Ending of 1984

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

aspirer, this is not a story about universal love. Enlightenment and universal love should be sought, not enforced by inescapable torture by a totalitarian entity.




Other people involved in the Orwell discussions are more expert than I am, but here are some quotes I found from Orwell (I've seen better ones regarding his intent, but these are two I found on short notice):

-------
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." (quote from a (pre-1984) 1946 essay "Why I Write" in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 - An Age Like This 1920–1940 p.23 (Penguin)

"..The scene of the book [1984] 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." (From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4 - In Front of Your Nose 1945-1950 p.546) (Penguin)
-------

There is no doubt that Orwell was opposed to totalitarianism, and that he intended 1984 to be argument against totalitarianism, with Big Brother as the totalitarian state. If you are reading 1984 as an example for a path to enlightenment, you are not understanding the author's intent. The error would be so great that I really wonder if you're just joking with us here...
Here's another Orwell quote:
" The great enemy of clear language is insincerity " ;)



A loving attitude towards Big Brother is the ultimate goal for Big Brother. It is not something that should have made any sense to Winston, and he was right to resist. In the end, he says and feels that he loves Big Brother, but it is a terrible outcome for Winston, the reader and for the world that the story takes place in. Big Brother had more power than Winston, and Big Brother used that power to control and enslave Winston. The ultimate power was found in destroying Winston's defenses to the point where Winston would believe that he loved Big Brother. It is a story of domination.

Compared to before, Winston's life is worse. He has lost his love for his girlfriend. He has been forced to believe that 2+2=5. He has professed love for his torturer and abuser. His ability to correctly perceive and make judgments has been destroyed.

---

I was about to write this:
Does Winston have more freedom now? Does Winston have less fear now? Does Winston have more love and less enemies? Isnt Winston much less of a slave than before? The book contains no passages of Winston increasing anyone else's suffering. Can you admit there are some aspects of his life that are better off? There is a premise here which is being pursued independent of 1 of the purposes of the author which is against totalitarianism (which the quote at the top clearly indicates), that if life is better now that is some evidence that being the best response to evil is love.

But rather I give up....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I believe that the quote is Winston thinking, but it is Orwell's intention that we the readers should be reading this with despair, realising that the cause of freedom is entirely lost, that there is no hope for humanity.

Aspirer, Winston has been hideously abused. He has quite literally been frightened out of his mind. His grip on reality is gone. He believes that he loves Big Brother, but, when in his right mind, he hates him. He has won no victory. He loves Big Brother in the same way that a bear dances, to escape cruel treatment. What is most sinister about the Party's methods is that Winston actually believes this falsehood.

Yes, Winston's own life is more pleasant for him, personally, and means that he escapes death, at least temporarily. But his submission means that the Party has won, and Orwell is quite clear that the Party, in both its ends and its means, is thoroughly evil and hateful.

---

some good points, and some good insights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Aspirer, sorry for the confusion, that quote refers to my previous posts:



And



Finally, Winston is scarcely human and less than sane. You had written, 'Forgiveness. That is something Winston learnt'.




These 'positive feelings' are savage irony from the narrator, because Winston becomes nothing more than a crippled zombie: 'then we shall fill you with ourselves'.

---

you could well be right

Hi Aspirer, and thanks for your kind remarks. While I disagree with you about some aspects of your take on 1984, your fresh view has certainly made me think a lot about a novel I really love, and I just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for that, and for prompting me to read 1984 again, which I hadn't done for a year or more.

I was thinking a lot about your points over the week, and it strikes me that your take is similar to Julia's in some ways, though in other important ways, it is very different.

She says to Winston, during a very early conversation with him, that she thinks that it is pointless to work overtly against the Party. She believes that it is more productive to keep your head down, seem to obey the rules and survive, whilst undertaking small and less open acts of rebellion, such as secret love affairs, dealing on the free market etc., as opposed to Winston's more open acts of rebellion. By appearing to love Big Brother, in other words, it is possible to stay in touch with one's humanity and continue to live.

I am interested to know - would you agree with Julia? I understand that your own ideal would be the response of real love in the face of evil, but would you consider this appearance of love, or, as I think you said earlier, loving attitude, to be a better way to rebel against Big Brother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

She believes that it is more productive to keep your head down, seem to obey the rules and survive, whilst undertaking small and less open acts of rebellion, such as secret love affairs, dealing on the free market etc., as opposed to Winston's more open acts of rebellion. By appearing to love Big Brother, in other words, it is possible to stay in touch with one's humanity and continue to live.

