Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 1894: What do you guys think of this?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3

    1894: What do you guys think of this?

    In 1984 the character Julia raises some interesting questions.

    I was just thinking, Julia was kind of a "tramp" if you will. She had mentioned she slept with a lot of men always party members yet somehow she remained free, when those men were taken to minilove they must have ratted her out.

    They must have confessed to having slept with her since Winston was exposing everyone he ever met whether they did anything or not.

    Do you suppose the powers that be, after hearing man after man confessing the same "sin" with the same woman, her name constantly coming up, purposly let her remain free as a sort of bait to hook the thought criminals?

    Another interesting thing about Julia is that she was younger than Winston, and wasn't even alive before the revolution, before the change of power. Winston was just a boy and still had memories (questionable memories but memories non-the-less) of life before the revolution, it was those memories that drove him, those memories that made his bones creek, made his mind ache, it was because of those memories that he knew life should, and was once different!

    Julia on the other hand had no such memories, but she still knew somehow that life should be different. She still had the rebellious spirit that Winston had, she stil had that yearning to be free, which makes me wonder if there is in fact hope in the 1984 world.

    The Proles serve as a memory of how life was, they are the only ones who are truely free in that world. They can do as they wish they are not concerned with the party, they could care less. They are affected and pushed down by the party but besides being poor and hungry they live happy normal lives. They can sing, they can dance they can be happy they dont have to smile when they are sad.

    They are not under control if they so choose they COULD rise up and take over the whole country, the problem for Winston, et al. Is that the proles see no reason to do so. They are not concerned with party matters so they see no reason to get rid of it, for them the party is purely symbolic. They are happy, they have families and are kept busy by the with their lottery games and such so that they wont rise up. The party keeps them free for its own existence, prole happiness is essential for the parties survival.

    But the existence of the proles, and the lives they lead. Being able to marry whoever they want and do whatever they want, etc. Is I think what made Julia realize there is more to life, that woman should be woman, and men should be men not commrades that everyone has the right to sing, to wear dresses and make up, to sleep in a warm dry bed to have privacy.

    Its true that fear keeps people from doing anything about this feeling they get, but the fact that it is there in the 1984 world shows that there is still hope that humanity still exists that the dream is still alive, whether or not the passing of time would shut out that possibility is hard to say, whether or not humanity will still exists 20 years from 1984 when Newspeak is the only language and the everyone is a mindless sheep is hard to say, but if there is any hope it does lie in the proles!

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4
    Nice thoughts, and I have to say I pondered over most of them. However, your notion of Julia is not too convincing. From what I can see, Orwell introduced the element of hope into 1984 to engage the reader. However, if you read the book carefully, (which I'm sure you have done,) the Party seems to know everything about everybody, even their thoughts. This is reflected when O'Brien seems to know everything Winston is thinking. Therefore I think the Party voluntarily let Julia go for a while, just as Mr. Charrington let Winston off for a while. In the end, the Party gets Julia even though she is still young and may still serve as a bait to thought criminals. You can see this in Julia because she is no longer the youthful, witty character she once was before she was tortured. The Party does not need bait. The Party probably kept Winston and Julia momentarily because it needed their services. Hope may lie in the proles, but there is almost no chance of them revolting. Orwell is warning us that once a totalitarian rule is established, it will be impossible to bring down. Therefore we should keep this in mind so we can overpower potential "Parties" before they estaablish their reign.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    109

    Julia

    OK, I see what you guys are both saying about Julia being bait for thought criminals, but why would Winston be the one thought criminal that would end Julia's carrer as bait. What would make him different than other thought criminals? In other words, why do they decide to catch Julia this time instead of leaving her out there as bait, if that is what they have been doin in the past?

  4. #4
    L'artiste est morte crisaor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Stuck inside a cloud
    Posts
    1,405

    Re: 1894: What do you guys think of this?

    Quote Originally Posted by WinstonSmith
    [The Proles] are the only ones who are truely free in that world. They can do as they wish they are not concerned with the party, they could care less. They are affected and pushed down by the party but besides being poor and hungry they live happy normal lives. They can sing, they can dance they can be happy they dont have to smile when they are sad.
    They are not under control if they so choose they COULD rise up and take over the whole country, the problem for Winston, et al. Is that the proles see no reason to do so. They are not concerned with party matters so they see no reason to get rid of it, for them the party is purely symbolic. They are happy, they have families and are kept busy by the with their lottery games and such so that they wont rise up. The party keeps them free for its own existence, prole happiness is essential for the parties survival.
    Does this remind you of anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wanderer
    [The Party does not need bait. The Party probably kept Winston and Julia momentarily because it needed their services. Hope may lie in the proles, but there is almost no chance of them revolting. Orwell is warning us that once a totalitarian rule is established, it will be impossible to bring down. Therefore we should keep this in mind so we can overpower potential "Parties" before they estaablish their reign.
    That was the feeling i got when i reached the end of the book. My take on the classes of 1984 (party members and proles, basically), is that the party members are the ones monitored by the big brother because they KNOW what is going on, and the proles do not. Sure, most of the party members are subdued by the party's control and propaganda, but not all of them are loyal (Winston and Julia, for example) and those who are, end up vanished or taken to torture anyway (Syme, Parsons). What I think Orwell was trying to say is that the ones who know what is going on in the world (intellectuals, wise people, call them whatever you like) are the really dangerous ones, while the proles (the 'average' people, if you will) are nothing but cattle that can be hearded towards submission. Winston believed that the proles were the only hope, but in the book, the only 'rebelion' against the BB comes from Winston and Julia, members of the party.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    5
    yes julia did sleep with alot of men but i don't believe that she was bait put out by the thought police, yes i do think that they let her go on breaking the "law" but the reason that they decided to capture her on this last adventure and 'end her career' was because she was actually participating in the revolt against Big Brother as opposed to just sleeping with guys she is now part of the revoltion which would be reason enough to capture her on that last endevor
    :-p ava :-)
    don't hate me
    because im
    beautiful

  6. #6
    King of Plastic Spoons imthefoolonthehill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lost in my own incoherence
    Posts
    2,378

    .

    Ever since I first read 1984, I wondered at the intentions of O'Brien... Was he truly and deeply devoted to the party? Or was he simply trying to save his own skin. How could you look more loyal than if you were constantly turning in true dissenters? Did He hate Big Brother too?

    I thought the same about Julia.... was she just a spy? Was winston truly the only one who thought of Big Brother that way?

    I also wondered at how Oceana (or am I getting books mixed up) was bombing itself? What if there was no such thing as Eurasia and (whatever the other one was called)? What if they were simply there for the purpose of propeganda? If there is a war going on, then people won't be so worried about their individual well-being. Then again, they did switch enemies a couple of times.... Or maybe the three supercountries lived in an essential peace... switching enemies ever now and then so that the people in one country aren't always tired of being against EVERYONE.... it would be only fair....

    It's been a while since I read the book... so some of these subjects might have already been brought up (perhaps by the book itself) I can't remember.
    Told by a fool, signifying nothing.

  7. #7
    Yeah, some of these topics were brought up by the book. O'Brien is definitely devoted completely to the Party. If you remember, the book says that the people who believe most stringently in the Party and its principles are the extremely high-ranking Party members. In other words, the more intelligent the person, the more mindlessly he/she believes in BB and Ingsoc (doublethink.)

    I don't think that Julia is a spy of any sort. She doesn't have much knowledge of the inner workings of the Party...and quite frankly isn't interested in the 'how' and the 'why' of the Party's control (she falls asleep during Goldstein's book). Secondly, I don't think that the Party sets her up as bait for thought criminals. Julia rebels simply because she hates what the Party stands for and the way they impose on her sense of free will. The Party may have known for a while that she was a thought criminal, although Orwell never says this. There isn't really a method to how long they allow her to stay free, though. O'Brien says that they always catch thought criminals...and once they do, you may be shot a week or several years after you've been "rehabilitated."

    Lastly, the three superpowers are not really in an all-out war with each other. If there is any real fighting going on, it is in the border regions with the slave-like people that constantly come under the control of one of the three powers. It is only for the power of these border lands that the countries fight, because they (the superpowers) are themselves unconquerable. This is the only reason that the enemy ever changes from Eastasia to Eurasia. And yes, they are in a perpetual state of peace, because by waging constant war, the Party is free to impose anything they want on the minds of their subjects. Hence the Party slogan, "War is Peace."

    The people of Oceania won't ever get tired of being against one enemy, because by the principles of doublethink, the enemy has never changed. The current enemy has always been the enemy. Oceania will always swallow what the Party tells them.
    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    --Aristotle

  8. #8
    King of Plastic Spoons imthefoolonthehill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lost in my own incoherence
    Posts
    2,378
    excuse me, you are correct. :-)

    er... in the part that says that Julia is not a spy of any sort.... at the time of my other post, I was only about 1/3 of the way through the book (my second time around) and I had forgotten almost everything...

    "the more intelligent the person, the more mindlessly he/she believes in BB and ingsoc [was it ingsog... I am not trying to be petty and correct errors... but I trully can't remember... ingsog looks familiar, but ingsoc looks more logical - english socialism-...] (doublethink)"

    In a way, all the extremely intelligent people are killed off... aren't they?

    perhaps on a scale to 100% something like 85%+ are killed, 60-84% are able to survive and adapt, and anyone else is put to menial work??? I am probably wrong... just a thought... and it is nice to talk about this subject again after so long...


    You were right about Julia though...

    Oh and all that about war... I think you are mostly right and I am pretty much completely wrong..... once again... I was 1/3 way through the book... and now it is getting fuzzy again.... almost 2 months after I read it ... or was it 1 month.... ah... the largest luxery of summer vacation is the inability/lack of need to remember what time it is/was/ will be...
    Told by a fool, signifying nothing.

