Literature Network » George Orwell » 1984

1984


Advanced Search

(pub. 1949)





Webmaster's Note, 5/10/2007 - We have been informed by the rights holder that this work is still copyrighted in our territory. So we have removed it. You may still read our original summary though to the left.

Also commonly titled as Nineteen Eighty-Four

~

1984 is possibly the definitive dystopian novel, set in a world beyond our imagining. A world where totalitarianism really is total, all power split into three roughly equal groups--Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. 1984 is set in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One.

Winston Smith is a middle-aged, unhealthy character, based loosely on Orwell's own frail body, an underling of the ruling oligarchy, The Party. The Party has taken early 20th century totalitarianism to new depths, with each person subjected to 24 hour surveillance, where people's very thoughts are controlled to ensure purity of the oligarchical system in place. Figurehead of the system is the omnipresent and omnipotent Big Brother.

But Winston believes there is another way.

1984 joins Winston as he sets about another day, where his job is to change history by changing old newspaper records to match with the new truth as decided by the Party.

"He who controls the past, controls the future" is a Party slogan to live by and it gives Winston his job, but Winston cannot see it like that. Barely old enough to recall a time when things were different, he sets out to expose the Party for the cynically fraudulent organisation that it is. He is joined by Julia, a beautiful young woman much in contrast with Winston physically, but equally sickened by the excesses of her rulers.

You will meet many recognisable characters, themes, and words which have become part of our everyday life as you read 1984. Where did Big Brother first appear? Certainly not on Australian TV! Written in Orwell's inimitable journalistic style, 1984 is a tribute to a man who saw the true dangers of historian Lord Acton's (1834-1902) statement: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Submitted by The Atheist.



~




Fan of this book? Help us introduce it to others by writing a better introduction for it. It's quick and easy, click here.

Please submit a quiz here.

Recent Forum Posts on 1984

Homework help please! Part 1 Chapter 1

I'm working on a study guide for my AP Class this year, and I'm just having difficulty. So you know, I'm not expecting anyone to do my work for me, if you could just give me a push in the right direction or confirm what I already have that would be nice. 1. What is the effect of the juxtaposition at the beginning of this section? Im confused about what is being juxtaposed. My first thought was Winston's frail body with the oversized Big Brother posters on the walls (menancing government, oppression, etc). Then I was wondering if it might be the blue overalls and what Winston describes as the "harsh blue sky" (again connecting the control of Big Brother over like...everything). 2. What is the effect of the anaphora in this sentence? "You had to live-did live, from habit that became instinct-in the assumption that every sound you made was overhead, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized". My problem is, I can't find the anaphora! We only studied when phrases are repeated, I noticed that the words "live" and "every" are repeated but I've read this sentence over and over and there doesn't seem to be any effect at all. 3. How is the paradox involved with the descriptions of the government ministries? I don't fully understand what a paradox is, if you could give a general definition and use this as an example that would be great. What I've got: Ministry Of Peace, support the war. Ministry of Truth, promotes slogans that are clearly not the straight truth. Ministry of Plenty, control the food - Winston has no food. Ministry of Love, controls punishments. Am I on the right track? 4. How is paradox found in the description of Victory Gin? What I've got: It's foul, and cheap but it makes Winston feel better? 6. What is the effect of the syntax in Winston's journal entry for April 4th, 1984? What I've got: It reads very rushed, gives off a feeling of anxiety. 9. Why doesn't the government ever capture Goldstein? No idea really, to keep the influence? 13. How does syntax reflect Winston's sexual frustration with Julia? Again, no idea. 15. What is the rhetorical effect of the word voluptuously? I apologize, but again, no idea.

