# 1984



## Indigo

I've cheched around and I can't beleive no one has posted this yet. I just finished reading it yesterday and It was pone of the best books I have ever read. My English teacher was talking about it and he reminded me that i had been meaning to read it for ages so I went off to my school library and borrowed it. 

I couldn't put it down! When most people talk of 'classic' books in my mind it usually makes me think of really heavy going stuff like the Lord of the Rings, (sorry, but I hated it). I had no idea that 1984 was anything like that. I started talking about it with my mum who read it when she was 17 and I'm trying to persuade my twin brother to read it too.

It was one of those books where all the way through you are unsure of wether the charcters are going to get out or not. With most books you have a pretty good idea. I don't agree with a lot of what Orwell wrote but I thought it was really interesting. The scene in room 101 really freaked me out. I know though, that a lot of people really don't like the book and I thought it would make an interesting debate about politics an the future. Sorry if this had allready been done.

I'm off to go borrow Animal Farm.


----------



## Julian_Gallo

Orwell was one of the greatest, I feel.  You should read his other books as well.  Hell, read all of them if you can find them.  My personal favorites were "Keep The Aspadistra Flying", "Down and Out in Paris and London", "Coming Up for Air" and "Homage to Catalonia".  If you enjoyed "1984", you will really enjoy the others as well.  They're all different, but highly enjoyable.


----------



## Indigo

Sure, my mum said that 'Down and out in Paris ad london' is great. i'll be sure to try the others.


----------



## Ralizah

1984 is an excellent work of literature.


----------



## midlandsmuse

starrwriter said:
			
		

> Incidentally, Orwell wasn't writing about the future. He merely extrapolated the political and social trends of his own age, which produced fascism in Europe and totalitarian socialism in the Soviet Union.



A point made to me last month in a writer's group I attend. Orwell wrote the book in the early 40's and wanted to call it 1948 but no one would publish it. Then he changed it to 1984 and was published.



> Before you read "Animal House," you should know it is an allegory about the broken promises of Stalinist Russia.



I had to read Animal Farm at school and I hated it. But that was because I read it at the wrong age. 14. Too old for the cutesy animals talking and too young for the politics. I read the book again at 22 and absolutely loved it.


----------



## Indigo

> I had to read Animal Farm at school and I hated it. But that was because I read it at the wrong age. 14.



 :?  I myself am 14.


----------



## Ralizah

I read it when I was 14 and loved it.
I think it just depends on how deep your understanding of it's themes and what it satirizes is. I was a pretty well-read child, so I knew all about the revolution.


----------



## Mike C

1984 is possibly the finest novel of the 20th century - how many books have titles that become part of the language? 1984, Brave new world, Catch-22... I think that's it.

indigo, you say you didn't agree with everything Orwell said - what, exactly? The book works on many levels.


----------



## colvin11

I read 1984, and loved it. except for the ending. I didn't like the way there was all that build up, with the pyscholgical torture. It should have neded there, the last bit where he meets the woman again just spoiled it for me


----------



## Mike C

The last part is essential, Colvin, to show that there is absolutely no hope of a triumph over big brother; that anyone can be made to sell their souls, grandmothers and lovers down the river to save themselves. 

A happy ending would have left doubt, and would have demeaned all that went before.


----------



## Hodge

A happy ending for _1984_? Who'd have even thought of such a thing? As it stands, the book's ending is perfect. I maintain that there is not a book more dreary, depressing, and bleak as _1984_, if the ending hadn't been so anticlimactic it just wouldn't have worked.


----------



## Mike C

Indeed; the payoff being, of course, that England in 1948 (which 1984 satirised) was a bleak and dreary place, and that life under a totalitarian regime isn't about acts of heroism, but about mundane existance and conformity.


----------



## Mike C

Indeed; the payoff being, of course, that England in 1948 (which 1984 satirised) was a bleak and dreary place, and that life under a totalitarian regime isn't about acts of heroism, but about mundane existance and conformity.


----------



## Hodge

Eh, Orwell was actually talking about communism in the book and what would happen if it spread throughout the world. England was no totalitarian state.


What I especially love is how it doesn't come out and say what exactly is happening with the global climate. Are there really three superpowers trying to conquer the world or is it really just one superpower keeping its people in check by creating a state of constant war? Bombs are dropped on London, but Big Brother probably wouldn't hesitate to drop them in his own people. Maybe there are three superpowers working together, or maybe there is one totalitarian state that has completely cut its people off from the rest of the world.

_Brazil_ does a really good job of combining the concepts of _1984_ with those of _Brave New World_, and adding enough comedy and absurdity to make it an incredibly entertaining movie.


----------



## lisajane

I read Animal Farm at 16. Hated it. I can't stand stories about animals, but I did really like the whole Russian Revolution stuff (so much so I wanted to study it as my history subject a couple of years later, but the class wasn't held).

I've had people tell me to read 1984, but I don't know if I'll give it a try, it doesn't sound like my thing. Edgar Allen Poe is more my style.


----------



## Mike C

If it doesn't sound like your 'thing', all the more reason to read it.

And AF isn't a story about animals.


----------



## Mike C

Hodge said:
			
		

> Eh, Orwell was actually talking about communism in the book and what would happen if it spread throughout the world. England was no totalitarian state.



I'm afraid you're mistaken, Hodge. AF was about Stalinism, 1984 was a satire of Britain as it was in 1948.

You have to remember that although Britain was not a totalitarian state as such, it was still suffering from food rationing and censorship of news was happening much as Orwell described it, and England was a bleak and desolate place to live. Orwell himself worked for the ministry of information and the BBC and was responsible for such tasks as Winston Smith is protrayed as carrying out. He's also been linked with MI5. 1984 is an exercise in taking the environment you live in and stretching the point to it's logical conclusion. 

The ministry of truth and the ministry of love were based on real government buildings and room 101 existed (and still exists, in every country in the world) albeit under a less sinister name.

His identification of England as Airstrip One was quite visionary when you consider the relationship we now seem to have with the US.

If you want to know more I'd recommend his recent biography, which gives context to a lot of what Orwell wrote and demonstrates quite ably that Orwell only ever wrote (as we advise newbies every day) about what he knew.


----------



## Londongrey

Hodge, you also need to understand what similairites and differences that Orwell had with Winston Churchill when viewing England to get a very good insight into 1984.  What many people find surprising is that Orwell had a deep love of England, and a respect for it.  That is often over-looked when people read 1984.

Like Mike said above his biography is very interesting and informative, offering a new perspective on his work.


----------



## colvin11

I wasn't saying it should be happy at all, him getting tortured and broken doesn't strike me as being particularly 'happy'. It is the very last bit, _after_ he says to do it to her, tha tspoiled it


----------



## Mike C

And again I will tell you that the last part is an essential part. It shows that Winston's rebellion is futile, and that Big Brother is so confident that room 101 has broken him that he is allowed to live. Therefore instead of having the potential for martyrdom, he becomes a warning to others. His confession is broadcast on TV. He has become dehumanised.


----------



## Londongrey

I agree with Mike,

Orson Wells had a long standing interest in the history of poverty in England, there are many paintings, etchings and the like which were known to Wells that portrayed the true dehumanisation of the poor in England.  These pictures were not popular at the time, going back into Georgian times, but they depict a social history that Wells found fascinating.  

I think 1984 is one of the few books in which you have study properly the author, study the real background to the authors interests and perspective.

Then you find depths in the book which you cannot reach on a one-time read.


----------



## Londongrey

I should just also add that this fascination with poverty in his own country is somewhat more important when you consider how he lived towards the end of his live and eventually passing away with TB.


----------



## Mike C

Uh, dude... Orson Wells?

Orwell lived in a state of near poverty thoughout a large part of his life. Keep the Aspidistra Flying is damn near autobiographical, but then most of his work is to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## Londongrey

DOH!!  I always get those two confused in my head!!  George Orwell I mean of course.


----------



## Wilderness

I studied this book in my literature class last year and I didnt enjoy it. I liked the idea of it and what it was trying to say, but I don't like how it was done. I donno, I hated it at the time but now, 3-4 months later, I'm not too bla about it. I dont mind it right now. 

