1984
discussion
O'Brien's relationship with Winston/ Why O'Brien knows everything?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Wenxi
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jul 02, 2013 05:38PM
O'Brien appeared in Winston's dream, "assisted" in Winston's rebellion. He's a torturer, a teacher, a friend, a enemy. However, why was O'Brien able to comprehend Winston's thoughts and feelings so completely?? What's the point of this??
reply
|
flag
It's because he, like the other Party members, understand their purpose in engineering society in the way they did. As he says, power is its own end, and the success of the Party is in that its made up of people who understand this and don't kid themselves about their motives and aims. He understands Winston because Winston seeks to know why and how things became this way, and even sympathizes with this desire, though he is ultimately determined to destroy it. It is in satisfying Winston's curiosity that he accomplishes this. He lets him know that there is no chance society will ever evolve beyond the arrangement they have created by creating the three-caste system, ensuring total surveillance and thought control, and making sure that continuous war focuses all production and emotion towards victory over an external threat. Telling him the truth about it all is the best of letting him know just how hopeless his situation is...
Except for the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled due to lack of funds. Same thing with Oceania, s5retch finances to far and your doomed.
SarahW wrote: "Except for the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled due to lack of funds. Same thing with Oceania, s5retch finances to far and your doomed."That was not the case in the book. At no point did Orwell indicate that Oceania was squandering its resources. In fact, its entire system of production was designed to consume whatever was produced, and ongoing shortages ensured that people suffered from want and didn't ever improve their living situation. So really, what happened to the Soviet Union was not likely to be the case with Oceania. But of course, this was all for the sake of fiction, Orwell's attempt to warn people that totalitarians were improving their craft.
There is no denying the fact the it was modeled after Stalin's Germany though. One only has to read a wikipedia article to find that out.
@SarahWStalin --> Soviet Union
Hitler --> Germany
SarahW wrote: "There is no denying the fact the it was modeled after Stalin's Germany though. One only has to read a wikipedia article to find that out."In part, yes, but I don't see how your statement was relevant. How things turned out forty-three years after 1984 was published has no bearing on the point Orwell was making in the novel. The point was to display a dictatorship that could not fail because its Party members had learned from the dictatorships of the past, and knew enough not to create anything they didn't destroy.
And yeah, what Emma said - Stalin ran the Soviet Union from 1924-53, aka. Russia, not Germany.
Does anyone have a view on whether O'Brien was a prisoner, like Winston, before becoming an inner party member? Or do you think he became an inner party member because he served Big Brother well and was rewarded by the system?
The difference is that there is no Western Europe or USA where people can run to and find a wonderful life. The world is the same everywhere. The enemies of the state are no different than the state and may not even exist.
The future is a boot smashing a human face. The future will always be a boot smashing a human face.The Party Oligarchy has a vested interest in weeding out those who seek the truth. They use their version of it to entrap citizens like Winston. Then destroy them for accepting it. Had O'Brien ever been in Winston's shoes his fate would have been similar. Oligarchy's tend to do their recruiting in-house (as is the current case).
And I have to agree with Thomas. Although it's never stated explicitly, the implications lead to East Asia,etc...having the same style governments, if not the exact same oligarchy in power.
Kind of scary in an age of globalization, eh?
The relationship between Winston and O'Brien is one of the darkest and most intriguing in the whole novel. Although O'Brien is endlessly cruel to Winston, Winston never has any emotions but awe, inferiority, and respect towards him. I think part of the reason O'Brien is able to tell exactly what Winston is thinking is because of the Party's mind reading device, and also because their thought processes are very similar. Winston has been watched by this man for seven years; O'Brien understands him like few others would. Probably more so than Julia.
K.j. wrote: "The relationship between Winston and O'Brien is one of the darkest and most intriguing in the whole novel. Although O'Brien is endlessly cruel to Winston, Winston never has any emotions but awe, in..."What mind reading device?
Matthew wrote: "K.j. wrote: "The relationship between Winston and O'Brien is one of the darkest and most intriguing in the whole novel. Although O'Brien is endlessly cruel to Winston, Winston never has any emotion..." Sorry, I sort of assumed they had a device like that because O'Brien tells Winston that he has ways to sense what he's thinking. When Winston thinks about rebellion, O'Brien show up immediately and tells him he could detect he was thinking about decieving him. Whether that implies a device with those capabilities, or just the fact that the party is able to interpret body language so thoroughly, I don't know. I guess I inferred that and forgot it was never stated in the book. Sorry.
