Thought Police

Thought Police is some kind internal Party Secret Service. Their job is to control and assure that Party Members are loyal not only with their acts; they should be loyal with their thoughts also. After all, act is a result of a thought.

Thought Police is everywhere and controls everything and everyone. They are also hidden in Proles, although they are not interested in catching Proles because Proles are too stupid even to think.

They use all kind of traps: verbal; like O'Brien's try of conversation with Winston; or physically like old shop etc. They are tracking members everywhere, waiting for some their wrong move so they can caught them and put them in Room 101.

Winston believed that there was something before Party but he was not sure what. Members of Thought Police, who are so loyal and smart to know that there is no such a thing like pre-Party; knew what those rebellions like Winston thinks so they made a perfect trap, just the one like it is in Winston's head. After that, it was easy to catch him. If someone had some other doubt, they would act same like they did in Winston's case.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes or Who watch the watchers? Nobody. Members of Thought Police and highest members of Party will never have doubts in Party and Big Brother and that's the reason Party will stand forever.

How long ago did the Thought police begin watching Winston and brginning to plan to trap him?? Was it seven years before 1984, when Winston had the dream of O'Brian saying they will meet in a place where there is no darkness? Or was it when Winston bought the journal and pen? Just wondering..

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Princess Belle

How long ago did the Thought police begin watching Winston and brginning to plan to trap him?? Was it seven years before 1984, when Winston had the dream of O'Brian saying they will meet in a place where there is no darkness? Or was it when Winston bought the journal and pen? Just wondering..

:)

---

We never know, but we've been discussing it a lot lately.

I'd go for several years at least, maybe even many years. You also need to remember they watched everyone, all of the time.

So it would mean that number of Thought Police members at least equals number of party members. And I think more then one ''agent'' deals with potential rebellion. Weird!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

So it would mean that number of Thought Police members at least equals number of party members. And I think more then one ''agent'' deals with potential rebellion. Weird!

---

Yeah, it seems that way, but maybe the Party had automated programs to watch the Outer Party members?

I don't think the Party would go through so much trouble to watch every Outer Party member at all times. It's too much manpower. I think they set little traps for them (the journal and pen). Once a member springs that trap, welcome to constant observation and intricate setups for the next seven years. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enjoi.

I don't think the Party would go through so much trouble to watch every Outer Party member at all times.

---

But Orwell tells us that that's the way it is when Winston is chastised for not being energetic enough in the physical exercise program.

He doesn't say how they were able to do it, but it's clear that everyone was watched all the time. I guess one sharp operator could watch half a dozen or so people at one time, so it isn't necessary to have one watcher per person.

Nowadays, with digital technology, computers could do most of the work - there's no saying that that's not what Orwell was implying.

just to add to all the valid points already made i think what i gained from 1984was that the inner party members were in control of the thought police(people like o'brien),was there a need for that many of them?i do not know. surely the implied threat was that you were being watched and the consequences of unorthodoxy was enough for the majority of the party to stay subservient.
not the best analogy,but adhering to speed resrictions on the road you probobly will not get caught doing 120mph on an abandoned road but there is always that threat that a speed trap has been set up just around the next curvature(there may only be one mobile trap in the whole country) and this threat alone and its consequences is enough to keep you within the law.
charringtons shop was filled with neutral items,where proles were concerned,but with party members the merchandise became charged and maybe charrington helped catch many polits over a period of many years with his bait,not only winston and julia.

likgem, this makes sense. But, who does watch the watchers? Who decides who is the watcher and who is watched? Scio nihil scio :p

Quote:

---

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes or Who watch the watchers? Nobody. Members of Thought Police and highest members of Party will never have doubts in Party and Big Brother and that's the reason Party will stand forever.

---

We might be on the same page here, I'm not sure -

It goes beyond even the members of the inner party having "doubts" in Big Brother and the party. The members of the inner party are fully cognizant of the artifice that the party represents. The only reality members of the inner party face is the reality that by mentally enslaving the population at large it is possible for a small group to live in affluence and comfort. The world of 'facts' is presented to Winston in Goldstein's book.

The inner party members are fully conscious of their crimes against the outer party. There would therefore be no need (at least in theory) to monitor members of the inner party. Even if we assume the story of Goldstein is true (inner party member revolts and creates revolutionary group) it seems to make little difference based on the events of the story.

i think jason is right but bazarov is to,doublethink!
it seems to me the key is in the words oligarch and collectivism,it is worth looking up these words for a definition and to take them literally it becomes more clear.the oligarchs ruled,(maybe with the freedom of the proles and the wealth of their predecessors the capitalists)while the rest lived under a form of collectivism and a completely different set of rules from the inner party.
the totalitarian state protected their own affluence and power whilst at the same time ensuring a continuation of government and a jackboot stamping on the the face of the proletariat,forever.

my own caveat is o'brien,pshchotic,fanatical and steadfast in his beliefs that he and party orthodoxy were the sane route.not a semblence of humanity remained within him it seemed.

who is right,jason or bazarov.its a tough call and one that deserves serious thought to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I know what you are saying about O'Brien lukgem; I think he is probably completely insane (or at least incredibly sadistic). For O'brien (or any member of the inner-party), it's not as if they need to 'agree' with the values of the party, they simply need to make outsiders believe that there is no alternative. There is a wall from the inner/outer party that we are never really privileged to cross as a reader in the novel. Everything O'Brien says is filtered through Winston and I think we have to view it as a member of the inner party addressing a member of the outer party.

This is how I read the book at least. I feel like the inner-party would necessarily have to have lost nearly all sense of moral or ethical values (especially the ability to feel empathy).

I don't think this means that the inner-party doesn't have a mature understanding of ideas like liberty, equality, and democracy; and their merits as political or human ideas - only that they pursue other methods because for their limited group it provides them with the 'best' (roughly stated) way of life. In many ways this is really a lot worse than if they DID blindly believe in the ideas espoused by the party.

In light of this, are they still 'human'?

I don't know - maybe that's a different question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

There would therefore be no need (at least in theory) to monitor members of the inner party.

---

I have to side with Bazarov here - there is no need at all to monitor Inner Party members. If ever a dissident thought turned up in their minds, they'd overcome it with Doublethink immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

...a jackboot stamping on the the face of the proletariat,forever...

---

I love that phrase, Orwell at his very best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

my own caveat is o'brien,pshchotic,fanatical and steadfast in his beliefs that he and party orthodoxy were the sane route.not a semblence of humanity remained within him it seemed.

---

Perfectly put. Completely sane and logical, just completely amoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

who is right,jason or bazarov.its a tough call and one that deserves serious thought to come to a reasonable conclusion.

---

I'm confident it's Baz.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I know what you are saying about O'Brien lukgem; I think he is probably completely insane (or at least incredibly sadistic).

---

I'll explain why I think that's wrong in a sec...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

For O'brien (or any member of the inner-party), it's not as if they need to 'agree' with the values of the party, they simply need to make outsiders believe that there is no alternative.

---

Nope. They don't just agree with the values of the Party, they are the values of the Party.

There isn't an alternative, either. It doesn't exist. Orwell makes this clear in Goldstein's book. The change and takeover is different from all previous attempts and the pendulum stops forever. If you take Goldstein's book and marry it to O'Brien's philosophy, you find that immortality is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

There is a wall from the inner/outer party that we are never really privileged to cross as a reader in the novel. Everything O'Brien says is filtered through Winston and I think we have to view it as a member of the inner party addressing a member of the outer party.

---

Yeah, but Orwell wrote it and he wasn't big on hiding his messages too well - he wants us to understand the complete and irrevocable rule of the Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

This is how I read the book at least. I feel like the inner-party would necessarily have to have lost nearly all sense of moral or ethical values (especially the ability to feel empathy).

---

Bingo!

If you look at today's world, we have sets of morals drawn from religion. In 1984, the only moral position for Inner Party members is immortality of the Party. The Inner Party has thrown science, evolution and theology out the window and replaced it with a specific set of rules designed to keep Party rule forever. As a result, there is no moral question for members. You can arrive at the same result by reductionism, reducing all moral questions to "me or him?" Piece of cake.

Because no human morals exist, O'Brien doesn't need to be sadistic, or even enjoy his work - he's just performing a natural and quite sane ritual: the re-programming of a defective unit. The electric shocks he administers to Winston mean no more to him than you do when subjecting a radio to electric shock by turning it on.

