Is this the most entry level book of all time?

I read 1984 when I was 12. It's a one theme book with hardly any complexity.

>It's a one theme book with hardly any complexity
It's obvious you were too young for it at 12. It's not very complex for an adult but you're being ridiculous.

I didn't have any problem with it at that age either. Don't project your experience and abilities onto others

There's a difference between not having any problem understanding it and picking up on everything it presents in the context of the real world as well as what it meant in the time it was published.

it's probably a lot of peoples entry to serious lit so ye

I read it in my 20s. 1984 is amazing, mostly because my relatives who lived in soviet union say that its very near to reality(hell in north korea they even have the tv's you can never turn off) metaphors are on point and its so well written that you can taste the despair and feel the atmosphere

In many cases I'd agree but not with something like 1984. The book is absurdly simple. Again, it was easy to understand, even in context, at that age.

Go to bed Orwell

Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree

>the most entry level book of all time?
No? That'd probably be the ABCs

Try thinking next time you start a bait thread about a book instead of fostering discussion

>political undertones

The whole book is a major political overtone. The whole fucking book

I do not understand why Veeky Forums on the whole tends to immediately reject the artistic merit of works that are accessible. Just because the books a smooth and easy read doesn't mean it's not an incredibly valuable book that everyone should read at some point.

Making a work obscure and difficult to understand is the classic strategy of a hack who has nothing to say but what the reader can read into him. Orwell was the complete opposite, one never truly wonders what he is trying to say with the memory hole, newspeak, doublethink and the underlying battle between the modern and postmodern which eventually ends in the modern being tortured and bent to the whims of the relative, left as a traumatized, scarred husk of a man.

unsheathes infinite jest

The wind wishes to rip the paper from my hands causing my already horrid handwriting to worsen.

I feel like this need a punctuation of sorts, but I am but a humble uneducated mechanic. Tell me Veeky Forums. Am I correct, or nah?

>I do not understand why Veeky Forums on the whole tends to immediately reject the artistic merit of works that are accessible
Meanwhile they read accessible hipster shit like John Green's DFW, fatty James Joyce and Don DeLillo, the hipster Stephen King

I just bought that. What am I in for?

>I do not understand why Veeky Forums on the whole tends to immediately reject the artistic merit of works that are accessible
It fucking doesn't.

We jizz buckets at Borges. Is he anything but accessible? No. But we jizz buckets.

Nineteen Eighty-Four has two problems; one, it is not that good (although it's not that bad, either). Two, it is loved to fucking death by every Randian redditor ever. This compounds the anti-jerk we have here in contrarianland.

It's okay. Worth reading for yourself, if you're into that kind of thing.

...

>two problems; one, it is not that good (although it's not that bad, either).

What do you mean it's not good? Can you put up something substantive when you mean it's a good but not bad book?

Anyone? I'm actually retarded, and want help. I figured I'd get backlash for making a whole thread for this.

Yes, but I'm lazy.

Bad prose (though it has it's good points, when in the context of the novel), simple (and political) theme, &c.
We have threads for this kind of thing.

Oh. I was honestly unaware. I've never really ventured here because I assumed it was much like /mu/, but for literature. And /mu/ is aids.

It's better than /mu/, but it's not that different in tone.

>what am I in for
Memes

Not him but it's less a novel than a political pamphlet with a thin story on top

I think it is ironic, perhaps not, that certain tenets of the right have appropriated words from this very book.
I can't witness a comment section without some guy talking of newspeak and so on and so on.
Very obscene and extremely painful to watch.

Is it the same for you if someone accuses another of doublethink? I think it's sometimes appropriate when people have double standards.

>Is it the same for you if someone accuses another of doublethink? I think it's sometimes appropriate when people have double standards.
I am not sure what you mean. I think it is fine if you use words from literature but I see and thus associate Orwellian words with conspiracy theory kind of stuff.