I understood the reference to Germany in the context of the former GDR (aka East Germany). That was, in a way, Stalin's Germany, although his control was indirect, through a series of leaders taken from the German population, the last of whom was Erich Honnecker. That was in some ways an even more effective "Big Brother" state than the Nazi regime.OTOH, if the author of the "Stalin's Germany" really meant Hitler, then I'm reading in more subtlety than is actually there. I do that sometimes.-
Peter wrote: "I understood the reference to Germany in the context of the former GDR (aka East Germany). That was, in a way, Stalin's Germany, although his control was indirect, through a series of leaders taken..."Oh you're definitely reading more subtlety than is actually there. No disrespect intended to this person, but I doubt they are aware of the layers of history involved. And since "Stalin's Germany" was barely two years old at this point, I doubt Orwell was using it as a focus.
K.j. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "K.j. wrote: "The relationship between Winston and O'Brien is one of the darkest and most intriguing in the whole novel. Although O'Brien is endlessly cruel to Winston, Winston never..."Ah, I see. No apologies necessary, it was intimated that they could read his thoughts. But you are right, it was the kind that is derived from watching people so closely all the time. As Winston explained, one had to always be on guard for unconscious betrayals of intent in Oceania. The slightest facial expression, movement, or words uttered in one's sleep could result in a visit from the Thought Police.
Winston is outer party.., he enjoys none of the benefits the inner party does. Yet, his job shows him proof of the party's lies all day long. I would think that sets him up for special oversight. Quite a dilemma for the inner party. In a Snowden/WikiLeaks sort of situation.
Matthew wrote: "SarahW wrote: "There is no denying the fact the it was modeled after Stalin's Germany though. One only has to read a wikipedia article to find that out."
In part, yes, but I don't see how your sta..."
Not to redirect the conversation, but didn't the Soviet Union and the Allies split Berlin after WW2? The era of 'the berlin wall' with soviet berlin and allied berlin?
In part, yes, but I don't see how your sta..."
Not to redirect the conversation, but didn't the Soviet Union and the Allies split Berlin after WW2? The era of 'the berlin wall' with soviet berlin and allied berlin?
Dominique wrote: "Matthew wrote: "SarahW wrote: "There is no denying the fact the it was modeled after Stalin's Germany though. One only has to read a wikipedia article to find that out."In part, yes, but I don't ..."
Yes, of course. They split the capitol much as they split the country, with the Soviets controlling the eastern portion and the western allies controlling the western. Why do you ask?
Not to redirect the conversation, but didn't the Soviet Union and the Allies split Berlin after WW2? The era of 'the berlin wall' with soviet berlin and allied berlin? Yes, Germany was divided into four "zones" after WWII, one for each of the main victorious parties (USSR, France, UK, USA). Berlin, located in the middle of the Soviet zone, was similarly partitioned, leaving each of the Western allies (France, UK, USA) with a foothold in the middle of the Soviet zone.
Nevertheless, the "1984-like" oversight in the form of the Stasi (full name "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit," which renders in English "National Security Agency" with only the most minor of translational liberties) wasn't formed until 1950, two years after 1984 was published.
So I'm not sure how anything in Orwell's novel could be "modeled after" the Stasi, unless George also had a time machine.
Peter wrote: "Not to redirect the conversation, but didn't the Soviet Union and the Allies split Berlin after WW2? The era of 'the berlin wall' with soviet berlin and allied berlin? Yes, Germany was divided in..."
Is that a zinger to the NSA? Because the Stasi name actually translates to "Ministry of State Security". Tell me that was meant as a zinger, because if so, it was quite a delicious one!
Matthew wrote: "K.j. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "K.j. wrote: "The relationship between Winston and O'Brien is one of the darkest and most intriguing in the whole novel. Although O'Brien is endlessly cruel to Winston, ..."Yes, thank you. I think I explained myself wrong, however. I didn't actually mean a mind-reading device--but presumably they don't have analysts sitting around by a computer all day, watching every citizen in Oceania, so it can be assumed that it's done by a computer made to interpret body language...I'm thinking this over far too much for a detail in the story that's almost entirely irrelevant to the plot/theme/setting/anything...but that's what I meant by mind-reading device. Not something that could, per say, pick thoughts from your mind, but a computer/database/whatever that discerned your thoughts based on physical reactions, which would be in essence, a mind-reading device...I should stop. Just wanted to clear that up.
Simon wrote: "I took it to mean that O'Brien could 'read Winston's thoughts' because he had done this all before, many times. Room 101 had been in operation before Winston ever heard of it and presumably O'Brien..."Additionally, O'Brien had access to Winston's diary, and recordings of conversations he had with Julia (remember, their "secret" bedroom was tapped). O'Brien at one point says that Winston's and his minds are similar. O'Brien was possibly chosen to be the interrogator and torturer because he was like Winston in that regard.
