1984 by George Orwell

The sheer amount of influence Stalin and his cronies had on other countries communist movements makes me feel like anti-communism by Orwell is a fundamentally different sort of breed than most. Certainly, you don't have to be conservative to be Anti-Stalinist as he represents the absolute highest corruption of any socialist ideal.

Opposition to Stalin doesn't necessitate giving a list of suspected communists to British intelligence either. But Orwell did that. He sided with the more conservative Atlee wing of the Labour Party (not to say that wing was itself conservative, but rather to say it was a sign of Orwell moving rightward).

Even some experts on his life admit he was becoming more conservative after WWII. I mean, calling a black singer "anti-white" in his list certainly isn't leftist, now is it? Never mind his homophobia bordering on hysterical, which he uses as an insulting caricature of what he called the "pansy left".

Edited by Diana1969 on Oct 22nd 2022 at 10:57:48 PM

True enough and its a shameful list. Also silly since it had Charlie Chaplin on it.

Like I said, one thing we can see is how dated or not orwell is right now:

I will said one of the thing it become obvious right now is how dificult is to put a oceania because interconnected comunication sistem of the internet, is clearly from the let go that you can have a orwellian state only if everyone is aisloated from everyone else allowing the state to control the flow of information, is not surprising that today the only state that can kinda sorta close as Russia, China and of course North korea(who at times look like 1984 larpers).

But I will said there are little comunity who fit the Orwellan uttermech because politics cultiave that way, trumpist or MAGA republican are a good example: imprevious to facts, willing to rate every face in how it benefit trump or not, eagerness to drop news sources if they dont tell them what they want and a love for their big brother(which is inmaterial who he is really).

Which it bring the second point: We see how the orwellian goverment there exist only the party and their branches and the men who is so sub atomic that can only exist in his own head, today is hard to pull that out unless the space allow you too(Like cults for example) BUT and this is a big but, we see third party often willing to lie to get a head, rather than reshaping the past and cuting all that you said(because in the internet if often imposible). They show throw so much bullshit that people just kinda select what they want, creating self reinforce comunities bubbles that create orwellian groups on their own, specially with social media encouraging that mindset, plus their data stealing tendency means goverment can and often does outshore their surveillance tendencies to companies.

This is specially bad since the public from most part often dont care as long they get the idea(or the ilusion) that as long they dont feel manipulated them they aren't at all.

Sure, you used a bunch of fancier words, but it still fundamentally boils down to "the book is bad because the protagonist doesn't succeed". Mainly by conflating the protagonist failing with every dissident ever automatically failing, and the protagonist being duped with "every dissident ever is a plant". Basically taking a character who is deliberatley given extremely limited and distorted knowledge of the true state of the world around him and unversalizing his experience.

I mean the story is memorable because Winston fails on every level to be heroic or rise above the state.

the sheer depressing tone of 1984 means it's something I wouldn't read again unless I was forced to

Most of the criticisms I've seen are a little closer to "this book is bad because 6079 is a misogynist," but I kind of feel like he should be? Only he was born toward the end of the Big One, but he's spent several decades living in a pretty terrible society.

Edited by TwinBird on Nov 7th 2022 at 8:50:02 AM

Yeah, the depressing tone united with one of the most brutal down ending ever is reaaally a "take or leave" for the book, it is pretty unrelenting and you dont get any idea winston can turn things around once he is captured.

Brave new world end in a similar way and so do farenheit. They are not to offer solution per se but to cast a waring to people.

There's a trope for what some might feel.

It doesn't and I'd appreciate not strawmanning my position. I have explained it multiple times already that, in my analysis, the book is a reflection of pessimism Orwell already felt and how his own political views, which I find disagreeable, are a part of 1984's own political messaging.

But I don't even think the book is "bad". I just have a negative opinion of it while holding that it does have some interesting concepts other writers have taken up. One can have a negative view of a work or of its author (as I have a negative view of Orwell) and still see that there's positives to gleam from it. To me, something that's "bad" has little to no redeeming value whatsoever.

Edited by Diana1969 on Nov 9th 2022 at 7:01:29 AM

Yeah, Winston is weak and not heroic.

Which, of course, is what makes him sympathetic but also shows why the system beats him.

And is also why in part 1984 have such a impact as it is, weird as it is, that crystalization of pessimism is kinda is more enduring touche for good and bad.

I'm a believer that tragedy can be extremely good as long as it's believable and earned. Winston's flaws are believable and the ending is horribly depressing but any other ending would have felt against everything we've seen so far.

One 1984 quote I think is misguided in terms of human psychology is: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." My issue with it is the implication that people naturally see and hear what's really there and have to be told to ignore it, which I think strongly underestimates people's ability to fool themselves without help.

Edited by MDLuder on Nov 17th 2022 at 2:26:57 AM

Is more that everyone learn what the party what to teach them and a so point said they exist because they exist it does. Is pretty much state sponsor spolipism.

Today you see with trumpism and a few years ago with chavistas at the peak. the rewritting of facts is needed for totalitarism to exist.

Yeah is probably the issue with it, I cant see any optimistic ending to 1984 that wont lessen the book for it, is a take or leave deal.

What I take issue with is the idea that Trump's followers believe what they do because he tells them so. I think in large part they follow him because he validates what they already believe; i.e. the "evidence of their eyes and ears" told them that Obama's birth certificate was fake and so on, so they flocked to Trump because his rhetoric fit their worldview.