Orwell not just critical of the dictator

[Teacher]

Let's look closely at one of the key perspectives that Orwell offers: He is certainly (and obviously) critical of the dictator. That's easy.

But to truly get the most from his work you need to explore his criticism of the citizen. In other words he is not only blaming the government but the governed for society's ills.

Look at the book as a warning.

[The Atheist]

In what way do you mean "critical of the citizen"?

The comment seems a little open at first - proles, Party, Inner Party?

[Teacher]

Orwell takes to task those who would be governed. Certainly the Proles fall into that category.

Look at the passage where Winston observes the "Prole women" fighting over pots and pans.

There are so many things which are worth fighting for that are left ignored.

The old man in the pub cannot remember if life was better before the revolution, but remembers that the beer was better.

It is clear that Orwell places much of the responsibility on us.

The same may be said for the Outer Party members as well. Case in point, Parsons. He certainly is a victim, but much of his fate rests on his shoulders for "drinking the KoolAid".

Orwell asks us to challenge our government. Don't fall prey to propaganda. Become involved in lively political/social debate. And be open minded.;)

[The Atheist]

Orwell asks us to challenge our government. Don't fall prey to propaganda. Become involved in lively political/social debate. And be open minded.;)

Correct, but I don't agree that he attaches any blame to either the Proles, Parsons or any other mass citizenry - he takes great pains to point out the mechanisms which keep those citizens blinded or ignorant.

He can attach blame to those who allowed the Party to grab rule, but not those who came after.

[bazarov]

It is clear that Orwell places much of the responsibility on us.




Hope lies in the Proles. Who else can make coup d'etat? Of course that responsibility is on them.

[The Atheist]

Hope lies in the Proles. Who else can make coup d'etat? Of course that responsibility is on them.
Yes, but he's also created a world where resistance is impossible. Winston realises that was wrong.

[Enjoi.]

Correct, but I don't agree that he attaches any blame to either the Proles, Parsons or any other mass citizenry - he takes great pains to point out the mechanisms which keep those citizens blinded or ignorant.

He can attach blame to those who allowed the Party to grab rule, but not those who came after.

And a lot of the current people are those people who allowed them to seize power. Winston vaguely remembers a time before the rule, but can't put his finger on it. The old man in the bar also vaguely remembers a time different. Orwell leaves hints to blame the people for not realizing what was happening. He also is very critical of the current people (not a certain group of people, but ALL of the people under rule), they don't think for themselves, there are no "Enlightenment Thinkers" in the people. They just accept the current society and they are so brainwashed and used to the system they can't do anything about it. No one makes a move to take down the power and that leaves an opening for the Party. While the people behave lets remove words, create ways to limit thinking, and make the past non-existent. They allow these things to happen WHILE they can still think for themselves. They allowed themselves to be controlled and that's where the people are to blame.

[The Atheist]

They allow these things to happen WHILE they can still think for themselves. They allowed themselves to be controlled and that's where the people are to blame.

I don't see any "allowing" things to happen. It's likely that the Party seized control initially with arms, and as history has shown time and time again, human flesh vs machine guns is not something you can get around.

Taking a line through the Russian Revolution, would you say the people of Russia were to blame for it?

[tbccvbtfhc]

The people are too afraid of death to resist against the leaders because the leaders play the "fear card". Anybody that rebels will be vaporized, and that's why the leaders were able to take control. The people may have or may not have wanted the Party to take control, but they were probably scared when they took control and didn't want to do anything about it for fear or being vaporized.

[Protaginst]

The citizens seem in some respect to run around like chickens with their heads cut off. I know this is not completely their fault, they have been brainwashed with tons of propaganda from birth. The proles though, have a bit more conciousness.

Winston goes to walk among the proles because of this fact, there is some emotion in what is going on in their part of the city. You see this as the ladies give Winston a warry look in Chapter VIII. But most emotion seems to be gone, or perhaps nothing suprises them anymore,as the "Steamer" destroys apartments 200m away from Winston, Winston after getting up walks down a street and life is going on as usual all hustle and bustle. They remain ignorant of the fact that their homes were destroyed.

Teacher makes another good point at the pots and pans incident, the proles argue about the small things,yet fail to grasp the idea that there are bigger things in life. They know life isn't good for them, yet instead of finding ways of bettering themselves they bicker over the little things in life. Another topic of conversation on how Orwell is critical on the proles is the Lottery. And I quote from Winston, "It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive." Millions of proles play the lottery, that makes how many not starting an underground revoulution, or creating an actual Brotherhood.