In terms of existence, only the Inner Party even exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I don't think this means that the inner-party doesn't have a mature understanding of ideas like liberty, equality, and democracy; and their merits as political or human ideas - only that they pursue other methods because for their limited group it provides them with the 'best' (roughly stated) way of life. In many ways this is really a lot worse than if they DID blindly believe in the ideas espoused by the party.

---

Even standard of living doesn't matter to Inner Party members. They do what they do and nothing else matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

In light of this, are they still 'human'?

I don't know - maybe that's a different question.

---

Yeah. Perfectly normal, rational human beings.

Quote:

---

Nope. They don't just agree with the values of the Party, they are the values of the Party.

There isn't an alternative, either. It doesn't exist. Orwell makes this clear in Goldstein's book. The change and takeover is different from all previous attempts and the pendulum stops forever. If you take Goldstein's book and marry it to O'Brien's philosophy, you find that immortality is possible.

---

I'm not trying to infuse the situation with hope or optimism for the proles or outer-party. I just think the inner-party's rule is like an equation for power or dominance. I don't think it's necessary for them to believe in any of the party propaganda, rather I think it's all just a technique for control and maintenance of the existing (and permanent) hierarchy. It's power for power's sake. It's the subjugation of millions for wine and cigarettes.

The severe cruelty and intelligence of inner-party members makes it difficult for me to imagine that they really believe they have restructured society in a way that is beneficial to humans (and I could certainly be accused of drastically missing the point of the novel here) and not out of pure self interest (although you could say maybe it's out of both).

I realize this is not the way Orwell intended the book to be read, but I don't think there is much in the text that makes this reading unfounded.

I'm not married to this idea either; in many ways I see why it makes just as much (if not more) sense to view it the way you do Atheist. It's just a thought.

Semi Off Topic -

Have you guys read Zamyatin's We, Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground or The Grand Inquisitor?

Happy Thanksgiving!

B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I'm not trying to infuse the situation with hope or optimism for the proles or outer-party. I just think the inner-party's rule is like an equation for power or dominance. I don't think it's necessary for them to believe in any of the party propaganda, rather I think it's all just a technique for control and maintenance of the existing (and permanent) hierarchy. It's power for power's sake. It's the subjugation of millions for wine and cigarettes.

---

It is necessary for them to believe in it, otherwise Party wouldn't function that well, it would start to fall apart from inside. They believe in it like it's the only possible and right way, propaganda is just a way to demonstrate that to Proles, not to strength their leadership, it too strong already.

Sorry Atheist, but I still remember ( 2 younger brothers :D ) that in stupid movie Matrix, those agents were called O'Brien, just like our dear O'Brien. And I don't believe in coincidences!

Quote:

---

The severe cruelty and intelligence of inner-party members makes it difficult for me to imagine that they really believe they have restructured society in a way that is beneficial to humans (and I could certainly be accused of drastically missing the point of the novel here) and not out of pure self interest (although you could say maybe it's out of both).

---

In my country, there is idiom: No brain, no worry!
Believe me, you will never see unhappy fool in your life. So yes, they made great thing for Proles.

Quote:

---

Have you guys read Zamyatin's We, Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground or The Grand Inquisitor?

---

Yes - nothing comparable to Orwell
Yes
Yes - but you should read whole book, not just that passage

Welcome!

party ideals must stem from somewhere,it is not an instinct inbred at birth and i would suggest orthodoxy is at the very least somewhat malleable as it needs to constantly change to keep up with the present.
to my mind this needs human cunning and ingenuity.intelligence spreading fear and evil(i think atheist said that)does not seem possible at the very top if all the population(including the inner part are brainwashed)an operation on the scale of ingsoc surely would need all human attributes at the top that can be developed without constraint or it would be doomed to fail.
constant adaption i would suggest is needed to keep inner party power, dogma and fear in the inner circles would cripple the constant streams of thought needed to maintain their positions in power.
i would also suggest that material wealth is enough for the oligarchs to keep the populus in permanent bondage,that is human nature without the real unstanding of life itself and freedom.
to hold bazarov's and atheist's position(two people who's views i look forward to reading and admire)is horrifying for this biocomputer to take in.if you have what you think is goodness in your soul its hard to contemplate totalitarianism at its most extreme,its a difficult mental quandry to digest,unless you have lived through it or have the genius of orwell and the foresight of bazarov and atheist to envisage it.
jasons position is more understanable from my point of view as a member of the human race.

