 |
| Maybe I should be glad that US and Hong Kong are in the same nation in 1984. |
I first heard about this book when I was in 8th grade in Hong Kong, and I knew that someday I would have the chance of reading it, and finally it is the time.
I feel like 1984 is basically a book about the hopelessness of the people under a solid dictating communist regime. Everyone has got used to the injustice, except for the protagonist Winston Smith, one of the few people who are still conscious and are secretly waiting for a better tomorrow. Despite his hope, sometimes Winston also gets lost. In most of the time in Book One, he does not even know why he is still pursuing for freedom when basically the world is deplorable. To show this internal conflict within Winston, Orwell (the author of 1984) asks the audience a lot of questions, through the character himself. For example, Orwell writes, "For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable--what then?" (Chapter 7, Book One). Orwell means to show Winston's pain and the ironic environment of his world to us by asking these rhetorical questions. We all know that two and two make four, and we don't doubt that. But in the world of 1984, it is twisted to a point that absolutes are no longer absolute and justice is no longer reliable. I think this is just horrible and I really pity Winston after reading through these questions. Therefore I think Orwell does a great job in creating the hopeless atmosphere of 1984 and in the meantime arising reader's sympathy.
So Jordan I actually do have some more analysis about Book One because I think it is just fascinating, but I really don't want to make this entry too long so you don't have to respond too much^^, so I will talk about those later. However I do have a question for you: if you lived in Oceania in 1984, would you rather die because you have no freedom? or would you organize rebellions? Or would you just passively wait for others to rebel?
(By Jordan, 1st entry)
ReplyDeleteIf I were living in Oceania, I would rather organize the rebellions. To me, living in Oceania the way it is in the story is not a life worth living. The restrictions on everything leaves you with no choice on what to do. It is, like you said, a communist regime and if you look at history, it shows that those are places nobody really wants to live in. This is the same case as Winston as he does not want to live a life controlled by Big Brother. He defies Big brother right in the beginning of the book by starting a diary, even though he knows he will get caught. He even looks out for people who might sympathize with him, who he thinks might be Mr. O'Brien. At the same time he is also looking for his enemies. one he pinpoints specifically is the dark haired girl from the fiction department. Winston's hate for the life he lives and Big Brother can be seen every time the Two Minutes Hate plays on the television. He sympathizes with the rebels and when Big Brother appears, he is filled with resentment. However, he cannot help but get caught up in the powerful hate everyone professes for the rebels, and he also cannot escape the encompassing love everyone else has for Big Brother. it sucks him in and traps him in the life he lives. I believe that this relates to real life in that propaganda convinces people to hate something unworthy of their hate. This also is seen countless times in history, and it has proven it effective. People get caught up in public opinion and how they think they should feel, and that causes them to change. There however, has always been a select group which does not get caught up, and an even smaller group which chooses to actively rebel against society and its orders. This is exactly what I feel will be revealed later in the book. My question for you is do you think that propaganda is the cause of the hate in the story. Are all the people falling into a trap set up by the government?
Quote: "Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise" (Book 1, Chapter 1). This relates to getting caught up in the Two Minutes Hate, and also getting caught up in propaganda.
DeleteJames' 2nd entry (For Book 2 of 1984)
ReplyDeleteI think propaganda does contribute to the hate in the story, but it is not the main reason. The hate is mostly created by the brainwashing education of the Oceanian government since its citizens were young. Just as we can tell from the Parsons family, it is the younger generation, the son and daughter of Mr. Parsons that hate the foreigners and traitors. Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, the older generation that was educated before the rise of Big Brother, do not really hate others, but simply submit to the government's authority. The dark-hair girl you mentioned is actually a traitor to the government too. Her name is Julia and she has a relationship with Winston in Book 2. Julia does not hate the traitors but the government. She understands that it is the government, the Big Brother creating hatred and misery to the people but not the Brotherhood or Eurasia. Therefore, I think not really all the people are falling into a trap set up by the government, but only the uneducated Proles and specifically dumb people like Mr. Parsons.
Beside the emergence of the character Julia, Book 2 also develops a lot in the story plot. Julia becomes Winston's secret girlfriend. They both join the Brotherhood, introduced by O'Brien and get to read the Book written by Emmanuel Goldstein. The worldview of 1984, the war pattern and some Newspeak words like doublethink are also introduced. Among all these different plots, the one that fascinated me the most is Goldstein's description of the war pattern in 1984. Wars are fought in order to waste resources and keep the poor people at the bottom, to preserve stability. No more massive casualties are caused by wars. The three superstates are not defeatable and people simply live and die without knowing the world. This worldview shocked me and haunted for a few days. I was so glad that our world is not like Winston's one. But then I think deeper about this, I wonder, if I were living in 1948, as George Orwell did, and I did not get to know the greatness of globalization and democracy, would I rather live as a prole in Oceania, 1984, or a poor guy in Britain, 1948 (the proles' lives are better than the outer party members as their lives are not monitored). I don't know how to answer this question, I don't know, is a world of permanent poverty and peace better, or a changing world of chance but risks and deaths better. What about you, Jordan? Which one do you think is better?
