The’s answer to “Why do people rate this book so high? Surely I am missing something.” > Likes and Comments
41 likes · Like
why?
Congratulation, sir, a good (if slightly ambiguous) question! I'm going to have to be a little cautious answering it, aren't I? And I'm going to have to have a crack at all the whys. So.
I would argue that 1984 doesn't work terribly well as story - it's just not the right shape somehow- but that it does function rather well as a warning against authoritarianism, and as a set of... political? philosophical...? thought experiments. The same can of course be said of Brave New World - and I'm reasonably confident that the one is in part a response to the other - except that, for my money, Brave New World is the more polished effort, and just... well... more fun.
And no, I don't think fun was the first thing on Orwell's mind.
To be fair, any book that's achieved the kind of cultural penetration of 1984 has the potential to be a bit of a let-down.
Will that do as an answer? Other opinions are available.
So, I'd agree with you that this book was not written as a plot-based story. In fact, there is not much of a plot in the entire thing but it succeeds philosophically, I didn't enjoy this book like I would a Stephen King Fiction but it's masterpiece in the sense that Orwell says something worthwhile about the dangers of political manipulation, marxism, and communism. His point gets clearer with every decade. I would recommend you read Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson and Permanent Record by Edward Snowden to see some of Orwell's premonitions come to life. Those three books together prove to be an eye opening experience.
Then we agree. We both agree that it's important on the ideas front; we both agree that it's not much fun as story. The only difference is the weight we place on those two aspects, which is a matter of personal taste.
Now, I'd argue that those ideas apply just as firmly to the dangers of fascism as communism, because authoritarian states display a depressing similarity of behaviour regardless of their position on the political spectrum; I'd argue that Orwell's arguments apply just as firmly to the Venetian Republic, Tsarist Russia or Metternich's Austria as they do to the present or future; and I'd argue that O'Brian's barking-mad argument for power undermines the book in a way that Aldous Huxley avoids. Again, that's a matter of personal taste and personal judgement.
Apologies if I've been clumsy in expressing any of the above.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Edward
(new)
Mar 05, 2020 09:25AM
why?
reply
|
flag
Congratulation, sir, a good (if slightly ambiguous) question! I'm going to have to be a little cautious answering it, aren't I? And I'm going to have to have a crack at all the whys. So. I would argue that 1984 doesn't work terribly well as story - it's just not the right shape somehow- but that it does function rather well as a warning against authoritarianism, and as a set of... political? philosophical...? thought experiments. The same can of course be said of Brave New World - and I'm reasonably confident that the one is in part a response to the other - except that, for my money, Brave New World is the more polished effort, and just... well... more fun.
And no, I don't think fun was the first thing on Orwell's mind.
To be fair, any book that's achieved the kind of cultural penetration of 1984 has the potential to be a bit of a let-down.
Will that do as an answer? Other opinions are available.
So, I'd agree with you that this book was not written as a plot-based story. In fact, there is not much of a plot in the entire thing but it succeeds philosophically, I didn't enjoy this book like I would a Stephen King Fiction but it's masterpiece in the sense that Orwell says something worthwhile about the dangers of political manipulation, marxism, and communism. His point gets clearer with every decade. I would recommend you read Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson and Permanent Record by Edward Snowden to see some of Orwell's premonitions come to life. Those three books together prove to be an eye opening experience.
Then we agree. We both agree that it's important on the ideas front; we both agree that it's not much fun as story. The only difference is the weight we place on those two aspects, which is a matter of personal taste. Now, I'd argue that those ideas apply just as firmly to the dangers of fascism as communism, because authoritarian states display a depressing similarity of behaviour regardless of their position on the political spectrum; I'd argue that Orwell's arguments apply just as firmly to the Venetian Republic, Tsarist Russia or Metternich's Austria as they do to the present or future; and I'd argue that O'Brian's barking-mad argument for power undermines the book in a way that Aldous Huxley avoids. Again, that's a matter of personal taste and personal judgement.
Apologies if I've been clumsy in expressing any of the above.