I never rejected it artistically in that post. I said it was simple and easy to read even for a young teen. Now, artistically, it's also not that great but that's a different conversation.

Hemingway for example is easy, simple, accessible while still having artistic merit. Orwell only shows the former.

I meant to ask if it was painful for you to watch someone use the term 'doublethink' even when it's applicable just because it's from the book.

He's too overt with his message for one. There is zero subtlety.

>Orwell only shows the former.
This is a matter of taste.

I agree it was one of my first novels and i absolutely fell in love with it, in a absolute despair kinda way. The only part i don't like is when the entire book slows to a halt to tell the laws of the country.

Welcome to the world of fucking everything.

>objectively something
Stop it.
It's a book that really makes u think

In all honesty, it could be extremely painful.

Big Brother's a big guy

It's entry level to a higher level of literature.

This is the perfect book to read when graduating from YA fiction.

He is pure ideology and extremely obscene actually.

I hope not. What would that say about me considering I can't bring myself to finish this book?

Yeah. I could see that. Shitty dystopian YA to Nineteen Eighty-Four.

But that could work to its disadvantage. If they read "real lit" and it's more of the same...

Good for you dude. This is actually one of the first books I read that genuinely launched me into a true love of reading. Do yourself a favour though, stay the hell away from this board before you get told to struggle through tomes you don't care about by the pretentious cunts this place is, in fact, full of.

Should really take you half the time to read a book of that length, especially with the relatively simple prose. At least you're trying though.

For a lot of people just starting out it's difficult to focus. I read about 500-600 words per minute when it's in short bursts (less than a minute) but if I read a book for an hour or so I usually spend 2-3 minutes on every page.

I re-read paragrafs or even entire pages whenever I lose focus (which is quite often), I daydream, get distracted, get bored etc.

I guess you could use a comma after hands, but it isn't really necessary.

I have a question Veeky Forums. Excuse me, if it does not belong ITT, I am a Veeky Forumsizen, that likes reading but never browses this board.

I recently purchased David Egger's the circle. I needed something to read on a bus trip. I had forgotten to take a book with me, as I was in a bit of a hurry.

I only read the reviews(appraisal) on the front pages and noticed that they all come from mainstream media outlets, which I highly distrust when it comes to taste.

Is this book any good. Does it really have anything new - thought provoking - to offer? Or is it just a normie "OMG the internet is so evil" novel?

Please guide me to the right thread to ask this question, if me posting here is really wrong.

Thank you.

...

Thank you :*

>a book released less than 100 years ago is the most entry level book of all time

Yeah, before it was even published people were reading Orwell to get into literature. Literally the most entry level of ALL TIME.

People who prefer Huxley to Orwell are everything wrong with everything

you were always trying super hard on moo to look intellectual, so now you've fucked off to another board to further pursue being a tryhard pseud. wow

>people (most likely age 16-22) unironically hating on 1984 in this thread
I'm getting too old for this cambodian knitting forum

I tried it thought it was boring. Some people tried it and now think that we are in an Orwellian dystopia.

Been posting on lit on and off since 2011 my friend

Pseud from the start then?

Why do you love being a pleb?

1984 is insufferable, its such a fucking idea book. You read it once and it's effectively exhausted. The things you can say about it are finite. Its far too transient and mortal to be great literature.

And the prose is only ok, brah.

This has been a thing for a long time.

And it's right.

>something wrong with being 16-22 year olds
>the time of the most extreme intellectual developments in a person's life

Agreed. It functions as a innocuous bit of agitprop for younglings who are just awakening to the world of government and politics, people who are impressionable and building the foundations of their understanding that will last into adulthood. This is the principal reason it has endured and will continue to for generations to come. I remember when I listened to info wars years back they'd plug this book all the time. As far as literature goes, it's not great. Orwell can write well obviously, perphps best as a journalist or essayist, which is where I wish he'd have stayed.

There are no children's books, only childish interpretations.

Jesus, people here are so obnoxious and try-hard edgy.

1984 is a marvellous, highly influential and political important book.

Incidentally, it is famous. Therefore, if a lot of people reads it, you can't like it, right?

I personally love pseudointellectuals getting butthurt.

>some excellent captivating writing
No.
>some very nice political undertones
Yes, it's a political essay with a romantic plotline. I'd rate the political essay a solid 4/5 and the romantic plotline an acceptable 2/5.

Still, it's a very important book because, for many people in the general public, it's the only reference guide to ideology they have available. Of course nowadays it's become so corrupted with pointless and overstretched interpretations that most people get the wrong general understanding of the book and make it something about NSA and security cameras and smartphones or whatever. This is saddening.

In reality the book just illustrates through marxist critique how both the ideological and the material-economic spheres of a dominant ideology work on a bare-bone Stalinist dystopia. It's not really a metaphor, it's a theory.

Sadly, we are closing to it every day, at least so it seems.

The CIA stopped bothering me since 2009 and have been nothing but nice to me. What makes you think so we are reaching the Orwellian future?

If you cannot see any paralels of 1984 with what is happening now, you are clearly an idiot, in a political sense at least. The book can and should be interpreted not only as criticism of totalitarian Stalinism, but as a warning for unprecedented future totalitarian ideologies as well.

The seeds of a new totalitarian system are planted. Censorship, decline of freedom of speech and elimination of constitutional rights in the heart of the West has begun, whether you want to see it or not.

>Censorship
What kind of censorship?
>decline of freedom of speech
Who is responsible for it?
>elimination of constitutional rights
Like what?

Easiest way to identify a pseud is when they use terms like "entry level" unironically.

>If you cannot see any paralels of 1984 with what is happening now, you are clearly an idiot

Absolutely true. But if you see parallels between 1984 and EVERYTHING that's happening now you are a stoner that needs to read more books, especially those on political theories. And, no, you're not an absolute genius or a prophet and neither was Orwell.

The most prominent parallel with a contemporary phenomenon I've dared to draw is how the three nations in 1984's "controlled destruction" of resources in controlled conflicts just to justify further production can be associated with the present US military-industrial complex.

But since that complex is liberal and capitalist in its ideology as well as its economic practice and absolutely all the powers in Orwell's world are authoritarian and use command economy it's not a complete parallel.

Marxist critique and class theory presented in the book stand and will always stand, but they have been established long before Orwell. Political philosophy is something that will always be found universally true. Read Aristotle's "Politics" and you'll find it much more prophetic than "1984"

You people really see what you want to see, is it not?

>What kind of censorship?
Social media.
>Who is responsible for it?
The regressive left/liberals.
>Like what?
Rights of privacy due to terrorism, right of bearing arms. Even the rights of nation states to enact their laws are under attack by transnational agreements like TPP and TTIP.

>You people really see what you want to see, is it not?

You think I'm imagining the Marxist bit?
>the fictional society has three firmly divided classes where the middle class (outer party) is pursuing the interest of the upper class (inner party) in hopes of benefits and the lower class (proles) are kept docile by lack of education
>each class even has its own drink of choice for god's sake (beer, moonshine, wine)
>there's literally a Marxist text inside the damn book written by a Jew

I will be judgemental.
>Social media.
I know Facebook does it. Ok.
>The regressive left/liberals.
Expected, but nonetheless true. But are you implying that the right doesn't have this tendency as well, be it possible less?
>right of bearing arms.
You are American, also expected.
>Rights of privacy due to terrorism
Do you imply this is also due to the regressive left or liberals?
>Even the rights of nation states to enact their laws are under attack by transnational agreements like TPP and TTIP.
Fair enough.

No, you getting postblocked from Facebook for saying "faggot" does not usher in the dawn of a new globalist liberal super-state.

