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.
In the first chapter of 1984, something that really struck me was the passage on “The Hate”. As Winston describes the figure of Goldstein and his alleged wrongdoings, I noticed the similarity between him and Snowball from Animal Farm. In both cases, an obviously corrupt government is creating an enemy for everyone to hate. It mentions that Goldstein “had been one of the leading members of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself” (11). Goldstein was competition to “Big Brother” and therefore, in order to eliminate the chance of his power being challenged, he turns everyone against him. Napoleon does this with Snowball, blaming him for all of the animals’ problems and turning him into a public enemy in order to secure his power. Another part of “The Hate” that I found worth mentioning was the ideals that Goldstein talked about in the clip. He spoke of freedoms similar to the freedoms that we have in our country today, for example the freedom of speech. The government is projecting this as despicable whereas we do not see having freedom as a bad thing but in fact part of our basic human rights. This showed me that, although it is still the very beginning of the novel, the state of Oceania is awful and the people are brainwashed to believe what the government tells them to believe. I am curious to continue reading and discover if Winston’s inkling that “Big Brother” is corrupt will play a role in the story.
Emily, I completely agree and was thinking the same thing when I read about Goldstein. There are many similarities and patterns between both of the novels by Orwell that we have read so far this year. I also noticed that Orwell uses many animal comparisons in 1984. While describing Goldstein, he says that his face "resembled the face of a sheep" and that "the voice too, had a sheeplike quality." It puzzled me that Orwell would choose this animal to signify Goldstein because he is a rebel and believes that the government is unjust while, in Animal Farm, the sheep mindlessly follow Napoleon as if they were absolutely unable to think for themselves and work to supress the comments of any lower animal that may renounce Napoleon's superiority. At first, I was confused because these ideas contradict eachother, but I then realized that Orwell may have interpreted the sheep to be the person who refuses to see the other side and be sensitive to others' opinions. This would make sense because the other animals believe the sheep are wrong and the people living in 1984 believe Goldstein is wrong. The sheep reference exaggerates the difference in opinions rather than their actual standpoint. How do you think these animal accreditations are related?
I agree with you fully; a huge portion of Orwell's work was based around communism. To me, 1984 is Animal Farm with people. Considering how depressing it is (At least to me), I'd say that the personification in Animal Farm did a bang-up job keeping Animal Farm from growing too depressing.
*Page 7* At first, after reading a few pages of 1984 I realized that the term “VICTORY” comes up a lot, for example, it is written on cigarette packages, the place in which Winston lives, “Victory Mansions,” or “VICTORY GIN”. At first I found the idea of victory ironic because I knew that the book portrays a dystopia. The term victory is ironic in a dystopia because the idea of victory is often associated with greatness and success. Both greatness and success would not be commonly found in a dystopia.
Another idea to be associated with the term victory is that the government, (the party) is trying to fix this dystopia. The thought of victory unites the people, and makes it seem as if they are all fighting for one cause. If the party is able to unite the people and create peace, there will be nothing to fear and the negative aspects of this dystopia may begin to disappear.
*Page 26* By page 25 and 26 the reader learns that Winston’s homeland won a war in India. This immediately gave me another idea about the term “victory” and its association with the party. When I learned that they were at war I associated the “VICTORY CIGARETTES” and “VICTORY GIN” with war bonds of World War I. This would imply that the money spent on the cigarettes and gin is helping to fund the war.
After reading further on it has become clear that the party is ruling over the people with fear and tyranny. Being a dystopia I found it ironic that Orwell used fear and tyranny in 1984 because he also used it in Animal Farm. This is ironic to me because Animal Farm, at first, was a utopia for the animals, even while the pigs were ruling over them in a tyrannical way. In Animal farm, the dogs created fear for the pigs to over power the animals, in 1984, Big Brother appears to be a tyrannical leader, and uses the thought police and vaporization as fear. Therefore I found it ironic that the same form of government was used in both a utopia and a dystopia novel written by the same author.
Chris, I love how you compared the victory cigarettes and victory gin to war bonds in WWl, this would make sense as it would further unite the people and be a form of propaganda. By using victory cigarettes and gin, the people would feel like they have some ability to influence their government and it would also rally support and patriotism. This can also be supported by the effect the victory gin has on Winston. At first, he is starving but knows he must ration his bread. When he drinks the gin, it it described as "nitric acid, and moreover, in swallowing it one had the sensation of being hit on the back of the head with a rubber club" but it does make him feel better and less hungry. While the people ignorantly feel like they are taking an active part in the government by using these victory products, they are really another way for The Party to maintain absolute control over their subjects and allow no freedom. In response to your last paragraph, I think that Orwell is trying to show that the idea of a dystopia is an opinion and, while one person may be completely happy with the government, another may think that the government treats the public like slaves. What you think is right and wrong, your moral compass, all depends on your values and life-experiences.
