Week 6 — Part 2, Chapt. 9 - Part 3, Chapter 1

[Susan]

Here are two potential discussion starters. Your own question/comments are also welcome.

In this week’s reading, Winston and Julia are undone — their affair is known as is their attempted betrayal of the party. Numerous characters are revealed as other than they were thought to be. Were you surprised by any of this week’s revelations?

The key text of the Brotherhood turns out to be “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” by Emmanuel Goldstein, and the substantial quotations explain more of the background of the world of 1984. What were the key takeaways from the book excerpts for you? Did they change your understanding of the story?

[David]

Back In Part Two Chapter VII we get this exchange between Winston and Julia in which they give each other permission to confess under torture, but not betray their love for one anohter,

The one thing that matters is that we shouldn’t betray one another, although even that can’t make the slightest difference.” “If you mean confessing,” she said, “we shall do that, right enough. Everybody always confesses. You can’t help it. They torture you.” “I don’t mean confessing. Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn’t matter; only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you—that would be the real betrayal.”

And now in Part Three Chapter 1, Winston contemplates how far he will go under pain of torture,

He thought: “If I could save Julia by doubling my own pain, would I do it? Yes, I would.” But that was merely an intellectual decision, taken because he knew that he ought to take it. He did not feel it. In this place you could not feel anything, except pain and the foreknowledge of pain. Besides, was it possible, when you were actually suffering it, to wish for any reason whatever that your own pain should increase? But that question was not answerable yet.

Why is their love for each other the line in the sand when they already understand and forgive each other confessing everything else? Does Winston's admission that what he ought to do sounds good intellectually, but is not tested yet a sign that doubt is already creeping in? Of course this prompts the most uncomfortable question for the reader, so far: What would I decide in that situation?

[David]

Susan wrote: "Were you surprised by any of this week’s revelations?"

Yes. Here are a couple of items.

1. The Party is an equal opportunity oppressor,

Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area.

2. The inner Party is composed of 2% of the population and is able to maintains this high level of control over the outer Party, 13% and the Proles, 85%.

Below Big Brother comes the Inner Party, its numbers limited to six millions, or something less than two per cent of the population of Oceania.

3. War is Peace and Ignorance is Strength make sense now.

[Susan]

Susan wrote: "In this week’s reading, Winston and Julia are undone — their affair is known as is their attempted betrayal of the party. Numerous characters are revealed as other than they were thought to be. Were you surprised by any of this week’s revelations?.."

Yes, I was very surprised to see Mr Parsons under arrest for thoughtcrime. He seemed like the “perfect citizen”, and his anti-Big Brother remarks in his sleep apparently surprise even himself. It made me wonder if every citizen is guilty of some secret thoughtcrime.

[Susan]

I’ve been pondering what the idea of “betrayal” means in the world of “1984.” Were Julia and Winston “betrayed” by Mr Carrington or Mr O’Brien? I’m thinking not, because there was never any real assumption of trust. Everyone is pretty much suspect in this world. But Winston and Julia could still betray each other because they do have an assumption of love and trust between themselves, a real rarity in this society.

[David]

They do make one disturbing assumption,

If they could make me stop loving you—that would be the real betrayal.” She thought it over. “They can’t do that,” she said finally. “It’s the one thing they can’t do. They can make you say anything—anything—but they can’t make you believe it. They can’t get inside you.” “No,” he said a little more hopefully, “no; that’s quite true. They can’t get inside you. If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can’t have any result whatever, you’ve beaten them.”

The question is if the Party can reach even that intimate core, does betrayal becomes inevitable, or even meaningless? If they can alter what you feel, not just what you say, can you betray someone if you’re no longer capable of love at all?

[Thomas]

Susan wrote: "The key text of the Brotherhood turns out to be “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” by Emmanuel Goldstein,..."

Goldstein's book is problematic in a couple ways. Stylistically it breaks the flow of the novel pretty significantly, though I'm not sure how else Orwell could have presented what boils down to political philosophy in a more dramatic way. But there's the bigger problem of the source. Why would O'Brien, now known as a government operative or thought police or whatever, give Winston the book? Maybe this will be revealed in what follows, but doesn't this cast suspicion on the contents of the book itself?

Still it is interesting to read. The ruling class has a titular head "whose whereabouts nobody knows." It may not even be a person. It could be a committee. "Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure always remains the same." Its rulers are held together by "adherence to a common doctrine." What is that doctrine? The beliefs and attitudes demanded of Party members "are never plainly stated, and could not be without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc." It's a puzzling text. The best I can make of it is that it's an attempt to make the tyranny sound like they have a philosophy, when their only guiding principle is absolute and arbitrary control.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Why would O'Brien, now known as a government operative or thought police or whatever, give Winston the book?"

If this were a James Bond story, giving Winston the book would be like the villain revealing his plan just before thinking Mr. Bond will be safely dead by some elaborate escape proof trap and walking away. Of course our hero always escapes and uses the knowledge gained to defeat the villain. However, Winston does not strike me as the 007 type.

Maybe Orwell is demonstrating the most dangerous regime isn’t just the one that lies, but the one that controls reality so thoroughly it can tell the truth because it no longer matters?

Regarding the book itself, like everything in this world, we don't know what of any of it is true, but it has enough plausibility that if it is not true, it could be believed to be. Despite the interesting history of the Party's origin and its methodology. since it does not offer any solutions for the Party's demise, all of its facts, true or not, are empty and useless. I am full of empathy for Julia's disinterest for these topics; enough to ask, "so what?"