Orwell, 1949, but no current politics?

[Shadowraven]

I'm confused. Maybe somebody can clarify? I am currently reading 1984, almost finished, and thought about posting some questions/thoughts on the book here (since there *is* an ENTIRE forum dedicated to the author)... but we can't discuss current politics? I'm confused about how the two can even be seperated. I'm a teacher and although my students and I do talk about generalized themes and literary devices... however, even my 9th graders realize that you cannot separate literature from culture (politics included).

[Logos]

There are lots of forums that *do* discuss current politics on the internet. Several popular news sites have forums for discussion, like Salon.com or your local newspaper perhaps has discussion boards you can join.

These forums are for literature, this one in particular for the works of Orwell. Getting into discussions of current politics has proven to cause dissention, infighting, harassment, personal threats and flaming, trolling and general nastiness causing the need for deleted posts and locked topics, that we want to avoid here.

Admin and the Moderators reserve the right to maintain the forum rules (which you agree to when registering) without having to discuss and explain every action either. We have to remember that people who are 13 or younger are members of this site, hence these forum rules, to provide a content appropriate place for all ages.

I'm sure there are many people here who are capable of discussing the current political climate in a civil manner, but we want to keep the spirit of these forums for that which they were intended for, this one in particular the works of Orwell and as you can see there are and have been many relevant and worthy discussions going on that do keep the two separate and don't go into current politics.

[Admin]

People too often use Orwell's works to further their political agenda, especially in an anonymous place like an Internet message board. Both "sides" do it. I don't want any of that going on.

But moreso, politics, especially today, causes anger, resentment, and conflict. People are just polarized, and I have no desire for this forum to be overrun with hateful arguments and name calling and everything else that it will degenerate into.

[subterranean]

I'm confused. Maybe somebody can clarify? I am currently reading 1984, almost finished, and thought about posting some questions/thoughts on the book here (since there *is* an ENTIRE forum dedicated to the author)... but we can't discuss current politics? I'm confused about how the two can even be seperated. I'm a teacher and although my students and I do talk about generalized themes and literary devices... however, even my 9th graders realize that you cannot separate literature from culture (politics included).

IMO, in the forum u can discuss the political backgrounds of the book not what caused those backgrounds to exists or why those current political situations happened, whose the actors behind it, their interests, theri struggles for power etc.. so it's limited to the background of the book/story and how it effects the charactres/society described in the book..

[davidt]

wow literature without politics. if this place wants to sanitize liturature i will find somewhere else to post. intresting to find censorship relating to politics on a literature site featuring orwell.

if this site thinks that orwell only relates to the past then i've seen all that i want to see here.

[Scheherazade]

I don't see why we cannot discuss politics and literature without bringing current figures or issues into it. Politics, afterall, is a set of ideas and philosophical theories. Why do we need to name names to discuss sets of ideas?
Maybe we should make a clear distinction between politics as a part of Social Sciences and politics as a part of current events. It might be OK to discuss Politics the Social Science side by side with literature but not the current events.
To say that it is not possible discuss politics and literature without involving current issues is like saying we cannot discuss religion without bringing the current Pope into it or whatever has been happening recently in the religious circles.

[Logos]

This particular forum is for discussion of the fictitious works of George Orwell. Of course political themes and scenarios are part of his works, the operative word here is `current'.

There's nothing ironic about this `censorship', this is a privately owned website and Admin reserves the right to have his rules applied to it.





wow literature without politics. if this place wants to sanitize liturature i will find somewhere else to post. intresting to find censorship relating to politics on a literature site featuring orwell.

if this site thinks that orwell only relates to the past then i've seen all that i want to see here.

[Stanislaw]

I have to agree, besides the only thing that would come of a political debate is...

blondie12895 (heh heh, my trade mark example) says:
bush = hitler

Ohter Guy says:

meh, I like him

blondie12895 says:
you are a doodoo dumbdumb head with salad for brains!@#!@# @#$!@$# %^&#$! dumb pearson.

You see, it just takes away from all the fun, besides, it is more relevant to discuss politics in orwells time (circa 40's) so as to provide a basisi for his literary style, and message!

(not evereything is about modern politics)

[crisaor]

I have to agree, besides the only thing that would come of a political debate is...
blondie12895 (heh heh, my trade mark example) says:
bush = hitler
Ohter Guy says:
meh, I like him
(not evereything is about modern politics)
I strongly disagree with this. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. How do you think literary works are studied? How do you figure Orwell's advises (since we are talking about him) could be followed/analysed without discussing them? You're not saying what you said because of the forum rules, but because you feel it doesn't have relevance to the current situation. That is disappointing to hear.

