Orwell's 1984 is a cautionary tale; it warns against the dangers of a totalitarian regime that hinders intellectual freedom and liberty. In the novel, Orwell creates a dystopia; however, there are traces of Orwell's fictional world found in today's society. Can you find parallels between Winston's Oceania and the world in which we live today? (Note: You may have to do a bit of background research on the following words: dystopia, social commentary science fiction, and intellectual freedom.)
Another idea to make note of as you read and think about 1984 is the notion of paradox. What is a paradox and can you identify several paradoxical situations present in novel?
What other aspects or ideas of the novel did you find interesting to discuss? Can you draw comparisons between this novel and other social commentary novels you have read in the past? Can you comment on Orwell's writing style? (Remember, you do not have to address every question given in the prompts; however, we put several different ideas here so that you are not all responding to the same questions. Feel free to explore your own ideas as well as respond to other classmates or even pose your own questions.)
Satire is a work which uses irony to expose stupidity. In 1984, there are many circumstances when one thing is said, but the exact opposite actually happens. The political party that is featured was founded upon three Ministries; the Ministries of Peace, Truth and Love. The Ministry of Love is where tortures and killings are conducted for those citizens who commit thought crimes or those who do not conduct themselves according to the preference of the party, like Winston Smith. Within the Ministry of Love is Room 101 where the prisoners are tortured, and for Winston, it was where he was threatened with rats being attached to his head and eating him to death. O'Brien said to Winston in the Ministry of Truth "you are a flaw in the pattern, Winston. You are a stain that must be wiped out." (pg.210) The party's slogan is "who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." (pg.32) Ironically, this concept is put into practice in the Ministry of Truth, the ministry where Winston Smith works. Here the records of the past are altered by falsifying pictures and documents, in order to convince the people that their world was never any different than it currently is. For example, the party changed from being at war with Eurasia to being at war with Eastasia and all documents to the contrary were changed. "Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete." (pg.150) Although this is a complete lie, the Ministry of Truth said it was so, so it must be true!!! Finally the Ministry of Peace perpetuates war in order maintain the economy. This Ministry was never really discussed in depth as Winston Smith never visited it, but the concept is the same. The folly and stupidity of a totalitarian government as pictured in the ruling party in Oceania are exposed through the use of satire in this novel.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Kingshott
I recently read an excellent article called “A Western visitor’s account of one of the world’s most isolated countries.” In this article a man explain his visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, and totalitarian society with an eerie resemblance to Oceania. I will paste a link below for anyone who wishes to read it, but I’m warring you it’s shocking.
ReplyDeleteIf you want a real life parallel to George Orwell’s 1984, look no further than North Korea. The people are not allowed to talk to any foreign visitors, or anyone outside the boarders or else they face possible death, torture or years in a jail or a reeducation labor camp. Yes you heard me right a reeducation labor camp... what does that remind you of? They have no TV or radio except a few propaganda channels, no Internet or international phones. They have constant surveillance and one of the toughest internal security systems in the world. There are government minders everywhere, always two steps around the corner in cover and uncovered places. People are encouraged to denounce their friends and family as enemies of the state. North Korean’s live in constant fear of war and attacks from places like South Korea, the United States and China. Posters and monuments of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung shower the city. The newspapers sing praise of the leaders and their wonderful work, proclaiming them infallible and Godlike. They write incriminating articles about the United States, stating that we trample of the human right of women and minorities. If one tries to escape the country you will most certainly get caught and be killed a long with you family. They have no money, their government gives them everything they need, but the fact is the people are extremely undernourished. The North Koreans are on average about 12 cm shorter than their Korean friends to the south. The people are weakened and oppressed, but without contact or information from anyone other than their own government they have no way of knowing these things. Just like the paroles of Oceania they are ignorant and brain washed by music and TV programs blaring at them all day long. All happiness, knowledge, power and praises are given to their leader Kim Jong Il. The truth is North Korea is a few telescreens away from Orwell’s Oceanic society.
- Lauren Burkart
http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20100720000887
Blogging is one of my past-times aside from reading, drawing, and playing instruments. Recently, I saw an image of the "like" button from facebook on someone's blog. Below it read,
ReplyDelete"Don't you see that the whole point of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten... Every year, fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."
- George Orwell, "1984"
This made a lot of sense. I know my younger cousins have an extremely limited vocabulary. Not to say that I have an expansive one by any means, but when I was their age I'm certain I knew some of the words that they ask me to define. As for my father, his head is like a dictionary! Whenever I don't know a definition, I just ask him. Maybe newspeak isn't intentional in our country, but I feel as though our language is becoming far less beautiful as more and more people become illiterate and forget the meanings of uncommon words. The "like" button on facebook is just one example of a suppressed vocabulary.
After seeing that image, it hit me how "1984" parallels a lot of things in today's world. I continued to browse through tag searches of "1984", "George Orwell", and "history". I finally stumbled upon a quote that perked my interest: "Historians have the power denied to almighty God of altering the past" - Dean Inge. It reminded me of a time I was walking in my cousin's town and she pointed out a pizza place. I told her that we had almost eaten there the last time I had visited her. I remembered it clearly, but she couldn't remember it at all and told me I must be mistaken. I wouldn't continue to argue about it with her, but it made me think. Orwell is right, some things only exist in our memories. If writing does not say it, people assume that it must not be true. Sometimes, even when writing does say it, people still reject it. Just look at all the people trying to deny the holocaust! It's quite crazy, but if you apply the ideas of government controlling and altering the past to the holocaust, it all makes sense.
1984 put me on a psychological mind-trip, but it reminded me of some books I had already read, like, "The Giver", "Fahrenheit 451", and "Anthem". Particularly "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury. In that book, books are banned and also, the walls in the characters' homes are giant brain-washing television screens. Sound familiar? Bradbury and Orwell must have known what they were talking about, because certain books today have been banned. Once again referring to the holocaust, a man named Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich had a book he wrote about the true brutality of Auschwitz banned. Another man named Ditlieb Felderer questioned German and Allied war atrocities and was arrested for writing about it.
Isn't it scary how much Orwell's book relates to our world, and nearly is our world? I've tried to discuss Big Brother before, and I was laughed at. Big Brother is real? Big Brother is real indeed. "The Government" is symbolized by Big Brother. In our world, books are banned, wires are tapped, and detailed files are kept on all law-abiding citizens. We are all aware of these things already and they don't really bother us. But should they? "1984" is food for thought. Remember, Big Brother is watching you.
A link to the image which inspired this rant:
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lob456KFMx1qzz5soo1_500.png
Original Comment
ReplyDeleteA paradox is a statement or preposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but really expresses some kind of truth. 1984 is full of paradoxes I'm sure, but there are three undisputed paradoxes that Orwell's Oceania stands on. They are as follows: war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
As we can tell, they are paradoxes because they are defining things with exact opposites of what they are. War is the opposite of peace, freedom the opposite of slavery, and ignorance, as we have been taught, is not strength. However, in Orwell's world these definitions make perfect sense. When I was reading the book, I found that it isn't as confusing to think about when you look at it from the government's view. As a matter of fact, they are explained flat out in the section of the book called "THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM" that Winston reads. It can plainly be told from the work that these slogans are more for the government's ease than the people's. For example, the book explains that "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent" (157). Here we can see that war is just a tool to keep the people busy, if anything else. In this way, if the people are busy working and worrying about war then they won't ask questions creating peace for the government. Also, it is said that "A peace that is truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war" (164). What the government is doing is trying to create a state of normalcy by making something that happens constantly. By making this possible, they claim it is peaceful. Which, in a way, makes sense. What do you think of when you hear the phrase 'I just want things to be normal again'? You probably think of a better more peaceful time. Basically, by creating a state of constant war they create something constant which is thought of as the new norm of peace. Whether the war exists or not could not matter less.
As for the Party slogan of 'Ignorance is Strength'....That is taken care of by the process of doublethink, and as we can see is again for the ease of the government and not necessarily for the people. The book explains doublethink in this way: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated" (176). In this way, one is thus forever ignorant. No one can ever know for sure what is going on. Therefore, the government wins again in strength. Since no one can know what's really happening, no one can say that the government is doing wrong and successfully start a rebellion.
War is peace because it keeps the people of Oceania busy from asking questions and also creates a peaceful reality by creating something constant. Ignorance is strength because the people of Oceania cannot rebel against the government due to the powers of doublethink. However, the third slogan, 'Freedom is Slavery' was never directly talked about. I am wondering if perhaps I missed some information about this slogan....Does anyone know how to explain the paradox of 'Freedom is Slavery'?? If you could explain this to me it would be much appreciated! :)
IN responce to Emily Lerner...
ReplyDeleteThat is truly some great food for thought, for our world is becoming more and more controlled and our vocabulary is being shorted. Many people say our vocabulary is to blame because people are becoming lazy and shortening words, but read Jane Eyre or Tale of Two Cities, and bask in th beautiful language and choice of words. Perhapes it is not the people but the goverenment. There is a huge debate surrounding politics at the moment, asking the question, how much personal freedoms are the citizens willing to give up in the sake for security. Supprisingly people are willing to give up phone security and personal dignity (such as the rituals to fly) in order to be safe from bombers, terriorists and the like.
In response to Lauren Burkart..
ReplyDeleteI found it quite interesting that you atated in your post the the people of Korea view their leader as almost Godlike, for I relalize that this is not was you meant, but in the novel 1984, George Orwell takes Big Brother and uses him as a preception of God. Just work with me here for a second. Try viewing 1984 as a teasing of the bible itself. Room 101 is hell, the room where everyone knows what is in it, but will not enter that room at any given cost. Big Brother is God, a God who is distant and judgementale and has no feeling for his people or citizens. The conversion to complete alliance under Big Brother is viewed as "Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside of you. never again will you be capable of love, friendship, or joy of living, or curiosity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves." (pg. 211) Mr. Charrington quotes 1st John in the Bible when he says "IN him there is no darkness at all." When in the bible that statment is being made about God while Mr. Charrington is using it about Big Brother and how he can shed light on every situation like God except much more distant and judgementable which was the author's personal opinion.
Lauren Jones
ReplyDeleteNineteen Eighty-Four
Original Comment
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of the term paradox is “a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.” In short, a paradox is generally a comparison between two opposing things like war and peace, and yet even though they are complete opposites, there still lies a common truth or reason behind putting them together as if they are the same (like Orwell does with one of the Party’s slogans being ‘War is Peace’). In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are clearly many paradoxes. Of course the more obvious ones are the Party’s three slogans, ‘War is Peace/ Freedom is Slavery/ Ignorance is Strength.’ So as to not reiterate what others say about these three paradoxes, I will just address three different ones: Big Brother, Winston and Julia’s relationship, and the Oceanian society itself.
While reading Goldstein and O’Brien’s book, Winston comes across a line that says, “[The Party] systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, and it calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiments of family loyalty” (178). Clearly, Big Brother is a paradox because his name implies that the Party members look up to him like a big brother and love him, but clearly in the Oceanian society, love does not exist amongst the members; family relationships do not exist. The Party has broken down the family unit and now children turn against their parents and turn them in to the Thought Police. I believe that Orwell created this paradox to show that the Party is in control of the members’ emotions. They will not allow true love between members, and so they direct all this ‘love’ towards their leader, Big Brother, almost like an emotion outlet. Big Brother’s name implies love, comfort, and always being there for the members, but on the contrary, he is kind-of mysterious, hardly ever seen, and only gives an “empty comfort” by creating lies and manipulating the members. This paradox proves how insane the Party is. They are twisting the definition of “family” in the members’ minds and making them believe that what they feel towards Big Brother is love, when really they are not feeling love at all.
Another paradox is Julia and Winston’s relationship. Their relationship is a contradiction between love and hate, essentially. When they first meet in the “Golden Country,” Winston tells Julia that he used to hate the sight of her and he wanted to rape her and murder her. One would think that she would be disgusted and terrified of him, but actually, she ends up loving him all the more. Their relationship is a contradiction. They should not be able to love. Once the dynamic contradiction between hate and love is gone, their relationship does not last. It seems that when Winston and Julia begin to fall more in love and leave all thoughts of hate behind, their doomed fates are sealed. In Oceanian society, only paradoxes survive, it seems. Once the concurrent balance between love and hate is tipped more to the love’s advantage, Julia and Winston are captured, and then they betray each other, restoring the element of hate.
A final paradox is the Party/Oceanian society itself. It strives towards contradictions in order to maintain a mental condition of “controlled insanity.” By deliberately reversing facts and using doublethink, the Party is confusing its members into blind submission, showing that they (Big Brother) control the members’ minds. That is why “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation” (178). Without these contradictions, the society would falter. These paradoxes hold the foundation of the Party. By always contradicting things, Big Brother has an easier hold on the Party members, and they listen and believe everything he says.
Lauren Jones
ReplyDeleteNineteen Eighty-Four
Response to Lauren Burkhart
I am really glad that you brought this article (“A Western visitor’s account of one of the world’s most isolated countries”) to the blog’s attention because as I was reading Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, I did try to imagine a modern-day Oceania. However, for me it was a far-fetched idea because one would think that it is so painstakingly obvious that such a dystopia would never thrive in the world because so many problems plague it (no freedom, individuality, hunger, torture, no love, etc.). Yet after reading the article, I now see that such a dystopia does truly exist, and the fact that it does is kind-of horrifying. Reading Orwell’s novel and also this article reinforces the idea that we, as modern-day Americans, take many things for granted. Right now, North Koreans are being deprived of their freedom, individuality, privacy, food, entertainment, money, and in short, their natural born rights as a human. In fact, it is almost like the North Korean government has debased the definition of a human and has just made the North Koreans as serial numbers, ready to be kicked, battered, watched 24/7, and knocked off one by one. To me, personally, it is heart-breaking to see that people like us, Americans, have to go through so much when we almost live in a euphoric dream. Teenagers our age in North Korea have gone through more heartache, pain, and suffering than we will ever experience in our lives. I hope that one day North Korea will be liberated from the totalitarian bonds and North Koreans will finally be able to be who they truly want.
On another note, I find it interesting that the article directly addresses Nineteen Eighty-Four. Like the author of the article, Andreas Lehmann, I really did find it hard to believe that such a place like Oceania exists in our world today. To know that such a horrid place exists, it is cool to see how Orwell basically predicted this dystopic world of totalitarianism. He wrote the novel in 1949, and now in 2011, there exists such a society in North Korea. The parallels between the two societies of Oceania and North Korea are astonishing. In both cases, the citizens are majorly oppressed and beaten down by a higher authority and they are denied all basic freedoms. I feel as though Orwell specifically wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four as a “call-to-action” satirical novel to show readers all the extreme negatives and consequences of totalitarianism so that totalitarianism would perhaps no longer exist in today’s world. He was writing for a better future, and hopefully, one day, North Korea will experience a much brighter one where there is no darkness.
Lauren Jones
ReplyDeleteNineteen Eighty-Four
Response to Elizabeth K.
After reading your comment, I full-heartedly agree that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is chalk-full of satire. Then, Orwell manipulates the satire to expose the stupidity in the main subject, totalitarian rule. Orwell wrote this novel right after World War II, which was a tumultuous time full of totalitarian rule, and it seems like his purpose in writing this particular novel is to mock totalitarian rule so much so that the readers may take the hint and totalitarian rule will cease to exist in the future (a.k.a. 2011). However, his tactic does not seem to have had a great effect because totalitarian rule still does exist today in parts of the world (like North Korea). That is not to say that Orwell’s novel did not dampen the zeal on totalitarian rule a bit, but it did not stamp it out completely.
In creating the four Ministries, (the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Peace, and the Ministry of Plenty), Orwell built this entire totalitarian place called Oceania; a place built completely upon lies and doublethink. Orwell’s intent, as you point out, is to clearly express why such a world can never work out. Everything is backwards and what the government tells you and what the government actually does are two very different things. The Ministry of Truth is built completely out of lies; the Ministry of Love is filled with torture chambers for members of the Party who refuse to give up their own free will to think on their own; the Ministry of Peace is solemnly used to always be at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia; and lastly, the Ministry of Plenty deals with the rationing, and yet, instead of being full-stocked, everyone is starving. Then you have Big Brother, whose name implies comfort and family, when in reality he is distant and mysterious and really, there are no family ties in Oceania. Everything in Oceania is a contradiction. If something is not a contradiction, then it is quickly weeded out. I agree with your statement that Orwell has successfully shown readers the negative consequences of a totalitarian rule. I wonder why totalitarian governments thrived for so long as they did and still do, because it seems obvious to everyone that it is a complete contradiction full of stupidity, folly, and absolutely no freedom. If the general population is greater than the controlling party, then why not try to overthrow them? Why do the proles not try to overthrow Big Brother and the Party? I guess the simple answer is that they really do not realize that they are being oppressed. When someone tells you to believe something and nothing else, it is a bit hard to do otherwise. I really do agree with you that this novel is a superb example where satire is used in an alternate setting, like Oceania, to expose a real world problem like a totalitarian government.
In response to Elizabeth K's response to me
ReplyDeleteI totally get where your coming from, actually i was thinking the exact same things. As i read 1984 I remember thinking that room 101 was like hell and Big Brother like God. You definitely gave it more thought though and i'm glad you did. It brings a much deeper understanding of the whole book to me. I can't believe i missed the John the Baptist quote, that is priceless. Obviously George Orwell had these thoughts in mind when writing the book and that makes me curious about how he viewed God in his everyday life and what the purpose was for including these details. On the surface it appears to me that he included the Bible references purely for fiction and the purpose of creating a deeper and more conceivable reason for why the society was so completely brainwashed. On the other hand it makes me wonder if there was more to it than that.
In Response to Emily Lerner...
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously thought a lot about what you've posted. I found interesting it all interesting. First off, it is weird how our language is deteriorating from generation to generation. I'm a little on the fence about who is to blame, however. On one hand, there are is this television and Internet slang that generates around the world. People do just tend to soak all that in, kind of like subliminal messaging. Yet, on the other hand, if a person reads literature like the kind we read in class the chances for our language surviving is better, especially if that person is adamant on reading and re-reading books like those. We are caught in this weird mesh of slang and formal language, it's hard to tell why or who's to blame. (Especially if you get caught up in which language has the higher chances of becoming the next 'world wide language'! I've done a little informal research and wow!)
Secondly, you said something of how historians can alter the past. I think it's extremely unethical that someone would do that. However, you're right. We don't really know for sure what happened in the past because we weren't there. This book has reminded me just how powerful people can be. The hope of this book is to make sure that we use our power, if you will, for good.
Your last thoughts about the previous dystopian novels we have read is what really got my attention. I agree in how similar Fahrenheit 451 is so similar to Orwell's 1984! Especially about the part where books are banned in both dystopias. People know that books provide an easy gateway to knowledge, and I wonder if that's why stories such as these keep repeating the banning of books. I know why certain books are banned, or at least why they say they are: they speak of touchy subjects. Therefore, certain areas cannot read books like To Kill A Mocking Bird because of racial issues. But my question is why can't people see that books can help heal those sores, too? After all, To Kill A Mocking Bird denounces racism as much as it shows racism. Banning books does seem silly, I never quite understood why they do those things.
1984 definitely puts anyone who reads it in a position to wonder about the world they live in today. Thank you for bringing up the part about Fahrenheit 451 especially! That was a good parallel! :)
Original Comment:
ReplyDeleteMuch of Orwell’s 1984 centers around the perversion of history by the Party and their Ministry of Truth. While Winston works at the Ministry, his job is to fabricate statistics and names in order to rewrite media statements that now contradict the Party’s current standpoint. Winston speculates whether this continuously rewritten history should be considered the truth and decides that if it is accepted by the people, this false past will eventually become fact. This statement seems to hold true even in today’s society.
Uncomfortable as it is, all history is biased and is recorded with this influence. For instance, the account of a battle will be written differently when the author is the defeated in place of the victor. Eventually that certain account of history is held as truth and taught as such. Although this situation may not be as extreme as Winston’s dealings in the Ministry of Truth, students should be taught history from multiple perspectives in order to allow them to form their own views. For example, when told from the Native American’s point of view, Colombus’s discovery of America isn’t as glorious as the common tale told in school. Through the re-teaching of a biased history, prejudice becomes actuality.
Even today, events that will eventually pass into history are reported with a certain partiality, continuing the cycle of bias evolving into truth. A political slant is an extremely common bias used today in the report of news. Frequently, newspapers, news stations, and magazines either lean toward the conservative or liberal view. Often times, the news will report a story from a perspective that flatters one party and criticizes the other. Nevertheless, whether you’re listening to Bill O’Reilly or Al Sharpton, you’re not hearing both sides. By becoming familiar with all viewpoints, you can prevent the creation of a biased history unlike Winston’s helpless attempts to preserve the true past within his diary.
Harrison Jones
ReplyDelete1984
Original Comment
In the book "1984" by George Orwell there are many different aspects of the book that point towards a common theme and a repeating theme throughout history which is power and control. When reading 1984 we come to know and love the characters who stand for everything that is not Big Brother but as the book continues on we come to realize that no matter how many Winston Smith's there are in a society there will always be one hundred more O'Brians. In the society of Oceania the power is held y this upper tier of inner party members and truly everyone lives under their control. The reason this inner tier has power is because they have devised a way to control the hearts and minds of the people. They use fear as their main weapon. When we are introduced into the society of Oceania one of the first symbols of the power of Big Brother is the idea of Newspeak which uses doublethink and paradoxes to confuse the users of the language to think of other associations with common words such as the slogan of the Communist Ingsoc party which says, "WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" (8).
These things are all the opposite of what they mean. The idea behind the society was, "A nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face" (77). This society uses fear and changing of the past and future to have power and control over the people. Regimes and peoples have strived for this same outcome since the world began and it ha never succeeded. The reason why this society continues to succeed is because before every person dies they confess their love for Big Brother. Power and control over people is what everyone wants and in this book it explores the ways in which someone can have complete control and power. This book is a mix of satire, imagination, and horror that this might happen one day. I hope it never does but as Orwell continues in his story of love and hate it becomes clear that we have something to fear, ourselves.
Harrison Jones
ReplyDelete1984
Response to Natalie S.
Natalie's comment about how history is recorded in our real lives and how it is recorded in 1984 has even more concrete reali life situations where "1984 Society" is becoming more and more a reality. In Israel there is what i like to call the "1984 Effect" taking place. When a child enters schooling in Israel he or she is simply taught history as many of us have been taught. There are classes on World History and National History, the only difference though is that in Israel the national history classes start in the 1960's. Now for people who are not as in tune to Israeli history. The country of Israel was started by British Mandate in 1928 and after World War II land was given to the Jewish people to form an official state. In 1948 the Jewish people formed an army and took over the entire area of Palestine under British rule at that point. The continued to take over more land in 1967. In the process thousands of Palestinians were killed and millions became refugees. Now in Israeli society today people live in fear of terrorist attacks from Palestine. The government encourages their people to fear their neighbors. In Israel children are only taught that Israel has always been a country and has every right to be there. All media outlets favor Israel in terms of lacking any Palestinian reporters and coverage. There is an 18 ft. wall surrounding Palestine which keeps the "enemy" captured. In our world today there are real life 1984 societies. Who are teaching their children how to fear and defend themselves against their "enemies". History is being changed and people are being convinced through fear that they should think a certain way. Having been to Palestine and Israel it is evident that there is a very weird thing going on. We as readers and students need to be aware that the threats that this book warns against are not only possible but real in our lifetime and we must act to stop them.
Harrison Jones
ReplyDelete1984
Response to Emily L.
I agree with Emily that our culture has started to slip into a post 1984 world view. In may ways Orwell's view of the future has not become as stark and cruel but certain aspects have certainly become prevalent in society. We as a people are becoming more and reliant on a handful of news sources. We have become dependent on the government for certain programs while the bureaucracy continues to grow and expand within government programs. In our world today we have information control and wiretapping as Emily said. We experience theses threats on a daily basis to our personal and public lives. We as a society continue to give up idea and freedoms through our need for simplicity and ease. Their is a lack of conflict in our heart and a dowsing of the fire's in our souls. We need strife in our lives and the worlds to express our experiences in and our society is slowly giving away its freedom and power to do just that. Emily has made this point in a clear and articulate way but many others on this page have also hinted at the same fate our society will meet if we are not aware of the consequences.
In response to Emily Lerner:
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge the truth of Emily Lerner’s statement—much of the world resembles 1984’s dystopian society, including a diminished vocabulary and histories that only exist in memory. However, the United States possesses one significant difference from the terrifying society of Oceania. We have the freedom to speak our minds and voice our opinions; we have freedom of the press and of assembly. As long as we have these granted freedoms, our society will never deteriorate to the likes of Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia. Unlike the Party, our government can’t arrest us for speaking out against its actions or its members, a capital crime in Winston’s society. Most importantly, we have the means to counteract the problems Emily discussed. If we choose, we can expand our vocabularies through reading and writing or tell our own account of a history forgotten. The people of Oceania never had these liberties to face the Party, the development of Newspeak, or the destruction of history. Sometimes, it is easy to undervalue our personal freedoms and forget what life could be like without them.
