Welcome to your venue to post anything and everything dedicated to your independent reading for Q2. Refer to the handouts for guidance. I hope you enjoy this assignment.
A character I would like to look deeper into is Julia. First, with their first meeting, we see that Julia is not at all who Winston has perceived her to be. She is rebellious and spirited and completely against Big Brother. I thought to myself, how surprising! Not only is she not completely brainwashed by the government as she appears, but in fact she is against them! However, I do worry about her true motives. It seemed suspicious to me that she would be able to be so convincing in loving the Party. Could she really hide her intense hatred of the Inner Party so well that it appears as if she is one of them? Also, it seemed suspicious to me that she just so happened to be able to guess that Winston was against the party and be so confident in this inkling that she would go about passing him secret notes and seducing him. I wonder if she was sent by the government to spy on Winston or to deceive him. I’m not sure I really trust this Julia character yet. However, she does say, and prove, to Winston that she has slept with many men before. If she really was working with the government, this couldn’t possibly be true – after all, she is in the Junior Anti-Sex League. Where her loyalties lie, I’m not confident. On one hand, she could symbolize that the opposition to the government is larger than it appears, or she could represent that Big Brother is extremely strong and contains very loyal spies. I also feel as though it is strange for Winston to be so trusting and desiring of her right off the bat. Isn’t he the one man who questions and rebels against the government? The free-thinking, moral, intelligent Winston who is not by the government’s phony propaganda? I would never expect that he would fall so easily for a girl who appears to be so involved in the party, whether she is truthful or not. Perhaps he feels as though simply having a relationship with this woman is rebellion in itself and it doesn’t matter who he is. Maybe he just doesn’t care anymore about his fate; he simply needs to do something in rebellion to feel fulfilled. Another thing I thought was worth mentioning was the clues about the government that I noticed in Chapter 8. Maybe I’m reading into it a little bit and it doesn’t mean anything, but I noticed that there was talk of liters and dollars being used as opposed to in earlier years when pints and pounds were used. The old man in the pub argues with the bartender about wanting a pint rather than a half-liter. In the antiques store, the man recalled how the four dollar stone Winston bought would have used to cost 8 pounds. Dollars are a monetary value that is only used in the U.S. and liters are common here as well. I’m wondering if this could mean something as to the origin of Oceania or their history that seems to be completely lost among all the lies. Just something I noticed… anyone have any opinions or thoughts about this?
Emily, I also don't trust Julia, and I'm surprised that Winston does. Immediately he believes her when she says that there are no hidden microphones in the woods, which is odd considering the rest of the book. Winston gives up his safety to be with her, and I think she has ulterior motives. My initial reaction to her was that she was a spy hoping to catch Winston, but now I think it's more than that. She might be using Winston to get to the Brotherhood and expose the whole organization.
I completely agree, I am not sure if you saw one of my entries from last week but I discussed the same thing. As a character I despise Julia while I dislike Winston, I don't want Julia to destroy him. While, he may be insane, his heart is in the right place and deep down I don't think Julia's is. She is the opposite of Winston and while he isn't the best example of someone opposing the Party, Julia most certainly farther away from that example then Winston.
I agree with you Zach when you say that Winston is the opposite of Julia. As I discussed in a previous entry (I'm not sure whether or not it actually posted to the blog), I think that Julia's opposition towards the Party is really only superficial; she only cares about the ways in which it's rule effects her own life (an aspect which becomes more apparent as the book progresses), rather than Winston who is more opposed to the widespread impacts of the Party. Julia's resentment towards the Party is selfish in a way, and that adds to the the untrustworthiness that you all feel towards her character. I think that by comparing Winston's deep, almost philosophical hatred with Julia's shallow bitterness, the two characters almost act as foils. Julia's lack of real depth and understanding of the Party's injustices emphasize the intensity of Winston's questioning of the ways of the Party. By utilizing this technique, Orwell also uses Julia as an example of the impacts that inexperience and ignorance have on people.
*Don’t read this if you haven’t read all of part 2*
There are several things that I would like to talk about from the last 2 chapters of part 2. The first is about Goldstein’s book. Throughout the chapters, he speaks about the past a lot. It’s strange for someone who lives in a society that erases all evidence of the past to know so much about it. How is this possible? It might be because he is the so called leader of the Brotherhood, but Winston is also a member and even he has trouble remembering things sometimes. Goldstein even says “the peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced with something quite different.” This shows that he knows about the Neolithic Revolution and everything that comes after it. If the Party really does erase the past from history books, the news, and everything they have said, how does he know so much?
Another thing that interested me in Goldstein’s book was when he wrote about the high, middle, and low people. The high wanted to stay in power, the middle wanted to be the high and the low wanted everyone to be equal. When I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the French Revolution, which is what we are learning about in AP World. The different groups are like the Estates General that meets, made up of the 3 estates. Orwell also wrote that they believed in “freedom, justice and fraternity.” Fraternity also happens to be a part of the motto of the French Revolution.
Chapter 10 was a short chapter, but obviously a very important one. We learn that the painting of the church that Winston couldn’t figure out the words that went with the song about it was actually concealing a hidden telescreen. This is ironic because the picture was connected to the words, “Here comes the chopper to chop off your head!” In a way, the painting was Winston’s chopper, since it ultimately led to his capture by the Thought Police. Another object that was important in this chapter was the glass paper weight. When Winston and Julia were found, it shattered, symbolizing the end of their rebellion and relationship. One thing from this chapter that I was not expecting was Mr. Charrington’s reveal as a member of the Thought Police. The person who supplied Winston with the one place he felt safe was one of the people he hated and feared most.
Anna, I too was interested by the idea that was placed into "Goldstein's" book about the High, the Middle, and the Low. As I read this, I was struck by its truth. Those who have power, wealth, and status do not want to lose that and will do anything to maintain this; this is the reality of modern human nature where power over others is attainable. Those in the middle constantly wish they could be with the upper class because they are close enough to see its allure but cannot achieve the lifestyle. In the lower classes, we find the humble and the struggling who, in fact, despise the upper class rather than envy them. They want equality for everyone because they see and experience the negative effects of a hierarchal society. This truth is presented in the book, and yet it is written by someone who disregards the truth. Strange...
I too find this as a very interesting twist in the book, as Charrington to me was a symbol of the past. Of everything Winston wanted to recall, it saddens me that he was after all the though police. I think you made a brilliant connection to the French Revolution, I didn't even think about it until now but it is exactly the same. I too am not sure how Goldstein would know so much if the Party wiped out so much knowledge unless Goldstein is an enemy of the past. One who died at the beginning of the Parties Reign. They kept him alive so there was something for people to rally around and keep the Party from unraveling.
*SPOILER PG 167* Winston and Julia’s meeting with O’Brien is obviously a crucial part of the novel, however, many small details stood out to me during the encounter that again made me have my doubts about the integrity of O’Brien’s interests. Right off the bat, the description of his neighborhood and home give an enormous feeling of corruption; the unapproachability, the astounding cleanliness of the place, and the luxuriousness of the interior all make me question how it’s possible for people to live so sumptuously when the rest of the population barely has enough to eat? O’Brien’s position as an Inner Party member makes him largely untrustworthy, and Winston’s anxiety emphasizes this. Gut instincts are always right, and Winston’s fear and nervous demeanor when he first enters the flat transfer onto the reader and make me question again how trustworthy O’Brien is. O’Brien’s way of speaking to Winston and Julia is also suspicious. His questioning of the lengths they are willing to go to for the Brotherhood sounded off to me, specifically because of the syntax that he used when asking them. Instead of phrasing his questions using “Are you prepared to...”, he uses “You are prepared to...” (pages 172-173). Although the difference may seem irrelevant, to me, “Are you” seems like the more common way of asking a question, whereas “You are” has an almost judgemental, critical connotation. Each time O’Brien says this, in my head I read it in a snidely sarcastic way, almost as if O’Brien is trying to dissuade Winston from saying yes. To me, by saying “You are prepared to...” O’Brien is really saying, “You’re actually willing to do all these things? How could you?”. O’Brien’s strange disregard of Julia also seems off to me. He basically ignores her throughout the entire encounter, only acknowledging her when she refuses to be apart from Winston. I’m not really sure what to make of this, but nonetheless it still makes me suspicious of O’Brien. When O’Brien tells Winston that “We are the dead” (page 176), this phrase struck me as very familiar. It is, in fact, the same thing that Winston told Julia during one of their first encounters in the room above Mr. Charrington’s shop: “ ‘She did not understand that there was no such thing as happiness, that from the moment of declaring war on the Party it was better to think of yourself as a corpse.’ ‘We are the dead,’ he said.” (page 135). Is this merely a coincidence, or did Orwell intend something more? Is this reiteration meant to subtly suggest that Winston and Julia’s crusade against the Party is doomed? Does O’Brien’s use of the exact same wording hint at his falsity? I think certainly think so.
I think he does too. It surprised me that while Winston was wary of him, he still trusted him enough to admit his willingness to join the Brotherhood. I feel like his revolutionary fervor has made him more reckless, and I don't think that will help him in the end.
Winston's need for a family is I believe the reason for his willingness to trust even though his gut feeling says something is wrong. He has been alone for so long even with Katherine and Julia, Winston is alone. I think he felt that by joining O'Brien he would finally have a family, people that were like him.
Francesca, I see your point with the strange way O'Brien was acting and his speech patterns. While reading this part of the book, I had also been wary of O'Brien, and felt that he wasn't to be trusted. However, I could not figure out why or how he seemed so strange. I believe that his use of "You are" instead of "Are you", along with sounding a bit sarcastic, makes him sound powerful and in control of the situation. He knows for a fact that Winston and Julia will agree to the terms, and he knows that he will arrest them.
Francesca, I completely agree with you that O'Brien's repetition of Winston's earlier statement is a clue that he is not really a member of the Brotherhood. This is not the only hint either, this scene is filled with them and the entire chapter has a mood of suspicion and falsity. I found it really sad that Winston is not able to see the trap he is walking right into until he is arrested and tortured by O'Brien. However, just like in the other novels we have read this year, he is happy being ignorant. Lenny loved his dead mice and could not understand why they died, and Winston is finally enjoying his life with Julia hiding out in a dirty apartment. There are even physical results of his newfound joy when he gains weight, no longer has coughing fits and his varicose vein does not bother him.
Francesca, I don't think you're overthinking it. In both books the reader knows from the start that the ending won't be a happy one. However, both characters don't let their fate affect them. Lennie's disability accounts for this in Of Mice and Men, but Winston acknowledges that he will be caught one day and continues to rebel anyways. And while Winston is obviously not perfect, his acceptance of his destiny makes me respect him more.
To start off, after reading the section “War is Peace” I was extremely surprised about how intricate and accurate the ideas are that Goldstein writes about.
First, many ideas can be easily related to real life. Being a dystopia it caused me to look deeply at how life is on earth today. One idea in Goldstein’s book described targeting missiles at the enemy’s resources rather than civilians in order to hurt their nation. This can be seen in all the time on earth today. For example, on January 3rd Myanmar cut off an army supply route in Kachin. Kachin has been killing rebels for the past few weeks. Also, it was easily seen that they are always at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia. As read in Goldstein’s book this is in order to keep the citizens in fear by using war. This not only promotes nationalism because they are fighting one enemy, but it also causes the people to fear losing the war. This causes the people to be loyal to the Party even if they have unpleasant lives. This idea is similar to the idea of “it is better to be feared than to be loved” – Machiavelli. This comes to show that many of the ideas written in The Book are also seen in life today. Even if they seem cruel and absurd, these dystopian ideas are present in the U.S. and foreign countries.
The other part that I found interesting was how advanced and detailed Goldstein’s ideas were. For example, there are no loopholes or possible flaws in his ideas. I know from creating our utopia in class how laws or ideas must be created in order to fix every problem or law that may be present in life.
Next, I would like to discuss the telescreens. This high tech piece of equipment is used in every home of people in the Party. The party abuses their accessibility to this technology and to help maintain power over the citizens. Also, people in the party have the most influence on the government and it would be easier or them to hurt the Party. I found that the telescreens show how this totalitarian government uses technology for themselves rather than to improve the life of the civilians.
**SPOILER** I also found two objects that Winston connects himself to very important. First, the glass paperweight that he bought. This paperweight symbolizes Winston’s push to reconnect with the past, even after the Party has attempted to alter the people’s memories of the past. When the thought police find him and the paperweight shatters it shows that he has lost his connection with the past. This is completely true because the thought police are there to monitor the people and see if they have any anti-party ideas. Winston’s memories of the past and attempts to reconnect are a potential threat to the Party and that is what caused him to be taken by the thought police.
The second object that I noticed was the painting of Saint Clemens church on the wall in the room that he rented from Mr. Charrington. Winston learns that the church was associated with a rhyme. The lyrics however were lost in the PAST. This shows that the church was associated with the past. When we find out that the telescreen was hidden behind this picture it shows that thought police have complete control of the past.
All in all, I was very surprised by the similarities between Goldstein’s dystopian ideas and real life. On top of that I was very surprised by how long it took for the thought police to find Winston and Julia seeing as they had been returning to the same room with the telescreen for many weeks if not months.
SPOILER I was also surprised about how long it took the Thought Police to stop their relationship. Since Mr. Charrington was a member, we can infer that they knew about their indiscretions all along. However, I also don't think it's a coincidence that they were caught on the same day that they were reading Goldstein's book.
Chris, I had never thought of it that way before. It never occured to me until you mentioned it that because the telescreen was behind the painting, it represents that the Party controls tha past. Also, in the way that Mr. Charrington is a member of the Thought Police and yet he owns an antique store with all items from the past, it also shows the government's control over the past. And now I've gotten to wondering if all those things in the shop were actually from the past because it was ran by a member of the government and I thought they didn't want people to know any truth about history. I was curious about the song "Oranges and Lemons" so I looked it up and found a wikipedia page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oranges_and_Lemons As it turns out, the song is a real rhyme that was created back during the time of Henry VIII. I was surprised to learn that it was a real song and that just confirmed to me that because the last few people in the world who actually remember it are dying off, it represents the death of history in the novel. I also feel as though, because it is a real song, it shows a tie to reality and this is very spooky, almost like a forewarning.
It's also mentioned in this chapter that Mr.Charrington never really sells anything, that he's mostly a collector of those antiques. Winston mentions that he never really makes any money off of them, but instead looks at them all the time, simply admiring them. Since he is a member of the Thought Police, it makes me wonder if his home is the source of storage for the Thought Police because he has so many items from the past, items that would be taken from those who have been vaporized.
I find the shattering of the paperweight very similar to the breaking of Laura's glass unicorn in The Glass Menagerie. They both symbolize that the characters will not have a happy ending. Laura ends up with out a boyfriend and Winston ends being tortured, their little worlds that they had created were broken. I had never thought of your point about the tele screen being behind the painting as a symbol that the Party controls the past. This part was saddening to me because Winstons sanctuary had been a complete lie.
I agree with all of the above comments. I also love Zach's comparison between the shattering of the paperweight in 1984 and the shattering of the unicorn in The Glass Menagerie. I had not realized this similarity until now, and it is very insightful. The idea of glass shattering seems to represent the loss or end of a positive experience or event. This can also be seen in many movies, where a character drops a glass and has it shatter, when finding out something horrible. I also agree with Chris's idea that the telescreen behind the painting represents the Party's control of the past. Anything from the past could be fabricated by the Party and should be taken with a grain of salt.
This is a little bit off topic, but Isabel's comment about the recurring symbolism about breaking glass reminded me of a movie I saw a while ago, about a prominent reporter who's career is ended when it's found out that he made up all of the stories that he wrote articles on (there's a better summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Glass_(film) ). It's called, in fact, "Breaking Glass". Although this has mainly to do with the fact that the reporter's name is Stephen Glass, it also comes from the idea that the shattering of glass symbolizes, as Isabel and Zach said, the ending of a positive time in a person's life.
The ending of Part 2 surprised me, but I felt like it was inevitable. What really shocked me was that Winston didn’t expect it. He spent a good deal of time thinking about how the Thought Police could find and eliminate whomever they wanted, and he was clearly paranoid that they would find him. But once he started his relationship with Julia, it seemed like all of that paranoia went out the window. It was surprising how quickly he started to trust people. He didn’t hesitate to trust Mr. Charrington, simply because he remembered parts of the past. I wonder whether he softened up because of his relationship with Julia, or he started to assume that everyone was secretly a rebel like her. Another thing that I found interesting in Part 2 was Goldstein’s book and its mentions of Eurasia and Eastasia. It surprised me that each nation was so big. I had been thinking that Oceania was much smaller than it was, because of the Party’s control over the people. Learning that the Party had total control over such a widespread area really shows how much effort the Party has to put into keeping people subdued. What really caught my attention, though, was when Goldstein’s book mentioned that “all three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity that they all believe will come sooner or later” (195). This reminded me of a conversation I had once with my parents about using atomic bombs. We talked about how if one country bombed another nowadays, it could end up destroying the world; because the victim’s allies would retaliate with attacks of their own, and the world would be caught in a never-ending cycle of destruction. So, no one actually drops any bombs,but countries continue to develop them, just in case. Orwell describes a very similar situation. What amazed me is Orwell’s ability to predict some aspects of modern society. Both in the book and in modern times, the world has reached a nuclear stalemate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nuclear+stalemate). I’m curious to see how 1984 will end, and whether or not we will see if the Party will remain in power. What did you guys think about the end of Part 2? What do you think will happen in Part 3?
The part about the atomic bombs is an insight to Orwell's time as he is alive during WW2, excluding this I am amazed at his ability to truly know what the world is becoming. Like I say in my entry I think it is due to his ability to truly understand the human race. Something that I don't think many people have mastered.
Laura, I was actually surprised by the ending of part 2. I thought that it might take slightly longer for Julia and Winston to get caught for their lack of loyalty to the ideals of the Party, but perhaps it was time for them to get found out. I especially thought that since they got Goldstein's book, they would have the opportunity to at least use SOME of their new knowledge to inform people of the realities of their world. I knew the Party would catch them eventually, but I didn't predict it to be this soon.
I agree with you that George Orwell has the ability to create a story that presents ideas so truly relevant to modern day. As I read, I pick up little things that I can relate to our reality today and simply to the facts of life. For example, on page 204, Orwell states that " Inequality was the price of civilization." Today, the fact is that not everyone is treated equally everywhere in the world, and though this is unfortunate, it is not likely to change. I am amazed by the ideas in the book that can carry on through time and remain true, like you mentioned about nuclear weaponry.
I agree with many of the comments discussed above, especially those concerning Goldstein's book and its accuracy and relation to the real world. He talks about how inequality is impossible to eradicate and that there will always be a hierarchy of power no matter what motives a society originally has. In the 1700's, America began as a country that advocated freedom and a new beginning, a fresh start for all. But over time, though we still idolize those ideas, our nation has morphed into something very different from the original vision- or at least in my opinion. I believe it is possible for everyone to see this morph of ideas in their own countries, but most likely do not take action against it because they can't formulate specific and systematic ideas pertaining to what is dissatisfying about their society. Winston is at fault with this which we can see when, after reading parts of the book, the narrator describes it as "say[ing] what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order....The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already." This quote specifically struck me because it made me think it was almost like a direct message from Orwell, who's style is to always shine light on the realities of our human-made societies. Maybe Orwell means for 1984 to be one of these books that open our eyes and lay out certain thoughts that have been there all along, but have never really been looked at before. I know that I, ever since beginning this book, keep questioning little things that I see in our world. For example, yesterday when I walked home from the train station, I saw a life-sized cutout in a deli window of the lottery guy who holds the sign "Maybe YOU can win 60 million dollars!" Ever since reading how in 1984, those larger-than-life lottery sums do not really exist, I've wondered if someone really DOES win 60 million dollars that is being advertised by the lottery. I can't help but think that Orwell was trying to directly speak to the reader in that quote. In our world, we get instinctive feelings that higher powers aren't always what they seem, or that they're falsely confident, or that we're being lied to, but no ordinary commoner would outright lay these things out in the open. Maybe that's what I appreciated so much with the whole "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Though after awhile it definitely became a nuisance, I liked the whole idea of it because they actually stood up for something. Sure, they may not have had a definite goal and knew what exactly they were protesting against, but at least there was active participation in the pursuit for change. What do you guys think of that? Specifically in our country, do you see any parallels to 1984? Are we being monitored closely? Are we lied to by the government?
Jen, I think you have a point about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. I would like to think that the fact that protesting in itself shows that our government isn't as oppressive as other governments. In Oceania, I feel like the people would be too scared to protest. So while I agree with you that after a while it got a little annoying, I think it shows how we prevent total oppression here (if that thought makes any sense). In response to your question about being monitored closely, I think it all depends on your point of view on the government's right to monitor us. Take Times Square, for instance, where there are hundreds of surveillance cameras. Some people feel it's intrusive, but others feel it ensures our safety. (Here's an article about said cameras: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/nyregion/09critic.html?_r=0)
*SPOILER OF END* The end of this book is extremely unnerving. There are so many things about it that are disturbing to me. First, the most obvious reason being that Winston succumbed to the Party and Big Brother. The last words of the book: “He loved Big Brother”. Winston, after being tortured by O’Brien, honestly believes everything the Party says and does and gives up control of his own thoughts and beliefs. This upset me because, through Winston, it felt as though there was some hope that good could win over evil. Even when Winston was being tortured, he was disagreeing with what O’Brien said and kept saying that they would be defeated in the end. This confirmed to me that Winston represented the good and morality of this world. However, when Winston was finally forced to agree with what the Party said and truly believed in his heart that they were right about everything, it destroyed any fragment of hope that existed in the book. A feeling of despair hovers at the end of the book because of the true helplessness of the individual that is represented. Winston is helpless to, not only oppose the government, but control his own mind. Every individual is helpless under the Party in that there is no way for them to change the conditions that they live in, better themselves, or better their environment. An idea that we grasp on to so tightly, and even base most of our beliefs off of, is that if we don’t like the way we are being treated or living, we can change it. We can revolt and fight for how we want the world to be. In this situation, the freedom of the people has been so completely demolished that it is no longer possible to even gain back because it doesn’t exist at all, not even as an idea. Orwell strings a common theme throughout both Animal Farm and 1984. A motif of Orwell’s writing is the rights of man being stripped away by a government, and the people allowing it. His stories are not of bravery and defiance on the side of good, fighting against the evil ones who try to take away their freedoms. His version is the uglier, not glamorized version, but extremely more poignant. He describes environments where the people go along with what is occurring because, sadly, they know nothing else. There is no uprising among the people after realizing that the way they are treated is not fair and cruel. They are ignorant to the horrors that are occurring. They think they deserve it and even believe the ridiculous things the government tells them. 2+2=5. These people would believe this if the government told them it was true. As if truth and lies were the same thing and could be interchanged with no disturbances to the system. Orwell shows how the minds of people must be individual and have the ability to create their own thoughts. If not, others will take advantage of this. If there is one thing I’ve learned from this book, it’s that it is important to never believe something just because someone tells you it’s right. You have to decide for yourself what you are going to believe is true and false. Otherwise, you are allowing yourself to be manipulated. In all, this book was powerful and sad but its message was an important one to tell.
The end of the book to me is so sad but apropos. Winston tries so hard to fight the party, to be against the party but in the end he just ends up being a party member more faithful then before. Wright 2+2=5 in the dust in the table at the Chestnut Tree Cafe and feeling safe when he sees big brothers face. This end does not surprise me though as I never thought Winston had what it took to actually overthrow the Party. It is scary to me that Winston had the dream of being with O'Brien in a place where there was no darkness and it actually happens! Which leads me to wonder if the party has so much power that it can implant dreams in people. Another thing that scares me is that O'Brien says the Party perfected torture technics of the Nazi's and the Soviets. To go off topic for a moment, this comparison would make sense due to the time that Orwell was writing in. I digress a political party that can do what the Party is suggesting through torture should scare anyone of us. I am sure that in the dark corners of todays society there are forms of torture that are unimaginable. It has become apparent and I think was always apparent that this book can be compared to any time during the history of humanity. It is scary to think that we aren't too far from what the Party is. Also O'Brien gets Winston to say that he always knew that O'Brien wasn't truly his friend. So then i beg the question, did Winston want to get found?
I don't think Winston ever desired being caught. He lived in a somewhat denial that perhaps maybe he could get away with everything he was doing. Winston was living out by instinct, not really accepting the fact and reality that this WOULD come to an end. And also, we know that in the end, O'Brien is torturing Winston to the point where his thoughts and knowledge is becoming very malleable. I think the real truth lay in the beginning where Winston notice's the spark in O'Brien's eyes and perceives it to be a signal of hope for future rebellion and change. From this, I think it's safe to say that Winston did really think he was a friend in the beginning. Obviously, this relationship drastically changed.
*this is a continuation of Entry 1 I entered it accidentally* I now agree with my fellow classmates Winston was insane. He tried to take on a government that was too powerful for him. As well, he had false hopes that he and Julia could have a happy life. When it's obvious that what they had wasn't a true relationship. This is shown by Julia's betrayal, I know O'Brien only told us and it is possible that she didn't but Winston's recollection of seeing Julia after their torture makes me believe she did. It saddens me that we will never know what happens to world after Winston. What will become of the world and the population. How will anyone ever know a true freedom, even if they don't realize that they are in fact slaves to the party. I wish that in my lifetime I never live in a society this bad even though I acknowledge that we aren't so different from Oceania.
*Start of Entry 2* I wonder what will become of Winston's journal. It seemed like it was going to be such an instrumental part of the book and yet he only wrote in it a couple of times. The journal was supposed to be his way of fighting back, but maybe Winston knew that nothing would become of it as he said "As soon as i write in this I am dead." Still I would like to know if it gets destroyed or if someone stumbles onto it. However, the later is unlikely as the party seems to have a lot of things under control and when they took Winston would have likely taken his possessions. To not have any record of what has occurred saddens me as no one will ever know. I thought Winston was very skilled at trying to stay secret in the first part if he hadn't of encountered Julia maybe he could have fought back even if over a long period of time. He could have stayed alive. Now, I believe that if Winston could be found out there is no hope for anyone. The Party has somehow covered everything and there is no hope of any change. I think this book is meant to be a warning. Orwell somehow seems to understand humans as a race, he sees where we are going. I believe this is why it is considered a classic but I digress he means to say that ignorance hold us from seeing the truth. As the majority of Oceania has no clue what is going on and those who do get vaporized. From this I think Orwell is trying to tell us to fight for our privacy and to not allow the government to gain to much power otherwise we will end up like the people of Oceania. Of this I am certain, we must fight for such things, while I don't see this happening in our lifetime we should still be vigilant for things that don't make sense. We should be grateful for the education that our parent are giving us. As I believe it is our greatest asset and tool, as long as we have our brain we are important we can make change. We can bring happiness and life and health but the minute we give away our will to think and make decision we are powerless. That is what the Party did and we shouldn't allow it to happen anywhere in our world. Do you feel the same way about our education? I know some days it feels like a pain but deep down I think we all know it is important. I would have liked to meet Orwell, he pushed the boundaries of his time pointing out what he thought was coming. He spoke out unlike Winston and unlike Benjamin in Animal Farm he took a stand. While some might think writing a fable and a novel is no way of speaking out, remember that during many periods books were burned and authors killed for their words. One would say this is what happened to Winston. I digress, I feel a conversation with Orwell would be eyeopening. As well, insight into his creative process for both 1984 and Animal Farm would be cool to hear. What do you think? Regardless, I hope this book stays around for a long time and those who would choose to ban it take the form of the Party. Maybe they would do it out of ignorance or for power either way they would prove Orwell right.
Although Winston trusts Julia, I don't see her as someone with a trustworthy personality. In chapter eight of part two, when Winston wants to talk about his mother, she wakes up, listens to what he has to say and quickly dismisses him, saying, "I expect you were a beastly little swine in those days... All children are swine." Then, as he tries to continue and explain, she falls asleep again. She also gets bored and falls asleep when he discusses his job and how corrupt it truly is. This makes me suspicious of her every time she says she loves him or calls him "dear". Winston also says himself that he doesn't think she completely understands how terrible the government is. On this, I would have to agree, especially because he's been around and under their influence far longer than she has. I also think that Winston cares for Julia far more than Julia cares for him. I think this because Winston seems to care about both of their lives while Julia simply reassures him that they're both fine and not to worry about it. In my mind, this comes across as her saying that she'll find a way out of it for herself. In reality, there is a slim chance that one of them will make it out of this alive, let alone both. Today, my dad was actually reading an article in the New York Times about how apps on iPhones and other phones can track people because they always know where they are. When I told him you can just turn off the location settings, he said that even if you turn off those settings, the phone company can still track you because they're providing you with the signal for your phone to actually work. When I thought about it, I realized that he was right. This reminded me of something in 1984 where, even though Winston and Julia thought they were safe in Mr. Charrington's room, they weren't. This is similar to the phones because it wouldn't really occur to me that my phone company or the applications on it were keeping track of my every move like a telesceeen, but they are. I also realized that even though I turn off location settings, something I would think would prevent the phone companies from being able to track me, they can still see me. Similarly, both Julia and Winston thought they were safe and free from the Party's eye when they were in that little room above Mr. Charrington's home, but they weren't even safe there.
Kathryn, I also had a similar experience with modern technology, such as an iTouch or a laptop, tracing my location while I had previously asked it not to. The idea of something tracking you wherever you go without you knowing, is very similar to the purpose of telescreens and Big Brother itself. Today, everyone is obsessed with their cell phones and the internet, and it is rare to find someone without a cell phone or a Facebook account. There is so much information being put into the internet, and most of it is public to anyone that happens to click your page. Even colleges search for you online when you apply. The idea of being tracked wherever you go can directly coincide with 1984, and is a disturbing thing to realize.
Entry 1 – My two main reactions to *Chapters 1 and 2 in Part 3* were utter amazement at the Party’s efforts to stay in control and astonishment over Winston’s desperate attempts to remain himself.
First, when Winston is sent to the prison, the conditions of the jail did not surprise me, it was the mindset of the imprisoned. On page 235 when the fat-faced man tries to give bread to the starving prisoner, I believed there was hope because someone reached out to help another, despite the threat of violence. But when the starving man attempted to sell the fat-faced man to his death, I felt that there was no hope. Whatever the Party did to these poor men is beyond conceivable. Not only did they strip them of their dignity, they stripped them of their selves. To totally alter the mind of a man through hate, pain, and predominantly fear, is barbaric. Before going to this torture camp, I bet that man would die for his wife and kids. Now, he says he won’t mind if his captors killed his family in front of him. To terrify a human into such a state is so horrendous, I can’t dream to comprehend it. For what reason would someone want to commit such a monstrosity? My second reaction was hatred towards the Party. This “government” is so oppressive that it’s willing to corrupt their own citizens until they aren’t human; they lost the will to live and have become totally wrought with fear. “‘That was stupid, Winston, stupid!’ he said… ‘Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake’” (page 263). When O’Brien says this to Winston in the midst of his torture, I believed him. After the book says the war doesn’t exist, it is merely used to keep excess resources from the people, and after all of the details showing the Party’s need for power, I knew even before O’Brien said it that it was true. For what other reason would the Party bomb its own citizens and lie to their faces? Its sole purpose is to stay in power. The Party follows Machiavelli’s “the end justifies the means” since the “end,” in the Party’s mind, is ruling forever, and the “means” are to break anyone or anything that dares challenge that dream.
Secondly, I want to focus on the torture that O’Brien puts Winston through. I don’t believe that he spends so much time with Winston because he is a “difficult case” (page 274), I think there is a larger meaning behind O’Brien’s focus. I am impressed with Winston’s fight against the torture and starvation he is put through. In his despairing state he has clung to his sanity, despite the kicks and hits and plunders. When O’Brien attempts to brainwash Winston by saying two and two makes five, he can levitate, and the Party changes astronomy depending on its needs, Winston remains steadfast, saying that he is a true man and more superior than O’Brien. But because Winston is so incorruptible, I believe O’Brien views him as a challenge, not as a threat. O’Brien already has Winston in his clutches; he can’t go anywhere, so O’Brien intends to do something to Winston that I believe will be absolutely awful. I have no clue what it might be, but I am sure that it will symbolize the domination of the Party.
Third and finally, I did some research and found incriminating evidence of similar political “persuasion” techniques in governments today. Here, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/torture-executions-are-daily-occurrences-at-north-koreas-rehabilitation-gulags/ and here http://www.policymic.com/articles/12158/inside-north-korea-s-auschwitz-survivor-reveals-shocking-secret-torture-camps are articles about the state of the populace and prison camps in North Korea. The scenes in 1984 are almost a mirror description of those in North Korea, both of which astound me. In comparing both governments, I found so many parallels between their approaches to disloyalty that I am terrified for the future of governance. If this type of horror can exist today, could it possibly overlap into future society? What is to be said for political systems then?
Chris, I also thought that Winston was a great main character because we, the readers, got to experience his inner struggle and search for what is right with him. Sadly, at the end he is beaten by the Party, but I feel like that in itself is a lesson that is very applicable to the real world. Everyone acts differently when they are around different people or when they are faced with peer pressure. I think the best thing about school is not just memorizing facts, if that's all you do than it's sort of a waste of time, the point is to be able to make connections and recognize patterns and hopefully figure out how you want to live your life. Even though classes are separated by subject, they should all connect at some point or another. For example, in health class we were just talking about the themes of choice and free will that are present in 1984.
While reading 1984, I can’t help but notice all the similarities between the dystopias that Orwell has created in Animal Farm and 1984. While reading about the capitalists in the beginning of the novel, with the negative connotation that the Party gave them, it is just like how the animals of the farm despised humans. Which gave me the idea that maybe 1984 will have a similar ending to Animal Farm where the Party members will end up turning into what the capitalists were, just like how the pigs ended up becoming the things they were trying to rid in the first place, humans. I haven’t read the end of the book yet, so I am eager to see how things will turn out.
Another similarity that I noticed was how in the early stages of the Revolution, back in the sixties, the leaders of the Revolution were wiped out, except for Big Brother himself. I connected this to how on the Animal Farm, Napoleon exiled Snowball in order to clear any competition for power. In the case of 1984, I think that these deaths were no coincidences, but that Big Brother, like Napoleon, didn’t want to share the power with anyone else, which is why he had to eliminate the rest of the competition. In the novel, it also states how “they were exposed as traitors and as counter revolutionaries,” (75) which relates to how Napoleon labeled Snowball as conniving and malicious in order to make the rest of the farm support him. Later in the passage, Winston also talks about how Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford had come forward and confessed to their crimes, when he later discovers that their guilty plea wasn’t true. This is just like how Napoleon scared animals into giving false claims in order to make them seem guilty, making their killing seem justified to the other animals.
I also found the similarity of how every member of the Party must never be alone, except in bed. Which is similar to how Napoleon and the rest of the pigs were always guarded by dogs for protection from other animals. I would think that if someone with so much power to control a population’s thoughts and actions, like Napoleon and Big Brother, they would have a little more trust in their people that they wouldn’t turn against them. But it’s that constant fear that Claudian talks about in his quote, “He who strikes terror into others is himself in continual fear.” Where “even to go for a walk by yourself, was extremely dangerous.” (82)
Lastly, Winston talks about how a Party member had no spare time: “It was assumed that when he was not working, eating, or sleeping he would be taking part in some communal recreations.” This, I thought, was just like how Squealer testified how the pigs do equal amounts of work as the rest of the animals do, only it’s a different kind of work then laborious. When really, they did no work at all, which in my mind, I think that the Party members don’t do any strenuous work either.
When reading later into the novel, did anyone else notice other similarities between Orwell’s two novels?
Maya, I completely agree with your connection between the exile of Snowball and the arrest of Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford. All four of these characters had been working with the leaders diligently, and had not posed a threat to them. They each had been among the original leaders of their revolutions. However, they all had also been exposed as "traitors" and marked as the enemy. This shows how one character (Napoleon and Big Brother) had taken all the power for themselves.
While reading 1984, I couldn't help but wonder endlessly about the idea of 2+2=5. The Party takes what everyone knows as a fact, and tells them that they are wrong. It also has to do with freedom, physically and mentally. In part one, Winston writes in his journal: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." Winston realizes this is psychological freedom. The Party realizes that many of its members still have the freedom of thought and disagree with its motto, and are looking to erase any personal ideas. The idea of the Party and their power is not to have people just say that 2+2=5, but have them fully believe that this is true. This method is similar to the pigs' commandments and rules in Animal Farm. Not only did Squealer tell the other animals propaganda that benefited the pigs, such that the pigs needed the milk and apples for their health, most of the animals immediately accepted these ideas. They not only repeated it, but truly believed that these were true. However, there were some animals that repeated these ideas, but were confused or suspicious of them within their heads. This relates to Winston during the first part of the novel. He obviously obeys the Party and Big Brother physically, but secretly hates it within his mind. However, he slowly becomes more and more rebellious. His first act of rebellion is obviously his purchase of the diary and the act of writing in it. These rebellious actions continue throughout the novel. One of his most disobedient actions is his relationship with Julia. After having sex with her, he decides to become a full fledged rebel. After meeting with O'Brien, Winston reveals that him and Julia are rebels. O'Brien seemingly agrees with them. However, the Thought police arrest Winston and Julia and subject them to torture that night while in bed. Winston is fully beaten and subjected to mental abuse in room 101. He is later released since he asked that they send the rats to Julia, which O'Brien believes is his betrayal to her. Later at a cafe, Winston is shown as a changed man. "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5." The last words of the novel are "He loved Big Brother". This shows that the Party had fully succeeded in their attempt at changing not only someone's shallow, conversational thoughts of Big Brother, but their true thoughts of them as well. They had gone inside Winston, experimented with his deepest fears, and finally broke him. While reading about the idea of 2+2=5, I couldn't help but think of the song "2+2=5" by Radiohead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ6Aks7Xy4w)A piece of the song goes, "Don't question my authority or put me in the box". This refers to the citizens of Oceania being unable to think and express their own opinions, for the fear of the Thought Police is overwhelming. Some of the other lyrics are: "January has April's showers, and two and two always makes up five" This relates to the lack of logic that the Party is using. It does not matter to them if they are logically correct or not, as long as the people truly and utterly believe their statements. It is defined as an act of power and control.
Isabel, it's really cool that 1984 probably inspired 2+2=5 by Radiohead! The song just shows how popular this novel is and is a great example for how literature can really impact people. I listened to the song and I also noticed the lyric "hail to the thief". I think that this is referring to The Party because they have stolen the people of Oceania's freedom. Also, the song ends with "go up to the king and the sky is falling in, but it's not" and this reminded me of the war that The Party, or the "king", claims to be fighting and how it is most likely made up. The sky falling could refer to the rocket bombs that drop around London.
I was inspired by both of your comments and decided to look up other examples of 1984's influence on popular culture. When I looked up 1984 on Wikipedia, I found that there are 2 sections of the page that discuss the novel's impacts on other works, as well as specific instances of these connections ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Cultural_impact and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Adaptations_and_derived_works ). Under the section "Cultural Impact", there was link to a separate Wikipedia page actually dedicated to 1984's cultural significance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four_in_popular_media ). After looking through these pages, I realized just how revolutionary Big Brother, Thoughtcrime, Room 101, and all of the rest of the elements that make 1984 so unique are, and how 1984 was a pioneer in the political fiction genre because of them. Orwell's revolutionary ideas on dystopian society were, and still remain, so significant that even though the year of 1984 has come and gone, his ideas still inspire millions to question their surroundings and wonder just how different their lives really are from the harsh realities of Orwell's dystopia.
How could Winston be so careless? As I read part two and three of this novel, I felt as if it was a completely different story because of how lenient he had become. I can barely even describe the complete 180 that happened part way through this novel. I would like to say that Winston became completely disillusioned with reality, but I'm not even sure what "reality" is, and he did not give up because the entire time he felt as though he was actively rebelling against the Party. He was careless and too absorbed in his dreams of the Brotherhood to notice how fake the entire this was. However, I cannot completely blame him because it never even occurred to me that Mr. Charrington was an agent of the Thought Police. When he was originally introduced, I felt like he could be a guide for Winston, almost like a parent because of the way he helped him organize his thoughts through stories and songs. When it was revealed that he was secretly a police officer, my stomach turned, I would have preferred if Mr. Charrington had been killed instead.
From the beginning of the novel, I had never really liked O'Brien. Whenever he appeared, especially in Winston's dreams, had always sent up a red flag in my mind. If he had really been a member of the Brotherhood, he would never have come up to Winston in such an obvious way, especially at work. Also, during their first meeting, O'Brien leads Winston "directly beneath the telescreen, in such a position that anyone who was watching at the other end... could read what he was writing!" Finally, at O'Brien's home, he questions he uses to interrogate Winston are completely opposite to the values an organization to overthrow the Party should have. O'Brien asks Winston if he is "prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children" and to "commit suicide, if and when we order you to do so." Doesn't the Party cheat, forge, blackmail and corrupt children? Yes. Does the Party force people to take their own lives? Yes. This scene reminded me of Animal Farm, when the pigs confess to Napoleon of crimes they are not guilty of and are then killed. While it was not written, Napoleon most likely asked them earlier to give up their lives in the name of Animalism, just like O'Brien is now asking Winston to do for the Brotherhood. Even the name "Brotherhood" is suspicious, why would they choose that name if they are against Big Brother? If the Brotherhood had really been fighting for freedom, it should not have had such strict requirements as O'Brien described them.
Entry #1 continued... It struck me as very strange that the book only explained the motives and purposes of the Party. In chapter 9, part two, I at first thought that I had misunderstood what I was reading. The book offers no alternative to actions taken by the Party and even said that equality was impossible and unattainable: "In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had estalished a fresh tyranny as soon as the old one was overthrown." The book almost praised the Party for finding out a way to stop the cycle of history and said that the inhabitants of other superstates lived similar lives, controlled in the same totalitarian way! How could the book even be printed if it was really written by Goldstein? The Party controls all records and written material that circulates throughout Oceania. When Winston is arrested and O'Brien tortures him into thinking that 2+2=5, I realized that the book is just another means to contort people's thoughts into agreeing with the party, or to "cure" them. After reading only two chapters of the book, Winston felt that the material it held was just an organized version of his own thoughts: "he understood how, but he did not understand why." The entire conspiracy of the Brotherhood had basically hypnotized him.
Even though Winston is being tortured at the hands of O'Brien, he still feels a strong connection to him: "he would send him to death...it made no difference...deeper than friendship, they were intimates." The way in which Winston refuses to accept that he has fallen into a trap and there is no rebellion reminded me of someone who has Stockholm Syndrome. This is when a person in a captive situation feels sympathetic to their captor and here's a link for more information: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stockholm+Syndrome However, I still have a sliver of hope that maybe there will be a complete turn of events and O'Brien is actually good and was just pretending, just like stories written by Guy de Maupassant. For example, in his story The Necklace, a couple works for years to repay a rich friend for a borrowed necklace that was lost at a party but in the end finds out that the original was a fake and worth nothing.
In part three of the novel, many different opinions about reality and sanity were discussed by different characters. This really made me start to think about what these ideas mean to me, which sent me on a little soul-seeking journey and the best way to organize my thoughts is to write them so here we go. When I asked myself what these two concepts where one question came into my mind. It was, "are you sure?" Personally, I hate when people ask this question because the answer can really only be no. If you say yes, then you are sure of what you think, but that may be different for someone else. It's like in the movie The Polar Express, the main character boy always asks the girl is she's sure and it makes her really confused and annoyed because we are all operating purely out of instinct more of the time. Of course, there are certain facts that basically the entire world agrees are definitely true, but what if everyone thought something else? How do you know that what everyone tells you is really true? When O'Brien tells Winston that 2+2=5, that is what almost everyone else in Oceania believes so then shouldn't it be true? Shouldn't it be reality? Also, who gets to tell you what it true or not?
The human brain is absolutely amazing because you are able to use thoughts to reflect on how you created those thoughts, but this also means that there is no standard for comparison. For example, if you have been told from a young age by everyone that a color is blue but it is actually everyone else's red then there is no way of knowing that. In this way, the world everyone sees is really just in your head. There are physical objects that you can touch but how you would describe them, use them, that is all in your mind. However, this idea has two parts that must both be accepted. First, that reality is in your mind and thoughts and second, that everyone's reality is different. O'Brien is not able to entirely grasp this idea: "...reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else..only in the mind of the Party which is collective and immortal." While he knows reality is not something you can hold, he thinks that collective reality can last forever. Everyone thought the Earth was flat but now we know it is round, both of those are collective realities but they have changed. O'Brien also contradicts himself by first saying there is individual reality in the human mind but then saying that reality is only what a group, the Party, decides.
If there are multiple realities, then what is sanity? Winston believes he is the only sane one because he is unable to doublethink. In other words, he "clings to the truth even against the whole world", but most people would call that madness. The dictionary defines sanity as "soundness of mind" so technically this could only apply to collective reality because, if you believe something contradictory to everyone around you, it would be extremely confusing and you'd be ostracized for it. However, this would also mean that sanity cannot be truth because sometimes everyone is wrong, again like when people realized the world was round. Here's some more information on the concept of sanity... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity
I've hit a dead end in my train of thought so I'd like to open up this question to everyone. What do you think is sanity? What is reality? How are they connected?
The most fascinating part of this book (to me), was not a certain scene or quote, but a character; O’Brien. For a time, I believed that he was a part of the Brotherhood and always knew that Winston was against the Party too. Now we know that he was actually tricking Winston from the very beginning, 7 years ago. When I realized this, I was surprised. The only thing that popped into my mind was questions- how did O’Brien know that Winston would become corrupt? Why did he spend so much time trying to arrest Winston for a crime that he was 7 years away from committing? All in all, I think O’Brien’s character caused more questions than it answered. One thing that I am still not sure about is does the Brotherhood actually exist? Or is that a rumor made up by the Party to flush out all those who are against them? When Winston first saw O’Brien in the Ministry of Truth, he was under the impression that the members of the Party had caught him too. This wasn’t true; O’Brien had been faithful to the inner Party all along, yet he said “They got me long ago.” This creates more unanswered questions- was O’Brien himself ever an enemy of the Party, or was he just saying this to get to Winston? His character added to the story by creating a plot that had started even before the book takes place and as Winston starts to realize this, he became my favorite character.
I finally started to realize how much the torture was affecting Winston on page 225. At this point in time, Winston is convinced that he loves O’Brien, no matter the fact that he was an enemy. He even goes to say, “He had never loved him so deeply as at this moment, and not merely because he had stopped the pain… O’Brien was a person who could be talked to.” Winston was so desperate to stop his suffering that when O’Brien finally made him feel good again, his gratitude was overwhelming. This is the beginning of the end for Winston. I believe that it is at this moment when Winston starts to become brainwashed, because he has finally seen how much control the Party has over him. He gives up everything that he has believed in for the last few months for those few moments of bliss in a cycle of torture.
Another page that stood out to me was 235; the page where O’Brien contradicts himself. All this time, O’Brien has been torturing Winston because of his crimes to the Party. He made Winston admit to not admitting that the Party had ultimate power and being a religious believer, yet on this page, O’Brien says that “God is power.” This makes me wonder again about something I said earlier, that O’Brien might have been an enemy of the Party at one time. He shows loyalty by taking down Winston and getting him to admit to crimes he didn’t even commit, yet he almost crosses the line when he says that the Party doesn’t have power compared to God. He still puzzles me and I would like to know what you guys think about him too. I would also like to talk about the 4 different branches of government- the ministries. The Ministry of Plenty is in charge of economic depressions, the Ministry of Peace handles war, the Ministry of Truth is behind the propaganda and the Ministry of Love is where the torture is preformed. All of these names are so ironic- an economic shortage is far away from plenty, war is nowhere near peace, propaganda is the opposite of the truth and torture is certainly not a form of love. These names are used to exaggerate the corruption and wrongness of the party; how could a place with a name like peace and love handle war and torture? This just shows how terrible the Party really is and how much influence they have over the people. I was reading an article about the fiscal cliff the other day that mentioned Orwell’s society and even goes so far to compare Obama to Big Brother. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/our_world_is_full_of_cliffs.html) What do you think? Is our president similar to a figure head who rules the people with fear?
Wow, that ending was crazy. From the beginning of the book to the end, Winston's life took a complete 180 degree turn for the worse. I found it surprising how easily Winston began to trust people after he met and got together with Julia, especially because he barely knew her. She wasn't someone that he knew well, not someone he should believe an "I love you" from, but whether or not her love was real, they both got captured. I'm not sure why, but I wasn't expecting Winston the get captured WITH Julia, but rather after Julia turned him in after confessing his involvement. Something else that I found interesting was that at the end, it's mentioned that there's another woman named "Smith", someone who could be Winston's mother. I found it interesting mainly because it seems that as his past is about to be erased, the most emotional memory of his past is brought up again. This is a powerful detail to me as a reader because, for some reason, it makes me believe that Winston had a symbol of hope and a possible way out of a terrible situation. To me, mothers symbolize a safe place, somewhere where no one can hurt you. Unfortunately, in this novel, this wasn't true. Someone who really "stirred the pot" in this book was O'Brian. He really came across as a character you could trust and as someone Winston could trust to keep him safe. I really didn't think that he would betray Winston the way he did. Maybe it's because I'm so used to books having the cliche "happy ending". Though "Animal Farm" should have prepared me for it, I wasn't expecting such a harsh ending to an already depressing book. This book has really opened my eyes not only to how bad a government can become, but how important it is to pay attention to your country's politics and keep yourself wary. It really shows that while we would want to, you really can't trust everyone; maybe one day you won't even be able to trust yourself, as was proven during the speech of Hate Week when those holding signs began to get angry with themselves for having the wrong country on them. It's scary to see that this type of society really could become a possibility in the near future, even for a country that claims to want the best for everyone. So what do you guys think; are we on the unfortunate path to an Orwellian society? If so, do you think we can save ourselves from it before it gets too far?
Overall, this book frustrated me. My hope, as a teenage girl, was for everything to work out perfectly between Winston and Julia so that they can live the life that they wanted to together. But society had to screw everything up and tear them apart. They agree to meet again, but their relationship will never be the same. It’s almost like Romeo and Juliet, how they risked their lives for one another, only to be screwed over in the end.
Another thing that angered me, to a degree, was when I found out that O’Brian wasn’t at all a member of the opposition, but really, he was working for the Party all along. I experienced a similar bafflement as Anna had expressed in her last post, where now I had asked more questions than the novel had answered. I had a feeling when Winston first met him that something about him didn’t sit right. He didn’t seem like the kind of person that Winston could trust. After the point in the book when the truth came out, the validity of the rest of the novel came into question in my mind; I didn’t know what was real about anything anymore, what could I believe?