(Jordan 2nd Entry)
ReplyDeleteI think that a world of chance with the consequence of death is better then any world where poverty and government controls the peace. A world where there is no option to do anything but what the government commands is not worth living in. Your choices as a human being are just removed, as if you are not a human at all. To me, choice makes a life worth living. Your choice allows you to become who you truly are, and not another pawn the government can use to get their jobs done. This also relates to the people of the Proles and the people in the Outer Party in "1984." The Proles seem to be able to enjoy their lives as they are generally left alone by the government. While they may live a life of poverty, they have a lot more freedom than the members of the Outer Party do not get to enjoy. The Outer Party, are watched more by the Inner Party. This comes about due to the importances of their jobs in controlling the Proles. One slip up or act of rebellion by a member of the Outer Party could lead to the downfall of the whole system. However, although they are so important, they do not live a life significantly better than those of the Proles. To me, the life of a Prole is better then being a part of the Outer Party. Which part of the class system would you like to be a part of; the Proles, the Outer Party, or even the Inner Party?
Continuing on with the plot of Book 2, Winston remembers the truth of his separation from his family. In a dream, he recounts the event in which he stole the chocolate from them and then ran off, never to be seen again. This he blames on the elimination of human feeling by the Party. This is significantly different from how he thought of the death of his mother and sister in Book 1. There, he though of their death as a sacrifice for his continuation. However, in this turn, he took their lives into his hands and chose to sacrifice them fro his own good. He thought selfishly and this cost people their life. This elimination of feeling is exactly what the Party preys on. They want people who do not care about others, and who only care for the survival of themselves to work for them. This will eliminate any threat to their control as they will listen to the laws and rulings of the Party in order to preserve themselves. They also make excellent members of the Outer Party as they will feel no remorse in tricking the minds of the Proles for their own good. However, once Winston realizes this fact, he seems changed. Yet, this change is only brought about by the return of feeling to Winston, and that is by love. He begins to open up again and humanity begins to return to him. This could be the reason that love in the Outer Party is so strictly controlled. They cannot have anyone with an ounce of humanity left in them work for them, as that person becomes an immediate threat. Emotion's other than constant anger bring back the feelings of humanity that the Party has taken away from the public.
Quote: "The terrible thing that the party had done was to persuade you that mere impulses, mere feelings, were of no account, while at the same time robbing you of all power over the material world" Book 2, Chapter 7). Relates to the removing of emotion by the party.
DeleteJames' 3rd entry (Book 3)
ReplyDeleteIf I can choose, I will definitely be an inner party member. It’s because, first, I will have more influence in the government than the outer party member and the proles, that if I were to rebel against the government, I will have a higher chance of success. And second, if I can’t change the situation of Oceania, at least I enjoy more freedom than the outer party member and a higher living standard than the proles. For example, O’Brien has the power to turn off his telescreen, and he gets to enjoy different luxuries, like wine, as shown in his meeting with Winston and Julia (Chapter 8, Book 2). Although it turns out that everything that happened between O’Brien and Winston is just a scam in Book 3, I do believe that he enjoys those privileges.
Regarding the plot development of Book 3, I think it is entirely a failure. While the story is getting more and more intense but hopeful, the door of hope is shut down by an unreasonable twist, that Mr. Charrington and O’Brien are both actually working for the government. George Orwell does not even explain why or how O’Brien works for the government but not rebel against it. At least he should have mocked at Winston’s dumbness, but not just to appear as he has never been cheating on Winston. And it totally does not make sense for a government to spend 7 years investigating an outer party member’s behavior, when 15% of the population is outer party members. Also the Thought Police definitely does not have to arrest Winston in Mr. Charrington’s house. They could have caught him immediately during his meeting with O’Brien in Chapter 8, Book 2. All these flaws make me so disappointed with the ending. I feel like George Orwell just attempts to darken the story and tells the audience that we are hopeless in Book 3, but fails disastrously. The setting of 1984 is great, but the plot manipulation ruins the book. So, Jordan, do you think Book 3 involves plot manipulation? And how do you feel about this ending?
While I understand where you are coming from, I think that there a reason for the ending of "1984." Throughout the story, we read miniature examples of doublespeak and the methods of control for the Party, however we are not given a clear and definite representation of it in action. During the end of the book, we see the power of it and the realistic effects of it. We are also introduced to the cruel measures that produce that kind of control. It is here that a story of promise and potential happiness begins to resemble the truth of the world "1984" describes. There is no happiness in it, there is only controlled anger. I do not believe George Orwell could have ended it with any happiness, as that would ruin the whole theme of the story. The darkness is needed to promote the feeling of control in that world, and how we should desperately want to avoid becoming like it. This book almost serves as a warning to readers, and the ending perfectly displays that ending. However, like I said, I do see where you are coming from. The last book seems a bit thrown together in the sense that the events of it just come off as random. The fact that Mr. O'Brien is a member of the Department of Love and that he has been watching Wilson seems completely unfeasible. How could he have been so obsessed with and watch him for seven years straight without Wilson noticing? However, this feeling of dissatisfaction with the ending could be caused by the way we were looking at it. We, as the reader, wanted Wilson to succeed and break the suppression by the Party, and when he does not, we do not like the ending of the story. We are left with an empty feeling as if it was all a waste of effort. Yet, I would argue this could also be a part of the theme and moral of this story. It teaches us to look out for the kind of power that could transform our lives into the lives lived in "1984."
