Criticism of George Orwell's 1984

[Communal concils]

I simply want better details on the society. Not simply that things are bad, but a greater detail to the state and it's opposition.

You're free to want that, and there's something called fan fiction for that.

Orwell, however, was not trying to create an immersive world which you could practically play an RPG game in. He was pushing a given political agenda, a very broad one (totalitarianism is bad!) and not trying to worldbuild. That was far, far beyond the point of the book.

world building is a useful tool for your story. It can simply help your views become more complex. If Orwell was more complex, then their would be little to no confusion in his political views or the message of the book. Not all world building is use for rps , and it's use to avoid vagueness in messages. as for that simple message, I'll say that it failed.That is because it's mostly enjoyed by people that don't give a damn for his real message. they use it as a weapon to fight of opposition, until their is only zealotry.

[Communal concils]

well, I would just call him a Social Democrat.However, you are correct.

Well, which one is it? Because Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists are different.

Let's just call him a libertarian socialist, because he takes so much influences from anti-Stalinist leftist. How ever, I consider Troskyites far from libertarianism.

[Caracasus]

You're free to want that, and there's something called fan fiction for that.

Orwell, however, was not trying to create an immersive world which you could practically play an RPG game in. He was pushing a given political agenda, a very broad one (totalitarianism is bad!) and not trying to worldbuild. That was far, far beyond the point of the book.

world building is a useful tool for your story. It can simply help your views become more complex. If Orwell was more complex, then their would be little to no confusion in his political views or the message of the book. Not all world building is use for rps , and it's use to avoid vagueness in messages. as for that simple message, I'll say that it failed.That is because it's mostly enjoyed by people that don't give a damn for his real message. they use it as a weapon to fight of opposition, until their is only zealotry.

There are things that Orwell does very well in the book. The sense of disconnect between the real and what is in front of him, for instance, is a nice part of it and he does a great job of building up paranoia.

However the whole thing really is dross to be honest. Aside from a lack of direction, Orwell resorts to some of the laziest literary tricks going. The bit where Winston gets a book of secret knowledge for instance where the writer can handily cram a potted history of the place down the readers' throats is only one example. Even though later that information is revealed to be somewhat dubious, it's still lazy and clumsy.

[Communal concils]

world building is a useful tool for your story. It can simply help your views become more complex. If Orwell was more complex, then their would be little to no confusion in his political views or the message of the book. Not all world building is use for rps , and it's use to avoid vagueness in messages. as for that simple message, I'll say that it failed.That is because it's mostly enjoyed by people that don't give a damn for his real message. they use it as a weapon to fight of opposition, until their is only zealotry.

There are things that Orwell does very well in the book. The sense of disconnect between the real and what is in front of him, for instance, is a nice part of it and he does a great job of building up paranoia.

However the whole thing really is dross to be honest. Aside from a lack of direction, Orwell resorts to some of the laziest literary tricks going. The bit where Winston gets a book of secret knowledge for instance where the writer can handily cram a potted history of the place down the readers' throats is only one example. Even though later that information is revealed to be somewhat dubious, it's still lazy and clumsy.

He does indeed have a good way of doing unreliable narrators., like the reader is confuse of what is true or not in the book. However, it becomes a waste of time to give so much information and then exposes it as not true.

[Thermodolia]

1984 should be an introduction to dystopias for kids aged below 10.

What about the sex parts? Most people don't know what that is until at least 10, maybe older

Most kids know what sex is around that age

[Caracasus]

There are things that Orwell does very well in the book. The sense of disconnect between the real and what is in front of him, for instance, is a nice part of it and he does a great job of building up paranoia.

However the whole thing really is dross to be honest. Aside from a lack of direction, Orwell resorts to some of the laziest literary tricks going. The bit where Winston gets a book of secret knowledge for instance where the writer can handily cram a potted history of the place down the readers' throats is only one example. Even though later that information is revealed to be somewhat dubious, it's still lazy and clumsy.

He does indeed have a good way of doing unreliable narrators., like the reader is confuse of what is true or not in the book. However, it becomes a waste of time to give so much information and then exposes it as not true.

He's a bit like Phillip K Dick in that regard, and just like PKD did occasionally, Orwell pushes the whole 'murky world of unreliable narrators, paranoia and suspicion' far too far and you're left with a big old mess.

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

I didn't think it was too bad a book granted it is a bit weak in areas but some of the things have more or less come true just look at big brother and CCTV now.

[The New California Republic]

Not sure why this thread isn't in Arts & Fiction, but never mind...

[Old Tyrannia]

The problem with 1984 is that few people who have read the book really understood it, as this thread exemplifies.

Not sure why this thread isn't in Arts & Fiction, but never mind...

It is now.

[Bears Armed]

Aside from a lack of direction, Orwell resorts to some of the laziest literary tricks going. The bit where Winston gets a book of secret knowledge for instance where the writer can handily cram a potted history of the place down the readers' throats is only one example. Even though later that information is revealed to be somewhat dubious, it's still lazy and clumsy.

It was a rather newer trick back in those days...

[Caracasus]

I didn't think it was too bad a book granted it is a bit weak in areas but some of the things have more or less come true just look at big brother and CCTV now.

Thank you for highlighting another problem with the book so precisely.

Orwell's suggestion that authoritarian regimes would use technology to keep hold of power is hardly a breathtaking revelation. The fact that the Nazis used IBM technology to track Jews for instance shouldn't really shock anyone.

Instances of such technology in our daily lives does not equal society becoming like what Orwell said it would in 1984. Pointless authoritarianism being a bad thing is, again, not exactly a contraversial or new idea.

[Thermodolia]

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

Outer-Party members (the middle class that Winston is in) can't, actually. They're the ones most aggressively targeted by the propaganda and surveillance machines, actually. The Proles are left to be disinterested and pacified through circes et panem, and the Inner Party members buy into the IngSoc wholesale anyway (as far as we know).

Ya id like to see a book that comes from the view of an inner party member. I wonder if it would prove my theory that “airstrip one” is just Great Britain in a very NK state. The superstate doesn’t exist and is just propaganda fed to everyone, in reality the government is an super isolationist state in a normal 1980s

[The New California Republic]

Not sure why this thread isn't in Arts & Fiction, but never mind...

It is now.

Oh. Thanks.

[Caracasus]

Aside from a lack of direction, Orwell resorts to some of the laziest literary tricks going. The bit where Winston gets a book of secret knowledge for instance where the writer can handily cram a potted history of the place down the readers' throats is only one example. Even though later that information is revealed to be somewhat dubious, it's still lazy and clumsy.

It was a rather newer trick back in those days...

Nah, pretty sure Lydgate and Chaucer were up to that in their dream visions - though obviously much more excuseable given what both of them were writing etc.

[New Totzka]

I think Orwell wasn't sure if he was writing satire or parable. Some elements, like the kids spying on their parents, Julia and Winston unwittingly giving confessions to O'Brien or "2+2=5" seem satirical but then you have the chapter dedicated to explaining how Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia came to exist and operate and its like Orwell's generally afraid this is how the future will turn out.

[Caracasus]

I think Orwell wasn't sure if he was writing satire or parable. Some elements, like the kids spying on their parents, Julia and Winston unwittingly giving confessions to O'Brien or "2+2=5" seem satirical but then you have the chapter dedicated to explaining how Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia came to exist and operate and its like Orwell's generally afraid this is how the future will turn out.

Oh yeah, he certainly was. I am paraphrasing horribly but the bit where we're told the future is a boot stepping on a human face forever really seems like it's Orwell speaking his fears for humanity's future.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I didn't think it was too bad a book granted it is a bit weak in areas but some of the things have more or less come true just look at big brother and CCTV now.

Thank you for highlighting another problem with the book so precisely.

Orwell's suggestion that authoritarian regimes would use technology to keep hold of power is hardly a breathtaking revelation. The fact that the Nazis used IBM technology to track Jews for instance shouldn't really shock anyone.

Instances of such technology in our daily lives does not equal society becoming like what Orwell said it would in 1984. Pointless authoritarianism being a bad thing is, again, not exactly a contraversial or new idea.

It was rather new at the time, especially since very little was known about Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union at the time.

[Naralanesia]

I watched the movie version of it; is it different than the book?

[Valrifell]

I think Orwell wasn't sure if he was writing satire or parable. Some elements, like the kids spying on their parents, Julia and Winston unwittingly giving confessions to O'Brien or "2+2=5" seem satirical but then you have the chapter dedicated to explaining how Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia came to exist and operate and its like Orwell's generally afraid this is how the future will turn out.

It was never meant to be humorous, all of the scenes with O'Brien in Room 101 are meant to illustrate how spooky and powerful the state is, and why giving it a lot of authority is like a really bad idea. It also shows how history is nothing more than a narrative that can be controlled.

In fact the scenes with Winston in MiniLuv are my favorite of the book.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think Orwell wasn't sure if he was writing satire or parable. Some elements, like the kids spying on their parents, Julia and Winston unwittingly giving confessions to O'Brien or "2+2=5" seem satirical but then you have the chapter dedicated to explaining how Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia came to exist and operate and its like Orwell's generally afraid this is how the future will turn out.

Kids turning in their parents is no joke. It regularly happens in real life authoritarian regimes. The unwitting confession demonstrates how endemic the party is and how you can't truly trust anyone. The 2+2=5 concept demonstrates the complete dominion over the mind that the regime has, showing totalitarianism at its most basal form. These are not mere satire, these are very deep and poignant themes.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think Orwell wasn't sure if he was writing satire or parable. Some elements, like the kids spying on their parents, Julia and Winston unwittingly giving confessions to O'Brien or "2+2=5" seem satirical but then you have the chapter dedicated to explaining how Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia came to exist and operate and its like Orwell's generally afraid this is how the future will turn out.

It was never meant to be humorous, all of the scenes with O'Brien in Room 101 are meant to illustrate how spooky and powerful the state is, and why giving it a lot of authority is like a really bad idea. It also shows how history is nothing more than a narrative that can be controlled.

In fact the scenes with Winston in MiniLuv are my favorite of the book.

When I first read 1984, the MiniLuv part freaked me out and depressed me for a while. God, I need to read 1984 again.

[New Totzka]

Kids turning in their parents is no joke. It regularly happens in real life authoritarian regimes. The unwitting confession demonstrates how endemic the party is and how you can't truly trust anyone. The 2+2=5 concept demonstrates the complete dominion over the mind that the regime has, showing totalitarianism at its most basal form. These are not mere satire, these are very deep and poignant themes.

The scene with Parsons and Winston in the ministry of love is pitch black humour. Winston being forced to believe 2+2=5 is dark but its also somewhat absurdist as the state goes to extreme lengths just to prevent any form of intellectual resistance from Winston.

As for the Confessions...

‘You are prepared to commit murder?’
‘Yes.’
‘To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death
of hundreds of innocent people?’
‘Yes.’
‘To betray your country to foreign powers?’
‘Yes.’
‘You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming
drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal
diseases—to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?’
‘Yes.’
‘If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to
throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face—are you prepared to
do that?’
‘Yes.
(page 218)

Come on, its just funny how easily Winston and Julia are duped.

[Hanafuridake]

It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

[Sanctum and Ultima]

It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Brave New World is more realistic and to be honest, sounds like our world. Aldous Huxley was the first doomer ever.

[Communal concils]

Kids turning in their parents is no joke. It regularly happens in real life authoritarian regimes. The unwitting confession demonstrates how endemic the party is and how you can't truly trust anyone. The 2+2=5 concept demonstrates the complete dominion over the mind that the regime has, showing totalitarianism at its most basal form. These are not mere satire, these are very deep and poignant themes.

The scene with Parsons and Winston in the ministry of love is pitch black humour. Winston being forced to believe 2+2=5 is dark but its also somewhat absurdist as the state goes to extreme lengths just to prevent any form of intellectual resistance from Winston.

As for the Confessions...

‘You are prepared to commit murder?’
‘Yes.’
‘To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death
of hundreds of innocent people?’
‘Yes.’
‘To betray your country to foreign powers?’
‘Yes.’
‘You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming
drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal
diseases—to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?’
‘Yes.’
‘If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to
throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face—are you prepared to
do that?’
‘Yes.
(page 218)

Come on, its just funny how easily Winston and Julia are duped.

In away, the party is good at forcing people to speak the truth. O'Brien was good at manipulating the truth of out of Winston. Of course when the truth is spoken, it is used against itself and then it's discarded.