I was also quite surprised at the ending of the novel. I thought that maybe Orwell would decide to create a huge turn of events where life in Oceania was changed forever, when really, it just went back to being the same. Winston went on to do exactly what he had been doing the rest of his life, obeying orders, and staying within the lines of conformity. Maybe I’m being too picky, but I would’ve liked to experience an ending with a little more drama and action. I didn’t have that same feeling of shock the way the ending of Animal Farm gave me. Did anyone else experience a sense of dissatisfaction when finishing the novel?
As a wrap-up thought, I wanted to see what Orwell’s inspiration was for 1984, which led me to this site: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/1984-background-info.htm It’s quite interesting, actually, to see how much our society is alike the society Orwell created in 1984. Much of what he used in the novel exists in our society today. But since we are blinded with the lies told to us by others, like Orwell proclaimed in this novel, many of us can’t see the truth of our society. To me, this novel was meant as a warning to us; if we aren’t careful, we may end up like Winston and the people of Oceania, merely unconscious beings programmed to live life day in and day out.
Maya, I agree with you; I also really wanted everything to work out even though I know it couldn't. I think the novel is a warning as well, but also a way to prevent something like this from happening. As long as people read it, they will start to think differently, and that in itself will stop such a cruel government from ever being created.
Ha, Maya. When you wrote, "..the validity of the rest of the novel came into question in my mind; I didn’t know what was real about anything anymore, what could I believe?", I thought, "Well that's what THEY want from you....So that you can believe whatever the Party wants you to." This is in fact how the Party acted a lot of the time- they removed credibility from any previously believed truth, until you have no choice but to accept what they say is true. This relates back to the whole "2+2=5" idea. Also, you say you were surprised with the ending of the novel, where society ends up remaining the same. But you and I have both read Brave New World- don't you remember that BNW ended in a very similar fashion? John the Savage committed suicide and the world continued the way it had before. I think the fact the these dystopian novels end similarly points to the idea that a single individual's dissatisfaction and opinion of society cannot change its existence as a whole. Sad, but true. If this were possible, our world would be changing at the will of others constantly. Who would want to live in that kind of world? The state of a society is determined by large groups of people, those who can assert power. And unless you have a superpower of some kind, an individual can't really do that. Right?
*SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE BOOK* The thing that struck me the most about Winston’s torture was the depths the Party had gone to learn the best way to effectively torture people. In a lot of books and movies that involve torture, somewhat “standard” methods are used. Methods that are grotesque and horrifying, but somewhat expected. The Party, however, goes above and beyond “normal” torture. They find out a person’s deepest, darkest fear, and use it to break them. This reminded me of a quote we normally associate with good things: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” While this advice is usually comforting, telling us that we only need to fear destruction if we give into frightful thoughts, O’Brien’s torture of Winston twists this idea into something horrifying. He takes the one thing someone truly fears, and forces them to confront it. And being raised in a society such as Oceania, where the government slowly crushes the spirit out of its people, would certainly increase the success of the torture. Deprived of the means to resist from before they were caught, it is no wonder that everyone who goes to Room 101 crumbles under pressure. But the lengths the Party went to in order to obtain the valuable information of a person’s greatest fear really unnerved me. For O’Brien to learn about Winston’s musophobia, he would have been under surveillance for years. However, every minute Winston rebelled; he could have gathered more support and potentially become a greater threat. The Party walked a dangerous line between breaking someone’s spirit and allowing them to garner support for a cause that could overthrow them. Were they so convinced of their power that they could crush a rebellion with no consequences? Was it possible to do so? That is what scares me, that they probably could have done. Fear can be a powerful thing. How we act when we are afraid often teaches us things about ourselves, and can be a powerful motivator. That the Party not only successfully manipulates fear in the ordinary citizen, but in political prisoners as well, is what makes Oceania such a repressive society. The government is willing to risk stability to make their prisoners afraid before they are broken. That, I think, is the true nature of the Party. They desire to assert their power through fear. It is not enough that they starve their prisoners; they want to squash them into meek, unassuming citizens. This book taught me a lot about the power of standing up for what you believe. Had one person stood up for themselves at the beginning of the Party’s regime, perhaps things would have turned out differently. What did you guys think about the ending of the book?
Blog Entry Part One (Too long to submit as single post) The mix of mental and physical abuse done to Winston by O'Brien was very interesting to me in this last section of 1984. One particular thing that I noticed was how O'Brien described how the torture he is submitted to will render him "never again...capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiousity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow." (pg 256) Upon reading this, I couldn't help but remember that only a few pages prior, O'Brien said that they were trying to make him sane with this torture process. "Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane!" (pg 253) This proves that in this world, there's a profound link between sanity and absence of original and independent emotion. More so, there's the distinction that a- in our eyes- normal human experience, including all natural human emotions and experiences is the definition of INsanity. Upon making this connection, I thought of Brave New World, which I've read as well. The exact same idea was present in that novel, where the norm is lack of family relationships, relationships between men and women that do not go beyond the physical, and a certain numbness to the experience of life created by the drug, soma. In that society, the whole idea was to strip you of any emotion that comes with being a human in order to avoid the pain that that often brings. However, in that book, the character who represents humanity, specifically goes against the society's ideas and says, "“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” I can't help but think that in 1984, the goal is to do a similar thing with their citizens and to institute a definite lack of natural human experiences in order to help burrow into their minds and set a foundation for the ideas of Ingsoc. I believe that had everyone in the society truly been their own person, Ingsoc wouldn't work. In order for such a system to work, the recipients must be willing, their minds untouched and uncontaminated by the sufferings but also joys that a normal human life brings. This is reinforced in the book by the idea that the thoughts of the citizens must change based on what the government needs and deems fit or necessary. Also, the fact the O'Brien had helped the writing process of "Goldstein's" book reminded me of Animal Farm. Though Goldstein may have been a real person, he did not exist in the same way as much as he existed in the state of an idea. The government shaped his existence into anything they needed in order to put fear into the people. At the end of the day, his existence is so morphed that he, in that form, is no longer a man, but a purely fictional idea or principle, just put to the face of a man. This was seen in the book Animal Farm when Snowball was viewed as the number one enemy in the eyes of those at Animal Farm. We know that in the beginning, Snowball is one of good intentions, but as soon as he is seen as the enemy by Napoleon, his existence begins to shift. There is no truth as to what Snowball was actually up to, but he was said by the pigs to be the cause of every problem the animals had until his very being was now just a scapegoat rather than a pig with actual individualistic ideas.
One thing I do not understand though is why, if O'Brien and other members of the party had written Goldstein's book, did they put ideas that were true to reality that would only reinforce the ideas that are already in the rebels's minds? Like Winston said before, the book told him what he already knew but did not know how to put into words. So from the book, his mind is only pushed farther opposite the direction that he is wanted to go in. Why do they do this? So that it is more "fun" for them when trying to convert their minds? Also, how in the world is O'Brien able to read Winston's mind? Is he legitimately doing so or is O'Brien just extremely skilled in the interpretation of facial expression? Or maybe if, according to their principles, anything IS possible if needed to be or be believed so, then maybe true mind-reading does exist in this situation. Lastly, I want to point out the interesting comment made by O'Brien. "If you are human, that is humanity." (pg 272) Winston was, as they had desired, a hollow shell and a mere skeleton of what he thought he was. O'Brien here is intentionally acknowledging the fact that humans do not exist- and CAN not exist- in this new society, or they have at least changed in definition. I feel like this may be one of the most important ideas to consider because it shows that the true end goal of this government is to have zero humanity. Zero natural intended human experience. As I said before, they want to strip them of everything naturally known to man. Whether or not I believe that Winston is the last true human is iffy. I feel like one is born with such an intimate bond with what constitutes humanity, therefor humanity can never be truly extinct.
The ending to this book was the most astonishing and unexpected endings I have ever read. Ever since the beginning of the book, Winston held fast to his beliefs and went against the Party. Despitre the possibility of death or torture or worse, Winston continued to oppose the horrid acts of the Party. Although his rebellions were minimal and had a very small threat to the overall safety of the government, the Party still collected him and transported him to the torture chambers of the Ministry of Truth. Even through this Winston mainly kept his head, defying the Party and knowing that what they do is wrong. Only until he betrays Julia, claiming that he would rather have her be subject to the torture on page 286, does he fully succumb to the physocological manipulation instilled upon him by O'Brien. In this scene, when his absolute terror of the rats causes him to purely change his mindset and betray the one he loves, he also loses his self. The entire process that O'Brien went through in order to change Winston into a perfect Party member is so excrutiatingly painful, I wonder at why the Party would go to such lengths to control one man. Is it fear that that one man could overthrow an entire governmnet? Is it in order to prove that they will and "always have" been in power? Is it an attemtp to boost their own ego? However I might be able to answer my own question. Previously in the novel, O'Brien talks to Winston about the possibility of reading people's minds, by getting into their head without their consent and understanding their thought process. When Winston was being interrogated by O'Brien in the white room, Winston constantly thought things that O'Brien was miraculously able to figure out. Also in Room 101, O'Brien found Winston's true fear (which happened to be rats) even though Winston had never fully come to terms with the fear himseelf. In this way I believe the reason O'Brien spends so much time on his victims os because they are all guinea pigs. All of them are there because they are people with concious thought. Their crimes do not really matter to the overal welfare of the government. They are used for the use of mind-reading; O'Brien is trying to read the minds of other humans. If he is able to harness this power, then Oceania will be able to take over Eastasia and Eurasia since there will be nothing that can hide from him. In this way, I believe the ending of the book represents the pure domination of the Party. Winston was the last hope for humanity since he was one of the strongest fighters and held out against the Party for a significantly long period of time. This ending symbolizes the domination of the Party and the hope of no return. But reading many other entries, I noticed that some of you guys had different opinions. Does anyone else believe that the ending of the book could mean something totally different?
Another thing I noticed while reading 1984, was George Orwell's take on technology. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, technology takes over the lives of many modern day people and is almost impossible to function without. Today, we need our laptops and phones to aid us in everyday chores and activities, along with many creative or recreational options. However, Orwell's idea of technology is VERY different than ours. He has created a world where technology is used to monitor and strike fear into its people. The main types of technology that are created are the telescreens and the speakwrites. There were in fact movie theaters and televisions in 1949, when 1984 was written, so the idea of telescreens were not too far fetched. The disturbing part about the telescreens is that you do not watch them, for they watch you. However, George Orwell's idea of a speakwrite, an invention that takes and processes someone's words, is far ahead of his time. There were extremely early types of computers during 1949, but none that were offered to the public. The earliest type technology similar to a "speakwrite" was made in 1997, forty-eight years after 1984 was published. There is actually a product named SpeakWrite, which converts recordings to text (Information about this product here: http://www.speakwrite.com/web/sw/about-us/speakwrite/about-speakwrite.aspx ). However, even this technology seems out of date in today's world of technology. Today, on a modern iPhone or iTouch, it is possible to speak into the mic, and have your device record what you are saying, while you are saying it. This proves how George Orwell's concepts and ideas have affected the lives of people today, if they know it or not. Along with recording and typing technology, we also have video cameras in a majority of stores. This is widely accepted by the people of the world, and is mainly to recognize someone who could be a suspect of a crime (stealing, etc.). Despite these technologies being used for good, could they one day be our downfall? In 1984, it ultimately caused the collapse of Winston's mental freedom. Will technology continue to develop and grow? What will the next generation be like, concerning electronics?
*SPOILERS* As many of you already discussed, one of the most incredulous parts of the ending of the novel for me was the betrayal of Mr. Charrington and the final reveal of O’Brien’s true character. Although O’Brien has been, since his introduction, a fascination of mine within this book, Mr. Charrington never held any particular significance for me; he represented the past, and not much else. His shop was of vastly more importance than he himself, and I never stopped to question his motives as I did with O’Brien. I wonder now that if this had to do with his appeal. We are learning about Pathos in class, and now I think that maybe part of the reason why I was so willing to trust Mr. Charrington was because who ever suspects the nice old man? His entire backstory, his physical appearance, even his occupation as an antiques dealer played towards my emotions in a way, blocking me from seeing the kind widower for what he really was. Mr. Charrington’s reveal as a member of the Thought Police truly shocked me, despite my having caught onto many foreshadowing elements of Winston and Julia’s demise beforehand. One of the most significant foreshadowing moments was the prole woman’s singing right before Winston and Julia are caught. Upon further inspection, the song reveals a subtle message: “ ‘It was only an ‘opeless fancy, // It passed like an Ipril dye, // But a look an’ a word an’ the dreams they stirred // They ‘ave stolen my ‘eart awye!’ … ‘They sye that time ‘eals all things, // They sye you can always forget: // But the smiles an’ the tears across the years // They twist my ‘eartstrings yet!’ “ (page 218). The lyrics of the first stanza convey the idea that Julia and Winston’s relationship was “ ‘opeless” from the start, and that they were so enthralled by each other that they became careless and let themselves, in a way, get caught. The second stanza refers to after Julia and Winston’s arrests and reeducation, when they meet again and admit to having betrayed each other, and Winston’s subsequent inner melancholy at the thought that in the end, their love didn’t matter. O’Brien’s true identity was by far the most capturing part of the novel for me. I’ve written a good amount about my suspicions of O’Brien, but even though I predicted his setting up of Winston and Julia, I never thought that the motives behind his actions would be lunacy. I strongly believe, as most of you have already said, that O’Brien was once a political prisoner, who, like Winston, was re-educated to love the Party and Big Brother. The effects of this reeducation are shocking: O’Brien is insane, mentally and emotionally; his corruption by the Party extends largely beyond my suspicions, his brain-washing permeating his very core. His contradictory behavior, long ranting speeches, and overall his never faltering persistence to inflict upon Winston that which was inflicted upon himself is terrifyingly brilliant on Orwell’s part. It speaks volumes to the extent that torture can damage and mutilate one’s mind, and only emphasizes the reader’s fear of the results of a world like that of 1984.
Winston’s gradual breaking down was also a major turning point within the novel. With each small loss of hope, with each submission to O’Brien and the Party’s authority, I was deeply saddened. Winston is a fighter - despite how much you like or dislike him, you cannot deny that his persistence and undeniable spirit makes him unlike any other character. When this hope, this defiance, this idea that the human heart is the one thing that is permanent in a world where everything is alterable, is taken away... there are no words to describe it. The worst for me was when Winston betrays Julia; the questioning of my own self that came with it was frankly terrifying. Would I do the same thing as Winston? Would I betray the one person that I loved? No, of course not, is what I wish to believe. But the truth is, I don’t know what I’d do. That is the scariest part about 1984. If you were in the same circumstances, lived in the same world, who would you be? Would you be a Parsons, accepting everything that the Party threw at you without question? Would you be a Julia, caring solely about what affected you, and only you? Would you be a Mr. Charrington, betraying those who trusted you without so much as batting an eye? Would you be an O’Brien, crazed with the Party’s doctrines, your mind maddened and mutilated by the torture? Or would you be a Winston? It doesn’t matter, really, because in the end, their fates are one and the same. The bleak desolation that this novel left in me is unlike any reaction I’ve ever had to a book before; I didn’t even really like 1984, to be honest. That’s irrelevant though, because no matter how boring or long or bad you think that this novel is, you cannot say that the ending is not genius.
A character I would like to look deeper into is Julia. First, with their first meeting, we see that Julia is not at all who Winston has perceived her to be. She is rebellious and spirited and completely against Big Brother. I thought to myself, how surprising! Not only is she not completely brainwashed by the government as she appears, but in fact she is against them! However, I do worry about her true motives. It seemed suspicious to me that she would be able to be so convincing in loving the Party. Could she really hide her intense hatred of the Inner Party so well that it appears as if she is one of them? Also, it seemed suspicious to me that she just so happened to be able to guess that Winston was against the party and be so confident in this inkling that she would go about passing him secret notes and seducing him. I wonder if she was sent by the government to spy on Winston or to deceive him. I’m not sure I really trust this Julia character yet. However, she does say, and prove, to Winston that she has slept with many men before. If she really was working with the government, this couldn’t possibly be true – after all, she is in the Junior Anti-Sex League. Where her loyalties lie, I’m not confident. On one hand, she could symbolize that the opposition to the government is larger than it appears, or she could represent that Big Brother is extremely strong and contains very loyal spies.
ReplyDeleteI also feel as though it is strange for Winston to be so trusting and desiring of her right off the bat. Isn’t he the one man who questions and rebels against the government? The free-thinking, moral, intelligent Winston who is not by the government’s phony propaganda? I would never expect that he would fall so easily for a girl who appears to be so involved in the party, whether she is truthful or not. Perhaps he feels as though simply having a relationship with this woman is rebellion in itself and it doesn’t matter who he is. Maybe he just doesn’t care anymore about his fate; he simply needs to do something in rebellion to feel fulfilled.
