Ending of 1984

[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. 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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[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.

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?

[aspirer]

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.

[Gladys]

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"?

[libernaut]

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.

[aspirer]

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.

[mollie]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[mollie]

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?

[Gladys]

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

[mollie]

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!

[Gladys]

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.

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.

she got away with it for years!

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

[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

[mollie]

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.