From the Bookshelf of Reading the Classics…

1984

George Orwell

Start date: July 1, 2012

Finish date: July 31, 2012

Discussion: Past Group Reads

Discussion leader: Jenn

Why we're reading this: Voted for by group members in a poll
[close] Voted for by group members in a poll

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 214 topics — 3,499 comments total

Past Group Reads

* Washington Square - Reading Schedule
By Brian , co-moderator · 3 posts · 28 views

last updated May 08, 2021 11:27AM

* Rebecca Reading Schedule
By Jenn , moderator · 1 post · 25 views

last updated Feb 04, 2021 10:42AM

showing 4 of 4 topics view all »

What Members Thought

Sep 15, 2011 Erin WV rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: fiction, 2012, digital-read, borrowed-read

Lord, was I relieved to finish this book finally. I did not enjoy it.

First, let’s get this all out of the way: 1984 is a masterpiece. I see it, I know it. The ideas that were presented in this book, when it came out in the years immediately following the Second World War, must have been alarming and exciting and breathtaking and humbling and poignant and everything that is the best that literature can do for our brains. We need books like this to point mirrors at ourselves and our cultural behav Lord, was I relieved to finish this book finally. I did not enjoy it.

First, let’s get this all out of the way: 1984 is a masterpiece. I see it, I know it. The ideas that were presented in this book, when it came out in the years immediately following the Second World War, must have been alarming and exciting and breathtaking and humbling and poignant and everything that is the best that literature can do for our brains. We need books like this to point mirrors at ourselves and our cultural behaviors and get us to see what slippery slopes we’re on all the time.

But I’m not someone who can read for ideas alone; I never have been. This book is so narratively clumsy I could not fathom how it got from one part to the next. The pacing was glacial. The story lacks action precisely because our protagonist rebel, Winston Smith, is almost a totally internal character. He observes without acting. He seethes without breaking. His thoughts are not interesting enough—or varied enough—to support this narrative.

How about the repetition problem? Over the first fifty percent of the book, Orwell describes, at length, the world in which our characters are living, both through narration and through what we see of the world and Winston’s place in it. That’s great, that’s fine. But then, for some reason, the next quarter of the book goes by while Winston reads from Goldstein’s book, which repeats—at length—everything we learned already, except in even more encyclopedic terms than before. Then he has a brief conversation with Julia, and then he reads more. Another good five to ten percent of the text. And then, when the story has finally ended, the book adds another lengthy essay on Newspeak, again to describe things we have already heard, both used in practice by the characters and described firsthand, way back in Part 1, by Syme.

The Newspeak essay is actually labeled as an appendix, so, OK, that’s all right. I can live with that. What it felt like to me was one of those internet guides for die-hard fans. The Fanatic’s Guide to 1984. Can’t you see it? A guy on a message board writes: “Hey, everybody, I put together an essay that delineates all the rules of grammar and usage for Newspeak.” Comment: “That’s awesome dude!” Comment: “Plusgood!” Inevitable snide dismissive comment: “You have too much time on your hands.”

I cannot even conceive why so much time was devoted to Winston reading the rebel book, however. It’s smack in the middle of the text, and lets all of the narrative tension dribble away minute by minute while it’s becoming caught up in this needless detail. I didn’t think I would ever get through this section. I thought I might die first.

Though Winston was a moderately complicated, conflicted lead character, the people who surrounded him were not special. I would have liked more of O’Brien before his major character shift. A better indication of why Winston thought he could trust him; something other than that there was just something in his face. I actually liked poor Syme in his one scene, although I guess his quick, clean demise made the desired impact better than anything else.

Julia was the worst. A symbol, not a woman. Winston “falls in love” with her because she is sexually promiscuous and he lacks human connection, not because there is anything special about her, because there is nothing there. She doesn’t say a single interesting thing throughout the entire book. She’s a rebel with no fire. She’s like of those talking dolls with the three set phrases they can say, and one of hers is “Let’s have sex.” We’re supposed to feel allied with her! We’re supposed to think she’s on the side of right! Aren’t we? I don’t even know. And let’s not even get started on the proles, and the dripping condescension the narrative has for those dumb, animal creatures and their beer and their gambling and their wide, wide asses.

It gets two stars because the world would not be the same without it. It gets two stars because I hated everything else about it. ...more

1 like · Like · see review