Criticism of George Orwell's 1984

[Communal concils]

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

True all although if you read [parts of the book again the middle strata is also the most closely monitored because "no one cares what the proles say" as opposed to any party members.

Well, the governments of all history had to always hear what the lower class says. If they don't give even little concessions, then they loose that power. If Oceania was real, then it will collapse like the soviet union in the 19190's, all because they avoided what the population said.

[New haven america]

I have to laugh at your mentioning of "More unique dystopias."

Dystopias isn't just the opposite of a Utopia, no, they're inescapable hellholes much like the ones found in 1984 (You know, the book that invented the concept) and A Brave New World. People always forget that fact because they try to make good vs. evil stories in dystopias that aren't really dystopias (The YA demographic is infamously bad at this).

[Hanafuridake]

While I do find looking back on the book the world of 1984 to be extremely simplistic and dull, I do think it did partially help inspire me to get into and understand politics at a young age and learning about the extreme and radical views of both ends of both left and right wing ideologies. Plus it did help me get into learning a bit about religion in Asia weirdly enough since in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism the book talks about Death-Worship and the "Obliteration of the Self" in Eastasia.

The book actually, reinforced my Far-Leftist views.

as for the two other states, I think it was lazy to actually say they were all the "Same". though, that portion of Eastasia's ideology seems to mirror imperialist Japan.

The Obliteration of Self part seemed little more than Orientalism, since it's a common misconception about Buddhism.

[Klorgia1]

Seems to me that a prevailing opinion would be that the book is lacking detail, which probably why it works so well for political pundits. You can give a quick synopsis, and fit most any opponent into the regimes of 1984 quite easily by taking a characteristic or two of the empires.

[Forsher]

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.

They really do not have the same meaning.

Suppose, for a moment, that cats are defined as "not dogs". If so, cat and not dog would have exactly the same meaning, since by definition this is the case. In reality we know that frogs are neither cats nor dogs so cat and not dog aren't the same thing.

Bad is not defined as "not good". For example, it is usually not a good idea to use examples on the internet because they so rarely actually lead to improved communication. On the other hand, examples aren't really a bad idea by this logic unless they actively make communication worse... which might be the case, of course.

As Sirius Black once said in a movie, "The world is not split into good people and Death Eaters [bad people]"... there are medium people too.

As to 1984... I have never felt any particular inclination to read it again. I read everything again. Take what you will from this.

[Soviet Tankistan]

It is a lazily written and insanely boring book. I find it a mystery why so many people refer to it, the clumsy allegory and heavy handed implications make it bad enough. It gives me the feel of satire, but the humor is completely lacking. It is too ridiculous to take seriously and it reads like an internet user was an author and decided to expand their absurd strawman. There are many socialists who wrote dystopia that did better than Orwell did in 1984. Economic and social philosophy writing is much more readable and enjoyable. I approached 1984 because it was talked about often, but I was severely disappointed. My expectations were too much for it.

[Forsher]

It is a lazily written and insanely boring book. I find it a mystery why so many people refer to it, the clumsy allegory and heavy handed implications make it bad enough. It gives me the feel of satire, but the humor is completely lacking. It is too ridiculous to take seriously and it reads like an internet user was an author and decided to expand their absurd strawman. There are many socialists who wrote dystopia that did better than Orwell did in 1984. Economic and social philosophy writing is much more readable and enjoyable. I approached 1984 because it was talked about often, but I was severely disappointed. My expectations were too much for it.

Satire and humour are not equivalent. Nor does satire require humour.

[Soviet Tankistan]

It is a lazily written and insanely boring book. I find it a mystery why so many people refer to it, the clumsy allegory and heavy handed implications make it bad enough. It gives me the feel of satire, but the humor is completely lacking. It is too ridiculous to take seriously and it reads like an internet user was an author and decided to expand their absurd strawman. There are many socialists who wrote dystopia that did better than Orwell did in 1984. Economic and social philosophy writing is much more readable and enjoyable. I approached 1984 because it was talked about often, but I was severely disappointed. My expectations were too much for it.

Satire and humour are not equivalent. Nor does satire require humour.

Satire has entertainment purposes unlike 1984.

[Forsher]

Satire and humour are not equivalent. Nor does satire require humour.

Satire has entertainment purposes unlike 1984.

1984 does entertain many, many people. That something is made to entertain does not entail its actually entertaining any specific person.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Satire and humour are not equivalent. Nor does satire require humour.

Satire has entertainment purposes unlike 1984.

Speak for yourself m8, 1984's heaps entertaining.

[Infected Mushroom]

Its a terrible book. Overstated, boring, unimaginative... garbage in all respects.

I tried to read it and I must say, I was not entertained.

[Minachia]

Its a terrible book. Overstated, boring, unimaginative... garbage in all respects.

I tried to read it and I must say, I was not entertained.

I don't think the point of the book was to entertain you.

I haven't even read it, and I know that.

[The New California Republic]

If you're looking for dark humour in 1984 itself, you're looking in completely the wrong place. You really need to examine its afterlife as a novel stripped of all historical context, complex interpretation or author's voice and repackaged as a piece of anti socialist propoganda to generations of schoolchildren far more insiduous and effective than anything Orwell could dream up.

That's the biggest irony, especially when it's the conservatives that live in contradictions.

What a strawman.

[Benuty]

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

At the end of the day, I think Orwell was trying to get the point that even though people didn't buy into the propaganda they sure as hell couldn't trust what was real. Especially with the thought police using upper party members to rouse people up so they could continuously sacrifice them during hate week after "reforming them".

[Benuty]

The book actually, reinforced my Far-Leftist views.

as for the two other states, I think it was lazy to actually say they were all the "Same". though, that portion of Eastasia's ideology seems to mirror imperialist Japan.

The Obliteration of Self part seemed little more than Orientalism, since it's a common misconception about Buddhism.

I always thought it was Japanese kamikaze taken to the point of absurdity since some versions recount it as literal worship of ones death.

[Benuty]

Its a terrible book. Overstated, boring, unimaginative... garbage in all respects.

I tried to read it and I must say, I was not entertained.

I wouldn't say it's so much terrible as it is a political fiction piece concerning end goal achievement of Stalinism. I mean it's not like Orwell didn't have an anti-Stalinist stance in his other works such as Animal Farm.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

The big question is who is going to be the first to get a novel called 2084 on the market?

[Treadwellia]

I teach English and was first exposed to 1984 during my senior year of high school. As a dystopian novel, it's one of my personal favorite pieces of literature, but I've read a fair amount of Orwell's work, and the chief criticism I have is not one explicitly about 1984: Orwell basically argued the same points in his novels and his essays, repeatedly. If you've read any one of his materials, you've read the core of all of them, it seems.

[Heloin]

My one piece of criticism is that I feel the history of the book and newspeak aren't explained that well

That'd miss the point of the whole book. The history no longer exists because the party says the history doesn't exist. Newspeak just is because the party says newspeak is.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I liked 1984. It's by no means my favorite book, but it's not bad.
Some aspects of it didn't make much sense ("how the hell did IngSoc come to power in the rabidly anti-socialist '50s US and UK?" is probably the biggest one to me), but "making logical sense" wasn't exactly the point of 1984's worldbuilding. Besides, few dystopian fiction novels have settings that make sense. It's about how the characters react to their society, not how that society came to be.

[Bears Armed]

(Never mind...)

[West Leas Oros 2]

The book is, in my opinion, good. I do find it to be very surface level with it's society though. Oceania seems almost too cartoonishly totalitarian for me to take it seriously. Also, I admit that the love story took me out of the narrative.

[Chan Island]

Criticism? Nah mate, 1984 is a very good book.

Also quite surprised how many don't get the whole language part. Especially since it is dealt with pretty comprehensively in the book explaining why it's done.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Criticism? Nah mate, 1984 is a very good book.

Also quite surprised how many don't get the whole language part. Especially since it is dealt with pretty comprehensively in the book explaining why it's done.

Especially in a world of collateral damage, enhanced interrogation, and extraordinary rendition.

[Chan Island]

Criticism? Nah mate, 1984 is a very good book.

Also quite surprised how many don't get the whole language part. Especially since it is dealt with pretty comprehensively in the book explaining why it's done.

Especially in a world of collateral damage, enhanced interrogation, and extraordinary rendition.

Reading it all through this thread, it's actually a bit frightening how people aren't getting it. Words yield enormous power, and if you remove one you can, in fact, remove a concept.

For example, in Spanish there is a word for someone who is sleep deprived despite having had a night of sleep (because it was terrible, had nightmares- whatever it was). Now, in English there isn't one but I'm sure now that I have raised the idea to you you must be consciously thinking about those times you or someone you know experienced this. You might even think this is a point for Orwell being wrong.

But consider this- how often did you actually think about this aspect of life? Maybe once or twice when you asked a classmate or coworker why they look so tired and they told you didn't sleep very well, but otherwise? And when that did happen, how likely were you to suspect a different reason- after all, video games, binge watching shows and drinking 2 cups of coffee last thing before bed might all be causes of not having a good night's rest. Perhaps stress itself kept the person awake, leading a self-perpetuating cycle of repeated problems in life and at night.

Perhaps we could have a more grown-up conversation about work, sleep and living life if we took the term from Spanish. But we don't, and that suits the people in power who don't want to risk having to shorten your productive work hours for the sake of your rest and mental health.

This is why Newspeak is so ludicrously terrifying. By erasing the concept of freedom, liberty, privacy and democracy from the language, you can and will affect the ways in which people think. And even if somehow a person did break the conditioning and started to desire these things, it would be near on impossible for them to efficiently communicate that desire to anyone else. Even if you did make up a new word for it, you would have to explain the new word to everyone you were trying to convince- time and effort that could have gone to building up a resistance utterly wasted. And since Big Brother is always watching, he won't have a hard time figuring out what you're doing and take you to the ministry of Love before you even finished explaining anyway.

I mean, for Pete's sake Syme literally explains this word for word to Winston in the book. You'd think this wasn't rocket science.