Just finished 1984

[Anonymous No.15715229]

It's alright. Not the earth shattering pinnacle of literature that the barely literate r/books brigade make it out to be, but not bad either. I liked Winston, although it did seem like he mostly just spoke in forced quotables rather than like a normal person, especially when he was writing in his diary, but other than that good lad. Wasn't too much of a fan of Julia, or rather the way she spoke, she's meant to be this rebellious young woman of the 1980s, yet she talks like a pensioner from the 1880s. Pretty plain and average prose all round, apart from the last chapter which I thought the writing was really good in for some reason, although when Orwell is talking about more complicated political, philosophical and metaphysical issues, I think that the simplicity of his writing works is a great strength there. Ending was pretty dismal. Obviously still remains very topical to this day, you could even say prophetical with like the censorship and re-writing history and that. Pretty light and easy read, read it all in about a day and a half, so yeh very quick read and what have you. Hoping for an army of Tyson Fury looking proles to rise up and smash Big Brothers face on. Overall, yeh good, enjoyable, easy read, but unless you haven't read anything since you were 12 it don't think it'll like change your entire perception of reality and government. Probably make you more aware of what's going on around you though. Which is good obviously.

[Anonymous No.15715236]

>>15715229
Have you read Brave New World, anon? I haven't read 1984 yet but I enjoyed BNW quite a lot. How do the two compare?

[Anonymous No.15715262]

>>15715229
Yeah people make it sound like Orwell was this great predictor of societal downfall, when in reality he was telling stories of what he had already seen in most cases; I think the one thing that really set him apart was his take on technology, and even that was just the logical end point of what was available at the time. Like the re-writing history stuff, people can point at that now and go OMG LOOK HE WAS RIGHT, but that requires you to be oblivious to the fact that shit has happened so many times before...

I think Julia is interesting because it really reflects his low opinions of women. Julia's rebellion is very selfish and cathartic, whereas Winston's is idealistic. The two clearly aren't very compatible with each other in anything beyond their rebellion, and it's difficult to pin down what he was getting at with that in its entirety because it could hold so many meanings.

It's also fun to look at his changing views of communism between this and AF. Think I preferred Animal Farm overall because it read more like satire than anger.

[Anonymous No.15715276]

>>15715236
No, not yet, but will probably get round to it eventually. Thinking of reading Zamyatin's We beforehand tho, as I'm pretty sure that it was a big influence on 1984 and is meant to be quite good in its own right.

[Anonymous No.15715381]

>>15715262
Yeh I agree, and honestly the fact that Orwell isn't trying to describe a futuristic, worst case scenario world, and rather stuff that was already going on in his lifetime, makes it all the worse.

I read Animal Farm ages ago, probably around a year ago now, was also generally positive about that one, but can't really compare the two now as my memory of isn't as good. I do remember liking the characters more in AF than in 1984 though.

And also, I'm probably wrong here as I'm pretty fuckin clueless about any kind of politics, but to me, especially with what O'Brien says to Winston in part 3, it seems to me that the Party is sort of like a synthesis of the worst aspects of both Fascism and Communism, rather than just being wholly one ideology, and is a critique of both extremes of the spectrum, rather than just being a critique of Communist Russia like AF is. So while I can't say that I think one is better than the other, I'd definitely say 1984 is more ambitious in what is tries to do.

[Anonymous No.15715414]

>>15715381
>the Party is sort of like a synthesis of the worst aspects of both Fascism and Communism, rather than just being wholly one ideology,
Yeah, which is where I think 1984 falls fundamentally flat as a commentary on current trends, because in his rendition it was government, controlling media, controlling history and thinking. But that isn't really what's happened; we see a lot more manipulation from media than from government. The government brand of manipulation is more stuff like, gerrymandering, and statistical manipulation (nobody died from fire in a burning building, they all died from smoke inhalation!).