I started reading it with really high expectations. That is probably why I was so disappointed. 

I think Orwell is brilliant and the book is genius, but it just wasnt for me. 

Lani


----------



## Mike C

Wilderness said:
			
		

> I studied this book in my literature class last year and I didnt enjoy it. I liked the idea of it and what it was trying to say, but I don't like how it was done. I donno, I hated it at the time but now, 3-4 months later, I'm not too bla about it. I dont mind it right now.
> 
> I started reading it with really high expectations. That is probably why I was so disappointed.
> 
> I think Orwell is brilliant and the book is genius, but it just wasnt for me.
> 
> Lani



Hi Lani

I'm curious as to where 1984 fell short in your expectations. You say you had high expectations, and that Orwell is brilliant, book genius etc. but you were disappointed.

Is it because you had to study it rather than read it for pleasure? An age thing? His writing style? Lack of relevance to your world? 

Not grinding any axes here, just genuinely curious. And have you read any other Orwell?


----------



## simon woodhouse

I read the book for the first time last year and really enjoyed it. The scene where Julia put the make-up on, but wasn't very good at it because she'd never done it before, was really touching. Some bits of it were quite funny as well, in a macabre sort of way, especially Winston's neighbour being proud of his own children having him arrested for treason.  

A couple of weeks after I finished the book the film was on TV. What a let down. I couldn't watch more than half of it. Though life was bleak in the book, I think they over did it in the film. But then again, good books very rarely make good films.


----------



## Wilderness

Mike C said:
			
		

> Hi Lani
> 
> I'm curious as to where 1984 fell short in your expectations. You say you had high expectations, and that Orwell is brilliant, book genius etc. but you were disappointed.
> 
> Is it because you had to study it rather than read it for pleasure? An age thing? His writing style? Lack of relevance to your world?
> 
> Not grinding any axes here, just genuinely curious. And have you read any other Orwell?




Hey
I have read Animal Farm, which I also very much didnt like. 
It is maybe because we had to study it, and maybe because we had to cram it into very little space. 
(However, I have read a lot of books that we have studied in class that I really enjoyed learning about..it depends on the teacher I think)
But I dont know. 
I had heard it was brilliant and the best book I would read...and it just wasnt. 
Maybe if I was a bit older, I would have appreciated it more. 
I think it was a combination of his writing style and the story. I think the first part and a bit of part 2 was just a lot of rambling. He was blurting out the facts that we needed to know about where the story was set and what life was like. It wasnt revealed slowly as the book progressed, which is usually what happened, but was written all at once. (if that makes sense to you). 

If a modern day literary fiction author were to re-do it...I would probably like it. (I think)

Sorry..that was a lot of rambling but I didnt really know how to answer your questions so I just let my mind wander. 

Hope that answers your questions!

Lani


----------



## Mike C

Thanks Lani, it does.


----------



## pride.in.introspection

I found Animal Farm better than 1984.


----------



## Mike C

pride.in.introspection said:
			
		

> I found Animal Farm better than 1984.



Why? Based on what criteria?


----------



## A Glass Thought

Lani, although 1984 is good, Dhalgren is the best book you will ever read. I'd stake my life on it.

In all respects, Animal Farm was good, but 1984 was better. I mean, fuck, there were people in it. Plus one was telling the future while the other was talking about the Communist Russia.

Those being the only two books by Wells that I've read, I'd have to go with 1984 over Animal Farm, just for its sheer imagination.


----------



## FinnMacCool

> Eh, Orwell was actually talking about communism in the book and what would happen if it spread throughout the world. England was no totalitarian state.


 
This is a common misperception of the book, in my opinion. This isn't a shot at you whatsoever but I find that a lot of people on the right will grin knowingly about this book saying how it has nothing to do with them. But Orwell wasn't using this book to describe communism or fascism or anything else as an idealogy he was more so trying to show what the effects of absolute power and statism have on the world. 

In other words, any government can turn into 1984 style.

George Orwell is my favorite writer by the way.


----------



## Anarkos

Indigo said:
			
		

> I don't agree with a lot of what Orwell wrote



How is it possible for anyone to disagree with 1984?  Funnily enough, it's probably his least controversial work, in today's setting.



			
				Mike C said:
			
		

> 1984 is possibly the finest novel of the 20th century - how many books have titles that become part of the language? 1984, Brave new world, Catch-22... I think that's it.



1984 is part of the language?  Big Brother, sure, but 1984?  If so...certainly not to the extent of Catch 22 or Brave New World.  Another example is Fight Club (probably undeservedly).



			
				Hodge said:
			
		

> Eh, Orwell was actually talking about communism in the book and what would happen if it spread throughout the world. England was no totalitarian state.





			
				Mike C said:
			
		

> I'm afraid you're mistaken, Hodge. AF was about Stalinism, 1984 was a satire of Britain as it was in 1948.



Both right, both wrong, I'd have to say.  

1984 was not anti-communist; Orwell was a socialist who was wounded in the Spanish Civil War while fighting for a Anarchist militia.  He wrote repeatedly during WW2 that he felt Britain could only win by adopting socialism.  

Equally, it's not a pure commentary on Britain.  I think many people forget just how profoundly betrayed Orwell felt, post-Catalonia by Stalin and the USSR.  1984 mixes elements of the England of 1948 with elements of Stalinism (and fiction...).



			
				Mike C said:
			
		

> Uh, dude... Orson Wells?
> 
> Orwell lived in a state of near poverty thoughout a large part of his life. Keep the Aspidistra Flying is damn near autobiographical, but then most of his work is to a greater or lesser degree.



Although, of course, funnily enough, he was from a wealthy background.  I was always under the impression that it was more fictional (and depressing!) than Down and Out, Wiggan Pier, Catalonia etc.


----------



## catpipe

After reading 1984 and Animal Farm, may I suggest Johnny Got His Gun and The Handmaid's Tale? You'll have trouble sleeping at night.


----------



## Atom

it was an interesting read for me but not enjoyable imo


----------



## mandax

I just finished reading it and I loved it.  I don't understand how people cannot love the ending.  I loved every bit, especially the very last line.  It was a fantastic book, in my opinion.  I do think I read it too fast, though, but it's because I have books to read for school and I'm running out of time.  :/


----------



## Mike C

Anarkos said:
			
		

> Although, of course, funnily enough, he was from a wealthy background.  I was always under the impression that it was more fictional (and depressing!) than Down and Out, Wiggan Pier, Catalonia etc.



Middle class rather than wealthy. Down and out was factual (although what never gets mentioned is that he also had a wealthy aunt living in Paris who he could have - and maybe did - borrow money from. Wigan Pier was commissioned social documentary.


----------



## WiCkEd

Okay, it's official. I'm going to buy this tomorrow. I must be like the only person who hasn't read this...


----------



## Finduilas

Anybody here? I've read it and I thought it was well-written but... I'm not sure it was enjoyable. Frightening is more apt.


----------



## Anarkos

Mike C said:
			
		

> Middle class rather than wealthy. Down and out was factual (although what never gets mentioned is that he also had a wealthy aunt living in Paris who he could have - and maybe did - borrow money from. Wigan Pier was commissioned social documentary.



As far as I was aware, both contained fictionalised 'plot' elements, but, meh.


----------



## Soccah

Great book. I prefer Animal Farm. The prose in both books didn't suit my taste, but, I guess it was Blair's attempt at reflecting a mood of the absolute. As for the context and content, spectacular for its time, I suppose.


----------



## David Siudzinski

A fascinating book. Animal Farm is a simplier, more symbolic version of this one. though I like them both equally. I reccomend this book to all readers. It's a classic.:-D


----------



## Mike C

One was not a version of the other, they addressed two different subjects. Animal farm was an examination of the Russian Revolution and Stalinism, 1984 was a darkly satirical examination of the UK directly following the end of ww2.

Also required reading - 1985, by Anthony Burgess, author of Clockwork Orange. Part sequel, part update.


----------



## burnitdown

I'm not sure I'd consider it a classic, since it's a ripoff of "Brave New World"


----------



## Mike C

burnitdown said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd consider it a classic, since it's a ripoff of "Brave New World"



I presume you can actually read? It's not a rip-off. The two books share so little in common they're virtually different genres.


----------



## burnitdown

Mike C said:
			
		

> I presume you can actually read? It's not a rip-off. The two books share so little in common they're virtually different genres.



Yes, I've read both, of course. You really think so? Guess it depends on how you analyze the book. After all, "Heart of Darkness" and "Apocalypse Now" are different stories.


----------



## Hodge

Eh, _1984_ is a dystopian novel about social control, but it's completely different. Whereas _Brave New World_ was kept under control by a massive social engineering effort and lots of easy pleasure, _1984_ was about fear, coercion, and lies.


----------



## burnitdown

Hodge said:
			
		

> Eh, _1984_ is a dystopian novel about social control, but it's completely different. Whereas _Brave New World_ was kept under control by a massive social engineering effort and lots of easy pleasure, _1984_ was about fear, coercion, and lies.



So you mean: both are dystopian novels, where one describes a totalitarian future and the other describes a corporate liberal democracy. Which is scarier?

haroh:


----------



## Hodge

There's no democracy in _Brave New World._ Nor is there corporatation. The people are given everything they want, based on whether they're alphas, betas, deltas, etc.


----------



## Ilan Bouchard

_1984_ was quite a great book; I made my sister (twelve years old) read this just a month ago or so.  I think she'll appreciate _Animal Farm_ a lot more, although I'm proud that she was able to make out a lot of the _1984_'s intent.



			
				Hodge said:
			
		

> _Brazil_ does a really good job of combining the concepts of _1984_ with those of _Brave New World_, and adding enough comedy and absurdity to make it an incredibly entertaining movie.


I watched _Brazil_ based on your continuously raving reviews about it, yet I didn't understand it in the slightest.  :? 

I think I even PMed you about this, when I saw it, last year.  But alas, I didn't make any connection between this and Orwell's works (although I haven't read BNW).


----------



## Mike C

burnitdown said:
			
		

> Guess it depends on how you analyze the book.



Only if you analyse it incorrectly.


----------



## Mike C

Brazil is far closer in intent to Orwell's vision than Huxley's.

Except Gillian took the beaurocracy to the ultimate degree - totalitarianism breeds beaurocrats - and combined Orwell's ideas with the realities of life under an opressive govermnent - as in Communist Russia, just getting basic services to work was often a nightmare, the sheer drudgery of life was actually more oppresive than the government.


----------



## Hodge

The movie is full of the crass superficiality and disregard of the important things in life that _Brave New World_ was full of.


----------



## Craigy

I believe that was on a list my English teacher from last year gave me. I'm at the library right now, I might go look for it.


----------



## J.E.L.M.

I read 1984 a few months ago. My father recomended it to me. I think the book itself was well written and the way it described society made perfect sense.
I've been trying to get around to reading Animal Farm, but I have several other books I have to read first such as Eragon (before the movie comes out) and The Great Hunt by Robert Jorden. Eventually, I will get around to it though...


----------



## Hodge

Yeah, _Eragon_ and Robert Jordan books have a _much_ higher priority than _Animal Farm_.


----------



## burnitdown

J.E.L.M. said:
			
		

> I've been trying to get around to reading Animal Farm, but I have several other books I have to read first



1984 is Orwell's critique of the total state, but Animal Farm is his critique of democracy. I would read Brave New World first however as it's the greater work, and the one on which 1984 was patterned.


----------



## Hodge

_Animal Farm_ is his critique of _communism,_ not democracy.


----------



## Mike C

Hodge said:
			
		

> _Animal Farm_ is his critique of _communism,_ not democracy.



Specifically, Animal Farm is a critique of Stalinism.

And 1984 patterned on BNW? I'm assuming you've not only not read either book, but haven't read Huxley's commentary on 1984 and vice versa. Not only are the two totally different, they address completely different issues also. Burnitdown, that comment is about as crass as comparing Animal Farm with Charlotte's web because they're both set on farms.


----------



## Hodge

I wouldn't say Stalinism. I would say he's critiquing the whole communist system because it inevitably leads to something like Stalinism.


