|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 12:44:42 GMT
Post by JJ on Aug 25, 2004 12:44:42 GMT
I read this on holiday and I really, really enjoyed it. It's really easily accessible (spelling?) and also quite scary. The ending was a bit of a cop out, though.
Has anyone else read it?
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 13:28:57 GMT
Post by trollte on Aug 25, 2004 13:28:57 GMT
This was the only book I was forced to read at school that I enjoyed. Very bleak and an important warning.
Julia by The Eurythmics is a lovely song.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 13:29:28 GMT
Post by zaffra on Aug 25, 2004 13:29:28 GMT
It's a great book, I read it in about 1986, I'd love to read it again to see how it holds up now that we have big brother CCTV on every street corner and (America at least) in a constant state of the terror threat.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 13:54:24 GMT
Post by Nick on Aug 25, 2004 13:54:24 GMT
I really, really love Ninteen Eighty-Four.
However, it was spoiled for me slightly by a happy lecturer sitting me down explaining all the gaping holes in the plot to me. Chiefly:
Winston's hatred of the society he is trapped in stems from his fear that Big Brother, the Inner Party etc have created a world in which resistance to their ideals and authority, and freedom of thought are all but being eradicated. See his initial reaction to Julia, or the Parsons' children.
HOWEVER! Julia has been covertly fucking around and doing what she wants since she was a kid. She throws herself into the Party activities as a way of directing suspicion away from herself. On the surface she is the perfect Party member; underneath, she is rebelling, and seems happy to tow the Party line so long as she can do what she wants in secret, when possible. She contradicts Winston's fears for the young and, consequently, the future.
Yet his fears and dissatisfaction remain even after he has met her, fucked her etc. Why? Unlike Winston, she grew up under Party rule, and yet she still managed to decide for herself that their way of life was not for her. She has been saturated in Party propaganda her whole life but it has not been successful in controlling her mind. It is only after the two of them take steps to destroy the Party that their minds become distorted and their attitudes are controlled. Hmmm.
That was it, basically, but he put it better, and without the 'Hmmm'. Grrr.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 15:28:52 GMT
Post by jode* on Aug 25, 2004 15:28:52 GMT
I loved this book. Read it at University. You kinda need basic Sociology/Media Studies first though to understand all of the -ism's and the basic themes.
My favourite part is the understandings about Newspeak - that the future population would not be able to feel rebellion or hatred of their enforced lifestyle because there would not be a word in the language to describe it.
If there isn't a word to describe how you are feeling then you obviously cannot feel it in the first place.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 16:00:30 GMT
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Aug 25, 2004 16:00:30 GMT
I lurve 1984, it's amazing. Spookily, so much of it has been realised: WAR IS PEACE anyone? Hats off Mr Orwell.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 16:14:22 GMT
Post by Nick on Aug 25, 2004 16:14:22 GMT
My favourite part is the understandings about Newspeak - that the future population would not be able to feel rebellion or hatred of their enforced lifestyle because there would not be a word in the language to describe it. If there isn't a word to describe how you are feeling then you obviously cannot feel it in the first place. I think I disagreed with this bit. A restricted language isn't going to stop you from feeling things. It would make it near-impossible to articulate what you're feeling which, in turn, would probably be enough to prevent (or at least deter) organised rebellion, but it's not going to stop anger or rage or hopelessness or discontent; it's just going to stop people from being able to express them clearly. Society ends up even more frustrated and repressed, and the Winstons end up feeling even more isolated, but it wouldn't mean that they wouldn't have negative feelings towards those that govern them; they just wouldn't be able to make them known to others through spoken or written language. That's not to say it couldn't be communicated / interpreted by other, subtler means. After all, Julia had got the measure of Winston before they ever spoke. But then, Julia is a big ol' contradiction, etc. I always got the impression that the idea of Newspeak actually making certain 'negative' feelings impossible was an over-simplification of this on the part of the characters. Winston's a deep thinker, but he's not particularly intelligent. La la la. I really do love this book, though.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 16:20:09 GMT
