please please please help me!!

[hanasha]

im in year 11 and had to read 1984 as our english text. now i normally can read absoultly anything and enjoy it!! i read animal farm and liked it!! but this book was absolute hell!!! i just coulndt read it properly!! i seriously fell asleep reading it almost everytime!! it was just plain painful!! any way so now i have to da a text response on it.... the topic i chose was why should a book about the future that has past(1984) continue to alarm readers in 2006? discuss. but i just cant think of anything!!! someone please please please help me!!!

[GuardianAngel]

Have you finished the book?
Did you understand it?
George Orwell wrote the book in 1949. The author could've just as easily titled the book "2006", instead of 1984.
Perhaps the book is not about "the past", but the present.

Other terms which might help you:
- Fascism
- Oligarchy
- Totalitarianism

[Tiwoodford]

You might want to reconsider your choice of topic. The book is open to many different interpretations from the reasons behind newspeak to the lack of security around the proles. Your current topic will only be speculation and not anything that can be backed up.

[imprudentica]

I think the most important point the book makes, is the powers government may acquire under the pretense of protecting its citizens. One question you might ask yourself while reading the book is: "How many rights am I willing to give up in order for to be made more safe by my government?"

As a side note, my favorite quote in the book is when he tells Julia: "You're only a rebel from the waist downwards."

[mir]

because the world of today has many parallels to the one about which Orwell wrote in 1948. i mean, we have doublethink - a government that is becoming increasingly theological, and what is religion if not doublethink? keeping in mind the many contradictory stories mentioned in the bible, and yet beleiving all of them? and every leader and official has to practice doublethink; think about it for a minute and you'll get why. we have the upper, middle and lower classes just as much as in Orwell's book, and the same war sapping their resources; the same reason for people being in power - at least, i think - and our leader tried to do the same as Orwell's Party to stir people up about the war - demonizing the enemy, trying to make them seem like a big threat so that everyone would become unified against the "enemy" and ignore the bad situations back home. of course, that's all collapsing now, becasue we have too much independece of thought and no Hate Week to keep our anger strong; but it was the same idea. we have the people watching us in our homes - look at the whole scandal recently about the phone tapping! - and we even have, in part, the whole process of reformation that Winston went through. if you do something considered "crazy" - something that doesn't fit with the actions of everyone else, such as was a crime in 1984 - for example, standing up in the middle of a party and beginning to shout stuff about how killing is great and everyone in the world should die, somebody will probably call the police, and you'll get put in an insane asylum, which will try to "reform" you - and then release you, and if you act insane again, you could even get killed. but that's not the best comparison, so i wouldn't use that. we also have many of Orwell's proletariat situations. if a prole was too smart, smart enough to incite the people to rebellion or speak out for them, in Orwell's book, they were taken away by the thought police. in our society, if a "proletariat" is smart enough to speak out eloquently, to really possibly make a difference for their underpriveledged people, they first have to go to school in the middle class. they then become sort of absorbed in the middle class and no longer feel as stongly about fighting for the folks back home. and even if they do stay loyal, in order to get into a position high enough to make any difference, they have to fit into the schemes of a party composed mostly of the upper-class - the Republican or Democrat party, or some other benefactor. in order to make a change, they have to give up their resolution to make a change, and then it's all no good.

that's only a few of the things. people are worried about 1984 because they can see it in their own society, see the lethargy affecting America at least which could someday lead to the rising of something like the party. after all, Hitler came to power, and that shows just how easy it could be for something like that to happen again. try to find some aspects of society which could evolve into a situation like the one in 1984.

and sorry if this is completely redundant or stupid, becasue i don't think well on not enough sleep.

[mir]

whoa, i didn't realize that was so long. sorry . . .

[imprudentica]

I’m not sure what makes you conclude that the government is becoming more theological, because you didn’t support your accusation with any facts. I also wasn’t clear on what “contradictory Bible stories” you were referring to, because you didn’t refer to any. I’ve never found the Bible contradictory, though of course there are so many interpretations people choose to make of it that often seem out of context. But there are many interpretations and varying arguments people make about the Law, as well. Shall we say the Law is all Double-think also? The contradictions in both seem most often spawned by inaccurate, human reasoning and false conclusions.

It seems to me that both the Right and Left ideologies have arguably Orwellian philosophies. There is a Right Wing group called PNAC that lists Rumsfeld and Cheney among its founders, designed to pursue American-Global superiority. Their catch-phrase is: “American leadership is good for America AND for the world.” It’s almost like saying: “Things are better for you and me, with me on top and you at the bottom!”

Also, there are groups like the ACLU and Moveon.org that have become vehicles for Left Wing agendas. Groups like these are so extreme in their agenda to not stifle the voice of free expression, that they endorse and protect groups like NAMBLA – the North American Man / Boy Love Association – a bunch of pedophiles!

Many on the Left seem far less religious, and more inclined toward a One-World solution to the world’s problems through groups like the United Nations. What’s funny is, that’s a very Socialist philosophy, and the government in 1984 was a Socialist one. What is really hysterical is when people so easily see the hypocrisy and totalitarian agendas of one extreme, but not the other. I’ll bet that one day, people will become so in fear of the one wing that they will lean heavily toward the other, and we will end up with the very kind of government we sought to avoid: the 1984 government.