----------



## CPiseco

Ah, 1984...one of my absolute favorites.  I did my senior thesis on that book.

"We shall squeeze you empty...and we shall fill you with ourselves."

An excellent literary marvel.

I remember arguing with my professor about whether or not Winston actually died in the end.

Good times.


----------



## Mike C

Hodge said:
			
		

> I would say he's critiquing the whole communist system because it inevitably leads to something like Stalinism.



But you'd be wrong. He  was writing specifically about Stalin. Read his biography, related essays etc.


----------



## CPiseco

You can go further than the traditional methods of governing he may have been critiquing in 1984.  If you dive deeper, and look at it from a philosophical point of view, I think you open a whole new can entirely.

Nietzsche's _Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future_ I believe was a big influence in Orwell's works, especially 1984.  You can find the very heart of Nietzche in Big Brother:  Big Brother's interest and primary instinct is the will to power.  The will to survive is even secondary to Big Brother's desire for power:  "self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results."

Some might argue that the will to survive takes precedent over the will to power, but I cannot agree.  The mindless purges put forth by Big Brother; the deteriorating conditions in which Big Brother's people live (even the members of his Inner Party), the constant glowing economic reports with no evidence to back them up...even as Big Brother's "empire" struggles just to eat all around him, as long as it's in his control, "he" has satisfied "his" will to power.

Nietzche stated that all living things are not driven so much to stay alive as they are to possess, control, wield and expand upon power.  And in doing so, he who does achieve such a feat, will consume all other wills by all other living things; thus making those living things his own.  The cycle of power.

Nobody dies a martyr in 1984.  Winston's will to love and be free was not only crushed, but it was completely removed from him.

The Party wins, it's will as strong as ever.  Big Brother is love, is freedom.  Winston dies at the end...loving Big Brother.

No one dies a martyr.


----------



## Hodge

Mike C said:
			
		

> But you'd be wrong. He  was writing specifically about Stalin. Read his biography, related essays etc.



Would I, now? Perhaps you'd like to cite his biography and related essays? No? Then take your arrogant bullshit elsewhere. Believe it or not, people _do_ get tired of you speaking as if you're an authority on everything all the time. As always, you show no tact.


----------



## Fantasy of You

> Would I, now? Perhaps you'd like to cite his biography and related essays? No? Then take your arrogant bullshit elsewhere. Believe it or not, people _do_ get tired of you speaking as if you're an authority on everything all the time. As always, you show no tact.


 
That's a pretty ironic statement. Don't get pissed off because you're wrong, Hodge. It happens.


----------



## Knightskye

So, people just interpreted Orwell's work as 'prophetic,' even though it just happened to somewhat turn out the way he wrote it?  Sounds like Nostradamus to me.

I have a question, how close are we to arresting people for "thought crime"?  Hah, I'd probably be sentenced to life with no chance of parole.


----------



## Mike C

Hodge said:
			
		

> As always, you show no tact.



Note to self - in future, pussyfoot around the pussy. 

Hoge, I do believe you were spouting like an authority, as you often do... there was only one difference between out posts - yours was misinformed.

Don't take it to heart. I'm older than you, I've read a lot more than you, travelled more than you, and experienced more. It's not suprising I know more than you, is it?


----------



## Mike C

Knightskye said:
			
		

> So, people just interpreted Orwell's work as 'prophetic,' even though it just happened to somewhat turn out the way he wrote it?  Sounds like Nostradamus to me.



Indeed, although Orwell's extrapolation of a future society based on his thoughts of the existing one could legitimately be called prophetic.


----------



## Mike C

Hodge said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd like to cite his biography and related essays? No?



Yes, but I don't intend making a habit of it, as having to cite sources every time you said something stupid could become a fill time job.

For the circumstances surrounding the publication of Animal Farm (including an attempt from within the British Government to ban it - at that point Stalin was seen as a friend of the UK) see Complete Works (ed Michael Meyer) XIV.

Orwell broke his own tradition by not even submitting the book to his usual publisher (Gollancz) because they would "hardly want to sponsor a draught of undiluted anti-Stalinism".

The book eventually went to Cape, who at the last moment pulled the plug on the advice of an 'important official' at the Ministry of information, as anti-soviet and anti Stalinist texts were frowned on, and the portrayal of Stalin as a pig considered offensive. The 'important official was later revealed to be Peter Smollet, who was unmasked as a Soviet agent.

Last two paragraphs quoted/paraphrased from 'Orwell - The Life' by D J Taylor.

Does that make you happy Hodge?


----------



## Loulou

I read 1984 many years ago when I was about 14 - not in a class, I didn't pay attention at school, but out of curiosity.  Haven't read it since then so will have to go and see how I find it now as an adult.

I recall that I devoured it in two nights.  In my simplistic teenage mind I seem to remember taking it to be a predictive book, in the sense that he had written very insightfully about how Britain came to be.  And how right he was, that we have ended up with a governemnt who do want to control us ('nanny state') and with camera's literally everywhere (we are apparently being filmed at any given moment.)  I felt definitely that the book was about social control.  I'm not bothered whether he was referring specifically to a period in time, I just got a lot out of the theme.

Obviously, I haven't read it since I was a kid - I might read it now and think differently.

Oh, as for there being a happy ending...  That'd be like making a film about Jesus and having him live happily ever after in the Graden of Eden.  Happy endings are for wusses


----------



## Hodge

Mike C said:
			
		

> Does that make you happy Hodge?



Yes. Was that so hard? You could have just done this and not be a dick, but I knew you wouldn't resist the urge. Of course, what you cited doesn't really reference the book being strictly about Stalinism, but it's nice to see you made the effort.

I still disagree, which is the beauty about literary interpretation.


----------



## Raging_Hopeful

Awww.... Mike and Hodge. The banter is amusing.

Anyhoo, I read both 1984 and Animal Farm and liked them both... although I struggled more with 1984. Probably because I read it on my own while Animal Farm was done in class so a lot more resources and analyzing took place. Both are political classics and should be read by all.

Oh, and to whoever thinks they should be reading Eragon first and .... "get around to [1984] eventually" you fill me with shame. You literary traitor.


----------



## burnitdown

CPiseco said:
			
		

> Nietzsche's _Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future_ I believe was a big influence in Orwell's works, especially 1984.  You can find the very heart of Nietzche in Big Brother:  Big Brother's interest and primary instinct is the will to power.  The will to survive is even secondary to Big Brother's desire for power:  "self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results."



In the Nietzschean definition, "power" and "control" are separate. Power means importance and has a number of applications. Authoritarian control is not one of them.


----------



## CPiseco

I'm not so sure I agree.  In his essay, _'Guilt, Bad Conscience and Related Matters,' _he discusses cruelty and it's culmination to use by the powerful as a means of punishment.  The punishment (cruelty) is a means of satisfaction; gratifying the imposing of one's will over another.

This is a continuation of his master-slave morality first linked to his 'will to power' works.  In fact, Nietzche argues that "submissiveness to authority" by the "downtrodden masses" was considered a good quality via the slave morality.

On Nietzsche (Robert Cavalier, Carnegie Mellon):
"Rather, our "consciousness" (both individual and societal) is merely a perspectival point that seeks to gain control over that which surrounds it, and in so doing it _creatively constructs_ a world."

Power and control go hand-in-hand, much in the same way Nietzsche argued that both pain and joy were inseperable; that creation and destruction cannot exist one without the other.


----------



## Shawn

One of my favorite books. Really, anyone who doesn't get the really deep themes in it must have bee blighted in the head when they were young.


----------



## Mike C

Hodge said:
			
		

> Yes. Was that so hard? You could have just done this and not be a dick, but I knew you wouldn't resist the urge. Of course, what you cited doesn't really reference the book being strictly about Stalinism, but it's nice to see you made the effort.
> 
> I still disagree, which is the beauty about literary interpretation.



I didn't really cite anything specific, just pointed you in the right direction and hoped maybe you'd read something for yourself rather than recycling tired old - incorrect - opinion. 

I still live in hope.


----------



## audacity

Hodge said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say Stalinism. I would say he's critiquing the whole communist system because it inevitably leads to something like Stalinism.


 
That's exactly what the book is about, the unstoppable progression from communism to Stalinism or a similar government. If you would pretend not to hate the people you argue with, you'd be a lot more persuasive, Hodge, as you are generally right (not that I need to tell you that).

As for 1984, I wasn't a huge fan. I had gotten amazing reviews of the book from friends, which always raises ones expectations and lowers ones final impression. Also, I was aware before reading that the concept of a government with total control would be used in the book; I was probably less shocked and interested as a result.


----------



## burnitdown

CPiseco said:
			
		

> In fact, Nietzche argues that "submissiveness to authority" by the "downtrodden masses" was considered a good quality via the slave morality.



He also describes the "last man" who is the basis of the society described in _Brave New World_, of which _1984_ is a ripoff.


----------



## Shawn

1984 is most certainly not a ripoff! I'll have you know Orwell was most likely in a drug induced haze while he wrote it... the prose does get a little drawling at times.


----------



## Mike C

Shawn said:
			
		

> I'll have you know Orwell was most likely in a drug induced haze while he wrote it...



Really? That opinion is based on...?


----------



## Domino_Gray

Burn it down, I sometime wonder if you're just illiterate, or if you actually miss the entire point of what you read every time. If your score for insight were being tallied, you'd have won the golf game by a hole in one every time. You're the type of man who thinks Animal Farm is the greatest novel in the world...about why you shouldn't trust pigs



			
				burnitdown said:
			
		

> So you mean: both are dystopian novels, where one describes a totalitarian future and the other describes a corporate liberal democracy. Which is scarier?
> 
> haroh:


 
A corporate liberal democracy versus totalitarianism is your actual joke of the day? Sadly enough, I know you actually mentally wanked to that comment with that annoying self satisfied emote as the only trace of your disgusting little sin. Because I always think of whether a progressive nation that effectively utilizes capitalism and the right to vote is worse than a nation where your ass is raped by Bubba for saying you liked your car to be a different color than grey.


----------



## Domino_Gray

As a side note, has anyone read Burmese Days here? I'd love some discussion on that, as it rips the shit out of both 1984 and Animal Farm in my opinion


----------



## Mike C

I have indeed. As with all of Orwell's novels, Burmese Days is a sublime example of writing what you know, and it (along with 'Keep the Aspidistra Flying') is probably his most overtly autobiographical novel.

Better than 1984 and Animal Farm? Highly subjective, of course, but a valid opinion.


----------



## Shawn

Mike C said:
			
		

> Really? That opinion is based on...?



It was a joke... relax.


----------



## davetherave

i am currently reading 1984 after someone said that they think the world we live in now is gradually becoming like the world described by Orwell in 1984
Im not sure that is true but it is certainly a great book, well what I have read so far anyway.


----------



## mbolton29@mac.com

I never really enjoyed the book, I think Julia is an ignorant and flaky character and the entire story in my mind was predictable.  I always though Huxley's interpretation of a dystopian future was more accurate and intriguing, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Edgewise

If you folks like dystopian satire, I recommned "The Wanting Seed" by Burgess.


----------



## Mike C

Burgess is (was) a master of dystopia. Also recommended is _1985_, an updated 'sequel' of sorts to 1984. Written in the late 70's, it's scarily close to today's society.


----------



## aimeefriedland

hated it profoundly


----------



## sixlivesdown

Just finished reading it (again) last night. I went out last year and bought a lovely soft copy of it (the feel of a book does wonders for my enjoyment of it). I almost wrote a paper on it, too. I would say that it probably ranks in my top ten books


----------



## Joelle

I read 1984 very recently. After "Animal Farm" (which, sorry, I hated), I wasn't expecting much, but I loved it. (..it's quoted in my sig, hehe.) I couldn't stop reading it. You're right about the not knowing whether the characters were going to get out..I wasn't sure, either. But yeah, it's one of my favorites of all time.


----------



## Lemex

I read 1984 a year back, it's one of my favoute novels ever!
It's so damn good i couldn't put it down.
And on top of that it scared the crap out of me, Big Brother is a nightmare i NEVER want to wake up to.


----------

