1984

published	1950 by Signet Classics
first published	1953
binding	Paperback
isbn	0451524934 (isbn13: 9780451524935)
pages	336
characters	Julia; O'Brien; Winston Smith
description	"Outside, even through the shut window pane, the world looked cold. Down in the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn paper i...more [close] "Outside, even through the shut window pane, the world looked cold. Down in the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn paper into spirals, and though the sun was shining and the sky a harsh blue, there seemed to be no color in anything except the posters that were plastered everywhere." The year is 1984; the scene is London, largest population center of Airstrip One. Airstrip One is part of the vast political entity Oceania, which is eternally at war with one of two other vast entities, Eurasia and Eastasia. At any moment, depending upon current alignments, all existing records show either that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, or that it has always been at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia. Winston Smith knows this, because his work at the Ministry of Truth involves the constant "correction" of such records. "'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" In a grim city and a terrifying country, where Big Brother is always Watching You and the Thought Police can practically read your mind, Winston is a man in grave danger for the simple reason that his memory still functions. He knows the Party's official image of the world is a fluid fiction. He knows the Party controls the people by feeding them lies and narrowing their imaginations through a process of bewilderment and brutalization that alienates each individual from his fellows and deprives him of every liberating human pursuit from reasoned inquiry to sexual passion. Drawn into a forbidden love affair, Winston finds the courage to join a secret revolutionary organization called The Brotherhood, dedicated to the destruction of the Party. Together with his beloved Julia, he hazards his life in a deadly match against the powers that be. Newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime--in 1984, George Orwell created a whole vocabulary of words concerning totalitarian control that have since passed into our common vocabulary. More importantly, he has portrayed a chillingly credible dystopia. In our deeply anxious world, the seeds of unthinking conformity are everywhere in evidence; and Big Brother is always looking for his chance. --Daniel Hintzsche
date added	12-07-06 edit book

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

discuss this book

topics	replies	last activity
Missing Cover Art	2	04/03/2007 01:39PM

new topic

groups with this book

view all groups »

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 60052)

Anna rated it:

02/29/08

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Quotes: (I know there’s a lot of them, but trust me I had more)
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture an...more Quotes: (I know there’s a lot of them, but trust me I had more)
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."

“In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

"It was like swimming against a current that swept you backwards however hard you struggled, and then suddenly deciding to turn round and go with the current instead of opposing it. Nothing had changed except your own attitude; the predestined thing happened in any case."

“He fell asleep murmuring ‘sanity is not statistical,’ with the feeling that this remark contained in it a profound wisdom.”

“In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are the furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion: the more intelligent, the less sane.”

Summary:
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell follows the life of Winston Smith a member of the totalitarian state of London in 1984. The Party, lead by Big Brother, controls and sees all through the power of thought police and telescreens. Winston is discontented with his present sate of being; he suspects something is quite wrong with the party. So he buys a diary and starts to write down his thoughtcrimes. He believes that a secret brotherhood exists who plan to overthrow the party, though this is only legendary. Winston works in the Ministry of Truth, which purpose is to create lies. Winston’s job is to correct inaccuracies of the past, to fit with the party’s present need. One day at work a girl named Julia passes him a note reading “I love you.” And so begins their long secret love affair, meets in secret and immaculate plans to not get caught. Eventually they find a room where they can meet more often. After a while O’Brien contacts Winston and fulfills his suspicion that O’Brien is actually part of the brotherhood. Both Julie and Winston go to O’Brien’s house to become full fledged members of this secret society. They read a book about the party, the war and the slogans: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." However the thoughtpoilice catch up to them in their secret room, and they are brought to the Ministry of Love. O’Brian was not actually part of the brotherhood, but instead worked for the Ministry of Love. Julia and Winston are separated and Winston is put through months of torture and brainwash to ‘cure’ him from his disloyalty to the party. After a while Winston is brought to room 101 where O’Brian puts a cage full of rats on Winston’s head and threatens to open the cage door. Winston finally recants and tells O’Brian to “do it to Juila” that is what O’Brian needed. Winston is released to the outside world, he meets Julia again but nothing is there. In the end Winston is successfully brainwashed, he accepts and adheres to the Party, and he loves Big Brother.

Review:
I really enjoyed reading this book. I found it very well written and easily readable. I like the point of view of the author, it was very useful and unique, and at times I felt that I was the telescreen or a secret mike listening in on Winston’s life. I thought the author did a great job with the characters and their progression through the novel. I found all of the authors themes of power, language (as meaning of thought control) and the past controlling the present relevant and well-thought out. Possibly the single thing I didn’t like was the ending. Some part of me thought that in some way Winston was going to be able to come out of this unharmed. I didn’t want to believe that the protagonist could lose after fighting so hard. And I was pretty crushed when I read that last line “He loved Big brother.” I think the book needed that kind of ending, but I wish that there was a way for it to end better. This book deserve every single one of the five stars that i gave it, and i recommend this book. And hopefully 2+2 will never equal 5!
...less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

1 comments

Pedro rated it:

04/19/08

2 + 2 + 5?

O que passa pela sua mente quando se pensa em uma sociedade totalitária? Toque de recolher, julgamentos sem o devido processo legal, guerras? George Orwell imaginou, em 1948, um mundo sufocante onde governos tipo Hitler e Stalin seriam coisa de criança quando comparados ao poder do Grande Irmão, o Big Brother.

Clássico do que especialistas chamam de literatura política, 1984 traz um mundo aterrador, dividido em três superestados que estão em guerra permanente. O objetivo ...more 2 + 2 + 5?

O que passa pela sua mente quando se pensa em uma sociedade totalitária? Toque de recolher, julgamentos sem o devido processo legal, guerras? George Orwell imaginou, em 1948, um mundo sufocante onde governos tipo Hitler e Stalin seriam coisa de criança quando comparados ao poder do Grande Irmão, o Big Brother.

Clássico do que especialistas chamam de literatura política, 1984 traz um mundo aterrador, dividido em três superestados que estão em guerra permanente. O objetivo da guerra não é vencer o inimigo, mas manter no poder certo grupo dominante. As pessoas não têm liberdade de ir e vir e, muito menos, de pensar. Em grande parte das residências, um objeto chamado teletela “vê” o que todo mundo faz. O Estado detém a memória: todos os registros do que aconteceu antes da chegada do Grande Irmão ao poder foram modificados e sofrem alterações assim que uma notícia, artigo ou opinião entrem em conflito com as necessidades do momento. Nada havia além do Partido: “tudo se fundia e confundia num mundo de sombras no qual, por fim, a data do ano se tornara incerta”.

A coesão interna é obtida não apenas pela opressão, mas também pela elaboração de um novo idioma - a Novilíngua - que impediria que qualquer opinião contrária ao Partido fosse expressa. Trata-se de uma coleção de vocabulários enxutos que condensa ou remove sentidos a fim de restringir o pensamento. Uma vez que as pessoas não pudessem se referir a algo, isso passaria a não existir. A palavra mais usada no livro, seguindo o novo idioma, é duplipensar. Seu significado corresponde ao fato de o indivíduo conviver simultaneamente com duas crenças opostas, aceitando ambas.

“Saber e não saber, ter consciência de completa veracidade ao exprimir mentiras cuidadosamente arquitetadas, defender simultaneamente duas opiniões opostas, sabendo-as contraditórias e ainda assim acreditando em ambas; usar a lógica contra a lógica, repudiar a moralidade em nome da moralidade, crer na impossibilidade da Democracia e que o Partido era o guardião da Democracia; esquecer tudo quanto fosse necessário esquecer, trazê-lo à memória prontamente no momento preciso, e depois torná-lo a esquecer; e acima de tudo, aplicar o próprio processo ao processo. Essa era a sutileza derradeira: induzir conscientemente a inconsciência, e então, tornar-se inconsciente do ato de hipnose que se acabava de realizar. Até para compreender a palavra "duplipensar" era necessário usar o duplipensar."

O livro conta a história de um funcionário do Partido, Winston Smith (referência ao primeiro-ministro inglês durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, Winston Churchill, junto a um sobrenome comum no Reino Unido: Smith) que passa da indiferença na sociedade em que está inserido à revolta. Para ele algo estava errado. Faltava alguma coisa. Não sabia o que sentia e tentava extravasar sua angústia escrevendo em um diário – sempre em um espaço fora do alcance da teletela. Se fosse pego, provavelmente se submeteria à Polícia do Pensamento, que “sumia” com as pessoas, apagando qualquer vestígio de que elas teriam um dia existido. Tornaria-se uma “impessoa”.

Com narrador em terceira pessoa, Orwell nos guia pelo caminho que Winston percorre na rebelião contra o sistema. Chega de ser mais uma engrenagem, mais uma peça da máquina do Grande Irmão. Naquele contexto, as coisas eram como o Partido quisesse que fossem. Em um desabafo, o protagonista escreve em suas anotações: “A liberdade é a liberdade de dizer que dois e dois são quatro. Admitindo-se isto, tudo o mais decorre”.

O Grande Irmão pode controlar aquilo que temos de mais íntimo e particular: o pensamento. Para o autor, é o futuro. Um pesadelo. A metáfora do mundo que estávamos, em meados do século XX, quando o livro foi escrito: invasão de privacidade, avanços tecnológicos a favor do controle aos cidadãos, a manipulação da memória histórica, as guerras contínuas cujo objetivo não é conquistar territórios, mas manter intacta a estrutura da sociedade. Será que o planeta em que estamos vivendo vai se tornar um 1984? Ou já vivemos sob o olhar do Grande Irmão e ainda não nos demos conta?
...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Marty rated it:

