>By the time the book came out in 1949, the Cold War was at its height. The book therefore proved popular. It was almost a matter of patriotism in the West to buy it and talk about it, and perhaps even to read parts of it, although it is my opinion that more people bought it and talked about it than read it, for it is a dreadfully dull book - didactic, repetitious, and all but motionless. It was most popular at first with people who leaned towards the conservative side of the political spectrum, for it was clearly an anti-Soviet polemic, and the picture of life it projected in the London of 1984 was very much as conservatives imagined life in the Moscow of 1949 to be.
>Many people think of 1984 as a science fiction novel, but almost the only item about 1984 that would lead one to suppose this is the fact that it is purportedly laid in the future. Not so! Orwell had no feel for the future, and the displacement of the story is much more geographical than temporal. The London in which the story is placed is not so much moved thirty-five years forward in time, from 1949 to 1984, as it is moved a thousand miles east in space to Moscow. >Orwell imagines Great Britain to have gone through a revolution similar to the Russian Revolution and to have gone through all the stages that Soviet development did. He can think of almost no variations on the theme. The Soviets had a series of purges in the 1930s, so the Ingsoc (English Socialism) had a series of purges in the 1950s. The Soviets converted one of their revolutionaries, Leon Trotsky, into a villain, leaving his opponent, Joseph Stalin, as a hero. The Ingsoc, therefore, convert one of their revolutionaries, Emmanuel Goldstein, into a villain, leaving his opponent, with a moustache like Stalin, as a hero. There is no ability to make minor changes, even. Goldstein, like Trotsky, has 'a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard'. Orwell apparently does not want to confuse the issue by giving Stalin a different name so he calls him merely 'Big Brother'. At the very beginning of the story, it is made clear that television (which was coming into existence at the time the book was written) served as a continuous means of indoctrination of the people, for sets cannot be turned off. (And, apparently, in a deteriorating London in which nothing works, these sets never fail.)
Noah Allen
Yes. 1984 doesn't present anything interesting. The bad guy just wins. The bad thing is just impossible to overcome. It's just presented as this massive, perfect, oppressive machine without anything relateable or human about it, and the protagonist just has shit happen to him, and doesn't have an interesting thought or observation on anything. It's really just a garbage novel jerking off people who hate communism.
I mean, I hate communism, but A Brave New World at least presents a more interesting and plausible vector for indoctrination, than "bad guys did it and everyone just rolled over and took at, and everyone who fought back were squashed by the invincible bad guy."
Luke Diaz
yes
Justin Price
Yes People also (deliberately?) forget Orwell was a socialist
Caleb Gonzalez
Brother is just jealous because his prose couldn't reach one tenth of Orwell's quality
Brayden Hughes
Eh, I think he's right about the political utility of it but I wouldn't agree that the book is as dull as he makes out. It's a simple story told effectively, and I don't see how it's 'motionless' or repetitive.
(It's also odd to see Asimov saying that, since that sentence describes what I remember of Foundation pretty well. IIRC Orwell was certainly better at the basics- prose, characters, dialogue.)
I also think the key thing with 1984 is the powerful images it creates- telescreens, rats, a boot stamping on a face forever, Newspeak, etc. There's a reason this stuff has had a huge cultural impact, and it's not only because it was/is politically useful. It's also not only been useful against the USSR, as the '1984 was not an instruction manual!!!!1!!' meme proves.
Finally, seems to me treating it as simply a copy of the USSR is missing the point a bit. Orwell was developing totalitarianism to an absurd extent where it essentially openly abandoned any claim to represent anything but power. Maybe that's how people imagined the USSR was when they read the book, but the place wasn't actually like that, and I think there was still plenty of imagination on Orwell's part to create it. The exactness of the Trotsky-Stalin parallels does indeed seem lazy, though.
Nolan Wright
...just occurred to me that you could make an argument for the Trotsky-Goldstein thing as deliberate- the regime is literally following the script of a previous successful dictatorship, because it has no need to hold to any reality.