Another thing I thought was worth mentioning was the clues about the government that I noticed in Chapter 8. Maybe I’m reading into it a little bit and it doesn’t mean anything, but I noticed that there was talk of liters and dollars being used as opposed to in earlier years when pints and pounds were used. The old man in the pub argues with the bartender about wanting a pint rather than a half-liter. In the antiques store, the man recalled how the four dollar stone Winston bought would have used to cost 8 pounds. Dollars are a monetary value that is only used in the U.S. and liters are common here as well. I’m wondering if this could mean something as to the origin of Oceania or their history that seems to be completely lost among all the lies. Just something I noticed… anyone have any opinions or thoughts about this?
Emily, I also don't trust Julia, and I'm surprised that Winston does. Immediately he believes her when she says that there are no hidden microphones in the woods, which is odd considering the rest of the book. Winston gives up his safety to be with her, and I think she has ulterior motives. My initial reaction to her was that she was a spy hoping to catch Winston, but now I think it's more than that. She might be using Winston to get to the Brotherhood and expose the whole organization.
DeleteI completely agree, I am not sure if you saw one of my entries from last week but I discussed the same thing. As a character I despise Julia while I dislike Winston, I don't want Julia to destroy him. While, he may be insane, his heart is in the right place and deep down I don't think Julia's is. She is the opposite of Winston and while he isn't the best example of someone opposing the Party, Julia most certainly farther away from that example then Winston.
DeleteI agree with you Zach when you say that Winston is the opposite of Julia. As I discussed in a previous entry (I'm not sure whether or not it actually posted to the blog), I think that Julia's opposition towards the Party is really only superficial; she only cares about the ways in which it's rule effects her own life (an aspect which becomes more apparent as the book progresses), rather than Winston who is more opposed to the widespread impacts of the Party. Julia's resentment towards the Party is selfish in a way, and that adds to the the untrustworthiness that you all feel towards her character. I think that by comparing Winston's deep, almost philosophical hatred with Julia's shallow bitterness, the two characters almost act as foils. Julia's lack of real depth and understanding of the Party's injustices emphasize the intensity of Winston's questioning of the ways of the Party. By utilizing this technique, Orwell also uses Julia as an example of the impacts that inexperience and ignorance have on people.
Delete*Don’t read this if you haven’t read all of part 2*
ReplyDeleteThere are several things that I would like to talk about from the last 2 chapters of part 2. The first is about Goldstein’s book. Throughout the chapters, he speaks about the past a lot. It’s strange for someone who lives in a society that erases all evidence of the past to know so much about it. How is this possible? It might be because he is the so called leader of the Brotherhood, but Winston is also a member and even he has trouble remembering things sometimes. Goldstein even says “the peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced with something quite different.” This shows that he knows about the Neolithic Revolution and everything that comes after it. If the Party really does erase the past from history books, the news, and everything they have said, how does he know so much?
Another thing that interested me in Goldstein’s book was when he wrote about the high, middle, and low people. The high wanted to stay in power, the middle wanted to be the high and the low wanted everyone to be equal. When I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the French Revolution, which is what we are learning about in AP World. The different groups are like the Estates General that meets, made up of the 3 estates. Orwell also wrote that they believed in “freedom, justice and fraternity.” Fraternity also happens to be a part of the motto of the French Revolution.
Chapter 10 was a short chapter, but obviously a very important one. We learn that the painting of the church that Winston couldn’t figure out the words that went with the song about it was actually concealing a hidden telescreen. This is ironic because the picture was connected to the words, “Here comes the chopper to chop off your head!” In a way, the painting was Winston’s chopper, since it ultimately led to his capture by the Thought Police. Another object that was important in this chapter was the glass paper weight. When Winston and Julia were found, it shattered, symbolizing the end of their rebellion and relationship. One thing from this chapter that I was not expecting was Mr. Charrington’s reveal as a member of the Thought Police. The person who supplied Winston with the one place he felt safe was one of the people he hated and feared most.
Anna, I too was interested by the idea that was placed into "Goldstein's" book about the High, the Middle, and the Low. As I read this, I was struck by its truth. Those who have power, wealth, and status do not want to lose that and will do anything to maintain this; this is the reality of modern human nature where power over others is attainable. Those in the middle constantly wish they could be with the upper class because they are close enough to see its allure but cannot achieve the lifestyle. In the lower classes, we find the humble and the struggling who, in fact, despise the upper class rather than envy them. They want equality for everyone because they see and experience the negative effects of a hierarchal society. This truth is presented in the book, and yet it is written by someone who disregards the truth. Strange...
DeleteI too find this as a very interesting twist in the book, as Charrington to me was a symbol of the past. Of everything Winston wanted to recall, it saddens me that he was after all the though police. I think you made a brilliant connection to the French Revolution, I didn't even think about it until now but it is exactly the same. I too am not sure how Goldstein would know so much if the Party wiped out so much knowledge unless Goldstein is an enemy of the past. One who died at the beginning of the Parties Reign. They kept him alive so there was something for people to rally around and keep the Party from unraveling.
Delete*SPOILER PG 167*
ReplyDeleteWinston and Julia’s meeting with O’Brien is obviously a crucial part of the novel, however, many small details stood out to me during the encounter that again made me have my doubts about the integrity of O’Brien’s interests. Right off the bat, the description of his neighborhood and home give an enormous feeling of corruption; the unapproachability, the astounding cleanliness of the place, and the luxuriousness of the interior all make me question how it’s possible for people to live so sumptuously when the rest of the population barely has enough to eat? O’Brien’s position as an Inner Party member makes him largely untrustworthy, and Winston’s anxiety emphasizes this. Gut instincts are always right, and Winston’s fear and nervous demeanor when he first enters the flat transfer onto the reader and make me question again how trustworthy O’Brien is.
O’Brien’s way of speaking to Winston and Julia is also suspicious. His questioning of the lengths they are willing to go to for the Brotherhood sounded off to me, specifically because of the syntax that he used when asking them. Instead of phrasing his questions using “Are you prepared to...”, he uses “You are prepared to...” (pages 172-173). Although the difference may seem irrelevant, to me, “Are you” seems like the more common way of asking a question, whereas “You are” has an almost judgemental, critical connotation. Each time O’Brien says this, in my head I read it in a snidely sarcastic way, almost as if O’Brien is trying to dissuade Winston from saying yes. To me, by saying “You are prepared to...” O’Brien is really saying, “You’re actually willing to do all these things? How could you?”. O’Brien’s strange disregard of Julia also seems off to me. He basically ignores her throughout the entire encounter, only acknowledging her when she refuses to be apart from Winston. I’m not really sure what to make of this, but nonetheless it still makes me suspicious of O’Brien.
When O’Brien tells Winston that “We are the dead” (page 176), this phrase struck me as very familiar. It is, in fact, the same thing that Winston told Julia during one of their first encounters in the room above Mr. Charrington’s shop: “ ‘She did not understand that there was no such thing as happiness, that from the moment of declaring war on the Party it was better to think of yourself as a corpse.’ ‘We are the dead,’ he said.” (page 135). Is this merely a coincidence, or did Orwell intend something more? Is this reiteration meant to subtly suggest that Winston and Julia’s crusade against the Party is doomed? Does O’Brien’s use of the exact same wording hint at his falsity? I think certainly think so.
I think he does too. It surprised me that while Winston was wary of him, he still trusted him enough to admit his willingness to join the Brotherhood. I feel like his revolutionary fervor has made him more reckless, and I don't think that will help him in the end.
DeleteWinston's need for a family is I believe the reason for his willingness to trust even though his gut feeling says something is wrong. He has been alone for so long even with Katherine and Julia, Winston is alone. I think he felt that by joining O'Brien he would finally have a family, people that were like him.
DeleteFrancesca, I see your point with the strange way O'Brien was acting and his speech patterns. While reading this part of the book, I had also been wary of O'Brien, and felt that he wasn't to be trusted. However, I could not figure out why or how he seemed so strange. I believe that his use of "You are" instead of "Are you", along with sounding a bit sarcastic, makes him sound powerful and in control of the situation. He knows for a fact that Winston and Julia will agree to the terms, and he knows that he will arrest them.
DeleteFrancesca, I completely agree with you that O'Brien's repetition of Winston's earlier statement is a clue that he is not really a member of the Brotherhood. This is not the only hint either, this scene is filled with them and the entire chapter has a mood of suspicion and falsity. I found it really sad that Winston is not able to see the trap he is walking right into until he is arrested and tortured by O'Brien. However, just like in the other novels we have read this year, he is happy being ignorant. Lenny loved his dead mice and could not understand why they died, and Winston is finally enjoying his life with Julia hiding out in a dirty apartment. There are even physical results of his newfound joy when he gains weight, no longer has coughing fits and his varicose vein does not bother him.
Delete*SPOILER DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED THE BOOK*
DeleteLeah, I completely agree with you when you say that Winston's ignorance is bliss. Your connection to Of Mice and Men got me thinking about how similar Lenny and Winston are. They are both outcasts (although not apparently), they both aspire for a better world, and their ignorance and naiveté is what eventually leads to their downfall. I don't know if I'm looking into it to much, but I feel like in a way, both Of Mice and Men and 1984 are naturalist pieces with similar messages. They both emphasize that destiny is unalterable, and that bad things happen to good people because of this unalterability. In Lennie's case, his disability made him "destined" to bleak fate, and Winston's rebellious ways made him "destined" to be caught by the Thought Police. The genuineness of their character and intentions did not matter, because the characteristics and actions that made them different caused them to be bound to a desolate end.
Francesca, I don't think you're overthinking it. In both books the reader knows from the start that the ending won't be a happy one. However, both characters don't let their fate affect them. Lennie's disability accounts for this in Of Mice and Men, but Winston acknowledges that he will be caught one day and continues to rebel anyways. And while Winston is obviously not perfect, his acceptance of his destiny makes me respect him more.
DeleteDiscussion of “The Book” and the thought police
ReplyDeleteTo start off, after reading the section “War is Peace” I was extremely surprised about how intricate and accurate the ideas are that Goldstein writes about.
First, many ideas can be easily related to real life. Being a dystopia it caused me to look deeply at how life is on earth today. One idea in Goldstein’s book described targeting missiles at the enemy’s resources rather than civilians in order to hurt their nation. This can be seen in all the time on earth today. For example, on January 3rd Myanmar cut off an army supply route in Kachin. Kachin has been killing rebels for the past few weeks. Also, it was easily seen that they are always at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia. As read in Goldstein’s book this is in order to keep the citizens in fear by using war. This not only promotes nationalism because they are fighting one enemy, but it also causes the people to fear losing the war. This causes the people to be loyal to the Party even if they have unpleasant lives. This idea is similar to the idea of “it is better to be feared than to be loved” – Machiavelli. This comes to show that many of the ideas written in The Book are also seen in life today. Even if they seem cruel and absurd, these dystopian ideas are present in the U.S. and foreign countries.
The other part that I found interesting was how advanced and detailed Goldstein’s ideas were. For example, there are no loopholes or possible flaws in his ideas. I know from creating our utopia in class how laws or ideas must be created in order to fix every problem or law that may be present in life.
Next, I would like to discuss the telescreens. This high tech piece of equipment is used in every home of people in the Party. The party abuses their accessibility to this technology and to help maintain power over the citizens. Also, people in the party have the most influence on the government and it would be easier or them to hurt the Party. I found that the telescreens show how this totalitarian government uses technology for themselves rather than to improve the life of the civilians.
**SPOILER**
I also found two objects that Winston connects himself to very important. First, the glass paperweight that he bought. This paperweight symbolizes Winston’s push to reconnect with the past, even after the Party has attempted to alter the people’s memories of the past. When the thought police find him and the paperweight shatters it shows that he has lost his connection with the past. This is completely true because the thought police are there to monitor the people and see if they have any anti-party ideas. Winston’s memories of the past and attempts to reconnect are a potential threat to the Party and that is what caused him to be taken by the thought police.
The second object that I noticed was the painting of Saint Clemens church on the wall in the room that he rented from Mr. Charrington. Winston learns that the church was associated with a rhyme. The lyrics however were lost in the PAST. This shows that the church was associated with the past. When we find out that the telescreen was hidden behind this picture it shows that thought police have complete control of the past.
All in all, I was very surprised by the similarities between Goldstein’s dystopian ideas and real life. On top of that I was very surprised by how long it took for the thought police to find Winston and Julia seeing as they had been returning to the same room with the telescreen for many weeks if not months.
SPOILER
DeleteI was also surprised about how long it took the Thought Police to stop their relationship. Since Mr. Charrington was a member, we can infer that they knew about their indiscretions all along. However, I also don't think it's a coincidence that they were caught on the same day that they were reading Goldstein's book.
Chris, I had never thought of it that way before. It never occured to me until you mentioned it that because the telescreen was behind the painting, it represents that the Party controls tha past. Also, in the way that Mr. Charrington is a member of the Thought Police and yet he owns an antique store with all items from the past, it also shows the government's control over the past. And now I've gotten to wondering if all those things in the shop were actually from the past because it was ran by a member of the government and I thought they didn't want people to know any truth about history.
DeleteI was curious about the song "Oranges and Lemons" so I looked it up and found a wikipedia page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oranges_and_Lemons
As it turns out, the song is a real rhyme that was created back during the time of Henry VIII. I was surprised to learn that it was a real song and that just confirmed to me that because the last few people in the world who actually remember it are dying off, it represents the death of history in the novel. I also feel as though, because it is a real song, it shows a tie to reality and this is very spooky, almost like a forewarning.
It's also mentioned in this chapter that Mr.Charrington never really sells anything, that he's mostly a collector of those antiques. Winston mentions that he never really makes any money off of them, but instead looks at them all the time, simply admiring them. Since he is a member of the Thought Police, it makes me wonder if his home is the source of storage for the Thought Police because he has so many items from the past, items that would be taken from those who have been vaporized.
DeleteI find the shattering of the paperweight very similar to the breaking of Laura's glass unicorn in The Glass Menagerie. They both symbolize that the characters will not have a happy ending. Laura ends up with out a boyfriend and Winston ends being tortured, their little worlds that they had created were broken. I had never thought of your point about the tele screen being behind the painting as a symbol that the Party controls the past. This part was saddening to me because Winstons sanctuary had been a complete lie.
DeleteI agree with all of the above comments. I also love Zach's comparison between the shattering of the paperweight in 1984 and the shattering of the unicorn in The Glass Menagerie. I had not realized this similarity until now, and it is very insightful. The idea of glass shattering seems to represent the loss or end of a positive experience or event. This can also be seen in many movies, where a character drops a glass and has it shatter, when finding out something horrible. I also agree with Chris's idea that the telescreen behind the painting represents the Party's control of the past. Anything from the past could be fabricated by the Party and should be taken with a grain of salt.
DeleteThis is a little bit off topic, but Isabel's comment about the recurring symbolism about breaking glass reminded me of a movie I saw a while ago, about a prominent reporter who's career is ended when it's found out that he made up all of the stories that he wrote articles on (there's a better summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Glass_(film) ). It's called, in fact, "Breaking Glass". Although this has mainly to do with the fact that the reporter's name is Stephen Glass, it also comes from the idea that the shattering of glass symbolizes, as Isabel and Zach said, the ending of a positive time in a person's life.
Delete*SPOILERS FOR THE END OF PART TWO*
ReplyDeleteThe ending of Part 2 surprised me, but I felt like it was inevitable. What really shocked me was that Winston didn’t expect it. He spent a good deal of time thinking about how the Thought Police could find and eliminate whomever they wanted, and he was clearly paranoid that they would find him. But once he started his relationship with Julia, it seemed like all of that paranoia went out the window. It was surprising how quickly he started to trust people. He didn’t hesitate to trust Mr. Charrington, simply because he remembered parts of the past. I wonder whether he softened up because of his relationship with Julia, or he started to assume that everyone was secretly a rebel like her.
Another thing that I found interesting in Part 2 was Goldstein’s book and its mentions of Eurasia and Eastasia. It surprised me that each nation was so big. I had been thinking that Oceania was much smaller than it was, because of the Party’s control over the people. Learning that the Party had total control over such a widespread area really shows how much effort the Party has to put into keeping people subdued.
What really caught my attention, though, was when Goldstein’s book mentioned that “all three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity that they all believe will come sooner or later” (195). This reminded me of a conversation I had once with my parents about using atomic bombs. We talked about how if one country bombed another nowadays, it could end up destroying the world; because the victim’s allies would retaliate with attacks of their own, and the world would be caught in a never-ending cycle of destruction. So, no one actually drops any bombs,but countries continue to develop them, just in case. Orwell describes a very similar situation. What amazed me is Orwell’s ability to predict some aspects of modern society. Both in the book and in modern times, the world has reached a nuclear stalemate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nuclear+stalemate). I’m curious to see how 1984 will end, and whether or not we will see if the Party will remain in power. What did you guys think about the end of Part 2? What do you think will happen in Part 3?
The part about the atomic bombs is an insight to Orwell's time as he is alive during WW2, excluding this I am amazed at his ability to truly know what the world is becoming. Like I say in my entry I think it is due to his ability to truly understand the human race. Something that I don't think many people have mastered.