02/06/08

bookshelves: school-bookshelf

Read in July, 2007

This is one of those books that I had always meant to read, but never got around to. Finally, one of my college classes required it, so I was happy to pick it up, though not without some reserved skepticism beforehand. I knew it was one of those books that is constantly referred to by people who are paranoid about government and distrust everything the government does, which wouldn't really describe me, in general. But, I have to admit that Orwell's writing is masterful. Right from the start, th...more This is one of those books that I had always meant to read, but never got around to. Finally, one of my college classes required it, so I was happy to pick it up, though not without some reserved skepticism beforehand. I knew it was one of those books that is constantly referred to by people who are paranoid about government and distrust everything the government does, which wouldn't really describe me, in general. But, I have to admit that Orwell's writing is masterful. Right from the start, the world he presents is mesmerizing. I think I am safe in saying that in the first third of the book, almost nothing happens. Yet, I can also say that the first third of the book was just as interesting as any of the action that comes later. Every detail, every description, every movement is analyzed in the most fascinating way. Orwell is no idiot. He has that very rare ability of few great authors to show the workings of the inner mind of man in such a true and believable way that you very well believe that he could look at you and know what you are thinking. After the first third of the book, when the story actually progresses, it gets exciting almost in the way that a thriller does. You keep on wondering what move will be next and how the character is going to strategize the demise of the enemy. Then the last third of the book is a devastating, but still masterful analysis of the human mind, free will, and reality. At almost every stage, Orwell presents his ideas with a written clarity that is a language all in its own. In spite of this whole experience and my recognition at how skillful the writing and analysis was, I cannot say that I liked the book, or even if I would recommend it. The main reason for this is that I believe Orwell cheated at the end. The protagonist was putting up a fight against the machine, and in spite of its all-powerful, seemingly omnipotent status, he held off. Now, Orwell had two options. The protagonist either would capitulate under the increasingly intelligent pressure put on by the oppressor, or he would outlast and maintain his own free will to the end. I think that the ending Orwell chose was contrived, and what he did to get the protagonist there was unbelievable. Maybe it's my own principles or feelings, but I suspect that if Orwell had done it well enough, I would have at least respected his approach. But as it is now, I had to shake my head and say to myself: No. That's not true to human nature. I don't buy that. And what's worse, I felt that Orwell must have known that himself. His writing was too brilliant before, too logical, too well-reasoned. The person who wrote all of that can't possibly believe in this moment either. So, I suspect, that in order to get the ending that he wanted, he contrived the tipping point and then returned to his brilliant form to bring the story to its conclusion. One misstep is a harsh way to judge a truly exemplar book, but I believe that it was a key moment and it unravels all the true elements Orwell had so carefully set up before. Overall, however, it would be difficult to say to not read the book, because this type of writing and insight is difficult to come by. So if you are looking for a meaty intellectual treat, read it. But don't let him cheat you in the end. ...less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

4 comments

Richard rated it:

08/16/07

bookshelves: general-reading

Read in July, 2007

About two days ago, I wrote an entry about Schrödinger's Cat (among other things) in which I argued that the people who do end up making especially prescient observations distinguish themselves in a way that we should allow people to be distinguished. No where is that statement more relevant than in discussing George Orwell's (the nom de plume of Eric Blair) prophetic dystopian vision of totalitarianism: 1984.

Though the year 1984 has come and gone (hell, I was still wipping around with my l...more About two days ago, I wrote an entry about Schrödinger's Cat (among other things) in which I argued that the people who do end up making especially prescient observations distinguish themselves in a way that we should allow people to be distinguished. No where is that statement more relevant than in discussing George Orwell's (the nom de plume of Eric Blair) prophetic dystopian vision of totalitarianism: 1984.

Though the year 1984 has come and gone (hell, I was still wipping around with my little tail somewhere inside my pops in '84), Orwell's demonic vision of a world without history, without truth, without any notion of physical reality remains as poignant and haunting now as it must have been when it was first published in 1949. In fact, in many ways, reading this book for the first time cover-to-cover (I had previously read excerpts), I am truly shocked that it was published so early on. Though many aspects of the novel are either ostensibly or clearly based on Stalinist Russia (particularly notable are the similarities between Big Brother and Stalin, and Goldstein and Trotsky), the work remains general enough that readers of any era—any political persuasion—might notice parallels to their own respective societies.

Certainly, our own does not escape indictment. I think one of the most poignant and thought-provoking aspects of this novel was the discussion in third chapter of the book (War is Peace) of perpetual war as a mechanism for retaining power and perpetuating domestic oppression; without doubt, no study of the Cold War would be complete without this consideration, nor, cynics would argue, would any study of the early 21st century.

All in all, 1984 easily remains one of the most important and influential novels of the past century, and I think in many ways, one of the few truly timeless works of literature. The issues Orwell wrote about in 1949 are only likely to grow more relevant as technology continues to advance at its breakneck pace. The greatest folly for us, as modern readers, would be to relegate this phenomenally prescient work as yet another Cold War classic, another case study in Stalinist barbarity; one need only pick up a newspaper today to realize the slippery slope to totalitarianism is one human society will likely navigate for as long as it is in existence.

Overall, 5 stars of 5. If you have never read this book, or perhaps, read it when you were younger, I encourage you to pick it up again. Without doubt, I was able to gain more perspective having read it as an adult than when I first read excerpts as a high school student....less

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

add a comment

Masanobu rated it:

(review of isbn 8423335038)

04/03/08

bookshelves: read-in-2007

Read in June, 2007

I last read Brave New World (in a horrible edition with awful typos all around) and felt the need to say some things about it:

* This month I read Nineteen Eighty-Four too and I couldn't avoid comparing both dystopias. I prefer Orwell's, mostly because I felt the urge to stop and reflect every some pages of Nineteen Eigthy-Four, whilst I didn't do so this time. I see the society depicted by Huxley as very possible, real and near. Indeed, I think part of our lives are like those of the i...more I last read Brave New World (in a horrible edition with awful typos all around) and felt the need to say some things about it:

* This month I read Nineteen Eighty-Four too and I couldn't avoid comparing both dystopias. I prefer Orwell's, mostly because I felt the urge to stop and reflect every some pages of Nineteen Eigthy-Four, whilst I didn't do so this time. I see the society depicted by Huxley as very possible, real and near. Indeed, I think part of our lives are like those of the inhabitants of that "happy world". We already live surrounded by loads of science and we're economically, physically and even emotially dependent on it. Plus, you should know about the latest biotechnological investigations, their potential is scaring. Besides, most teenagers are of the happy-go-lucky kind, immersed in youth pseudo-subculture, only worried about trivial things. I know - I'm too radical. There are valuable exceptions (Alphas and Betas, maybe?)
On the other hand, Orwell's suffocating masterpiece got me really stressed. I couldn't stand the hatred all around, the concealed passions and the banning of books, of language, of free-thinking, of intimacy. Although in Brave New World the aim is the same, the methods aren't so... brusque, if you what I mean.
Anyway, I loved the book.

* I didn't like the irony the book implied. Hm, I know it sounds strange, given that I usually like that (for heaven sake, Palahniuk and Nothomb are my favorite authors!), but I just didn't like it. I got the feeling it was aimless and indiscriminate.

* But what really bugged me was that the usual rebel character in a dystopia, the one that starts or wants to start the revolution against the so-called perfect society didn't exist as a whole and real character, but in a bunch of them. I mean, we could find the features first in Bernard Marx (really intelligent, individual conscience, hates how sex is seen; soon we discover he's only slightly clever, fears the authority and just wants acceptance and women), then Helmholtz Watson (loner, intelligent, beauty-seeker, revolves his pupils; just wants inspiration and freedom to create, which is easily solved), then Lenina (long-lasting relationship, accepts Marx, then the Savage; plainly, she wants to fuck, which she mistakes with passion), lastly, the Savage, but he ends up being a crazy fanatic who speaks in Shakespeare's verses. Okay, the characters evolved, which is really great and pleased me an awful lot. And I would have loved it, if it weren't for the lack of coherence and union, because it gave me a feeling of instability.
On the other hand, it could give an idea of how crazy was the Brave New World.

* I love Mustapha Mond, the World Controller for Western Europe, as I loved the Inner Party member O'Brien in Nineteen Eighty-Four. These patriarchal characters, who have given up their own convictions, hope and happiness for the sake of society are the best plotted. It's true it's the author who speaks his/her theories right through them, but they do overwhelmingly appeal to me.

All in all, I love the book....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Dave rated it:

07/29/07

In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith is an open source developer who writes his code offline because his ISP has installed packet sniffers that are regulated by the government under the Patriot Act. It's really for his own protection, though. From, like, terrorists and DVD pirates and stuff. Like every good American, he drinks Coca-Cola and his processed food has desensitized his palate to all but four flavors: (sweet, salty-so-that-you-will-drink-more-coca-cola, sweet, and Cooler Ranch!(tm...more

Like this review? yes (11 people liked it)

5 comments

Hillary added it

03/31/08

Read in March, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

1984 is a novel that has proven itself to be a classic that is still able to be applied to today's society, while at the same time serves the purpose as being a warning to future generations of a totalitarian society. Winston Smith is a lower ranking man of society that is continually being watched by the so called "Big Brother" or the government along with all the other citizen of any lower ranking than the government. "Big Brother" watches every move they make, everything t...more 1984 is a novel that has proven itself to be a classic that is still able to be applied to today's society, while at the same time serves the purpose as being a warning to future generations of a totalitarian society. Winston Smith is a lower ranking man of society that is continually being watched by the so called "Big Brother" or the government along with all the other citizen of any lower ranking than the government. "Big Brother" watches every move they make, everything they write, and even more importantly, everything they think. Furthermore, the government is in the process of creating a new language called Newspeak in order to prevent any words being used containing or hinting at the word "rebellion." It is absolutely unacceptable to think anything negative of the party or otherwise the "thought police" will arrest the person and they vanish and it is like their existence has never occurred. Smith decides that he has become tired of the government so in his idea of protest he has been keeping a diary and upholding a relationship with a lady named Julia. Smith become obsessed with the ideal that they are going to get caught, meanwhile Julia holds an optimistic view on the situation. By the end of the novel, Smith and Julia are caught, while they found out that the few people they trusted most were apart of the thought police and Smith was arrested. Once Smith was bound to be given the ultimate punishment, he talked his way out of it by saying that Julia should be arrested. Smith was released and he began to love the government.

I personally enjoyed reading this book due to the themes and how this can be applied to today's society. One major theme that was evident throughout this novel was the totalitarian society and the warning against it. I found this theme to even be present in America. For example, during some circumstances in America, the citizens must give up their rights. I really enjoyed the content of the novel and how certain situations were portrayed in order to scare the readers as a warning against the government.

1984 is chosen to be an AP Literature book due to it's content and the somewhat complexity of the writing style. This novel has many elements to connect events throughout the plot line to situations in society. One way George Orwell does this is by using themes and symbols. One symbol that is evident is the technology. This represents the power that the government has over it's citizens and the growing intelligence of the government, the more power they are able to gain. Another major symbol is "BIg Brother." No one has ever seen him they just imagine what he looks like for the posters put up everywhere with his face on them. This symbolizes the vagueness that the people in government portray themselves as meanwhile, this gives them a distant identity, while they still maintain a great amount of control over their citizens. Overall, 1984 is an AP literature novel due to it's complexity and references to a larger problem in society...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Syafeeq rated it:

09/30/07

Read in January, 2007

recommends it for: everyone.

After fighting his way to the highest rung of German power, Adolf Hitler beganinspiring massive support for his warped idealism. Using patriotism, swastikas,genocide, the incineration of historical documents and a mobilization of forcesthroughout Europe, his dictatorship became the woe of the twentieth century. Astain of darkness stretched across the world, and his legacy undoubtedly inspiredGeorge Orwell's classic novel, 1984.

