Two questions

[Shelter417]

First of all, the matter of Room 101. What if the thing you feared most was, say, speaking in public (I hear that's quite common)? How would they force that upon you? Alternately, what if you feared going to hell in the afterlife (alter "hell" to whatever punishment your religion prescribes)?

Also, though the tone of the de facto novel is unquestionably gloomy at the end, the Appendix notwithstanding, doesn't the mere fact that the story is being told imply that there is, in fact, a new society born after the Party falls? 1984 is told in the past tense, and the intimate knowledge of Winston's going-abouts even suggests that the downfall of the Party was brought about by an Insider. After all, since it is made clear that Winston is to be shot (eventually), and thus will become an "unperson," there will soon be no record left of him. However, there is a record, namely, the book itself.


Thoughts? Am I reading far too much into this?

[evangelbaby]

The whole concept of room 101 is that it is the ultimate nightmare for the particular person who is in it. the idea in 1984 is that winston, and everybody else, knows about the "legend", if you will, of room 101. This creates a sort of hype or moral panic. so it's possible there were no rats at all in room 101.
for example, i don't know if you've heard of the toronto blessing. it's basically a place in canada where this guy randy preaches sermons and a whole bunch of people laugh hysterically ("holy laughter"), speak in tongues, and basically "see God". i believe, even if this is true of some people, it is hyped up so much by the media and even churches that people tend to go there expecting to have a religious experience or perhaps for a miracle to happen. so what i'm saying is that room 101 is as much psychological as it is claimed to be real. as they say, if you die in a dream you die in reality.

as for the fact that the appendix is written in the past tense, it raises the suggestion that the party will be overthrown, yes. but that is only if the reader takes this novel literally, not hypothetically, which is how i personally see the novel. i think the past tense oldspeak is orwell giving the reader a warning, in a possible humourous way. the novel can be viewed as a simple allegory for a major political statement. aspects of true politics are represented by components such as the stereotypical characters of the party, the political slogans, and propaganda.

perhaps i'm not even looking that far into it as it should be.

[Granny5]

I always felt that room 101 held our greatest fear, even if we didn't know they were our greatest one. BB was able to find them within us.
As for the appendix, I think evangelbaby has it right. I think the book is a warning to us all.

[The Atheist]

First of all, the matter of Room 101. What if the thing you feared most was, say, speaking in public (I hear that's quite common)? How would they force that upon you? Alternately, what if you feared going to hell in the afterlife (alter "hell" to whatever punishment your religion prescribes)?

Given humans' predisposition to phobia, I'm sure the Thought Police would find something appropriate, even if they had to condition you into phobia by constant application of torture. There will always be some construct which will serve the purpose.


Also, though the tone of the de facto novel is unquestionably gloomy at the end, the Appendix notwithstanding, doesn't the mere fact that the story is being told imply that there is, in fact, a new society born after the Party falls? 1984 is told in the past tense, and the intimate knowledge of Winston's going-abouts even suggests that the downfall of the Party was brought about by an Insider. After all, since it is made clear that Winston is to be shot (eventually), and thus will become an "unperson," there will soon be no record left of him. However, there is a record, namely, the book itself.

We discussed this a little while back and it's a question which does come up occasionally, thanks mainly to the appendix covering the past, which is in Winston's future.

I think the "Brotherhood's" book gives the clue away, because we know that that's either the truth or very close to the truth. Accordingly, it's clear that there are people in the Party who know the true history, but who can use doublethink to avoid thinking about it. O'Brien is a clear example.

It makes sense for the Party to keep accurate historical records to ensure that its own version of truth is kept correct. Without knowing the starting point, constant revision of history is going to be very difficult. The book is designed to convey the im pression of an immortal Party and I don't see any part contradicting that.


Thoughts? Am I reading far too much into this?

Quite possibly!

I don't blame you, though, it's a relentless book and designed to be that way, so it's natural to try to think of a way to remove the evil that is the Party. Not easily done though.