Why so much hate for 1984?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Just saw in a thread a lot of people commenting on how bad 1984 is. This is news to me. I thought it was brilliant--the standard that all dystopian novels should aspire to.

I'm just curious, why is it so disliked here? I didn't see many reasons given, just that people didn't like it.

[mtpspur]

Speaking only for myself--I dislike the novel because there is no hope for Winston. And he's not even heroic. Dreamer at best. I understand that dystopian novels are supposed to be that way and it certainly earns its place as THE novel of that type. But I'm a bit selfish and raised on way too many comic books and pulp novels. I don;t demand happy endings all the time but a ray of sunshine at the end of the tunnel owuld have been nice. I liked Animal Farm just a bit better but again no light. There's enough real life pain and suffering to contemplate without fiction scabbing over the wonds. Just saying and yse I made a crack about 1984 the other day about wanting my hours back. Or at least wondering if Winston even enjoyed sex at least that's how patethic he comes across. Sorry--bit in a mood this past week.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's all good. I was just curious as to why, and thanks for answering. I totally get how the pervading pessimism of the story can be off-putting. It is definitely one of the most depressing novels I've ever read. Of course, that's why I liked it. I don't like every depressing, down, no-hope story I come across, but I did with 1984.

[Transmodernism]

I don't get the hate either.

I think the reason why Orwell crafted such a pessimistic and hopeless ending was to punch us into realizing the danger of totalitarianism. He wanted to make an impression, to grab us by the lapel and make us see the perils lying ahead. It is a novel with a real-world goal: to check totalitarianism.

And, personally, I think there's something horrifyingly yet thrillingly chilling about that final line (major spoilers): "He loved Big Brother."

[Drkshadow03]

I think there is a perception that it's overrated in comparison with how excited certain people get over it. Personally, I remember really liking the novel when I read it 4 or 5 years ago.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think the book is bad. Certainly I would have no doubt as to its 'classic" status. On the other hand... I think it is greatly overrated... especially by younger readers. I would also suggest that before you make the claims as to its rank as the standard dystopian novel, you also read Yevgeny Zamyatin's We upon which 1984 was based.

[JBI]

I don't think the book is bad. Certainly I would have no doubt as to its 'classic" status. On the other hand... I think it is greatly overrated... especially by younger readers. I would also suggest that before you make the claims as to its rank as the standard dystopian novel, you also read Yevgeny Zamyatin's We upon which 1984 was based.

It's just that book is the one book which seems everyone quotes, and acts as if they have read, but nobody actually reads - to be honest, the book is too long, and it is used by too many political factions as a sort of scare tactic, when really in practice the book is not as applicable as it seems. Everyone is so quick to shout "Big Brother, Big Brother." and to compare people from certain countries as living under big brother regimes - just by talking to those people though, and you realize this idea of big brother is a sort of extreme unlikelihood - it is a scare, it is an exaggeration - it is just as idealized as something like a Marxian utopia, only it preaches itself as possible and is used to scare people.

Then again, people do not actually read it - the prose is good, but the story drags - novels themselves are overrated, and this is just one of them.

If one wants a real book about this sort of idea of state crisis and distopia, one should read Pu Ning's Flower Terror - that is far more interesting, and at least more or less true.

[Rores28]

I think most novels that get the sorta love 1984 does, have not only a very compelling and poignant story (as 1984 surely does), but also capacious characters, and/or stylisticly impressive/innovative elements. Orwell's prose is nothing spectacular and the characters, while I sympathize with them immensely, don't have the sort of depth found in other novels that receive commensurate acclaim.

That being said 1984 and Animal Farm definitely make it into my top ten, but I love dystopic stories and especially one's that have terribly sad endings.

I also think Brave New World really gets shafted when compared to 1984.

[hellsapoppin]

I am startled to learn that the book is disfavored by some. After all, Winston is not supposed to have any hope as the year 1984 only marked the beginning of what was to come. Read the novel's Appendix and you will see that a chronicler is reciting events from his perspective with the expectation of what was to occur in the year 2050.

Orwell believed this was in the future due to the evils of socialism which is a subject he knew firsthand. But he was hardly alone. Read Jack Armstrong's letters to Cloudesley Johns and he warned that socialism was not the benevolent ideology it was said to be in public. That instead, it would be used to subjugate and destroy all dark skinned races and generate white supremacy. HG Wells was another who warned of the evils of socialism.


http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=2837 Armstrong

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2007/02/125044.pdf Wells


Read all three writings and you will see why no hope exists for Winston.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I would also suggest that before you make the claims as to its rank as the standard dystopian novel, you also read Yevgeny Zamyatin's We upon which 1984 was based.

It shall go into my ever-growing to-read list.


It's just that book is the one book which seems everyone quotes, and acts as if they have read, but nobody actually reads - to be honest, the book is too long, and it is used by too many political factions as a sort of scare tactic, when really in practice the book is not as applicable as it seems. Everyone is so quick to shout "Big Brother, Big Brother." and to compare people from certain countries as living under big brother regimes - just by talking to those people though, and you realize this idea of big brother is a sort of extreme unlikelihood - it is a scare, it is an exaggeration - it is just as idealized as something like a Marxian utopia, only it preaches itself as possible and is used to scare people.

Yes, but should its use as a scare tactic by political groups be a criticism against it? True, Orwell meant for it to be social commentary, but in much different times under much different circumstances (though, I'm sure whichever political faction is using it as a scare tactic would disagree). Plus, when I read anything, I try to put whatever political spin others put on it out of my mind and just appreciate the piece for what it is, not what other people say it is.


Then again, people do not actually read it - the prose is good, but the story drags - novels themselves are overrated, and this is just one of them.

According to who?


If one wants a real book about this sort of idea of state crisis and distopia, one should read Pu Ning's Flower Terror - that is far more interesting, and at least more or less true.

I will check that one out, also.



I also think Brave New World really gets shafted when compared to 1984.

I agree, though I consider Brave New World more of a sci-fi novel (yes, I realize a novel can be both sci-fi and dystopian, BNW just leans towards sci-fi on my scale, while 1984 is a full fledged dystopian novel).

[mortalterror]

Flower Terror looks quite good. The five pages up on Amazon were very pleasant to read. Thank you for the suggestion, JBI.

[JuniperWoolf]

I was under the impression that most literary folk had a 1984 phase in their late teens. Along with Catcher in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, 1984 makes up the final pillar in the "smart-yet-rebellious-teenager" community.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Just need to read One Flew Over the Cuckoo'a Nest to complete said pillar. Even though I'm 24.

[OrphanPip]

I am startled to learn that the book is disfavored by some. After all, Winston is not supposed to have any hope as the year 1984 only marked the beginning of what was to come. Read the novel's Appendix and you will see that a chronicler is reciting events from his perspective with the expectation of what was to occur in the year 2050.

Orwell believed this was in the future due to the evils of socialism which is a subject he knew firsthand. But he was hardly alone. Read Jack Armstrong's letters to Cloudesley Johns and he warned that socialism was not the benevolent ideology it was said to be in public. That instead, it would be used to subjugate and destroy all dark skinned races and generate white supremacy. HG Wells was another who warned of the evils of socialism.



Orwell was a lifelong democratic socialist, he was in no way warning against the evils of socialism... The book is about totalitarianism, not socialism.

And thanks to wiki for making this so easy, Orwell himself wrote:

"My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere."

Edit: Not to add to the slander that labour groups were somehow working towards white supremacy. Looking at the USA, it was the anti-communist right wing groups that resisted the civil rights movement, while democratic socialist groups were some of the strongest supporters.

[PeterL]

I read it years ago, but I do not hate 1984, and I don't think that many people that I know hate it. I do hate the concept of a state like the one depicted, and most of the people I know hate such states. The doctrinaire Socialists that I know think that kind of state is just fine, and that tells me all that I need to know about them.

[Mr.lucifer]

To be fair, it was actually satire of the soviet union. I admit to its flaws though. I felt the middle was uninteresting. I like it mostly for the last part.