Reading the Classics discussion
This topic is about
1984
Past Group Reads
>
1984 part three
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jenn, moderator
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jul 01, 2012 12:37PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I also read the book before this. I agree that the ending was terribly sad. I enjoyed the book overall and feel that while initially I was upset with the ending after chewing it over I realized that it was exactly the ending necessary for this book.. (Sorry not extreamly specific I didn't want to reveal spoilors.)
Mod
Haha...Ok so to elaborate. When I first finished the book it upset me how the Ministry won! I felt disappointed and had held hopes for our protagonist (yet is he really a hero?). And he failed me. Excuse me for sounding terribly dramatic. But then I thought more about all the issues and fears addressed in this book (such as us not really knowing how much the government is telling us, how we are being watched, and even may I go as far as saying how we are being brainwashed). By Winston loosing I felt it shows how little control we have.
I think if Winston had won we would have felt comforted. As the ending is now, it makes the reader responsible for resisting what Winton could not.
Since spoilers are allowed!The betrayal affected me more than Winston's loss to the ministry. I guess i was looking for a hero in Winston, knowing well that had it been me i would have done probably done the same. For me, the bigger victory would have been Winston and Julia not giving each other away, as opposed to their victory over the Ministry.
I loved the way it ended. Hailing from a country where every story ends with good prevailing over evil, I was delighted when Orwell ended it the way he did. The point Orwell probably wanted to drive home was that Winston no longer has any free will at all. As Shannon put it, it just shows how little control we have.
I loved the ending of this book. I was, of course rooting for Winston, but I think if it had ended in some happy way, if he had somehow taken down the ministry I would have been greatly disappointed with the book.His fate is perfect. If he were simply killed or locked away we could have still thought of his actions as successful on some level, dying for what he believed in or suffering for what he believed in. I think I was expecting one of those two endings. But he betrays himself by betraying Julia. Actually being killed is really meaningless after that. Orwell so brilliantly makes you realize that you are not defeated when they control your body, but when they control your will.
I didn't blame Winston for giving in, I don't think most people reading it will. And it leaves you with the question, is everyone corruptible in some circumstance? If they are what is Orwell saying about our ability to stand for what we believe? Or even the existence of free will.
Mod
I have read this book several times and its one of my all time favorites. I don't believe that the book would be nearly as thought provoking if Winston had lived. I like that ministry doesn't allow for traitors to reach martyrdom. They wait for you to break and then vaporize you. This allows for the traitor to just fade away in the minds of those he knew. As much as Winston's death upset me I know that it was absolutely necessary for the Party to win. It really emphasizes the importance of independent thought and the potential political tyranny that could occur without it.
One of the questions I have is:Why did the author choose to end the book the way it did, with Winston finally loving Big Brother? What is the point?
And why was he released? I thought he was supposed to be killed inevitably. Are we to assume that Winston after the end of the novel, is soon to be dragged into the Ministry of Love and then killed, since now he loves Big Brother?
OrphicI don't think Winston was killed after being released. In the end, he was a shell of a human being anyway- why bother?
The Party survived not by eradicating people, but by eradicating ideas. Killing Winston would have been the easy option. Instead, they tortured Winston until he lost all sense of free will. He was still alive, yes, but he was a mere shadow of his former self.
I don't read too much into his 'loving' Big Brother either. What other choice did he have? Love requires free will. Winston didn't have any.
I couldn't agree more with you, Cincinnatus. The 'loving' when you're actually incapable of love puts an overwhelming emphasis on the absurdity of the Party creed and the chaos of the mind which in fact creates the imposed order on society. But I'd rather say that the idea of the Party is that in reality there is no self to have or leave a shadow. Winston is a nobody, leaving nothing behind.
The book does not specify whether Winston is killed namely because it's all the same if he's dead or alive.
Just as an aside. I listened to a BBC Radio programme about the BBC World Service this afternoon and one of the producers / writers for the service in the '40s was George Orwell (or Eric Blair as he was). And their interesting nugget was that the meeting room in which his department's interminable (sometimes 3 or more hours long) production meetings were held, was Room 101.
So I have a theory about the end of the book...that Winston is already dead and is in heaven or some other afterlife. He won by being killed, he loves Big Brother, because being killed by him actually freed him from the utopian life! My theory may be wayyyy out there, but that's what I think!
I agree, Cincinnatus, Pamzie. The government broke Winston's spirit when they terrified him into betraying Julia. By allowing him to remain free for a while, it was like saying: "You're so impotent now, we couldn't care less if you walk around for a while. You're dead anyway." Remember, early in the narrative we learn of rebels who are killed a year or two after being detained and released.
