1984
discussion
Is anyone else HORRIFIED at the idea of destroying words?
date
newest »
newest »
That is a good point, and even if that were not the case, one cannot assume that such an occurrence will never happen. Monopolies sprung up during the Industrial Revolution with tycoons such as Carnegie and Rockefeller through both vertical and horizontal integration. Who's to say that such a feat won't happen with literature?
My worry in common with other contributors is not so much that language is shrinking but that it is losing the ability to tell the truth. We live in a time when cultural relativism is popular and scientific truth is all too often just a point of view that is not particularly privileged. This also reminds me of O'Brien asking Winston how many fingers he is holding up. In the end the truth becomes irrelevant.
![Raevyn "Lucia" [I'm in it for the books]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1374959527p1/18721584.jpg)
Banning books is destroying words. I believe that virtually no book is perfect, and so to be fair, if you ban one book, in theory you have to ban them all. And not even the most conservative book-banner wants THAT to happen! I know I certainly don't!(Sorry, I haven't read this. I want to soon, though!)
The way they destroyed words by using censorship in "1984" was horrifying. Throwing away newspapers and old records. . . those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. That was probably the goal of the Big Brother people. They didn't want the citizenry to be aware of history; the way things used to be. They were trying to keep them in ignorance. The less they knew, the easier they were to control. *Shudder*
Yes, when you destroy words, you destroy the ability for people to think clearly.
Exactly. Controlling a people is easy if they're dumbed down enough.
The irony is that dystopian novels these days often go First person present tense, and the worst ones short choppy sentences. If thats not word destroying, I have no idea whar is.
Monte, one example of a word being destroyed is "invite".One may invite a person to a party with an invitation (not an "invite".)
"Invite" is a verb not a noun; "invitation" is the noun that should be used.
It's being so wrongly used though that I'm sure it's already in the Lexicon. Sadly.
And that's just ONE word being butchered.
DoublePlusThorough, wait that makes it longer.:D
And what about all the words that meant something completely different back in the olden days? today, many words have their meanings twisted so much that one can't use them in their original context. How about that for destruction of words?
I remember when I read this book, I thought that calling Syme (I hope that's right) a 'philologist' was like an added but subtle blow enforcing the horrors of Newspeak (though I also understand that philologist might have been the more common/proper term at the time than linguist). I mean, the word means a person who loves words. And yet Newspeak involves destroying words...Language is designed and meant to involve, but naturally. While unfortunately some words fall out of use or change in meaning, it's all part of a process that, ideally, helps us communicate effectively as new needs arise and times change. Reading discussions of Newspeak in this book were kind of darkly fascinating to me I guess you could say, but I could never support it in reality.
Remember, spellings of words varied until the time of the printing press, which required more standardization. Pronunciation has always varied; look at dialects in every country.Meanings though, change mostly with big changes in culture.
Elise wrote: "I remember when I read this book, I thought that calling Syme (I hope that's right) a 'philologist' was like an added but subtle blow enforcing the horrors of Newspeak (though I also understand tha..."Also, there's the irony of Syme enthusing on the beauty of Newspeak in a way that wouldn't be possible once it was fully realised.
Re: the main point, I think that what is scary is not the loss of individual words or unambiguous alteration over time (I'm sure everyone's sufficiently adjusted to the 'new' meaning of the word 'gay') but words being appropriated for the wrong purposes or in ways that diminish the original power of the word. For instance, the way the word 'rape' is constantly used metaphorically - such as celebrities talking about paparazzi photos, or the term 'frape' reducing a horrific, violating experience to simply having a fake update posted on your Facebook.
Also worrying is the appropriation and repetition of words or phrases by politicians and people in power, often with an ambiguous meaning that they can apply to what they want. For instance, the word terror as in 'The War on Terror' - terror is a subjective experience, not an objective evil we can vanquish. Not to mention the fact that 'War' carries its own connotations of terror, which makes the phrase doubly meaningless.
I agree with you Paul. Entirely.
People use texts all the time nowadays. In the past, reading a lot was a trait of the educated and well-to-do. Now people who love words and reading are labeled "nerds". I hate the idea of simplifying language, generally speaking anyways. Orwell knew what he was writing about. If it means I'll be associated with language and books, I'm proud to be a nerd. :)
Me too :DI thought of a word last week The meaning of which has entirely reversed, and it's become commonly used too... But today I can't remember the word. Darn it. :/
Take slang for example. Slang often comes from simplifying words, which I don't like. But the difference with slang is that each word tells a story, and each word comes from another. I don't think slang is exactly like text language, but I guess it could still be taken as "destroying" words.
