Criticism of George Orwell's 1984

[Gigaverse]

It doesn't excuse the light worldbuilding - which I'm under the impression that few authors back in those days were committed to anyhow, but it does line up with the author's intentions.

I'd rather a sleek and engaging narrative over something that gets slogged down in it's own worldbuilding, which is what apparently some of you want.

I'd agree in a heartbeat that, at least by my vague, subjective enjoyment parameters, 1984 is a boring book. But I won't say I'm not grateful that it's been written.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I honestly have never liked the book whatsoever. Found it incredibly dull. I forgot most of it shortly after finishing it.

[Communal concils]

People, you're missing the point. 1984 is intentionally over the top; George Orwell knew it was unrealistic. It was just an over-exaggeration/parody of Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin.

It doesn't excuse the light worldbuilding - which I'm under the impression that few authors back in those days were committed to anyhow, but it does line up with the author's intentions.

1. when has Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union embrace Pornography as a useful tool for propaganda. that seems foolish. also, Ingsoc has clearly distinguish it's self from the USSR and the Third Reich. They did not believe in the end goals of their societies. If this is a parody, then this is the most childish and foolish version of it. Just compare Ingsoc to Democratic Kampuchea or Maoist china instead, they clearly wanted to remove reactionary ideals of the past.

2.the intentions are then very simplistic.

[Togeria]

Like a couple of the peeps here I agree the Worldbuilding is rather light and leaves you wishing for something more. Like how only party members are seriously monitored, proles basically left less guarded than higher ranking members, I believe in the book it’s insinuated that the regime fell too.

It does the job in giving the feeling and vibe of what Orwell was conveying but the actual world could be better imo.

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

I agree, even if they’re not the targets of the worst prosecution, Airstrip 1 is described as pretty shitty. Like you said the fact that in the time of the regime the condition got worse and can be argued worse than before that’s enough for protest.

Further the “middlemen” the position the protagonist is in between the proles and higher up, they’re getting fucked the worse!!! That’s idiotic they’re the main beucratic(I know I messed up the word) spine yet they’re living in the most fear. It’s not a good way to run a regime

[Gigaverse]

People, you're missing the point. 1984 is intentionally over the top; George Orwell knew it was unrealistic. It was just an over-exaggeration/parody of Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin.

It doesn't excuse the light worldbuilding - which I'm under the impression that few authors back in those days were committed to anyhow, but it does line up with the author's intentions.

1. when has Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union embrace Pornography as prostitution. that seems foolish. also, Ingsoc has clearly distinguish it's self from the USSR and the Third Reich. They did not believe in the end goals of their societies. If this is a parody, then this is the most childish and foolish version of it. Just compare Ingsoc to Democratic Kampuchea or Maoist china instead, they clearly wanted to remove reactionary ideals of the past.

2.the intentions are then very simplistic.

Orwell does indeed want to pay more attention to propaganda machines and the bread-and-circus means with which totalitarian regimes can use to influence their populations, more than any other aspect of such systems. I'd say the influence from his days spent in Spain (and his experience with twisted information) continued to linger on, quite heavily, as he wrote 1984.

I'm not here to argue that the book is anything other than simplistic. Suppose you can give it to 10-year-olds, if that's what you want, but the core idea that information can be twisted to such an extent has remained pretty intact - that does the job for me.

[Valrifell]

People, you're missing the point. 1984 is intentionally over the top; George Orwell knew it was unrealistic. It was just an over-exaggeration/parody of Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin.

It doesn't excuse the light worldbuilding - which I'm under the impression that few authors back in those days were committed to anyhow, but it does line up with the author's intentions.

1. when has Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union embrace Pornography as prostitution. that seems foolish. also, Ingsoc has clearly distinguish it's self from the USSR and the Third Reich. They did not believe in the end goals of their societies. If this is a parody, then this is the most childish and foolish version of it. Just compare Ingsoc to Democratic Kampuchea or Maoist china instead, they clearly wanted to remove reactionary ideals of the past.

2.the intentions are then very simplistic.

IngSoc is very clearly taken from Trotsky's analysis of the Nazi regime. The ideology is outright stated to be identical to that of its rivals (Eurasa and Eastasia) and apart of a wider ideology of Oligarchical Collectivism. Goldstein is a Trotsky analogue and the latter referred to Nazism and Bolshevism under similar terms. It's very very clearly an analogue for those totalitarian ideologies if you don't see that then I don't know what book you read.

[Communal concils]

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

I agree, even if they’re not the targets of the worst prosecution, Airstrip 1 is described as pretty shitty. Like you said the fact that in the time of the regime the condition got worse and can be argued worse than before that’s enough for protest.

Further the “middlemen” the position the protagonist is in between the proles and higher up, they’re getting fucked the worse!!! That’s idiotic they’re the main beucratic(I know I messed up the word) spine yet they’re living in the most fear. It’s not a good way to run a regime

It seems weird that the Stalin's regime is seen like this. He was clearly a Machiavellian. All long lasting leaders follow something similar to that. Are we suppose to think that a regime that mindlessly kills and ruins conditions will last long. It would be more interesting if Oceania did goo things for the people, but the equal that goodness with torture and genocide to show how manipulative it it.
also, It seems very classist for Orwell to depict all poles as mindless hedonist that can be convince by porn and rations of food.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

1984 was a book created in June 8, 1949. 4 years after the second world war. George Orwell wrote the book in a time in which the cold war started, and when the memories of Fascism are recent.

The book takes place in a society controlled by three super states. each competing for the earth's resources.The main character( Winston), is a middle class member of the social hierarchy of Oceania. He hates his nation, and wants the proles to break the chains.

Spoilers, he has a weak mind and gives up everything for his big daddy ( Big Brother).

The book is praise from across the political spectrum. It's praise by conservatives, liberals and all the communist and anarchist that say "Not real Socialism". Due to it's history of "anti-stalinism', the book was force into the minds of school students, and is mention in pop culture than more unique dystopias. In fact, it seems hard to find even a little bit of criticism. There is just a cult of personality of Eric Blair, everything he says is right. Everything about his book is perfection to many people. You will find that people will compare the most simplistic things to 1984. "like pink haired SJW is like 1984". People just use the book as an excuse for their own beliefs. George Orwell is a "Socialist", those reformist types. So the conservatives are just happy to use it because it shows the evils of "commies". The anarchist and Left-communist worship the book more. Honestly, they are pissed that Eric Blair's precious anarchist Catalonia(which totally didn't do anything wrong) failed in a few years.

Now,does anyone have any criticism of the book, and do anyone think that the book's influences are bad or stupid ? Also, I want meaningful opposition. I don't want mindless zealotry for their Daddy Blair.
(Image)

I don't understand. You haven't really presented any criticisms of the book other than; some people use it to justify their beliefs (which is not a slight against the book, and not even that bad of a thing in general), some people co-opt it to be anti-Communist (it's not, it's anti-authoritarian), and "Blair is just salty that Catalonia failed." If these are your criticisms, you don't have much.

[Togeria]

People, you're missing the point. 1984 is intentionally over the top; George Orwell knew it was unrealistic. It was just an over-exaggeration/parody of Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin.

It doesn't excuse the light worldbuilding - which I'm under the impression that few authors back in those days were committed to anyhow, but it does line up with the author's intentions.

I agree but I don’t think the over-exaggeration should be excused completely. And while it does get some things accurate especially if they pertain to the raw fear and anxiety of living in a regime like that it doesn’t show other aspects with such care. For example the lack of sight into higher up and prole life, really why anyone would willing choose to migrate there besides as war booty or just being born there, other things like that.

My criticism is that these aspects that were underplayed should’ve been given as much care and detail as other points in the story, especially because I feel it would’ve helped enhance the story.

Speaking literary, it shows one side of evil an extremely smart side, but still one side.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

tbh the worldbuilding of 1984 is, forgive my Newspeak, trash.

I could've done with a little more detail into the world building, but I don't see how it's trash.

[Valrifell]

Like a couple of the peeps here I agree the Worldbuilding is rather light and leaves you wishing for something more. Like how only party members are seriously monitored, proles basically left less guarded than higher ranking members, I believe in the book it’s insinuated that the regime fell too.

It does the job in giving the feeling and vibe of what Orwell was conveying but the actual world could be better imo.

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid.

Because they were deliberately made that way by the regime and are, in fact, distracted with panem et circes. The Party lies to them about the economy, subsidies foodstuffs, and eliminates the possibility of remembering what life was like before Big Brother.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

1984 isn't even a good dystopia. iirc even just mid level people can largely disengage from all the doublethink propaganda stuff.

I don't get how removing words prevent people from rebelling. They can make new words, they can use art and other expressions. Ungood has the same meaning as bad, and you can say that the regime is ungood.

If you make new words, you get unperson'd. Saying the regime is ungood is probably like saying Jesus is the ebodiment of sin, it won't compute.

[Communal concils]

1. when has Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union embrace Pornography as prostitution. that seems foolish. also, Ingsoc has clearly distinguish it's self from the USSR and the Third Reich. They did not believe in the end goals of their societies. If this is a parody, then this is the most childish and foolish version of it. Just compare Ingsoc to Democratic Kampuchea or Maoist china instead, they clearly wanted to remove reactionary ideals of the past.

2.the intentions are then very simplistic.

IngSoc is very clearly taken from Trotsky's analysis of the Nazi regime. The ideology is outright stated to be identical to that of its rivals (Eurasa and Eastasia) and apart of a wider ideology of Oligarchical Collectivism. Goldstein is a Trotsky analogue and the latter referred to Nazism and Bolshevism under similar terms. It's very very clearly an analogue for those totalitarian ideologies if you don't see that then I don't know what book you read.

I now that Goldstein was a representation of Troskyism. Though, my criticism is that basing it on the setting in a troskyite view is counter productive to your message. Trotsky was no liberator, and would have most likely been more oppressive than anything Stalin has or has not done. The troskyite view of permanent revolution is authoritarian and imperialistic at the same time. How is invading and destroying another country for the sake of spreading your ideology not "totalitarian", especially when the populous don't want it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Like a couple of the peeps here I agree the Worldbuilding is rather light and leaves you wishing for something more. Like how only party members are seriously monitored, proles basically left less guarded than higher ranking members, I believe in the book it’s insinuated that the regime fell too.

It does the job in giving the feeling and vibe of what Orwell was conveying but the actual world could be better imo.

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

The book emphatically stated that the proles were led to believe that conditions were getting better by propaganda and edited records. Through Winston's internal monologue, Orwell explained that if someone never new things were better, they couldn't recognize when things were bad, and thus couldn't rebel.

[Valrifell]

IngSoc is very clearly taken from Trotsky's analysis of the Nazi regime. The ideology is outright stated to be identical to that of its rivals (Eurasa and Eastasia) and apart of a wider ideology of Oligarchical Collectivism. Goldstein is a Trotsky analogue and the latter referred to Nazism and Bolshevism under similar terms. It's very very clearly an analogue for those totalitarian ideologies if you don't see that then I don't know what book you read.

I now that Goldstein was a representation of Troskyism. Though, my criticism is that basing it on the setting in a troskyite view is counter productive to your message. Trotsky was no liberator, and would have most likely been more oppressive than anything Stalin has or has not done. The troskyite view of permanent revolution is authoritarian and imperialistic at the same time. How is invading and destroying another country for the sake of spreading your ideology not "totalitarian", especially when the populous don't want it.

The book never actually endorses that message, though. At best you could say it borrows Trotskyite language to make its point about how Fascism and all authoritarian/totalitarian ideologies are actually quite similar and sustain one another. This might reflect on Orwell's politics (I know he was a leftist), but in fact the messaging of perpetual revolution is used negatively as a tool for Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia to maintain control over their population through perpetual warfare.

[Communal concils]

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid.

Because they were deliberately made that way by the regime and are, in fact, distracted with panem et circes. The Party lies to them about the economy, subsidies foodstuffs, and eliminates the possibility of remembering what life was like before Big Brother.

well, then Ingsoc wasn't doing it enough. London's condition had deteriorated, and the people live in worsen poverty. realistically, that country would have already have ended up like 1920's china.

[Togeria]

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

The book emphatically stated that the proles were led to believe that conditions were getting better by propaganda and edited records. Through Winston's internal monologue, Orwell explained that if someone never new things were better, they couldn't recognize when things were bad, and thus couldn't rebel.

Unless they adding new machinery or tech and displaying it couldn’t the contradiction risk showing the lie? It’s one thing to be told things are getting better vs actually seeing it. More were in the perspective of Winston’s present wouldn’t longer time passing risk bigger contradiction considering the party didn’t do more and/or better to hide their steps?

[Valrifell]

Because they were deliberately made that way by the regime and are, in fact, distracted with panem et circes. The Party lies to them about the economy, subsidies foodstuffs, and eliminates the possibility of remembering what life was like before Big Brother.

well, then Ingsoc wasn't doing it enough. London's condition had deteriorated, and the people live in worsen poverty. realistically, that country would have already have ended up like 1920's china.

The Party controls the present, which means they control the past. They've done their best to remove any frame of reference for these people, as mentioned by Xeno. The only people privy to the way things used to be would be the Outer and Inner Party, both of which are heavily monitored. The Proles are kept perpetually contented by illusions of growth and a lack of memory.

[Communal concils]

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

The book emphatically stated that the proles were led to believe that conditions were getting better by propaganda and edited records. Through Winston's internal monologue, Orwell explained that if someone never new things were better, they couldn't recognize when things were bad, and thus couldn't rebel.

That is very simplistic, it's more complex than that. all you have to do is look at your conditions and your lifestyle, no propaganda is enough to do that. even North Korea has a history of riots and dissidence from the 1990's famine, North Korea is still under Juche because the state had solve the issue.

[Orange-Transvaal]

I thought the book was pretty good. The only thing it did however is hurt my brain after reading it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The book emphatically stated that the proles were led to believe that conditions were getting better by propaganda and edited records. Through Winston's internal monologue, Orwell explained that if someone never new things were better, they couldn't recognize when things were bad, and thus couldn't rebel.

Unless they adding new machinery or tech and displaying it couldn’t the contradiction risk showing the lie? It’s one thing to be told things are getting better vs actually seeing it. More were in the perspective of Winston’s present wouldn’t longer time passing risk bigger contradiction considering the party didn’t do more and/or better to hide their steps?

The party deleted and faked records, doing everything it could to hide their steps. Those that were involved steps were trained in doublethink and party propaganda so as to simultaneously justify and forget those steps. The idea that there should be much more people like Winston who break free of the propaganda and oppose the regime is, however, a bit of a plothole, I'll admit.

[Togeria]

well, then Ingsoc wasn't doing it enough. London's condition had deteriorated, and the people live in worsen poverty. realistically, that country would have already have ended up like 1920's china.

The Party controls the present, which means they control the past. They've done their best to remove any frame of reference for these people, as mentioned by Xeno. The only people privy to the way things used to be would be the Outer and Inner Party, both of which are heavily monitored. The Proles are kept perpetually contented by illusions of growth and a lack of memory.

They can use their current present as an anchor, if things are truly getting better but they aren’t noticeably or meaningfully better than at the beginning of the Regime, than who are things truly getting for?

I’m sure the regime will address it, but Oceania if we’re to be believed is a giant nation. So a bigger question can their current logistical situation keep up the fog for longer than the time we’re shown? Even speaking about the isles they’re sizeable both in land and population and bordered by the enemy with only the channel acting as real natural defense.

[Communal concils]

well, then Ingsoc wasn't doing it enough. London's condition had deteriorated, and the people live in worsen poverty. realistically, that country would have already have ended up like 1920's china.

The Party controls the present, which means they control the past. They've done their best to remove any frame of reference for these people, as mentioned by Xeno. The only people privy to the way things used to be would be the Outer and Inner Party, both of which are heavily monitored. The Proles are kept perpetually contented by illusions of growth and a lack of memory.

Even with a blank slate, people can still want something better. They can come up with new ideals. I'm sure that the enlightenment was made completely from human creativity, and I'm sure poor conditions can make the proles find a new enlightenment.

[Communal concils]

I don't get how removing words prevent people from rebelling. They can make new words, they can use art and other expressions. Ungood has the same meaning as bad, and you can say that the regime is ungood.

If you make new words, you get unperson'd. Saying the regime is ungood is probably like saying Jesus is the ebodiment of sin, it won't compute.

1.Well, maybe the dissidence could just leave the country, like what all dissidence without "freedom" of speech do.If you want to be exiled, just join the army and escape into the disputed zone.

2. To say that Jesus is the embodiment of sin is offensive to many Christians, therefor it would have the same negative effects.

[Togeria]

Unless they adding new machinery or tech and displaying it couldn’t the contradiction risk showing the lie? It’s one thing to be told things are getting better vs actually seeing it. More were in the perspective of Winston’s present wouldn’t longer time passing risk bigger contradiction considering the party didn’t do more and/or better to hide their steps?

The party deleted and faked records, doing everything it could to hide their steps. Those that were involved steps were trained in doublethink and party propaganda so as to simultaneously justify and forget those steps. The idea that there should be much more people like Winston who break free of the propaganda and oppose the regime is, however, a bit of a plothole, I'll admit.

That’s kinda self-defeating in a way, which works in this book’s logic, but the doublethink seems like it would inhibit any serious growth which should be something Oceania’s against since it could very well threaten their survival.

It’s just the regimes and especially Oceania are portrayed to be horrors that can possible come to fruition but with the logic that’s displayed and the rules of the IC universe it’s makes it harder especially now that I’m older to sympathize with and play into the atmosphere Orwell was going for.