Xavier Smith
faggot. i bet you read it and thought >WHAT??/ why didnt the good guys win :( like in ymy dystopian fictiioN!!!!! REEEEEEE E where was le EPIC REVOLUTIINON!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!
Angel Gray
LoLLPPL
Fuck yoy
Levi Wilson
who are you quoting?
Thomas Hall
>A Brave New World at least presents a more interesting and plausible vector for indoctrination Interesting maybe, but I'd hardly say plausible. The Party is just a totalitarian state that maintains a constant state of war, co-opts some people into the system, thoroughly indoctrinates others, and pacifies the masses with cheap entertainment and (presumably) basic education. The telescreen is entirely plausible- obviously logistically a nightmare, but in practice the aim would be to make people afraid of being watched, not to actually keep tabs on everyone at all times. The Party hopes to make free thought literally impossible, but that hasn't actually happened in the novel's timeframe.
Brave New World, on the other hand, posits that at some point in the past, somehow, a single world government has literally made natural childbirth a massive taboo. I don't recall it ever explaining how the hell that happens. Mind you, it doesn't need to- to my mind it's more a satirical fantasy than any kind of realistic 'prediction'- but for that reason 'plausible' is not the word I'd use.
Ryan Myers
stop posting
Charles Jackson
>People imagine communism as some sort of monumental system where every last clerk is ready to give everything to the system Soviet style communism (as most national varieties of communism) is shit and oppressive, but the people working as bureaucrats aren't loyal. Everything is done with bribes, tiny little gestures, a bit of alcohol or some currently unavailable product that cannot be legally imported. A communist administration will always be chock full of the aforementioned bribes, petty workplace theft and of course black market selling of items. Just look at the western interpretation of the "New Soviet Man" or any russian joke about communists. (Heck, any joke from a Warsaw Pact country)
Adam Carter
>television (which was coming into existence at the time the book was written) served as a continuous means of indoctrination of the people, for sets cannot be turned off. (And, apparently, in a deteriorating London in which nothing works, these sets never fail.) Very weird criticism.
1. The telescreen is clearly more important in letting the authorities watch the people. The television role is important too but secondary. 2. IIRC 'deterioration' and shortages are clearly explained to be part of the Party's plan- it would be able to improve the economy, but doesn't want to. In any case, unless the economy were literally on the brink of collapse (in which case the Party is probably screwed), the Party would obviously devote huge resources to ensuring that a vital part of its control kept working.
For a real world example, North Korea probably has a shit-ton of power cuts, but the nuclear research and production facilities will be well-equipped with back-generators.
Andrew Gonzalez
Didn't the novel somewhat imply that the proles revolted every now and then so they basically had a somewhat free life? The only complete oppression was in the inner party, which is absolutely true, Stalin destroyed many of his adversaries that were close "friends".
Noah Garcia
No Westerner will ever understand that.
Lincoln Gray
don't mistake westerners with americans
Tyler Wood
> (You) >don't mistake westerners with americans Huh?
Hunter Perez
Isn't that what the party tries to present?
That's what frustrates me so much about 1984, is everyone just buckles and is a good party member. No one's trading blowjobs for alcohol and cigarettes, no one's subverting the system at all for little luxuries under the counter, Big Brother just has everything on 100% lock and that's not how humans work. Even if they could monitor everything, the people who have to sift through that dead boring footage every day are gonna let shit slide for favors.
Liam Kelly
That's what I'm telling you. A real dictatorship of that scale would't be orderly and powerful. Those petty officials and clerks would be like little local kings, while party members would be gathering all the wealth. Illegally slaughter a pig? Well then, I'm just going to give this freshly made salami to the local official/party member and just be done with it. It's just a few extra hoops of not doing bureaucracy.
Joshua Sanders
If you want to read a sci-fi novel which actually lets you grok what exactly was wrong with the USSR, you should read Omon Ra.