[subterranean]

blondie12895 (heh heh, my trade mark example) says:
bush = hitler

Ohter Guy says:

meh, I like him

blondie12895 says:
you are a doodoo dumbdumb head with salad for brains!@#!@# @#$!@$# %^&#$! dumb pearson.

You see, it just takes away from all the fun, besides, it is more relevant to discuss politics in orwells time (circa 40's) so as to provide a basisi for his literary style, and message!

(not evereything is about modern politics)

You were being to simplicistic there (spell check). I agree with Crisaor, there'd be no progress in the study of politics if all people think like that.

[Stanislaw]

Politics, do play a part in literature, as it is a major influence on an idividuals life, but I think that works should be discussed within their time frame, so as to see what the author is refeering to. It is possible to draw parrallels to todays socio-political system, but the book (1984) was really meant for its time, not written with this years politics in mind (unless ofcourse he was Jules verne and had a time machine... ;) )

I think politics can be discussed in relation to the article in question, but must maintain the political concepts of the time when the article was so written.

[Scheherazade]

I think Stan is making a good point that we need to understand the political and historical context of certain literary works to grasp their meaning and messages better. E.g. it is almost impossible to enjoy 'Julius Ceasar' by Shakespeare without informing ourselves about the historical and political events of the time.

[crisaor]

I think Stan is making a good point that we need to understand the political and historical context of certain literary works to grasp their meaning and messages better. E.g. it is almost impossible to enjoy 'Julius Ceasar' by Shakespeare without informing ourselves about the historical and political events of the time.
That argument is a misonomer. 1984 is a literature classic in part because it trascends its historical context, in which by the way, Orwell's book looked to the future, not the present. 1984 bears more relevance to the present than the majority of books published in these days.

[Scheherazade]

1984 looked into an imagenary future. Orwell, by looking at the events of his day, made some predictions. Without knowing the circumstances of the days the book was written, surely we cannot appreciate it as it deserves to be. As we all know well, they did not come true. However, this does not ruin what the book and Orwell has to offer. His ideas about Big Broter type of regimes is a good reminder.

[kaka]

Despite the title "1984", Orwell wasn't making _predictions_. I think one needs to be careful about regarding the novel as a 'cautionary tale' about what to do and not to do. Rather, he was writing an exceptionally grim, dystopic satire.

During the Cold War "1984" was widely used in schools as specifically "anti-Communist" and this seems to have tilted the emphasis from satire towards "prediction".

As for the satire, one needs to bear in mind Orwell's attitude towards the British Ministry of Information in WWII and in particular to the man who headed it from 1941-45, Brendan Bracken (or dare I say "BB"?) . Brendan Bracken came from a most unusual background for a Conservative politician; he was a lapsed Irish Roman Catholic, who threw in his lot with Britain. Some have observed that it's surely no coincidence that the odious inquisitor in "1984" has an Irish name ... Moreover, BB's room in the Ministry of Information (in Senate House, University of London) was - incredible as it may sound - none other than Room 101. Obviously, one mustn't push this too far, but the novel includes several satirical 'digs' at British politics and politicians in the 1940s.

One of the things that infuriated Orwell was the complete about-turn in the British government's and Ministry of Information's attitude towards the Soviet Union (and Communism) when it was attacked by Germany (on 22 June 1941). Orwell was ordered to stop his attacks on the Indian Communists, for example. Moreover, as can readily be imagined, Orwell took a very dim view of the name of the Ministry of Information, which he saw as a ministry of propaganda. I believe he wasn't too keen on the name of the Ministry of Defence, either.

It's worth bearing in mind that Brendan Bracken headed an extremely successful campaign to steer public opinion towards a positive view of the Soviet Union and "Comrade [or Uncle] Josef". He set about it with all the energy and zeal of a self-made man. It was so successful that many in Britain later found it very hard indeed to take the Cold War entirely seriously. All this is of very obvious relevance to Orwell's satire of the falsification and rewriting of history. :)

Anyway, I hope these observations are of some use.