I think perhaps one of the more complex ideas represented is that a conflation of purpose for rebellion doesn't work; Winston had his philosophical idea, Julia her bodily/cathartic one. Independently, they executed their rebellions just fine, but together they fell. It's not to say one idea was purer than the other, just that they were at fundamental odds with one another, and led to an anarchic rebellion that fell flat.

[Anonymous No.15715451]

>>15715229
Read his Catalonia book, 1984 is fiction therefore trash.
Also reminder that Orwell was a pig and a rat.

[Anonymous No.15716281]

>>15715229
I like it solely for driving home a specific philosophy, in this case solipsism.
The rest of it was worth reading solely from a pop culture perspective; its hilarious how many people reference 1984 without ever having read it and you can fucking tell.

[Anonymous No.15716324]

>>15715414
Do you think then that if they'd never met then they'd have been alright by the end. Julia did seem to be doing alright having it away with all the party members and that, so maybe she'd have been fine at the end, but I'm not sure about Winston because O'Brien does say he's been following Winston for the last seven years. That might have just been fucking with Winston's head, but then it's like we'll how did he know then that Winston wanted to rebel, how did he know to invite him to his house and have him confess to being against the party.

[Anonymous No.15716372]

1984 is well worth reading if only because so many subsequent books owe it a debt of gratitude. Works as diverse as 2666, King of Dogs, BAP, The Road all pay homage.

[Anonymous No.15716382]

>>15716324
>That might have just been fucking with Winston's head, but then it's like we'll how did he know then that Winston wanted to rebel, how did he know to invite him to his house and have him confess to being against the party.
I think people leave the novel with the impression O'Brien knew more because of his reference to meeting, but for all we know, that could be a bog standard thing O'Brien does to everyone.

[Anonymous No.15716391]

>>15715236
I have, I found 1984 much more accessible. Though not by a huge margin

[Anonymous No.15716441]

>>15715229
The boot stamping on the face stuff is great, but there's something underneath 1984 that tries to speak to immutable truth. Something that could never change in Winston's heart despite the broken bones and maiming. I don't think Orwell could quite articulate a reason for such a thing in the face of overwhelming evil, and that's why he let them break Winston with a cliche "worst fear" but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. The skill and casuistry of more intelligent party members could not change what Winston knew, but totally removed his ability to express and transfer. I thought that scratched at the importance of good faith in anything people choose to undertake and how something like Ingsoc could build a world without it.

[Anonymous No.15716480]

>>15716324
I also wondered about that. If O'Brien was telling the truth then the Party is basically omnipotent. It seems more fitting if it was part of O'Brien's brainwashing and wasn't actually true, but I guess the point is that you never know what's true because the Party controls all information. You never discover if Eurasia or Eastasia exist either.

[Anonymous No.15716579]

>>15716480
I didn't even think of that. Obviously, the actual worldly truth has no power at all, only what the party want to be true that day, so there's not actually any reason why Eastasia or Eurasia would have to actually exist. It would explain why they can just change who they're fighting against every couple years, if they actually did exist it probably would be as easy to do.

[Anonymous No.15716632]

>>15716579
>so there's not actually any reason why Eastasia or Eurasia would have to actually exist.
And yet, because of Winston's narrative and its relationship to our own world, we as the reader want to believe that Eurasia and Eastasia exist in this world. It's fun on a meta level.

[Anonymous No.15716833]

>>15715262
Orwell as simply related to members of the Fabian Society which is pushing such conditions. It isn't great because he just stole their ideas. As they say, the bad guys want to share their plan before letting the hero get killed.

[Anonymous No.15716872]

>>15716833
what could i read to learn about what the fabian society were thinking about and trying to implement at that time?

[Anonymous No.15716898]

>>15716872
It's a good starting point:
https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-1864

[Anonymous No.15717526]

>>15715381
Honestly, don't ever post again, you're sad

[Anonymous No.15719039]

>>15715229
Ayyy I just finished it too. Liked it a lot.

[Anonymous No.15719051]

>>15715451
>H-HE WAS A SOCIALIST ACTUALLY I SWEAR

[Anonymous No.15719994]

>>15715229
>Overall, yeh good, enjoyable, easy read, but unless you haven't read anything since you were 12 it don't think it'll like change your entire perception of reality and government.
Can you offer any examples that have better elicited that effect on you?

What were your thoughts on Goldstein's manifesto? I found that to be a pretty dense and highly thought-provoking portion of the book, and really took my time with it. I personally think this book is as "easy" or "hard" as the level of analytical rigor with which you choose to approach it.

[Anonymous No.15720004]

>>15715229
>Overall, yeh good, enjoyable, easy read, but unless you haven't read anything since you were 12 it don't think it'll like change your entire perception of reality and government.
Can you offer any examples that have better elicited that effect on you?

What were your thoughts on Goldstein's manifesto? I found that to be a pretty dense and highly thought-provoking portion of the book, and really took my time with it. I've always personally thought that 1984 is as "easy" or "hard" as the level of analytical rigor with which you choose to approach it.

[Anonymous No.15720877]

>>15715414
>Yeah, which is where I think 1984 falls fundamentally flat as a commentary on current trends, because in his rendition it was government, controlling media, controlling history and thinking.
You're not wrong. But I think it's more of a commentary on modern democracy than anything.
>more manipulation from media than from government
At some point we have to ask yourself why there is only one world leader per country and not several. Also the term, "wake up sheeple!" could have been most likely influenced by Animal Farm.
>I think perhaps one of the more complex ideas represented is that a conflation of purpose for rebellion doesn't work; Winston had his philosophical idea, Julia her bodily/cathartic one. Independently, they executed their rebellions just fine, but together they fell. It's not to say one idea was purer than the other, just that they were at fundamental odds with one another, and led to an anarchic rebellion that fell flat.
I think the problem was that neither character was particularly righteous. The whole book being a futile struggle is honestly the main tragedy and very sad.

[Anonymous No.15721850]

>>15715414
>more manipulation from media than from government
Your media outlets are bought and paid by the same people as your goverment. From my german perspective as well as historical insights, I can tell you that the media directly reports to the people in office and the later give strit guidelines on what should and should not be reported. Further, the people in goverment as well as media come from the same academic and societal circles, only accepting their own into positions of power.

This also isn't a new thing, it already started to grow before the second world war, when american public opinion was manipulated by an ethnic in group out for their own benefit, which throug those lies directly effected who gets into the office in the future. Similarly they will sunset anybody trying to actually drain their swamp through public destruction.

The goverment and media are only outlets for those in actual power to pursue their own interests while having no accountability (strawmen can get cancelled and impeached) as well as keeping the illusion of democracy alive, so the populus doesn't act out in violence towards the parasites.

[Anonymous No.15721956]

>>15715229
BNW is better.

[Anonymous No.15722014]

>>15715229
It's sad that the book isn't taken more seriously.
Everyone was quick to exclaim that we cannot trust the government.
Then, as if nothing was learned, we're gonna quibble over corona virus. That could be a made up thing too. There's no reason to trust media and government.

Also, I became somewhat more sceptical of all statistics. I don't trust numbers because they can be made up at any point and there's no way for me to prove, for myself, that they are right.
Government wants to create a narrative by which we live and breathe. It's all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.15722021]

>>15722014
You should be more skeptical over the interpretation and representation of data, rather than the raw data itself. I'm not saying you're wrong in the idea that we should remain skeptical of the media and government, but at the same time, they're more inclined to misrepresent data than completely fabricate it, given that the latter is much hard to keep consistent.

[Anonymous No.15722035]

>>15722021
True. Raw data is never really presented though.
I'm too interested in psychoanalysis to give a shit about simplistic interpretations.
If it is something a five year old would understand, then it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15722044]

It's a terrific book when you are 15-18 and only just started to delve into actual literature. I think that impression stays with many people who jerk over the book excessively, or it's simply that they just read it for the first time.

It's a really good and accessible book, but like OP says it's nowhere near the top.