DeleteLaura, I was actually surprised by the ending of part 2. I thought that it might take slightly longer for Julia and Winston to get caught for their lack of loyalty to the ideals of the Party, but perhaps it was time for them to get found out. I especially thought that since they got Goldstein's book, they would have the opportunity to at least use SOME of their new knowledge to inform people of the realities of their world. I knew the Party would catch them eventually, but I didn't predict it to be this soon.
DeleteI agree with you that George Orwell has the ability to create a story that presents ideas so truly relevant to modern day. As I read, I pick up little things that I can relate to our reality today and simply to the facts of life. For example, on page 204, Orwell states that " Inequality was the price of civilization." Today, the fact is that not everyone is treated equally everywhere in the world, and though this is unfortunate, it is not likely to change. I am amazed by the ideas in the book that can carry on through time and remain true, like you mentioned about nuclear weaponry.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the comments discussed above, especially those concerning Goldstein's book and its accuracy and relation to the real world. He talks about how inequality is impossible to eradicate and that there will always be a hierarchy of power no matter what motives a society originally has. In the 1700's, America began as a country that advocated freedom and a new beginning, a fresh start for all. But over time, though we still idolize those ideas, our nation has morphed into something very different from the original vision- or at least in my opinion. I believe it is possible for everyone to see this morph of ideas in their own countries, but most likely do not take action against it because they can't formulate specific and systematic ideas pertaining to what is dissatisfying about their society. Winston is at fault with this which we can see when, after reading parts of the book, the narrator describes it as "say[ing] what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order....The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."
ReplyDeleteThis quote specifically struck me because it made me think it was almost like a direct message from Orwell, who's style is to always shine light on the realities of our human-made societies. Maybe Orwell means for 1984 to be one of these books that open our eyes and lay out certain thoughts that have been there all along, but have never really been looked at before. I know that I, ever since beginning this book, keep questioning little things that I see in our world. For example, yesterday when I walked home from the train station, I saw a life-sized cutout in a deli window of the lottery guy who holds the sign "Maybe YOU can win 60 million dollars!" Ever since reading how in 1984, those larger-than-life lottery sums do not really exist, I've wondered if someone really DOES win 60 million dollars that is being advertised by the lottery. I can't help but think that Orwell was trying to directly speak to the reader in that quote. In our world, we get instinctive feelings that higher powers aren't always what they seem, or that they're falsely confident, or that we're being lied to, but no ordinary commoner would outright lay these things out in the open. Maybe that's what I appreciated so much with the whole "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Though after awhile it definitely became a nuisance, I liked the whole idea of it because they actually stood up for something. Sure, they may not have had a definite goal and knew what exactly they were protesting against, but at least there was active participation in the pursuit for change. What do you guys think of that? Specifically in our country, do you see any parallels to 1984? Are we being monitored closely? Are we lied to by the government?
Jen, I think you have a point about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. I would like to think that the fact that protesting in itself shows that our government isn't as oppressive as other governments. In Oceania, I feel like the people would be too scared to protest. So while I agree with you that after a while it got a little annoying, I think it shows how we prevent total oppression here (if that thought makes any sense). In response to your question about being monitored closely, I think it all depends on your point of view on the government's right to monitor us. Take Times Square, for instance, where there are hundreds of surveillance cameras. Some people feel it's intrusive, but others feel it ensures our safety. (Here's an article about said cameras: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/nyregion/09critic.html?_r=0)
Delete*SPOILER OF END*
ReplyDeleteThe end of this book is extremely unnerving. There are so many things about it that are disturbing to me. First, the most obvious reason being that Winston succumbed to the Party and Big Brother. The last words of the book: “He loved Big Brother”. Winston, after being tortured by O’Brien, honestly believes everything the Party says and does and gives up control of his own thoughts and beliefs. This upset me because, through Winston, it felt as though there was some hope that good could win over evil. Even when Winston was being tortured, he was disagreeing with what O’Brien said and kept saying that they would be defeated in the end. This confirmed to me that Winston represented the good and morality of this world. However, when Winston was finally forced to agree with what the Party said and truly believed in his heart that they were right about everything, it destroyed any fragment of hope that existed in the book.
A feeling of despair hovers at the end of the book because of the true helplessness of the individual that is represented. Winston is helpless to, not only oppose the government, but control his own mind. Every individual is helpless under the Party in that there is no way for them to change the conditions that they live in, better themselves, or better their environment. An idea that we grasp on to so tightly, and even base most of our beliefs off of, is that if we don’t like the way we are being treated or living, we can change it. We can revolt and fight for how we want the world to be. In this situation, the freedom of the people has been so completely demolished that it is no longer possible to even gain back because it doesn’t exist at all, not even as an idea.
Orwell strings a common theme throughout both Animal Farm and 1984. A motif of Orwell’s writing is the rights of man being stripped away by a government, and the people allowing it. His stories are not of bravery and defiance on the side of good, fighting against the evil ones who try to take away their freedoms. His version is the uglier, not glamorized version, but extremely more poignant. He describes environments where the people go along with what is occurring because, sadly, they know nothing else. There is no uprising among the people after realizing that the way they are treated is not fair and cruel. They are ignorant to the horrors that are occurring. They think they deserve it and even believe the ridiculous things the government tells them. 2+2=5. These people would believe this if the government told them it was true. As if truth and lies were the same thing and could be interchanged with no disturbances to the system. Orwell shows how the minds of people must be individual and have the ability to create their own thoughts. If not, others will take advantage of this. If there is one thing I’ve learned from this book, it’s that it is important to never believe something just because someone tells you it’s right. You have to decide for yourself what you are going to believe is true and false. Otherwise, you are allowing yourself to be manipulated. In all, this book was powerful and sad but its message was an important one to tell.
The end of the book to me is so sad but apropos. Winston tries so hard to fight the party, to be against the party but in the end he just ends up being a party member more faithful then before. Wright 2+2=5 in the dust in the table at the Chestnut Tree Cafe and feeling safe when he sees big brothers face. This end does not surprise me though as I never thought Winston had what it took to actually overthrow the Party.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to me that Winston had the dream of being with O'Brien in a place where there was no darkness and it actually happens! Which leads me to wonder if the party has so much power that it can implant dreams in people. Another thing that scares me is that O'Brien says the Party perfected torture technics of the Nazi's and the Soviets. To go off topic for a moment, this comparison would make sense due to the time that Orwell was writing in. I digress a political party that can do what the Party is suggesting through torture should scare anyone of us. I am sure that in the dark corners of todays society there are forms of torture that are unimaginable. It has become apparent and I think was always apparent that this book can be compared to any time during the history of humanity. It is scary to think that we aren't too far from what the Party is.
Also O'Brien gets Winston to say that he always knew that O'Brien wasn't truly his friend. So then i beg the question, did Winston want to get found?
I don't think Winston ever desired being caught. He lived in a somewhat denial that perhaps maybe he could get away with everything he was doing. Winston was living out by instinct, not really accepting the fact and reality that this WOULD come to an end. And also, we know that in the end, O'Brien is torturing Winston to the point where his thoughts and knowledge is becoming very malleable. I think the real truth lay in the beginning where Winston notice's the spark in O'Brien's eyes and perceives it to be a signal of hope for future rebellion and change. From this, I think it's safe to say that Winston did really think he was a friend in the beginning. Obviously, this relationship drastically changed.
Delete*this is a continuation of Entry 1 I entered it accidentally*
ReplyDeleteI now agree with my fellow classmates Winston was insane. He tried to take on a government that was too powerful for him. As well, he had false hopes that he and Julia could have a happy life. When it's obvious that what they had wasn't a true relationship. This is shown by Julia's betrayal, I know O'Brien only told us and it is possible that she didn't but Winston's recollection of seeing Julia after their torture makes me believe she did. It saddens me that we will never know what happens to world after Winston. What will become of the world and the population. How will anyone ever know a true freedom, even if they don't realize that they are in fact slaves to the party. I wish that in my lifetime I never live in a society this bad even though I acknowledge that we aren't so different from Oceania.
*Start of Entry 2*
I wonder what will become of Winston's journal. It seemed like it was going to be such an instrumental part of the book and yet he only wrote in it a couple of times. The journal was supposed to be his way of fighting back, but maybe Winston knew that nothing would become of it as he said "As soon as i write in this I am dead." Still I would like to know if it gets destroyed or if someone stumbles onto it. However, the later is unlikely as the party seems to have a lot of things under control and when they took Winston would have likely taken his possessions. To not have any record of what has occurred saddens me as no one will ever know. I thought Winston was very skilled at trying to stay secret in the first part if he hadn't of encountered Julia maybe he could have fought back even if over a long period of time. He could have stayed alive. Now, I believe that if Winston could be found out there is no hope for anyone. The Party has somehow covered everything and there is no hope of any change.
I think this book is meant to be a warning. Orwell somehow seems to understand humans as a race, he sees where we are going. I believe this is why it is considered a classic but I digress he means to say that ignorance hold us from seeing the truth. As the majority of Oceania has no clue what is going on and those who do get vaporized. From this I think Orwell is trying to tell us to fight for our privacy and to not allow the government to gain to much power otherwise we will end up like the people of Oceania. Of this I am certain, we must fight for such things, while I don't see this happening in our lifetime we should still be vigilant for things that don't make sense. We should be grateful for the education that our parent are giving us. As I believe it is our greatest asset and tool, as long as we have our brain we are important we can make change. We can bring happiness and life and health but the minute we give away our will to think and make decision we are powerless. That is what the Party did and we shouldn't allow it to happen anywhere in our world. Do you feel the same way about our education? I know some days it feels like a pain but deep down I think we all know it is important.
I would have liked to meet Orwell, he pushed the boundaries of his time pointing out what he thought was coming. He spoke out unlike Winston and unlike Benjamin in Animal Farm he took a stand. While some might think writing a fable and a novel is no way of speaking out, remember that during many periods books were burned and authors killed for their words. One would say this is what happened to Winston. I digress, I feel a conversation with Orwell would be eyeopening. As well, insight into his creative process for both 1984 and Animal Farm would be cool to hear. What do you think? Regardless, I hope this book stays around for a long time and those who would choose to ban it take the form of the Party. Maybe they would do it out of ignorance or for power either way they would prove Orwell right.
Although Winston trusts Julia, I don't see her as someone with a trustworthy personality. In chapter eight of part two, when Winston wants to talk about his mother, she wakes up, listens to what he has to say and quickly dismisses him, saying, "I expect you were a beastly little swine in those days... All children are swine." Then, as he tries to continue and explain, she falls asleep again. She also gets bored and falls asleep when he discusses his job and how corrupt it truly is. This makes me suspicious of her every time she says she loves him or calls him "dear". Winston also says himself that he doesn't think she completely understands how terrible the government is. On this, I would have to agree, especially because he's been around and under their influence far longer than she has.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Winston cares for Julia far more than Julia cares for him. I think this because Winston seems to care about both of their lives while Julia simply reassures him that they're both fine and not to worry about it. In my mind, this comes across as her saying that she'll find a way out of it for herself. In reality, there is a slim chance that one of them will make it out of this alive, let alone both.
Today, my dad was actually reading an article in the New York Times about how apps on iPhones and other phones can track people because they always know where they are. When I told him you can just turn off the location settings, he said that even if you turn off those settings, the phone company can still track you because they're providing you with the signal for your phone to actually work. When I thought about it, I realized that he was right. This reminded me of something in 1984 where, even though Winston and Julia thought they were safe in Mr. Charrington's room, they weren't. This is similar to the phones because it wouldn't really occur to me that my phone company or the applications on it were keeping track of my every move like a telesceeen, but they are. I also realized that even though I turn off location settings, something I would think would prevent the phone companies from being able to track me, they can still see me. Similarly, both Julia and Winston thought they were safe and free from the Party's eye when they were in that little room above Mr. Charrington's home, but they weren't even safe there.
Kathryn, I also had a similar experience with modern technology, such as an iTouch or a laptop, tracing my location while I had previously asked it not to. The idea of something tracking you wherever you go without you knowing, is very similar to the purpose of telescreens and Big Brother itself. Today, everyone is obsessed with their cell phones and the internet, and it is rare to find someone without a cell phone or a Facebook account. There is so much information being put into the internet, and most of it is public to anyone that happens to click your page. Even colleges search for you online when you apply. The idea of being tracked wherever you go can directly coincide with 1984, and is a disturbing thing to realize.
DeleteEntry 1 – My two main reactions to *Chapters 1 and 2 in Part 3* were utter amazement at the Party’s efforts to stay in control and astonishment over Winston’s desperate attempts to remain himself.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when Winston is sent to the prison, the conditions of the jail did not surprise me, it was the mindset of the imprisoned. On page 235 when the fat-faced man tries to give bread to the starving prisoner, I believed there was hope because someone reached out to help another, despite the threat of violence. But when the starving man attempted to sell the fat-faced man to his death, I felt that there was no hope. Whatever the Party did to these poor men is beyond conceivable. Not only did they strip them of their dignity, they stripped them of their selves. To totally alter the mind of a man through hate, pain, and predominantly fear, is barbaric. Before going to this torture camp, I bet that man would die for his wife and kids. Now, he says he won’t mind if his captors killed his family in front of him. To terrify a human into such a state is so horrendous, I can’t dream to comprehend it. For what reason would someone want to commit such a monstrosity?
My second reaction was hatred towards the Party. This “government” is so oppressive that it’s willing to corrupt their own citizens until they aren’t human; they lost the will to live and have become totally wrought with fear. “‘That was stupid, Winston, stupid!’ he said… ‘Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake’” (page 263). When O’Brien says this to Winston in the midst of his torture, I believed him. After the book says the war doesn’t exist, it is merely used to keep excess resources from the people, and after all of the details showing the Party’s need for power, I knew even before O’Brien said it that it was true. For what other reason would the Party bomb its own citizens and lie to their faces? Its sole purpose is to stay in power. The Party follows Machiavelli’s “the end justifies the means” since the “end,” in the Party’s mind, is ruling forever, and the “means” are to break anyone or anything that dares challenge that dream.
Secondly, I want to focus on the torture that O’Brien puts Winston through. I don’t believe that he spends so much time with Winston because he is a “difficult case” (page 274), I think there is a larger meaning behind O’Brien’s focus. I am impressed with Winston’s fight against the torture and starvation he is put through. In his despairing state he has clung to his sanity, despite the kicks and hits and plunders. When O’Brien attempts to brainwash Winston by saying two and two makes five, he can levitate, and the Party changes astronomy depending on its needs, Winston remains steadfast, saying that he is a true man and more superior than O’Brien. But because Winston is so incorruptible, I believe O’Brien views him as a challenge, not as a threat. O’Brien already has Winston in his clutches; he can’t go anywhere, so O’Brien intends to do something to Winston that I believe will be absolutely awful. I have no clue what it might be, but I am sure that it will symbolize the domination of the Party.
Third and finally, I did some research and found incriminating evidence of similar political “persuasion” techniques in governments today. Here, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/torture-executions-are-daily-occurrences-at-north-koreas-rehabilitation-gulags/ and here http://www.policymic.com/articles/12158/inside-north-korea-s-auschwitz-survivor-reveals-shocking-secret-torture-camps are articles about the state of the populace and prison camps in North Korea. The scenes in 1984 are almost a mirror description of those in North Korea, both of which astound me. In comparing both governments, I found so many parallels between their approaches to disloyalty that I am terrified for the future of governance. If this type of horror can exist today, could it possibly overlap into future society? What is to be said for political systems then?
Effects of the torture sessions
ReplyDeleteO’Brien says that Winston knew from the start that Obrien was part of the Party. Winston knew from the second he opened the diary that he would be caught. Knowing that he would be caught no matter what he did gave him the courage and ability to trust O’Brien. He knew that he would be caught if he trusted O’Brien or not. Because of this he began to go with his gut trust O’Brien.
Orwell uses the tortures on Winston to prove to the reader how physical pain can affect the human mind and ultimately change their emotions. Because Winston is tortured by O’Brien he begins to love O’Brien. As he inflicts more and more pain on Winston, Winston begins to listen to Obrien and believe the things that he is told. These include slogans such as “2+2=5” or “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”. As Winston’s torture sessions go on he starts to become passionate about O’Brien, and the ideas of the party.
In the end we can see the results of the torturing as Winston sits in the Chestnut Tree Café. He looks back on the times he spent with Julia and remembers their moments in a horrific way. This comes to show that the Party is, in the end, capable of altering people’s memories. Also, Winston starts to remember a moment with his mother and sister. He then concludes that the memory never really happened. This again shows that the Party is able of altering the minds of the people.
I found the use of Winston as the main character of this story very interesting because of the way he acts and his job at the ministry of truth. At the start of the story we see that Winston opposes the ideas of the party, and that he has beaten the natural laws of doublethink which restrict his ideas and memories. Next, we see Winston directly breaking the laws of the party by having sex with Julia and committing thought crime. Lastly, Winston’s job at the ministry of Truth gives him extra access to the truth about the past. Overall, I found the use of Winston interesting because he represents an extreme of a person that opposes the Party. He has all the reason to disagree with them, however in the end O’Brien’s torture methods are able to change Winston’s thoughts. This all comes to show the danger of a totalitarian government and how much control they can have over the people in modern society.