I think we all just need to take a break and have TWO MINUTES OF HATE... let all the aggression out, you'll feel better BIG BROTHER will protect you :)
I admit to holding authors to a higher standard of word usage. After all, they get read (more than my little posts) and we learn a lot through observation.So, seeing the words "their", "there", and "they're" used properly, enough, might help teach correct usage.
Now, if I could just get people (and AUTOCORRECTS) to quit adding extra apostrophes when using plurals, I'd feel much better :)
The 'rewording' version of this happening in Turkey as well. It is a really creepy way of brainwashing. Smart people get it and try not to be fooled however it is more about shaping the future exactly like the book...The worst thing is we cannot read it off and with a half relaxed sigh, think that it is just a fiction that will not happen!
Elise wrote: "Language is designed and meant to involve, but naturally. While unfortunately some words fall out of use or change in meaning, it's all part of a process that, ideally, helps us communicate effectively as new needs arise and times change. Reading discussions of Newspeak in this book were kind of darkly fascinating to me I guess you could say, but I could never support it in reality. ..."Good point. I think there's a comparison to be made between Newspeak's cataloging of words, the Party's creation of a new language, and the English language puritans you often see in reality who, if they had their way, would keep the language forever grounded and prevent its natural evolution.
Horiified yes, but also fascinated of how effective this would be - and also reflects modern society as there are many words that we can't really say anymore - including changing the titles of certain novels...
David wrote: "Holly wrote: "Are you referring to events in the book, 1984, or present day society? Either way, yes is the answer to both, with more emphasis on the latter."Agreed. I have observed a strong pus..."
Wow man, this comment just kind of blew my mind. That's kinda scary...
It will soon be destroyed thanks to texting.
What Sam said ^We'll be typing letters and numbers in single letter words, maybe even phrases. No need for full words ;)
Oh, and no spelling tests, no editing tasks, and lots more explanations of the perceived insults lol
We are not destroying words. We are losing words. I guess the current day situation is a mixed of of both Orwell's '1984' and Huxley's 'Brave New World'. While the authority, in some degree, is trying to regulate minds by regulating language, it is also losing the reason to do so.
Reducing the number of words available reduces the possibilities for expression, and thus human potential full stop. If you don't have a word for example, corruption, how can you fully understand and effectively explain that corruption exists - and why it is bad. It's perfectly plausible there are concepts out there that we can not grasp - either due to biological constraints, in the way a cat can not perceive 'justice', or through political suppression..Best seen today by 'political correctness' as well as the attempts of all political parties to brand certain types of language, primarily on the extremes of both the left and right, as out of bounds. They are effectively trying to shape the boundaries of words and expressions at your disposal for their own ends.
I can see us needing to add/use more words from other languages as we lose the "possibilities for expression", for example, we already use some like "gestalt"... ;)
it is not that the words are destroyed or that the meaning of words are altered that is the problem, the probllem is the truth of the fact conveyed in the word or statement is changed.... so history is altered and once the fact is altered we can never get it back because we have no accurate source of reference...this could happen today with so much information being saved electronicaly rather than on paper...... the danger with online encyclopaedias like wiki is that fact that they can be altered . the same could go for e books which could be alterd electronicaly.....how would you know if a sentence was changed in an e book every day....better to keep the hard copy of written book and protect them from the firemen as in farenhiet 451
libellule wrote: "Frank wrote: "it is not that the words are destroyed or that the meaning of words are altered that is the problem, the probllem is the truth of the fact conveyed in the word or statement is changed..."in the book 1984 the changes that really mattered were not the change in use of words but in the facts,,,,by changing the facts big brother always seemed to have been right..this is what i was addressing in relation to my response to the question stated in the start of the thread. i felt it more important that we notice that facts are being changed than meaning of words.
i agree that language evolves and grows and mutates,
the possibility of a modern day big brother is brought nearer by the modern relience on electroic sources of infomation. imagine the world before digitalisation , how labourious it would be to recall all printed matter to change a fact compared to how easy it would be to change electonicaly recorded data.
true most competent historians would check their facts with sevaral sources ..... but just look at modern society and where the majority get their facts and figures, the internet, with most people going for one source and short sound bites of information.... i am not saying that information was more reliable in the past than in the present or the future but i am just pointing out that fact that a modern day big brothers abuse of information is more possible...
why do you think that it would only be possible in a dictatorship.....cover ups happen in democractic countries too,,,,look at the recent intelligence revelations ...you would not need to cotroll all information just enough....it would also be more believable if there were sevaral sources...... how hard would it be to create a new source online. and make it seem independant ..
true, copies and backups of information can be found, but what i am saying is that most people would not search for other sources and only when they suspected the truth of a source would they look for a second source or search for hard copy..