Also, allowing a reprogrammed rebel to walk around free for a while could serve two practical functions: (1) to reassure loyal citizens who might suspect that such a person was a rebel that, no, he does love Big Brother, as you do; and (2) to break the spirit of those who seek a rebel hero to follow, as Winston himself did.
"We are the dead."
"We are the dead."
"You are the dead."
That's an interesting theory, Anna! Did Orwell ever come right out and say what the ending meant, or can it be left up to interpretation? Did the Ministry really win?
Good post, Jon. Orwell would not have been interested in a 'happy ending' but in a truthful one, written in the context of his world/life experiences, particularly the rise of communism (cf 'Animal Farm'). Winston and Julia are doomed from the start ... Big Brother is watching them. On a side note, it's very interesting how many of the ideas projected back in 1948 are with us today in 2012.
Julie wrote: "Good post, Jon. Orwell would not have been interested in a 'happy ending' but in a truthful one, written in the context of his world/life experiences, particularly the rise of communism (cf 'Animal..."To be sure, Julie: Reducing former rebels to walking shadows represents the total crushing of the rebel spirit.
You're right about the methods of 1984 being with us today. In America, they are put in the service of selling every kind of product -- including politicians! In politics, as we see constantly, the rewriting of history and the constant repetition of dubious statements are favorite tactics (thus the terrible implications of unlimited corporate spending on campaigns). Without freedom of speech to counteract these manipulations, our geese would be cooked indeed!
Cordelia wrote: "I loved the ending of this book. I was, of course rooting for Winston, but I think if it had ended in some happy way, if he had somehow taken down the ministry I would have been greatly disappoint..."I agree with you Cordelia.
And, no, who could blame Winston? The Party knew his deepest fear and exploited it. Few could withstand such terror.
When I read 1984 in high school I remember being distraught and disappointed about the ending. I don't know if it was already knowing the ending or a few years of maturity but this time I felt as others have said like it is the only logical way the book should end. I also found the most disappointing part not that Winston was ultimately defeated by Big Brother but his betrayal of Julia and equally her betrayal of him. The interaction they have with one another once freed made my heart drop and I lost all sense of hope for either of them. That was the moment when I knew BIg Brother had conquered them completely.
If you're looking for a happy ending, 1984 is not the book for you. Winston himself knows that "We are the dead." From the very first, he acknowledges that the acts of thoughtcrime he has committed has already condemned him - the fact that the story is being recorded condemns him. His story can end in no other way but his complete submission.He is an imperfect part of a state that functions perfectly. They will make him perfect before they disincorporate him from the cogs of history that they control.
I liked the third part the best. It seemed that more was going on and I finally felt like I was engaged in the book. Some thoughts I had... in total randomness.I found Winston's (not sure the word Im looking for here) love for O'Brien interesting. I wish we knew more about O'Brien.
Was Winston really allowed to go and work and drink at the Chestnut Tree Cafe, or was that a dream?
I have a new fear of rats. I actually had a nightmare the night I finished the book that I was about to have the rat mask put on me. *shudder*
I was not surprised that Julia and Winston betrayed each other. I was more disappointed in O'Brien.
Allison wrote: "I liked the third part the best. It seemed that more was going on and I finally felt like I was engaged in the book. Some thoughts I had... in total randomness.I found Winston's (not sure the wo..."
Hi Allison, I'm interested in why you would be disappointed in O'Brien.
Personally, I love O'Brien. He's the hope and the hangman. I see him as essentially the personification of the point of view that intelligent people couldn't and wouldn't let this sort of state happen ... yet here he is, the most intelligent, erudite, and educated fellow in the whole story ... and he uses his intellect as a cold and unforgiving hammer of conformity.
O'Brien represents the false hope that a rebellion can succeed. In a totalitarian state, every means of manipulation is used to monitor and control the masses—including the use of agents feigning disenchantment with the state in order to draw out subversives.Let's not forget that Orwell was writing against the backdrop of Stalin's USSR. "Uncle Joe" and other party apparatchiks professed their love for the masses, but abused their positions of power to enjoy dachas, limousines, and other luxuries. Or as Napoleon had it in Orwell's Animal Farm, "some animals were more equal than others." I don't recall (haven't read it recently), but didn't O'Brien live better than most in Oceania?
Mod
I found Winston's (not sure the wo..."
That same thing happened to me with the fear of rats the first time I read this book in high school. And when I reread it recently, I almost wanted to skip that part.
It's the first time I read this book. I don't know how it was never introduced to me in high school. Suffice it to say that the world reflected in this book seems so much like what we are seeing in our world today. The way language is manipulated, or the way that news is distorted is so bluntly conveyed in this book. Those in power crave more power and make no allusions in their goal. There really is no sugarcoating their purpose and at the end, even people like Winston are forced to conform and love those that seek to control them.
it's now a toss up. which was the most depressing book I've read ... Death of a Salesman or 1984?
