Scariest Book I've Ever Read

Somehow, I managed to escape being "required" to read this book when I was in school (we moved a lot; I probably just fell between the cracks, so to speak). Recently, at the age of 38, I finally read the book, although of course I was familiar with its concepts and so on, since they've become part of Western culture, for the most part. <br><br>I have to say, this is THE scariest book I've ever read. I had nightmares, that's how deeply it disturbed me. I thought about it for days and days after I finished it, mulling it over in my mind, applying concepts in it to things I already knew or suspected about human nature, and so on. The phrase "thought provoking" doesn't come even close to the effect this book had on me. <br><br>I highly recommend this book to anyone who has or wants insights into the nature of society and, more to the point, of human beings. <br><br>

Weakling im in 9th grade it wasn't scary it was thought provoking but not scary

I am not sure if Bonni means the book was 'scary' in a 'frightening' way. 1984 is 'scary' in the sense that it offers a very gloomy and pessimistic picture of the future.

I find Brave New World scarier, though; people are brainwashed to the point that they really believe that they are actually 'happy' the way things are. They are conditioned that all they need in life is offered to them readily (mostly materialistic) and 'a gram of soma' will solve any problem. It is this pseudo-happiness and satisfaction that makes it more unnerving, in my opinion. In 1984, there is the open hatred and visible shortcomings of the society, which, in a way, prepares the reader for the worst.

I agree with bonni. It is "scary" to see how many aspects compare to today's world--more specifically, the post 9/11 world.

I was required to read it for my college literature class, and I am currently writing a reader-response journal on Winston's dreams and what they say about his character.

But, I am glad and not glad that I have been "forced" to read this book. Glad because it has opened my eyes to a lot of things, but not glad in the fact that I now question pretty much everything around me. Authority, technology, the media (which didn't require reading this book), beliefs, advertisements, being paranoid not to fall for the "traps" that are everywhere.

I will be honest and say that I will be glad to finish the journal entry and literary essay and be RID of this book! That is a compliment to the author, too, since it has affected me so deeply.

I didn't exactly find it "scary" but I had goosebumps all over me when I read a fragment from one of Sir Doyle's Sherlocke Holmes books. And also The Phantom of the Opera. Is Radcliffe's gothic novels actually scary? Just asking...maybe I want to check it out sometime..

1984 is the only novel I have ever found absolutely terrifying. I mean that literally - I was genuinely scared by it, mostly because it seems so plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

1984 is the only novel I have ever found absolutely terrifying. I mean that literally - I was genuinely scared by it, mostly because it seems so plausible.

---

And Big Brother is watching....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

1984 is the only novel I have ever found absolutely terrifying.

---

Yes, me too. The scene that really gets my heart thumping is the terrifying moment when the picture of St. Clement's Church tells Winston and Julia that "you are the dead." That and, of course, the rats. Absolutely horrific.

I never could take 1984 seriously. Having read a good deal about Orwell himself and therefore conversant with his psychology, it just comes across as a liberal/socialist satire on totalitarianism. I would recommend that if anyone is thinking of reading 1984, they delve into the personality of the author first.
You could save yourself a lot of needless concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I never could take 1984 seriously. Having read a good deal about Orwell himself and therefore conversant with his psychology, it just comes across as a liberal/socialist satire on totalitarianism. I would recommend that if anyone is thinking of reading 1984, they delve into the personality of the author first.
You could save yourself a lot of needless concern.

---

I don't get this at all - Orwell was quite specific that he wrote against totalitarianism and for democratoc socialism, so what part of Orwell's psyche makes a difference to how the book reads?

I doubt that an Oceania could arise, but the book was never meant to be prophetic, other than prophesying what life would be like under world totalitarianism and I think he sets that up quite nicely.

I'll also touch on Orwell's politics and note that the global credit crisis is ushering in a time of democratoc socialism by default.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't get this at all - Orwell was quite specific that he wrote against totalitarianism and for democratoc socialism, so what part of Orwell's psyche makes a difference to how the book reads?

I doubt that an Oceania could arise, but the book was never meant to be prophetic, other than prophesying what life would be like under world totalitarianism and I think he sets that up quite nicely.

I'll also touch on Orwell's politics and note that the global credit crisis is ushering in a time of democratoc socialism by default.

---

By any standards Orwell was eccentric. His actions were not merely a case of 'nostalgie de la boue,' he willfully sought the low life, possibly because of a guilt complex about his middle-class background and having been educated at Eton; I don't think that it was the self-deceptive pose adopted by other left-wing members of the intelligentsia during the 1930s. Obviously he was against totalitarianism, but his remark to Malcom Muggedrige, as reported in Muggerige's The Green Stick, that all small-shopkeepers were fascists, smacks of a paranoia that is reflected in 1984.

As for prophesying what could of happened to the world by 1984 it is clear that Orwell was wrong. He was also wrong on a number of other fronts; the most notable being that democratic socialism was the best form of government. The UK elected such a governmant in 1945 and because subsequent Conservative adminstrations did little to reverse the socialist programme, by 1979 the UK was effectively bankrupt.

If, like Orwell, you think that the present global economic crisis will result in a time of democratic socialism, you could be right as regards the UK but, as before, it will be only a matter of time before someone has to come along and clean up the mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

And Big Brother is watching....

---

No, I am not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

By any standards Orwell was eccentric.

---

For certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

His actions were not merely a case of 'nostalgie de la boue,' he willfully sought the low life, possibly because of a guilt complex about his middle-class background and having been educated at Eton; I don't think that it was the self-deceptive pose adopted by other left-wing members of the intelligentsia during the 1930s. Obviously he was against totalitarianism, but his remark to Malcom Muggedrige, as reported in Muggerige's The Green Stick, that all small-shopkeepers were fascists, smacks of a paranoia that is reflected in 1984.

---

Quote mining at its worst. Orwell wrote so many words on both socialism and fascism that it's impossible to see that comment for what it meant. In the context Orwell used it, he was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

As for prophesying what could of happened to the world by 1984 it is clear that Orwell was wrong.

---

I've just said that that's exactly what 1984 isn't, a prediction. Again, Orwell made that blatantly plain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

He was also wrong on a number of other fronts; the most notable being that democratic socialism was the best form of government. The UK elected such a governmant in 1945 and because subsequent Conservative adminstrations did little to reverse the socialist programme, by 1979 the UK was effectively bankrupt.

---

Now, this is plain crazy.

England's problems with finances post-WWII were all to do with being bankrupted by a world war and nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour Government, and that is clearly evinced by successive Tory Governments failing to improve the situation. Blaming it on democratoc socialism is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

If, like Orwell, you think that the present global economic crisis will result in a time of democratic socialism, you could be right as regards the UK but, as before, it will be only a matter of time before someone has to come along and clean up the mess.

---

Orwell thought the current crisis was going to usher in democratoc socialism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

No, I am not!

---

Aarggh!

Now I'm scared - this is some kind of doublethink you're pulling on me, isn't it?

I know you're wtaching but I have to think you're not? Or do I forget that I know what watching even is?

:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

For certain.



Quote mining at its worst. Orwell wrote so many words on both socialism and fascism that it's impossible to see that comment for what it meant. In the context Orwell used it, he was right.



I've just said that that's exactly what 1984 isn't, a prediction. Again, Orwell made that blatantly plain.



Now, this is plain crazy.

England's problems with finances post-WWII were all to do with being bankrupted by a world war and nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour Government, and that is clearly evinced by successive Tory Governments failing to improve the situation. Blaming it on democratoc socialism is just wrong.



Orwell thought the current crisis was going to usher in democratoc socialism?
:

---

1. We agree that Orwell was eccentric.

2. Quote mining? I haven't read Muggerige's autobiography for years;the quote has stayed with me because it conforms to similar statements about Orwell that I do not recall in detail except one made by a colleague, when Orwell worked for the BBC during the war, that Orwell would tell lies to prove a point. I can think of no context in which Orwells' statement about shop-keepers can be justified.

3. I think it is fairly implicit in 1984, and Orwell's other wriitings, that he thought something similar could have happened. If not, he wouldn't have written the novel.

4. England's post-war problems had everything to do with democratic socialism and the failure of the opposition to change the socialist's programme. Of course the UK was bankrupt in 1945, that was why it borrowed billions of dollars from the United States and Canada to reconstruct the country; a loan which we have only recently managed to pay back.
Unlike West Germany, that did not take the socialist road and went on to become the second most economically powerfull country in the world, the UK blew the reconstruction fund on trying to set up a welfare state that by 1979 had brought the country to its knees. A more detailed description of the post-war events that led to the collapse of the Callaghan government in 1979 and Mrs Thatcher's arrival in office can be found in my novel Pro Bono Publico.


5. I meant that, just as Orwell thought that the depression of the 1930s would lead to democratic socialism, the present unfolding depression has convinced you of the same outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Aarggh!

Now I'm scared - this is some kind of doublethink you're pulling on me, isn't it?

I know you're wtaching but I have to think you're not? Or do I forget that I know what watching even is?

:crash:

---

There is no doublethink... and there is no "watching". I am simply reading all your posts to make sure that you are all alright and happy.

*notes down that The Atheist has shown signs of aggression via smilies*

I read 1984 over forty years ago and to this day I'm still haunted by that image of having rats strapped to your face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Unlike West Germany, that did not take the socialist road and went on to become the second most economically powerfull country in the world, the UK blew the reconstruction fund on trying to set up a welfare state that by 1979 had brought the country to its knees. A more detailed description of the post-war events that led to the collapse of the Callaghan government in 1979 and Mrs Thatcher's arrival in office can be found in my novel Pro Bono Publico.

---

Are you an expert in economic and political history, or a novelist?