It is impossible not to notice similarities between 1984 and Animal Farm. As I was reading chapter 1, the most interesting thing that I noticed about the book was the Telescreen that takes up most of the wall in Winston’s home. He might not be in view of it, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t hear the propaganda that is told from it every so often. This type of propaganda reminded me of Animal Farm, because this use of advertising was very prominent there as well. On page 26, the Telescreen tells Winston of “… A glory description of the annihilation of a Eurasian army, with stupendous figures of killed and prisoners…” The telescreen is sending this message to the people to prove to them that the Party is doing something to help them. In a way, the job of the Telescreen reminded me of Squealer from the story, since he was usually the one talking about how well the animals were doing even when it was obvious that they were not doing very well at all. The telescreen also tells Winston that “… the new Floating Fortress which had just been anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands.” (page 24) which is another example of how it tells propaganda. The machine uses card stacking to show the success of their side, yet says nothing about the other, purposely trying not to show their weakness. It also uses name calling, connecting the Goldstein to the Hate and the forces against the Party. Another similarity I noticed between 1984 and Animal Farm was on page 20, when Winston says, “-you were supposed to call everyone comrade…” Immediately the thought of the pigs calling the rest of the animals and themselves comrades came into my head. This could not be mere coincidence- I think that Orwell did this on purpose to show the reader that the Party may want other people to think that they are just as equal as them, but just like the pigs, they believe that they are more.
Anna, I agree with you that there are multiple connections between this novel and Animal Farm. Besides being used as a form of propaganda, I think the government uses the telescreen to wear out the people and keep them emotionally defeated. The way military music is continuously playing on the telescreen is similar to how, during the Strangeways Prison riot in 1990, loud music was played outside the prison and lights were shown at the roof so that the prisoners could not sleep and would eventually have mental breakdowns and surrender. The telescreen does spread news like Squealer did in Animal Farm, but the controllers of the telescreen are nameless and unknown, making it much more ominous. Squealer was so persuasive because of he agreeable demeanor, but in 1984 the people do not have a choice but to listen to the telescreen.
What really grabbed my attention in the beginning of 1984 was Winston’s job. He modifies statements- namely, government predictions- so that they match up with the actual outcome. It makes sense why a tyrannical government would designate people to do this, so that they always appear to be correct. Always seeming right would start to have an effect on people’s opinions of their leaders, and increase the government’s power. With the level of brainwashing we’ve already seen in Oceania, I think it would be rather easy to go from merely good at predicting outcomes to omniscient, and from there to god-like. People are more likely to follow orders if they believe it comes from a god, and so the government gains power. I saw many similarities between Winston’s job and Squealer’s in Animal Farm. Both readjust figures so that the government seems right, and the populace has no idea what’s actually going on. Winston notes that “a great deal of time you were expected to make them up out of your head” (41), and Squealer’s “statistics” aren’t accurate either. They both downplay shortages to maintain the façade of a successful government, making for an ignorant, yet docile population. The people accept these “facts” because of a clever move on the part of the government. They ensure that only certain people know exactly how much the news is being altered, so that most people just acknowledge it as the truth. Knowing that not all the figures in the news are true definitely influences Winston’s view of the government, and I think it makes him less trustworthy of it. I am interested to see if he will continue to be skeptical, or give in to ignorance. I feel like his job would prevent the latter, but the sheer amount of propaganda might win out in the end. The alteration of events in 1984 got me thinking about how much of our history is really true. Recently, people communicate more, so it would be hard to just change the story of how an event played out. But a few centuries ago, when few people were literate or knew what was going on in other parts of the world, how can we know that accounts of the time were accurate? Select few actually wrote down the state of events, so how biased were they? Did anyone alter history in favor of one side? The saying goes that the winner writes history. But can the winners be trusted? I’m not sure. No side shoulders all the blame for any one event, but when retelling it, people have a tendency to embellish their version of events, to make it more agreeable. And if only one view is recorded, it is accepted as a fact. So the question is; how many ‘truths’ are actually false?
Laura, I agree with your comparison between Squealer and Winston. I also think that they can be compared by the idea that Squealer is often seen changing the commandments so that the pigs are never doing anything wrong. For example not sleeping on beds "with sheets". In Animal farm the "with sheets" is italicized to show that the commandment has been change. This is similar to Winston's job revising articles, as you already mentioned, to make sure that the government is never wrong.
