Book Discussion: 1984 by George Orwell
- Thread starter AchrisK
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
I know the book was written partially in response to the regimes of Stalin and Hitler, and I know that Gramsci was imprisoned by Mussolini. I'd say that the novel is partially inspired by Gramsci.
I wouldn't say that 1984 is in any way an appraisal of Marxism. It's a declaration against totalitarianism of any kind. The three major totalitarian states (or at least one of them, so we can presume the other two do as well) have instated certain cultural traditions and rules that you could say suggest certain Gramscian influence ("Hate Week" is a good example). Also, the "Perpetual War" constantly keeps citizens afraid. I believe that both these details could be construed as Gramscian. Events such as this are created in order to marshal support for the Party.
Dak
mentat
So is anyone who actually decided to read this for the "GMD Book Club" reading it?
I am almost done. This is crazy!
I am almost done. This is crazy!
Dak
mentat
Been kind of busy the last few days but i was at the point where they have just rented the room for privacy...or so they think lol
Dak
mentat
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
Ah I see, thanks for the response.
Just to clarify I am not a Marxist, nor do I care if the novel has a Marxist bent, I just think the concept of hegemonic control is a highly pervasive one in any context that deals with the structures of power in a given society.
Based on what you have said it seems like the society depicted in the book is more or less based on a police state model, which is a part of maintaining power no doubt, but seems to shy away from the much more terrifying notion that we (i.e. the people) are the ones agreeing to such subjugation by negotiating for ourselves an illusion of freedom from the dominant group, that we misconstrue as actual freedom. Is this characterization accurate?
Either way I think I will try to get my hands on the book soon.
1984 discussion is pretty dead. I wonder how many people read it. Maybe the whole "book club" was an ill-fated scheme. I am happy, though. It got me reading.
As I said in the regular Book/Reading thread, I started Anthem by Ayn Rand. I am part way through. So far I really like it as well. It has a somewhat similar theme, but is also so different.
In 1984 the Thought Police were so vigilant and actively sought out thought criminals, and so thoroughly silenced them. In Anthem, they are so used to everyone conforming that Equality 7-2521 can just bust down the door to his holding cell because it is old and has not been kept up, because nobody would think to attempt to escape.
1984 is written from the third person limited narrative, but Anthem is first person. Although we get to know both characters pretty well, Equality 7-2521 seems much more endearing. Maybe that is the first person, or maybe it is just the difference in characters and writing styles. It probably also helops that Equality 7-2521 refers to himself as "we" and "us", instead of "me" and "I". We likes that.
As I said in the regular Book/Reading thread, I started Anthem by Ayn Rand. I am part way through. So far I really like it as well. It has a somewhat similar theme, but is also so different.
In 1984 the Thought Police were so vigilant and actively sought out thought criminals, and so thoroughly silenced them. In Anthem, they are so used to everyone conforming that Equality 7-2521 can just bust down the door to his holding cell because it is old and has not been kept up, because nobody would think to attempt to escape.
1984 is written from the third person limited narrative, but Anthem is first person. Although we get to know both characters pretty well, Equality 7-2521 seems much more endearing. Maybe that is the first person, or maybe it is just the difference in characters and writing styles. It probably also helops that Equality 7-2521 refers to himself as "we" and "us", instead of "me" and "I". We likes that.
Dak
mentat
I haven't read Anthem, but I would imagine the reason for no attachment to the 1984 characters is there is nothing endearing about anything in Orwell's world, which I think is probably what he was going for.
^Yeah, true. But you did care. I am only half way or so done with Anthem, but 1984 is a longer book, and we read so much of his thoughts, so I think that Winston becomes somewhat endearing, though not without some repulsion. You did want Winston to lead a revolt or get away with things. You wanted him to continue to defy Big Brother to the end. Though I suppose that is as much a revolt against Big Brother as it is a liking of the character. Although I cared much less for Julia. At first she seemed to be the real rebel, but as we get to know her more, she seems stupid and shallow; and was assumably much easier to break in the end.
False Joe
Who cares.
I personally felt for Wilson.
The portrayal of man constantly wanting to raise a rebellion, only to realise such a task would be impossible was a brilliantly realistic position.
The portrayal of man constantly wanting to raise a rebellion, only to realise such a task would be impossible was a brilliantly realistic position.
At one point, when he was describing the Proles and how important the lottery was for them, I thought the book might go in the direction of Winston trying to start an uprising among the Proles by telling them that the lottery was fixed and that they really didn't have a chance at winning big.
False Joe
Who cares.
Maybe you just took too optimistic a stance on the whole book 
By the time it got to that I realised it would simply be a case of he would be killed, removed from a history, and reported as an enemy trying to cause disruption.
By the time it got to that I realised it would simply be a case of he would be killed, removed from a history, and reported as an enemy trying to cause disruption.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'd say there is definitely an element of what you're describing. From all that you've been asking I think you'll really enjoy the book.
Also, to respond to Achrisk:
Anthem is a very cool book (I know I mentioned this in the reading thread), and somewhat along similar lines as 1984. However, Rand blatantly and adamantly eschews communal wealth and socialism, and all her novels are fervent appraisals of free-market capitalism. She gets a lot of heat for this, but it stems from her philosophy of unyielding individualism, which I think you have to sympathize with and admire. Her views on religion and distribution of wealth are very interesting to read, as is her description of her philosophy (called "Objectivism").
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
By the end of 1984, everything that has happened (including Winston, in a sense) goes down the Memory Hole.
^Yeah, I mean it's all very pointless.
I genuinely thought O'Brien was a good guy, and that this grass roots undermining done by the brotherhood would eventually unravel Big Brother's Hold on everyone. But the one thing that nagged me and actually had me seriously considering (and dreading) the fact the O'Brien might not be who he presented himself as, was the fact that he could turn off the telescreen. That made no sense.
I genuinely thought O'Brien was a good guy, and that this grass roots undermining done by the brotherhood would eventually unravel Big Brother's Hold on everyone. But the one thing that nagged me and actually had me seriously considering (and dreading) the fact the O'Brien might not be who he presented himself as, was the fact that he could turn off the telescreen. That made no sense.
Maybe you just took too optimistic a stance on the whole book
By the time it got to that I realised it would simply be a case of he would be killed, removed from a history, and reported as an enemy trying to cause disruption.
That (proles/lottery stuff) was pretty early in the book, before Winston even hooked up with Julia. I had no idea where this book would end up. I had no former exposure to it, so for me it could have gone any direction.
Valerie
¯\(ã)/¯
- Aug 29, 2005
- 6,765
- 4
- 38
Oh noes it's a bad book because it didn't have a cute ending where everyone lives happily ever after. It was a good twist.
By the way, the tone of the essay at the end of the book about Newspeak suggests that Big Brother and the Party may have been brought down. Hasn't been confirmed though.
By the way, the tone of the essay at the end of the book about Newspeak suggests that Big Brother and the Party may have been brought down. Hasn't been confirmed though.