---

Julia's approach probably fails for the same reason as Winston's. He was under heavy surveillance seven years before his overt rebellion began. So also with Julia?

If so, what hope for her, or indeed anyone? Hope is an illusion in Oceania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Julia's approach probably fails for the same reason as Winston's. He was under heavy surveillance seven years before his overt rebellion began. So also with Julia?

If so, what hope for her, or indeed anyone? Hope is an illusion in Oceania.

---

I don't think that it's ever made clear when Julia comes to the notice of the Thought Police, though I'm open to correction on that. Obviously, if they have been following all of her activities, then yes, there is no hope of fighting the Party, either by undermining it or by open revolution, and I incline towards that belief myself.

However, that is not really my question - it was rather, was feigning love of Big Brother, and so surviving, a more effective method of maintaining one's humanity? Again, to clarify, I do not say that it was a more personally productive or effective method of breaking the power of the Party, which I believe to be impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

However, that is not really my question - it was rather, was feigning love of Big Brother, and so surviving, a more effective method of maintaining one's humanity?

---

As I have implied, Julia survives at the whim of the Inner Party because it seems improbable that her 'feigning love' would fool the party or delay her arrest.

I understand your question to be: Does Julia maintain her humanity better than Winston in the years leading to their arrest? A difficult question. Both rebel, both feign loyalty to the party (Julia aggressively so), Winston wants to overthrow Ingsoc, while Julia rightly believes overthrow a pipe dream.

Winston has hope based on memories of a time before Ingsoc. He remembers a mother's love. A much younger Julia has neither hope nor love - only petty rebellion. Perhaps Winston creates in Julia the sparks of humanity.

But Winston's own humanity is less than robust, as O'Brien demonstrates:

Quote:

---

[Winston:]'Yes, I consider myself superior.'

O'Brien did not speak. Two other voices were speaking. After a moment Winston recognized one of them as his own. It was a sound−track of the conversation he had had with O'Brien, on the night when he had enrolled himself in the Brotherhood. He heard himself promising to lie, to steal, to forge, to murder, to encourage drug−taking and prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases, to throw vitriol in a child's face. O'Brien made a small impatient gesture, as though to say that the demonstration was hardly worth making. Then he turned a switch and the voices stopped.

---

Yes, but I don't remember anything in the text, and again, I am open to correction on that, to suggest that Julia's activities have prompted the notice of the Thought Police before her association with Winston. It is explicitly said that Julia's working in Pornosec is a sign that her reputation is impeccable.

What I am thinking is that as well as being of longer duration -Julia has managed to get away (even in the sense that she has remained uncensured if not unnoticed) with her activities for over ten years, as opposed to Winston's seven - Julia's form of rebellion is more insidious than anything undertaken by the Brotherhood or any similar organisation.

Anyone carrying out overt rebellion becomes an unperson, and their rebellion forgotten and meaningless. I feel that Julia's small acts of rebellion, if unsuspected or allowed to continue by the Thought Police, are more harmful to the Party and may have more enduring resonance than open rebellion. Open rebellion would be immediately suppressed, all record of it removed, and any revolutionary ideas recanted unreservedly before the rebel is shot - an "unrebellion". O'Brien says so.

The question is moot though, in that we agree that the message of the book is that the Party is not to be overthrown.

I am not sure that Julia's humanity is sparked by Winston. Julia's sexuality, and her desire for nice tasting things like sugar and coffee are all very human instincts, which the Party wishes to destroy, but which Julia has been indulging long before she met Winston, through love affairs and dealing on the free market.

By "humanity" I intend to express the idea of a core of instincts or qualities that make one a human being, as opposed to humaneness or morality, I should really point out that distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Yes, but I don't remember anything in the text, and again, I am open to correction on that, to suggest that Julia's activities have prompted the notice of the Thought Police before her association with Winston.

---

I don't think there's any doubt that the Thought Police weren't aware of what Julia was doing. She was the perfect - if ignorant - catspaw to find Outer Party members whose doctrine had been overcome by sexual desires, so was well worth leaving alone and monitoring until she became essential to O'Brien's destruction of Winston.

As The Atheist says so well, Julia's frequent association with less subtle rebels would have brought her to the attention of the Thought Police sooner rather than later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I am not sure that Julia's humanity is sparked by Winston. Julia's sexuality, and her desire for nice tasting things like sugar and coffee are all very human instincts, which the Party wishes to destroy, but which Julia has been indulging long before she met Winston, through love affairs and dealing on the free market.

By "humanity" I intend to express the idea of a core of instincts or qualities that make one a human being, as opposed to humaneness or morality, I should really point out that distinction.

---

Interesting. Your idea seems to hinge on the question, 'What constitutes humanity?'

In an earlier post, I labelled "Julia's sexuality, and her desire for nice tasting things like sugar and coffee" as merely "petty rebellion", can you persuade me otherwise? Aren't Julia's tastes and desires merely the physical, instinctive and reflex attributes we share with the animals? Surely 'humanity' implies something more than elevated. For instance: comprehension, communication, innovation, hope, faith, love?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Hi Aspirer, and thanks for your kind remarks. While I disagree with you about some aspects of your take on 1984, your fresh view has certainly made me think a lot about a novel I really love, and I just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for that, and for prompting me to read 1984 again, which I hadn't done for a year or more.

I was thinking a lot about your points over the week, and it strikes me that your take is similar to Julia's in some ways, though in other important ways, it is very different.

She says to Winston, during a very early conversation with him, that she thinks that it is pointless to work overtly against the Party. She believes that it is more productive to keep your head down, seem to obey the rules and survive, whilst undertaking small and less open acts of rebellion, such as secret love affairs, dealing on the free market etc., as opposed to Winston's more open acts of rebellion. By appearing to love Big Brother, in other words, it is possible to stay in touch with one's humanity and continue to live.

I am interested to know - would you agree with Julia? I understand that your own ideal would be the response of real love in the face of evil, but would you consider this appearance of love, or, as I think you said earlier, loving attitude, to be a better way to rebel against Big Brother?

---

My attitude is changing/shaping daily, I am unattached to any remarks previously said. Currently my thoughts are:
We can accept Big Brother, rebel against Big Brother, or be/love (ie loving as a process and end in itself, rather than with an agenda/purpose eg to rebel against Big Brother). Option 3 is purifying/giving attention to oneself. I see that as the real solution. I know previously I said ~having a loving attitude towards Big Brother, I now change that to attention narrowed down and exclusively on loving itself. I currently believe aiming to change/rebel against (or putting attention on) Big Brother before purifying oneself, results, if successfully achieved in a new but still evil authority eg animal farm. I believe attention on what these words and synonyms: truth, love, now, “I am” and reality, point to (with sincerity, earnestness and curiosity) is the “solution”. It is like attention to love rather than attention against war (kind of similar to: “I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.” Mother Teresa).
And thanks for the thanks and your questions, you’ve inspired me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aspirer

We can accept Big Brother, rebel against Big Brother, or be/love ...Option 3 is purifying/giving attention to oneself. I see that as the real solution.

---

Following this line of argument, can we say that all thought criminals, who finally leave the infernal torture of Room 101, have reached a state of nirvana: a place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world? Perhaps the party would be pleased with that result.

In the context of love or Nirvana, what do you make of the second to last paragraph, "The long hoped-for bullet was entering his brain"?

The ending is tragic. He has given up fighting because there is no fight, big brother (a boot smashing down on the face of humanity for eternity) is what he has come to "love".

He too has finally come to "love big brother" is just another person put in their place without question. It is meant to show the hopelessness of this society, it is not as if he had a choice in the first place. He, like all others, were forced to give up fighting/rebelling the social construct die. there were no other options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Following this line of argument, can we say that all thought criminals, who finally leave the infernal torture of Room 101, have reached a state of nirvana: a place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world? Perhaps the party would be pleased with that result.

In the context of love or Nirvana, what do you make of the second to last paragraph, "The long hoped-for bullet was entering his brain"?

---

my thoughts are now directed more with a personal opinion that being pure is the right way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't think there's any doubt that the Thought Police weren't aware of what Julia was doing. She was the perfect - if ignorant - catspaw to find Outer Party members whose doctrine had been overcome by sexual desires, so was well worth leaving alone and monitoring until she became essential to O'Brien's destruction of Winston.

---

Again though, I don't remember anything in the text to suggest that. We are told specifically that Julia's first lover killed himself before the Thought Police caught up with him. Nothing is said of any of the others, which leaves the possibility, however slight, that some may have survived, and continued to defy the Party. I admit that it seems unlikely, but I really don't remember in the text a suggestion that Julia had been under surveillance all along. Orwell usually sticks so rigidly to his standards of clarity of expression and directness that I am surprised that he did not mention it.