ReplyDeleteOne other think I would like to discuss in Book 3 is the torturing of Wilson. I found this interesting, as instead of killing those who rebel, they transform them into functioning members of their society, and firm believes in the Party. While this at first came off to me as a useless hassle and waste of time, as I read on I began to understand the reasoning behind it. As stated in the book, they do not want to create martyrs of those captured (Book 3, Chapter 2). This one quote reveals a lot about the reason they do not kill many of their prisoners. People look up to those who have the strength to rebel. When those people see someone die for what they believe, it drives them to act in that person's place. This incites rebellion, which the Party strives to control. However, when they see that person who once rebelled come to believe in the opposite power, they either become discouraged, or they too see what the opposite power holds as truth. Therefore all the people they release with a new change of mind only serve to strengthen the Party's control over Oceania. Do you think that it is better that they release the newly changed prisoners or do you think it is better that they just erase them from history?
Yes, I think that is definitely the reason why those prisoners are released for a short period of time. The party needs those people, like Winston, to show its mercy and sets a role model for the public. I think it is actually a very wise decision. In another dystopian novel The Hunger Games, the regime of Panem simply suppresses all protesters and tries so hard to silence the public with force, publicly. For example, they kill a massive number of people in District 11 and attempt to take Katniss and Peeta’s lives in the end of the first novel. This is very unwise, since for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore I understand your point in asking this question and I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding the flow of the entire story, I still think it is a failure as I believe too many plot manipulation is involved in Book 3. I personally am a dark person and I love dark story (you can ask Rachel and you will know how dark I am^^). An ending with Winston converted into a mindless person is really good and educational, and I would definitely love it if George Orwell makes it convincing enough, but I don’t think he does. I think one of the reason would be that Book 2, which is about Winston’s growing rebellion and hope, is too long, and Book 3, which is about hopelessness, is too short. George Orwell does not spare enough time in explaining the scheme O’Brien has throughout the 7 years and the torture Winston undergoes. The especially odd part to me is Winston’s transition from rebellion to conscious surrender, where he writes down “Freedom is slavery.” “Two and tow make five.” such sentences unreasonably (Chapter 4, Book 3). If I were George Orwell and I wanted the ending make more sense, I would lengthen the last book and add more portrayal to the character O’Brien, I believe this can make Winston’s change at the end more reasonable.
But generally, I do think it is a good book, and I don’t regret reading it. I would rate it a 7.9 out of 10. What about you?
I would agree with you that this book is a solid eight out of ten. However, I would still argue for the point of Wilson's conversion. Wilson is not a very strong character. He is easily influenced and misguided. This is the case when he finally breaks down and writes down those words. His weakness is seen in his promises. He promises Julia that he will never betray her, and that their love will succeed. Yet, after months of torture, he says, "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!" (Book 3, Chapter 5). It is here that he breaks down completely. He inherent weakness is brought out of him, but he can hardly be blamed for it. He was raised in a society that taught him to live with that weakness. He had no inherent ability to be strong and independent, as well as no way of learning to be that. So with these factors in mind, his ultimate breaking down is only to be expected when dealing with people who are used to being strong and powerful.
ReplyDeleteI thought the flow of the story was actually quite riveting. Its order made sense. In Book 1, Orwell deals with the solitary mind of Wilson, and his desires. He brings about the desires of Wilson to break free, and at the end of Book 1 he enables Wilson to do so. Book 2 then flows well as it describes the complete breaking away of Wilson from the system of Oceania. He becomes rebellious and begins to feel again, something of which no one else can claim to do. This brings about a happy mood, however in a world like Oceana happiness cannot exist, and so the end of Book 2 brings a closing to this happiness through the capture of Wilson. Book 3 throws us right into the truth of the novel. It is a heavy hitter with the torture of Wilson and the true nature of the Party. The methods they use to ensure that not only will the prisoners return to society controlled, but also bring more power to the Party doing so. The cruelty of the Party warns us of the truth of this type of world and creates a feeling of dread for if this ever happened to our way of living. These books flowed right into them and I understood why Orwell wrote what he did for each. As for the length of each book, I think they were fine. Book 1 did not need to be long as it was the introduction to the the whole of the novel. Book 2 was there to create a feeling of hope in the reader. It takes more time to do so after seeing the world that they live in. The length of Book 2 also increases are attachment to the characters and their relationships. Book 3 is then short, but it has meaning as it shows how easily those relationships break. All that time is lost due to the Party. That makes us despise the party even more. Overall, I really enjoyed "1984" and I would definitely recommend it to someone looking for a good book to read.
Fantastic analysis of complex elements--looking at both Winston's character struggles and the structure of the book enables you to say insightful things about Orwell's purpose. He makes us care, then pulls the run from under us to drive home his points about the dangers of a restrictive society where people choose not to think for themselves. Good. (Please remember to consider specific quotes in each entry.)
ReplyDelete