[martingeraghty1]

My first post!
I agree. When discussing "1984" to enter into current politics would be to digress. It would be to miss the point of the book. "1984" is not about a particular time. I believe Orwell is a greater writer than this. He wants to convey a more universal Truth.
In modern times many others want to say the say the same thing. I like to compare "1984" with "The Matrix" . We are all living in a world of illusion ....... where we all know that the Ministry of Defence is really the Ministry of War. But we all swallow "Newspeak".
The problem is "How to break free of the illusion"? Room 101 takes many forms.
"I love Big Brother"

[bazarov]

My first post!
Don't let it be your last!

We are all living in a world of illusion ....... where we all know that the Ministry of Defence is really the Ministry of War. But we all swallow "Newspeak".


You are not fighting always, only when your defending yourself. They were always in war; and they were attackers, not the defenders. Ministry of Defense stops war, and Ministry of War creates them. So they are actually opposite.

[The Atheist]

My first post!
I agree. When discussing "1984" to enter into current politics would be to digress. It would be to miss the point of the book. "1984" is not about a particular time. I believe Orwell is a greater writer than this. He wants to convey a more universal Truth.
In modern times many others want to say the say the same thing. I like to compare "1984" with "The Matrix" . We are all living in a world of illusion ....... where we all know that the Ministry of Defence is really the Ministry of War. But we all swallow "Newspeak".
The problem is "How to break free of the illusion"? Room 101 takes many forms.
"I love Big Brother"

Well that's a pretty bloody good start to your posting career!

Welcome to the party!

[The Atheist]

You are not fighting always, only when your defending yourself. They were always in war; and they were attackers, not the defenders. Ministry of Defense stops war, and Ministry of War creates them. So they are actually opposite.

That doesn't appear to hold in 2007, though. {edit}

One thing I do like is that Orwell designated North Africa as the area where all the fighting was done and what was being fought over in 1984. Now where is all the fighting at the moment?

[bazarov]

That doesn't appear to hold in 2007, though. {edit}

Now when you're edited, I really dunno what to say:lol: !


One thing I do like is that Orwell designated North Africa as the area where all the fighting was done and what was being fought over in 1984. Now where is all the fighting at the moment?


Well, he assumed; and he assumed it well, that after they get their freedom, there will be peace.

[The Atheist]

Now when you're edited, I really dunno what to say:lol: !

Well, it doesn't actually say anything now...

I'm not quite sure I understand why it was edited, it apolitical, I thought. Oh well, back to the old drawing board...

you said:


Ministry of Defense stops war, and Ministry of War creates them. So they are actually opposite.

Can I note that of western countries currently at war, every department in charge of the forces involved are styled, "Ministry/Department of Defence", yet none of them are actually defending their own soil? (Surely that's an Orwellism and not politics?)

Hope so.

[bazarov]

Can I note that of western countries currently at war, every department in charge of the forces involved are styled, "Ministry/Department of Defence", yet none of them are actually defending their own soil? (Surely that's an Orwellism and not politics?)

Hope so.

Now I've seen it before :lol:
Maybe you are right, but...
Korea, Cuba, Cold War, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Cambodia are some scary post WWII events coming to my mind. But Party weren't attackers, they were helping to poor civilians. No matter do you think on Asian oil or Afghanistan's water supplies; Party was always helping to defend or calm down and they never came first and attack! OK, maybe Iraq...

[badaxxe]

First post,
"Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Orwells "Satire" sure rings out true every decade since written and more so today. Telescreen-Internet. Whats the future going to hold? OK maybe US within...

[The Atheist]

I remember reading 1984 as a high-school kid and discussing it with classmates. The year 1984 was still ten years away and even with the Cold War in full swing, it just didn't have the same penetration then as it does now. We didn't fear the technology in the 1970s, simply because it didn't exist. Now, it's just a little closer to home. Surveillance cameras, anyone?

[GerardoArturo]

OK, Big Brother !

[Logos]

Yup, Admin (the owner/administrator of this site is) and us moderators are your 'big brother' if you choose to stay here :)

[oscar wild]

I'm confused. Maybe somebody can clarify? I am currently reading 1984, almost finished, and thought about posting some questions/thoughts on the book here (since there *is* an ENTIRE forum dedicated to the author)... but we can't discuss current politics? I'm confused about how the two can even be seperated. I'm a teacher and although my students and I do talk about generalized themes and literary devices... however, even my 9th graders realize that you cannot separate literature from culture (politics included).

look, 1984 came and gone
but some politicians use terrorism to excite public zeal all kinds fear raised inside a nation, then a useful atmosphere is created, more money in national security----you know who i am talking about:D

very hard to make the distinction lol