Of course Orwell is an outstanding novelist but I'm not sure how honest he was. I wouldn't call him a plagiarist, but "1984" is basing on the novel "We" written by the Russian writer Evgeny Zamyatin.
Of course Orwell is an outstanding novelist but I'm not sure how honest he was. I wouldn't call him a plagiarist, but "1984" is basing on the novel "We" written by the Russian writer Evgeny Zamyatin.
Well, you accuse them all of copying Plato, if you wanted to go that way...Originally Posted by amarna
Good analogy.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
The merits of Plato seem to be much more estimated than the merits of Zamyatin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
Last edited by amarna; 05-28-2009 at 01:49 PM.
You missed the point - nobody disputes Orwell was influenced by We - that Plato's Republic was the seed originally planted and to which all forms of utopian and dystopian writing owe their existence.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Don't think so - there is a difference between using the same genre and using the same plot. But anyway, Orwell made the best of it.
Last edited by amarna; 05-28-2009 at 05:16 PM.
Given that there has to be an intense similarity in all dystopian novels, 1984 is derivative from We, but they are hardly the same plot. I'd class Brave New World as closer to plagiarism than 1984.
Which one made the best of it and which is more important in literary and socio-political history isn't in doubt.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Apart from literary influences novels of that genre may be similar because there are not many possibilities to vary the political conception of a system too. As to utopies, most of them - the Biblic paradise, the land of the Phaiakes in the Odyssey, Campanellas City of Sun, Thomas Morus' Utopia - are similar like peas in a pot. (By the way there are several antique utopies wich are not referring to Platon) The topic itself sugests this similarity, I think. The dystopic systems are imho much more interesting, but finally the possiblities to embellish a hierchical society and the mechanisms of maintaining power are limited.
(Sorry for my uneloquent English, it isn't my native tongue).
Last edited by amarna; 05-28-2009 at 06:23 PM.
Well put, and don't apologise for your English - I can guarantee it's a hell of a lot better than my ability in whatever your own language is!
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Rats. Come on, disagree.Well put
I don't agree that 1984 is not a prophecy. We are just lucky it had not come true. I think the main message of this book (which I think eludes many readers) is that the world it describes is totally possible. Not only that, it is inherently stable -- once the whole world will become a collection of totalitatrina states, there will be no way out. In a way, a totalitarian regime is more stable than any democracy.
People often get confused by the fact that totalitarian regimes have a hard time coexisting with democracies. But even in this scenario such a regime can only collapse if the ruling elite will become dissatisfied with it. But any revolt from below is simply impossible, and that is the essence of any totalitarian state.
I disagree -- such a system is completely plausible. Granted (as Hayek and others pointed out) that it won't be nearly as productive as a free society. The living standards will be poor. But with XX century technology it will be productive enough to prevent a collapse from an uncontrolled starvation (local starvation does not threaten the survival of such a state). The very basic needs will be satisfied and if there is no competition from democratic neighbors, then it will survive forever.
Actually, even the existence of such competition is not enough to bring down a totalitarian state. E.g. North Korea can remain a totalitarian state forever (short of a war).
Although the detailed scenario of 1984 is 'totally possible', it is just one of a myriad of negative outcomes, and so, very unlikely.
Orwell wrote satire and his intended prophecy is limited to predicting the rise in spin, political exploitation and corruption, invasion of privacy, political correctness, reality TV, and devious advertising in the decades following WW II. All of these manipulations flow from foreseeable advances in electronics.
I don't know, how unlikely was Hitler's coming to power? Or communists taking over Russia? Probably not "very" unlikely since it did happen.
And the point of the book is that once it happened everywhere, there is no turning back.
These are but two 'of a myriad of negative outcomes'. While neither has much in common with Oceania in 1984, both are flawed examples of the totalitarian control perfected in Ingsoc.
Orwell may well have feared that Western democracy would evolve into something closer to Ingsoc, at least, in philosophy. Perhaps it has?
Nothing is perfect and neither Nazi Germany nor USSR were perfect totalitarian states. However, this is completely beside the point. Which is that they both were good enough to let the ruling elite keeping their hold on power indefinitelly. That is a definition of a totalitarian state in my view, not the details on how the total control is achieved.
And no, I don't think the Western democracies evolve in that direction. I.e. using the state to suppress an opposition to those in power is considered to be completely unacceptable -- even more so now than decades ago.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote