Nineteen Eighty Four

[ruffready]

1984

Thats one book (I read in my "fiction of the future class
" early in high school) thats stay with me, just thought of it the other night while driving home after hearing mention of JFK,Jacko,etc..stuff on the car radio, . That book I think for those who "really" read it , and books like "Brave new worlds" by huxly and Animal Farm, and Martian Chronicles..really stick to your brain. I wonder if there required reading still in school? They should be. They can never be outdated. 1984 has got to be one of the best books ever ! or near the top! And I mentioned Martian chronicles (by Ray Bradbury) because after I read that , I was thristy for anything and everything I could find that he wrote!! And of course Isaac Asimov stuff to! and many more..those kind of books really kick started alot of folks reading and thinking! OH! can't forget "Carl Sagan"! read all of his stuff to!! Cosmic connection " was my first !! and favorite "Dragons of Eden!!" (edit--I had to put a "o" in "wonder" I had an "i" instead" :.)

 

[Novena]

Re: 1984

1984 has got to be one of the best books ever ! or near the top!

Well, it's good you liked it Ruff, because if Mr Bush and friends have their way you'll soon be living it for real. Enjoy...

 

[Shoegazer]

Re: Re: 1984

Well, it's good you liked it Ruff, because if Mr Bush and friends have their way you'll soon be living it for real. Enjoy...

Funny, Orwell was describing the USSR.

 

[Shoegazer]

Oh and don't get me started on how the closest think to Orwell's double-speak is the modern political correctness mumbo jumbo.

"Person hole cover, what the hell is that??!"

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: 1984

Funny, Orwell was describing the USSR.

He was actually describing Britain during, and shortly after, World War II.

He got the idea working for the BBC.

The Ministry of Truth was partly based on Auntie Beeb. There was a Room 101 in the basement near his office (the rats may not have been made up).

1984 was really 1948. He died of tuberculosis the same year.

 

[Shoegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

He was actually describing Britain during, and shortly after, World War II.

He got the idea working for the BBC.

The Ministry of Truth was partly based on Auntie Beeb. There was a Room 101 in the basement near his office (the rats may not have been made up).

1984 was really 1948. He died of tuberculosis the same year.

1984 was indeed called so because it was written in 1948 but if you think he was describing the the UK then I am afraid you are mistaken.

The book was a warning against totalitarianism and was mainly aimed at Stalin's Soviet Union.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

1984 was indeed called so because it was written in 1948 but if you think he was describing the the UK then I am afraid you are mistaken.

The book was a warning against totalitarianism and was mainly aimed at Stalin's Soviet Union.

Who's Ministry of Truth have you been listening to?

 

[Shoegazer]

No one's in particular, I think the intro to the Penguin edition.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

1984 was really 1948. He died of tuberculosis the same year.

My mistake. He wrote it around 1948, it was published in 1949 and he died in 1950.

However, 'Animal Farm' was his satire on the USSR, but '1984' was aimed as a warning at the West, Britain in particuliar.

You've no idea, perhaps, of the sorts of sacrifices that were made by Britain, in the War against the NAZIs.

Even after the War times were tough, and on ration, for a long time. The descriptions of life on Airstrip One, were not far from life in Post War Britain. Orwell just saw it going on forever.

If Orwell had spent his entire time just taking a pop at the Soviet Union, he'd not be as important a writer as he's become.

 

[Shoegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

My mistake. He wrote it around 1948, it was published in 1949 and he died in 1950.

However, 'Animal Farm' was his satire on the USSR, but '1984' was aimed as a warning at the West, Britain in particuliar.

Animal Farm was indeed about the Soviet Union but more to do with the internal politics of the ruling cliques: Marxism becoming Leninism v Trotskyism and into Stalinism. The old work horse is of course the Russian people.

1984 was not about postwar Britain, on that I guess we will have to diagree. It was about totalitarianism. As found under Hitler and even more so under Stalin.

You've no idea, perhaps, of the sorts of sacrifices that were made by Britain, in the War against the NAZIs.

Even after the War times were tough, and on ration, for a long time. The descriptions of life on Airstrip One, were not far from life in Post War Britain. Orwell just saw it going on forever.

I do indeed have quite a good idea. Although not a period which I lived through myself my father did (he was born in 1931) and I was brought up with stories about the war and post-war Britain. My mother also remembers rationing (especially chocolate rationing - and especially the end of chocolate rationing!).

If Orwell had spent his entire time just taking a pop at the Soviet Union, he'd not be as important a writer as he's become.

Not sure I agree with this on quite a few levels. Orwell wrote far more than two books.

And arguably these two ARE his most important books.