I agree with Frank. We know language evolves but there are other dangers in the modern era. These days newspapers have less journalists than before yet an imperative to develop more copy. The consequence is that we have lots of text but too much of it is recycled from official government statements or companies' PR departments which most journalists don't have the time or inclination to verify. So again I am not so worried about the language shirking but more the loss of it's ability to tell the truth. I believe that it is possible that the truth will be written somewhere but it will be buried beneath so much other stuff that it will be difficult to recognise, if it is discovered.
true eddie.....it has been a proven tactic in civil cases where there is disclosure to swamp the opponent in paper so he cant find the pertinent piece of information. but the other point i was making is that the electonic recording of information makes it easier to alter....when was the last time you got a hand written letter,,,now days all people correspond by e mail,,,and that is open to abuse,
i am not worried that people write u instead of you or r instead of are, or whatever,,,, when we write color instead of colour the world does not fall apart,mankind used to cummunicate with grunts.teenagers still do(only joking), but its the message thats important.
deleted user wrote: "Title says all."you've got to be kidding me, that couldn't be more vague
eric wrote: "deleted user wrote: "Title says all."you've got to be kidding me, that couldn't be more vague"
How is that vague? The issue here is what was raised in the book itself, how Newspeak sought to streamline the English language with the intent of eliminating words, the purpose of which was a dumbed down population that couldn't express itself or its ideas coherently. If people don't have a word for concepts like freedom, liberties, rights, and so forth, they have a much harder time demanding them.
Fair and balanced. Need one say more?
Destroying words? It is not possible. There are too many safe houses for them. Words, thoughts, books will survive as long as there is a market for them. Extinction is possible, but it's a natural process. The DNA of a word is always passed on. The OED says so.(If I missed the point, forgive me. I'm a newbie.)
Yes, destroying words seems like the worst thing against humanity to me. Much worse than brainwashing, or bombings or ANYTHING. Humans can recover from that. We are a resiliant trace and will survive. HOwever, if you took away the very words that allow to voice your thoughts and reasons, you ,love, passion, anger. Even lust, we would become inhuman. We would loose the ability to fight back because we simply, and literally wouldn't have the words.
Collateral damage: civilians killed.Revenue enhancement: tax increase.
Lagoon: open pools of pig feces.
Negative patient outcome: death.
Those are pretty horrific Orwellian terms that people actually use in the real world.
Let's not evade a very real concern here. The question I think concerns the deliberate destruction of words for political purposes. Although 1984 was really about fears arising before 1948 (totalitarian trends worldwide), it was a work of fiction. Is such a thing possible or likely? I think not.I am a lover of words. They are tools of thought, and each has a precise use. I am neither in favor of some preserver of the state of the language nor of some arbitrary purifier of it. Each word was coined for a particular use. Who is to say that it is no longer needed? (I, like all of you, do have words I would just as soon not see again.)
I wonder what Orwell would have thought about the connotations leveled by our use of the word "Orwellian". :}
Orwell would be gratified that people listened to him long enough to immortalize his name. Imagine that his name had been Schicklegruber.Seriously, modern technology makes it impossible to kill a word. Heck! Even our typos are immortal.
Maria wrote: "George Orwell was a prophet, and the proof lies in the fact that the written word and speech are being simplified today. The average American's vocabulary typically does not include words composed..."Actually that's a researched phenomenon in linguistics. In many languages you can tell the age of the word by how many syllables it has. Telephone and cellular phones become phones and cells. Flintlock, musket, become gun. Usually the shortest words have to do with food, sex, and elimination.
From George Orwell:"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable". The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality."
He said this in 1949.
Oncemshi wrote: "From George Orwell:"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable". The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each..."
There is nothing new under the sun.
But isn't a large percentage of world book sales already in the control of a few large corporations? :)