The musical "Wicked" reminds me a bit of 1984. "Wicked" tells the story of The Wizard of Oz from the Wicked Witch of the West's point of view. During the song "Wonderful," the Wizard of Oz tells Elphaba (the Wicked Witch of the West) about how he came to power. He came to Oz by accident and lied to the people so that he could stay in power. When Elphaba calls him out on his lies, the wizard responds:
ReplyDelete"Where I come from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true - we call it... 'history.' A man's called a traitor or liberator; A rich man's a thief or philanthropist. Is one a crusader or ruthless invader? It's all in which label is able to persist. There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities, so we act as though the don't exist!"
The wizard's response makes me think of the scene where Winston looks through the history book. Winston copies down a passage about the fat, ugly capitalists who enslaved the rest of society. Clearly, this account is biased, over-exaggerated, and riddled with lies, just like the history from the wizard's homeland. Often times we do not consider the perspective of the information that we receive. I accepted the story presented in The Wizard of Oz without even thinking about the witch's perspective. After seeing "Wicked," I reconsidered what I thought to be "true." Although both stories are fictional, similar instances happen in real life. Also, when the Party comes across ideas or people that do not fit in with their idea of reality, they pretend that they do not exist, which relates to the last sentence of the quotation. The Party takes Syme out of existence when he becomes too smart for their liking. In real life, I also leave out certain details when I talk with people, especially my parents. Although I am technically not lying, they perceive the past differently than how it actually happened.
I noticed some other parallels in other parts of the musical. The wizard says that he is "respected, worshipped even," which makes me think of him as a god-like leader similar to Big Brother. Both governments oppress a group of people and use the media to take down their opponents. The Party oppresses the proles and uses the Two Minutes Hate to degrade their worst enemy, Emmanuel Goldstein. During the song "Thank Goodness," the wizard's press secretary tells the people of Oz the official story about the "evil" witch. Of course, everything she says is a lie. Because Elphaba tries to help the animals who are exploited by the wizard's regime, the wizard uses the press conference to turn the public against her. Much like the people of Oz and Oceania, people today believe too much of what the media says. Just because the information comes from an "official" organization, does not mean that it is true. We should question information that we hear, even if it comes from a "credible" source.
Here are the links for anyone who wants to listen to "Wonderful" or "Thank Goodness." I recommend listening to the rest of the soundtrack, because it is absolutely amazing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF0o9iR21bY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb1xlIlM4c0&feature=related
Kaitlin Aleshire
ReplyDeleteOriginal Comment
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” –George Orwell
“The party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.” (263) This quotation helps the reader to realize that all of the theories Winston, Julia, and even ourselves, created about the government and as to why it ran that specific way, were wrong. They simply wanted pure power, they did not want it for the good of mankind, for the chance to rule over everyone, but simply to wield it and never relinquish it. It was never their intent to make the world a better place but to simply fool those who believed them and there for gave the government its power. They would change the past to change the future and present because of its power, if the people realized that the past was changed so as to fool them about their current state they would be upset, they would try to overthrow the government. But the government has taken care of that issue, they have treated the people in such a way so that they start to slowly devolve into an almost cattle like state, following the government and Big Brother in everything that is said. They control their thoughts so that they also control their actions, if they were to allow one thought that was not permitted to given to the people then it might slowly multiply and grown into an action which could start a movement, and lead to a revolution which would ultimately lead to their loss of power and loss of purpose.
In response to Amanda LaClaire's question:
ReplyDeleteWinston was arrested by the thought police before he could read the chapter in Goldstein’s book discussing “Freedom is Slavery.” However, if you continue with the perspective that the three slogans of Ingsoc are directed toward the inner Party, this final statement can be explained. Hypothetically, if freedom was granted to the Oceanic society, and the masses began to think for themselves, the people would soon recognize the poverty around them and would undoubtedly start making demands of the government. In order to quell a rebellion, the Party would have to submit to these demands, in effect becoming slaves to the needs and requests of their people. Ultimately, the Party views the freedom of society as an act of enslaving themselves to the citizens’ wellbeing. If you choose to view the slogans from the people’s perspective, “Freedom is Slavery” has a completely different meaning. With freedom to think and act, the people would be the slaves of their own desires and questions. Although, this may seem ludicrous, we must remember that society has been brainwashed by the Party to be entirely devoted to Big Brother. Attending to their own wants would distract them from their duty to love and follow their beloved Big Brother. As a result, Oceanic society believes that personal freedom would enslave them to their desires, jeopardizing their devotion to Big Brother.
Kaitlin Aleshire
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sarah Thorwall:
I see every parallel that you see from Wicked to 1984, and I understand what you mean when you say “In real life, I also leave out certain details when I talk with people, especially my parents. Although I am technically not lying, they perceive the past differently than how it actually happened.” I believe that it’s a common event for everyone, whether they are a politician or an author, they leave out parts of the past that they find don’t suit them. I believe that the ministries in 1984 are much like that, they change the past so it suits them to aid their need for power. They will leave bits of information out of the public’s reach so that Oceania will think they are winning their war (even though I agree with Julia (the character) that the war probably doesn’t even exist) even if they had more casualties than the opposing side. I see this in Wicked (the novel) because when the yellow brick road was being built, it was going to destroy places in the lower part of Oz and no one was willing to do anything about it. The main difference is that citizens of Oz are more alert to their government's wrong doings.
Kaitlin Aleshire
ReplyDeleteIn responds to Harrison Jones:
I agree with the general statement of Harrison’s comment, that “In the book "1984" by George Orwell there are many different aspects of the book that point towards a common theme and a repeating theme throughout history which is power and control.” But while writing this response I was listening to “A Song About an Anglerfish” by Hank Green and I realized that those children who were born in this negative utopia called Airstrip One who have never known anything else but this world will not know what they have missed. They will have nothing to compare their current life to, so their incentive to want a change against Big Brother won’t exist. The chorus of the song goes “Because you can’t hate the night, If you’ve lived your whole life without light! And you can’t hate the dish, If you’ve only ever eaten fish! And you can’t feel a lone if it’s all you’ve ever known! The deep sea Anglerfish has no reason to be happy, But it has not frikkin’ idea what else to be!” which, as irrelevant as an Anglerfish can be to a book about a man fighting a government with near total power over people’s thoughts, reminds me exactly of how people there act. They have no reason to believe to be any different so they think what they feel and do is normal.
Links:
A Song About an Anglerfish - http://youtu.be/9t7E4amWDqI
Lyrics to the song (thanks to Nerdfighter Amanda Rossetti) - http://nerdfighters.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-song-about-an-anglerfish
In Response to Natalie Saunders...
ReplyDeleteYour original comment made me think of Things Fall Apart. We all have learned about how the missionaries came to Africa to spread their religion to others, but we haven't ever completely thought about the other side of the story. The Ibo tribe has their own rituals and way of life that's completely different from the English way of living. Had we not read a book like Things Fall Apart, we may have never realized just how deeply missionaries can and have destroyed cultures. Things Fall Apart is another example of how history is biased.
Your post also reminded me of another important use for world literature. By reading books like 1984 and Things Fall Apart we learn how to see through the eyes of others. As stated several times before, history is biased, but by reading books like 1984 we are reminded to fight against that kind of crude biased view Orwell writes about. In turn, Things Fall Apart helps us fight against biased views.
Along with the connections, you also bring up a good point about how even today we can see bias in a variety of news sources. I completely agree with you! Even though you may read a renowned news paper like The Wall Street Journal or watch a 'reliable' news station like Local 4 News, you are not getting the full story on anything no matter how much you'd like to think you are. If someone wants to get the facts on a particular story, you need to check with a handful of sources. Unfortunately, not many young people are up for all of that work. 1984 reminds us that we should be wary of bias and actively fight against it by doing things like checking a handful of sources.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Emily Lerner:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily Lerner that Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, strikingly resembles 1984. The firemen of Fahrenheit 451 and the Inner Party of 1984 share many of the same goals. Both groups seek to eliminate individual thinking and control the masses. They both use media censorship as the way to achieve these goals. The firemen burn almost all books, and the Party controls the telescreens and all written records. Television influences the societies in both novels and our modern world. In Fahrenheit 451, Mildred Montag calls the characters from her favorite soap opera her "parlor family." She spends almost all of her time watching the the large television screens that cover three of the living room walls. Telescreens are everywhere, and everyone's lives revolve around them in 1984. False news reports about the war blare constantly, and the citizens are required to take part in programs like the daily jerks. Although not to the extent of either novel, television seems to significantly influence and control people today. I know some people who religiously watch their favorite television shows, often racing to make it home in time for that new episode. Also, don't we all feel like we know the characters and are a part of the action sometimes? Just think of all of the people who woke up at 4am to watch the royal wedding. Television must be pretty powerful if it could get people out of bed that early! Some of the characters and their purposes in the novels are also similar. Guy Montag and Winston Smith both realize that they are discontent with their lives and rebel against their societies. Their wives are unintelligent, easily manipulated, and quintessential examples of the citizens of their societies. Clarisse and Julia aide the protagonists in their spiritual journeys and transformations. Beatty and O'brien are the fanatic leaders of the oppressive groups. They wholeheartedly believe in the doctrine of their society and explain to reader and protagonist why the ruling party feels the way that it does. I think we should listen to the similar messages conveyed by both of the novels.
1984 is full of paradoxes. Some of them are located in the titles of the government buildings and the Party’s slogans. The Ministry of Truth, because this is where they change the newspapers and remove pieces of information that cause the Party to appear flawed, thereby creating a lie. The Ministry of Love, because this is where they torture and change those in the Party who are prone to rebellion and thought-crimes, in a most unloving way. The Ministry of Plenty, because this is where the rationing takes place and the items are far from being in plenty. The Ministry of Peace, which is in charge of the armed forces and revolves around the need for a “perpetual war” in order for it to function. All of the titles would lead you to believe that they are what they say they are, but in reality the Party uses these buildings for the exact opposite. Deceit and creating lies, torture, rationing, and war.
ReplyDeleteThe slogans are even worse. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, all of these are contradictions. But through years of brainwashing, the Party is able to turn citizens into mindless robots, who just go along with whatever the Party feeds them (literally and figuratively!) By forcing the citizens to live in a state of fear all the time, through propaganda and telescreens, the Party is able to weaken the intelligence and morals of the people. The citizens of Oceania forget who they are at war with, and it doesn’t seem to affect them, so in a sense, it is peace for them. They are slaves to the telescreens and even their own thoughts, which is really the essence of freedom and free will. Since the Party keeps citizens in the dark about subjects such as the war and production through propaganda, the Party uses its strength to rule over them easily.
These paradoxes appear to be ridiculously obvious at first, and we as readers wonder why the citizens never stand up to the Party and its ways. But the answer lies in the paradoxes themselves. The citizens have given over their lives in fear to the party, and are devoted and motivated out of fear of their lives.
In response to Amanda L:
ReplyDeleteThe way that your wrote your response was very organized. It made me think about a possible essay on "1984" structured with three separate body paragraphs on each of the three slogans. I'm glad you took the time to explain each; your writing confirmed my views.
The first one you talked about, "war is peace" was wonderfully written. If you raise or lower a living condition, it becomes the new equilibrium. People get used to it and don't mind. If there is a shift in the equilibrium, people want to go back to earlier times.
In your explanation about the second slogan, you said that the government is strong because of the ignorance of the general public. Even the thought of doublethink and its power is mind-boggling. I believe somewhere in the book it mentioned that the reason other totalitarianism governments failed was due to the lack of doublethink. When someone knows something is wrong then rebellion occurs, just like you said.
About the last slogan, "freedom is slavery"... The way I thought about it was the slavery of the masses is equal to the freedom of The Party to do what it wants. The people don't believe that they are enslaved, but just think about it. They have no free will. They can't think about what they want to, they can't love who they want to, they can't even go for a walk without it seeming suspicious. I saw this as every person in Oceania being a slave to the government. All their freedoms were taken away. The slavery of all of the people leads to the illusion of a free government.
In response to Natalie Sanders:
ReplyDeleteI found your comment thought provoking! In history class we have had to define primary, secondary, and tertiary sources over and over again. Some people saw what happened, some people heard what happened, and some people collect info from a bunch of different people to sum up what happened. I agree with you, it is important to realize that history is made of a bunch of different viewpoints and memories. When something is published, people too quickly accept it to be true. Some parts of history will only exist in our own memories. Winston's attempts to preserve a correct history were destroyed by doublethink and the Thought Police. Scary, isn't it? Thank you for pointing out the importance of examining history from many points of views to avoid a biased history.
Original comment...
ReplyDeleteThe Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dystopia as “an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives.” In Orwell’s 1984, Winston is living in a dystopia. The party has taken over Oceania and the lives of everyone living in it. People are in constant fear that the Thought Police will catch them and take them away. They are dehumanized in the way that they are not allowed to show real emotions. If they do, they are at risk of committing “thoughtcrime.” Here in Brighton, MI, many people don’t consider our city a dystopia. We don’t have to fear for our lives, and we are treated, for the most part, as respectable human beings. Elsewhere, however, that isn’t always the case. For example, halfway across the world in communist China, they are not treated with the respect that all humans deserve. They live in fear of speaking in public about their religious beliefs. They are not allowed to own a bible or study their faith. In certain cases, they can face jail time. They also are only allowed to have one child per couple. If they have more than one, they are penalized by costly fines. This is like Orwell’s Oceania in the way that couples are not allowed to enjoy eachother and enjoy having children. It is just an act for the party to produce more citizens. As sheltered as we are here in Brighton, MI, we need to realize that other places in the world and even here in our own state live in places that could be considered a “dystopia.”
In response to Kaitlin Aleshire...
ReplyDeleteThat quote is excellent! Throughout the book, the party tries to convinve you that they are working for the good of the people of Oceania. They want the people to think that the Party is in place to protect them from harm, to shelter them from evil, to provide love and comfort. Many of the citizens love Big Brother and are completely blindsided to think that he is protecting them. However this quote....
“The party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.”... definately shows that the party has no good intentions. All they want is power. Excellant quote Kaitlin!
In response to Natalie Sanders....
ReplyDeleteAlthough much of what you write, including your examples, is factual and true, the quote, "Uncomfortable as it is, all history is biased and is recorded with this influence," is not accurate. There are times when part of history is told from a certain viewpoint, and therefore as you said, biased. But there are many more times when certain events are witnessed by people that are completely unbiased. For example, an innocent bystander may record a historical event. Since he is not biased, his viewpoint is completely factual. There are also such examples as the Constitution. No matter what viewpoint you look at this piece of history, it's content will always hold true. Many people contributed to writing this work, but whichever way you look at it, it will stay the same. There are parts of history that we read that are biased, but much of histroy that is recorded is complete truth.
In response to Lauren Jones:
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that you said that only paradoxes can survive in Oceanic society, and I totally agree with you. The Party uses paradoxical ideas to control the citizens, and their entire doctrine relies on paradoxes. One paradox that the Party uses to control their citizens is the notion that the past only exists in the memory and written records. For example, if I say that I spent 5 hours writing this post, there is no way for anyone to verify that statement. There is no one with me and no record of how long I spent typing. If I tell this to a group of people who do not question my statement, they would accept this as a true account. Although I did not actually spend 5 hours typing this post and there is no way to go back in time and change the past, that action still happened in the minds of a few people. O'brien says, "Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else" (205). There is no way to prove that an event actually happened without the preservation of human memory and records. The Party slogan "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past" (204) also relates to my imaginary scenario and the paradox I have chosen to discuss. Many people base judgments and decisions on what happened in the past, so they might judge me based on my day spent typing. Maybe they now think that I am a very slow typer, and one of the those people might decide to type if we need to work on a group project together. This pseudo-past affects the future the same way as any event in the past might. No matter what I say, I cannot change what I actually did. But at the same time, I can make people believe that an event happened, much like the Party does in 1984. Controlling what people believed to have happened is almost like controlling what actually happened. This is one of the many ways that the Party uses paradoxes to hold together their society and control the people.
The real difference I found between this dystopian novel and the other ones that I have read is that in 1984, the protagonist loses. Examples of other novels in which the "good guy" wins are Matched by Allie Condie, Anthem by Ayn Rand, and Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. I did not really like this ending to the novel, but I understand why Orwell did it this way. He was trying to make the point that if there was a situation like this, in which the government gained this much power, there is no way that anyone could prevail over it. In fact, a theme from this book is that once people are willing to give power to a corrupt government, they will keep giving it. There is no clear line on where there is too much power in the government. The real problem with crossing that line is that, once you have passed it, there is no going back. That is why keeping our country free is so important. We should never give up our freedom because, who knows what kind of future it will lead to?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Natalie S.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good insight into the society that we live in. I believe it's effects are seen most in teenagers and young adults who are at the age of beginning to form their opinions about the world of politics. Just by asking what news station or newspapers a young person is informed by, one can almost exactly predict the political side from which the person will argue. This is exactly as you stated, due to bias reporting. The news stations and newspapers are owned by companies who often have political connections. These connections and relationships with politicians often lead to the ownership requiring the reporters and writers to report the news in the way that furthers their agenda.
In response to Rebecca S.
ReplyDeleteI think that many people do not realize the importance of the freedoms that we have in the United States. The freedoms that we have in the U.S. are not seen anywhere else in the world. People here take for granted what others in China, North Korea, and the rebels in Libya would die for to attain. It is important that we our best to defend the rights that so many have fought and died for, so that we can remain a free and unrepressed populace.
In Response to Sarah Thorwall
ReplyDeleteI found your connection to Wicked very interesting. In fact, as I was thinking about it, I noticed another similarity. It is in the song "No Good Deed" which Elphaba sings. Elphaba is becoming frustrated because it seems as if every time she tries to help someone, it backfires on her. At the end of the song, she gives in, "Alright, enough! So be it, so be it then. Let all Oz be agreed, I'm wicked through and through since I cannot succeed, Fiyero, saving you. I promise, no good deed will I attempt to do again, ever again." This can be paralleled to Winston's giving into Big Brother at the end of 1984.
In Response to Rebecca Smith
ReplyDeleteI liked your comparison of Oceania to China. I have actually been to China and seen a lot of this firsthand and I completely agree. Sometimes, when we would ask someone a question, they would just come right out and say that they were not allowed to talk about things like that. It was shocking to us, coming from a place where we can say whatever comes into our minds. It is almost hard to believe that such a place exists in this same world, at the same time as us. Many people do not realize how lucky they are for such simple things as being able to say what you feel. It is harder to conceive something like what happens in 1984 happening in the future when we have so many privileges and rights.
The strongest parallel I found in 1984 and our world today is the power of the media. Whoever controls it controls the masses. Most people are not smart enough or motivated enough to find out things for themselves. Obviously it is very extreme in 1984, like when people will believe that they were always at war with one country, even though everyone knew that they were at war with a different country just a few days before. We are not that bad right now, but it is still ridiculous how many people will blindly follow what they are told by the news. When one group of people control the media they will have the ability to twist anything, and therefore control most people. It is actually scary how accurate Orwell was to how our world is turning out to be. This novel is an fact a cautionary tale, and it needs to be listened to, to avoid having our world turn into one like Oceania.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cassi
ReplyDeleteI agree with you how you say that once a government gets that strong, there is no stopping or controlling it. This novel showed that one man has no chance to change a government that has that much power over its citizen's everyday lives. And yes there is no defined point at which a government is too big, but frankly if there is ever a question of whether a government is too big, then it probably is. It was made to protect our freedoms, not take them away. This novel shows the dangers, but obviously to the extreme, of a big central government
In response to Rebecca Smith
ReplyDeleteThe idea that you pointed out is very humbling. It shows that a society like the one in Oceania is not that far from reality. It is very possible for a country in the world, or even the United States, to become that corrupt over time. It is very true that we are sheltered here in Brighton, and it makes us not aware of the problems that other countries have, like China. This ignorance can affect decisions that we make, and ultimately have a horrible effect on our country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOriginal Response
ReplyDeleteWhat i found most interesting about 1984 were all of the parallels to some modern day conspiracy theories. Take for example all of the talk of a "New World Order" where every move is controlled by the government. It is rumored that certain groups, that are supposed to be inactive but aren't, are already making that happen. There is also the mysterious Big Brother figure, who is the leader of the Oceania society, always out of sight but confirmed as real, much like the secret leaders of other groups. And then of course there's the eye on the front cover of the book, much like the eye that is featured on our dollar bills. It's the "all seeing eye" that watches the citizens of Oceania. In our world too, it is also rumored to be watching over the public’s every move. Plus, 1984 was written at a time where the world was going crazy with political corruption and scandal, and a little of it seems to have leaked into this book. Also, why has 1984 been removed off of Kindle? Does it reveal too much about future government plans? Is it just a coincidence? No one really knows for sure but it makes you read more into the text, I feel.
Another text that i feel is similar to 1984 is Ayn Rand’s Anthem. In both novels, the main characters face heavily oppressing rules in tightly constricting societies. Everything about day to day life is controlled in both novels. The characters also both attempt to escape the horrible societies in which they live in. They also both break laws. In 1984 the main character, Winston Smith, creates a diary, has relations with a women who is not his wife, and tries to work against Big Brother. All these activities are illegal. In Anthem, the main character, Equality 7- 2521, uses science to create a lightbulb, runs away with a woman, and lives with her in a house they find together.
Much like in 1984, there are also some interesting conspiracy symbols in Anthem that I find quite eye opening. The book seems to signal back to an age old dispute regarding science and religion, and the two sides of the battle. For one, Equality is persecuted for using science to create, of all things, a lightbulb, which is not only used to give light, but it is commonly associated with the spreading of knowledge and a certain group of people. He is also condemned for having a relationship with a woman, even though his society does not approve. He goes as far as living with her, with more to come, though they are not married. It’s an obvious stab against Christianity. I find it all quite illuminating.
In Response to Harrison Jones
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your line about 1984 that reads "we come to realize that no matter how many Winston Smiths there are in a society there will always be one hundred more O'Brians." Sadly, based on what I know about the world, I feel as though you're right. Evil has always seemed to be a more prominent force than good. But despite that though, I feel like if we give up on believing in good, evil ultimately wins. Even if we’re fighting a losing battle, the fact that we had the courage to begin the fight makes a statement all on its own. As Albert Einstein once said, "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." It is true that the numbers may be uneven right now, we must never give up hope that one day good will have the intensity of a burning sun, and evil will be nothing more but a wisp in the wind. :)
In Response to Cassi
ReplyDeleteI loved how you commented about the fact that the protagonist, Winston Smith, does lose the battle against Big Brother. The reader thinks for a little while that maybe he and Julia will end up winning, but in the end his will is shattered, and he gives over his mind to “The Party.” You’re absolutely right when you say it’s to warn the public about what could happen if the people loose their democratic powers and government gains complete control over everything. What’s even more scary, is that this fictional way of life in the book is actually a reality in some countries, and it could become America’s reality if we’re not careful. I really did not like the ending either, but sometimes you need to be exposed to evil and corruption in order to save yourself from it, i suppose.
Marianne Maresh
ReplyDeleteOriginal comment
A paradox is a statement that seems to contradict itself, but may be true. The Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Peace, and the Ministry of Plenty are all paradoxes in 1984. The Ministry of Truth deals with altering the past to make the Party appear flawless. It is lying to change the past, but the public has been brainwashed to accept whatever the Party says as truth. So the past is made of lies, but the citizens of Oceania sees it as truth. The Ministry of Love deals with people accused of committing thought crime. These people are "cured" by being tortured, starved, and beaten. It does not appear that Ministry of Love is kind to its convicts, but the reason behind the torture is to "fix" the minds of the convicts. It is not right to torture though criminals, but it is done out of love. The Ministry of Peace is a branch of government designed to fuel the "perpetual war". It seems that a ministry set up to fight a continuous war is not peaceful. However, fueling this war keeps Oceania at peace. The Party claims the war uses the goods produced by Oceania and stabilizes the economy. Keeping the economy stable helps maintain the peace in Oceania. Finally, the Ministry of Plenty deals with rationing food and other goods. Rationing ensures that each citizen gets some of everything they need. The Ministry of Plenty allows each person to get the same amount of every good.
I found the link between lack of privacy and mind control interesting. I never realized how easy it would be to control a population so tightly. Placing telescreens that monitor people all day every day in every home and public area is not far out of reach today. Any government is capable of doing this. Giving the citizens no privacy keeps them in constant fear of being being caught while committing thought crime. Also, no privacy prevents citizens from forming groups such as the brotherhood to rebel against the Party. 1984 made me realize I should not take privacy for granted!
Marianne Maresh
ReplyDeleteIn response Tommy Stevenson
I completely agree that whoever controls the media is capable of controlling the people. It seems people, in general, are willing to accept anything given to them. In addition, we are presented with a larger quantity of media that can be seen from almost anywhere. We have the capability of accessing the internet from our cellphones and other devices, which makes accessing the media easy. I too find it very frightening that the media holds so much power. It is not unreasonable to think that America could one day end up exactly like Oceania. It is very possible that there will come a point when people rely on the media so heavily, they could be told anything and believe it. Fortunately, there are many people who are still motivated to research problems and form their own opinion. Hopefully these people will continue to make up for the people uninterested in making their own opinion and keep the nation in check.
Marianne Maresh
ReplyDeleteIn response to Natalie Sanders
I agree that history is recorded from a biased view. Many of the events we learn about in history classes are told from an American's point of view. I think it is important we also are taught history from other countries' points of view. This would escape some of the biased views and also be interesting. Many students would probably be more intrigued by history if they heard it told from different points of the world.
It is also true that the news is usually biased. This is most apparent around times of presidential election. To a point, it seems that the news has become more concerned with making one political group look better than another then actually reporting the news! However, I do not think it is possible to form unbiased news. Everyone is biased in some way. I am not saying it is bad, but stating a fact. Also, we have a natural tendency to see things as either right or wrong. Until we can overcome these obstacles, news and history will continue to be biased.
Original Comment:
ReplyDeleteWho is Big Brother? What is the Brotherhood? How did George Orwell manage to come up with a complete unfamiliar government, learn how its citizens will cheat Oceania, and how its Inner Party members will outsmart everyone? Using modern language, Orwell makes it easy on the reader to consume and understand the concepts of his book. As if he is trying to caution people of what power the government has and forshadowing its motifs, just like a “___ for Dummies” book.
While my grandpa fought under Hitler’s rule in WWII, it was not a question of choice, but whether to kill or be killed. I understand that we have to follow our government, and in my grandpa’s eyes, he did nothing wrong. What gives the US Army the right to be in the Middle East? What gave America the right to put the Chinese in “work camps”? This book goes back to asking why the government has all the rights, and why its citizens follow. Not only can we barely answer any of these questions without using our opinions, but the only way to change anything would mean to give up one’s life. Living is about being used, and using. While other people walk over corpses to get what they want, we do everything we can to be the most efficient in what helps us out the most.
Franziska Pugh
In response to Natalie Sanders:
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea how happy you have made me, bringing up how biased history is. Allow me to mention my education while I still lived in Germany: I had no idea that a war ever existed, I had no idea who Hitler was, and I had no idea what my country had done to the rest of the world. Not only had my school system just added WWI and WWII to the curriculum for 9th grade students, but they would only cover it for about a week. There are always two sides to a story, and each government will only take pride and time in its own victories.
Franziska Pugh
In response to Lauren Burkart:
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely horrified and amazed at the article you have described. Not only am I amazed at myself for hearing about this for the first time, but I am scared to count how many other people have not heard about it. While I believe in opinions, I can accept the fact that North Korean citizens live this way, but not when I know that they do not know any better. What has this world come to? While the country in which we live in, presses us to voice ourselves and take action, this world seems to contradict itself easily. This is not about how a country lives, but how the strongest get away with murder.
To be honest, this article reminds me of animal cruelty. Animals seem weak to humans, we tend to do whatever we want with those that we call our pets: breed, teach, and punish. While evolution allowed the strongest animals to grow, insects became elephants and sharks. Animals have their own language, however humans have overpowered them and their respect decreases with time. Nowadays we throw them away like garbage, feed them when we want to and however we want to. We are all monsters in a way, and the only thing holding us on the ground is the belief in our system and the respect for those who are stronger than us.. for now.
Franziska Pugh
George Orwell’s writing style in 1984 is basically simple and dull. He provides necessary description, but he doesn’t use an excessive amount of imagery. He puts very little emotion into writing about disappearances, suicides, and other deaths, but rather states them in a factual or direct way. Also, his sentences are short and to the point. The vocabulary doesn’t include long frivolous words, but ones that are short and easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteWhile this writing style seems boring, it actually suits the story. The matter-of-fact descriptions of the lives of the citizens set an accurate tone as to what their daily lives were like. There isn’t any emotion to them. In fact, they are forced to prevent their thoughts from wandering away from what they are told to think and told to do. It’s alarming to the reader to think that someone’s suicide might just be stated as just some event that occurred that day, without any thought or recognition. “She had had her first love affair when she was sixteen, with a Party member of sixty who later committed suicide to avoid arrest.” This is how the style highlights the wrongs of the society, and uses statements like these to set a creepy or eerie feeling towards the society. Even Winston fits into this ideal of a robot-like citizen at the end of the novel. Like Orwell’s writing style, the citizens of Oceania are supposed to be simple, dull, emotionless, and to the point.
In response to Tommy:
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about how ridiculous it is that the media has such a huge impact on our lives today. In a sociology class I learned that the media has more impact on our lives than anything else, even more so than our family and friends. It's scary to think that, but it is true. We are completely surrounded by it all day, everyday. Without even realizing it we are changed by the music we listen to, the movies and shows we watch, and the ads we see everywhere. There are so many hidden messages that we pick up on from an early age, and most of them aren't neccessarily good. I think it's really important to think about everything we hear and see, and to realize that it might not all be true.
I saved 1984 to read last because I knew what I would be getting into with a book written by Orwell. As expected, 1984 is a futuristic vision of what Orwell was seeing with Stalin in control of Russia. Even Big Brother has the trademark bushy mustache. The book was incredibly bleak and by the end I started to to truly wonder what living in a society with no privacy at all would be like. 1984 did a fantastic job at making me think and appreciate the world I live in today, and hopefully no one will ever have to live in a world like Winston's.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Lauren Burkart
ReplyDeleteWow, the article you posted was horribly fascinating. We all know North Korea is incredibly insular, but I never stopped to think how insane the government is there. Reading that article sounded exactly like reading 1984, which is not what I want to see translate over into real life. I hope something happens soon that will help free those people from what any sane person would call slavery.
In Response to Emily Lerner
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to expand on Newspeak and then see that the same thing is happening nowadays. For instance, I make an effort to text with decent grammar, but when people grow up texting with no one telling them what is and isn't grammatically correct, their overall grammar and vocabulary can be seriously hurt. Then when I talk to older people like my grandparents, I'm always amazed at how well they speak and how often they vary their word choices.
Original Comment
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion 1984 was by far the most frightening social commentary novel I have ever read. I thought this because it was so much different in the end than the rest of them. What I mean, is that in almost any other social commentary novel like 'Fahrenheit 451' for example, at the end of the book there always to be some hope of the world returning to how we know it today, or at least how we think we know it, with freedom of thought and action. Yet in '1984' there is no such feeling of hope when all is said and done. Winston Smith, the one hope that we related to the entire story, that seemed to be getting close to finding some kind of breakthrough against The Party, found out how truly powerful the Party was. Right when he thought he was safe and had 'comrades' for his own fight, it all came crashing down on him and although he resisted much more than any other the Party had faced the final line of the book says it all, "He loved Big Brother" all the fight had done was prolong the inevitable. This is what struck me as so much more depressing than any other novel of this genre.
In response to Lauren Burkart
ReplyDeleteThat article you posted on here was crazy! That is one of the most frightening things I have heard, like honestly you are completely right with your last statement that all they are missing are telescreens. Somewhat related to what you're saying I have no idea where I heard it but at some point I heard someone on TV or on the internet talking about how Orwell would be appalled at that how society now is worse than he could have ever expected. I thought it was kind of interesting, I don't necessarily agree but I could see where someone could feel that way, with the ease the government can check up on you, especially with all the new technology, everything is somewhat monitored. And all of that is far scarier than this novel because who knows how far it actually goes.
Paulina Devlin
ReplyDelete1984
Original Comment
George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 certainly has a clear message and theme. The restrictive society that aims to destroy the individual in an effort to make to society immortal, clearly tells its readers to beware of communist motives and the individual’s mind is the most prized possession. These same themes are discussed in numerous dystopian books in the Brighton Area Schools curriculum, including The Giver, Anthem, Fahrenheit 451, and Animal Farm. Although valuable lessons in themselves, I find all of these books antiquated and I question their relevance in the context of the world today.
1984’s “Ingsoc” society uses the alteration of history as the force behind all of its policies and power. Under Big Brother’s watchful eye, written history is never questioned because all evidence contradicting it is destroyed or altered. In this necessity for censorship lies the greatest dating factor in dystopian novels. While in dystopian stories, less and less information is public as time progresses, in our lives, more and more information is public every day.
In Oceania, only one false copy of each publication exists, and all others are altered of destroyed. All evidence of the falsification is likewise eliminated. In our lives the opposite is true. Today, because the majority of information is passed through Internet communication, thousands of copies of any exchange are recorded. Google is embarking on projects to digitalize all books while millions are already stored as such. Confidential information owned by our own government and governments around the world are leaked, like in the Wikileaks case. Courts order information to be released to the public often, like Kwame Kilpatrick’s text messages and Sarah Palin’s email database. So much information is available that our primary concern is from which of the multitude of sources we should judge, rather than if we can trust a single source like in Oceania. In our lives there is so much information literally at our fingertips, that I become frustrated reading of a society where the opposite is true.
Oceania’s language, newspeak, aims to eliminate the use of unnecessary words and consequently control the thoughts of Oceania’s citizens. The particular threat of limiting emotions by reducing vocabulary is also utterly unrealistic. In reality, our vocabulary is always expanding and transforming, incorporating new technical terms and fashioning new meanings to old words. People in today’s society are always creating words and expressions to add to our vocabulary of informal English and slang. How can people possibly be worried of an oncoming annihilation of words when Urban Dictionary claims to harbor six million definitions for mostly made up words on one website?
There are societies such as North Korea, Iran, and Syria where people still suffer from the oppression of a tight controlling society. However, these nations number fewer and fewer as time progresses. People are demanding democracy and achieving it, as demonstrated by the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya. Our world is experiencing the happy ending that 1984’s Oceania lacks. While Oceania’s citizens do not have access to true records, are experiencing oppression of their expressive language, and fail in their uprisings against their government, our world enjoys thousands of views of history through the internet, an expanding language, and real evidence of democracy triumphing over oppression. Why, as students, are we reading literature that urged our grandparents’ generation to resist communism, when we should be reading literature that will allow us to help the world embrace and understand democracy?
In response to A. Smith in turn to Emily Lerner
ReplyDeleteI think both of you are really on to something with this, the deterioration of vocabulary in younger people today is astounding. I am as guilty as anyone with texting but the age at which kids are getting their own phones absolutely kills me, they start texting in 3rd grade or even younger sometimes. With texting some people think that is talking to people so they never actually speak in person or on the phone, therefore kids social and speaking skills are also diminishing. I honestly hope that the fad of texting someday at least dies down a little bit or I honestly feel that we are heading to a dangerous place.
Paulina Devlin
ReplyDelete1984
Response to Sophie Shinsky
You wrote that George Orwell’s writing style suits the story of 1984. His description of events is often dull and direct, mimicking the lack of emotion the citizens of Oceania possess. I agree with you, but I also believe Orwell’s tone of writing arcs with the story. In the first section, Winston is alone and silent in his contempt for his society. He leads a repetitive and dry life and Orwell’s direct words and descriptions, such as the ones you mentioned, correspond to this desolate and hopeless mood. When the novel progresses into the second part, Winston meets Julia, falls in love and is instilled with a desire to defy the Party. During this section of the novel, Orwell’s writing becomes more passionate and full of imagery. The author explains “Winston picked his way up the lane through dappled light and shade, stepping into pools of gold wherever the boughs parted” (98). Finally in the third part of the novel when Winston is being tortured in the Ministry of Love, Orwell’s tone returns to the direct and solemn note it begins with. The novel unemotionally describes a man being “flung across the cell and fetched up against the base of the lavatory seat” (194). George Orwell’s style appropriately matches the mood of Winston throughout the novel.
A paradox is a statement that seems ridiculous or untrue at first but if you think about it, it actually makes sense. There were many statements in 1984 that were paradoxes. For example, the Party slogan, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength," is a paradox. At first it might not seem true but if you think about it, without war, there would be no peace, without something like slavery, we would not want or need freedom and through your own ignorance, you build up your strength. Another example of paradox in 1984 is the statement, "Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain." In order for someone like Winston to survive in Oceania, you have to be stupid and not think about all the wrongs in their society. For Winston, stupidity is difficult to attain because since he already knows too much about the problems of totalitarianism, it is hard for him to forget about it and pretend that he is a believer of Big Brother. Finally, after being tortured constantly, Winston is forced to believe that Big Brother is the best and in the end, he becomes 'stupid' like the rest of the people of Oceania.
ReplyDeletePaulina Devlin
ReplyDelete1984
Response to Franziska Pugh, in turn responding to Natalie Sanders
Different communities’ views of history are very intriguing to me, so I was very interested in how you mentioned that your education in Germany lacked acknowledgement of WWII. On one hand, this is obviously appalling; how could such a terrible event be forgotten instead of being used as a valuable lesson? On the other hand, I can imagine the pain and difficulty involved with acceptance and reconciliation on the part of ordinary German citizens who followed Nazi lead, not for their idealism, but to maintain their jobs and their family’s safety. I believe this is where lessons from 1984 can be applied in life today. History cannot be forgotten, because without it, ordinary citizens are left without lessons from the past. Julia does not grasp the gravity of the oppression that she lives in because she knows nothing else. However difficult history is to face, we must push ourselves to do so, to prevent events from being forgotten and repeated.
In response to both Kaska and Colin Nash:
ReplyDeleteWow kaska It is amazing to me that you never learned about the world wars and frightening at the same time. That is why I feel it is so important to stay politically active, because Colin i have heard that same statement too. My mom told me about it but i'm not sure where we heard it. Our government pretty much has the ability and authority to take over our lives at any moment they want. it angers me when people say they don't vote or worry about being active in our government, because it is such a great right and privilege that many people in many countries just don't receive. I hope after reading this book young people will take a closer look at our government and how they can get involved, because it really is a call to action that people just shouldn't deny!
Original Comment…
ReplyDeleteI see that Elizabeth K. beat me to the punch in comparing 1984 to the Bible, however dare I say in my mind it wasn’t as black and white as ‘room 101 is hell’ and ‘Big Brother is God’. The way I saw it was that Winston and Julia became a direct parallel to Adam and Eve. Julia lured Winston in with her devious ways of thinking, just as Eve did, and together they bit into the apple (perhaps best represented by the Book?) to obtain truth and free thinking. They allowed their curiosity and ‘the devil’ to the Party (Goldstein) tempt them into doing very rash things. To us, who grew up in a Capitalist society, Oceania may seem like Hell. However, as Winston puts it “Why would one feel it to be intolerable unless one had some kind of ancestral memory that things had once been different?” (p. 52)
Therefore, the false protection of the party could be considered Eden. No one knew that things could be better, and there was numerous propaganda throughout the book telling the people that their quality of life was quite high. This breaths life into the Party’s slogan, “Ignorance is strength”, which I also feel was the main idea behind the story of Adam and Eve. They were blissful in the Garden of Eden, never knowing any better, until they were tempted by the serpent in the tree. They rebelled against their God, Big Brother so that they could have a future of thinking for themselves.
What is so curious to me about this scenario is that in Adam and Eve’s case, I wish that they had never rebelled against their God, because the consequences were horrific. I would have been one of the Party members who thought they were ‘unorthodox’ as George Orwell would put it, and would have tried to stop them. However, when it came to Julia and Winston I was rooting for them until the very end. The idea of not having free will or privacy greatly disturbed me, and I found Goldstein to be quite brilliant. I suppose for me it was the ruler that made the difference. God let Adam and Eve make their decision without stopping them, while Big Brother was oppressive, forced his ideals on everyone else, and went to great lengths to stop Winston and Julia.
As for if there are any questions I have about this book, the main thing that I didn’t understand was why were the proles allowed to have freedom? If the party just wanted power for the sake of power, than why would they not force their ideals onto all of their citizens?
Lindsay Harkins
ReplyDeleteoriginal comment
1984 was my favorite summer read. I think dystopias and social commentary are really interesting. I stayed with my cousin for a while over the summer and was reading 1984 while I was there. She is a bookworm just like I was at that age, going into 7th grade. She asked what I was reading so I told her about the book and explained what a dystpoia is. She thought it sounded interesting and asked for some suggestions she could read. I suggested The Giver by Lois Lowry and the Uglies series by Scott Westerfeild. Uglies gives the idea that you have to be pretty to be happy and you have to conform to society's version of beautiful, if you don't conform then you're not pretty. In The Giver, society is focused on "sameness", that is why there is a person who keeps all the memories of the people in the community. 1984 follows these books when it comes to conformity, people are supposed to love and obey Big Brother at any cost. If someone rebels they are put through torture to be "corrected". Conformity is a key factor in any dystopia. (My cousin is now obsessed with dystopian novels!)
Seoyoung C.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anthony S
I agree that the names of the ministries can also be paradoxes. The ministries do the opposite of what they are named. In Oceania, there is clearly no love but in a sense, the Ministry of Love is a way to torture the people to make them love Big Brother and never go against him. The Ministry of Truth does the opposite because they create lies to make the people not lose faith in them but by doing this, the citizens of Oceania believe everything they hear is the truth. The Ministry of Peace is where they control what goes on with the other countries and the military. Because the Party makes people believe that war is peace, the name of this ministry can also be considered a paradox.
Seoyoung C.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lauren J.
I agree that Big Brother can also be considered a paradox. The government tries to make their people look up to Big Brother and rely on him to take care of everything but clearly, everything about Big Brother is a lie to get people to trust him. There is no love between the people of Oceania but they believe that they truly love Big Brother and that he will never let them down. As Winston realizes, the government and Big Brother himself are very corrupt and everything they are told by Big Brother is all a lie.
Cleyton Cavallaro
ReplyDeleteOriginal Post
I found 1984 interesting in that O'Brien openly admitted that it was based on evil, and that the system worked, while in most other social commentary books, such as Anthem and Fahrenheit 451, say that they are a Utopia instead of a Dystopia, and in the end, the protagonist escapes. This shows that the society is a failure. in 1984 the society works perfectly and no one can escape its grasp. Do you feel that admitting your society as a dytopia and welcoming war, famine, and disease is the only way to have a permanent society?
In Response to Emily L.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying about the parallels to our government taking matters of security too far. However, when I was reading the book, all I could see was the differences between our governments. I do not think that we as Americans will ever allow our government to get control over us to the degree that The Party had. There are several major differences between their Totalitarian politics and our Democratic Republic politics that I feel would prevent this from ever happening.
First off, our leaders are constantly changing every 2 or 4 years, depending on the position, and with them their ideals. If someone with a totalitarian mind does make it into power, it would only be for a short time. Instead of one immortal, never-changing face, like "Big Brother", we have an individualistic president that can only become immortal by their deeds.
Second, is the system of checks and balances. If a bill would be drafted and passed by one house that that was absolutely outrageous, the other could easily put a stop to it.
Last would be our bill of rights. I think an extreme example of the bill of rights put into action would be Westboro Baptist church's absolutely shameful protests of Soldier's funerals, among other things. But, since they have freedom of free speech and freedom to assemble they were let off without any punishment. I think I speak for all Americans when I say that if anything happened that directly breached our freedoms set by the Bill of Rights, there would be hell to pay.
In response to Rachel Lute's response to me:
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I wasn't criticizing our own government at all. Rather, I was just providing the thought of what privacies we are willing to exchange in order to have security. It went along with paralleling Orwell's "1984" to our own world by thinking of minor similarities. Good thoughts, though.
Original comment
ReplyDelete1984
In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a lot of his writing techniques are similar to those in Animal Farm. He definitively likes to stay on the tract of writing about dystopian topics. There is a big leader in both novels, who controls everyone in the town. In this case it is the Big Brother, and the pig Napoleon. Both novels have an underdog-Winston and Boxer. The most important factor about the two is that they involve a lot of unhappy/life-less citizens that are unsure about everything they do and don't show their emotions. In a dystopian novel a society is completely controlled. Most are under the disguise of being utopian, but more often than not, the citizens are unhappy and want to escape. These novels almost parallel our society today, in small ways. The author of these books, or in this case, George Orwell, is trying to get a point across to the reader. They want the reader to realize all the downsides in our society. These novels are a way for authors to speak out, and this blog is a way for us to do the same! -another parallel!
Liza Reynolds:)
In response to Cleyton
ReplyDelete1984
I completely agree with what you are saying about dystopian novels and utopian ones. They really always end up being the exact same thing because no society, anywhere, can be perfect. There is no way any government or system could control humans because we are filled with tons of emotions, feelings and things that we absolutely need to express. I feel that these societies in the 'utopian' novels do not want to admit that there is a problem because they simply think life should be perfect. I think war, famine, and disease are all a part of life, and without them we wouldn't be anywhere near to the people we are today.
Liza Reynolds:)
In response to Lindsay
ReplyDelete1984
This novel was also my favorite of the summer! I thought it was really easy to read, interesting, and brought a lot of great ideas to the readers head. Through out high school I feel ,like we have been assigned a lot of dystopian/utopian novels, but I really enjoyed this one. My favorite thing about it was that it spent a lot of time going into detail about the life of Winston and what he did on a daily basis. The end confused me, I didn't get why Orwell had Winston love Big Brother at the end instead of what most dystopian novels do and have him escape?
Liza Reynolds:)
Original comment:
ReplyDeleteReading 1984 was quite interesting. To Americans who live in a free democracy, it's hard to imagine even living with one characteristic of the dystopia George Orwell created. I know it sounds silly, but can you imagine Obama's face being plastered EVERYWHERE in big posters with the slogan "Obama is Watching You!"? And living in an unkempt one-room apartment with a telescreen watching your every move and hearing your every word? Even though we don't live in or near this type of a government, it's still interesting to read about, but also frightening to think of if we ever did become a government like this in the future. George Orwell's writing style in 1984 and also Animal Farm is attention-grabbing especially since it is about government, which is such a big part of how we Americans are able to live the way we do.
In response to Lindsay...
ReplyDelete1984 was probably my favorite read out of the four also, especially because it involves government and what could potentially happen to it. But I also liked the way you tied in the other books; I enjoy dystopian novels and I just might check those out now =]
Cleyton Cavallaro
ReplyDeleteIn Response To Jessi
I agree that it is very hard to imagine these things today. We also have to keep in mind that when this book was first published, there was no such thing as a TV. The people that first read this book would have had a much harder time than us understanding this book. i also believe, however, that if you think harder, it is not impossible to imagine these things. is it too hard to imagine that human could, drunk with power, torture innocent citizens until they have no such thing as motions left? until they love you for it? i feel that the basic evil found in todays society was merely expanded in this novel, and that is what helped make this book a success.
original comment
ReplyDeleteIn 1984, Orwell really exceeds in getting his point across. His style of writing helps to get his message across. His writing is very blunt and matter of fact, it makes you really stop to think about what he is saying. It makes things that you know are ridiculous seem even more real. I saw many comparisons between 1984, The Giver, Fahrenheit 451, and Animal Farm. All of these stories use satire and exaggeration to make their idea stand out. Also, throughout this book I was reminded of a book I read several years ago, Uglies. This book seemed to have a similar message. Like 1984, there were people that were under the spell of society and think everything is alright, and there were the people who begin to question the governments control over them. Both of these fictional societies have people that go with the flow and don’t question their government’s control. It makes me think; maybe these societies aren’t so fictional after all. Maybe we too are trapped under the spell of the media and government, not realizing that there is something wrong with the world we are living in.
Response to Lauren Burkart
ReplyDeleteWow, this article about North Korea is very shocking. The resemblance between North Korea and Oceania is scary. The freedom of the people there is so oppressed that they can’t even leave. This is the exact control that Orwell is warning against in 1984. A place where propaganda seems real, people would give up their own family and friends, and the government is always watching. It’s scary to think that we are reading this book thinking I’m so glad we don’t live like this, but some people are living like this.
In response to Cassi...
ReplyDeleteCleyton also addressed the same thing; in 1984, the protagonist loses to the government, rather than making it out okay. I also agree I didn't like the ending - emotionally. It's frustrating not only because you always wish the protagonist to win but also because there's no way you can prevail over a government like that. But I did like the ending in a way because it brings to mind that it's impossible to win over totalitarianism, therefore it is extremely dangerous and we the people need to still be sovereign and keep our governments in check.
Response to Emily Lerner
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting the connection you make between our language today and Newspeak. It is very true that people today are too worried about what is fast and convenient that language is becoming less and less important. Texting has made abbreviations and poor grammar the new norm. Who knows how long it will be until our dictionaries are being rewritten to take out the unnecessary words and add the quick ones. People don’t realize that as they shrink their vocabulary, they are also shrinking the boundaries of their mind.