  9. #9
    I know what you mean, trust me...I just reread my earlier post and was shocked at how much I used to know about that book! That's sad...I've read it twice! :oops: Oh, and it's Ingsoc, short for English socialism.
    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    --Aristotle

  10. #10
    String Dancer Shea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,931
    Ok,... I'm going to gingerly step in here, because 1984 is the first Orwell book that I've ever read. It stirred up a lot of interesting points for me and that is why I was interested enough to read the whole thing. I was enjoying the story. But, :oops: please forgive me :oops: after I read the ending... I hated it! I'm sorry!! I guess the romantic side in me wanted the proles to break loose and restore human rights.

    Anyway, since I enjoyed most of it I just wanted to comment on Julia being used as bait. I would have to agree that that is what her purpose, though unknowingly, was. But to answer the question that apstudent posed, Winston ended her career because she fell in love with him. Or did I over look where she might have loved anyone else?
    Hwt! We Gar-Dena in geardagum,/eodcuninga rum gefrunon,/hu a elingas ellen fremedon!
    Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,/ monegum mgum, meodosetla ofteah,/ egsode eorlas, syan rest wear/ feasceaft funden; he s frofre gebad,/ weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah,/ ot him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra/ofer hronrade hyran scolde,/gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!

  11. #11
    No, I don't think she ever loved anyone else. That's a good point, I didn't think of that before, but it makes sense. Although, if she were being used as bait, they still could have just taken Winston and left her to lure other unorthodox fishies...
    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    --Aristotle

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3

    Wow

    Its been awhile since I was last here I was surprised to still see this thread at the top. I forgot I had made this post and remember just today to come back and take a look. I was hoping for some interesting and intelligent replies and I got exactly what I wanted. The Julia situation is definitely a paradox, one could literally go insane attempting to contemplate the workings of Big Brother and exactly what the master plan is and how it is executed.

    Orwells message was very well put in 1984, I agree completely with its warning and not a week goes by that passages don't flash in my mind when I read/watch the news. Its the one book I have ever read that made me paranoid. I have to agree with a lot of people when they say the romantic part of me hoped for a happy ending, but the ending Orwell wrote was I think, intended to send chills down your spine. And it worked.

    The hero lost, there was no hope. NEVER let this happen.

    It is after all a very dire warning and one that should never be taken lightly. In fact the only point in the entire book that I even questioned was Orwells statement that power is an "end not a means" while it is definitely possible I come from the "all roads lead to happiness" school of thought. I don't necessary mean "happiness" in the sense a child might know it. But rather personal satisfaction. Meaning every choice you make, every "means" that is established is a quest for personal "happiness." Nobody becomes rich for the sake of being rich they become rich to achieve happiness.

    Whether that happiness is achieved through material possessions, marriage, popularity or simply power is a matter of personal preference but I have always believed people desire power as a means of achieving some sort of personal satisfaction that comes along with it. The ultimate "ends" if you will. But once you have that end, maintaining power becomes essential to maintaining that "happiness" that comes with it.

    In my theory the ranks of the upper class and perhaps Big Brother himself wish to maintain that status quo and thus use power as a means to maintain that end. When you get down to it isn't "stamping on a human face" what makes Big Brother happy? That control, that power over the masses floats his boat one way or the other, otherwise there would be no drive to continue, no reason to maintain the status quo and social structure.

    Now the question is did Orwell associate power with happiness? Does the party see these two as one? I suppose it does go without saying that Big Brother would obtain one through the other. Or did Orwell simply stop short in his trail of thought?

    For instance, people who are deeply in love often believe all roads lead to love, that all humans on this planet spend our lives looking for love, looking for a mate. While single folks on the other hand (especially us guys) will often disagree and say its all about procreation or sex, that we have a drive to multiply and that love is simply a means to get sex. Which may be true in the workings of nature, where survival is the ultimate end.

    But in the modern world, where humans are overpopulated and the threat of danger is at a minimum. From a psychological view point, I believe we are looking for something more. That we are in a way, reward seekers.

    After all aren't power, love and sex. All means to a greater end?

  13. #13

    Re: Wow

    Now i'm through the book. That's why I was very interesting what others think of it. I must say that I take this book in another way, that you do. When i started to read it i was shocked by the author's knowledge of the life in the USSR many years ago! But when i saw the year when the book was published I was more than shocked! In every page, in every detail, in all description I guess the reality of that life. This book was forbidden for a long time here, now it's translated and available. But for me it's not so hopeless since we were able and strong enough to stay 'people' but not a crowd, and now I know for sure that no Big Brothers, no Parties, no orders can exist.
    The book are very impressive, and very wise. It describes the world not just 'What if...' but 'Oh my God, what if....!' The mankind has much to learn through such books.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 09:21 PM
  2. one guy's opinion
    By gene in forum The Age of Innocence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  3. hi guys
    By Sexy in forum As You Like It
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  4. MACABRE (hey guys!)
    By Kendall in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-26-2004, 04:50 PM
  5. Hi guys...iam new here...
    By the mooring in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-22-2004, 04:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •