1984
**** By George Orwell, whose given name, by the way, was Eric Blair. 1984 was a re-read for me this time around, but I felt I was better able to appreciate it now than back in high school or whenever the last time was, with some more reading, study of literary theory, and knowledge of world politics under my belt.
The book is actually short on plot. It's more of a philosophy book. What if circumstances a, b, and c brought about political situation x such that all the king's horses and all the king's men can't ever revolt again? Orwell creates a regime so stable that it basically obliterates the notion of "tomorrow." And the whole book is a study of how such a regime should be constructed.
The result is depressing, needless to say, and I'm happy that so far 20th century mankind has proved Orwell wrong. But with certain legislative reactions to today's protests you have to worry that the days of Orwell's Thought-Crime are not so distant after all.
One thing I appreciated more having had my literary theory and psychology classes in college was the illustration of how limiting language limits thought (Orwel's Newspeak). How by eliminating "nonessential" words you dilute the meaning of the remaining words. Words/concepts/"signs" have no essential meaning. They are defined relatively, by what they are not. If you strip away the "what they are not," what you have left has lost clarity, meaning.
Concrete example: Say you removed all four-legged mammals from the world except the dachshund. So many of the things we use to define dachshund now, DNA aside, (type of dog, enemy of badgers, domesticated, smaller than a tiger, cousin of the wolf, etc.) would disappear. What is a dachshund? A four-legged creature shaped like a sausage. And what if you take away sausages?
Anyway, a great read if you can slog through the chapters that are pure philosophy but still think about it not as science fiction but as present-day commentary.
Posted by Lisa on April 10, 2003 09:06 AM
Comments
For me, 1984 is a fairly straightforward account of what's likely to occur under a totalitarian regime. which is to say that for anyone who desires any freedom for any purpose is going to have a hard time.
I would be inclined to suggest that the primary purpose of 1984 is as a warning. At the time of it's initial publication in Britain, the popular concensus was that Uncle Joe (Stalin) was a credible, caring, decent man. At least in the eyes of the majority of the intellectual establishment. Orwell's stance was profoundly unfashionable and widely criticised.
I can imagine that it would be difficult for a young American these days to comprehend one of it's "allies" turning into a bunch of goddamn pinkos, but times change.
Broadly, what I'm getting at is that I don't really agree that 1984 is light on plot and heavy on philosophising, and the reason I don't agree is because I don't think the above critic is aware of the reality in which she may find herself.
1984 is pointedly not a fairy story. Freedom is restricted more today than ever before, and just because you can't take a class at UCLA called "Today's events, a philosophical overview" doesn't mean you can't think about the practicalities of totalitarianism in your life.
In short, from the thumbnail sketch I get from the above, my advice to you, Lisa is to spend a bit of time thinking about what is going on in the world in which you live and then compare that with what you've been taught about at school. I'm not saying school is crap, I'm saying what they tell you in school works better if you have an opinion of your own to compare it with.
Good luck with your studies, and don't be afraid of your own thoughts and opinions. No-one's opinion is more valid than anyone else's.
Dr. N. Middleton
(I'm a teacher in england). (Not of English Lit. I might add).
Posted by Neil at May 22, 2003 07:32 AM
Sigh. I'm not sure which reaction is more knee-jerk, Dr. N's to this review, or mine to Dr. N's comment. You be the judge.
After reading Dr. N's comments, my advice to him is to give the author of the review a little more credit. The purpose of this site is to inform people about books we've been reading, not to scrutinize every relevant theme. Maybe the fact that each review has a *rating* with it isn't enough.
I say my reaction might be knee-jerk because I'm a little sensitive about the subtext of Dr N's words. It assumes that the Americans writing here aren't paying attention to the world around them, and are somehow missing the point of the easily understood (because it is brilliantly and clearly stated) theme in this book. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Americans may, on the whole, be among the most uninformed of any people in the developed world, but some of us are not quite that bad. However, even if we are a little better informed than some, that doesn't mean we have to lay out every little piece of our knowledge out every time we discuss some piece of literature.
Again, I sigh. The only person who's going to see this (right away at least) is Lisa. I'm sorry to subject to this tirade, but I can't help myself sometimes. But you knew that.
Posted by Joe at June 2, 2003 11:23 PM
Let's not get too mad and just acknowledge the irony of his comment. He assumes I'm naive because I failed to point out the obvious point of the book, while I didn't bother to say "this book is about what can happen under totalitarianism" because I was assuming that the intelligence of anyone bothering to read this blog would be insulted if I did.
Of course, given how many search hits we get for "literary themes in x," "cliff notes for y," I suppose I may be giving the average webbie too much credit.
But regardless, I stand by my previous conviction that the book is short on plot. Not short on ideas, for heaven's sake, but short on what actually happens in the story. Is this a failing of Orwell? No, because it's a book on *sociopolitical philosophy.*
Side note: In 1984, Orwell isn't writing about one nation under a totalitarian regime. The reason his imagined regime is so frightening is because it is utterly stable, and it is so stable because the *entire world* is under it. Totalitarian regimes are toppled all the time (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein), because there are powers independent of the regime that step in, lend support to the "proles", etc. I don't see hegemony happening anytime soon (knock on wood).
Second side note: Orwell drops us into life under this regime after it has been in place close to 30 years. I would like to read a book that chronicles *how* such regimes would come into existence. What happens after is great food for thought, too, but if this book is truly a "warning," then shouldn't we know how to stop such regimes from rooting themselves in the first place?
Does anyone know a book like this? I believe history is one of the best educators, but as I mentioned, a totalitarian hegemony is not something we've experienced and I'd like to know just how many pillars would have to crumble to get us there.
Posted by Lisa at June 3, 2003 07:33 AM