Chris, I also thought that Winston was a great main character because we, the readers, got to experience his inner struggle and search for what is right with him. Sadly, at the end he is beaten by the Party, but I feel like that in itself is a lesson that is very applicable to the real world. Everyone acts differently when they are around different people or when they are faced with peer pressure. I think the best thing about school is not just memorizing facts, if that's all you do than it's sort of a waste of time, the point is to be able to make connections and recognize patterns and hopefully figure out how you want to live your life. Even though classes are separated by subject, they should all connect at some point or another. For example, in health class we were just talking about the themes of choice and free will that are present in 1984.
DeleteEntry 1-1984- Compared to Animal Farm
ReplyDeleteWhile reading 1984, I can’t help but notice all the similarities between the dystopias that Orwell has created in Animal Farm and 1984. While reading about the capitalists in the beginning of the novel, with the negative connotation that the Party gave them, it is just like how the animals of the farm despised humans. Which gave me the idea that maybe 1984 will have a similar ending to Animal Farm where the Party members will end up turning into what the capitalists were, just like how the pigs ended up becoming the things they were trying to rid in the first place, humans. I haven’t read the end of the book yet, so I am eager to see how things will turn out.
Another similarity that I noticed was how in the early stages of the Revolution, back in the sixties, the leaders of the Revolution were wiped out, except for Big Brother himself. I connected this to how on the Animal Farm, Napoleon exiled Snowball in order to clear any competition for power. In the case of 1984, I think that these deaths were no coincidences, but that Big Brother, like Napoleon, didn’t want to share the power with anyone else, which is why he had to eliminate the rest of the competition. In the novel, it also states how “they were exposed as traitors and as counter revolutionaries,” (75) which relates to how Napoleon labeled Snowball as conniving and malicious in order to make the rest of the farm support him. Later in the passage, Winston also talks about how Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford had come forward and confessed to their crimes, when he later discovers that their guilty plea wasn’t true. This is just like how Napoleon scared animals into giving false claims in order to make them seem guilty, making their killing seem justified to the other animals.
I also found the similarity of how every member of the Party must never be alone, except in bed. Which is similar to how Napoleon and the rest of the pigs were always guarded by dogs for protection from other animals. I would think that if someone with so much power to control a population’s thoughts and actions, like Napoleon and Big Brother, they would have a little more trust in their people that they wouldn’t turn against them. But it’s that constant fear that Claudian talks about in his quote, “He who strikes terror into others is himself in continual fear.” Where “even to go for a walk by yourself, was extremely dangerous.” (82)
Lastly, Winston talks about how a Party member had no spare time: “It was assumed that when he was not working, eating, or sleeping he would be taking part in some communal recreations.” This, I thought, was just like how Squealer testified how the pigs do equal amounts of work as the rest of the animals do, only it’s a different kind of work then laborious. When really, they did no work at all, which in my mind, I think that the Party members don’t do any strenuous work either.
When reading later into the novel, did anyone else notice other similarities between Orwell’s two novels?
Maya, I completely agree with your connection between the exile of Snowball and the arrest of Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford. All four of these characters had been working with the leaders diligently, and had not posed a threat to them. They each had been among the original leaders of their revolutions. However, they all had also been exposed as "traitors" and marked as the enemy. This shows how one character (Napoleon and Big Brother) had taken all the power for themselves.
DeleteWhile reading 1984, I couldn't help but wonder endlessly about the idea of 2+2=5. The Party takes what everyone knows as a fact, and tells them that they are wrong. It also has to do with freedom, physically and mentally. In part one, Winston writes in his journal: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." Winston realizes this is psychological freedom. The Party realizes that many of its members still have the freedom of thought and disagree with its motto, and are looking to erase any personal ideas. The idea of the Party and their power is not to have people just say that 2+2=5, but have them fully believe that this is true. This method is similar to the pigs' commandments and rules in Animal Farm. Not only did Squealer tell the other animals propaganda that benefited the pigs, such that the pigs needed the milk and apples for their health, most of the animals immediately accepted these ideas. They not only repeated it, but truly believed that these were true. However, there were some animals that repeated these ideas, but were confused or suspicious of them within their heads. This relates to Winston during the first part of the novel. He obviously obeys the Party and Big Brother physically, but secretly hates it within his mind. However, he slowly becomes more and more rebellious. His first act of rebellion is obviously his purchase of the diary and the act of writing in it. These rebellious actions continue throughout the novel. One of his most disobedient actions is his relationship with Julia. After having sex with her, he decides to become a full fledged rebel. After meeting with O'Brien, Winston reveals that him and Julia are rebels. O'Brien seemingly agrees with them. However, the Thought police arrest Winston and Julia and subject them to torture that night while in bed. Winston is fully beaten and subjected to mental abuse in room 101. He is later released since he asked that they send the rats to Julia, which O'Brien believes is his betrayal to her. Later at a cafe, Winston is shown as a changed man. "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5." The last words of the novel are "He loved Big Brother". This shows that the Party had fully succeeded in their attempt at changing not only someone's shallow, conversational thoughts of Big Brother, but their true thoughts of them as well. They had gone inside Winston, experimented with his deepest fears, and finally broke him.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading about the idea of 2+2=5, I couldn't help but think of the song "2+2=5" by Radiohead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ6Aks7Xy4w)A piece of the song goes, "Don't question my authority or put me in the box". This refers to the citizens of Oceania being unable to think and express their own opinions, for the fear of the Thought Police is overwhelming. Some of the other lyrics are: "January has April's showers, and two and two always makes up five" This relates to the lack of logic that the Party is using. It does not matter to them if they are logically correct or not, as long as the people truly and utterly believe their statements. It is defined as an act of power and control.
Isabel, it's really cool that 1984 probably inspired 2+2=5 by Radiohead! The song just shows how popular this novel is and is a great example for how literature can really impact people. I listened to the song and I also noticed the lyric "hail to the thief". I think that this is referring to The Party because they have stolen the people of Oceania's freedom. Also, the song ends with "go up to the king and the sky is falling in, but it's not" and this reminded me of the war that The Party, or the "king", claims to be fighting and how it is most likely made up. The sky falling could refer to the rocket bombs that drop around London.
DeleteI was inspired by both of your comments and decided to look up other examples of 1984's influence on popular culture. When I looked up 1984 on Wikipedia, I found that there are 2 sections of the page that discuss the novel's impacts on other works, as well as specific instances of these connections ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Cultural_impact and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Adaptations_and_derived_works ). Under the section "Cultural Impact", there was link to a separate Wikipedia page actually dedicated to 1984's cultural significance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four_in_popular_media ). After looking through these pages, I realized just how revolutionary Big Brother, Thoughtcrime, Room 101, and all of the rest of the elements that make 1984 so unique are, and how 1984 was a pioneer in the political fiction genre because of them. Orwell's revolutionary ideas on dystopian society were, and still remain, so significant that even though the year of 1984 has come and gone, his ideas still inspire millions to question their surroundings and wonder just how different their lives really are from the harsh realities of Orwell's dystopia.
DeleteEntry #1, 1984-focus on O'Brien
ReplyDeleteHow could Winston be so careless? As I read part two and three of this novel, I felt as if it was a completely different story because of how lenient he had become. I can barely even describe the complete 180 that happened part way through this novel. I would like to say that Winston became completely disillusioned with reality, but I'm not even sure what "reality" is, and he did not give up because the entire time he felt as though he was actively rebelling against the Party. He was careless and too absorbed in his dreams of the Brotherhood to notice how fake the entire this was. However, I cannot completely blame him because it never even occurred to me that Mr. Charrington was an agent of the Thought Police. When he was originally introduced, I felt like he could be a guide for Winston, almost like a parent because of the way he helped him organize his thoughts through stories and songs. When it was revealed that he was secretly a police officer, my stomach turned, I would have preferred if Mr. Charrington had been killed instead.
From the beginning of the novel, I had never really liked O'Brien. Whenever he appeared, especially in Winston's dreams, had always sent up a red flag in my mind. If he had really been a member of the Brotherhood, he would never have come up to Winston in such an obvious way, especially at work. Also, during their first meeting, O'Brien leads Winston "directly beneath the telescreen, in such a position that anyone who was watching at the other end... could read what he was writing!" Finally, at O'Brien's home, he questions he uses to interrogate Winston are completely opposite to the values an organization to overthrow the Party should have. O'Brien asks Winston if he is "prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children" and to "commit suicide, if and when we order you to do so." Doesn't the Party cheat, forge, blackmail and corrupt children? Yes. Does the Party force people to take their own lives? Yes. This scene reminded me of Animal Farm, when the pigs confess to Napoleon of crimes they are not guilty of and are then killed. While it was not written, Napoleon most likely asked them earlier to give up their lives in the name of Animalism, just like O'Brien is now asking Winston to do for the Brotherhood. Even the name "Brotherhood" is suspicious, why would they choose that name if they are against Big Brother? If the Brotherhood had really been fighting for freedom, it should not have had such strict requirements as O'Brien described them.
Entry #1 continued...
ReplyDeleteIt struck me as very strange that the book only explained the motives and purposes of the Party. In chapter 9, part two, I at first thought that I had misunderstood what I was reading. The book offers no alternative to actions taken by the Party and even said that equality was impossible and unattainable: "In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had estalished a fresh tyranny as soon as the old one was overthrown." The book almost praised the Party for finding out a way to stop the cycle of history and said that the inhabitants of other superstates lived similar lives, controlled in the same totalitarian way! How could the book even be printed if it was really written by Goldstein? The Party controls all records and written material that circulates throughout Oceania. When Winston is arrested and O'Brien tortures him into thinking that 2+2=5, I realized that the book is just another means to contort people's thoughts into agreeing with the party, or to "cure" them. After reading only two chapters of the book, Winston felt that the material it held was just an organized version of his own thoughts: "he understood how, but he did not understand why." The entire conspiracy of the Brotherhood had basically hypnotized him.
Even though Winston is being tortured at the hands of O'Brien, he still feels a strong connection to him: "he would send him to death...it made no difference...deeper than friendship, they were intimates." The way in which Winston refuses to accept that he has fallen into a trap and there is no rebellion reminded me of someone who has Stockholm Syndrome. This is when a person in a captive situation feels sympathetic to their captor and here's a link for more information:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stockholm+Syndrome
However, I still have a sliver of hope that maybe there will be a complete turn of events and O'Brien is actually good and was just pretending, just like stories written by Guy de Maupassant. For example, in his story The Necklace, a couple works for years to repay a rich friend for a borrowed necklace that was lost at a party but in the end finds out that the original was a fake and worth nothing.
Entry #2- focus on concepts of reality and sanity
ReplyDeleteIn part three of the novel, many different opinions about reality and sanity were discussed by different characters. This really made me start to think about what these ideas mean to me, which sent me on a little soul-seeking journey and the best way to organize my thoughts is to write them so here we go. When I asked myself what these two concepts where one question came into my mind. It was, "are you sure?" Personally, I hate when people ask this question because the answer can really only be no. If you say yes, then you are sure of what you think, but that may be different for someone else. It's like in the movie The Polar Express, the main character boy always asks the girl is she's sure and it makes her really confused and annoyed because we are all operating purely out of instinct more of the time. Of course, there are certain facts that basically the entire world agrees are definitely true, but what if everyone thought something else? How do you know that what everyone tells you is really true? When O'Brien tells Winston that 2+2=5, that is what almost everyone else in Oceania believes so then shouldn't it be true? Shouldn't it be reality? Also, who gets to tell you what it true or not?
The human brain is absolutely amazing because you are able to use thoughts to reflect on how you created those thoughts, but this also means that there is no standard for comparison. For example, if you have been told from a young age by everyone that a color is blue but it is actually everyone else's red then there is no way of knowing that. In this way, the world everyone sees is really just in your head. There are physical objects that you can touch but how you would describe them, use them, that is all in your mind. However, this idea has two parts that must both be accepted. First, that reality is in your mind and thoughts and second, that everyone's reality is different. O'Brien is not able to entirely grasp this idea: "...reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else..only in the mind of the Party which is collective and immortal." While he knows reality is not something you can hold, he thinks that collective reality can last forever. Everyone thought the Earth was flat but now we know it is round, both of those are collective realities but they have changed. O'Brien also contradicts himself by first saying there is individual reality in the human mind but then saying that reality is only what a group, the Party, decides.
If there are multiple realities, then what is sanity? Winston believes he is the only sane one because he is unable to doublethink. In other words, he "clings to the truth even against the whole world", but most people would call that madness. The dictionary defines sanity as "soundness of mind" so technically this could only apply to collective reality because, if you believe something contradictory to everyone around you, it would be extremely confusing and you'd be ostracized for it. However, this would also mean that sanity cannot be truth because sometimes everyone is wrong, again like when people realized the world was round. Here's some more information on the concept of sanity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity
I've hit a dead end in my train of thought so I'd like to open up this question to everyone. What do you think is sanity? What is reality? How are they connected?
The most fascinating part of this book (to me), was not a certain scene or quote, but a character; O’Brien. For a time, I believed that he was a part of the Brotherhood and always knew that Winston was against the Party too. Now we know that he was actually tricking Winston from the very beginning, 7 years ago. When I realized this, I was surprised. The only thing that popped into my mind was questions- how did O’Brien know that Winston would become corrupt? Why did he spend so much time trying to arrest Winston for a crime that he was 7 years away from committing? All in all, I think O’Brien’s character caused more questions than it answered. One thing that I am still not sure about is does the Brotherhood actually exist? Or is that a rumor made up by the Party to flush out all those who are against them? When Winston first saw O’Brien in the Ministry of Truth, he was under the impression that the members of the Party had caught him too. This wasn’t true; O’Brien had been faithful to the inner Party all along, yet he said “They got me long ago.” This creates more unanswered questions- was O’Brien himself ever an enemy of the Party, or was he just saying this to get to Winston? His character added to the story by creating a plot that had started even before the book takes place and as Winston starts to realize this, he became my favorite character.
ReplyDeleteI finally started to realize how much the torture was affecting Winston on page 225. At this point in time, Winston is convinced that he loves O’Brien, no matter the fact that he was an enemy. He even goes to say, “He had never loved him so deeply as at this moment, and not merely because he had stopped the pain… O’Brien was a person who could be talked to.” Winston was so desperate to stop his suffering that when O’Brien finally made him feel good again, his gratitude was overwhelming. This is the beginning of the end for Winston. I believe that it is at this moment when Winston starts to become brainwashed, because he has finally seen how much control the Party has over him. He gives up everything that he has believed in for the last few months for those few moments of bliss in a cycle of torture.
Another page that stood out to me was 235; the page where O’Brien contradicts himself. All this time, O’Brien has been torturing Winston because of his crimes to the Party. He made Winston admit to not admitting that the Party had ultimate power and being a religious believer, yet on this page, O’Brien says that “God is power.” This makes me wonder again about something I said earlier, that O’Brien might have been an enemy of the Party at one time. He shows loyalty by taking down Winston and getting him to admit to crimes he didn’t even commit, yet he almost crosses the line when he says that the Party doesn’t have power compared to God. He still puzzles me and I would like to know what you guys think about him too.
I would also like to talk about the 4 different branches of government- the ministries. The Ministry of Plenty is in charge of economic depressions, the Ministry of Peace handles war, the Ministry of Truth is behind the propaganda and the Ministry of Love is where the torture is preformed. All of these names are so ironic- an economic shortage is far away from plenty, war is nowhere near peace, propaganda is the opposite of the truth and torture is certainly not a form of love. These names are used to exaggerate the corruption and wrongness of the party; how could a place with a name like peace and love handle war and torture? This just shows how terrible the Party really is and how much influence they have over the people. I was reading an article about the fiscal cliff the other day that mentioned Orwell’s society and even goes so far to compare Obama to Big Brother. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/our_world_is_full_of_cliffs.html)
What do you think? Is our president similar to a figure head who rules the people with fear?
Wow, that ending was crazy. From the beginning of the book to the end, Winston's life took a complete 180 degree turn for the worse. I found it surprising how easily Winston began to trust people after he met and got together with Julia, especially because he barely knew her. She wasn't someone that he knew well, not someone he should believe an "I love you" from, but whether or not her love was real, they both got captured. I'm not sure why, but I wasn't expecting Winston the get captured WITH Julia, but rather after Julia turned him in after confessing his involvement.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that I found interesting was that at the end, it's mentioned that there's another woman named "Smith", someone who could be Winston's mother. I found it interesting mainly because it seems that as his past is about to be erased, the most emotional memory of his past is brought up again. This is a powerful detail to me as a reader because, for some reason, it makes me believe that Winston had a symbol of hope and a possible way out of a terrible situation. To me, mothers symbolize a safe place, somewhere where no one can hurt you. Unfortunately, in this novel, this wasn't true.