Original Post:
ReplyDeleteI found there were many paradoxical situations in 1984. One of which, “[w]ar is peace,” really stands out to me (7). When one thinks about this statement, it seems so complex and almost unreal. But I started really thinking about this. Peace is a state of mental calm and serenity, with no anxiety. In society, though, no one is truly happy, revealed by many “utopia” stories that end in destruction. When our military fights in the Middle East, don’t we have peace of mind knowing that we are working to prevent anyone from hurting us? In a world like the one we leave in now, would we be in a state of mental serenity knowing that we couldn’t speak out? Don’t we feel calm knowing that our first amendment right protects us when we want to speak out on something? We are having a “war” of our own when we speak up sometimes. The Party’s other slogan is that “[f]reedom is slavery” (7). This is another questionable topic. Are we ever truly free though? Aren’t we all bound by different beliefs? How can we be free if we have a belief? Christians do not believe in euthanasia, so they are bound by the Bible to live instead of taking part in a mercy killing. Atheists do not believe there is a God, so do they have the freedom to believe in a God? The simple answer is that we are never truly free because we are tied down in slavery by whatever it is we believe, whether it’s religion or ideals.
In response to Lauren Burkart:
ReplyDeleteThat article is truly eye opening. This reminds me of what my friend told me. She is adopted from China and she is going back there to learn for the year. So much of what we take for granted is illegal there. They cannot check their facebooks or check up on the latest stupid thing someone did on YouTube. The government controls so many aspects of their lives. You cannot bury the body of loved one after they die. Cremation is a mandatory act, and I really don’t see any love in that. It really makes you think about how lucky we are to live in a country like America with all the freedoms we do. Even though, with bills like the Patriot Act, our privacy seems threatened, we really do have it so much better than a lot of other countries.
In response to Natalie Sanders:
ReplyDeleteIt’s like the old saying, “history is written by the victor.” How many stories do you hear from the losers stand point? We grow up hearing stories about so many wars in which America is this big, god-like entity. I remember hearing about the Vietnam War I think it was my freshman year. We talked in class about it and I remember my teacher, who was part of the army, telling us that the Vietnamese refer to the “war” as the War of American Aggression. We couldn’t just stand by and let a country work out its own problems. And because of that, we are taught a completely different side of the story than they are over in Vietnam.
In Response to Cleyton C.
ReplyDeleteThat is such a thought provoking question. What I came up with as an answer was that 'a dytopia and welcoming war, famine, and disease' is not needed to create a permanent society. What is needed to create a permanent society is people who want to be governed, or at lest people who have no will against it.
This is why that in the case of The Party, they were well on their way to creating a permanent society. I think that society in a way is a state of mind, which I think the Party agreed with. They put out continuous propaganda and teachings from the time that their people were born to essentially brain wash them. The children would be brought up knowing nothing else but the Party, and then they themselves would have children, and teach them more of the same. With each generation the Party would go stronger.
Of course when anything is that oppressive, there will always be those like Julia who oppose and rebel against it. However, the Party would not destroy those who opposed them., but change their minds. If there was not enough people to rise up against their government, that how (other than outside forces) could The Party ever be overthrown.
Cleyton Cavallaro
ReplyDeleteIn Response To Kellie
I also see the difference in our society today between those under the "spell" and those who are not. In our society today, there are those who are trapped in the media, and there are those who go and find out the story themselves. I feel that this is also the difference between the leaders, and the followers. if you make your own choices and ask questions, you escape the spell. if you do as your told without question, however, you become one who is trapped in the monotony of life.
Jonathon Swift's essay, "A Modest Proposal" was a social commentary piece of literature. Ireland was having problems with hunger during the time this essay was written. Jonathon Swift had a modest proposal of eating and selling the babies and children to solve the famine! He wrote this to show the general opinion on the poor and how Ireland was at the time. It satirized Irish society. George Orwell also wrote a book that is social commentary. He wrote what he believed would happen to the world in about twenty years. He lived through Nazi Germany, and happened to be a socialist himself. The truth of the time during the forty's is leaking through the text. Orwell may have feared that the world would have to endure another Adolf Hitler. My Oma (german for grandma) lived in Germany during Hitler's reign. She was part of Nazi youth, just as children were part of "Junior Spies" in 1984. The children did not know what they were doing, they were encouraged to turn in their parents, forced to hang up pictures of Hitler in their own home, had no access to a radio, and were groomed into believing that there was a superior race. My Oma had neighbors in her apartment taken away in the middle of the night just as they did in 1984. They would return some odd years later, and would not say a word to anyone. This book was just as chilling as the first hand stories I hear from my Oma to this day. It is hard to believe that places like "Room 101" really did exist. I can barely fathom that we still torture today.
ReplyDeleteA paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that appears to be true. 1984 is filled with these along with contradictions. The basis of the party is all contradictory. Doublthink is a practice in which someone controls makes a conscious effort to believe a contradictory statement. For instance in the last chapter, Winston writes in the dust on the table in Chestnut Tree Cafe, 2+2=5. The party says that is true, so it is. When Winston was being tortured he had trouble letting go of the real answer to that equation. It is hard to allow your mind to exercise those thoughts.
In response to Kellie:
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you mentioned the book Uglies because that is one book similar to 1984 that I actually remembered, because I loved that series. The one thing 1984 doesn't have in common with other dystopia novels is that the protagonist doesn't somewhat succeed in the end. The ending provides no hope for the future, but sends the message that we are completely powerless to the government. Uglies is one book that actually seems to have a similar ending if you think about it. They don't actually succeed in running away from society or avoiding the many attractive material things from the city. Just like Winston, they fall into the trap of the government.
In response to Connor-
ReplyDeleteIt frustrated me reading the party slogans as well. You do have a valid point though. Peace is War. War is Peace. If you separate war and peace their meanings are complete opposites. Someones take on war may be different than someone else, and vice versa for peace. Knowing that I have a military fighting for me does give me a sense of peace, yet I highly doubt the soldiers feel a sense of peace every day when they wake up knowing that their lives are in constant danger. Peace is unattainable for everyone at the same time. So is peace really war? In my opinion, no. Freedom is what you want freedom to be as well. There is no way to be "free of beliefs" because that is what separates human beings from animals is that we can think and make decisions for ourselves and choose our own path in life and get a career etc. Freedom to one is different to another, I think that freedom is definitely not slavery.
In response to Kellie Z, I completely agree. I have read the Uglies too and it is scary to think that some places actually have problems like this. There is a movie called Stepford Wives, where the wives are basically reduced to robots by their husbands placing a chip in their brain to control their every move, emotion included. The women have no room to think, they just do. That is what Big Brother wants out of his society. That is what the party teaches and wants to eliminate. They want a robotic, non-human society.
ReplyDeleteKrissy Kowalenko
ReplyDeleteOriginal Comment
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are many parallels that can be made between Winston’s Oceania and the world we live in today. One parallel that I found was the lack of freedom people had in Oceania, and the same thing is occurring in North Korea today. I cannot even begin to imagine how hard it must be to live everyday with so much fear. In Winston’s Oceania, there are numerous amounts of people, including Winston, that live in fear because of the constant watchful eye people have on them. This dear can cause people to pretend to be someone they are not, just to stay off the radar. “It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live- did live, from habit that became instinct- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (6-7) Today people, especially celebrities, have to be conscious of everything they do because if they make one innocent mistake, the whole world knows about it the next day, and this can cause damage to one’s reputation. Of course, the celebrities fear does not even come close to touching how fearful Winston and Julia were, but the same idea goes for them. If they make a weird face or talk to someone for too long, they are put upon the Thought Police’s radar, and could possibly disappear the next day. Another parallel I drew was the amount of intellectual freedom that was given to the people of Oceania, and the amount that is still given nowadays to certain people. Winston, along with many others, had to hold their tongue about their opinions of the Party… it was the Party’s way or the highway basically. In some third –world countries, women still do not have the right to get an education, vote, or even suggest their opinion. I could not imagine not having equal rights or any rights for that matter.
One part of the book that I found to be interesting was Room 101. I thought being interrogated, starved, and held captive for months was intense, but I cannot even imagine being faced with my greatest fear. I found it to be beyond cruel for the prisoner, but it was actually an interesting and smart tactic in order to get someone to confess, or in Winston’s case, betray the one you loved the most.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Elizabeth K. in response to Emily Lerner:
ReplyDeleteIn your response to Emily you said, "Supprisingly people are willing to give up phone security and personal dignity (such as the rituals to fly) in order to be safe from bombers, terriorists..." I don't believe that having to go through more advanced, and yes, sometimes personal, metal detectors is something that is SO bad. If it let's me and others know that the plane we are flying on is safe, I don't see why people would make such a big deal out of the security precautions.
Krissy Kowalenko
ReplyDeleteResponse to Tommy Stevenson
I really like the parallel you made with the power of media. It is very true that having control over the media, controls most of the population. We see the effects the media has upon people today, for example, the body type that is expected of young girls and women. You said, “…most people are not smart enough or motivated enough to find things out for themselves”, but I do not know if has so much to do with brains or motivation as it does with the fact that a lot of people are naive to what is really happening and the media tend to hide a lot from the public. You had an awesome example of how people can be so naïve and believe everything that someone says when you mentioned how in the novel, people believed they were always at war with one country, even though everyone knew a few days before that they were at war with a different country. I think a lot of people get caught up in the media’s propaganda, or the twisting of the truth in order to get you to believe one thing. In addition, as I mentioned before the media keeps a lot of information hidden from the public therefore numerous people are unaware of the true crisis or problems occurring all around our world. Nineteen Eighty- four is dystopian novel and it is quite obvious to the reader, but the reader is unaware of all the dystopia that is occurring in our world, our country, or even our own state. Rebecca Smith does an excellent job of comparing the dystopia in 1984 to that of China.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKrissy Kowalenko
ReplyDeleteResponse to Rebecca Smith
Rebecca, I love the connection you made with the dystopia in the novel, 1984, to China. I personally find it helpful to refer to a real life example every once in awhile. I truly think you helped people realize how lucky we are to have freedom and rights. So many people take things for granted, and I admittedly have before, but it is important for us to realize that we are truly blessed to get an education, to drive a car, or to have food on the table every night. We constantly overlook the little things we do have in life, and instead dwell upon what we do not have, and most likely do not need.
You said in your original comment, “The Party has taken over Oceania and the lives of everyone living in it. People are in constant fear that the Thought Police will catch them and take them away,” and I completely agree with this statement. This statement made me wonder how many people shared the same fear as Winston and Julia, and how many people were actually against the Party. What about the Parsons family? Was it part of the act that Tom Parsons praised his children for being spies and turning him later? Then, the opposite situation occurs where people are thought to be against the Party, and are secretly Thought Police, like O’Brien and Mr. Charrington.
A paradox is simply a contradiction. The main paradox I focused through the whole novel was, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." Whenever I read this, I always became so confused and I would always think too hard about it. I understand, "War is Peace:" You have to kill people to stop people from killing people, in turn, resulting in peace sometimes. Most of these paradoxes though, have to be viewed through the mind of The Party's government officials. To them, "Ignorance is Strength," because the less their people know, the more power they have. The paradox, "Freedom is Slavery," still doesn't quite make sense to make me. The only thing I can make of it is that to the people of Oceania, their life is freedom, even though we don't see it that way. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, so let me know what you think.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Elizabeth K.:
ReplyDeleteI love your paradoxes! Haha, I never connected that at all! The Ministries of Peace, Love, and Truth are all contradictory. I especially like the paradox for the Ministry of Truth. This is where all of files of history are altered to the way The Party wants it. I really enjoyed your post Elizabeth. :)
Original response:
ReplyDeleteThere are many things that appear in 1984 that can be paralleled in our society today. The telescreens for instance, are in our society in the form of TV commercials, surveillance cameras and even webcams. People have the ability to gain access to other peoples’ webcams and watch them, without the other person ever knowing. The information in Oceania is changed to the Party’s wishes and all of the evidence of the truth is destroyed. The citizens of Oceania are banned from information that the Party does not wish them to see. In our society we have banned books which people decide are unfit for people to read, usually children. We are shielded from things based on other peoples’ ideas as to what we should know, just like the citizens of Oceania. It’s scary knowing that some of the most terrifying aspects of 1984 are also found in our own society. Just like the Party hides the inner workings of their government, we are not partial to what our own government is up to behind the scenes.
The way that people do not question the way they do things or the reason, reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. Guy Montag burns books for a living and does not know of nature and how to slowly take in life, moments at a time. In 1984, everyone just goes about their planned days, from the Two Minutes of Hate, to the time that they have to exercise. No one questions their lifestyles, or else the Party will step in. In Fahrenheit 451, if one was to read a book, they would send the Mechanical Hound on them.
ReplyDeleteOrwell was obviously satirical towards communism, even though he thought himself to be a socialist. Having to live through World War II impacted the way he wrote. It became about how to satirize the corruption that comes with power, as shown in both 1984 and Animal Farm.
In Response to Katie H,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that "War is Peace" for the exact reason that you gave, that sometimes you must kill in order to save innocent lives. It makes more sense once explained versus the plain "War is Peace", because to me, that makes no sense!
In response to Jessi:
ReplyDeleteI hadn’t even thought of how it would be like if our society was exactly like Oceania’s and when reading your description I realized how strange and frightening it would truly be. I can’t imagine living with any one of the things that the citizens of Oceania live with, let alone all of them. It is even scarier to think that if we did live in a world such as that, after a while people wouldn’t even know the difference. People forget and no one would remember what it was like before, just like in 1984.
In response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI was also reminded of Fahrenheit 451 when I was reading 1984. The fact that people, especially Winston when he was re-writing history, went through their lives without question reminded me of the book burnings in Fahrenheit 451. I don’t even think that many of the people even thought about what would happen if they didn’t do what they were supposed to, because they couldn’t imagine not doing those things. They just did what they were told, as they always had and never really thought about what would happen otherwise.
In response to Jessi W.,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that it is difficult for Americans to realize the democracy that we live in. It is scary to think of what could happen if the government gets too strong. Having telescreens in every room, having my every movement being watched, is not an exciting thought.
Will McPeek, reporting in. Original post.
ReplyDeleteThere are some parallels between the dystopian Oceania in 1984 and our society, but they are considerably less than the tinfoil-clad types would have you believe. Such parallels do exist, though, mostly through the near-constant surveillance of modern-day society. A shocking example of this is that the average Londoner is photographed 500 times a day, which doesn't really leave much time to NOT be photographed. It's also pretty much a given that wherever you are, something can be used to track you there. Examples of this include cell phone GPS, the RFID chips within credit/debit/id cards, or even just general surveillance cameras. The internet isn't private, either, where an IP address can give anyone all they need to find you.
Before I start to sound too paranoid, though, this is different from Oceania in that all this information only gets hauled out AFTER you commit a crime. Thankfully, there are no thought police watching all of this, monitoring everybody's day-to-day lives, so if you just go about your business as usual, you aren't always being watched. Usually.
Whilst on the subject, I'd also like to add that our society is much more similar to the one in Brave New World, where pleasure is used to control the people and endless distractions are used to sedate them beyond caring about politics. The following Propagandhi lyric is somewhat related: "I'd rather be in prison in a George Orwellian world/Than a pacified society of happy boys and girls." Just personal opinion.
Response #1: @Sophia Spagnuolo
ReplyDeleteThis is a very apt comparision, as both of these totalitarian societies are based on keeping the populace ignorant. In Fahrenheit 451, it's by burning all of the books, and in 1984, it's by reducing the schooling of the children to lauding of the Party, opposition of the percieved enemies, and how to help the thought police by finding "spies".
However, there are two main differences: One is that there's an actual opposition and seeming way out in Fahrenheit 451, while there's none in 1984. The other is that 1984 has a guy with a cool moustache, while the other does not. As such, it is clearly superior.
Response #2: @Cleyton
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm pretty sure that the one chief firefighter admitted that he read books and that the only reason for his unbridled toasting of them was because that modern-day literature had no content or meaning to him at all. It seems like he's admitting that it wasn't as he'd like things to be, so he may be saying it's a dystopia. Nonetheless, I see what you mean, as that was an isolated case. There really seems to be no escape except death from Oceanian society.
In response to Emily L.:
ReplyDeleteYour connection to the "like" button on facebook was really interesting! One of the things I found fascinating was newspeak and the limitation of vocabulary to make certain thoughts completely impossible. Wouldn't it take decades, maybe even centuries, to completely wipe out old language? How would they do it?
Response to Sarah Thorwall:
ReplyDeleteSarah I love how you compared “1984” to “Wicked“! I’m going to see it in December by the way. I wanted to talk about your media comment. I think that it is very true that people today just believe what they hear on the news or what is written in the newspaper. Like in “1984” everybody who lives in Oceania that they are at war with Eurasia. Not even questioning it. But when Winston does the government didn’t like him doing that. Winston even pointed out that are they just sending troops over or do they even have people who are fighting at all. I think that it is a good point to make because also today in the reality magazines you see in headlines SOME CELEBRITY GETTING DIVORCED! But do we really know if they are? Do we really need to know? And you made a good point to say that everything is two sided, and we don’t really know what the point of the governments rationalizing the people of Ocenia really, until the end. We find out that the reason is because they want to keep the people in control. I feel like the Wizard of Oz did that also to keep everyone on his side and not Elphabas.
Response to Emily Lerner
ReplyDeleteEmily I would have never thought about the book like that until you said something and it clicked into my head! When I realized that Orwell was predicting the future in 1984 I was thinking yeah right this guy is way off but now realizing that yeas we may not have cameras in our houses on telescreens but there are nanny cams, but also the fact that we do have a controlling government. I think it is scary how much our government is like Big Brother. Yes they don’t control everything but if they needed they could easily know everything about someone by just pulling out my file. They would know my family and any medical history I have had. I mean who knows maybe one day we will have telescreens permanently placed in our living rooms to watch us.
Original
ReplyDeleteSomething interesting I wanted to discuss about this novel is how in the end the government drove Julia and Winston apart. I thought this was interesting. I do understand why they did but they took their greatest fear and the only thing they wanted them to say was to take this act and perform it on the other person. I just thought it was interesting and in a quote from the book it says “Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me” (241). I think this quote is memorable to the book because that is what the ministry of Love I about is not only of torture but taking the love away from your spouse or lover like they did from Winston and Julia. Because in the end when the rats are about to be released he was saying him his mind how the only way O’Brian would be happy would be to give Julia up and sacrifice her, and that ended up being Winston’s only way out, and now he can’t look at Julia the same knowing that he sold her under the chestnut tree.
In response to Jessi W.:
ReplyDeleteI have thought about what it would be like to live with a government that strips us of our freedoms. It's a scary thought! I think we sometimes take for granted that we have all of these freedoms. It makes me think of some articles I've read about women in the middle east who get their ears or noses cut off if they disobey their husbands. Crazy right?
Original response
ReplyDeletein response to the first question posed, I can see many similarities to the world we live in today... Telescreens are now a thing of the present. Although they don't listen in on us. Also, the ruling class in todays world is still a very select few who stay in power though various means. Most of the population lies in the middle class, as is the case with the proles. Our society has also been at war for the past decade. We aren't much different than oceana in 1984.
Response #1 @ Will
ReplyDeleteyou sir pose some very fine topics for discussion indeed. Whilst posting upon the same topic, I had forgotten to stop and consider all the monitoring that goes on every day. There is so.much to the extent that a man cannot even have privacy in the peace of his own home. Quite frightful indeed. I wish I had read brave new world, but as I have not, I would feel foolish to comment on the matter.
Response #2 @ stephanie
ReplyDeleteIt was cruel for the party to break the two of them up. But it had to be done in order for the party to truly win and have control of the mind. That was their main goal, and they did it by any means necessary. Quite terrible indeed. And all of their work in the end was just so they would have absolutely no position whatsoever. I hope no party such as this ever exists one day, for if it does, life as we know it shall cease to exist.
Stephen Scarlett
ReplyDeleteOriginal Comment
There are a couple of parallels from Winston’s Oceania and our world. One of them is that we also in a small sense have a few people with most the wealth. There are all the sports stars and actors and actresses and the big entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Then there are some who have a lot of money like doctors. Then the rest is spread out. I am not saying that middle class white collar workers do not make good money but just that the majority of the money goes to a relatively small group of people. Another parallel is there are some things that we do not know about. There are military operations and experiments that I am sure we have no knowledge of. In 1984, however, the almost all facts were changed or deleted. We do know besides the few that are withheld from the general public that everything is in fact truth.
This book is spotted with paradoxes. Some are The Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Love, and the slogan of the party. The Ministry of Truth is a paradox because it really is not about the truth. It is about taking truth and changing it. Winston worked in the Ministry of truth and he would take things said and change them to something the party would like. The Ministry of Love is a Paradox too because it is the branch of government that everyone was the most afraid of because it was so cruel. If you did anything wrong they would take you out of your home then kill you. Also this was the ministry that was in charge of listening to the telescreens which allowed them to see and hear everything in a person’s home. Also when someone loves someone else they are not distrustful of that person. In this way the Ministry of Love is a paradox. The slogan is War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. Every one of those is a paradox in itself. War is the opposite of peace. Freedom is the opposite of slavery. And if your ignorant you do not know what to prepare for so you cannot be strong.
Stephen Scarlett
ReplyDeleteResponse to Lydia Bumann
1984(posted on Things Fall Apart) #1
First of all I want to say that I doubt America will ever get to the point of being like Oceania. It would have to fall a long way and right now the people have too much say in government. Also I do not think that the government really is controlling us. They can’t tell us what to eat or what cars to buy and really that can’t even control the car companies and how the gas mileage is. They say they are going to try and make cars more fuel efficient but I can guarantee that there will still be a lot of cars out there with horrible gas mileage. I drive a Jeep, and Jeeps are never going to get better gas mileage.
Stephen Scarlett
ReplyDeleteResponse to Krissy Kowelenko
1984 #2
I too cannot imagine living in a world with no freedom. Having to always think about what you are saying and in 1984 even control what you are thinking. I think room 101 is pretty intense as well. What I amazed by it, is how it can completely change the way people think, even about those I love. I can try and think that nothing could change the way I feel for those I love but maybe after the torture that Winston went through I would betray those I love as well.
In Response To Stephen Scarlett:
ReplyDeleteYou're totally right about the paradoxes in the novel. It was comical for me to read the book and know how deceptive the party was. I think if I was Winston, I probably would have tried to rebel too.
In Response to Chris Wernette:
ReplyDeleteHaha you're right about the telescreens. I can totally imagine that in the next 100 years or so that they will be mandatory and will be the death of us all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZach Evans
ReplyDeleteOriginal Comment
1984 explores a variety of ideas about our society and the dangers that exist within its infrastructure though quite frankly I think the threat of totalitarian government is long past (or at least in the US). Although, Orwell does bring up an interesting (and truly frightening) concept with his idea of Newspeak, a language designed around eliminating thought. Gosh, I get a chill just thinking about it, an inability to articulate a feeling because that feeling does not exist. How interesting to think that vocabulary is directly linked to democracy itself because the ability to describe thought lies within the power of words.
In modern society we seem to be falling into this dystopian setting, as vocabulary is set aside in favor of speed. The age of text messages and twitter is training people to fall into a sort of assimilation as the language of speed becomes more and more important. 160 characters is becoming a standard to which people live by and unfortunately most things worth saying take longer than that. While I do not think we’ll be speaking Newspeak anytime soon, I do believe a migration is occurring away from the outer rim of vocabulary into a more centralized setting filled with efficiency over accuracy.
Zach Evans
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily Lerner
I would like to start out by saying you are definitely right,the world we live in today is much closer to 1984 then it was when Orwell wrote his story. However I believe that individualism has also seen an exponential rise in the last 50 years. In part to messages like those found in 1984 things like the counter culture revolution, the civil rights movement,the death of the cult of domesticity, and the quest for minority rights have broken down the old standards of conformity. We are currently in a time of rapid change which is violently carving up the foundation of tradition which our world is built upon. This is causing a large resistance in those who favor the old ways. Right now I think we are in the storm before the explosion. The craziness of conflicting sides that will ultimately reach a pinnacle in a world changing event. Usually its war, hopefully not but history seems to follow a pattern.
Zach Evans
ReplyDeleteIn response to Connor M.
Your comment "we are never truly free because we are tied down in slavery by whatever it is we believe, whether it’s religion or ideals," is quite interesting to me (also kudos on fairly exploring controversial topics) because I think you are right in believing that we are never free because the slavery are mind binds us to is an inescapable fate. Going further down the rabbit hole I wonder then if our only real choice in life is choosing the prison in which we will live. But are our ideals really our own or are they something forced upon us by our upbringing and society? I would like to believe I had a choice because my parents never put an ideological expectation on me, they only told me to do the best I can in life. But the choice of no choice created a path of equal constraint because without a clear path to walk down I was left to stay in the cage of my origin, which is belief in the self.So I wonder if my belief in my existence above all others, limits my ability to put belief in anything else. @_@ (sorry for the stream of thought)