another caveat is the nazi's,killing and torturing their human brethren by day going home to the wife and kids at night,perfectly sane.

atheist is right humanity is a fragile thing it does not take a lot to scrape back the thin skin of civilisation and look at the cancer that lies beneath.

we were not privvy to this information in 1984 on the thought police and who polices them so the discussion must remain open for different interpretations.

by the way i really enjoy everybodys contributions to this forum,it really brings good things into my life and i appreciate that,thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

i would also suggest that material wealth is enough for the oligarchs to keep the populus in permanent bondage,that is human nature without the real unstanding of life itself and freedom.

---

What oligarchs?

Quote:

---

to hold bazarov's and atheist's position(two people who's views i look forward to reading and admire)is horrifying for this biocomputer to take in.if you have what you think is goodness in your soul its hard to contemplate totalitarianism at its most extreme,its a difficult mental quandry to digest,unless you have lived through it or have the genius of orwell and the foresight of bazarov and atheist to envisage it.
jasons position is more understanable from my point of view as a member of the human race.

---

There are no Gods on this forum, Atheist will probably say that there is no God even outside this forum :lol:; we are all humans. So is Orwell. Just try watch from another point of view except your kind, honest and smart one and you'll see....:bawling:

Quote:

---

another caveat is the nazi's,killing and torturing their human brethren by day going home to the wife and kids at night,perfectly sane.

---

Why not? He believes that he is doing great job; every dead brings glory to Fuhrer and Third Reich. It's not that anyone normal approves that way of thinking, but there is some really weird twisted sick logic in that.

Quote:

---

by the way i really enjoy everybodys contributions to this forum,it really brings good things into my life and i appreciate that,thanks.

---

:thumbs_up

And please, use Caps Lock from time to time, and space after comma, etc. It's painful to read, but too interesting to skip. Thanks! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I just think the inner-party's rule is like an equation for power or dominance. I don't think it's necessary for them to believe in any of the party propaganda, rather I think it's all just a technique for control and maintenance of the existing (and permanent) hierarchy. It's power for power's sake. It's the subjugation of millions for wine and cigarettes.

---

Dead right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

The severe cruelty and intelligence of inner-party members makes it difficult for me to imagine that they really believe they have restructured society in a way that is beneficial to humans (and I could certainly be accused of drastically missing the point of the novel here) and not out of pure self interest (although you could say maybe it's out of both).

---

Believing that their society is best for proles and Outer Party members is easy - they're happy. Through the use of Doublethink and propaganda, the people are deluded into thinking they're happy, and if they think they're happy, they are!

Bazarov nails it here:

Quote:

---

In my country, there is idiom: No brain, no worry!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Sorry Atheist, but I still remember ( 2 younger brothers :D ) that in stupid movie Matrix, those agents were called O'Brien, just like our dear O'Brien. And I don't believe in coincidences!

---

Wow! You remember their names.

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Believe me, you will never see unhappy fool in your life.

---

They don't make a thingy funny enough to show how much I laughed at that. In fact, I'm stealing that for use elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

party ideals must stem from somewhere,it is not an instinct inbred at birth and i would suggest orthodoxy is at the very least somewhat malleable as it needs to constantly change to keep up with the present.
to my mind this needs human cunning and ingenuity.intelligence spreading fear and evil(i think atheist said that)does not seem possible at the very top if all the population(including the inner part are brainwashed)an operation on the scale of ingsoc surely would need all human attributes at the top that can be developed without constraint or it would be doomed to fail.
constant adaption i would suggest is needed to keep inner party power, dogma and fear in the inner circles would cripple the constant streams of thought needed to maintain their positions in power.

---

I dunno about this.

I expect change of any kind would be anathema to the Inner Party. Change begets thinking, for starters - every technological change brings "what if" with it, and the Party doesn't like that kind of question.

Then look at whether change is needed and I think the answer there is "no" as well.