In chapter 3, Winston describes the dream he has of his mother and begins to recall his family. He mentions something very interesting that had me wondering: "...they must die in order that he might remain alive, and that this was part of the unavoidable order of things" (30). I have concluded a few things from this quote. First, the quote shows that it wasn't always as terrible of a government as it is now. Currently in the book, citizens under the rule of "Big Brother" are not allowed to love or be loved, only to hate or be indifferent. Through Winston's dream, he shows that his mother loved him enough to die for him and, therefore, the government that exists today was not always in power. Also, I can infer that when the rise of the "Big Brother" state occured, people had to make sacrifices. For an unknown reason, Winston's mother, sister, and father had to die so he could live. I am curious to discover what, if anything, the government did to cause the death and hardships of people. What happened when this manipulitive government came to power? Why did Winston survive and his mother didn't? Does it have to do with gender? Age? To conclude, Winston's strange memory dream poses many questions about the past of both Winston and the government he lives under.
When I first opened the novel it gave a sense of fear and a watchful feel. For example, Winston can be an area where he can not be seen by the telescreen but still can be heard. He has to make sure he isn't heard and can't be seen when he is writing in the journal. This is similar to how Napoleon ends up ruling by fear in Animal Farm by using the dogs. Big Brother uses the ThoughtPolice , spies and the telescreens to secure his rule. I don't know how you guys feel about this but it is very frightening to think that every movement you make is being watched. Sadly, I think to a certain extent out world is like this today, there are cameras in every corner and most people have camera phones form which they can take pictures of others. As well this idea that your neighbors are watching your every move. That your children would turn on you because they have been trained to love Big Brother and the Party. That they are in fact brainwashed in a sense. This is seen when a Parsons child throws something at Winston and calls him "Goldstein",(24) public enemy number one. This is also ironic in its own as Winston has just written something illegal and that could eventually make him a criminal just like Goldstein. This seems to mildly bother Winston as he serves the party but as shown in the two minute hate he despises Big Brother. Another thing that bother me were the paradoxes, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."(4,16) Now this is very troubling as we know these very statements to be false. However, like Winston later states is that there is no past, only what the Party wants to be kept. So how could anyone know if these statements are false. The "Ignorance is Strength" saying shouldn't be odd as Orwell spoke on the subject of ignorance in Animal Farm. While right now it might not be a main theme or component of the novel it should not surprise us that Orwell added this a part of the Party's slogan. In addition another paradox that Chris has already pointed out is things constantly labeled with victory. This is ironic on many fronts as Winston has mentioned that Oceania is at constant war and there is never really an end and thus no victory. As well, "Victory Cigarettes" (26) are ironic as Victory has such a positive connotation while cigarettes usual come with a negative connotation. In conjunction it doesn't seem to make sense that the Party allows vices. I only say this since it seem like they want to keep everyone physically fit even if they aren't soldiers. This is seen when Winston preforms the Physical Jerks on page 32. In all this makes for a very weird society that I haven't quite figured out but what I have figured out is that it scares me. I our country never comes to such a thing. Do you guys ever believe that we could get to such a state as Oceania has?
Zach, you make a very good point throughout your blog entry and I would like to elaborate on some of your ideas. Primarily, when you explain the paradoxes, specifically "Ignorance is Strength," I agree that the government is brainwashing the citizens to make them believe only what the Party wants. In addition, what I took from that is the Party is also trying to corrupt the population. Since a government requires its people to participate in it, or at least believe it has power, I think it is attempting to remain in power and use the citizen's ignorance to their advantage but only giving them one side of the argument, theirs. This type of propaganda helps them keep their power since the people have no idea what a different life is. Secondly, to respond to your question, I don't believe this country specifically could turn into an Oceania but somewhere else it might. The United States was built off of freedom and the idea that the people rule the government. Therefore, a totally controlling government has little chance of erupting in this society. However, as seen in other places, dictators ruled their countries absolutely and attempted to control every aspect of the population. For example, the Arab Spring was an attempt to overthrow governments similar to Oceania's, though not as extreme. But due to the constantly expanding societies and an increasing popularity in the "Western Mindset," I do not believe that an Oceania government will arise in the near future. Yes, there is always a possibility, but I do not believe it has an imminent arrival.
