1984

(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.

--

As Winston said, even if you are a minority of one it does not make you wrong.--Submitted by Anonymous.

--

Winston Smith lives in a world very unlike the world of his forefathers. There have been atomic wars just thirty years in the past and some of his memories seem clouded as Winston is filled with doubt, almost as if the events did not happen at all. Winston feels he must put these thoughts down on paper or they will be forgotten forever. However,such a task is forbidden by the state controlled government. Winston decides to write his journal anyway. What transpires next in the novel is at the heart of what makes men able to exist with some degree of hope for the future. Winston's world is a very hopeless, unfriendly place.--Submitted by Tom Hickman.

--

Orwell provides compelling reasons for the people of the 21st century to, much as we did in the 60's, question authority. Winston holds these thoughts dear but because of how society has been allowed to evolve he must be careful with even his own thoughts. You'll go with him as he meets Julia and as, against all odds, develops a relationship. Surprises abound in this unique and, at the time it was written, futuristic look at a world that has allowed itself to be taken over by an entity that we know even today as Big Brother. You'll find yourself asking how this man who wrote the novel in 1948 could possibly have such foresight into what would evolve into the world as we know it today. Similarities between life as we know it and life as Orwell foresaw abound. The book will cause you to look around yourself and question the policies of our government and the policies of global governments and how they impact our daily life. Definitely a compelling read !--Submitted by Anonymous.

--

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

Recent Forum Posts on 1984

1984 characters' fates

What do you think happened to the other characters caught by the thought police? What happened to Parsons? He wasn't guilty of much unorthodoxy. He may have been happier in a labour camp than at home with his hateful kids. Why would the Party waste him when he could still be useful? Winstons assumes Symes was vapourised, but was he? Symes was not unorthodox, just indiscreet. Why would they vapourise Symes and not Winston? O'Brien presumably interrogated him. Symes, no doubt, denounced Winston, not that that would have made much difference. There was a poet named Ampleforth, who thinks he was arrested for not being able to bring himself to use an inadequate rhyme for 'God' in a poem. He must have been mentioned early in volume 1, but I don't remember him. He doesn't sound like he's guilty of very much. The party is so cynical they may well decide to execute Parsons, Symes and Ampleforth while keeping alive Winston because he is an interesting case. I wonder whether the party hadn't decided to have a bit of a clear out at the Ministry of Truth. Instead of making staff redundant, the party arrests them, interrogates them and either sends them to a labour camp or executes them. Julia sounds like she's going to live. The party knew all about her, but I doubt they would have brought her in except for Winston. They may have got around to her eventually, but she wasn't a priority. Julia's not very political. She mostly wants sex and intimacy.

Posted By kev67 at Wed 12 Sep 2012, 6:29 PM in 1984 || 0 Replies

1984 - the Chestnut Tree Café

What is the purpose of letting reformed thought-criminals be seen in the Chestnut Tree Café? In Vol 1 Ch 7, Winston remembers watching Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford, former leaders of the revolution, sitting at a table. They were sitting in silence, drinking gin with a chessboard beside them. Later on, Winston says, they were re-arrested and executed. This does not sound good for Winston. Presumably they will want his table before too long. He doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than to be observed there. It seems as though relatively few thought-criminals are given a table at Chestnut Tree. Neither Julia, Symes nor Parsons ended up there. Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford were high profile thought-criminals. Is Winston notorious criminal by the end of the book?

Posted By kev67 at Wed 12 Sep 2012, 9:08 AM in 1984 || 2 Replies

Owell and the class system

In Vol 2 Chap 9, Goldstein's book explains that throughout history there have always been three classes. In 1984 these are the proletariat, the party members and the inner party members. In the English speaking world, they are usually referred to as the upper class, middle class and working class. I am a bit vague who constitutes the upper class. In the UK they included the aristocracy, but I am not sure how far down the social scale they went. Did they include the gentry for instance? Presumably Mr Darcy and Mr Bingham from Pride and Prejudice were upper class despite not having titles. Miss Haversham in Great Expectations must have been close to upper class. Anyway, they were a small but very powerful minority due to their wealth. At the time that Orwell was writing, Britain was very concerned about class. I seem to remember it being said on the TV and radio that Britain was still too class-ridden in the 70s and 80s. This was often contrasted to the US which seemed to be regarded as a classless society. George Orwell described himself as lower-upper-middle class. Orwell confessed his discomfort about mixing with working class people in his non-fiction books. Still, I am not sure whether Orwell was correct in saying society can always grouped into three classes. There were more than three castes in the Indian caste system, for example. In the UK, the middle class seemed to comprise everyone from policemen and shopkeepers to those just below the aristocracy. Working class people seemed to include skilled workers who had traditionally undergone a long apprenticeship, to semi-skilled and unskilled factory workers, farm workers and servants, to the criminal and mostly unemployed underclass. In Great Expectations, Joe was working class even though he'd spent a long apprenticeship learning to be a skilled blacksmith, while his Uncle Pumblechook would have been middle class because he owned a seed shop. Magwitch would be considered working class for most of his life, although in reality he would have been in an under-class. I suppose a defining feature of the middle class is that their jobs involve processing information and therefore require an extensive education. A defining characteristic of the working classes is that their jobs require muscle power or manual skill. These jobs may require training but not so much education.The working class make, move or maintain things, not information.

