Irony!

[skater]

1984 consists of a decent amount of irony. As the book progresses, Orwell continues to write of females playing the roles that most people would consider to be male roles. The scene where Julia spots a rat is a great example. Winston soon finds out that Julia was talking to the rat and freaks out, almost in a way of showing his freight and his uneasiness. Most people would say that a woman would react in such a way, however this part is not the truely ironic segment. The irony runs heavily throughout Julia's words, "I'll stuff the hole with a bit of sacking before we go. And next time we come here I'll bring some plaster and bung it up properly". This sentence came as a shock! Men now, in 2011, are expected to be the intelligent, stratagized partner that will bring the rat out of the house with boundless bravery and seal the hole with little effort. Why might it be that Orwell makes his book descibe the exact opposite situation?

[MystyrMystyry]

You're quite right - it isn't ironical; but nor is the book, it's simply just the opposite of everything. From the '84 of the title (he wrote it in '48) through to the way the depicted political system treats it's citizens and to Newspeak. On the one hand he's commenting on Russia under Stalin (Stalinism as distinct from Socialism), and on the other he's saying that being one of the cogs that make the machine run is more important than individual happiness or free thought.

But that said, Stalinism was the direct opposite of Democracy, not Socialism which in theory has everyone's best interests at heart (it's never actually been tried on a large national scale - in name only but always a distorted version). You could say that's the essence of 1984, that ideals become corrupted along the way, and in the book the three world powers are all equally corrupt - but as he didn't directly address it it's open to interpretation.

The reason why I don't think the rat scene is particularly important is because during (and the rebuilding post) WWII women took to performing semi-traditional male roles - in armament factories to road and housing works while a quarter of the remaining men were shell shocked or crippled in some way. In this context a rat hole isn't particularly shocking, and I don't believe it was intended to be, just a brief interlude perhaps to say this is how the roles are defined in 1984, and not particularly opposite. Some women even like rats - I met one who'd dyed hers pink.

[McLovin]

I agree. Although it isn't exactly irony, Orwell is showing that women and men would kind of "switch roles" by 1984. Some could argue that Orwell was correct in his predictions. Women are now less fearful and willing to do the dirty work. The relationship between men and women has surely changed over time.

[skater]

I agree, but in 1984, weren't women still fighting for their rights? Now, in 2011, women can do just about any job they choose, though people have their views of which jobs women and men should and shouldn't have, the job range is almost completely open. I don't know as though Orwell was correct about the opposition completely taking place by 1984, but I think Orwell is correct in saying roles have dramatically changed. I do wonder if Orwell wasn't stating directly that all this would happen in 1984, but just that it would happen at sometime in the future.:confused5: