Marty's review
1984
by George Orwell
I like your review, except that this is my favorite book and I will say that when an author as great as Orwell chooses his ending, it is very deliberate, very calculated, and it is exactly what it is supposed to be.
Adam, I respectfully disagree, and I will explain why:
**SPOILERS**
The tipping point for Winston is rats to the face. Rats. Yeah, this is what breaks down his previously monumental resistance ... no, wait, not just rats, but the idea of rats. Yes, rats to the face would stink. No, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But this is what gets him to capitulate? I don't buy it.
Not that it couldn't be rats. But if Orwell had hoped to sell me on this point, he needed to prepare me for it before just the few pages before the act as O'Brien describes what he is going to do. For this moment to be true to form, for me, I need more than just vague references to nightmares of rats.
Let me give an example. In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, when they are extracting a "confession" out of Esmerelda, they threaten to break her ankle. Twist it until it snaps and breaks. Again, not a fun prospect, but what Hugo did to make it an unacceptable consequence is that fact that this innocent girl's only thing she has ever known and has ever been good at is dancing. It is her livelihood. So, yeah, a snapped ankle is not good, but when mixed in with this prospect, which the reader is well aware of beforehand, the whole idea of any damage to her ankle is repugnant and unacceptable. And you breath with relief when she gives in, even though you feel terrible later that they got what they wanted. That is what I wanted Orwell to do. Build up some reason for that last scene of torture to have true, excruciating meaning to the character. So that the choice is truly more than just a physical dilemma. It is a dilemma that shakes him to the core and gets him to betray the only woman he has ever (supposedly) loved. Again, it still could have been rats, but I would have needed to see beforehand how rats were a source of true psychological anxiety far, far before Winston is ever captured and far more than some vague references. With this built in to the story, then when O'Brien introduces even a hint of rats, inside I groan, I recoil, I'm ready to give in with Winston because I know that he is about to be unfairly pushed beyond his limits. As it is, the story does none of that. It seems to be anything but calculated. In fact, that kind of creative torture might gain a scene in the most recent horror/slasher movie franchise, but not among the pages of an otherwise intelligent and brainy masterpiece. Maybe now that will help to see why I felt cheated. Why it seems that Orwell got to that point and put no effort into truly extracting the most out of his character before moving on to the heavy and devastating, but ultimately strong finale.
My final caveat is the relationship between Winston and Julia, which also contibutes, I think, to the the cheat of the ending. While it is clear that Winston and Julia had an amicable and obviously sexual relationship, it seemed clear, and Orwell made it clear, that they were not a couple that was committed to each other through boundless, pure love. Julia openly admits that she will see other guys. Is this the kind of relationship that is worth protecting at all costs? Doesn't seem like it to me. So when Winston rats out Julia (no pun intended), it almost seemed like ... oh, that was it? That's what O'Brien was going for? They were never really a true couple anyways. Now, if Orwell had set up Julia and Winston as a truly devoted and committed, in love (not in passion), couple, then the betrayal at the end would have been so much more devastating. Big Brother's victory so much more definitive. And therefore, the lesson truly impactful. As it is, it seems like all that Orwell took us through was the mediocre fight of a mediocre citizen. What good is that? Why can't we witness the best against the worst? That is where the true principles of agency and free will can be played out for the greatest impact on the reader. And that is what is so frustrating. All of Orwell's writing leading up to that point seems to build up to what you would think would be an insightful, raw, emotional finish. Instead, we get a pathetic attempt by what really turns out to be an average character.
Thus, for me, the cheat. If it is any consolation, I think that any other author would have been fine with that type of finish. Orwell was just so masterful otherwise that he lifted my expectations far beyond the abilities of any other author.
Brilliant. However, this is my favorite book, and i'm not about to let this go without a fight.
Yes, they were only in passion and not in love, and he did cower before a mild torture whereas other great characters (Esmeralda, John Galt, Captain Picard) have endured more extreme forms of torture.
I think that's his thesis. I think Orwell is saying we are surrounded by telescreens, but we CHOOSE to never turn them off; we are surrounded by shitty products from China, food that is full of chemicals to make it last longer, and fruits genetically engineered to be LESS sweet so they can be shipped over longer distances (Victory Coffee, Victory Gin, Victory Cigarettes); although I support most of American foreign policy, the parallels today are too obvious to point out; architecture is towering, monotonous (I visited the 40 story high NY Marriot Marquee, the floors of the hotel are stacked in an Orwellian fashion, also check out the DC subway!)....
In this type of society, where the State is pervasive... love can only be defined by defiance. Yes, Winston is a coward, but I believe Orwell is making the statement that we are all cowards, none of us are principled or intelligent enough to pull off a desperately needed shift away from totalitarianism (see the trend of barcodes on identification and national ID cards). The State is so oppressive, even if Winston were to carry to banner of freedom and liberty, where would his revolution come from.
This is why Winston broke. Heroes are not irrational playboys. O'Brien's description of how the proles will never rise, makes democracy impossible (especially since the word has been removed in Newspeak, so the concept cannot even exist). The Appendix involving the Newspeak dictionary is there to show the futility of rebellion. No institutions are allowed to exist, save the State, and to challenge the State's propaganda, one must rediscover the principles of human liberty (which we have only articulated within the past century, amidst two world wars, a cold war, and genocides and famines all over the world) and develop free institutions... is this possible in Oceania on that bright, cold day in April when the clocks were striking thirteen?
We love Big Brother, because there is no one else. We cower before power, because it is unassailable. Stalin is God, let us pray to Stalin for candles.
This is a photorealistic description of OUR reality.
Orwell's hero is a coward.
Adam, I've enjoyed this discussion, even if we don't see eye to eye. Thanks for your comments.
Marty's review
1984 by George Orwell
Marty's review
rating:
bookshelves:
school-bookshelf
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 ...more
I like your review, except that this is my favorite book and I will say that when an author as great as Orwell chooses his ending, it is very deliberate, very calculated, and it is exactly what it is supposed to be.
Adam, I respectfully disagree, and I will explain why:
**SPOILERS**
The tipping point for Winston is rats to the face. Rats. Yeah, this is what breaks down his previously monumental resistance ... no, wait, not just rats, but the idea of rats. Yes, rats to the face would stink. No, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But this is what gets him to capitulate? I don't buy it.
Not that it couldn't be rats. But if Orwell had hoped to sell me on this point, he needed to prepare me for it before just the few pages before the act as O'Brien describes what he is going to do. For this moment to be true to form, for me, I need more than just vague references to nightmares of rats.
Let me give an example. In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, when they are extracting a "confession" out of Esmerelda, they threaten to break her ankle. Twist it until it snaps and breaks. Again, not a fun prospect, but what Hugo did to make it an unacceptable consequence is that fact that this innocent girl's only thing she has ever known and has ever been good at is dancing. It is her livelihood. So, yeah, a snapped ankle is not good, but when mixed in with this prospect, which the reader is well aware of beforehand, the whole idea of any damage to her ankle is repugnant and unacceptable. And you breath with relief when she gives in, even though you feel terrible later that they got what they wanted. That is what I wanted Orwell to do. Build up some reason for that last scene of torture to have true, excruciating meaning to the character. So that the choice is truly more than just a physical dilemma. It is a dilemma that shakes him to the core and gets him to betray the only woman he has ever (supposedly) loved. Again, it still could have been rats, but I would have needed to see beforehand how rats were a source of true psychological anxiety far, far before Winston is ever captured and far more than some vague references. With this built in to the story, then when O'Brien introduces even a hint of rats, inside I groan, I recoil, I'm ready to give in with Winston because I know that he is about to be unfairly pushed beyond his limits. As it is, the story does none of that. It seems to be anything but calculated. In fact, that kind of creative torture might gain a scene in the most recent horror/slasher movie franchise, but not among the pages of an otherwise intelligent and brainy masterpiece. Maybe now that will help to see why I felt cheated. Why it seems that Orwell got to that point and put no effort into truly extracting the most out of his character before moving on to the heavy and devastating, but ultimately strong finale.
My final caveat is the relationship between Winston and Julia, which also contibutes, I think, to the the cheat of the ending. While it is clear that Winston and Julia had an amicable and obviously sexual relationship, it seemed clear, and Orwell made it clear, that they were not a couple that was committed to each other through boundless, pure love. Julia openly admits that she will see other guys. Is this the kind of relationship that is worth protecting at all costs? Doesn't seem like it to me. So when Winston rats out Julia (no pun intended), it almost seemed like ... oh, that was it? That's what O'Brien was going for? They were never really a true couple anyways. Now, if Orwell had set up Julia and Winston as a truly devoted and committed, in love (not in passion), couple, then the betrayal at the end would have been so much more devastating. Big Brother's victory so much more definitive. And therefore, the lesson truly impactful. As it is, it seems like all that Orwell took us through was the mediocre fight of a mediocre citizen. What good is that? Why can't we witness the best against the worst? That is where the true principles of agency and free will can be played out for the greatest impact on the reader. And that is what is so frustrating. All of Orwell's writing leading up to that point seems to build up to what you would think would be an insightful, raw, emotional finish. Instead, we get a pathetic attempt by what really turns out to be an average character.
Thus, for me, the cheat. If it is any consolation, I think that any other author would have been fine with that type of finish. Orwell was just so masterful otherwise that he lifted my expectations far beyond the abilities of any other author.
Brilliant. However, this is my favorite book, and i'm not about to let this go without a fight.
Yes, they were only in passion and not in love, and he did cower before a mild torture whereas other great characters (Esmeralda, John Galt, Captain Picard) have endured more extreme forms of torture.
I think that's his thesis. I think Orwell is saying we are surrounded by telescreens, but we CHOOSE to never turn them off; we are surrounded by shitty products from China, food that is full of chemicals to make it last longer, and fruits genetically engineered to be LESS sweet so they can be shipped over longer distances (Victory Coffee, Victory Gin, Victory Cigarettes); although I support most of American foreign policy, the parallels today are too obvious to point out; architecture is towering, monotonous (I visited the 40 story high NY Marriot Marquee, the floors of the hotel are stacked in an Orwellian fashion, also check out the DC subway!)....
In this type of society, where the State is pervasive... love can only be defined by defiance. Yes, Winston is a coward, but I believe Orwell is making the statement that we are all cowards, none of us are principled or intelligent enough to pull off a desperately needed shift away from totalitarianism (see the trend of barcodes on identification and national ID cards). The State is so oppressive, even if Winston were to carry to banner of freedom and liberty, where would his revolution come from.
This is why Winston broke. Heroes are not irrational playboys. O'Brien's description of how the proles will never rise, makes democracy impossible (especially since the word has been removed in Newspeak, so the concept cannot even exist). The Appendix involving the Newspeak dictionary is there to show the futility of rebellion. No institutions are allowed to exist, save the State, and to challenge the State's propaganda, one must rediscover the principles of human liberty (which we have only articulated within the past century, amidst two world wars, a cold war, and genocides and famines all over the world) and develop free institutions... is this possible in Oceania on that bright, cold day in April when the clocks were striking thirteen?
We love Big Brother, because there is no one else. We cower before power, because it is unassailable. Stalin is God, let us pray to Stalin for candles.
This is a photorealistic description of OUR reality.
Orwell's hero is a coward.
Adam, I've enjoyed this discussion, even if we don't see eye to eye. Thanks for your comments.