Posted By kev67 at Sat 8 Sep 2012, 6:51 PM in 1984 || 8 Replies

Mr Charrington

I was wondering how he made enough money to live on. His shop never seemed to do enough trade. Was anyone else reminded of the shopkeeper in Mr Benn? (may not mean anything to anyone outside the UK or under 25)

Posted By kev67 at Sat 8 Sep 2012, 5:24 PM in 1984 || 0 Replies

1984 economics

In volume 2, chapter 9, Goldstein's book explains that the purpose of the war is to destroy the produce of everybody's work. Before mechanization it was not necessary because the majority of the population had to work so hard just to feed themselves. Only a small surplus was produced which could be acquired, one way or another, by the ruling elite. The Inner Party leadership do not want increased productivity made possible by mechanization to improve the prosperity of the masses, because they have cynically calculated that would threaten their position at the top of society. Similar processes have occurred in Eurasia and Eastasia and all three power blocks have established an understanding. They fight, but they do not genuinely try to defeat each other. I wonder whether this economic system would be sustainable long term. The closest regime I can think of to those described in 1984 is North Korea, but they have not actually fought a war with anyone for over fifty years (so far as I know), although they sabre-rattle a lot. I suppose you could argue that during the Cold War, a lot of industrial production was dedicated to armament manufacture, even though there was little direct fighting between the super powers. It's been said that military spending eventually broke the Soviet Union, especially after Ronnie Reagan upped the ante with the Star Wars project.

Posted By kev67 at Sat 8 Sep 2012, 5:02 PM in 1984 || 0 Replies

1984 geography

I've just started re-reading 1984. I read about three-quarters of it about thirty years ago when I was fifteen or sixteen, but gave up when I realised Winston was not going to escape and join counter-revolution and maybe even lead it to victory. One thing I was never quite sure of was who was fighting who. There are three great powers: Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Great Britain seems to have been renamed Airstrip One and is described as the third most populous province of Oceania. So which are the other provinces, America, western Europe? Is Eurasia the old Soviet block, and Eastasia, China? Quite a lot of Russia is in east Asia.

Posted By kev67 at Wed 29 Aug 2012, 1:17 PM in 1984 || 10 Replies

1984 assignment ideas?

Basically we have to write in the perspective of either winston smith to future generations in a diary format about " How I live" or Julia writing a letter to Winston on "How to Live" I have no idea which one is better, what do you guys think is the best one to talk about, im worried if i pick julia's i wont have enough to say, any ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Posted By faiint at Sat 26 May 2012, 5:36 PM in 1984 || 2 Replies

1984 based short film

Im a student and after being inspired by the book, we based a very short film off some ideas and themes from the book! if you have time please check it out and let me know what you think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDYAxoi8I80 Thanks everyone! :wave:

