In the book so far, the story is going pretty slow, and Orwell's writing is pretty dense so it's making it hard for me to understand. Regardless of the writing type, Orwell is very descrptive when he is talking about how even with the blue sky and the bright sun, "the world [looks] cold" (6). In the story, I also noticed how the poster of a man with the moustache and the caption about the "Big Brother" gets brought up. I kind of wonder who the man is and what his importance might mean because he seems like he might be an important symbol in the story.
I agree with you that the going is a tad on the slow side and the writing is dense, but trust me (going from Rushdie to this) it could be a lot denser. I agree with your point about the description, but I think its very interesting that even though there are a lot of descriptive sentences, which usually make a books language rather light and flowery, this story remains very flat and monotonic, so that the language, though descriptive, reflects the characters' lives and emotions. I do love the first line though: "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen"(1) really drew me in because its so fundamentally weird. I'm liking how the book is going so far and hope that it keeps going that way.
I have to say this book presents a very interesting view of politics. In some ways it follows the New Historicist idea of being a product of its time. This was a time when communism was a huge issue and so we have a form of communism as the enemy in this book in the form of Big Brother and everyone being equal in some way and calling each other comrade etc. But we also have the very thought provoking mentality brought up on pg 41 of making the government infallible because it doesn't allow for any evidence to the contrary. "Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct." Its in complete contradiction to our system today which is maybe why I find this idea completely off putting (a feeling I'm sure Orwell intended me to feel). In our society the past is fixed because its already happened and in that way its completely trustworthy because no one can tamper with it because its already happened. The idea that they put forth here therefore is very unnerving: that you can't even trust what they say happened last week as fact because its changed. You live in a huge cloud of self doubt continuously having what you think occurred contradicted by what everything else tells you occurred.
Something else i wanted to add was that on page 7 and also 17, the Party's slogan, that read "WAR IS PEACE ; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY ; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" popped out to me both times. When I read that, I think it would be a typical thing/poster that would be held up during that time because this story was around the time of World War II, where slavery ended less than 100 years ago(but racism was still pretty active), and I'm not sure if this is true but the government liked it better when citizens didn't know about what was happening behind the scenes. This slogan directly connects to the time period and it makes a lot of sense why they would have it hanging where people would see it and memorize. But I have two questions: does this story take place in America? And second is if the story is already fast forwarded in the future, meaning if right in this certain point in the book, it's 1984?
First to answer your questions: 1) This story takes place in the mythical country of Oceania. Implying that the world is redistributed differently. However, it seems like this place called Oceania is where England usually is. 2) The book is taking place in 1984. This book (at least the copy I have) was copyrighted 1949 so therefore a book taking place in 1984 is a "futuristic novel" but for us in 2011 its the past. Second I agree with your application of the New Historicists theory to this book. This book was published during WW2 and so therefore would be a product of its society. The whole book is centered around the main character trying to figure out and fight what seems like an overwhelming enemy (the party) that is under control of everything and everyone he know. This storyline also sounds a lot like those fighting against Hitler and the Nazis during WW2; the English trying to fight valiantly against an enemy that, for a time, was toppling every country it fought.
Okay thanks Hannah for answering my questions because that does make my reading easier. In this story, the Party has a lot of weird/odd requests or rules that they want people to abide by. "Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema" (69). The fact that they find sex "disgusting" if they are doing it for fun sounds ridiculous. I'm not sure if Sigmund Freud was around when this book published or if he read it, but I know he would disagree with it completely.
In the story, they talk about how the Party alters records and such to change the past so to speak. For example when Winston had to change Comrade Withers file from loyal Party member to enemy. What doesn't really make sense is that even though they change the records, they still have people that probably remember. What happens to those people who remember? Does the Party have some kind of way to make the citizens forget or to not bring up such things that they are trying to change? Lastly, wouldn't the citizens find it suspicious that certain things in the past disappeared like it never happened?
I agree with you that Freud would probably disagree with the ideas about sex in this book. As for your comments on the practice of changing records, I think it is a very interesting thought. In my opinion, Orwell is implying that though people don't necessarily "forget" the social norm isn't to bring up such things, and if a thing is never talked about then eventually it is forgotten. Its not the idea of making people not remember, the idea is to cause universal doubt in what you think happened. It also makes it nearly impossible for anyone to speak out against the Party because they can't prove any of what they are claiming because of course, there isn't any evidence. For example, during Hate Week theres a section of text that talks about how theres a demonstration going on against Eurasia and in the middle of it "it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally." (181). This change occurs during a speech made at a rally by a member of the inner party who, "had switched from one line to another actually in mid-sentance, not only without pause, but without even a break in syntax"(182). The idea is that these people are so good at what they do they leave their citizens in constant doubt of what is happening and what happened the day before because it may all be changed and like this example here, its changed over so smoothly that no one can really be sure the speech was about Eurasia in the first place.
I have to admit, the one thing I never expected from 1984 was a love affair. The story line doesn't seem at all condusive to a romance. On the other hand though, I suppose a romance was an essential part of this novel given that the Party has such interesting views on sex, marraige and family. I really like that Winston has found a friend and a someone who makes his life worth living, someone he can trust, but at the same time, their whole relationship is tinged with a desperation that makes it very sad. I have to say, I really hope that they both live and stay together, but I very much doubt that will happen. This isn't a novel for happily ever afters. For now I will revel in the their happiness and try and convince myself that I don't know that the eventual end to this happy time is coming.
In the book so far, the story is going pretty slow, and Orwell's writing is pretty dense so it's making it hard for me to understand. Regardless of the writing type, Orwell is very descrptive when he is talking about how even with the blue sky and the bright sun, "the world [looks] cold" (6). In the story, I also noticed how the poster of a man with the moustache and the caption about the "Big Brother" gets brought up. I kind of wonder who the man is and what his importance might mean because he seems like he might be an important symbol in the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the going is a tad on the slow side and the writing is dense, but trust me (going from Rushdie to this) it could be a lot denser. I agree with your point about the description, but I think its very interesting that even though there are a lot of descriptive sentences, which usually make a books language rather light and flowery, this story remains very flat and monotonic, so that the language, though descriptive, reflects the characters' lives and emotions. I do love the first line though: "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen"(1) really drew me in because its so fundamentally weird. I'm liking how the book is going so far and hope that it keeps going that way.
ReplyDeleteI have to say this book presents a very interesting view of politics. In some ways it follows the New Historicist idea of being a product of its time. This was a time when communism was a huge issue and so we have a form of communism as the enemy in this book in the form of Big Brother and everyone being equal in some way and calling each other comrade etc. But we also have the very thought provoking mentality brought up on pg 41 of making the government infallible because it doesn't allow for any evidence to the contrary. "Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct." Its in complete contradiction to our system today which is maybe why I find this idea completely off putting (a feeling I'm sure Orwell intended me to feel). In our society the past is fixed because its already happened and in that way its completely trustworthy because no one can tamper with it because its already happened. The idea that they put forth here therefore is very unnerving: that you can't even trust what they say happened last week as fact because its changed. You live in a huge cloud of self doubt continuously having what you think occurred contradicted by what everything else tells you occurred.
ReplyDeleteSomething else i wanted to add was that on page 7 and also 17, the Party's slogan, that read "WAR IS PEACE ; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY ; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" popped out to me both times. When I read that, I think it would be a typical thing/poster that would be held up during that time because this story was around the time of World War II, where slavery ended less than 100 years ago(but racism was still pretty active), and I'm not sure if this is true but the government liked it better when citizens didn't know about what was happening behind the scenes. This slogan directly connects to the time period and it makes a lot of sense why they would have it hanging where people would see it and memorize. But I have two questions: does this story take place in America? And second is if the story is already fast forwarded in the future, meaning if right in this certain point in the book, it's 1984?
ReplyDeleteFirst to answer your questions: 1) This story takes place in the mythical country of Oceania. Implying that the world is redistributed differently. However, it seems like this place called Oceania is where England usually is. 2) The book is taking place in 1984. This book (at least the copy I have) was copyrighted 1949 so therefore a book taking place in 1984 is a "futuristic novel" but for us in 2011 its the past.
ReplyDeleteSecond I agree with your application of the New Historicists theory to this book. This book was published during WW2 and so therefore would be a product of its society. The whole book is centered around the main character trying to figure out and fight what seems like an overwhelming enemy (the party) that is under control of everything and everyone he know. This storyline also sounds a lot like those fighting against Hitler and the Nazis during WW2; the English trying to fight valiantly against an enemy that, for a time, was toppling every country it fought.
Okay thanks Hannah for answering my questions because that does make my reading easier. In this story, the Party has a lot of weird/odd requests or rules that they want people to abide by. "Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema" (69). The fact that they find sex "disgusting" if they are doing it for fun sounds ridiculous. I'm not sure if Sigmund Freud was around when this book published or if he read it, but I know he would disagree with it completely.
ReplyDeleteIn the story, they talk about how the Party alters records and such to change the past so to speak. For example when Winston had to change Comrade Withers file from loyal Party member to enemy. What doesn't really make sense is that even though they change the records, they still have people that probably remember. What happens to those people who remember? Does the Party have some kind of way to make the citizens forget or to not bring up such things that they are trying to change? Lastly, wouldn't the citizens find it suspicious that certain things in the past disappeared like it never happened?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Freud would probably disagree with the ideas about sex in this book. As for your comments on the practice of changing records, I think it is a very interesting thought. In my opinion, Orwell is implying that though people don't necessarily "forget" the social norm isn't to bring up such things, and if a thing is never talked about then eventually it is forgotten. Its not the idea of making people not remember, the idea is to cause universal doubt in what you think happened. It also makes it nearly impossible for anyone to speak out against the Party because they can't prove any of what they are claiming because of course, there isn't any evidence. For example, during Hate Week theres a section of text that talks about how theres a demonstration going on against Eurasia and in the middle of it "it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally." (181). This change occurs during a speech made at a rally by a member of the inner party who, "had switched from one line to another actually in mid-sentance, not only without pause, but without even a break in syntax"(182). The idea is that these people are so good at what they do they leave their citizens in constant doubt of what is happening and what happened the day before because it may all be changed and like this example here, its changed over so smoothly that no one can really be sure the speech was about Eurasia in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, the one thing I never expected from 1984 was a love affair. The story line doesn't seem at all condusive to a romance. On the other hand though, I suppose a romance was an essential part of this novel given that the Party has such interesting views on sex, marraige and family. I really like that Winston has found a friend and a someone who makes his life worth living, someone he can trust, but at the same time, their whole relationship is tinged with a desperation that makes it very sad. I have to say, I really hope that they both live and stay together, but I very much doubt that will happen. This isn't a novel for happily ever afters. For now I will revel in the their happiness and try and convince myself that I don't know that the eventual end to this happy time is coming.
ReplyDelete