On a side note, I think seeing 1984 as simply a parody of the USSR really misses the point. One of the many things Orwell was portraying the novel was that people could be horrible oppressed and not even know it because of doublethink. My copy has a wonderful afterword by Eric Fromme, who gives an example of doublethink in our own world. We talk about the "Free World," as states that are allied with the US. But many of those states have been just as oppressive as the USSR--Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, etc. Sometimes people say, "Franco may have been terrible, but at least Spain wasn't communist!" But you have to ask yourself, "what horrible things would have existed in 'Soviet Spain' that didn't exist in Franco's Spain?" Concentration camps? Horrible political oppression? Mass executions? Franco had all of that...
This contradiction (That the "Free World" contains totalitarian states, and we know that, but we still insist on calling it-and believing it to be--the "Free World") is an explicit example of doublethink. We recognize the contradictory claims, and we accept both of them, and don't even notice the contradiction even though it's staring us in the face.
1984 takes a lot of it's cues form genuine Soviet events and people, but it's message(s) go much deeper.
MAYBE, O'BRIEN, IS BIG BROTHER, WHO KNOW? MAYBE HE IS A JUST A STALKER!!!!!!!!!!
Ramses wrote: "Simon wrote: "I took it to mean that O'Brien could 'read Winston's thoughts' because he had done this all before, many times. Room 101 had been in operation before Winston ever heard of it and pres..."Oh, and let's not forget "they hate us because we are free". Or the kind of judgements that are imposed on "rogue states" or political organizations deemed to be "terrorists". When they open fire on civilian areas, its called an act of terror. But when aircraft or drones bomb or shell civilian areas, its called "self-defense" or "counter-insurgency".
I also note the ever-present explanation which is employed whenever collateral damage happens in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan. Why is it that we accept on faith that when a missile kills dozens of civilians, it's blamed on the enemy for using them as "human shields". Not only is it an obvious case of passing the blame, it's also meaningless.
If the presence of civilians does not stay you're hand, you're just as guilty of murdering them, regardless of whether or not the enemy was embedded within them. And if you seriously think routinely shelling and bombing densely populated areas and embargoing them will dissuade anyone from fighting you, you're in need of a reality check.
Sorry, guess I'm feeling a little political this morning ;)
And what go you suggest is the solution when dealing with a group like, say, Hamas? I'm not saying I disagree with you, just curious.
While that sounds good, I don't think it accounts for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are explicitly violent and see the destruction of the state of Israel as the only solution. Israel violates international law in its policies, but Israel itself exists legally, and her critics often seem to forget that.Israel withdrew from Gaza, settlers and all, in 2005 and left quite a bit of infrastructure. The Gazans elected Hamas, devoted all the resources left behind to war, and now we have the current mess (or, if you like, the current incarnation of the same mess).
Also, in the early 2000's (I think it was) Israel tried to make peace by offering all of the west bank minus East Jerusalem to the formation of a Palestinian state. The deal was refused. Why?
My point here is not that Israel is beyond reproach--it isn't (especially with Netanyahu in office), but that the issue is not so black and white as either side would say. This is an issue I care about a lot (as a jew myself, and someone who generally thinks of himself as pro-Israel), and when friends ask me what I think the solution is, I say, "the way the world is now, there isn't one. Something fundamental has to change in a larger geopolitical sense for this bizarre conflict to have any rational resolution."
Wenxi wrote: "O'Brien appeared in Winston's dream, "assisted" in Winston's rebellion. He's a torturer, a teacher, a friend, a enemy. However, why was O'Brien able to comprehend Winston's thoughts and feelings so..."Because he's bait. He hooks Winston by the uncertain hope and vulnerable attitude he displays and pretends to embrance the same ideas in order to trap him. He's the worst enemy one could even dream of and, to some level, he was made by Winston's own mind, which made him too eager to achieve a goal impossible to persuit (FREEDOM).
With all due respect, I think your defense of Hamas and Hezbollah (I'll abbreviate as H&H) is pretty flimsy. One can also point out (by way of analogy) that the KKK wasn't formed as a racist organization dedicated to lynching emancipated slaves, and that today their motive is not to "kill blacks" but to create a society of genuinely separate but equal races. However, I think we can all see through that sanitized rhetoric. We know what the group stands for. I think we can view H&H the same way. Hamas may have "dropped all rhetoric" of their 1988 charter which calls for the elimination of all Jews worldwide, but the KKK has also dropped a lot of its more inflammatory rhetoric. Does that make them more trustworthy?Additionally, in one of our earlier responses you said that we "take it on faith" that Hamas uses human shields, and then it's "meaningless" even if they do. It's hard for me to know how to respond to this, since it's such an outrage to the rest of the high moral standard you seem to be representing. For evidence of Hamas' human shields tactics:
http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/0...