Someone who really "stirred the pot" in this book was O'Brian. He really came across as a character you could trust and as someone Winston could trust to keep him safe. I really didn't think that he would betray Winston the way he did. Maybe it's because I'm so used to books having the cliche "happy ending". Though "Animal Farm" should have prepared me for it, I wasn't expecting such a harsh ending to an already depressing book.
This book has really opened my eyes not only to how bad a government can become, but how important it is to pay attention to your country's politics and keep yourself wary. It really shows that while we would want to, you really can't trust everyone; maybe one day you won't even be able to trust yourself, as was proven during the speech of Hate Week when those holding signs began to get angry with themselves for having the wrong country on them. It's scary to see that this type of society really could become a possibility in the near future, even for a country that claims to want the best for everyone. So what do you guys think; are we on the unfortunate path to an Orwellian society? If so, do you think we can save ourselves from it before it gets too far?
Entry 2-1984- Final Thoughts
ReplyDeleteOverall, this book frustrated me. My hope, as a teenage girl, was for everything to work out perfectly between Winston and Julia so that they can live the life that they wanted to together. But society had to screw everything up and tear them apart. They agree to meet again, but their relationship will never be the same. It’s almost like Romeo and Juliet, how they risked their lives for one another, only to be screwed over in the end.
Another thing that angered me, to a degree, was when I found out that O’Brian wasn’t at all a member of the opposition, but really, he was working for the Party all along. I experienced a similar bafflement as Anna had expressed in her last post, where now I had asked more questions than the novel had answered. I had a feeling when Winston first met him that something about him didn’t sit right. He didn’t seem like the kind of person that Winston could trust. After the point in the book when the truth came out, the validity of the rest of the novel came into question in my mind; I didn’t know what was real about anything anymore, what could I believe?
I was also quite surprised at the ending of the novel. I thought that maybe Orwell would decide to create a huge turn of events where life in Oceania was changed forever, when really, it just went back to being the same. Winston went on to do exactly what he had been doing the rest of his life, obeying orders, and staying within the lines of conformity. Maybe I’m being too picky, but I would’ve liked to experience an ending with a little more drama and action. I didn’t have that same feeling of shock the way the ending of Animal Farm gave me. Did anyone else experience a sense of dissatisfaction when finishing the novel?
As a wrap-up thought, I wanted to see what Orwell’s inspiration was for 1984, which led me to this site:
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/1984-background-info.htm
It’s quite interesting, actually, to see how much our society is alike the society Orwell created in 1984. Much of what he used in the novel exists in our society today. But since we are blinded with the lies told to us by others, like Orwell proclaimed in this novel, many of us can’t see the truth of our society. To me, this novel was meant as a warning to us; if we aren’t careful, we may end up like Winston and the people of Oceania, merely unconscious beings programmed to live life day in and day out.
Maya, I agree with you; I also really wanted everything to work out even though I know it couldn't. I think the novel is a warning as well, but also a way to prevent something like this from happening. As long as people read it, they will start to think differently, and that in itself will stop such a cruel government from ever being created.
DeleteHa, Maya. When you wrote, "..the validity of the rest of the novel came into question in my mind; I didn’t know what was real about anything anymore, what could I believe?", I thought, "Well that's what THEY want from you....So that you can believe whatever the Party wants you to." This is in fact how the Party acted a lot of the time- they removed credibility from any previously believed truth, until you have no choice but to accept what they say is true. This relates back to the whole "2+2=5" idea.
DeleteAlso, you say you were surprised with the ending of the novel, where society ends up remaining the same. But you and I have both read Brave New World- don't you remember that BNW ended in a very similar fashion? John the Savage committed suicide and the world continued the way it had before. I think the fact the these dystopian novels end similarly points to the idea that a single individual's dissatisfaction and opinion of society cannot change its existence as a whole. Sad, but true. If this were possible, our world would be changing at the will of others constantly. Who would want to live in that kind of world? The state of a society is determined by large groups of people, those who can assert power. And unless you have a superpower of some kind, an individual can't really do that. Right?
*SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE BOOK*
ReplyDeleteThe thing that struck me the most about Winston’s torture was the depths the Party had gone to learn the best way to effectively torture people. In a lot of books and movies that involve torture, somewhat “standard” methods are used. Methods that are grotesque and horrifying, but somewhat expected. The Party, however, goes above and beyond “normal” torture. They find out a person’s deepest, darkest fear, and use it to break them. This reminded me of a quote we normally associate with good things: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” While this advice is usually comforting, telling us that we only need to fear destruction if we give into frightful thoughts, O’Brien’s torture of Winston twists this idea into something horrifying. He takes the one thing someone truly fears, and forces them to confront it. And being raised in a society such as Oceania, where the government slowly crushes the spirit out of its people, would certainly increase the success of the torture. Deprived of the means to resist from before they were caught, it is no wonder that everyone who goes to Room 101 crumbles under pressure.
But the lengths the Party went to in order to obtain the valuable information of a person’s greatest fear really unnerved me. For O’Brien to learn about Winston’s musophobia, he would have been under surveillance for years. However, every minute Winston rebelled; he could have gathered more support and potentially become a greater threat. The Party walked a dangerous line between breaking someone’s spirit and allowing them to garner support for a cause that could overthrow them. Were they so convinced of their power that they could crush a rebellion with no consequences? Was it possible to do so? That is what scares me, that they probably could have done.
Fear can be a powerful thing. How we act when we are afraid often teaches us things about ourselves, and can be a powerful motivator. That the Party not only successfully manipulates fear in the ordinary citizen, but in political prisoners as well, is what makes Oceania such a repressive society. The government is willing to risk stability to make their prisoners afraid before they are broken. That, I think, is the true nature of the Party. They desire to assert their power through fear. It is not enough that they starve their prisoners; they want to squash them into meek, unassuming citizens. This book taught me a lot about the power of standing up for what you believe. Had one person stood up for themselves at the beginning of the Party’s regime, perhaps things would have turned out differently. What did you guys think about the ending of the book?
Blog Entry Part One (Too long to submit as single post)
ReplyDeleteThe mix of mental and physical abuse done to Winston by O'Brien was very interesting to me in this last section of 1984. One particular thing that I noticed was how O'Brien described how the torture he is submitted to will render him "never again...capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiousity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow." (pg 256) Upon reading this, I couldn't help but remember that only a few pages prior, O'Brien said that they were trying to make him sane with this torture process. "Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane!" (pg 253) This proves that in this world, there's a profound link between sanity and absence of original and independent emotion. More so, there's the distinction that a- in our eyes- normal human experience, including all natural human emotions and experiences is the definition of INsanity.
Upon making this connection, I thought of Brave New World, which I've read as well. The exact same idea was present in that novel, where the norm is lack of family relationships, relationships between men and women that do not go beyond the physical, and a certain numbness to the experience of life created by the drug, soma. In that society, the whole idea was to strip you of any emotion that comes with being a human in order to avoid the pain that that often brings. However, in that book, the character who represents humanity, specifically goes against the society's ideas and says, "“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”
I can't help but think that in 1984, the goal is to do a similar thing with their citizens and to institute a definite lack of natural human experiences in order to help burrow into their minds and set a foundation for the ideas of Ingsoc. I believe that had everyone in the society truly been their own person, Ingsoc wouldn't work. In order for such a system to work, the recipients must be willing, their minds untouched and uncontaminated by the sufferings but also joys that a normal human life brings. This is reinforced in the book by the idea that the thoughts of the citizens must change based on what the government needs and deems fit or necessary.
Also, the fact the O'Brien had helped the writing process of "Goldstein's" book reminded me of Animal Farm. Though Goldstein may have been a real person, he did not exist in the same way as much as he existed in the state of an idea. The government shaped his existence into anything they needed in order to put fear into the people. At the end of the day, his existence is so morphed that he, in that form, is no longer a man, but a purely fictional idea or principle, just put to the face of a man. This was seen in the book Animal Farm when Snowball was viewed as the number one enemy in the eyes of those at Animal Farm. We know that in the beginning, Snowball is one of good intentions, but as soon as he is seen as the enemy by Napoleon, his existence begins to shift. There is no truth as to what Snowball was actually up to, but he was said by the pigs to be the cause of every problem the animals had until his very being was now just a scapegoat rather than a pig with actual individualistic ideas.
Blog Entry Part Two.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I do not understand though is why, if O'Brien and other members of the party had written Goldstein's book, did they put ideas that were true to reality that would only reinforce the ideas that are already in the rebels's minds? Like Winston said before, the book told him what he already knew but did not know how to put into words. So from the book, his mind is only pushed farther opposite the direction that he is wanted to go in. Why do they do this? So that it is more "fun" for them when trying to convert their minds?
Also, how in the world is O'Brien able to read Winston's mind? Is he legitimately doing so or is O'Brien just extremely skilled in the interpretation of facial expression? Or maybe if, according to their principles, anything IS possible if needed to be or be believed so, then maybe true mind-reading does exist in this situation.
Lastly, I want to point out the interesting comment made by O'Brien. "If you are human, that is humanity." (pg 272) Winston was, as they had desired, a hollow shell and a mere skeleton of what he thought he was. O'Brien here is intentionally acknowledging the fact that humans do not exist- and CAN not exist- in this new society, or they have at least changed in definition. I feel like this may be one of the most important ideas to consider because it shows that the true end goal of this government is to have zero humanity. Zero natural intended human experience. As I said before, they want to strip them of everything naturally known to man. Whether or not I believe that Winston is the last true human is iffy. I feel like one is born with such an intimate bond with what constitutes humanity, therefor humanity can never be truly extinct.
Entry 2 - Final Thoughts on 1984
ReplyDeleteThe ending to this book was the most astonishing and unexpected endings I have ever read. Ever since the beginning of the book, Winston held fast to his beliefs and went against the Party. Despitre the possibility of death or torture or worse, Winston continued to oppose the horrid acts of the Party. Although his rebellions were minimal and had a very small threat to the overall safety of the government, the Party still collected him and transported him to the torture chambers of the Ministry of Truth. Even through this Winston mainly kept his head, defying the Party and knowing that what they do is wrong. Only until he betrays Julia, claiming that he would rather have her be subject to the torture on page 286, does he fully succumb to the physocological manipulation instilled upon him by O'Brien. In this scene, when his absolute terror of the rats causes him to purely change his mindset and betray the one he loves, he also loses his self. The entire process that O'Brien went through in order to change Winston into a perfect Party member is so excrutiatingly painful, I wonder at why the Party would go to such lengths to control one man. Is it fear that that one man could overthrow an entire governmnet? Is it in order to prove that they will and "always have" been in power? Is it an attemtp to boost their own ego?
However I might be able to answer my own question. Previously in the novel, O'Brien talks to Winston about the possibility of reading people's minds, by getting into their head without their consent and understanding their thought process. When Winston was being interrogated by O'Brien in the white room, Winston constantly thought things that O'Brien was miraculously able to figure out. Also in Room 101, O'Brien found Winston's true fear (which happened to be rats) even though Winston had never fully come to terms with the fear himseelf. In this way I believe the reason O'Brien spends so much time on his victims os because they are all guinea pigs. All of them are there because they are people with concious thought. Their crimes do not really matter to the overal welfare of the government. They are used for the use of mind-reading; O'Brien is trying to read the minds of other humans. If he is able to harness this power, then Oceania will be able to take over Eastasia and Eurasia since there will be nothing that can hide from him. In this way, I believe the ending of the book represents the pure domination of the Party. Winston was the last hope for humanity since he was one of the strongest fighters and held out against the Party for a significantly long period of time. This ending symbolizes the domination of the Party and the hope of no return.
But reading many other entries, I noticed that some of you guys had different opinions. Does anyone else believe that the ending of the book could mean something totally different?
Another thing I noticed while reading 1984, was George Orwell's take on technology. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, technology takes over the lives of many modern day people and is almost impossible to function without. Today, we need our laptops and phones to aid us in everyday chores and activities, along with many creative or recreational options. However, Orwell's idea of technology is VERY different than ours. He has created a world where technology is used to monitor and strike fear into its people. The main types of technology that are created are the telescreens and the speakwrites. There were in fact movie theaters and televisions in 1949, when 1984 was written, so the idea of telescreens were not too far fetched. The disturbing part about the telescreens is that you do not watch them, for they watch you. However, George Orwell's idea of a speakwrite, an invention that takes and processes someone's words, is far ahead of his time. There were extremely early types of computers during 1949, but none that were offered to the public. The earliest type technology similar to a "speakwrite" was made in 1997, forty-eight years after 1984 was published. There is actually a product named SpeakWrite, which converts recordings to text (Information about this product here: http://www.speakwrite.com/web/sw/about-us/speakwrite/about-speakwrite.aspx ). However, even this technology seems out of date in today's world of technology. Today, on a modern iPhone or iTouch, it is possible to speak into the mic, and have your device record what you are saying, while you are saying it. This proves how George Orwell's concepts and ideas have affected the lives of people today, if they know it or not. Along with recording and typing technology, we also have video cameras in a majority of stores. This is widely accepted by the people of the world, and is mainly to recognize someone who could be a suspect of a crime (stealing, etc.). Despite these technologies being used for good, could they one day be our downfall? In 1984, it ultimately caused the collapse of Winston's mental freedom. Will technology continue to develop and grow? What will the next generation be like, concerning electronics?
ReplyDelete*SPOILERS*
ReplyDeleteAs many of you already discussed, one of the most incredulous parts of the ending of the novel for me was the betrayal of Mr. Charrington and the final reveal of O’Brien’s true character. Although O’Brien has been, since his introduction, a fascination of mine within this book, Mr. Charrington never held any particular significance for me; he represented the past, and not much else. His shop was of vastly more importance than he himself, and I never stopped to question his motives as I did with O’Brien. I wonder now that if this had to do with his appeal. We are learning about Pathos in class, and now I think that maybe part of the reason why I was so willing to trust Mr. Charrington was because who ever suspects the nice old man? His entire backstory, his physical appearance, even his occupation as an antiques dealer played towards my emotions in a way, blocking me from seeing the kind widower for what he really was. Mr. Charrington’s reveal as a member of the Thought Police truly shocked me, despite my having caught onto many foreshadowing elements of Winston and Julia’s demise beforehand. One of the most significant foreshadowing moments was the prole woman’s singing right before Winston and Julia are caught. Upon further inspection, the song reveals a subtle message: “ ‘It was only an ‘opeless fancy, // It passed like an Ipril dye, // But a look an’ a word an’ the dreams they stirred // They ‘ave stolen my ‘eart awye!’ … ‘They sye that time ‘eals all things, // They sye you can always forget: // But the smiles an’ the tears across the years // They twist my ‘eartstrings yet!’ “ (page 218). The lyrics of the first stanza convey the idea that Julia and Winston’s relationship was “ ‘opeless” from the start, and that they were so enthralled by each other that they became careless and let themselves, in a way, get caught. The second stanza refers to after Julia and Winston’s arrests and reeducation, when they meet again and admit to having betrayed each other, and Winston’s subsequent inner melancholy at the thought that in the end, their love didn’t matter.
O’Brien’s true identity was by far the most capturing part of the novel for me. I’ve written a good amount about my suspicions of O’Brien, but even though I predicted his setting up of Winston and Julia, I never thought that the motives behind his actions would be lunacy. I strongly believe, as most of you have already said, that O’Brien was once a political prisoner, who, like Winston, was re-educated to love the Party and Big Brother. The effects of this reeducation are shocking: O’Brien is insane, mentally and emotionally; his corruption by the Party extends largely beyond my suspicions, his brain-washing permeating his very core. His contradictory behavior, long ranting speeches, and overall his never faltering persistence to inflict upon Winston that which was inflicted upon himself is terrifyingly brilliant on Orwell’s part. It speaks volumes to the extent that torture can damage and mutilate one’s mind, and only emphasizes the reader’s fear of the results of a world like that of 1984.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteWinston’s gradual breaking down was also a major turning point within the novel. With each small loss of hope, with each submission to O’Brien and the Party’s authority, I was deeply saddened. Winston is a fighter - despite how much you like or dislike him, you cannot deny that his persistence and undeniable spirit makes him unlike any other character. When this hope, this defiance, this idea that the human heart is the one thing that is permanent in a world where everything is alterable, is taken away... there are no words to describe it. The worst for me was when Winston betrays Julia; the questioning of my own self that came with it was frankly terrifying. Would I do the same thing as Winston? Would I betray the one person that I loved? No, of course not, is what I wish to believe. But the truth is, I don’t know what I’d do. That is the scariest part about 1984. If you were in the same circumstances, lived in the same world, who would you be? Would you be a Parsons, accepting everything that the Party threw at you without question? Would you be a Julia, caring solely about what affected you, and only you? Would you be a Mr. Charrington, betraying those who trusted you without so much as batting an eye? Would you be an O’Brien, crazed with the Party’s doctrines, your mind maddened and mutilated by the torture? Or would you be a Winston? It doesn’t matter, really, because in the end, their fates are one and the same. The bleak desolation that this novel left in me is unlike any reaction I’ve ever had to a book before; I didn’t even really like 1984, to be honest. That’s irrelevant though, because no matter how boring or long or bad you think that this novel is, you cannot say that the ending is not genius.