Posted By mortonfilms at Sun 29 Apr 2012, 1:00 PM in 1984 || 0 Replies

1984: Based On A True Story

It's been said before, and I'm going to say it again, and I'm going to say something you won't like. There are three nations in 1984: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. In the real world, it has recently been offered by the nation of Russia to combine all the previous parts of the Soviet Union to create a new "Eurasian Union." It hasn't happened yet, but it will. Europe will collapse and be conquered by them, but the U.S. and NATO will be able to defend the British Isles. They will have influence over all the nations in North & South America and Australia, and they'll do whatever they are told pretty much anyway. China will expand a little nearby as well. Oceania is a metaphor for the U.S. Eurasia is a metaphor for the Eurasian Union. Eastasia is a metaphor for the People's Republic of China. All people believe that the others' ideology is evil, but are never told how similar their own is. It is said in the book, something along those lines. "So, there you go," some people say, "1984 is simply the state of the world." And they are conspiracy theorists and they are happy. That's not what it is. It was said many times, it is perhaps the most significant part of the book, but it is rarely discussed. "Metaphysics is not your strong suit, Winston," O'Brien constantly says. Winston continually fights it, but O'Brien constantly tells him, "There is no reality outside of human consciousness. The Earth is as old as the Party. How could it not be...?" Et cetera. People will read this part, with a degree ridicule in their voice, but they avoid it. Everyone does. No one likes the fact that 1984 is a story. It's not a society, the book. It's a story about people in the society. Winston is the last human alive, and this is an extremely important part in 1984's world. The Party tried to destroy all humans, but suddenly, out of sheer chance, O'Brien seems to find the very last human. This is important. Winston is always looking for some meaning, something more. A significant point in the plot is that Julia does not share this meaning. Winston speaks with her about the piece of paper he had, but she seems uninterested. Does no one see this? It's important. At the end Winston had failed to convince Julia of its significance, but he was still convinced, and he was alone in that aspect. Another thing that you have to think of was when they met with O'Brien first, trying to join the resistance. Winston spoke for Julia. She didn't say anything. O'Brien asked whether the two of them were willing to committ this or that brutal inhumanity, and Winston invariably said yes, he would do it, and it would seem he would do it gladly. He answered the questions so quickly. No, he had no honor, he only wanted to win. Winston always wanted something more. He had such drive. He wanted no less than to topple the government. It wasn't practical, but he knew that it was the only goal to possibly get. He knew it wasn't likely, but he kept thinking there had to be a way, and it was in the proles, he kept saying. Allegedly the book that O'Brien undoubtedly gave Winston himself had a strategy involving the proles of how to win. O'Brien later says that it's absolutely ridiculous, hopeless. But it's not. It's advice. O'Brien contradicted himself. It's all that he needed to leave in Winston's head. When Winston met him to join the resistance, he could tell immediately that this man was different. He said he would give him the book in a little time. Why? Well, he's not omnipotent...he needs some time to write it. He's just a member of the Inner Party who works for the Ministry of Peace. When he said to Winston, "You are the last man alive," he said it with some admiration. It was not an insult, it was a statement. He was outside of history, he said. And they let him live. Why didn't they kill him? They always, always, always kill them. O'Brien seems to run the entire operation. He explains the entire system to him, says things that are beyond the average man's understanding. And yet always next to the guards, but they say nothing. They don't accuse him of crimethink. It's our advice again. He said that they want power for power's sake, even after Winston knew he wouldn't. Why though? Winston never did understand. Why do they want power? Big Brother is stupid. They want power, and they fully believe in the reality that they have imposed upon the people. That is why there is no monitoring what happens to Winston. Already captured, right? They are not human and they have gaps in their reasoning. When he is freed, he has a regretful conversation with Julia. He says at the end that he had simply lost sight of her, that perhaps she was not immediately recognizable from behind anymore, with the implication that he didn't care, he didn't love her anymore. This was just pretension, though. Big Brother is stupid. The elite believe in their own reality, they believe that Winston really doesn't love Julia anymore, or vice versa. But there's an intimacy to their conversation. They sold each other, and they talked, agreed that they could get to them. A friendly conversation, but you could tell, there was pretension in the air. The first thing he said was "I sold you," as though in greeting. It's not a greeting. They are ideological, to believe it's a sufficient greeting after what has happened, but it's simply not. It was over, after this conversation, in their ideology of greetings, it was no longer necessary to ever communicate again. But they obviously would. And when that happens, they will talk again, but there's nothing else to say. The pretension will fall, and they'll remember that they loved one another, and then betrayed one another. They will remember the perfect drama of it all, then they will smile and know it was pretension. They will see one another's pretension, and the intimacy will be so powerful. They will know each other through and through, know their pretensions, know their pretensions of pretensions, so much that it will be euphoric. They will laugh at the Big Brotherhood and their pretensions, that they thought they were cool in front of their friends for being so unabashedly evil just for power. They will laugh, "Power is useless" and then make sweet love all night. They were trying to be cool for their subjects, but they'll help the proles to see it just by their presence and then the whole world will be laughing at the idiotic fakeness of Big Brother. "But, we rule the world," they'll say, but the world won't care, they'll be too busy having fun. The Big Brotherhood will still have power over them, but they'll say, "Ha! We don't care." And Big Brother will frown and see that his ploy to be cool was not working. He'll see that he does not need all this power. The whole will laugh at him and write an appendix about the laughable Newspeak. In a laughable tone. Then they do not even bother to topple him or anything, and he will be sublimely displeased when he walks through the streets, everyone sees him and don't even hate him or care that he could kill them at any time. He won't kill all of them. Then Winston's parents come back to life and people write him a check for one million dollars. The End.

Posted By Prawn at Sat 14 Apr 2012, 6:42 PM in 1984 || 0 Replies

WHY doe the Inner-Party want POWER?

Towards the beginning of the novel, Winston says 'I understand how; but I do not understand why' This question plagued me during the entire book. Why does the Inner-Party or the higher-up oligarchy want to run the Big Brother system? What is in it for them? Towards the end O'Brian claims that the inner-party oligarchy wants power for the sake of power. That power is an END and not a means. Why do they want complete and utter power over people? Why put them through Room 101, why have helpless obsequious party-members running around. Why not just kill everyone off and live with with all the wealth? O'Brian says that 'they' are not doing it for opulence. But then again, 'they' get no glory for their power. Is it really that fulfilling to watch people be idiotic (proles), or watch people be fearful and dutiful (outer-party)? I still no not understand WHY.

Posted By Zuma at Thu 15 Mar 2012, 2:24 AM in 1984 || 1 Reply

Post a New Comment/Question on 1984

1984

(pub. 1949)

Related Links:

Quizzes on 1984

Recent Forum Posts on 1984