No, Winston's death at the end of 1984 is purely petaphorical - the bullet is his real and overwhelming love for BB.Originally Posted by libernaut
No, Winston's death at the end of 1984 is purely petaphorical - the bullet is his real and overwhelming love for BB.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for Winston, in another life, he and O'Brien might have changed places seamlessly. Both zealots without principles.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.
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.
Last edited by mollie; 07-22-2009 at 04:00 PM. Reason: typo
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote