cameras) to following you and keeping notes.
And so on and so forth. Aside from the overarching "control" theme, it's not really explored what the end goal of the Party is.
Samtemdo8 said:
Are the even at points justifyed in their actions?
I don't think they are. Well, not shown to be, at least. They are just doing this shady business and aren't really given much of a goal, as I said. Still, if I were to qualify the actions of the Party, I wouldn't call them "justified". They stem from insidiously subtle (like newspeak) to incredibly brutal (Room 101) but neither really looks like something that is the only way to accomplish a goal.
Yes, there is O'Brien. He is...creepy. At first, he starts of looking sympathetic towards the main character and trying to help him, but in the end, he just turns into an incredibly brutal torturer. Here is an exchange that is both iconic and probably says the most about the Party:
O?Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
?How many fingers am I holding up, Winston??
?Four.?
?And if the party says that it is not four but five ? then how many??
?Four.?
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston?s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O?Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Four.?
The needle went up to sixty.
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!?
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!?
?How many fingers, Winston??
?Five! Five! Five!?
?No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please??
?Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!?
Abruptly he was sitting up with O?Brien?s arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O?Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O?Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O?Brien who would save him from it.
?You are a slow learner, Winston,? said O?Brien gently.
?How can I help it?? he blubbered. ?How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.?
?Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.?
In fact, you can read the entire chapter after the main character was captured here [https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter3.2.html].
At any rate, the Party in 1984 is only shown as being after power and control but not to what end. Perhaps it is only for the control and the power's sake. It is heavily implied to be entirely nefarious, yet not much is revealed beyond that.
Fundamentally Orwell is not interested in world building. What Orwell is demonstrating is the effect on the individual of a totalitarian state. Orwell isn't interested in the motivations Ingsoc and only paints the government with a broad brush. Its just the background to create the fear of the crushing power of the state.
But who are they really? Are they just one-dimensionally evil? Is there more to this Ingsoc than meets the eye? Are the even at points justifyed in their actions? Do we even see a person that represents Ingsoc? George Orwell's anti authoritarian stance came from how cruel and ruthless and immoral the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was.
Firstly, in 1984 the government (only referred to as "the party", Ingsoc or "English Socialism" is the state ideology of the party) comprises a significant proportion of the population (two of the three social classes). The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a party member working for the Ministry of Truth (the propaganda ministry) for example.
1984 doesn't really adhere to the liberal notion of "government bad/people good" found in most dystopian fiction. The government is presented as a vast bureaucratic machine whose primary goal is perpetuating itself and eliminating from itself any human component or capacity for individual exercise of will. Almost every character in the book is in some way complicit in the government and the atrocities it carries out, whether by being a party member and working for the government directly or through being utterly complacent.
There's one possible exception which is never really resolved regarding the case of the inner party members. We only encounter one of the inner party members in the novel in the form of O'Brien (who as mentioned turns out to be a secret policeman, which raises the question of how much we actually see of his life is true). From what we see, it seems like the inner party members have a degree of freedom and luxury unavailable to anyone else, but we only see this when O'Brien is trying to convince Winston (the protagonist) that he is a fellow dissident. In fact, O'Brien's later conduct suggests that he is even more heavily brainwashed, even more intensely loyal, even more skilled in "doublethink" (which is a mental exercise people are taught to do when they know something is true but the party says it is not) than any other character we meet.
So yeah, it's ambiguous whether the inner party actually do have a kind of freedom which they cynically abuse to keep everyone else in chains, or whether ultimately the systems of monitoring and thought control just extend all the way to the top, but given the general theme I would strongly favour the latter. I don't think there is an evil government you can blame, I don't think there is a shadowy cabal keeping everyone in chains, there's only a system, a machine (comprising all of society) whose primary function is just to keep itself going at any cost, for no purpose and to no benefit. I think that's far more horrible, more frightening and more revealing than a simple equation of authority with evil.
You are trying to understand and very obviously judge the finer points of a book but not willing to read it? Do I really need to point out the obvious?
.
.
.
You are trying to understand and very obviously judge the finer points of a book but not willing to read it? Do I really need to point out the obvious?
.
.
.
It's a system that makes the most sense if you read it... so read it.
That being said it's a system of subtle and blunt population control that when looked at as a whole is a system that's slowly refining itself into a machine rather than say a society. Now it's always going to have the human element, it has to. But when you remove loyalty to everything other than the state, knowledge of the past, the majority of language, the belief in privacy, emotion... It would be a tedious list to list everything they employ as a method of control or how said controls add up to create even stronger methods of said control.
