Parsons and Poet in MiniLove

Printable View

06-04-2009, 07:27 AM
Litchr-LiteWait

Parsons and Poet in MiniLove

Just finished 1984; my head is still reeling. I have a hundred thoughts in my head but I’ll start with one:

Did Parson really yell out in his sleep “down with big brother” or did his daughter lie in her incrimination? If he did yell it out, does that further support that all of society has a natural notion (ancestrial knowlege, I think Winston called it) of right/wrong, just/unjust and how things ought be? What about the poet (his name eludes me) that is in the holding cell? Was his seemingly unconscious act to not strike God from the poem mimic Parsons sleeping outburst? Yet Parson is not a critical thinker. He is not inteligent enought to question Ingsog and yet his subconsious does?
06-04-2009, 08:13 AM
Knirps

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litchr-LiteWait

Did Parson really yell out in his sleep “down with big brother” or did his daughter lie in her incrimination? If he did yell it out, does that further support that all of society has a natural notion (ancestrial knowlege, I think Winston called it) of right/wrong, just/unjust and how things ought be? What about the poet (his name eludes me) that is in the holding cell? Was his seemingly unconscious act to not strike God from the poem mimic Parsons sleeping outburst? Yet Parson is not a critical thinker. He is not inteligent enought to question Ingsog and yet his subconsious does?

I think you are overthinking it with Parsons. It is irrelevant if he actually did yell it out or if his daughter lied. What is important is the fact that his daughter reported him, regardless of him being the closest person to her, as well as, him being too stupid to realize that his daughter essentially "backstabbed" him. Parson actually bought whatever happened, without questioning it a slight bit, which is ironic, because a reasonable person shouldn't have. Orwell tries to show the stupidity and conformity of the "average Joe" in the society. Either way subconscious knowledge is a fluid concept, and I guess the only reason Orwell included it was to make his book slightly more controversial and open ended. Remember that "ancestrial" knowledge or "collective subconscious" was introduced by Jung around that time as well, and not too many people knew about it.
06-04-2009, 12:14 PM
Litchr-LiteWait

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knirps

I think you are overthinking it with Parsons. It is irrelevant if he actually did yell it out or if his daughter lied.

Maybe, but Parsons allegedly commited at overt act. Why wouldn't Orwell have 'the young nipper' cite something less tacid if the allegetion was the only relevant part? I do agree that Parson is symbolic the flock-like society. I just think Orwell is too smart to leave a loose end like that.

When you say ancestrial knowledge is fluid, do you mean that it is not quantifiable or objective? Agreed. I am advocating that its meer existance is sufficient to prove that the Party has not stamped out the spirt that would lead to revolution.
06-04-2009, 01:03 PM
Knirps

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litchr-LiteWait

Maybe, but Parsons allegedly commited at overt act. Why wouldn't Orwell have 'the young nipper' cite something less tacid if the allegetion was the only relevant part? I do agree that Parson is symbolic the flock-like society. I just think Orwell is too smart to leave a loose end like that.

When you say ancestrial knowledge is fluid, do you mean that it is not quantifiable or objective? Agreed. I am advocating that its meer existance is sufficient to prove that the Party has not stamped out the spirt that would lead to revolution.

If she would cite something not as overt, it will go against the persona of the "nipper", who always catches the thought criminals red-handed and guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also, he wanted to show the severity of the concept of the "Crime and Consequence" - even someone stupid and bluntly devoted as Parson is still guilty of thoughtcrime - it is vividly presented to Winston, showing that there is no pardon and no one escapes. However, if it was something small, Winston could have gotten the wrong perception and false hopes.

When I said that it is fluid, I pretty much meant what you said. The spirit of revolution has not completely been eradicated as of yet, however at "this point" (time of the events of the book) it is vague and illogical? because of doublethink and etc.
06-04-2009, 01:32 PM
Litchr-LiteWait

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knirps

even someone stupid and bluntly devoted as Parson is still guilty of thoughtcrime

I guess my view of Parson is not so severe and that is why I am trying to find some hope in this scene. I see him as symbolic of the larger portion of the Outer Party who don’t understand the full implications of Ingsog. So I don’t see him as being consciously brutal as Obrien but naïve and aloof. To me he is an analogy for people I know who have good intentions but embrace an extreme ideology without fully grasping the implications.

I can appricate your treatment of the scene and see how your interpretation is resonable and rational.
06-04-2009, 01:47 PM
Knirps

We shall wait until The Atheist replies.
He speaks the truth. :yawnb:;)
06-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Litchr-LiteWait

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knirps

We shall wait until The Atheist replies.
He speaks the truth. :yawnb:;)

Spoken as a devoted party member...can 'they' modify old posts, cause that would be way creepy...
06-04-2009, 09:03 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knirps

We shall wait until The Atheist replies.
He speaks the truth. :yawnb:;)

:lol:

I think you've got a pretty good handle on it - Parsons was just dumb. Orwell couldn't have been more blatant than "paralysing stupidity".

The poet? Orwell hated poetry - or maybe just hated not being able to write it - you need to read Keep the Aspidistra Flying for an expanded version.
06-04-2009, 09:26 PM
Litchr-LiteWait

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

:lol:

I think you've got a pretty good handle on it - Parsons was just dumb. Orwell couldn't have been more blatant than "paralysing stupidity".

The poet? Orwell hated poetry - or maybe just hated not being able to write it - you need to read Keep the Aspidistra Flying for an expanded version.

But wasn't he deticated and hard working (albiet for the Party) I guess I a hard time with a simple "he was stupid" write off of the character. Do you guys think that Boxer's representation in Animal Farm was simply stupid gulible people?
06-04-2009, 10:17 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litchr-LiteWait

But wasn't he deticated and hard working (albiet for the Party) I guess I a hard time with a simple "he was stupid" write off of the character.

He would have been doing a very limited job.

I don't think he was representative of anything other than those slavish followers who never question; i.e. really stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litchr-LiteWait

Do you guys think that Boxer's representation in Animal Farm was simply stupid gulible people?

Nope. You need to look at the difference in how Orwell describes them. Boxer, while not bright, is drawn as a sympathetic character, totally unlike Parsons. Parsons is never more than a congenital idiot who gets shown no sympathy at all. I think Orwell probably felt that gibbering idiots who slavishly follow doctrine deserve what they get.