Although the dominant global ideology has, since the 90s, been liberal global capitalism, its structures are vague and its purpose is too scitzoidly undetermined to be malicious in intent.

This is what I'm talking about: people relating 1984 to their favorite thing to bitch about when wanting to sound smart- whether it's surveillance cameras, capitalism or "muh leftists"

Sure it's justified to point out totalitarian elements within the present liberal ideology by using 1984. PC is becoming a kind of "newspeak", I won't argue with that. But taking it literally is way too out there and makes you no different than a hippie who thinks it's about him not being able to smoke pot at the local park cause they set up a camera.

I'm European btw, and I used to think Americans are crazy because of how much they cling to their beloved weapons and muh 2nd Amendment. But seeing the anti-white, SJW-influenced radical left turn of American politics, I started to notice how conveniently this anti-weapon stance of the left would fall in favour of an elite if the said elite wanted to take away the guns of the population which are a major obstacle in the path of installing a totalitarian dictatorship.
>Do you imply this is also due to the regressive left or liberals?
More or less. Nanny state and surveillance are often leftist politics. Now I know you probably think about 911 and the republican Bush-government that started this tendency, and many historical examples could be named too, however we are talking about the current situation.

Tell that to the Dutch man who was visited by the police because ha made some remarks about not wanting migrants.
Or to all the people who got fired from their jobs because of some anti-PC remark they made on social media.
We aren't talking about banning accounts anymore, we have way passed that point into serious IRL consequences.

I would love to be the one that cried wolf, but I'm afraid the more and more events unfolding are proving my point. And I have this feeling that very soon we will find out who was in the right.

>I'm European btw, and I used to think Americans are crazy because of how much they cling to their beloved weapons and muh 2nd Amendment. But seeing the anti-white, SJW-influenced radical left turn of American politics, I started to notice how conveniently this anti-weapon stance of the left would fall in favour of an elite if the said elite wanted to take away the guns of the population which are a major obstacle in the path of installing a totalitarian dictatorship.
That is very surprising to me. I've always felt much safer without civilians caring arms. And I feel the military is always there in case of government abuse.
>Now I know you probably think about 911 and the republican Bush-government that started this tendency
Exactly what I was thinking yes.

Those are titles of right-wing clickbait articles. And yes they are true and yes I absolutely think it's preposterous that free-speech is being culled in those ways.

On the other hand, I think it's also ridiculous to make martyrs out of people who were too stupid to keep their internet venting anonymous. Being able to write "kill all Muslims lol" under your real name and surname on Facebook isn't a human right- it's the mark of a retard. There are plenty of avenues to have open discussions. Having actual real-life acquaintances who aren't tools is my personal favorite one.

And the reason why the liberal establishments in the west are doing this isn't to "rub out" or "reeducate" dissidents. It isn't even to scare them. They're doing this for their own sake- to feel better about themselves and that's it. That's how demented our establishment is.

Senile people can be hostile but are rarely dangerous.

>And the reason why the liberal establishments in the west are doing this isn't to "rub out" or "reeducate" dissidents. It isn't even to scare them.
I think the complete opposite is true. I think they do want to scare them to silence dissent.
Also, your navity amuses me. There were probably jews pre-ww2 in Germany that were like you. Or noble people who sided with rebels first in the French revolution, thinking it will only be freedom and neverending happiness for everyone. Never had they thought they would end up with jacobin terror and getting guillotined as the useful idiots they were.
>Oh, they are not that bad, really! I mean things will be a little different from now, you know, you just have to be more careful what you say until things settle down a bit.
lol

Not the one you reply with.
I sympathy with you even though I do not really agree with your political leanings.

1984 may be a book everyone reads in high school, but it's still a fantastic fucking book, and you're all insufferable.

The day insufferable pretentious fuccbois kill themselves is the day I die happy

This butthurt pleases me. Thanks.

No one believes your possible of any other emotions than sadness and self hatred you boring predictable 4chanuser.