Why does /lit hate this again?

>Not as good as We
We and 1984 are completely different.
>Box of spiders was lame
They were rats. Have you even read it?
>Not as edgy or relevant as BNW
Debatable, I'd argue 1984 is UK and BNW is USA.
>Orwell was a pseud
Sure, Veeky Forumsizen who will never contribute to the Western Canon.

Catch-22 and 1984 are about different things. Apples to dolphins.

>marxism
he was a democratic socialist, you know like they are in the nordic countries

I don't hate it, I just think it's the equivalent of YA scifi

he was a serious anticommunist, in fact that one was one of his major influences in writing 1984

it's meh
as said, it's not as good as bnw

It's always the favorite book of people who haven't read since high school

"We?" What does that acronym stand for?

It's obviously adequate as literature, but it's in that reddit-tier of high school lit that is just toooooooo real man. See: Brave New World, Catch-22, etc

It's my favourite book currently. What better book should I read?

It's just too ubiquitous I suppose.

...

>ubiquitous

I cant help shake the feeling that most people who constantly namedrop this book haven't actually read it

>Orwell
>Marxist

Pseud alert. Not all socialists believe in historical materialism and other Marxist beliefs. Especially back then.

This. I have the same feeling with Animal Farm. For BNW people who are in a hurry to criticize it always have bad criticisms like "boring", "good premise bad execution" without citing any evidence to why its bad, or stupidly short-sighted ones like "unlikeable characters".

[...]These are the successes of 1984's paranoia, far outliving its original intent as a battery against where Communism was going (Orwell was a severely disappointed Marxist), and while people who compare their leaders to Big Brother are usually overreaching themselves and speak far away from Orwell's intent and vision, it is a useful catchcloth for dissent.[...]

>description written by a pseud who never read anything by Orwell
>"oh he's a socialist so he's definitely a Marxist"
Find me one instance where Orwell identified as a communist who followed the prescriptions of Karl Marx and the various vanguards of the day. You won't find any. He marched to the tune of his own drum.

mises.org/library/george-orwell-and-cold-war-reconsideration

This is for all the people describing Orwell as a lapsed socialist or whatever; he never stopped believing in socialism and arguing against capitalism, he simply abhorred totalitarianism.

> But let Orwell speak for himself. Orwell was distressed at many American reviews of the book, especially in Time and Life, which, in contrast to the British, saw Nineteen Eighty-Four as the author’s renunciation of his long-held devotion to democratic socialism. Even his own publisher, Frederic Warburg, interpreted the book in the same way. This response moved Orwell, terminally ill in a hospital, to issue a repudiation. He outlined a statement to Warburg, who, from detailed notes, issued a press release in Orwell’s name. First, Orwell noted that, contrary to many reviews, Nineteen Eighty-Four was not prophecy but an analysis of what could happen, based on present political trends. Orwell then added: “Specifically, the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the USSR and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger also lies in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.”

People who think that 1984 was primarily an argument against socialism are too stupid to be saved. Look at the setting of the novel—it's an extreme totalitarian society that, minus some of the technological feats, isn't too dissimilar from some historical regimes. But there's a caveat—nearly every such regime eventually fell unless it were able to brainwash the population and subvert the language to such an extent that intellectually fomenting resistance became impossible. The totalitarian state survived by imprisoning minds, not bodies, and that's why regimes like the USSR fell while the DPRK still stands strong.

Maybe you're right, but it's still important to fight these sorts of misconception calmly, and with facts. Look at Veeky Forums, they were in danger of being engulfed by people from /pol/, so they fought back passionately in a series of threads, reducing the holicast-deniers to near-incoherence. Previously, I'd have fought that these sorts of small victories would be forgotten due to the short lasting nature of this site, but they seem to have had a definite effect on the sorts of threads that come about on the board.

So, what was it argumenting against? Willfull blidness - doublespeak, destruction of tradition, history and knowledge - minitruth, hipocracy and ignorance - thoughtcrime etc.?

>The totalitarian state survived by imprisoning minds, not bodies, and that's why regimes like the USSR fell while the DPRK still stands strong.

Kinda nullified your own argument there. The USSR failed because X, but DPRK stands strong because of X.
The USSR turned their populace into slave labour, alongside mindfucking them into believing it wasn't slavery. The same as DPRK. So why is DPRK still standing, and the USSR isn't?

>So, what was it argumenting against? Willfull blidness - doublespeak, destruction of tradition, history and knowledge - minitruth, hipocracy and ignorance - thoughtcrime etc.?

The willingness to subvert language in pursuit of ideological goals. The end result is total and lasting control over a population that has no idea how to resist.

>Kinda nullified your own argument there.

Kinda jumped the gun there.

>The USSR turned their populace into slave labour, alongside mindfucking them into believing it wasn't slavery. The same as DPRK. So why is DPRK still standing, and the USSR isn't?
The Soviet Union wasn't nearly as successful in enforcing newspeak and thought crimes, which made glasnost so dangerous to the state's survival, since there was so much discontent and the ideology to support it just waiting to be released by the 1980s. The DPRK, on the other hand, has been totally scorched over in terms of brainwashing and political correctness. There's no chance of an internal rebellion that occurs from outside the inner military apparatus.

God is ubiquitous, is god bad?
Are you a satanist? WHAT THE FUCK KID

How did they "fight back"? Curious to know how they did it.

By absorbing the most sensible things that /pol/ has to offer, such as the idea of race realism and cultural Marxism, while rejecting the most preposterous ideas such as Holocaust denial. That is what inevitably happens with any clash of cultures: the winner adapts the best from their enemy in order to survive, just like how the Romans adapted the art of naval warfare from the Carthaginians.

No, it's the ubiquity breeds a resentment of sort as people grow "tired of hearing about it". When certain things are exalted into certain positions in a culture, the unfamiliar who seek it out for is renown tend to be disappointed it's not greater than it is, no matter whatever greatness it maintains. Or in short: hype.

what is We?
i am not good with abbreviations