 

[Jerry_B]

Don't get too focused on 1984 being aimed at the situation as Orwell saw it in Russia - remember he fought against the Fascists during the Spanish Civil War, and had a very strong aversion to Naziism. I think the book aims at both side of the political extreme, not just Stalinist Russia. Either way, the world it portrayed could be about an extreme left or right-wing totalitarian state. So in effect is is a warning about any such power, despite what side of the politcal divide it stems from.

 

[Shoegazer]

Oh I agree entirely the book is aimed at Totalitarianism. Full stop. However the only major totalitarian regime at the time was the Soviet Union and the book largely is a criticism of the USSR.

There is a certain irony as GO was a socialist but he did not like what the "socialists" had done in Russia.

 

[Jerry_B]

Hmm, I've never been convinced that the book is aimed entirely at Stalinism - there are to many things in it that are reminiscent of the Nazi regime too. This is why it's still relevant today, even on a small scale, about the abuses the state can make against it's own citizens, and the way it handles the information they receive. Such things taint both how the Taliban operated, as well as the current Bush administration, in various different ways. An American friend of mine who studied the book at school told me that she was always aware that it was being portayed to the pupils as a diatribe against Communism, whereas here in the UK the emphasis tended to focus on the subject of totalitarianism in general.

 

[stu neville]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

1984 was not about postwar Britain, on that I guess we will have to diagree. It was about totalitarianism. As found under Hitler and even more so under Stalin.

I'd tend to agree with AndroMan, Sardan. It is about a broken and demoralised Britain, despite the WWII victory (which is why "Victory" is the constant Newspeak leitmotif barked at the masses, as a reminder that they are all making sacrifices toward this great concept) - also the character names of Winston Smith, Parsons, O'Brien, Julia - not especially Slavic sounding...

Orwell, a brilliant objective journalist, could see the immediate pre-Cold war conversion of a once fiercely independent nation becoming host for masses of US airbases (Airstrip One), and foresaw the nation being addressed by a visual portal in every home which would receive only one channel, the first two intitals of which were BB . Orwell understood propoganda better than most, and recognised that it was not only a tool of regimes touted as "evil".

No, 1984 is very definitely about post-war Britain, and about how easy it would be for our nation to fall prey to the protective promises of a totalitarian regime, and indeed how it would be feasible for it to happen without us even being aware until it was too late.

ibid
My mother also remembers rationing (especially chocolate rationing - and especially the end of chocolate rationing!).

..and what does Julia offer Winston on the night of their fateful assignation? Real coffee, and if memory serves real chocolate .

 

[Shoegazer]

Hmm, I've never been convinced that the book is aimed entirely at Stalinism - there are to many things in it that are reminiscent of the Nazi regime too. This is why it's still relevant today, even on a small scale, about the abuses the state can make against it's own citizens, and the way it handles the information they receive. Such things taint both how the Taliban operated, as well as the current Bush administration, in various different ways. An American friend of mine who studied the book at school told me that she was always aware that it was being portayed to the pupils as a diatribe against Communism, whereas here in the UK the emphasis tended to focus on the subject of totalitarianism in general.

I think I agree with this.

 

[rynner2]

(This thread has been split off from Iraq Aftermath.)

 

[Shoegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

I'd tend to agree with AndroMan, Sardan. It is about a broken and demoralised Britain, despite the WWII victory (which is why "Victory" is the constant Newspeak leitmotif barked at the masses, as a reminder that they are all making sacrifices toward this great concept) - also the character names of Winston Smith, Parsons, O'Brien, Julia - not especially Slavic sounding...

Orwell, a brilliant objective journalist, could see the immediate pre-Cold war conversion of a once fiercely independent nation becoming host for masses of US airbases (Airstrip One), and foresaw the nation being addressed by a visual portal in every home which would receive only one channel, the first two intitals of which were BB . Orwell understood propoganda better than most, and recognised that it was not only a tool of regimes touted as "evil".

No, 1984 is very definitely about post-war Britain, and about how easy it would be for our nation to fall prey to the protective promises of a totalitarian regime, and indeed how it would be feasible for it to happen without us even being aware until it was too late.
..and what does Julia offer Winston on the night of their fateful assignation? Real coffee, and if memory serves real chocolate .

On reflection I think I do have to agree with anumber of points you make. However the book is of course set in the UK and so the names are certainly not going to be Slavic. If I recall correctly there were three nation/empires all constantly at war with one another, one was a Soviet Union analog, one a china analog and one US/UK analog.

The book is against Totalitarianism and it is certainly informed by the experiences of Britain during the war; it was written for a post-war audience. But it was not ABOUT post-war Britain it was a Britain conquered by totalitarianism. The book is more a warning of what could happen if we allowed a totalitarian regime to take hold.

That regime could be either left or right wing but at the time the real "threat" (if indeed there was one) was from the communist bloc which was the only major totalitarian regime left.

 

[Anonymous]

This is Big Brother

On reflection I think I do have to agree with anumber of points you make.