The Proles and OP members stay as they are - their lives revolve around constants and the best way to stupefy and stultify growth is to remove change. No further technological or ethical growth is necessary for any part of life.

Plus ce change...

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Yes - nothing comparable to Orwell
Yes
Yes - but you should read whole book, not just that passage

Welcome!

---

I don't like it as much as Orwell, but I think he (Orwell) was influenced by it; I've read all of Brothers (one of my favorites), I just think that part is the most relevant to a discussion of 1984.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I don't like it as much as Orwell, but I think he (Orwell) was influenced by it; I've read all of Brothers (one of my favorites), I just think that part is the most relevant to a discussion of 1984.

---

Why? Ultramontanism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Why? Ultramontanism?

---

I don't have my copy handy, but the Inquisitor says something to Christ to the tune of - 'You gave them freedom when all they really wanted was bread.'

The story Ivan tells reminds me of all the 'confrontation' scenes in dystopia/anti-utopia novels - D-503/Benefactor, Winston/O'Brien, The Savage/Mustapha Mond.

I haven't thought about it in awhile; maybe it's something of a surface connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

What oligarchs?

There are no Gods on this forum, Atheist will probably say that there is no God even outside this forum :lol:; we are all humans. So is Orwell. Just try watch from another point of view except your kind, honest and smart one and you'll see....:bawling:



Why not? He believes that he is doing great job; every dead brings glory to Fuhrer and Third Reich. It's not that anyone normal approves that way of thinking, but there is some really weird twisted sick logic in that.




:thumbs_up

And please, use Caps Lock from time to time, and space after comma, etc. It's painful to read, but too interesting to skip. Thanks! :)

---

Oligarch:Government by a few,especially by a small faction of families.Those making up such a government.a state governed by a few persons.

Is this not the premise for the inner party, and the collectivism the outer party and proletariat live under?
Oligarchical collectivism.


My mistake, i meant to write, intelligence spreading fear and ignorance.

With my caveat i was supporting your viewpoint, i do understand and agree with it, but i do not like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

They don't make a thingy funny enough to show how much I laughed at that. In fact, I'm stealing that for use elsewhere.

---

I guess you agree? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Oligarch:Government by a few,especially by a small faction of families.Those making up such a government.a state governed by a few persons.

Is this not the premise for the inner party, and the collectivism the outer party and proletariat live under?
Oligarchical collectivism.

---

I know what oligarch means, but I don't see connection with 1984. Please explain, because I totally disagree with that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

With my caveat i was supporting your viewpoint, i do understand and agree with it, but i do not like it.

---

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I know what oligarch means, but I don't see connection with 1984. Please explain, because I totally disagree with that idea.

---

Goldstein's book?

Oligarchy is firstly desire for money and more money, and I don't see what would money mean for Party. Money is irrelevant and surplus when you already have absolutely everything you want and you can easily get whatever you like. In my opinion, they don't even have sense that there is something called ''money''. Power and leadership - they aim for that, not because they they want it; they need it to fulfill reason of their existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Oligarchy is firstly desire for money and more money, and I don't see what would money mean for Party. Money is irrelevant and surplus when you already have absolutely everything you want and you can easily get whatever you like. In my opinion, they don't even have sense that there is something called ''money''. Power and leadership - they aim for that, not because they they want it; they need it to fulfill reason of their existence.

---

Not according to the dictionary, it is a word describing government by a few families or persons over everybody else.And according to orwell's own words the whole totalitarian state was goverened by oligarchical collectivism.
goldstein's book (atheist)

I also disagree/agree with you again though barazov sir!
oligarch in today's world is a word that espouses wealth, you know this anyway, but for example the russian oil and gas oligarch's who are very wealthy but not neccessarily in governmental power, the media who let us know about the latest oligarch whom seeks asylum (here in britain) do not use the word in the correct way i do not think.

By the way, i am trying to improve my etiquette whilst typing, please understand sir that i am a one finger typer who is not that comfortable with a computer.
the last i had that i took seriously was a zx spectrum 48k.
I will adapt that is the nature of learning, thankyou for your patience!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Oligarchy is firstly desire for money and more money, and I don't see what would money mean for Party.