An argument against this is that there was no intercommunication in Oceania. Did Juila and Winston not take a train to there first getaway of love?:D

Orwell is very critical of the Proles. Making some 80%+ of the population, and they lay in their filth enjoying every minute of it.

[jellolover07]

I agree with most of what Protagonist said in his post. I feel that the wary looks that the women proles give Winston shows that the proles do however feel some distrust towards authority. Winston, as a Party member, has a higher ranking in society than the proles, and therefore, if the proles followed Big Brother to the point of orthodoxy, wouldn't they had assumed that he was in their part of town for business reasons, or something of that nature? I don't think that someone who was ignorant would have had the sense to question why Winston was there. I think that fear plays as big a role in the proles' reaction to B.B. as ignorance, and therefore Orwell is not as critical of the proles as he may at first appear to be. I think he is more critical of the power of fear.

[The Atheist]

Orwell is very critical of the Proles. Making some 80%+ of the population, and they lay in their filth enjoying every minute of it.

The trouble is, it doesn't gel with Orwell's life or thinking, as well as being against the point of the book.

Resistance is impossible, and if the proles were smart enough to have understood their plight, they would have formed resistance. They didn't because they didn't realise there was an alternative.

You need to remember that Orwell was deeply socialist and I find it an unlikely prospect that he would choose to blame the proles. That's the entire point of the pan incident - Winston wonders, as did Orwell himself in many of his books - why the hell the proles didn't do something. Ultimately, he realised that they were powerless.

[Enjoi.]

I don't see any "allowing" things to happen. It's likely that the Party seized control initially with arms, and as history has shown time and time again, human flesh vs machine guns is not something you can get around.

Taking a line through the Russian Revolution, would you say the people of Russia were to blame for it?

If the Party originally took control with guns and firepower then why did the mass majority 80+% of the population allow it. Because of ignorance. If any of the current Outer Party members had seen this coming they would have talked with other people and inevitably the Proles. I don't believe that this was done by force because if it was, why do the Proles accept this society?

[Enjoi.]

The people are too afraid of death to resist against the leaders because the leaders play the "fear card". Anybody that rebels will be vaporized, and that's why the leaders were able to take control. The people may have or may not have wanted the Party to take control, but they were probably scared when they took control and didn't want to do anything about it for fear or being vaporized.

This is the easy "textbook" answer and i think we need to look deeper than fear. As i stated before i believe that this was almost allowed to happen. The peoples ignorance was ultimately their downfall. The Party continues to remove words and ways of thinking. They instill fear, but a lot of the people aren't afraid because of ignorance, they accept the society and the go with it because they are the "brainwashed faithful" of 1984 just as the sheep were in Animal Farm.

[Enjoi.]

Orwell is very critical of the Proles. Making some 80%+ of the population, and they lay in their filth enjoying every minute of it.

Thank you Protaginst, Orwell is critical of the Proles and the rest of the society because the Proles have no need to rebel anymore. The Party, makes sure of this by keeping them ignorant and distracted. They live their lives and enjoy every second of it.

[Enjoi.]

I agree with most of what Protagonist said in his post. I feel that the wary looks that the women proles give Winston shows that the proles do however feel some distrust towards authority. Winston, as a Party member, has a higher ranking in society than the proles, and therefore, if the proles followed Big Brother to the point of orthodoxy, wouldn't they had assumed that he was in their part of town for business reasons, or something of that nature? I don't think that someone who was ignorant would have had the sense to question why Winston was there. I think that fear plays as big a role in the proles' reaction to B.B. as ignorance, and therefore Orwell is not as critical of the proles as he may at first appear to be. I think he is more critical of the power of fear.

I don't agree, they give him wary looks because he doesn't belong there. This is their little area and he shouldn't be there. They are afraid to an extent, but there are other elements to this. Once they see he isn't there for anything they continue what they were doing as though nothing happened.

[Enjoi.]

The trouble is, it doesn't gel with Orwell's life or thinking, as well as being against the point of the book.

Resistance is impossible, and if the proles were smart enough to have understood their plight, they would have formed resistance. They didn't because they didn't realise there was an alternative.

You need to remember that Orwell was deeply socialist and I find it an unlikely prospect that he would choose to blame the proles. That's the entire point of the pan incident - Winston wonders, as did Orwell himself in many of his books - why the hell the proles didn't do something. Ultimately, he realised that they were powerless.