[mir]

: ) we definitely might. i meant that the government is becoming more thoelogical becasue if you just look at a lot of the most disputed political issues of the day - the ones the government is very involved in - such as right to life, stem stell research, etc., many of the main arguments against them have to do with them being "against God". using religion at all in government is against to constitution - separation of church and state - and if that rule is broken so easily, and so many others bent (ex. phone tapping) - which goes along with what you were saying about law - it wouldn't be too hard for us to keep slipping until nobody can make a strong stand for "lawfully wrong" if someone like the Party came along.

contradictory bible stories . . . first of all, the bible says that a lot of the people in the old ages lived for insanely long times, and we take that on "beleif" - beleif is a lot like doublethink - also, in a lot of places God is described as incontrovertibly merciful - and in other places he tries to destroy the world, or kills people, or forbids Moses from the Promised land for something that wasn't his fault. in one place in Genesis, man is shown as created first; in another, beasts are created first. i'm not trying to bash the bible, it just is an example of doublethink.

and the leaning-too-far-to-one-side-in-trying-to-avoid-the-other has already happened. people leaned so far in trying to avoid the dangers Hitler described that they ended up giving him supreme power.

i'm having an argument with a friend who says that 1984 could never REALLY happen, that Orwell just pushed things way too far and there's no way it would ever be possible for something like the Party to exist. i think that the thing that makes 1984 really scary for me is that i think it COULD. and that fear can exist in any age - Orwell followed the trends in 1948 and extrapolated from them, and those trends have not changed much at all. it's slower than he expected - or seemed to expect - but i think it's still possible, sometime in the future.

[imprudentica]

Yes, I agree that a government such as is depicted in the book could rise to power. But, again, every case I’ve ever heard of the Bible being called contradictory pertained to a false conclusion, or at least a difference in viewpoint. I’ve never seen the Bible, the oldest historical book in existence, disproved conclusively. And many, many people have tried over the ages.

The bit you mentioned about the lifespan of people long ago is a difficult point to debate either way, because so far there is no scientific way to prove, or dispute it. Some people may believe this and other things the Bible presents and regard them as facts, but perhaps they have gained a respect for the book because of its historical and scientific accuracy in the things that HAVE been proved. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who was one of the most respected scientists that ever lived, devoted two-thirds of his writings in support of the Bible.

You mentioned some doctrinal tenants that were spun in a manner so as to make them contradictory with the context:
1. You said that Moses banishment from the Promised Land was for something that was not his fault. But it was justified. The context shows him taking credit for a divine act instead of attributing the glory to god. He was punished for this.
2. You implied a contradiction between God being incontrovertibly merciful, versus destroying the world, or killing people: According to the Bible, God can and will forgive anyone nearly any wrong they commit. But just as in our world, forgiveness doesn’t always imply a stay of punishment. Also, to merit forgiveness, the person must demonstrate repentance for what they’ve done, which means regret, cessation, and turning around from the wrong action. The people God whacks in the Bible didn’t do that.

I think it’s unfair to regard a belief in the Bible’s record as double-think. Some haters of religion and the Bible promulgate the spurious notion that anyone who believes in the Bible is disillusioned, naïve and uninformed. But, scientists base many conclusions on theories, until the point that they are ever disproved. In like manner, many find it prudent to put faith in this record of history and knowledge that has yet to be disproved.

[mir]

no . . . i don't mean the Bible is HISTORICALLY contradictory, only that it's sometimes contradictory within itself.

also, yes, Moses may have done a bad thing, but there was another prophet - samuel, i think; it's on another thread in the forum - who did much worse things and was still forgiven by God.

uh oh . . . i'm going to get into another theological argument, aren't I . . . i have to read the Bible again someday, or i'm not going to have any examples to support my viewpoint. : ) just a quick question, Imprudentica - because i haven't seen you before; you don't have to answer if you don't want to - what religion are you?

[imprudentica]

Hey, Mir. Ha Ha. No, we don’t have to get into a theological argument. But, I think we all feel obligated to defend the things and persons we respect. I know I do.

In answer to your question, I am not a member of any religion, though I was raised in a Christian home. So I know enough about the Bible to not deceive myself into believing that I can attend a church service now and then, or quote a scripture to somebody once and a while, and call myself a Christian.
;)

[mir]

i still want to really know what makes religion so powerful . . . i mean, i was completely bashing the government in that evilly long post that started this whole discussion, but nobody said anything about it. i understand wanting to defend your beleifs, but government affects life much more personally (or maybe that's only for me), and yet religion seems always to be the more controversial subject.

i just saw that you only have 18 posts, so you're probably new . . . if you are, welcome to the forum! : ) and don't pay much attention to any arguments i make about religion . . . i don't live in a religious family, and when we did have a relgigion, we weren't very zealous, so anything i write is based on my own opinions and not so much on even texts like the Bible.

[tendayi]

1984 is a warning if totalitarian institutions obtain power 1984 could become reality. Totalitarian states still exist today. The novel was written in 1948 three years after ww2 and when communism in Russia was still in full swing.

[Mojophonious]

im in year 11 and had to read 1984 as our english text. now i normally can read absoultly anything and enjoy it!! i read animal farm and liked it!! but this book was absolute hell!!! i just coulndt read it properly!! i seriously fell asleep reading it almost everytime!! it was just plain painful!! any way so now i have to da a text response on it.... the topic i chose was why should a book about the future that has past(1984) continue to alarm readers in 2006? discuss. but i just cant think of anything!!! someone please please please help me!!!

one startling reason a work like this is still a mindbender ... here in America after the September 11 attack in 2001, security became much tighter ... most visibly in airports (not that i'm complaining; BUT) - it is just a real rude awakening when suddenly in your own country, where there hasn't a war on our own soil since I was in diapers, we have soldiers everywhere - and just the simple inconvenience of a luggage search where they have you remove your shoes gives one an inkling of the concept of the telescreen ... that spies on every second of your life; not to mention the threat of being turned over to the thought police by your own adorable sweaty little children.


There should be a 1984 camp! I'll volunteer to be a Party-Member counselour to give the feel of the novel. Good Idea; anyone dig it?