Dolores wrote: "Allison wrote: "I liked the third part the best. It seemed that more was going on and I finally felt like I was engaged in the book. Some thoughts I had... in total randomness.I found Winston's ..."
You've found your Room 101 - something so terrifying to you that you don't even have to be subjected to the torture, the fear and anticipation of it is enough to break you down by itself.
Yes that's right. The inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition understood this well. The were "five degrees" of torture. The "first degree", as I recall learning, was merely showing the victim the instrument of torture. For most, that was enough. The "third degree," familiar from American crime dramas, was physical abuse for a limited time. "Give `em the third degree."As with the fictitious government of Oceania, many oppressive regimes got their techniques from the Spanish Inquisition.
I enjoyed this book very much. I was disappointed in how it ended because I personally wanted Winston to be able to withstand the torture he endured. However, I don't think the book would have been as successful with a "happy ending". It would have invalidated the message that Orwell was trying to get across with this book, in my opinion.
Kris wrote: "I enjoyed this book very much. I was disappointed in how it ended because I personally wanted Winston to be able to withstand the torture he endured. However, I don't think the book would have ..."
I had hoped so Kris. However, I agree with you. I think Orwell wanted that the readers would feel that they, as citizens, could be changed easily any time, even without knowing.
Jon wrote: I don't recall (haven't read it recently), but didn't O'Brien live better than most in Oceania?Yes, he had a big apartment with luxuries and a butler. And no telescreen in the room. The spoils of power. My favorite irony of the book is how capitalist the party really is.
Overall, I really disliked this book, though. The ideas were so intense and immediate and intriguing, and I felt like the narrative itself let them down. It just got so bogged down in explanations and repetitive thoughts. I don't need butt-kicking action every second, but I feel like this book would have benefited from a little more of it. Thoughts?
Oh, and: I also wanted to know a lot more about O'Brien, to place his behavior into context.What if somebody rewrote the story from O'Brien's perspective? (It would be like Grendel which tells the story of Beowulf from the point of view of the monster.) That would be very enlightening, I think. I expect he takes his life's mission very seriously.
Erin wrote: "Oh, and: I also wanted to know a lot more about O'Brien, to place his behavior into context.What if somebody rewrote the story from O'Brien's perspective? (It would be like Grendel which tells th..."
That's a brilliant concept, Erin. To what extent are the O'Brien's of history true believers with idealistic intent, and to what extent selfish exploiters? I do recall that Richard Burton was compelling as O'Brien in the movie, but then again, when wasn't he?
This reveals how much of a nerd I really am.... the scene where Winston is being tortured and shown four fingers but he is supposed to see five? I just finished rewatching the entire Star Trek: The Next Generation series and there is a scene almost identical to that but instead of fingers it's a row of four lights. Who knew Star Trek took so many notes from classic literature?
Alana wrote: "This reveals how much of a nerd I really am.... the scene where Winston is being tortured and shown four fingers but he is supposed to see five? I just finished rewatching the entire Star Trek: The..."I think it's not to get you to see them, but to break your spirit in believing and saying what you actually see. If those in authority tell you black is white, then you say it's white even if you know it's black.
A similar thing happens in Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" (Act IV Scene 5) when Petrucio insists to Katherine that the moon is the sun until she agrees and then he tells her she's wrong. It's about mind control and taming of the will.
But part of it is that in the end, your mind is so broken that you really don't know what you see anymore. Winston breaks down and believes it by the end. In the Star Trek episode, at the end, Picard admits "I wasn't sure that it WASN'T five lights" (or something to that effect). When you have been tortured to that point and just want the pain to stop, you WANT to believe what's wrong is right. Then you actually start to believe it. I think something similar happens with other trauma when someone blocks out a memory, especially in their childhood.
Alana wrote: "But part of it is that in the end, your mind is so broken that you really don't know what you see anymore. Winston breaks down and believes it by the end. In the Star Trek episode, at the end, Pica..."And that's what they wanted isn't it because they didn't stop when Winston first began saying it was 5. They knew he didn't believe it, so they kept on until he actually did.
I know this is an old thread, but I just re-read the book, so figured I'd share my comments: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...I read the book in high school (eons ago) and really liked it - more for the political overtones, with Winston as the reader's lens on society and life under an oppressive regime.
It's such a good story, with rich and complex layers - yet, in some ways it was a very simple, personal story against oppression. This time I read it as Winston's story that was set against a terrifying political/structural backdrop. This shift in perspective was interesting, but it's one of the best things about great books - you can always get something new out of every reading.