Hamas posted a status on FB that read (translation):
"The Ministry of the Interior and National Security would like to make our people aware that they should refrain from disseminating photographs of martyrs of the resistance. Do not disseminate the location of their death in battle, because the enemy collects these details and uses them to justify their crimes."
That's been translated from Arabic to English by the IDF, but I'll leave the translation from political speech (ala the kind Orwell was referencing on "Politics and the English Language") into plain language to you.
Regarding refugees and the Right to Return: the Palestinian refugees are locked in refugee status thanks to the UNRWA ruling that allows for the descendents of the original refugees to claim refugee status. No other refugees are treated this way. UNRWA also perpetuates the belief that the only solution is the right to return for all 4 million refugees. If all refugees go to Israel, Israel becomes an Arab Muslim majority state. It will then either be apartheid--which will never survive international repercussions--, or democratic. If democratic, then the Arabs will change its Jewish character via legislation, thus destroying Israel, and creating (another) third world Arab theocracy. Herein lies the contradiction: The Right of Return is granted as a law, but so is the existence of the State of Israel.
What about Barak's offer to Arafat? I won't deny that it wasn't perfect. But the Palestinians were to be granted the vast majority of the West Bank, all of Gaza, roads to link them, Israel would remove almost all settlements. Arafat said no because he didn't get explicit authority of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which he said is "more precious to me than everything else." More precious, apparently, then the people he had been representing!
It's easy to point out flaws in Barak's offer. But the offer was still one of statehood, of legitimacy. By contrast, when the Zionist Congress accepted the state of Israel as offered in 1947, it didn't include everything they wanted. But they knew that sometimes you can't get everything you want right away. Sometimes you have to accept what you can, then work towards the rest gradually. But the PA in all its incarnations has repeatedly said, "give us everything we want or no deal." After Arafat sabotaged the talks, he blames Israel, and then instigates the Second Intifada.
Lastly, regarding the pre-1967 borders. A lot of people say those words like they actually mean something. But there's a reason the '67 war happened in the first place, and it wasn't out of resistance to any occupation. I'm not saying Israel was entirely blameless in what led to the six day war, but it's kinda naive to think that withdrawing to pre-767 borders would change anything.
so, this discussion is getting very serious so................................................
Arthur wrote: "so, this discussion is getting very serious so................................................"You're right. I'll take the blame--I didn't mean to hijack the convo and divert it to Israel/Palestine...
SO HOW ABOUT BIG BROTHER EH!? ISN'T HE JUST SWELL :-D
Ramses wrote: "Arthur wrote: "so, this discussion is getting very serious so................................................"You're right. I'll take the blame--I didn't mean to hijack the convo and divert it to..."
Dammit, I should have read this first. Ramses, you are NOT to blame. I brought it up, you just indulged this bullheaded politiknik. It sounds totally hypocritical of me to say "yeah, let's move on" now, but it is the resolution you guys have offered. So feel free to ignore what I already wrote ;)
Sweet Jesus, people, we're talking about a novel character, please let Hezbollah, Israel, Al Qaeda and Hamas aside or we'll escalate at one blink.
There's enough war out there. Please, let's NOT create another one at Goodreads, I beg all of you.
Matthew, I'll let you have the last word. Good chat. It's amazing that it didn't in itself become a war: :-D
Ramses wrote: "Matthew, I'll let you have the last word. Good chat. It's amazing that it didn't in itself become a war: :-D"Why thank you! I think I'll take those down after all. Why waste so much space on a off-topic debate, right?
To me O'Brien is one who just goes around entrapping those who are not "faithful" to big brother.The earlier comment about "Stalin's Germany" is interesting. Although many would disagree I found 1984 to be a hybrid of both Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR. Both may be considered different poles of the ideological spectrum but are united by the authoritarian regimes that ruthless crush all.
I must admit if I had read 1984 before I read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 3 book series, The Gulag Archipelago I would have dismissed 1984 as a paranoid work of fiction. Now I wonder if the possibility for such a world does exist. Better put on my tin foil hat!
Winston Smith was set up:1. His apartment in Victory Mansions is a trap. There is a space not covered by the telescreen, and that's why he chose it. That gap in coverage is either a deliberate design decision, or was noted and recorded at the time of installation. Anyone selecting that apartment gets special scrutiny.
2. The old news article with photo of several "unpersons" did not cross his desk by accident. O'Brien references this document during the interrogation, and he knew about it because it was sent deliberately. It shouldn't even exist, let alone show up on someone's desk.
3. The "golden country" that appears in Winston's dreams exists in reality just as he dreamed it, and is where he rendezvoused with Julia. The telescreen was whispering to him while he slept, not only implanting this image but influencing some of his waking actions.
4. The shop where Winston bought the notebook and pen turned out to be a trap, and the notebook and pen were bait for people like him - or perhaps specifically for him personally. The contents of the shop would be an especially attractive lure for Oldthinkers, who unbellyfeel Ingsoc, so he was probably not its only victim. The private back room can be used by only one victim (or couple of victims) at a time, for several weeks at a time, so it's probably reserved for high-value targets, probably particularly for those who have been tempted by sex or love and therefore have a special need for a private room.
5. For Julia to fall in love with Winston to the extent of passing him a note in the hallway is not believable on grounds of normal biological attraction. Such an action is especially surprising considering its extreme danger and the likelihood that any recipient of such a note would instantly betray her. She, too, was probably set up and subliminally influenced.
6. Key interactions between Winston and O'Brien and between Winston and Julia happen in full view of MiniTru telescreens. This is not a coincidence, this is data collection.
O'Brien has been monitoring and influencing Winston for years, as he himself states, and I believe that Winston is a subject of a research project to see what happens given certain stimuli. (Julia is another subject, and no doubt there are others.) Winston and Julia did most definitely go off the deep end, seeking out a private room for a sexual affair and then seeking to join the resistance. The fact that a busy person like O'Brien, with many important responsibilities, is willing to spend so much time with Winston shows the importance of the project. O'Brien is probably reporting progress to other members of the Inner Party so the Party can refine methods for early detection of thoughtcrime and prediction of what influences lead to the most dangerous actions thoughtcrimers might take.
O'Brien is based on Orwell's oldest friend and isn't going to hurt him. The pain machine just gives him shocks. Orwell went through worse when treated for TB in that Scottish hospital. The rats are just to scare him, to break Winston's will before they let him go. O'Brien reveals all: the wars are fake, the Brotherhood is a shill, there's no great revolutionary or altruistic motive driving the Party. These revelations completely subvert the first two-thirds of the novel, alas.
Margot wrote: "O'Brien is based on Orwell's oldest friend and isn't going to hurt him. The pain machine just gives him shocks. Orwell went through worse when treated for TB in that Scottish hospital. The rats are..."That sounds like a heavily sanitized version of what actually happens. O'Brien commits an endless stream of psychological abuse to Winston while the guards inflict a constant stream of physical abuse. The whole point of revealing the truth to him is to show him that there's absolutely nothing he can do about it. The Party is what it is, nothing can stop them, and they are in control, forever...
Who is this oldest friend you mention?
Matthew wrote: "The whole point of revealing the truth to him is to show him that there's absolutely nothing he can do about it. "I totally agree. The book's ending, where Winston starts to love Big Brother and wonder why he wasted so many years resisting in his mind, shows that Winston accepted the fact that he cannot and will not win and therefore he's better off being willfully ignorant by forcing upon himself a love of BB and the entire system. It's really quite a depressing ending.
It makes me think of the Mandalorian, where the client who is seeking to capture the Yoda-species baby points out that, everywhere the Empire goes, there is a decrease in crime, war, and poverty as they increase trade, health care, and employment. The only issue is that these things only happen when the people willingly lay down in front of the Empire and let them control their lives and impose taxes. It's similar to American "liberalization," introducing democracy whether natives want it or not, insisting that it's a better way of life (as they also cash in on land and oil).
The point of the book's end is that Ingsoc does the same thing, although we can clearly see that it's a completely miserable existence unless one chooses to believe it's an enjoyable life; an outlook that was essentially tortured into Winston.
Margot wrote: "The wars are fake, the Brotherhood is a shill, there's no great revolutionary or altruistic motive driving the Party. These revelations completely subvert the first two-thirds of the novel, alas."Also, O'Brien never revealed that the wars were fake or that the Brotherhood was a "shill". The wars are entirely real, but the historiography constantly changes to maintain the illusion that the current enemy is always the enemy. He also never confirmed or denied whether or not the Brotherhood was real. This doesn't subvert the rest of the novel at all, it completes it.
Winston knew all along that the Party kept revising history to fit its current policy, he was totally unsure if the Brotherhood existed (until he thought he was joining them), and he never knew what the Party's true motivation was. By story's end he knows that the wars will continue, the resistance will never succeed, and that the Brotherhood will not fall because it has no illusions about its motives. At least, that was the cautionary message Orwell was sending.
