What the book's about

[stevewilkesuk]

Put simply, 1984 is a satire of Western society and government. Animal Farm was a satire of Soviet 'communism', and 1984 is a satire of the other side in the Cold War.

The book has at its base many of the features of modern society, just carried to extremes. For example:

1. One-sided, right-wing corporate news evolves into the Daily Hate
2. How the West supports people like Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot is forgotten as soon as they have out-lived their usefulness (the memory hole at work)
3. Language is controlled - meaningless terms like 'Anti-American' are accepted and commonly used, laws passed to undermine the rights of people and make huge amounts of money for mutlinationals are called 'reforms' and 'liberalisation', here in the UK we have a 'defense' budget which we spend on troops and weapons we use to attack people, and so on.

I see the book as a warning of where we will end up if we allow things to carry on as they are.

[markesp]

Contrary to what some reviewers believe, 1984 is not about Western society. The elements of manipulation that Orwell wrote about are present in all modern societies, but they are not the product of capitalism or the West. The one party world of Oceania and the use of propaganda to control the masses are both characteristic elements of communist regimes. In fact, 1984 and Animal Farm are not satirizing a specific type of society per se, but rather an evolution of totalitarian control. Totalitarianism grows from leftism, the belief that greater government control will somehow benefit society. Therefore, the more capitalist countries are further from this future than the others.

[stevewilkesuk]

Thanks for replying. As you'd expect, I don't agree.

Orwell wrote an introduction to Animal Farm (you can read it here: http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html - Orwell himself says it's about the Soviet Union) in which he spoke about censorship in England. The difference between censorship in the West and in totalitarian regimes is that in the latter the censorship is obvious and the people being censored are bothered by it (like the animals on Animal Farm), whereas in the former the controls are far more sophisticated and censorship is voluntary - the people involved don't even realise they're being controlled (like the people of 1984).

These are two very distinct types of control practised by two very distinct types of government, and are both very cleverly written about by Orwell in Animal Farm and 1984 respectively. 1984 is not about any old totalitarian regime, it is about the way thought and opinion is controlled in the West. The fact that you deny that just goes to show how sophisticated the West's controls are.

[catman]

Well put, Steve!

[cls2084]

I had to read 1984 for my high school senior English class. When I was told what the book was about, I thought that it would be boring and I would not get into it at all. Half way through the first chapter, I was hooked. I love this book.

I do believe what Steve said about this book being about western society with censorship. I am from the United States and I see signs of censorship everyday. More and more government agencies are restricting more and more things in this country. In 1984, people did not know that they were being controlled because no one really remembered the time when they were free. I do not know alot about eastern societies, but I am pretty sure that in other counties censorship controls what people think and do alot more than in the US. What I mean is, in the US government is trying to contol people through censorship in a way that the people do not realize it is happening. Their idea is to gain control over everything we do by not letting on that they are doing it. Atleast that is how I see it. I think that in other countries that do not have as much freedom, the government controls what it wants inorder to make sure people stay in line. However, I also see that in the US, people seen to be more willing to give somethings inorder to keep others. I don't think that some countries in the world would be so willing because of the fact that their country may not have alot to give up to censorship. (If that makes sense to you all)

There are several books that show different worlds and how they were censored. A Brave New World, Fahreheit 451, Animal Farm, etc....all of these are examples of what the world may be like in the future, which is scary but I think we have to accept it. Accept it unless you are willing to do something about it, instead of agrue the points of the books.

If 1984 is the vision Orwell had of the future world in the 1940s, then I say he was right. Our world is not to that extreme, but it is well on it's way!

[stevewilkesuk]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply, just thought I'd say a bit more to clarify where I am on this.

People in the West are more free than, say, in Soviet Russia. No doubt about it, that's not even a discussion.

The point with Western vs 'Eastern' methods of population control is that because a wider range of opinion and freedoms are tolerated by the powers that be in the West (for instance, we can openly talk about this on the internet - we'd have a far trickier time of it trying to do so in China), the majority of people over here are probably completely unaware that censorship exists, and because of that they'll fight to defend their system far more readily and voluntarily than in a more openly totalitarian regime.

This makes the controls in the West far more affective than those in the East - people don't even know the controls exist.

To illustrate my point, when Oprah showed a video of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein and shaking his hand, her audience couldn't believe their eyes - they audibly gasped. So ingrained is the idea that we in the West are 'the good guys' that it goes without saying that we don't help and do business with mass murderers. Because that goes without saying, we can help and do business with mass murderers without fear of repercussion.

[Logos]

Hello stevewilkesuk, welcome to the Literature Network forums. :)

I know it may be difficult for some to discuss 1984 without referring to specific current political idealogy, but it is possible. Please see the below linked forum topic in regard to discussion of current politics on this site, such as mention of Saddam Hussein, United States foreign policy, etc. etc.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2982

[ArcherSnake]

Very interesting. I have to read this book again (I've already read it quite a few times; it's one of my all time favorites), so thank you for the insight. :D

[mike.terlizzi]

Steve Wilesuk,

I would really like to know about this very sophisticated "censorship" that goes on in the U.S. The Rumsfeld example was pretty weak, seeing as that it was on Oprah. If the government was trying to hide something and Oprah dug it up, well, how low we shall have sunk.

Was seeing Rumsfeld with Saddam a shocker to many people? Probably. Is it because of censorship? No. It's due to the intellectual apathy of most Americans. The U.S., while I feel a source of good in the world, has definitely done some regrettable and shady things, particularly in the last 60 years. (South America etc etc) Most are examples of proxy wars with the Soviet Union, where the U.S. was fighting off communist aggression rather than looking to expand its territory. Some would disagree with me, obviously. But we can get on the internet and present our disagreements, have a debate in a hall somewhere, yell about it in a bar or not voice our opinions at all and instead go turn on the baseball game and drink awful beer. The government could not care less so long as you pay your taxes. So as far as this “Orwellian Western Society” goes - I would like an example, not broadly stated high minded nonsense. I want one example of the government trying to censor or otherwise muzzle the self expression of the people and were not stopped by public outcry or law itself. As far as Steve goes in his very misguided interpretation of Orwell:

“1. One-sided, right-wing corporate news evolves into the Daily Hate.”
First the government would have to control the media. We aren’t even close. If that were true, the NY Times would not exist and Woodward and Bernstein would be mentioned in the same breath as Jimmy Hoffa. Are right wing outlets more prone to fall in line with the government? Of course it is, at the moment anyway. In the 90’s, during the ridiculous sideshow that was “Monicagate” those right wing news outlets were the “government’s” worst enemy. Is our media not a ratings driven whore? No way. Are they always accurate? Hardly. Did they ask the obvious and most pressing question during the lead up to the war in Iraq: “What if, though unlikely, the evidence that we, the UN, the G8 Summit, Russia and the UK all have is wrong, and there aren’t any weapons? What if Saddam is denying inspections to make it look as though he has weapons so as not to tip off his harmlessness to neighboring and potentially hostile countries, like Iran? If we invade and there are not any weapons, how does that make us look to the rest of the world?” That’s the question I wanted asked, but it never happened. In any case, our media is the most independent of any nation. Hell, our reporters have so much freedom they can just make **** up and get away with it.

“2. How the West supports people like Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot is forgotten as soon as they have out-lived their usefulness (the memory hole at work)”

No, it’s not the “memory hole”, that’s just life. You ally yourself with people if it benefits you. Some of them are bad people whose temporary alliance benefits the greater good. And yes, by the greater good I mean “The U.S.A.”

3.) 3. Language is controlled - meaningless terms like 'Anti-American' are accepted and commonly used, laws passed to undermine the rights of people and make huge amounts of money for mutlinationals are called 'reforms' and 'liberalisation', here in the UK we have a 'defense' budget which we spend on troops and weapons we use to attack people, and so on.

Wow, Steve. Listen to yourself, you sound like an angsty 15 year old about to write his first poem.

What is meaningless about the term “Anti-American?” When Ward Churchill suggests harming US troops, that is Anti American. The very notion of socialism is anti-American. Farenhiet 9/11 – that’s NOT anti American, it’s a movie. Burning a flag? That’s Anti American. Shipping jobs overseas so that cheap labor lines your pockets and factory towns go broke? Anti American. It’s not a made up word.

Next thing – which law specifically “undermine(s) the rights of people and make huge amounts of money for multinationals”

And in your UK, why do you put quotes around “defense budget” and then seem bewildered that the “defense budget” is spent “on troops and weapons we use to attack people.” That’s what a defense budget is for.

Finally, you see things in the west turning into 1984? Orwell’s vision did come close to existing, but it was in the USSR and Eastern Europe. It never existed in reality as harshly as it did in Orwell’s books, but Orwell was afraid the west was moving towards that sort communist/socialist ideology. Though I hate to get partisan, it is modern liberalism (and not the liberalism of, say, JFK) which more closely resembles the manifestation of Orwell’s fears. Orwell knew that through good intentions a government can grow too large and begin to oppress its citizens. LBJ’s “Great Society” was an example of this idea that the government can make life good for everyone. It can’t, only the individual can do that for himself

Are there elements of this in our government? Absolutely. TV channels cannot show caskets returning home from Iraq. Most recently there was that disturbing ruling of the courts wherein the government can now take private property over at will. So if the Hiltons want to build a hotel somewhere, they can shell some money over to the local government and take the home of an average working citizen.

That said, there is no society that protects people's freedoms more than the US. We are the first country to embrace the idea that a country's government is beholden to its citizens, that it has no other power but from the people. Does it always work out perfectly? Of course not, it's a big country. But if the government was trying to control us in the fashion referenced in some of the above commentaries, there would be a journalist or researcher out there to catch it, write a book about it and make lucrative appearances on news shows across the country.

Are there many tings in our history we should not be proud of? Of course. But how many good people have done bad things in their life? The government is made up of people, warts and all. (That’s why it’s so important to keep it small. I can screw up my own life, I don’t need the government doing it for me.) The misdeeds of the past are not fun to remember. I didn't even know about the WWII Japanese internment camps until late high school. But such information is out there for anyone who wants it. Most people don't want it. That's not censorship, just ignorance. That's what happens in an affluent society such as the US, people are busy on Ebay and not probing into more important things. But those deals on Ebay are hard to resist.



If Orwell saw that his visions of the future were compared to the west, he would roll over his in his grave. Consider the following quote.

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

It's more relevant that you would think. If there were three people that I would want to have a massive media session/colloquium it would be FDR, Orwell and Reagan. You know Orwell and FDR would be hammered for the whole thing.

[stevewilkesuk]

Ok, I've just written a frickin massive reply, but I can't post it because

1. It's too long for the forum and it's WAY too long for a private message.
2. We're not supposed to be talking politics on this forum anyway.

Send me an email at stevewilkesuk_at_yahoo.co.uk if you're interested.

Dammit, I spent ages writing that!

[Sitaram]

Sorry to hear you lost a long reply. Here is what I do to prevent such losses.

I open Microsoft Word (or you may use notepad or doc, but Word helps me with the spell checker)

I begin to write a long post in this Forum's QUICK REPLY box, but after I get a few paragraphs, I copy and paste it to Word, and then post my reply. Then, I use Word to check my spelling and make corrections. Next, I EDIT my post on the forum, and if necessary, past it over with the corrected text from Word. I frequently go back and forth between Forum EDIT and Word. As a post reaches the allowed limit, I make a second post as a continuation. Since I have a website, I also have the option to put a url to a page at my site, and place lengthy quotations, or SPOILERS on that url page.

Private messages are quite limited in length. I usually ask the person I want to write to for their actual email address, so I may avoid such limitations.

There have been circumstances where it was necessary for me to communicate at length but only through this forum's PM, and in those special cases I had to break the correspondence into 10 or 15 separate messages.

[krishna]

Firstly, I like to point out that 1984 was indeed about a totalitarian society. The crucial point - and this is the reason why it is such a great novel - is that the novel describes in a ruthless and magnificent literary setting just what a totalitarian society means. This was the foremost purpose of the novel. It does NOT make any statement about which of the prevalent political philosophies is likely to bring about such a state of affairs.

So there are two issues. As far as I am concerned the most important aspect about any novel is its literary excellence. In this, 1984 has few equals. About this there does not seem to be any conflict of opinions. But I thought I would just spell it out.

The other one - which became the point of this thread - is the political relevance of 1984 in the real world. In short, which of the political movements is going to induce more totalitarainism? Well, here inevitably one takes the stand appropriate to his or her own political philosophy. I intentionally avoid any mention of my own conviction here. Neither is that the point of these forums nor is any amount of discussion likely to settle this issue.

On the other hand, there does exist one issue which can be settled by some research - what did Orwell himself have in mind? Only way to determine that is to study his works. My own assessment (based on a non-exhaustive study) is that Orwell was a fierce anti-leftist. I look forward to more considered opinions on this.

[lourai*87]

If 1984 is the vision Orwell had of the future world in the 1940s, then I say he was right. Our world is not to that extreme, but it is well on it's way!

It has been said that Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a prophecy. It is not a prediction of what will happen in the future. As the first poster mentioned...it is a warning. You see, Orwell utilised his own experiences to write this book. He need not prophecise - everyhitng which he wrte about already happened: Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, British Socialism...

Moving on, does anyone know of any decent links for chapter summaries? Ive had a look around and can't seem to find too much.