Post by mikemk on Aug 25, 2004 16:20:09 GMT
If there isn't a word to describe how you are feeling then you obviously cannot feel it in the first place. Hmmm, lots of debate in recent years about exactly this topic, most of it trying to prove or disprove that English as a global language actually deserves that title due to its inherent "superiority" over other languages, especially "primitive" languages. Many linguists and sociologists still think that these "primitive" languages (one recently was found with no word for any number over three) cannot deal with many abstract concepts precisely because they have no words for them, and therefore the speakers must be primitive too. I am not sure where Orwell stood on this point, as the debate started after he wrote the book, but it is interesting just how many ideas are crammed into one book.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 19:17:29 GMT
Post by jode* on Aug 25, 2004 19:17:29 GMT
it's not going to stop anger or rage or hopelessness or discontent; it's just going to stop people from being able to express them clearly. through spoken or written language. Yeah, this is a debatable topic for sure. However, there are certain chemical bodily reactions to emotions, that are similar although on completely opposite ends of the scale. For example butterflies in the pit of your stomach can either be excitedness or fear. In a Newspeak world these emotions wouldn't have a meaning and so citizens wouldn't even know that their body was reacting emotionally. Plus, you still think in your native language. In a frightening situation you think "shit! i'm scared! i'm shaking! aaargh!". Your brain immediately lets your body know you are scared and reacts to it. But the fear is still verbalised in your head.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 19:19:06 GMT
Post by jode* on Aug 25, 2004 19:19:06 GMT
Just a thought...
A kind of intellectual, sociological, psychological debate about a classic Orwell book is not exactly very lowculture!
|
|
|
1984
Aug 25, 2004 19:32:47 GMT
Post by Cherubic on Aug 25, 2004 19:32:47 GMT
However, there are certain chemical bodily reactions to emotions, that are similar although on completely opposite ends of the scale. For example butterflies in the pit of your stomach can either be excitedness or fear. In a Newspeak world these emotions wouldn't have a meaning and so citizens wouldn't even know that their body was reacting emotionally. As a psychologist (of sorts) I have to question the accuracy of this. The fundamental emotions (anger, fear, happiness etc) are thought to exist in complete isolation of language. They are universals which might almost be described as reflexes. The only way to deprive people of the feelings that movement from one emotion to another entails(example happiness to saddnesss = dissatisfaction etc) would be to keep everybody permanently happy or permanently sad. This is pretty much impossible. There is an argument to be made regarding whether so-called higher emotions and concepts can be negated by their linguistic annihalation, but since efforts to alter language from above are largely unsuccessful (see the problems in Germany regarding the change of alphabet) it seems more likely that people would make up their own word for freedom rather than forget the entire principle. I don't really like the book though, so what do I know.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 26, 2004 10:59:11 GMT
Post by Elly on Aug 26, 2004 10:59:11 GMT
I love this book. It's been a long time since I read it, but I still remember dropping the book in horror when the voice of Big Brother spoke to Winston and Julia from behind the painting (was it a painting, actually, or just a wall?), in that room they thought was secret. Oh my God. I still have nightmares about that.
Does anyone like Orwell's other stuff? Animal Farm is my overall favourite, but I also really like Keep The Aspidistra Flying, even though it's incredibly long-winded.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 26, 2004 11:22:45 GMT
Post by JJ on Aug 26, 2004 11:22:45 GMT
Does anyone like Orwell's other stuff? Animal Farm is my overall favourite, but I also really like Keep The Aspidistra Flying, even though it's incredibly long-winded. I like Animal Farm. I think 1984 is so accessible because of the crudeness of its plot and how underdeveloped its characters are. The story lacks complexity, but I think it is what makes the book so good because you can get into it right away.
|
|
|
1984
Aug 26, 2004 23:08:59 GMT
Post by Cherubic on Aug 26, 2004 23:08:59 GMT
There's a book called We, by a Russian guy who's name I can't remember which is the supposed inspiration for 1984. It's not as good as a book, and it's very early 20th century science fiction but I found it an interesting counterpoint.
Also, to whoever said that the ending was a cop out (bear in mind I read it years ago), isn't the end Winston realising that he loves Big Brother? If it is I presumed that this was a reference to somethig I think is said earlier about how they'll only kill you when they've won back your loyalty. I always thought that was quite an interesting point, as it's no longer the state trying to keep a hold on power, but actually developing a vindictive personality of it's own.
If I made this up I apologise (and can someone tell me what the end really is).
|
|
|
1984
Sept 1, 2004 13:45:10 GMT
Post by QuincyMD on Sept 1, 2004 13:45:10 GMT
It ends with Julia and Winston meeting and both of them tell the other that to escape Big Brother they gave up on all of their beliefs and demanded that the other be punished instead.
I love the ambiguites within the book such as it's never fully explained whether or not Parsons is in on it with Big Brother or his appearance in the prison really is the result of him being set up by his children.
Or does only spy on those who are actually changing the message, Smith and Julia both work for Big Brother so seem to be under constant supervision but the proles seem to have a lot more freedom. Does Big Brother only exist to keep the message on track?
Try and see the 1950's BBC version with Peter Cushing as it's superb. It turns up on BBC4 now and again so keep an eye on the schedules.
|
|
|
1984
Sept 1, 2004 15:35:39 GMT
Post by klee on Sept 1, 2004 15:35:39 GMT
We was dramatised on Radio 4 a short while ago. It is decidedly odd and reminded me more of George Lucas' first film THX1138 than 1984.
I have read 1984 and loved it, but thought the experience was so harrowing at the time that I knew I'd never put myself through it again.
What struck me most about it was its sense of paranoia - especially about a culture in which everyone is observed all the time. It's remarkable to think that we also live in a world today in which we are infinitely trackable (much more so than in Orwell's wildest imaginings), yet although we occasionally get flashes of 'someone's watching me' have nowhere near the same level of fear about it. As a companion piece to Brave New World it becomes even more fascinating. Both of these novels predict dystopias (one economically capitalist, one communist) based on the collectivisation of the self, where if anything, modern societal trends have taken us off in completely the opposite direction.
|
|
|
1984
Oct 6, 2004 22:36:03 GMT
Post by SBaholic on Oct 6, 2004 22:36:03 GMT
When I found out i was going to be reading this for A-level I was really really excited to be reading such a classic, but it turned out to be one of the most bleak and sombre books I've ever come across. Brings back memories of reading it on the train and just having to put it down because trying to read it in more than small doeses just made me too depressed!
I liked Brave New World much more. It had more fun being a parody of itself, and with John hanging himself at the end it made the serious message come through without having to illustrate the same mood again and again throughout the novel.
I think that's just a case of taste, though. I don't really want to be reading depressing novels at my age, I find the concept of erotic play much more interesting. It's a shame all the TV productions of it though are dire and Star-Trek influenced. Perhaps I'll appreciate 1984 more when I'm older. That had a good film. Truly terrifying.
|
|
|
1984
Oct 7, 2004 10:12:22 GMT
Post by Steven on Oct 7, 2004 10:12:22 GMT
I remember one of my really clever friends telling me in sixth form that there were three books I absolutely had to read: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World and A Clockwork Orange.
I loved Nineteen Eighty-Four - I kind of expected it to seem a bit silly since 1984 had been and gone and the world hadn't ended, but when I read it and realised what it was actually about, as opposed to what I'd always assumed it was aboute, it seemed horribly plausible, in a this-has-probably-already-happened-actually kind of way.
It's always interesting when parts of a book start to infiltrate language and culture as well: Big Brother, Room 101, and the amount of times you hear people in the news criticising polticians for "newspeak" these days.