---

That's a modern usage. I don't even think such a use existed in 1948 and Orwell was using this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

I also disagree/agree with you again though barazov sir!
oligarch in today's world is a word that espouses wealth, you know this anyway, but for example the russian oil and gas oligarch's who are very wealthy but not neccessarily in governmental power, the media who let us know about the latest oligarch whom seeks asylum (here in britain) do not use the word in the correct way i do not think.

---

Exactly!
You're from London; you probably know all about Shinawatra, Abramovich and Khodorkovsky. They gain wealth, but not the power; so they ended like this ( although I wouldn't mind :D ) . Yes, dictionary/modern usage made here some big mess...

Quote:

---

I will adapt that is the nature of learning, thankyou for your patience!

---

Don't call me sir, you're older than me! :D Take your time, it was just an advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's a modern usage. I don't even think such a use existed in 1948 and Orwell was using this one.

---

Well, I also used modern form, it suits better for my pointing and after all; we are in modern times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Well, I also used modern form, it suits better for my pointing and after all; we are in modern times.

---

The other use is still current, but media coverage in recent times has probably skewed the meaning. I'd prefer them to find another term - my first thought for "oligarchs" is the same as lukgem's.

There are already several, of which "rich bastards" probably covers it anyway!

:D

How long do you think the thought police have been tracking or following Winston? Was it seven years because he had the dream of O'Brian, hearing O'Brian telling him they would meet in the place of no darkness seven years ago? Or was it from the point when Winston bought the journal and pen at the antique shop? Just wondering...
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Princess Belle

How long do you think the thought police have been tracking or following Winston? Was it seven years because he had the dream of O'Brian, hearing O'Brian telling him they would meet in the place of no darkness seven years ago? Or was it from the point when Winston bought the journal and pen at the antique shop? Just wondering...
:)

---

We were discussing this the other day.

The first thing is that Outer Party members are watched all the time. On top of that, the Thought Police had clearly been interested in Winston for many years - quite how many we don't know, but at least the seven is my pick.

Hey Bazarov,
you cannot use the modern usage of the word oligarch as the modern usage was not relevant when Orwell constructed goldstein's book. Could it be argued, F scott fitzgerald and the great gatsby, Within this book Gatsby has many gay times. I would argue he was not homosexual and this usage of the word was meant in the older meaning, abounding in social pleasures. It would be wrong for me to read and interpret this in the modern usage of the word according to the dictionary. therefore surely the same must apply to Goldsteins book and the word Oligarch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's a modern usage. I don't even think such a use existed in 1948 and Orwell was using this one.

---

I agree with the definition provided by The Atheist. It fully supports how Orwell was writing at the time and what he was writing about. Big Brother (the Party) is ruled by an elite few. The Inner Party. Though you become that elite few through evaluation not inheritance. Nothing to do with wealth or social class. (well the Proles wouldn't be able to become Inner, but thats a given)

I admitted already that my modern usage made fuzz here, I am sorry; again :) Mea culpa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I admitted already that my modern usage made fuzz here, I am sorry; again :) Mea culpa.

---

It was nothing against you bazarov, your opinion is viewed highly on here. No need to apologize. :D

I know, but still...:D

Seven years before Winston's arrest, O'Brien's Thought Police place Winston under surveillance. They know about the prostitute, and the 'thick, quarto-sized blank book with a red back and a marbled cover' bought from the empty 'junk-shop', run by their agent, Mr Charrington. A month or two later Winston rents the first-story room of the shop, and invites Julia to the room, where they interact in full view of the concealed telescreen.

They then continue to use the room until O'Brien finds the thing each fears the most, and gains their fervent trust.

Is this summary accurate?

Yes, that's correct.

I don't recall reading that there were any active chimneys coming out of the ministry building, so:

Did anyone else wonder if the papers dropped into memory holes (oh, the sweet irony :) actually landed into the hands of thinkpol, rather than being incinerated? Perhaps the warm gusts of air were actually an elaborate facade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raisian

I don't recall reading that there were any active chimneys coming out of the ministry building, so:

Did anyone else wonder if the papers dropped into memory holes (oh, the sweet irony :) actually landed into the hands of thinkpol, rather than being incinerated? Perhaps the warm gusts of air were actually an elaborate facade?

---

Yes indeed; I can't imagine things being burnt without scrutiny.