As I said before, if there is something I have missed, it would be great if someone would let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I admit that it seems unlikely, but I really don't remember in the text a suggestion that Julia had been under surveillance all along. Orwell usually sticks so rigidly to his standards of clarity of expression and directness that I am surprised that he did not mention it.

As I said before, if there is something I have missed, it would be great if someone would let me know.

---

There's certainly no mention of it, but I think Orwell shows that the Thought Police have total control and that nobody can get away with anything, therefore they must have been aware of Julia for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

As The Atheist says so well, Julia's frequent association with less subtle rebels would have brought her to the attention of the Thought Police sooner rather than later.

Interesting. Your idea seems to hinge on the question, 'What constitutes humanity?'

Since I characterised 'Julia's sexuality, and her desire for nice tasting things like sugar and coffee as 'petty rebellion', can you persuade me otherwise? Aren't these taste and desires merely physical, instinctive, reflex, animal attributes? Sure 'humanity' implies something more than the basic. For instance, hope, faith, love?

---

Gladys, I'm sorry, I'm not really clear on what the question is! :) Persuade you of what - that Julia's rebellion is not petty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Gladys, I'm sorry, I'm not really clear on what the question is! :) Persuade you of what - that Julia's rebellion is not petty?

---

Yes. I apologise, Mollie, for a less than coherent post.

My post as amended today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Yes. I apologise, Mollie, for a less than coherent post.

My post as amended today

---

No, I was reading this late at night and it was my brain that was unclear, not your post! Sorry for the delay in replying.

Julia's rebellion tends to be dismissed, I think because people view promiscuity as either immoral or meaningless self indulgence. In the context of 1984, however, I think it takes on a more pointed political meaning, in two ways.

Orwell shows us Winston as enchanted by Julia's promiscuity for the first reason that I think it is important - it strikes directly at one of the most important means of mind control the Party has.

Winston states during one of their early meetings that he did not realise the importance of the warping of the sexual urge into bitterness, frustration and hatred until Julia pointed it out to him. "All of this (the Two Minutes Hate, slavish devotion to Big Brother and the Party)...is simply sex gone sour." says Julia, and we may infer that Orwell agrees with her.

It is also proof that the Party's grip on the minds of its members is not so strong that they are unwilling to defy the Party's teaching. If defiance of the Party's dictates can and has been successfully done, that means that it is possible to "corrupt" the "purity" that the Party preaches and Winston so hates, and all may not be lost - we cannot know how much damage may have been done to the Party through Julia and her lovers' (and their lovers'?) seeing that sexcrime may apparently be committed with impunity or at least delayed punishment - she got away with it for years!

Secondly, Julia's sexuality is an expression of herself, her individuality, her refusal to conform to all that the Party has thrown at her in the way of training and brainwashing. Winston has his memories of a time before the Party held power on which to base his hope and belief that there should be something better and this fuels his rebellion. Julia has no such memories, and yet she goes against the Party's teaching out of a seemingly innate knowledge that the Party has no right to dictate to her.

She may only rebel in ways that impinge on her personally, but I think those ways are important, firstly in the sense that her promiscuity, in which many Party members have been complicit, may do real damage to the Party's power - if not, why does the Party go to so much trouble to try to stamp out such behaviour? - and secondly, in the sense of what it says about her as a character - that she has a nature inimical and indifferent to the Party's doctrines, the very quality that Winston sees in the proles that led him to put his hope in them.

I probably haven't persuaded you of anything, but sure there you are, anyway! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

She may only rebel in ways that impinge on her personally, but I think those ways are important, firstly in the sense that her promiscuity, in which many Party members have been complicit, may do real damage to the Party's power

---

I agree and so would the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

It is also proof that the Party's grip on the minds of its members is not so strong that they are unwilling to defy the Party's teaching. If defiance of the Party's dictates can and has been successfully done, that means that it is possible to "corrupt" the "purity" that the Party preaches and Winston so hates, and all may not be lost

---

Well aware of this sexual threat to its power, the party is responding with Newspeak, Hate Week, the Junior Anti-Sex League and other long term propaganda measures. As Julia says:

And in the Youth Movement. They rub it into you for years. I dare say it works in a lot of cases. But of course you can never tell; people are such hypocrites.

If 'people are such hypocrites', the party has decades of brutal work ahead. But there is no hurry in stable Oceania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

she got away with it for years!

---

Julia's promiscuity would provide the party an easy way to flush out rebels.

so wait, after reading this post idecided to re read the end of the book.

i didn't see this before, but he is actually being assasinated isnt he?

is that up to interpretation?

i guess they were killing him and thats why it had that sense of "finally free" or whatever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

I agree and so would the party.



Well aware of this sexual threat to its power, the party is responding with Newspeak, Hate Week, the Junior Anti-Sex League and other long term propaganda measures. As Julia says:

And in the Youth Movement. They rub it into you for years. I dare say it works in a lot of cases. But of course you can never tell; people are such hypocrites.

If 'people are such hypocrites', the party has decades of brutal work ahead. But there is no hurry in stable Oceania.

Julia's promiscuity would provide the party an easy way to flush out rebels.

---

Our original point of debate was whether or not Julia's rebellion is petty, not whether or not it is counter productive. As supported by your own quotes above, I think the argument is well made that the Party is going to an enormous amount of time and trouble to stamp out sexcrime - why would they do that if such rebellion is petty? It is vitally important, and if it were not, they would ignore it, in the same way that they ignore the sexual habits of the proles, or the odd bit of trading on the free market for razor blades, etc.

Any form of rebellion provides a way to flush out rebels. Winston's own rebellion is an even easier way to flush out rebels, if it comes to that - he says himself that his behaviour is downright suicidal.

She goes to considerably greater lengths to cover her tracks, and Winston gives her credit for her ingenuity. Julia's rebellion having exposed or implicated others does not mean that it is petty or unimportant, any more than Winston's is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by libernaut

so wait, after reading this post idecided to re read the end of the book.

i didn't see this before, but he is actually being assasinated isnt he?

is that up to interpretation?

i guess they were killing him and thats why it had that sense of "finally free" or whatever

---

No, Winston's death at the end of 1984 is purely petaphorical - the bullet is his real and overwhelming love for BB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I think the argument is well made that the Party is going to an enormous amount of time and trouble to stamp out sexcrime - why would they do that if such rebellion is petty? It is vitally important, and if it were not, they would ignore it, in the same way that they ignore the sexual habits of the proles, or the odd bit of trading on the free market for razor blades, etc.

Any form of rebellion provides a way to flush out rebels. Winston's own rebellion is an even easier way to flush out rebels, if it comes to that - he says himself that his behaviour is downright suicidal.

She goes to considerably greater lengths to cover her tracks, and Winston gives her credit for her ingenuity. Julia's rebellion having exposed or implicated others does not mean that it is petty or unimportant, any more than Winston's is.

---

The whole tenet of the book seems to be how the party responds to rebellion, by tolerating, nurturing, then ultimately crushing it. The question I had until Winston & Julia's last meeting was whether Julia was working for the party or herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Our original point of debate was whether or not Julia's rebellion is petty, not whether or not it is counter productive. As supported by your own quotes above, I think the argument is well made that the Party is going to an enormous amount of time and trouble to stamp out sexcrime - why would they do that if such rebellion is petty?

---

Without question, the party deems Julia's rebellion as far from petty. Parson's arrest shows the party has a low threshold for tolerating rebellion. Is any rebellion considered petty?

Julia, herself, considers promiscuity a subversive political statement, although her political objective is little more than vengeance coupled with contempt. She's like a confined animal, blindly striking out at her jailers. 'Humanity' implies something higher, nobler.

Again, our point of debate was whether or not we should consider her rebellion petty. She doesn't think it is, the Party doesn't think it is, Winston doesn't think it is. I see no reason why we should second guess them.

You characterised humanity as something higher. Love, faith, hope, communication, comprehension, innovation were the characteristics you cited. I characterised it as that core of desires, tastes and instincts that makes us a personality, an individual, and would consider those higher things to be spiritual. However, taking your definition of humanity:

It is Julia, not Winston, who makes the first move, establishes the bond of trust, by writing a letter that she must have known would land her in the Ministry of Love eventually. It is she who falls in love with Winston first. He hated her, he wanted to rape and murder her.

She puts herself in danger to come and meet him. She makes all the plans, she makes all the arrangements for them to meet at first, tries her best to ensure his safety. She tries to takes care of him.

It is she, not Winston, who unhesitatingly refuses to contemplate the idea of their separating for the cause of the Brotherhood. She loves him. She, as well as Winston, dreams of their being married and living together, though they both know such dreams are futile.

During the meeting in Charrington's room, she brings with her good food, sweet things, nourishment for body and soul (Winston makes that point explicitly), makes her face up with cosmetics to make herself beautiful, small things but things of the civilised times that Winston craves so much, again, putting herself in danger to do so. Trying to make him and herself happy for a short time. Understanding how much such things will mean to him and to herself.

Faith. Love. Loyalty. Hope. Understanding. The higher things of life, humanity. She displays all of these. All the training, all the brainwashing, has failed utterly. She is naturally unorthodox, unwilling to submit to control. She is supposed to be denied sexual freedom and pleasure by the Party, but she pursues it anyway because she enjoys it, calmly making her plans, joining the Junior Anti-Sex League to allay suspicion. That is not the act of a caged animal, it a human being saying that they will not accept burdensome and unjust conditions. The laws are there and she calculatedly breaks them, just as Winston does.

When people talk of Julia, why are they so harsh in judgement of her? Her rebellion is petty, unproductive, counterproductive. She plays into the Party's hands. She's a danger to herself and others. We're not sure she isn't working for the Party. She's ignoble. She's sub-human. Why are they so quick to dismiss her, suspect her?

I don't accept that the Party nurtures rebellion. Parsons landed up in the Ministry of Love after few incidents (or a single incident?) of talking in his sleep after a lifetime of goodthinkfulness. Ampleforth the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Again, our point of debate was whether or not we should consider her rebellion petty. She doesn't think it is, the Party doesn't think it is, Winston doesn't think it is. I see no reason why we should second guess them.

---

You make a convincing case that Julia has more humanity than Winston, who among other things, would 'throw vitriol in a child's face'. If her rebellion is petty at first, I would agree that her humanity grows through her relationship with Winston, even to the extent of faith, love, loyalty, hope and understanding. O’Brien would see both their rebellions as ‘petty’, while he suppresses them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

That is not the act of a caged animal, it a human being saying that they will not accept burdensome and unjust conditions.

---

What she says she achieves, before meeting Winston, seems little more than sex for sex sake, her goals being so limited. Clearly many, and perhaps most, Outer Party members rebel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I don't accept that the Party nurtures rebellion.

---

How then do you explain the more than seven years of surveillance of Winston before the Thought Police arrest him? Surveillance that would have exposed the diary bought from Charrington's junk-shop, prior to the novel's start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

When people talk of Julia, why are they so harsh in judgement of her? Her rebellion is petty, unproductive, counterproductive. She plays into the Party's hands. She's a danger to herself and others. We're not sure she isn't working for the Party. She's ignoble. She's sub-human. Why are they so quick to dismiss her, suspect her?

I don't accept that the Party nurtures rebellion. Parsons landed up in the Ministry of Love after few incidents (or a single incident?) of talking in his sleep after a lifetime of goodthinkfulness. Ampleforth the same.

---

Well how can we be sure she isn't working for the party until they meet up at the end? O'Brien and Charrington work for the party, why not Julia as well?

Julia's rebellion seems much stronger than Winston's until she shows no interest in reading Goldstein's book in the Attic. This is the turning point for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richier

Julia's rebellion seems much stronger than Winston's until she shows no interest in reading Goldstein's book in the Attic. This is the turning point for me.

---

In what way 'the turning point'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

In what way 'the turning point'?

---

Up until that point, Julia was more convincing in her commitment to rebellion against the party, but how could someone wanting to join the resistance movement fall asleep reading/listening to the clandestine book that explains their struggle?

What would you say Julia wants to do? Not topple the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richier

What would you say Julia wants to do? Not topple the party.

---

Since the party is invincible, sensible Julia is a realist.

To Richier - Goldstein's book is a fraud. It is written by the Party, to serve the Party's purposes. Winston is as taken in by it as he is by O'Brien - it later comes to light that Julia's reaction (or non-reaction) to the book is entirely appropriate. Also, I should like to add my agreement to Gladys's opinion above, stating that Julia is a realist, and more concerned with the practical than the theoretical; I do not believe that her lack of interest in the book is a proof that we should find her motives suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

You make a convincing case that Julia has more humanity than Winston, who among other things, would 'throw vitriol in a child's face'. If her rebellion is petty at first, I would agree that her humanity grows through her relationship with Winston, even to the extent of faith, love, loyalty, hope and understanding. O’Brien would see both their rebellions as ‘petty’, while he suppresses them.



What she says she achieves, before meeting Winston, seems little more than sex for sex sake, her goals being so limited. Clearly many, and perhaps most, Outer Party members rebel.