Written in 1949, Orwell envisions agrim future. By 1984, he imagi...more After fighting his way to the highest rung of German power, Adolf Hitler beganinspiring massive support for his warped idealism. Using patriotism, swastikas,genocide, the incineration of historical documents and a mobilization of forcesthroughout Europe, his dictatorship became the woe of the twentieth century. Astain of darkness stretched across the world, and his legacy undoubtedly inspiredGeorge Orwell's classic novel, 1984.

Written in 1949, Orwell envisions agrim future. By 1984, he imagined political leaders manipulating the multitudesinto placing infinite faith in their power. To grasp the book's themes, one mustfirst understand the "Party," its relation to "Big Brother,"and how the fictional world operates.

Big Brother is always watching, andsymbolizes the Party. There may not be a physical face to Big Brother, but hegraphically represents the Party, something more tangible than an abstractpolitical organization. His existence simplifies the Party's rule. The Partycontrols "Oceania," an enormous superpower that covers vast parts ofthe world. The Party looms omnipresently, observing citizens through"telescreens." The Party manipulates Oceania's populous into a mindlessfollowing, but eventually discovers rebellion among its citizens. Rebels aretortured and forced to support the Party rather than despise it. Everyone istaught from birth to love the party, and its slogans: War is peace, freedom isslavery, ignorance is strength.

Winston Smith is older than mostinhabitants of the super state, and vaguely remembers life before the Party. Herecalls his parents and the revolution leading up to the Party's rule, as well asother things the Party would prefer people not know. Though his memories arehazy, Winston feels life must have been more enjoyable before the Party'sleadership. He suspects other individuals, including a member of the Inner Partynamed O'Brien, have the same rebellious thoughts.

Orwell paints awonderfully executed portrait of a world run by mind-molding dictatorships; allshould know its eerie message. In fact, this novel is not known so much for itsstory as for the concepts it promotes. Although 1984 has come and gone, thenovel's timeless message is noteworthy.

Many scenes shine with Orwell'sextraordinary writing. Superb organization, descriptive scenes and an effectivepromotion of an eerie central theme are some of many reasons to read it. But nobook is flawless.

Jokingly, someone once asked me: "Why must the mostinteresting books always be so boring?" It took me quite a while to complete1984. While the concepts flow brilliantly, the writing style becomes a turn off,with many lengthy paragraphs and little dialogue. The sentence structure andvocabulary sometimes went over my head, and as a result, I found it challengingto read it for long periods of time. Regardless, this book opened my mind to aninteresting political subject. At least attempt to read 1984. It's certainlyworth the effort.
...less

Like this review? yes

5 comments

Melody rated it:

10/04/07

bookshelves: sci-fi-fantasy

1984, George Orwell

Ok – so I’m probably the only one in the universe who didn’t read this in high school. This is a book that must be read, right? I knew the general premise of the book, big brother is watching you. But oh, how frightening it was! Big Brother was not only watching but he knew what you were thinking and when you were having sex and if you were having sex you better not be enjoying it; you better be just doing it to have a child. A child that would be trained to tur...more 1984, George Orwell

Ok – so I’m probably the only one in the universe who didn’t read this in high school. This is a book that must be read, right? I knew the general premise of the book, big brother is watching you. But oh, how frightening it was! Big Brother was not only watching but he knew what you were thinking and when you were having sex and if you were having sex you better not be enjoying it; you better be just doing it to have a child. A child that would be trained to turn you in to the party if you did anything that was out of line. And who the hell could know what was in line or out of line? Anyway – the story is about Winston, who is evidently the only human left who remembers stuff and thinks for himself. He takes his ration of nasty tasting gin each day and dutifully rewrites history in the Ministry of Truth so that things that the party wants to be so, can not be proven not to be so. And when he knew where his wife was he had sex with his wife each night, for the good of the party. But, (can you believe it) he’s not happy. He feels something is missing and he holds on to the hope that there are others who feel the same way. He sees little flickers in people’s eyes that he seems to think mean that they are in this secret organization called the Brotherhood who have plans to overthrow Big Brother and – god only knows what their plan is – but just something different than what they have.

Winston is shocked when a woman (Julia) that he is sure is a party spy – a member of the thought police – and who he has fantasies of bashing her head in because he hates her so much – comes up to him and hands him a slip of paper that says that she loves him. Turns out that she just wants to have sex – but hey! So they carry on in a secret little room in the Prol’s area of town knowing that one day they’ll be shot. And all they are doing at this point is taking little naps with each other and getting their freak on. But then they decide to take a chance and approach this inner party member (O’Brian, who they are just sure is a traitor to big brother because Winston has seen that little flicker) to say that they’d be willing to throw acid in the face of a child if that’s what the brotherhood wanted them to do in order to overthrow big brother. But remember how Winston misjudged Julia? He thought she was stalking him because she wanted to turn him in to the thought police and she really just wanted sex? Let’s just say that Winston misjudged O’Brian too.

And then we get into the torturing and the 2 plus 2 makes 5 or I’ll turn this dial up to 100 and room 101 and then we finally get to the rats!!!! Which I just can’t go into. But that is the tipping point for ol’ Winston and it is just a matter of time before he is back out in the world loving Big Brother. And my god if it’s not just the scariest book in the world!
...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Michal rated it:

12/17/07

Read in December, 2007

I have found my experience with the canon of important books to be uncomfortably lacking, and recently decided to mend that. This was the first on my list.
Well, now I know what everybody was talking about. That's good. As far as reading experience goes, though, I wasn't really engrossed at all. The ideas of the novel, while promising, were never thoroughly explored, and it didn't have the virtue of interesting characters to make the reader care much about the ideas.
Basically, the novel por...more I have found my experience with the canon of important books to be uncomfortably lacking, and recently decided to mend that. This was the first on my list.
Well, now I know what everybody was talking about. That's good. As far as reading experience goes, though, I wasn't really engrossed at all. The ideas of the novel, while promising, were never thoroughly explored, and it didn't have the virtue of interesting characters to make the reader care much about the ideas.
Basically, the novel portrays a world where everything is controlled by the Party, everything is seen by the Party, and everything comes from the Party. The slightest twinge of disagreement or disobedience to the party is punishable by death. The ones who keep living live by keeping their mental eyes willingly shut (or perhaps more accurately, willingly glazed over). History is constantly edited by the Party, and once the changes are done, there is no evidence but human memory left to contradict the new records. Orwell spins a world that says that the strength of mental conviction isn't enough in the face of overwhelming numbers. Eventually, all that a person holds dear can be turned on its head, and the opposite is willingly accepted with voluntary blindness.
As far as I know, it's impossible for me to totally ignore the truth when I'm deceiving myself (how would I know if it was possible to completely deceive myself? hmmmm... nope, still don't believe it, even through the irony). This kind of mentality wouldn't happen over a large area; certainly not globally. The system both controlling the information and the punishment for disobedience would have to be far more sophisticated than any police force in history to convince people to willingly deceive themselves, and so far, that's never happened. I don't see it ever happening, especially not with the internet in place.
The most interesting idea to me that this book presented was never pursued. At one point fairly early in the plot, the point is briefly made that fervent depravity is more virtuous than any morality imposed by the brainwashing Party. The idea of voluntary virtue is never even touched on. Those three separate angles would have made an interesting tension, but it wasn't explored.
Perhaps my opinion of this book will shift in time, but at this moment (approximately an hour and a half after finishing the thing), I don't see that it told me anything valuable other than the explanation of what exactly people are referring to with Big Brother, and the necessity of keeping my space free from spying devices....less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

3 comments

Silvana rated it:

12/07/07

bookshelves: classics, favorites, own

Read in June, 2007

recommends it for: everyone

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Those words keep sounding in my head since I read this book. Gosh, probably the most haunting not to mention frightening book I've ever read. 1984 should also be included in horror genre.

1984 describes a Utopia. Not Thomas More's version of Utopia, but this is one is the antithesis, i.e. Negative Utopia. Imagine living in a country, whose leaders apply a totalitarian system in regulating their citizen, in the most extreme ways, which ...more WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Those words keep sounding in my head since I read this book. Gosh, probably the most haunting not to mention frightening book I've ever read. 1984 should also be included in horror genre.

1984 describes a Utopia. Not Thomas More's version of Utopia, but this is one is the antithesis, i.e. Negative Utopia. Imagine living in a country, whose leaders apply a totalitarian system in regulating their citizen, in the most extreme ways, which make Hitler, Mao, Stalin and that old bloke in V for Vendetta look like sissies.

Working, eating, drinking, sleeping, talking, thinking, procreating...in short living, all are controlled by the state. Any hint of obedience or dislike can be detected by various state apparatus such as the Thought Police, telescreen, or even your children, who will not hesitate to betray you to the authorities. Even language is modified in such ways that you cannot express yourself, since individualism is a crime.

The past is controlled, rewritten into something that will strengthen the incumbent ruler. Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. There is no real truth. The "truth" is what the state says it is. Black is white, 2+2=5, if the state says so.

The world in 1984 is divided into three states, originated from the ashes from World War II: Oceania (British Isles, the Americas, Pacific, Australia), Eurasia (Europe & Russia), and Eastasia (the rest of it). Continuous warfare between those three (who hold similar ideologies) is required to keep the society's order and peace. Si vis pacem para bellum. That's describes the first slogan.

The second slogan, freedom is slavery, means the only way to be free is by letting you lose yourself and to be integrated within the Party. That way, you'll be indestructible and immortal.

Ignorance is strength, means the division on high, middle, low classes in society will never be changed. The middle wants to be the high and they'll act "on behalf of the low" to dethrone the high. Afterwards, a new middle class arises, all will change except the low. The high and middle make and uphold the law, the low (proletarian) is just too stupid to revolt. The state maintains its structure by torture, intimidation, violence, and brainwashing.

Blimey, Orwell's Animal Farm is already depressing, but 1984 gives "depression" a new meaning, at least for me....less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Jenny rated it:

09/12/07

bookshelves: classics, england_1900s, fantasy__and_sci-fi

Read in September, 2007

recommends it for: people interested in politics

It's a bit cliche and tacky to write an intricate review of a book almost everyone has read, but Orwell's most famous book (or perhaps second most-famous, after "Animal Farm") left a distinct political impression with me, and the best way to make sense of it is to write about it:

What seems to me as a central theme of "1984" is the concept of liberty, with special reference to how it has been addressed in the various political ideologies in history. With respect to the boo...more It's a bit cliche and tacky to write an intricate review of a book almost everyone has read, but Orwell's most famous book (or perhaps second most-famous, after "Animal Farm") left a distinct political impression with me, and the best way to make sense of it is to write about it:

What seems to me as a central theme of "1984" is the concept of liberty, with special reference to how it has been addressed in the various political ideologies in history. With respect to the book, the concept is largely literal - the loss of "liberty" with regard to where you work, where you live, what you eat, what you wear and with whom you associate. But beyond the literal "unfreedoms," as they would be called in Newspeak, hide the more terrifying, less tangible losses of liberty: the freedom to think and believe as an individual wishes, and without persecution. Looking back to the Inquisition, the uncertain era of the English King Henry VIII or even the American Revolution, civilization has always fought with the sentiment of wanting to liberate itself in some way, or of some thing. And although perhaps Orwell writes about it differently, I think one can argue that the Party in "1984" is no exception; it is fighting for liberation from usurpers to its "throne" of unrestricted power. In order to do this, as Winston learns, it is necessary to retard the entire nation's intelligence.

Stay with me here - let's apply this Orwellian concept to, say, the war in Iraq. We're fighting for liberation (supposedly from terrorism, but more likely in actuality from subservience to the Middle East in the oil industry - but that's a different essay), the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting for liberation (from us as much as from each other, I expect), and, as in "1984," the war is a continual waste of supplies and production, which in effect retards the American citizens' intelligence by squandering money that ought to be spent on our own country on a war that in reality has nothing to do with us, except that we started it for no good reason. Aside from keeping the nation dumb as to the state of affairs in Iraq, or what the war is doing to the economy at home (not to mention killing thousands of our troops), the U.S. government is, in its anti-terrorism movement, tending toward Big Brother-type surveillance with such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act. I know this is kind of rambling, but my point here is this: Big Brother is watching, but his name is George W. Bush, and this is 2007, not "1984."

Just a little reflection on a book... didn't mean it to be political! ;)...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

Sammy rated it:

06/12/07

bookshelves: the-good

Read in January, 2007

I really don't feel I have the right to judge or criticize such a lasting, timeless book with such a strong message. But then again, I don't care so I'll do it. This book I feel is more relevant now than it ever has been before, though Orwell was writing it at a time to bring to light the dangers of "communism" and more specifically totalitarianism and facism. But right now, with the state of chaos and fear the world is in right now (especially America) I feel this book has an even str...more I really don't feel I have the right to judge or criticize such a lasting, timeless book with such a strong message. But then again, I don't care so I'll do it. This book I feel is more relevant now than it ever has been before, though Orwell was writing it at a time to bring to light the dangers of "communism" and more specifically totalitarianism and facism. But right now, with the state of chaos and fear the world is in right now (especially America) I feel this book has an even stronger message.

Let me point out the bad points (I found) of this book. At times it became a little too wordy and political for my taste. So much so where I began to get a little lost. And, now that I think about it, that's really the only downside I found to the book. Though, some may find the ending disappointing (I'm definitely not going to spoil it) I found it just hammering Orwell's message even further, that it takes a long time to make change, but that it has to start somewhere.

I think the thing I found most fascinating about this book, and what drew me to it in the first place, was the idea of Newspeak and the whole principal it was founded on. The fact that it's a language that gets smaller as it develops instead of bigger. To me, words are amazing, I love them. I love that you can look up the word "good" in a thesaurus and find a plethora of synonyms to it. It's why I often refuse to dumb myself down to talk to other people who may not know the words I'm using. This book illustrates how restricted and sheltered people become when cut off from certain aspects of language. You begin to realize how precious a single word can be. There are words out there to describe every single thing you are feeling, what you want to do, who you are. If those are taken away, can you still feel this, do you know what you want to do, are you still truly you? Or are you just another nameless face in a crowd?

There are so many other amazing issues this book brings up and I would love to highlight them all, but definitely pick this book up. I think it's one of those books everyone should chance, you know? It ends up being a worthwhile read, if not a little tedious at times....less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

2 comments

Andrew rated it:

(review of isbn 0451519841)

05/02/07

Has a copy to sell/swap — Read in July, 2006

recommends it for: automatons

I had been planning to read "1984" for a long time. It's one of those books that you are supposed to read in high school. My high school AP Lit teacher had us read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" instead. And "The Stranger." And "The Bluest Eye." Over the summer. I ended up hating all of these books except "Brave New World," because I was brought up a sci-fi-reading geek. "The Bluest Eye" was, in my high-school estimation, a book for ...more I had been planning to read "1984" for a long time. It's one of those books that you are supposed to read in high school. My high school AP Lit teacher had us read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" instead. And "The Stranger." And "The Bluest Eye." Over the summer. I ended up hating all of these books except "Brave New World," because I was brought up a sci-fi-reading geek. "The Bluest Eye" was, in my high-school estimation, a book for girls, and "The Stranger" hit too close to home to make me feel very comfortable. I loved that book AND hated it, hating most that it was too short. "Brave New World" is my least favorite of all those books at present, but that summer, it was the top choice.

"1984" was the book the other Lit classes read, and I was jealous, even though the parts of "Animal Farm" I had read didn't do much for me - never was much of a history buff, and the allegory is too stringent to the facts - "1984" had a cool name. It was a number. And of course later I would hear references to the book and have to laugh along, like, "Yeah, totally," all while cursing myself for pretending like I had anything more than a passing knowledge of what the book was about. I thought it was a sci-fi novel. I was wrong. It's a love story.

