1984 and the 2010 Analogy War

[Silas Thorne]

Analogies are constantly being made these days, and for quite deliberate political ends, between our own respective situations and some kind of a vague '1984-like' situation. This is a good analogy to provoke resistance, though resistance for a particular positive end and resistance for its own sake are quite different, and it seems that with the present group of anonymous participants, it is quite difficult to distinguish the two.
Having not read the book for a long time, I am not sure to what extent the depictions of the protagonist in the book would map well onto their present environment. I suspect that many people have a conception of '1984' not based on the situation of the book, but based on movie (and comic book)depictions of a dystopian future, like those in 'Equilibrium' and 'V for Vendetta'.
Thoughts?
Maybe this whole posting is too vague though...I'm desperately trying to avoid politics which seems hard with 1984 (or Animal Farm).
Anyway, I'm going back to read the book again, since I'm not sure about people continually using it as an analogy for the present world.

[MystyrMystyry]

Well Silas, you've certainly opened a can of squirmy worms here.

There's a distinct aspect of 1984 that was totalitarian Stalinist state (statues erected, posters posted all over of 'beloved' Uncle Joe. This is mirrored in Mao's omnipresent benevolent gaze, and most recently that North Korean whackjob (his name makes me ill).

Orwell (a one time idealist Marxist) wrote Animal Farm and 1984 to express his disatisfaction at how reality has a way of subverting the purest aims.

What Western democracy/capitalism is dealing with is simply occasional censorship issues in a world that has a 'not so secret' darkside.

These terrorist cells that appear are really just a ragtag bunch of misguided noongs with limited education (knowing how to construct a bomb does not constitute a comprehensive understanding of the universe and reality).

The thing with Orwell though is, clever as he was, he was a critic, and finding a perfect subject to criticise and using his literary abilities to do so still does not make a great book - an historicaly interesting artefact perhaps, but not an enjoyable entertainment.

It all comes back to the cause of art - the reason why a work is created is actually irrelevant.

Also all art includes things that the artist is unaware of - but Orwell took great pains to ensure no misinterpretation were possible, and 1984 suffers again on that front.

Take a novel lke Farenheit 451 - Bradbury didn't intend it to be a commentary on censorship, but it's how everyone reads it - and it's better for it. (he tried to explain his intention at a lecture, but his audience accused him of not knowing what he was talking about, so he walked out)

For dystopian novels that make you feel good, try Terry Pratchet's Discworld series (if you've really got something to say and you want people to listen, do it with humour)

[The Atheist]

Anyway, I'm going back to read the book again, since I'm not sure about people continually using it as an analogy for the present world.

Supremely difficult to do this without getting into politics, so I'll try to ignore the whys.

I find that people who use 1984 as a metaphor for today are either naive or crazy. I could kick conspiracists who find it cool to quote Orwell, never realising that Orwell was a realist who also have given them a good kicking.

There are some similarities between Winston's Oceania and life in the 21st century, but only on the surface.

CCTV, Google and GPS means that we are nearly as watchable as Winston Smith, and while the censorship of the internet in China shows that information can be suppressed, I think the freedoms we're allowed outside of a few insane dictatorships means that we are a long way from 1984.

There are so many things I want to say, but can't!

For some reason, I can't reply to your message, so PM me if you want to go into the more relevant stuff.

The thing with Orwell though is, clever as he was, he was a critic, and finding a perfect subject to criticise and using his literary abilities to do so still does not make a great book - an historicaly interesting artefact perhaps, but not an enjoyable entertainment.

I think that sells the book a bit short. Well, a lot short, actually.

1984 is one of those rare books that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is a love story, a thriller, a horror novel and a morality play wrapped in one. And more.

Also all art includes things that the artist is unaware of - but Orwell took great pains to ensure no misinterpretation were possible, and 1984 suffers again on that front.

Yet that's one of the things I like best about Orwell! You cannot misinterpret him, because he was firstly very clear in his language, and secondly, he'd afterwards explain that what he said really was what he meant.

For dystopian novels that make you feel good, try Terry Pratchet's Discworld series (if you've really got something to say and you want people to listen, do it with humour)

Much as I admire [Sir] Terry Pratchett, I've never found his novels funny enough to keep me interested. Compared to other British satirists - Tom Sharpe and Ben Elton, for instance - I think he's a bit pale.