How then do you explain the more than seven years of surveillance of Winston before the Thought Police arrest him? Surveillance that would have exposed the diary bought from Charrington's junk-shop, prior to the novel's start.

---

I thoroughly agree that Winston and Julia grow and flourish as human beings by means of their relationship, and indeed, I think that is one of the main themes of the book, though one that tends to get a little lost in the midst of the reader's interest in the Party's methods and theory and the portrayal of life under its regime.

I would point out that Julia also agreed to throw vitriol in a child's face, and it was certainly not my intention to portray her as more human than Winston, but to point out that she does not derive her humanity from her association with him, that it was there already, and flourishes through his love and companionship.

I think that O'Brien would see their rebellions as useless rather than petty, as he knows the power of the Party, but also knows that little or nothing in the way of rebellion is seen as petty by the Party; every particle of individuality, humanity and spirituality is a threat to the Party's supremacy and must be destroyed.

"Sex for sex's sake" seems a limited goal only from the perspective of someone living in a liberal democracy, but not to one living in a sexually repressive totalitarian state. Sex for sex's sake in a convent in the Middle Ages would be sufficient for the offender to be buried alive, and such risk and gruesome punishment does not suggest a limited goal - it depends on context.

The seven years of surveillance I account for by Winston's lack of goodthinkfulness. The word goodthinkful, ascribed to Winston's wife, is explained by Winston as meaning naturally orthodox and incapable of thought contrary to Party doctrine. Winston, despite his efforts, has at some time over the years prior to the surveillance clearly displayed ungoodthinkfulness, and has betrayed himself to the Thought Police as someone who must be destroyed. I believe that he did so by talking in his sleep. He believes that he has had a dream during which a person has said to him that they will meet him in the place where there is no darkness - I think that O'Brien has planted this idea in his head subliminally, talking to him in his sleep by means of the telescreen, after he has betrayed himself. Much is made of the danger of talking in one's sleep, and I think that it is not a great leap to make to assume that that is what Winston has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I would point out that Julia also agreed to throw vitriol in a child's face, and it was certainly not my intention to portray her as more human than Winston, but to point out that she does not derive her humanity from her association with him, that it was there already, and flourishes through his love and companionship.

---

It's less than clear that 'Julia also agreed to throw vitriol'. At very least, she lacks Winston's enthusiasm for committing atrocities. I suspect she retains to the end a cynical view of opposition to the party.

Quote:

---

O'Brien had turned himself a little in his chair so that he was facing Winston. He almost ignored Julia, seeming to take it for granted that Winston could speak for her.

---

As for Winston, in another life, he and O'Brien might have changed places seamlessly. Both zealots without principles.

Yes, you're quite right, it's not clear that Julia herself says that she will do so. However, since she refused to separate and never see Winston again, but does not break in to refuse to do any of the other acts proposed, I think her agreement may be inferred.

I don't think I agree with your reading of Winston and O'Brien both being zealots without principles. O'Brien, is willing to do (and does) any amount of appalling things, but cares for nothing but the power of the Party, and his own power, I suppose. Winston is willing to do appalling things, but in the name of freedom and humanity. While that does not necessarily excuse the things that he says he would have done, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that he is without principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

I don't think I agree with your reading of Winston and O'Brien both being zealots without principles. O'Brien, is willing to do (and does) any amount of appalling things, but cares for nothing but the power of the Party, and his own power, I suppose. Winston is willing to do appalling things, but in the name of freedom and humanity. While that does not necessarily excuse the things that he says he would have done, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that he is without principles.

---

It seems to me that the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, Pol Pots and Mugabes of this world begin, like Winston, with high ideals. Principles tend to be sacrificed in the face of ongoing, practical realities - like retaining power and influence. O’Brien had this in mind in Room 101. And I suspect this was Orwell's painful experience, particularly in Spain before World War II .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

It seems to me that the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, Pol Pots and Mugabes of this world begin, like Winston, with high ideals. Principles tend to be sacrificed in the face of ongoing, practical realities - like retaining power and influence. O’Brien had this in mind in Room 101. And I suspect this was Orwell's painful experience, particularly in Spain before World War II .

---

A good point, and well made :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

To Richier - Goldstein's book is a fraud. It is written by the Party, to serve the Party's purposes. Winston is as taken in by it as he is by O'Brien - it later comes to light that Julia's reaction (or non-reaction) to the book is entirely appropriate. Also, I should like to add my agreement to Gladys's opinion above, stating that Julia is a realist, and more concerned with the practical than the theoretical; I do not believe that her lack of interest in the book is a proof that we should find her motives suspect.

---

Mollie, I do apologise for the time delay in replying, and hope I don't confuse the thread as it has moved on since your post...
In what sense is Goldstein's book a fraud (I'm not suggesting it is or isn't)? The party controls what is truth and what is not, and O'Brien explains that Goldstein's book is fictional while he is convincing Winston that 2 + 2 = 5, if the party says it is.

My point about the difference between Julia and Winston's rebellion is that both were led to believe that Goldstein's book was the key document for the brotherhood and surprisingly, Julia wasn't interested in it. Why Orwell made Julia's character do this I can't quite fathom out, is there a point being made or was it due to the poor attitude towards women in the early 20th century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richier

Why Orwell made Julia's character do this I can't quite fathom out, is there a point being made or was it due to the poor attitude towards women in the early 20th century?

---

I don't think it shows a poor attitude towards women as being honest about the difference between men and women. Men are idealists, women realists. Julia knew that there was nothing any putative "brotherhood" could do and that their only option was to go on until they were caught, while Winston held hopes of overthrowing the Party.

Julia being right tends to emphasise Orwell's respect for their pragmatism rather than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richier

In what sense is Goldstein's book a fraud (I'm not suggesting it is or isn't)? The party controls what is truth and what is not, and O'Brien explains that Goldstein's book is fictional while he is convincing Winston that 2 + 2 = 5, if the party says it is.

---

Interesting. The narrator of 1984 is omniscient and infallible, but what of O'Brien? Can we believe anything, or should we believe everything, he says to Winston in Room 101?

For instance, did O'Brien really write Goldstein's book, and is there really no Brotherhood in Oceania? Winston 'trusts' him, should we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richier

Mollie, I do apologise for the time delay in replying, and hope I don't confuse the thread as it has moved on since your post...
In what sense is Goldstein's book a fraud (I'm not suggesting it is or isn't)? The party controls what is truth and what is not, and O'Brien explains that Goldstein's book is fictional while he is convincing Winston that 2 + 2 = 5, if the party says it is.

My point about the difference between Julia and Winston's rebellion is that both were led to believe that Goldstein's book was the key document for the brotherhood and surprisingly, Julia wasn't interested in it. Why Orwell made Julia's character do this I can't quite fathom out, is there a point being made or was it due to the poor attitude towards women in the early 20th century?

---

I'm sorry, I hadn't been checking this thread, so I apologise for the delay in replying to you!

By "a fraud", I mean that I think that Goldstein's book has been written by the Party, as O'Brien suggests. If a book existed which had been genuinely written by Goldstein, I do not think that O'Brien would have given a copy to Winston. I think it makes more sense that he would give Winston material that the Party had produced. If Winston had managed to get hold of a book allegedly written by Goldstein from another source, and O'Brien had claimed that that was written by the Party, I might be a little more suspicious of whether or not O'Brien was speaking the truth there. But since Winston has been given the book by O'Brien himself, I think it more likely that the book is a product of the Party.

I agree with Atheist, I think Julia's lack of interest in the book reflects a nature which concentrates on the practical rather than the theoretical, and I do not construe this as a criticism of women or of Julia.

How much of O'Brien's words can be trusted is a good question though!

Julia and Winston were able to express their feellings and thoughts by loving and caring for each other using different hideouts

They enjoyed the fact of sharing the vision that the present "was wrong" and that by making love was a rebeld act that could change the terrible present into a more human future.

Since the torture tranformed them and made them betray each other, they both became different persons, making loving each other imposible

Since both probably loved the way they felt and share in the past, but there was no hope to feel any of that in present, it was better to "move on"...and convincing your self that you "love the big brother" was like geting shot in the head and just stop thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mauriciogracia

Julia and Winston were able to express their feellings and thoughts by loving and caring for each other using different hideouts

They enjoyed the fact of sharing the vision that the present "was wrong" and that by making love was a rebeld act that could change the terrible present into a more human future.

Since the torture tranformed them and made them betray each other, they both became different persons, making loving each other imposible

Since both probably loved the way they felt and share in the past, but there was no hope to feel any of that in present, it was better to "move on"...and convincing your self that you "love the big brother" was like geting shot in the head and just stop thinking.

---

Not bad, but you're missing one important point:

It wasn't a case of "better to move on", they had been completely re-programmed and were incapable of doing anything unorthodox.