That's about all you need to know. If you read some Dickens, you'll love the descriptions of the old-school trinket shop, and the sentimentality placed in among the brutal descriptions of a mechanized, insane world where war is manufactured for the sake of keeping the people in power right where they are. In short, it is a super-realist tale. Orwell prophesied the use of unconventional weapons and in a way, he was basically describing colonialist Britain in Sri Lanka (where he lived) and throughout the colonies, from the West Indies to the Far East Indies, inciting unrest and ruling with an iron fist in order to pummel the citizens into a state of wary submission. Of course, no one ever believes the hype, the party line, but "act up and get smacked up," as the song goes. "1984" is about characters who skirt disaster, play with fire, and get burned. But it is also about the triumph of love in the face of a loveless society. It even questions whether love - altogether human, imperfect, stupid, and dangerous - is even worth it in the face of the consequences. No final decision is given by Orwell, except for a hint that maybe it's not a decision anyway....less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Alex rated it:

02/06/08

Read in November, 2008

recommended to Alex by: Julie Adams
recommends it for: ANYONE

Second addition to my bookshelf, because this is the best book I've read in years. Julie has been harping on me to read it, so I picked it up for the China trip... how very appropriate.

So often lumped in with "Brave New World" as the pinnacle of early 20th century dystopian prophecy. In the spirit of Beatles-vs.-Elvis, I'll say that I much prefer "1984."

I see no sense in trying to summarize or review the book, so I'll just share some of the more profound impressions...more Second addition to my bookshelf, because this is the best book I've read in years. Julie has been harping on me to read it, so I picked it up for the China trip... how very appropriate.

So often lumped in with "Brave New World" as the pinnacle of early 20th century dystopian prophecy. In the spirit of Beatles-vs.-Elvis, I'll say that I much prefer "1984."

I see no sense in trying to summarize or review the book, so I'll just share some of the more profound impressions that I felt while reading it.

For starters, the disturbing amount of seemingly familiar motifs, phrases, and ideas in the book caught me off-guard. While reading "1984," though possibly due in part to immediacy, I was hard-pressed to think of any work of fiction that has been so consistently aped, imitated, or unconciously evoked in subsequent film and literature. 1984 is everywhere... from Big Brother to "Brazil"-ian bureaucracy to blind sloganeering (let's play Word-or-Not? with that one).

I expected to find Orwell's writing a bit dry, anachronistic, and difficult to relate to. Could NOT have been more wrong. The prose is remarkably savvy and accessible. All of the stylistic hurdles that I typically find I must bridge when reading fiction from a different era were surprisingly absent. The book "reads" like it could have been written yesterday. And I mean that in a good way.

Also, I'm not trying to break on older books... I'm just saying that the evolution of the English language can very often throw up communication barriers when reading novels from a bygone era. Not so with this book.

In the case of 1984, "prophetic" would be an understatement. The accuracy of 1984's assumptions about modern and recently modern society evoke an inescapable gravity. For a book written about the future, it feels remarkably familiar and immediate... and, even though a fantasy, 1984's relevance borders on timeless and universal.

I'll dispense with the hyperbole. You know this book, and you know you're supposed to have read it. But we're not talking about fucking "Pride and Prejudice" here, where you can acknowledge that everyone thinks it's a classic, while still avoiding it because you know it sucks. This book is far too frightening and far too relevant. If you haven't read this book, then please make it a future "must-read." Mark my words: it will blow you away....less

Like this review? yes

1 comments

Richard rated it:

03/01/08

bookshelves: dystopian

1984 is a favorite of mine. I read it at a young age, having plucked it out of my older brother's bookcase without any idea what it was about. I remember that it chilled me to the bone. I'd read mostly kids books to that point, and 1984 was the first "grown up" book that I read. I wasn't at all prepared for where it went. I've since re-read it several times and still find it disturbing.

A few years ago I had a discussion with a number of people when the topic of forcing students to ...more 1984 is a favorite of mine. I read it at a young age, having plucked it out of my older brother's bookcase without any idea what it was about. I remember that it chilled me to the bone. I'd read mostly kids books to that point, and 1984 was the first "grown up" book that I read. I wasn't at all prepared for where it went. I've since re-read it several times and still find it disturbing.

A few years ago I had a discussion with a number of people when the topic of forcing students to wear RFID tags came up. A school district was proposing it as a way of keeping attendance and monitoring the kids, requiring the children to wear the tags hanging from straps around their necks, so that they could track them throughout the school using radio frequency readers. I was appalled at the idea, but even more shocked that most of the people discussing it seemed quite unconcerned about tagging kids like livestock.

The conversation eventually widened to include such things as national id cards and surveillance cameras mounted in public places, as is apparently common in parts of England. What concerned me more than the schemes in question was the attitude of many of the people participating in the discussion, which could perhaps be summed up as: since I'm not planning to commit a crime, I don't really care if government watches me all the time, reads my email or can search my home without a warrant, etc.

The logical extension of such thinking is only criminals need rights because government by its nature is somehow altruistic, and an innocent person need fear nothing from surrendering his rights. I'm not sure that anyone with such a naive belief -- or with such a fundamental lack of historical knowledge as to the behavior of governments in the past -- would truly appreciate Orwell's cautionary tale.

They'd probably point out that it was written to warn about the dangers of Socialism or Communism, but nowhere is it written that leftist governments have a monopoly on tyranny. With few exceptions, those in power will be tempted to increase their own power given the opportunity. Therefore, we should guard our rights jealously and view any attempt to encroach upon them with the deepest suspicion.

I'm sorry if this isn't a proper review of the book, but that's what I learned from it....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Phil rated it:

02/24/08

Read in September, 2007

recommends it for: Every single literate person on the planet.

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.