[winston]

In fact, the book was read at "face value" when it was released: B.B. a handsome guy with fatherly features and a big dark mustache; everyone recognized Stalin in 1949. A small bearded guy with a jewish name, everyone recognized Trotsky. But what makes this book one if not the greatest of the whole 20th century, is that it depicts a kind of power now acknowledged by a lot of our leaders (though they'll never admit it so bluntly): power for power itself, without looking for explanations like: we're obliged to behave like that but it's for your own good, you'll thank us later. O'brien says it (I quote from memory): "Why do you think a system based on evil should not perpetuate itself" our ultimate target is the power for power's sake, and people shall be more and more unhappy, yet with the doublethink process your generation if she thinks correctly will always agree that Oceania produces more goods, that their lodgings are improving etc... and with the newspeak in 1 or 2 generations, they'll be no more words to express concepts as freedom, happiness and so on, the language will be our ultimate weapon.
He says then, and that's a very known quote: "If you want an idea of how the future will look, imagine a boot crushing a man's face, forever".
This book is still so accurate nowadays because the people who have seized the power or who are willing to seize it don't give universal happiness as an excuse. The've got an agenda and it's all that counts.

[winston]

The exact quote one more time: 'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.

'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.'
Alarm bells are ringing all around, newspeak's here, telescreens are here (through TV and WWW in my opinion), doublethink's here (WMDs, a useful state of war, name your topic), the proles are here (85% of the population kept in a state close to dullness and considered as sub-humans).
The list is long but the stage set is so different. Orwell must be read (and not only his two most famous books) and re-read, he's one of the few immortal writers ( until INGSOC or I-don't know-what-its-name-will-be conquers the power).
6079 Smith W.

[stevewilkesuk]

Just to say I sent mike.terlizzi a reply answering each of his points from his post above over a week ago, and I've rather disappointingly not had a response from him.

Just in case anyone still believes 1984 is not about the West, Winston Smith lives in London, for crying out loud! The 1984 world map:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html#map

...quite clearly shows Oceania covering the UK, US, Australia and Southern Africa. Apart from the latter (which I assume was included because of colonialism) these countries have worked as a unit ever since the end of WWII.

Oh, and while I'm here, communist dictatorships like Stalin's were not 'the extreme left'. The extreme left is having no centralised government whatsoever. Dictatorships are in fact the extreme right. I mean, is anyone going to try and argue the Nazis were extreme leftists?

[brucee63]

Steve,

I believe you are stating that Western society lead to a form of Totalitarian government as found in 1984. Orwell chose a form of government to precede INGSOC as any author would need to develop the story. I believe that choice to be arbitrary based on Orwell's own comments -

Part II Chapter IX
'There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself.'

The same way that Orwell explains how INGSOC could be overthrown would be the identical as how it could come to power in my estimation. If not, the entire passage makes no sense at all (not logically correct). I don't read Orwell's statement as precluding any form of government from being a precursor to INGSOC. Do you?


I will play devils advocate for a minute however. The only basis I can see for thinking that a Western society may be more likely to spawn INGSOC would be fact that an overthrowing class might not be likely to put a similar form of government in place to that which they are overthrowing. And being that INGSOC is Socialist that would lead one to believe that it could only come about a failed Capitalist economic system, which are inherently Democratic.

This would be a reasonable argument to me why Orwell might choose Oceania after World War II. He might have just started with the idea of INGSOC and worked backwards. Just recognize that INGSOC is SOCIALIST, 1984 is about a SOCIALIST / TOTALITARION system of government, not a CAPITALIST / DEMOCRATIC one.

My first reading of the book today, great book! Up there with 'Brave New World' in my mind.
2+2=4
B

[stevewilkesuk]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your reply, which I was glad to see was both articulate and intelligent. Hurrah!

First off, I'm not "stating that Western society leads to a form of Totalitarian government as found in 1984". I see 1984 as a satire on the Western way of doing things (especially population control), based on exaggerations of structures, processes and institutions which were there when Orwell wrote the book and which remain to this day, having in fact moved closer to the book itself.

The passage you quote does exclude some forms of society - extreme leftist forms with no central government, no ruling classes and no excess heirarchies. A ParEcon, for example.

I have to disagree with your statement that a Capitalist system is "inherently Democratic". To me 'democratic' means that things are run for the benefit of the general population, while 'capitalist' means that things are run for the benefit of industry - without exception a privileged few.

Dictionary.com defines 'socialism' like so:

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively OR by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy" (emphasis added)

It seems to me that the two states of "the means of producing and distributing goods" being "owned collectively or by a centralized government" are actually mutually exclusive, because a centralized government will always disposses its population in favour of private and powerful interests, as seen everywhere in the current world. The government in 1984 is therefore clearly totalitarian, but that fact means it can't be said that it's socialist. I therefore think it's over-simplifying it to say that a socialist / totalitarian society (a contradiction in terms) must have replaced a capitalist / democratic society (another contradiction in terms - you may argue that we currently live in capitalist democracies as it is, but try telling that to the 50% of people who don't see the point in voting, or the 75% of people who don't vote for the person who gets into power).

To sum up, I don't believe 1984 is about the future. I think 1984 is a satire of the present. And as time goes on it becomes more and more brilliant.