I agree here. The Proles settle into this because they no longer no of any different life. They know only this and are kept ignorant by the Party. The Party ultimately controls them with distractions (i.e. Pornosec, the lottery, etc...) and fear (i.e. vaporization)

[MHS105]

It almost seems that the fear card has been used through all of history, whether it was every historical dictator all the way to George Bush has used this card. What i'm getting at is how can the people be blamed for society's ills when they are constantly being hit with propoganda and this "fear card" they don't know which way to turn, and the people are being blindsided (like in Orwell's Animal Farm, when the amendments are changed) unlike the animals who were just lazy the people can't do anything only the proles can. the people can't stand up to big brother and his totalitarianism, so they aren't really sitting back and watching the destruction persay. They just really can't do anything about it.

:flare:

[jellolover07]

I don't agree, they give him wary looks because he doesn't belong there. This is their little area and he shouldn't be there. They are afraid to an extent, but there are other elements to this. Once they see he isn't there for anything they continue what they were doing as though nothing happened.

They continued on as normal after the bombing, and a greater threat was presented. The fact that they were wary at all, no matter what the reason, shows that at least a part of them is not fully trustworthy of the Party.

[Enjoi.]

They continued on as normal after the bombing, and a greater threat was presented. The fact that they were wary at all, no matter what the reason, shows that at least a part of them is not fully trustworthy of the Party.

Not Fully is the key, if the Party member had some business it would have been made known in that short time. They continued on after as normal. The bombing example doesn't make sense to me. They continued on as normal because they are used to it. It seems to happen frequently because they always knew when one was approaching. They are scared in the heat of the moment then don't care after because it's over, life goes on. Winston at the bar is not normal, this is not a normal occurrence, and so they are surprise in the heat of the moment then they continue as normal.

[Enjoi.]

It almost seems that the fear card has been used through all of history, whether it was every historical dictator all the way to George Bush has used this card. What i'm getting at is how can the people be blamed for society's ills when they are constantly being hit with propoganda and this "fear card" they don't know which way to turn, and the people are being blindsided (like in Orwell's Animal Farm, when the amendments are changed) unlike the animals who were just lazy the people can't do anything only the proles can. the people can't stand up to big brother and his totalitarianism, so they aren't really sitting back and watching the destruction persay. They just really can't do anything about it.

:flare:

As I have stated before the "fear card" is the textbook answer. We need to look deeper at how the Party keeps the Proles occupied and distracted so they don't have to use the "fear card". They don't want to use the "fear card" on the Proles because if they did, the Proles would have a reason to rebel. This would not go over well for the Party.

[jellolover07]

Not Fully is the key, if the Party member had some business it would have been made known in that short time. They continued on after as normal. The bombing example doesn't make sense to me. They continued on as normal because they are used to it. It seems to happen frequently because they always knew when one was approaching. They are scared in the heat of the moment then don't care after because it's over, life goes on. Winston at the bar is not normal, this is not a normal occurrence, and so they are surprise in the heat of the moment then they continue as normal.



Up until the point of the bombing Winston was on edge, once the bombing took the attention off of him people were no longer paying as much attention to him because he was already old news. But he is authority to them, and they were wary of him. The definition of wary is untrusting or suspicious. I'm just saying, I don't think Orwell used that term on accident. The proles are not all blind followers of the party. Some of them do have suspicions.

[Enjoi.]

Up until the point of the bombing Winston was on edge, once the bombing took the attention off of him people were no longer paying as much attention to him because he was already old news. But he is authority to them, and they were wary of him. The definition of wary is untrusting or suspicious. I'm just saying, I don't think Orwell used that term on accident. The proles are not all blind followers of the party. Some of them do have suspicions.

I don't think Orwell shows the Proles have suspicions, the Party ensures this. The Proles are Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, they are the brainwashed faithful. The Party will have more brainwashed faithful with the children they create as spies. The Proles may be wary, but of more than one thing.

[Enjoi.]

I feel i should correct myself on the last post i made. The Proles indeed are the "brainwashed faithful", but they are also the "normal" humans. Winston says that he isn't a real person. The Proles are the real people. Orwell is being critical of us by being critical of the Proles because Orwell intentioned the Proles to be us. The people of today's society.

[The Atheist]

If the Party originally took control with guns and firepower then why did the mass majority 80+% of the population allow it. Because of ignorance. If any of the current Outer Party members had seen this coming they would have talked with other people and inevitably the Proles. I don't believe that this was done by force because if it was, why do the Proles accept this society?

I think you contradict yourself a bit here - you note control by gun, then ask why it was "allowed". If someone points a gun at you and you don't have one, you only have two choices, comply or die.


Orwell is being critical of us by being critical of the Proles because Orwell intentioned the Proles to be us. The people of today's society.

Nope. The book was only aimed at us [future readers] peripherally. Orwell wrote the book for the people of the day, because he believed it was possible. Had he lived through more of the Cold War, he may well have felt he was right on target.

[Enjoi.]

I think you contradict yourself a bit here - you note control by gun, then ask why it was "allowed". If someone points a gun at you and you don't have one, you only have two choices, comply or die.

The point i was trying to make here is that a massive amount of people would have had to allow this to happen. Very well knowing the outcome couldn't be good. I don't think they were taken over by force, rather patience and timing.


Nope. The book was only aimed at us [future readers] peripherally. Orwell wrote the book for the people of the day, because he believed it was possible. Had he lived through more of the Cold War, he may well have felt he was right on target.

As in giving us his belief on what he believed might happen in order to educate people so it wouldn't happen?

[The Atheist]

The point i was trying to make here is that a massive amount of people would have had to allow this to happen. Very well knowing the outcome couldn't be good. I don't think they were taken over by force, rather patience and timing.

Orwell allows no note of how the Party came to power, but taking into account that almost all coups are bloody, so it's unlikely a bloodless coup took place.

You need to check some history - small numbers of people armed with weapons have always told large numbers of unarmed people what to do.

According to your logic, Indians and Africans should blame themselves for 400 years of British rule. They far outnumber Brits yet let themselves be ruled by them.


As in giving us his belief on what he believed might happen in order to educate people so it wouldn't happen?

No, he didn't give an alternative.

[Enjoi.]

Orwell allows no note of how the Party came to power, but taking into account that almost all coups are bloody, so it's unlikely a bloodless coup took place.

You need to check some history - small numbers of people armed with weapons have always told large numbers of unarmed people what to do.

I'm just saying that I don't think it was violent because it helps Orwell's point. The intelligence of the party and the ignorance of the people being ruled.


According to your logic, Indians and Africans should blame themselves for 400 years of British rule. They far outnumber Brits yet let themselves be ruled by them.

Perhaps they should. The Britains did this to better their country did they not? So if the Indians and Africans wanted to better themselves then they could have attempted to rid themselves of the British rule.

[fajitaeater1]

Althuogh these prolles are happy, they are blinded of the reality of this world and it's issues. The proles have little power in the country individualy, but if they stand together they will overthrow big brother.

when the bomb goes off in the prole section of the city the reader may think this bomb was sent from an enemy country, but you have to ponder, was this "fear" planted by the govern't? Did Big Brother do this to continue his reign over the destracted proles?

[tbccvbtfhc]

when the bomb goes off in the prole section of the city the reader may think this bomb was sent from an enemy country, but you have to ponder, was this "fear" planted by the govern't? Did Big Brother do this to continue his reign over the destracted proles?

This is another example of the government playing the fear card to keep it's people under control. We don't know if Big Brother is doing this, but he could be, and it is a good way to keep the people scared. If the people are scared, they are easy to control.

[bazarov]

No, he didn't give an alternative.

Isn't alternative something what should be totally opposite from their reality? Orwell didn't said what it should be, but is very obvious.

And Party bombs Proles, there is no war with ''enemies''.

[The Atheist]

Isn't alternative something what should be totally opposite from their reality? Orwell didn't said what it should be, but is very obvious.

Well, maybe. But Orwell's obvious as a democratic socialist might have differed from a conservative capitalist, say.


And Party bombs Proles, there is no war with ''enemies''.

Yep.

[Enjoi.]

Althuogh these prolles are happy, they are blinded of the reality of this world and it's issues. The proles have little power in the country individualy, but if they stand together they will overthrow big brother.

when the bomb goes off in the prole section of the city the reader may think this bomb was sent from an enemy country, but you have to ponder, was this "fear" planted by the govern't? Did Big Brother do this to continue his reign over the destracted proles?

We have discussed this many times before and said the same thing. The "fear" thing is obvious and once again it is the thing used as a main example. PLEASE lets look deeper than fear and find the other reasons for the ignorance and how the government controls the Proles.

It does help to keep them under control, but the fear aspect is said too much. We hear the same thing many times in many sections of this forum. Fear is the aspect that Orwell pretty much shouts at us and tells us that it is there, that is why i call it the "textbook" answer. It's too easy to pull fear from the book and come on here and post about fear.