I never did get to read Brave New World, though, my school library didn't have a copy. What do we pay our taxes for, mumble, grumble...
|
|
|
1984
Oct 9, 2004 16:40:11 GMT
Post by elmsyrup on Oct 9, 2004 16:40:11 GMT
I don't really want to be reading depressing novels at my age, I find the concept of erotic play much more interesting. Huh?
|
|
|
1984
Oct 9, 2004 21:34:03 GMT
Post by Cherubic on Oct 9, 2004 21:34:03 GMT
All the cool books are about erotic play. Lolita, Valley of the Dolls, Genesis, the novellised version of The Neverending Story VIII: The Seduction of the Princess who looks surprisingly like the cheerleader who I like in my class who it turns out that when I stop reading this shit and actually talk to has a crush on me!!! All the greats.
|
|
|
1984
Nov 4, 2004 18:43:41 GMT
Post by toby3000 on Nov 4, 2004 18:43:41 GMT
I liked Brave New World much more. It had more fun being a parody of itself, and with John hanging himself at the end it made the serious message come through without having to illustrate the same mood again and again throughout the novel. . Brave New World is hardly fun...the whole point is that, in trying to achieve universal happiness, you actually lose the essence of humanity, and they're not even happy. Lenina, a perfectly integrated memeber of society, is STILL dissatisfied; we open with her not conforming, but by concious rebellion but merely through human action. Ofcourse, the irony of Brave New World is that Huxley embraced all that he criticised, ending up liveing in LA, writing screenplays and taking LSD.
|
|
|
1984
Nov 9, 2004 12:25:46 GMT
Post by Robbing the Dead on Nov 9, 2004 12:25:46 GMT
There's a book called We, by a Russian guy who's name I can't remember which is the supposed inspiration for 1984. It's not as good as a book, and it's very early 20th century science fiction but I found it an interesting counterpoint. Yevgyeniy Zamyatin - We I am reading it for my univeristy course. I think it's actually better than 1984, Orwell apparently based the four Ministries in 1984 on Senate House (part of the Univeristy of London) which is where I study:
|
|
|
1984
Nov 10, 2004 17:59:12 GMT
Post by LordOfTheNight on Nov 10, 2004 17:59:12 GMT
I think part of what makes 1984 such an accessible, if not always easy, read is the fact that it's written with a great economy of language. Orwell, a journalist by profession, conveys everything without the use of lengthy flowery language or overly involved simile and metaphor. He really keeps it quite simple so as to let the more important themes and characters take the main spotlight. Definately one of my personal faves. Also on the subject of connected texts - Margaret Atwood's 'Handmaid's Tale' is another dystopian novel I suggest you all read - especially as it's concerns, while being the usual universal 'human nature/freedom/oppresssion', are imparted through a much more modern setting and are all the more disturbing in light of the recent events across the pond.
|
|
|
1984
Nov 10, 2004 18:58:46 GMT
Post by Cherubic on Nov 10, 2004 18:58:46 GMT
Yevgyeniy Zamyatin - We I am reading it for my univeristy course. I think it's actually better than 1984. It seemed a bit more science fiction than social parable to me. I did enjoy it. It hasn't aged as well as 1984 though, although this may be because 1984 has had a lasting effect on our culture. In Russia We may be a more important book? Senate house is an evil building, with over dressed receptionists, library porters from the 1940's and painful lifts of death. I haven't been for over a year, because I hate them so much. I might have to now though, if I want to graduate.
|
|
|
1984
Nov 10, 2004 19:20:58 GMT
Post by Robbing the Dead on Nov 10, 2004 19:20:58 GMT
I study in the School of Slavonic and East European Studies which occupies the south wing of the building (until the end of this academic year, cos they've kicked us out). It has separate funding which is apparent when you compare it with the reception area of the Senate House Library. I remember the first time I went up there to go to the canteen. I felt like I should be wearing a suite. It's very fancey shmancey.
|
|