Now to answer your question. Yes there is more to Ingsoc than meets the eye but everything that can be learned of it paints it in a more and more insidious light. Yes there is a logic to their actions but it's the kind that looks unlogic and should be avoided at all costs logic. The main character is a part of the bureaucracy and characters that could be thought to represent Ingsoc are present. Yes they're the soviets but they're also the nazis and any other government or concept that is built around a stranglehold of freedom or liberty on any degree.
Fundamentally Orwell is not interested in world building. What Orwell is demonstrating is the effect on the individual of a totalitarian state. Orwell isn't interested in the motivations Ingsoc and only paints the government with a broad brush. Its just the background to create the fear of the crushing power of the state.
I'm not convinced of this. Throughout the book Winston knows to a large extend how the party functions but he wonders why they want to keep up the opression. He fixates on this quite a bit. He writes about it in his diary, the question is mentioned in Goldsteins book and is eventually answered by O'Brien. I'm also not convinced that Orwell is not interested in worldbuilding. Why then, does he have pages of text about the functioning of Oceania's war apparatus? Even thought the war barely effects Winston or anyone at all. I'll get to this later in this post.
evilthecat said:
Firstly, in 1984 the government (only referred to as "the party", Ingsoc or "English Socialism" is the state ideology of the party) comprises a significant proportion of the population (two of the three social classes). The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a party member working for the Ministry of Truth (the propaganda ministry) for example.
We even have some numbers about this. According to Goldsteins book and Winstons own observation, the lowest class, called the proles, (disregarding the slaves outside the major powers) compromise some 85% of the population, with the Inner party being 2% and the outer party something like 13%. It should be noted that while the average populace is opressed they enjoy a degree of freedom relative to the members of the outer party and probably of the inner party. It is stated that not even all proles have telescreens (though that might have been a lie) and that the behaviour and loyalty of the proles is a relatively low priority to the thought police. For example, the proles are more or less allowed to have pornography whereas party members are strictly forbidden from having that. Throughout the book it is made clear that the party views history as a struggle between the middle class and the upper class. What the proles do hardly matters.
evilthecat said:
There's one possible exception which is never really resolved regarding the case of the inner party members. We only encounter one of the inner party members in the novel in the form of O'Brien (who as mentioned turns out to be a secret policeman, which raises the question of how much we actually see of his life is true). From what we see, it seems like the inner party members have a degree of freedom and luxury unavailable to anyone else, but we only see this when O'Brien is trying to convince Winston (the protagonist) that he is a fellow dissident. In fact, O'Brien's later conduct suggests that he is even more heavily brainwashed, even more intensely loyal, even more skilled in "doublethink" (which is a mental exercise people are taught to do when they know something is true but the party says it is not) than any other character we meet.
So yeah, it's ambiguous whether the inner party actually do have a kind of freedom which they cynically abuse to keep everyone else in chains, or whether ultimately the systems of monitoring and thought control just extend all the way to the top, but given the general theme I would strongly favour the latter. I don't think there is an evil government you can blame, I don't think there is a shadowy cabal keeping everyone in chains, there's only a system, a machine (comprising all of society) whose primary function is just to keep itself going at any cost, for no purpose and to no benefit. I think that's far more horrible, more frightening and more revealing than a simple equation of authority with evil.
While Winstons lack of knowledge of what exactly is going on is a major theme, I'm going to assume that Goldsteins Book and the dialogues with O'Brien are more or less Orwell writing an essay on opression in his novel and can be taken as largely true (within the fiction, obviously). With that given, Goldsteins book mentions that the wealth of the Inner Party is far less than it could have been, had they wanted to be rich, rather than powerful. They are rich enough so they do not have to waste their time on chores and so that they are distinctly more rich than the other classes. This mostly serves to differentiate them from the other classes though, not to make their lives easier. It is confirmed that the inner party has some wealth since Julia is able to obtain illegal goods of far higher quality than the food and other things Winston is used to. The inner party isn't free in any traditional sense, they are probably watched at all times, but they are free in the sense layed out by O'Brien. They, or at least most of them, identify with the party and the party is, or at least pretends to be, omnipotent. So in that sense they consider themselves a part of an omnipotent body and thus in some sense free. Hence, "freedom is slavery", since this identification cannot take place if you don't sobordinate your own person to the party entirely. The source of oppression is throughout the book repeatedly identified with the party, specifically with the Inner Party. (The high, in Goldsteins book) The individuals in this party have no power at all, but they do collectively have aims, intentions and beliefs.
