What the Hell?

[Wattsini1]

I have never read such utter drivel in my life. Orwell has made up words, without proper definition, and the backstory simply makes no sense. London is continuously at war with one region or another, so what does the government do? they decide to turn the citizens of London into mindless automatons. How does that solve anything? And why didn't they just try and leave? It seems to Winston that the whole world revolves around his workplace.

It sucks that I have to study this book for Unit 4. :flare:

[Fen]

First of all the book is set in the future and language develops so there would be new words.

Second, the government isn't trying to solve anything. They were trying to keep people as automatons thats the point. The government wants power and making people mindless obviously helps. The war is part of that it's a weapon of control, if there is an enemy the government can create a state of fear and patriotism which can be channeled by the state and used to take away liberties for national security. It gives them a reason for controlling the media, for arresting people and constant shortages.

As for people not leaving I think its because they know of no other way of living. They have been brought up on propaganda there are no opposing arguments, no alternatives shown to them and no reason to question why. Most people go through life not questioning how they live because everyone else is doing the same thing it doesn't occur to them something might be wrong or that there is a better way.

Having said that it isn't perfect I do agree with you on that. I think there would be slightly more resistance and I would have liked him to provide an explanation as how the world got the way it did. It might be slightly extreme ,in my opinion, but the book is a critique on dictatorships and depicts the way in which they control lives and the how human beings react to that. I believe he does it really well.

[The Atheist]

I have never read such utter drivel in my life. Orwell has made up words, without proper definition, and the backstory simply makes no sense. London is continuously at war with one region or another, so what does the government do? they decide to turn the citizens of London into mindless automatons. How does that solve anything? And why didn't they just try and leave? It seems to Winston that the whole world revolves around his workplace.

It sucks that I have to study this book for Unit 4. :flare:

First off, I don't understand what you mean by "proper definition" of the words used. English is a constantly evolving language and you only need look at new words added to Oxford Doctionary every year to see how words enter the lexicon. "Bling" is a classic example of a word which arose through some gangsta making the word up - it has no definition or etymology at all, yet is now in our dictionaries.

As to how people act in the book, you're just missing a history lesson. Think about Nazi Germany or Communist Russia - in each case, the government got away with genocide because the proletariat has no power.

I'd take a bet that you live somewhere with a stable government and press freedom. Take some time to look at how things are in North Korea, Iran and other despotic states - the world isn't quite as simple as you'd like it to be.

I can understand why you don't like the book, however. I've always been a believer that it's not really suitable reading for high schools.

[grotto]

Instead of rambling on about your dislike, could you give us a real reason? Maybe give us something that you like that isn’t drivel for comparison? I don’t like cooked spinach, but you don’t see me making a poll about it.

I may not think Orwell is the world, but I do like him and my ability to have an imagination helps. May I suggest that you seek your own imagination and not take things so literally?

[gokkun]

This book was the best book I have ever read. Try reading it when you are not required to (on your own), so its more for leisure. It is so intelligently written. The creation of a new language is one of the critical elements of the oppressive government in 1984. The principle is if you narrow the language, you narrow the thoughts. The goal of English Socialism "Ingsoc" in the book is to make it impossible to think against Big Brother or anything related to him.

[Leonard_K]

I have never read such utter drivel in my life. Orwell has made up words, without proper definition, and the backstory simply makes no sense. London is continuously at war with one region or another, so what does the government do? they decide to turn the citizens of London into mindless automatons. How does that solve anything? And why didn't they just try and leave? It seems to Winston that the whole world revolves around his workplace.

It sucks that I have to study this book for Unit 4. :flare:

Someone else mentioned that you need the benefit of remembering or knowing 20th Century history. I think 1984 is valuable in understanding the inherent danger of central power; even to those who live peacefully in liberal democracies. When a book is assigned as school work, it is not often much fun. Plato noticed this too. Thirty five years from now you can pick it up again (like I did) and appreciate it as a work of genius :)

Orwell creates for us a fictional horror story set in a future in which technical advances in communication and psychology give government the ability to maintain total power through surveillance and thought control. It presents a future in which absolute power emerges, not for the good of anyone per se but for its own sake.

The world of 1984 is at war for a purpose different from that which you assume. The three factions, Oceana, Eurasia and Eastasia exploit effects of war in a conspiracy to focus the passion of their people. These factions cannot be truly at war in the way we think.

On war, Orwell makes a self-righteous comment that real war is used by government to control the minds of their citizens. But his war's factitious or artificially controlled aspect in 1984 is surreal and seems slightly paranoid. It is not a very convincing or historically justified element to the book in my opinion.

The strange words introduced by Orwell in 1984 are important. Orwell is trying to show us that our ability to have ideas is intimately involved with our ability to express those ideas in words. The government is deliberately narrowing vocabulary to enhance its control.

In Newspeak I think Orwell is on to something. Some have suggested that the use of so called politically correct language promoted by some intellectuals in our society is an eruption of the totalitarian impulse. Political correctness might be a version of Newspeak in which some of our thoughts, that are otherwise true, are nevertheless somehow situationally incorrect.

[Lexie]

I am 16 and have only read 1984 once, but I can perfectly understand it. If you country ever was Orwell's target, you would not have found it hard to understand, either. You can compare the London in 1984 to countries such as the Soviet Union; then you will see that Orwell was a genius.

[The Atheist]

Bravo!

And welcome to the forum.

:)

Stick around, we're mostly friendly.

[Wade-newb]

Mmmm, my HSS teacher told me about George Orwell, and emphasised the importance of reading 1984.
I have it in ebook format, which I detest, so I'm going to seek out a hard copy from somebody :)

Excited to add this to my growing pile of books I'm busy reading =P

[Paulclem]

In Newspeak I think Orwell is on to something. Some have suggested that the use of so called politically correct language promoted by some intellectuals in our society is an eruption of the totalitarian impulse. Political correctness might be a version of Newspeak in which some of our thoughts, that are otherwise true, are nevertheless somehow situationally incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with your correlation between political correctness and newspeak. Newspeak in 1984 was a deliberate manipulation of the language for political and power based ends, whereas political correctness often relates to the least advantaged members of society. As such it is an attempt, sometimes misguided, to release some groups from terms that stigmatise them. For example an accessible toilet empowers a wheelchair user, placing the onus upon society and its structures rather than the "disabled" user. I think it is trying to change perception through language, but in a positive way.

Having said that, I think there are elements of newspeak in how politicians can resolutely avoid uncomfortable questions. It's as if their answers are purged of negative self references, which are similar to newspeak in that their intention is to mislead and confuse, or avoid important issues.

[DanielBenoit]

I wouldn't suggest James Joyce to this fellow.

[The Atheist]

[I think it is trying to change perception through language, but in a positive way.

Having said that, I think there are elements of newspeak in how politicians can resolutely avoid uncomfortable questions. It's as if their answers are purged of negative self references, which are similar to newspeak in that their intention is to mislead and confuse, or avoid important issues.

I still need convincing that it's positive, even in the uses you mention.

On the other hand, it is used as a cover-all far too often to be anything but Orwellian in some ways.


I wouldn't suggest James Joyce to this fellow.

I wouldn't suggest him to anyone.

;)

[Paulclem]

I still need convincing that it's positive, even in the uses you mention.

I think the attempt to re-define how disabled people have been classified has involved a conscious manipulation of the language. In 1979 when my wife first stated nursing, they were still using terms like cretin as a medical classification. From that re-classification we have come a long way in turning the onus away from labelling and onto an expectation of society's establishments which is enshrined in law. I think that's been very positive.

Then again, who couldn't be anoyed by the banning of the term brainstorm as potentially offensive to epileptics. In fact it is offensive to no-one, but is an example of over zealousness. I'm sure there are lots of other examples.

[Nemo Neem]

1984 is a great book. Some of the things happening in this country occurred in the book.

[Paulclem]

1984 is a great book. Some of the things happening in this country occurred in the book.

Are you referring to the idea of Big Brother?

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact I have found 1984 a wonderful read and I read it in 1984 the year it was released and the writer kind of imagined of a world in which the world would be governed by totalitarians. The sentence ' the big brother is watching you is something that has deeply been set in my memory chamber. As he imagined there is no communism today ruling the world but what is more there are worse things happening than communism. Capitalism is worse in some respect, and we know all why the Bush Government launched a series of attacks over Iraq. There is interest, oilfields or petrodollar in point of fact. As Chomsky said hegemony is on and this hegemony is likened to totalitarianism in substance.

[Paulclem]

In point of fact I have found 1984 a wonderful read and I read it in 1984 the year it was released and the writer kind of imagined of a world in which the world would be governed by totalitarians. The sentence ' the big brother is watching you is something that has deeply been set in my memory chamber. As he imagined there is no communism today ruling the world but what is more there are worse things happening than communism. Capitalism is worse in some respect, and we know all why the Bush Government launched a series of attacks over Iraq. There is interest, oilfields or petrodollar in point of fact. As Chomsky said hegemony is on and this hegemony is likened to totalitarianism in substance.

Much as i like 1984, it is a book of its time - post war austerity, murderous dictatorial regimes, and a kind of provincial British feel. Like lots of sci-fi, it is good at extrapolating current problems into a distant fictional future.

The brilliance of is in the more abstract ideas such as newspeak and Big Brother, though these concepts have not been realised as they were envisaged, but have grown way beyond orwell's original conception of them.