Overrated

[timpman386]

This book, and George Orwell in general, is over rated. Huxley's Brave New World is a far more interesting, and less predictable on the issues of a totalitarian system of government. I also reccomend "Darkness at Noon" for a very accurate look at what it was like to be a member of the Party that was eventually broken down by the system they had served.


You do not need to read Orwell's lectures, and long, drawn out treatsies on government. Read good literature.

[pigdog]

I think that 1984 deserves to be recognized as good literature largely because of its tone. I think that winston's place in the system is well articualted, and, despite some excess ramblings, Orwell does a good job going into some of the details that the reader can use to identify with the ideas he expresses. I don't see it as a belaboring book to read; I rather enjoyed gleaning some of the more subtle ideas the second time I read the book.
Even though it isn't the first dystopia, it has certainly had the most influence--for its impact alone it deserves to be placed in the category of "good literature" ... War of the Worlds was a boring read, but that doesn't significantly reduce its value as literature. There is a certain pleasure to be derived in knowing how styles, concepts, and cultural concepts gain influence on the way that people choose to see the world.

[imprudentica]

I disagree that 1984 is over-rated. The book, together with it's government and censorship terminologies, seems referred to far more often than Huxley's. It was also very insightful and moving when discussing the resolve and breaking point of the human spirit, and to what lengths a society might go to exert control over its members.

Some argue that Brave New World is more relevant than 1984, due to the fact that the world seems to be moving more in the direction of fascination with technology and pleasure-seeking, and the seeming decline of totalitarian regimes in the world. But, for one thing, this is a Western perspective, and may not be entirely accurate.

Russia is supposedly not a communist government, anymore. But, there are many credible and disconcerting reports about suppression of the press, freedom of religion and rampant corruption. China has a fifth of the world's population and is a communist, totalitarian country which many predict will rival the economic power of the US in the not-so-distant future.

Also, with the increase of terrorism in the Western world, it becomes more likely that civil liberties may be steadily removed in an effort to combat the threat. Religion is under fire, due to extremism and intolerance. Racial profiling has become almost necessary in identifying radical Islamists. When the Berlin wall fell, it became clear to me that the world can change, overnight.

I respect Huxley's vision as insightful, as well. But, I think that people who regard Brave New World as more relevant are being near-sighted and myopic. If Orwell's vision seems predictable, it's only because his book didn't spoon-feed the reader to show just how things became the way they are in the book.

[Zippy]

Huxley is without a doubt a good writer and Brave New World an entertaining read, but in my opinion he does not fit into the ‘Great Writer’ category as readily as Orwell.

1984 has a much further ranging influence than Brave New World – so much so that the book has been absorbed into mainstream culture. You would have to go far to meet someone who has not heard of ‘Big Brother’ or ‘Room 101’. And, of course, Orwell’s greatness doesn’t rest entirely on 1984. Animal Farm, The Road to Wigan Pier, Homage to Catalonia and my personal favourite, Down and Out in Paris and London, are all important social documents that have influenced countless people, and in some cases lead to actual social reform. Could Huxley say the same about his work? Apart from Brave New World what else has he contributed to the literary canon? Eyeless in Gaza? The Doors of Perception? Heaven and Hell? All good works in their own right, but lacking the force, the vital spark of greatness that is apparent in much of Orwell’s work.

If the sixties counter-culture hadn’t adopted Huxley as a sort of ‘drug-prophet’ I doubt his name would even be known today, whereas when you speak of Orwell you’re speaking of the twentieth Century itself.

[dimezlilsis2006]

1984 was George Orwell's predictions of what was going to happen to England in a few decades. It might have been predictable because it has happened...in a way. It was his views on what was going to happen while we are reading the book in teh 21st century knew what has happened because we've studied it. When 1984 was published no one knew how marxism and communism was going to turn out. Orwell was basing this off of Marx's published beliefs. So though you might find it predictable think about the people who read 1984 before it was the 1980's. I think Orwell wrote the book not only in a way to predict the future for England, but also as a warning and a big old **** you to the government.

[KimyReizeger]

Brave New World is the inferior story, far less engaging and likeable. I think a quality story is necessary even where writers have a 'point' to make. Huxley's is too bogged down in obvious political / moral damning; he makes a better essayist. Orwell's genius is in writing a ripping, accessible read that has serious political insight.