Samtemdo8 said:
But who are they really? Are they just one-dimensionally evil? Is there more to this Ingsoc than meets the eye? Are the even at points justifyed in their actions? Do we even see a person that represents Ingsoc? George Orwell's anti authoritarian stance came from how cruel and ruthless and immoral the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was.
They are evil, pretty much admittedly so. Their intentions, contrary to what other people have written here, are stated explicitly by O'Brien. (again, I'm assuming that O'Brien wasn't lying and was saying things Orwell wanted to reflect on) The torture and opression are done for their own sake. The party wants power over human beings, and they believe that making a person suffer is the surest way of asserting your power over them. They have set up society to that end.
Smooth Operator said:
You are trying to understand and very obviously judge the finer points of a book but not willing to read it? Do I really need to point out the obvious?
.
.
.
Agreed. It's only 250 fairly small pages anyway. It doesn't have to take you more than free a weekend to get through it. If you want to be lazy about it, you should at the very least read the part where Goldsteins book (not really Goodsteins Book but whatever) are read and the dialogues with O'Brien. The dialogues with O'Brien are the only thing the book has which reveals much about the beliefs and intentions of the party.
Fundamentally Orwell is not interested in world building. What Orwell is demonstrating is the effect on the individual of a totalitarian state. Orwell isn't interested in the motivations Ingsoc and only paints the government with a broad brush. Its just the background to create the fear of the crushing power of the state.
I'm not convinced of this. Throughout the book Winston knows to a large extend how the party functions but he wonders why they want to keep up the opression. He fixates on this quite a bit. He writes about it in his diary, the question is mentioned in Goldsteins book and is eventually answered by O'Brien. I'm also not convinced that Orwell is not interested in worldbuilding. Why then, does he have pages of text about the functioning of Oceania's war apparatus? Even thought the war barely effects Winston or anyone at all. I'll get to this later in this post.
All Orwell is doing is truthfully representing how the the soviet union worked under Stalinism. Trying to read more than that into the book will fail because it is only there to provide a framework into which the real actions of Stalinism is to be placed into. The book is direct response to the left's failure to confront the murderous nature of Stalinism. The majority of Orwell's later writings, including fiction, letters and essays, are about trying to force the British left in particular, to acknowledge that reality of the Soviet Union. In the same way that animal farm isnt about British farming practices, 1984 isnt about a fictional future Britain but the contemporaneous Soviet Union.
But who are they really? Are they just one-dimensionally evil? Is there more to this Ingsoc than meets the eye? Are the even at points justifyed in their actions? Do we even see a person that represents Ingsoc? George Orwell's anti authoritarian stance came from how cruel and ruthless and immoral the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was.
In the propaganda they justify their actions as having improved things by destroying the evil capitalists - which they exaggerate, destroying their enemies - who happen to just be other nations locked in the same system with a different name, and protecting people from the danger within - who is a former politician who they built into a boogieman (allegory: Trotsky)
When the inner party's perspective is revealed this is all lies that they both believe and yet understand to be lies (doublethink) to maintain power. So it is both justified and not justified. Such is the nature of cults of personality.
All Orwell is doing is truthfully representing how the the soviet union worked under Stalinism. Trying to read more than that into the book will fail because it is only there to provide a framework into which the real actions of Stalinism is to be placed into.
As someone who studied the book, I strongly disagree with this. The USSR provide a great deal of the basis for Oceania in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but Orwell's creation is a hypothetical society in which the control is taken to an extreme never seen on earth. It is a possible end-point for the direction certain societies seemed to be taking at that point in time, and a warning of such, but it goes well beyond simply reflecting what was happening in reality.
All Orwell is doing is truthfully representing how the the soviet union worked under Stalinism. Trying to read more than that into the book will fail because it is only there to provide a framework into which the real actions of Stalinism is to be placed into.
As someone who studied the book, I strongly disagree with this. The USSR provide a great deal of the basis for Oceania in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but Orwell's creation is a hypothetical society in which the control is taken to an extreme never seen on earth. It is a possible end-point for the direction certain societies seemed to be taking at that point in time, and a warning of such, but it goes well beyond simply reflecting what was happening in reality.
That is your opinion and you perfectly entitled to it. However the KGB did not agree with you and attempted to use its agents in the UK to stop it being published in the same way the tried with Animal farm. They failed but in the case of Animal Farm they managed to get the initial publisher to drop and it a year to find another willing. Furthermore Orwell had to flee from Republican Spain in 37 because of denunciations to the Tribunal for Espionage & High Treason of rabid Trotskyism by NKVD agents in the Spanish Republican government.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