If the former, then I find your post a deliberate attempt to talk politics. By making constant political jibes in numerous threads, you must be aware that people will want to challenge you, and start a political debate.

If the latter, then you must also be aware that a novelist creates a scenario, from imagination. And that's the key word. Your self-promotion of your "novel" was very deftly done, but is it a novel? It's obviously your take on the political situation of the time, it doesn't make it correct. You very obviously have a diametrically opposing view to Orwell, as you have shown elsewhere that you dislike him intensely, asserting in another post that he never wrote anything which wasn't in support of his politics. Why is that so bad for him, but not for you? I don't know you, but from reading many of your contributions on a literature forum, you have made your political allegiances very clear. I for one could challenge your take on the political situation leading up to Thatcher's government, but I thought this thread was about scary books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

2. Quote mining? I haven't read Muggerige's autobiography for years;the quote has stayed with me because it conforms to similar statements about Orwell that I do not recall in detail except one made by a colleague, when Orwell worked for the BBC during the war, that Orwell would tell lies to prove a point. I can think of no context in which Orwells' statement about shop-keepers can be justified.

---

Are you from a family of shopkeepers?

:D

I find the charges a bit steep. How many authors are there who don't take at least a little prosaic licence when writing? The key with Orwell is context.

To me, it seems that Orwell wrote everything expecting every reader to have written everything else he's ever written. When you see a snippet in Coming up for Air which makes the hairs on your arms stand up as you recognise the spectre of Big Brother hanging over you, or during the reading of A Clergyman's Daughter, you realise that Dorothy has morphed into Eric Blair, heaping coals on the heads of private schools.

You can't take one quote out of context and expect it to explain anything.

He was eccentric and he was also self-contradictory, but overall, I believe, he was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

3. I think it is fairly implicit in 1984, and Orwell's other wriitings, that he thought something similar could have happened. If not, he wouldn't have written the novel.

---

Could have. It's not predictive, and I think the shape of Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and present-day N Korea aren't too far off confirming that all totalitarian regimes will behave in ways remarkably similar to that Orwell displayed. He did, of course, have evidence to show that it had already happened, so I think an argument that the premise of 1984 being wrong is pretty difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

4. England's post-war problems had everything to do with democratic socialism and the failure of the opposition to change the socialist's programme.

---

This is too close to a political discussion for the forum, but I have a little knowledge of the subject and would be glad to discuss by PM, e mail or any other medium. It's also irrelevant to the discussion of Orwell - he wasn't PM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

5. I meant that, just as Orwell thought that the depression of the 1930s would lead to democratic socialism, the present unfolding depression has convinced you of the same outcome.

---

I'll just note that that's not what I said - I made the comment that it seems to be happening by default, which is quite different, but as I say, we can continue this privately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

There is no doublethink... and there is no "watching". I am simply reading all your posts to make sure that you are all alright and happy.

*notes down that The Atheist has shown signs of aggression via smilies*

---

I love rats!

Very, very happy, Comrade!

(I'd say I did all my physical jerks this morning, but it sounds a bit ruder in 2009 than 1949, so I won't say it! :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PabloQ

I read 1984 over forty years ago and to this day I'm still haunted by that image of having rats strapped to your face.

---

Ugh. You've admitted that while Scheherazade's in the thread.

There's no hope for you now. (Smile and wave)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

Are you an expert in economic and political history, or a novelist?

If the former, then I find your post a deliberate attempt to talk politics. By making constant political jibes in numerous threads, you must be aware that people will want to challenge you, and start a political debate.

If the latter, then you must also be aware that a novelist creates a scenario, from imagination. And that's the key word. Your self-promotion of your "novel" was very deftly done, but is it a novel? It's obviously your take on the political situation of the time, it doesn't make it correct. You very obviously have a diametrically opposing view to Orwell, as you have shown elsewhere that you dislike him intensely, asserting in another post that he never wrote anything which wasn't in support of his politics. Why is that so bad for him, but not for you? I don't know you, but from reading many of your contributions on a literature forum, you have made your political allegiances very clear. I for one could challenge your take on the political situation leading up to Thatcher's government, but I thought this thread was about scary books.

---

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on anything, but in writing the novel it was essential that I got my facts right, which necessitated a lengthy study of the period concerned.

As for making constant political jibes in numerous threads, I have made in excess of 500 posts and I doubt that more than 10 have a political connotation. None of the posts were terminated by the forum's moderators for breaching the rules regarding the discussion of politics.

With regard to the novel there has been no intended promotion although naturally I would like people to read it. Yes it is a novel, with a fictional tale that runs in counterpoint to the political and judicial events that form the basis of the story. In order give verisimilitude to the story, I have based a number of the fictional characters on people that I have known over a long period of time. The actual political figures of the period are never referred to by name although they are readily recognisable to those who lived through or have studied the period.

I do not personally dislike Orwell, he was a very talented writer, it is what he represents that I take exception to and my book is a refutation of it.