Report to the Ministry of Love immediately!

 

[TulipTree]

An American friend of mine who studied the book at school told me that she was always aware that it was being portayed to the pupils as a diatribe against Communism, whereas here in the UK the emphasis tended to focus on the subject of totalitarianism in general.

Maybe it depended on the teacher. When we studied it , the teacher told us it was about the possibilities for totalitarianism in the west. There were long discussions about freedom and how easily a government could gain more power. I graduated High School in 1983 so the book was a big deal at the time. Everyone was talking about it.

 

[Anome]

There is one important part of the book that you are forgetting, Sardan.

The constant refrain of "We are at war with EastAsia. EurAsia are out allies against EastAsia." which had changed from (or was it changed to, I can't remember offhand) "We are at war with EurAsia. EastAsia are our allies against EurAsia."

This was a reflection of how suddenly the Allies found themselves allied with the remnants of the Axis against the Soviet Union so soon after the end of the war, when previously they had cheered the success of Stalin's troops against the Germans on the Eastern Front.

The Soviet Union did not find itself in quite the same situation, as most of the Warsaw Pact countries had been occupied by the Nazis during the war.

The basic premise of the book (and a recurring theme through many of his novels) is that frequently the opposing forces in such a conflict become indistinguishable. He showed a Britain so obsessed with its war against its enemies, that it became a totalitarian state. Exactly the sort of thing they were supposed to be fighting.

Plus, there is the fact that Britain has become Airstrip 1, which relates to the stationing of US forces in Britain during the Cold War. (And is parallel to the presence of both US and British in Europe.) As well as the fact that Britain was becoming the junior member of the alliance against the Soviets.

It is a cautinary tale about the kind of war that the Cold War was.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe it depended on the teacher. When we studied it , the teacher told us it was about the possibilities for totalitarianism in the west. There were long discussions about freedom and how easily a government could gain more power.

Your teacher would have been one of those 'pinko liberals' then?

 

[TulipTree]

Your teacher would have been one of those 'pinko liberals' then?

It's possible, but it seems like most teachers were then. If they hadn't been directly affected by the Vietnam draft, they had older family members who were. The government wasn't all that trustworthy for that crowd. There were quite a few open pot smokers, too. The teacher's didn't seem naive at all about the power of propanda and fear.

I really am appalled by what's happening here now. I don't understand how it can be happening. Where are all those people who understood the warnings of history and books like 1984?

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1984

(which is why "Victory" is the constant Newspeak leitmotif barked at the masses, as a reminder that they are all making sacrifices toward this great concept)

Hmmmm. I think I heard a speech along those lines not long ago, but I can't remember where...

 

[ruffready]

re: I. Jones

was it this one? Broadcast: 2/5/2003
Bush declares victory in Iraq
For George W Bush it may have been the mother of all political backdrops. The US President made a dramatic entry onto an aircraft carrier to declare victory in Iraq. He stopped short of declaring the Iraq war offically over and also vowed America's war on terror that began on September 11, 2001 will continue. The speech marks the beginning of a new phase for the US in Iraq. It also sends an important message to the American public that the President's attention is shifting back from the war to the troubled economy

 

[escargot]

I 'did' it at school and well remember my rather paranoid mother saying 'Watch yourself, 'THEY' know everything you do, you know! It's only 12 years to 1984!'

1984 was really seen as the year when all this would Come True and Big Brother would be watching. Bit of a disappointment when nowt much happened.

At university I tried to argue at the time (1984) that maybe Orwell was right about the telescreen seeing everything we did, in that the TV certainly does tell some people how to behave- what to buy, what to wear, how to spend their time. I was laughed out of the place. I was right, so Orwell was too.

See also Huxley's Brave New World.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh and don't get me started on how the closest think to Orwell's double-speak is the modern political correctness mumbo jumbo.

"Person hole cover, what the hell is that??!"

Unlikely, I would say.

As Jo Brand pointed out in her pitch for '1984' as the best book ever,

"Collateral damage", "Daisy Cutter", "non combatant", etc.

 

[OneWingedBird]

I know what a Daisy Cutter is but I've never figured out why it's called that?

 

[river_styx]

I'm fairly certain that Orwell would have written it as a warning to whomever was reading it whether or not they were Russian, English or Swedish.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Ah, found out, it's because it's designed to blast out huge areas of vegetation.

 

[Anonymous]

freedom is tyranny

You might want to have a look at Anthony Burgess' 1985, a ( probably o.p.) book that's half essay - the interesting part - and half dystopic novella. Burgess insists very eloquently on the 1984 as postwar Britain interpretation.

As for Animal Farm, when I read it in high school in the 70s, the only permissible interpretation was the USSR allegory one. I now think that's probably correct - Orwell's socialism was always anti Stalinist - but as a rebellious teenager rejected what I saw as the Establishment reading.