Posted By Kimi at Wed 26 Aug 2009, 6:07 PM in 1984 || 2 Replies

Thought crimes today

I'm sure that hundreds of parallels have been drawn between 1984 and today's world... Beyond the obvious communism totalitarian regime parallel there have been many others to media, surveillance, corporate control etc... What I'm proposing is a much more disturbing parallel (at least to me), one that is quite clearly outlined in my mind but harder to convey in words, I'll give it a shot nonetheless and hope to get as much feed-back from you as possible :) There are no "thought-crimes" in any part of the world today, no laws to define them (but then again there were no laws in the world of 1984 either). But similar to 1984, similar to all totalitarian regimes, there is no need for laws... there is no need even for telescreens or surveillance, we have each other to serve as watchdogs. And to get willing watchdogs for a "system" all you need is their "orthodoxy" towards any particular system of belief, of thought, a paradigm watchdog if you will. A paradigm is in place today, as it was in any day. Any paradigm is in it's self a doctrine, a way of thinking and everything that goes against the current paradigm is in all effect "thought crime". To think different from what is generally accepted, to step outside of the invisible lines of doctrine and orthodoxy, and while 1984 describes an obvious world of terror, ours is a world of much subtler terror. Let me give a few examples of what thought crimes in our world would be: - there is no system that can possibly work, to create a system of society is to tacitly admit that there is something wrong with it and that it needs a system in place to make it work - sexuality is controlled, directed and made to have a similar effect as described in 1984, to create frustration that is then converted into productivity (by different methods though) - most (if not all) values that are held and respected in society are are control methods to produce desired behavior (he who promotes values aims to control behavior). Each and every relational reinforcement of values is in no way different than cheering over the "increase" in chocolate rations - violent crimes are in no way offensive but just a reflection of the system in which they happen, the system promotes and reinforces the need for violence and crime to justify it's own existence as peacekeeper, lawmaker, big brother in the shape of institutions (constant bombardment with crime through media plays the role of inducing fear and making people cling to the illusion of safety from institutions and also to promote crime as an existing and available tool for problem solving - opposite to Newspeak, instead of reducing the number of concepts it is adding concepts, adding solutions, even if they are dressed in a negative aura, there are no "negative concepts" once you become aware of one it enters your inner thought vocabulary) - War is never started by people but only by institutions, war is never fought by institutions but always by people - Overtly fighting the system puts you in jail (at best, if you're dealt with by the system) or can get you killed if you get dealt with by the watchdogs - Society is a construct it's self meant to facilitate production and abolish the individual (as much as possible). Well, I hope at least some of the above made you feel that I'm talking complete rubbish :)) That I'm not only wrong, but beyond wrong, saying something despicable, something that makes you cringe, makes you want to denounce me, lol. Or at least make you think that I'm insane... What I'm trying to achieve is to get you to feel your own "orthodoxy" being threatened. If it is, then you know it's there... There is no need for such an extreme dystopian representation as in 1984 to achieve the same effects. As long as people believe they have real choices, that they live in a world according to their expectations, then that world is perfectly acceptable, and "doublethink" takes care of any contradictions that may arise. One may ask very naively why in the world we are collectively fueling drug cartels, organized crime and international mafia through such simple methods as a law (or a small set of laws). How exactly are those laws serving their purpose ? Are they keeping drugs away from kids ? Are they in any way stopping drug use ? And the more money we throw at it, the more police, the more DEA's the more control the more it seems to grow and thrive... And still that law is orthodoxy to the minds of most people alive today. Questioning the law it's self that makes all the other things possible never occurs to anyone, and doublethink works perfectly. If the institution says so, then it is so, to think otherwise would be folly. And as only a few, selected brave get to die heroically on the Malabar front, we ourselves rejoice at all the wonders that we never get to use, touch or experience. We watch documentaries each day on Discovery about fighter jets and wonder at their agility and technology although we never get to fly one, and although their purpose is simply killing, they are weapons, just like a spiked club, and yet doublethink helps us marvel. If we ever where to "experience" an F16 it would be at the receiving end, and our marvel would suddenly turn to terror, but again doublethink helps us think they're cool. Whatever version of an acceptable "system" you may think of, it's not much different from 1984's version. 1984 is just a more obvious and less acceptable paradigm, the more the paradigm seems acceptable the more hold it has on us, the more orthodox we become about it. That's why communism or the Nazi regime where doomed from day one, most people would not accept the paradigm, it had to be enforced too openly. But the more the paradigm seems acceptable, the more we become little willing cogs in it's machine, abolishing our will in the name of righteousness, abolishing our thoughts in favor of teachings, punishing ourselves for thinking "bad thoughts". 1984 is in my view just an extreme version of an answer to a deeper underlying question, which is: how do we make "this" work ? "This" being society, "this" being human civilization, "this" being our way of life, our system, our (or their, or the party's) vision... 1984 is much more brilliant than it seems as it poses much deeper questions, it does not only constitute an "not like that" type of answer, but also goes to the more essential "but how?" question. What if there is no how ? Never was, never will be, never can be and the simple act of believing to be some way is the fundamental orthodoxy ? The fundamental lie that "the party" wants us to believe ? As long as we search for "the way" the party exists, it thrives, it can try new tactics... but what if demolishing the party means giving up the chase ? I'd love to hear your thoughts :)

Posted By stg213 at Fri 14 Aug 2009, 5:34 PM in 1984 || 4 Replies

Lack of bread and Revolution?

I was wondering if anyone could help me out with a section of 1984 I'm possibly misremembering. I seem to recal a discussion about how the proles are only ever moved to revolution when they have no bread, i.e. when they have no choice but to revolt if they want to survive. I've tried searching the text of the novel online but with little luck. Does anybody else remember this passage? And could anybody point me towards? It's always possible I've read this in another of Orwell's books or even melded it from two different passages (I did find a few lines about the Lows not being motivated to revolt by oppression alone for example) but if anybody could give me a definative answer either way I'd very much appreciate it :)

Posted By Fraser at Thu 23 Jul 2009, 9:12 AM in 1984 || 6 Replies

Pink Floyd and 1984

I recently viewed for the zillionth time Pink Floyd's The Wall. The scene with the fascist rally with Bob Geldoff singing "In the Flesh" reminded me of the 2 minutes hate in 1984. I also see some parallels between the character Pink and Winston Smith. Anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

Posted By ragdish at Tue 21 Jul 2009, 1:02 PM in 1984 || 5 Replies

The mainstream music in 1984.

In several passages of the book, Orwell reffers to the trendy songs in Oceania as simpleton and rubbish. The intentionally simple verses were made to pervade everyone's mind and stick to it for a long time. "It was only an 'opeless fancy. It passed like an Ipril dye, But a look an' a word an' the dreams they stirred! They 'ave stolen my 'eart awye!" The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub−section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. The driveling song seemed to have kept its popularity. You still heard it all over the place. It had outlived the Hate Song. Julia woke at the sound, stretched herself luxuriously, and got out of bed. Considering today's hit songs, with plain and meaningless verses everywhere, could that be another correct orwellian foresight?

Posted By The Lukewarm at Tue 7 Jul 2009, 6:12 PM in 1984 || 2 Replies

What the Hell?

I have never read such utter drivel in my life. Orwell has made up words, without proper definition, and the backstory simply makes no sense. London is continuously at war with one region or another, so what does the government do? they decide to turn the citizens of London into mindless automatons. How does that solve anything? And why didn't they just try and leave? It seems to Winston that the whole world revolves around his workplace. It sucks that I have to study this book for Unit 4. :flare:

Posted By Wattsini1 at Tue 30 Jun 2009, 8:08 AM in 1984 || 5 Replies

Iam the dead

I was wondering if anyone else thought that 1984 today is really the media

Posted By brett hooks at Mon 29 Jun 2009, 2:47 AM in 1984 || 2 Replies

Short info on the CCTV cameras in the Uk and around George Orwell's flat

I just learnt that within 200 yards of the flat where George Orwell wrote 1984 there are 32 CCTV cameras! That has totally shocked me! I am listening to a BBC radio 4 programme talking about privacy, and apparently the UK has 20 per cent of the amount of cameras there are in the world.... this is just crazy! And what makes it sad is that if George Orwell saw how it's turned out now, this big brother state, he would be so shocked that it's us that's mainly brought this about, a lot of people want them there.... Just thought people might be interested in what I have learnt today :)

Posted By SmileyBon at Fri 19 Jun 2009, 6:08 AM in 1984 || 5 Replies

Forced-labour camps

When he came back his mother had disappeared. This was already becoming normal at that time. Nothing was gone from the room except his mother and his sister. They had not taken any clothes, not even his mother's overcoat. To this day he did not know with any certainty that his mother was dead. It was perfectly possible that she had merely been sent to forced−labour camp. As for his sister, she might have been removed, like Winston himself, to one of the colonies for homeless children (Reclamation Centres, they were called) which had grown up as a result of the civil war might have been sent to the labour camp along with his mother, or simply left somewhere or other to die. Winston's mother and father disappeared in the mid 1950's, five years before the word 'Ingsoc' appeared. 'The two of them must evidently have been swallowed up in one of the first great purges of the fifties.' Presumably 'the party' had just overthrown the UK parliament and monarchy in a bloody coup, following nuclear world war. Labour camps were set up to isolate suspect citizens. Can we assume that Ampleforth, Parsons and Syme were sent to labour camps rather than destined to Room 101 and a bullet through the brain?

Posted By Gladys at Wed 17 Jun 2009, 7:55 PM in 1984 || 5 Replies

Just a deterrent?

Is the reason for the Inner Party's elaborate torture and token rehabilitation of thought criminals and worse, nothing more than an expensive way to deter future unrest within the Outer Party?

Posted By Gladys at Thu 11 Jun 2009, 10:48 PM in 1984 || 4 Replies

Post a New Comment/Question on 1984



Shakespeare wrote over 150 sonnets!
Join our Sonnet-A-Day Newsletter and read them all, one at a time.
Email:
As Seen In: USA Today "Hot Sites"