Entry #1, 1984- Focus on children's actions in chapter 2
The use of the word "comrade" at the beginning of this novel struck me as another outstanding similarity between this novel and Animal Farm, but what surprised me more was the way Mrs. Parson's children acted towards Winston. In this scene, Orwell is not only emphasizing the innocence of these children but also how simple it is for them to be manipulated and corrupted. Personally, I found their actions horrifying and worried for Mrs. Parsons because she is obviously a little bit scared of her children and the monsters they may become.
It is not a mystery where Mrs. Parson's children learned their bad habits and malicious nature. They are constantly surrounded by bad influences and are most likely educated according to the narrow-minded values of The Party. They are victims of their society because every other outlet in their lives that may offer an alternative to their bleak city is either censored by The Party or illegal. To make matters worse, their father is a devout supporter of the government simply because he is unable to think for himself and is not very bright, in fact, his character reminds me very much of Boxer. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I guess, for his children have inherited his ignorant acceptance. Since Big Brother is the strongest figure in their society, they will dedicate their lives to him. Also, if another political rival overthrew him, they would probably immediately renounce their allegiance to The Party and join this new figure. They are a family of followers.
While Mr and Mrs. Parson should be the head of their family, their son has completely dethrones them. This scene is not long, however, it is extremely clear that the young boy feels he is above the rest of his family: "Why can't we go see the hanging?" roared the boy in his big voice. His demeanor is also described as being "vicious". This is a perfect example of careful word choice by Orwell. The children have grown up around violence, and killing people has now became a source of entertainment for them. They have been completely brainwashed by The Party similarly to how Napoleon raised his pack of dogs to become bloodthirsty. This scene reminded me of when I was in elementary school, and there was this huge controversy about video games, and how they are too violent for kids. Here's an article I found about it: http://www.education.com/reference/article/violent-video-games-desensitization/ Many claimed that video games desensitize children, which I completely agree with.
It saddened me that Mrs. Parson's was afraid of her children. As someone with divorced parents who lives with only my mom, I can not even comprehend the detachment between Mrs. Parsons and her children. In the novel, Winston was struck by "the look of helpless fright" on the her face and the way her "eyes fritted nervously" just like I was. This scene reaches its peak when her son shoots something at Winston with a catapult and Mrs. Parson's must restrain him. He originally was only pretending to shoot Winston, but this final action shows that he will not hesitate to physically hurt someone, even if he barely knows the person. I am excited to see if these children reappear in the novel and what role they will play further in the story.
Leah, I completely agree. The second the word "comrade" was used, I immediately thought of Animal Farm. This word is a synonym for ally, partner, and even friend. However, In both of the novels, it rarely gives off a friendly air. It appears as almost forced and bland. I also agree with your point about Mrs. Parsons and her children. I find it very disturbing that the "Junior Spies" even exist. The fact that some children would actually send their own parents to the authorities is very frightening.
Once I started reading the book, I almost immediately felt uneasy and distressed for the people living in this dystopia which they call "Oceania". From the impoverished proles to the officials in the Party, everyone is being watched by the Thought Police and Big Brother. There is virtually no escape from the Thought Police, as they look into the citizen's mind and read their thoughts. I personally think this is the most disturbing part of the novel, because there are restrictions in speech, writing, actions, and thoughts. There is no place for someone to be perfectly private with themselves due to them constantly being watched. Something that bothered me from the start was the coined motto of the Party, which is inscribed on the wall of the Ministry of Truth headquarters, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"(4). This saying is very strange in general, and it is very discomforting. Today, if someone were to say these, they would possibly be deemed insane. These six words are each antonyms of each other, and the fact that the government is saying that they are the same is deranged. While reading the first couple chapters, I couldn't help but think of an episode of The Twilight Zone, a television series that premiered in the late fifties, early sixties. There is an episode named "It's a Good Life". This episode shows a small town that is quietly terrorized by a little boy, who has the power to read people's minds and "do bad things" to the people that supposedly don't like him. Near the end of the episode, a man finally has endured enough of the little boy and speaks his mind, while the others watch fearfully. The boy then kills the man with his powers, and no one speaks their mind. This constant fear of not being able to say what you want is very similar to the plot of 1984. Both the novel and the television series give off a creepy feeling to the reader/viewer. I am personally very curious about how this novel will play out, and if Winston will ever be reprimanded for going against Big Brother and the Party.
When I started this book, I realized how great of a country we live in. Winston is someone who is constantly living in fear of death because he disagrees with the government while we live in a country where people aren't grateful enough for their rights. I also found it extremely disturbing when he began to describe "Two Minutes Hate" and how violent it gets. He says, "Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room." I found this image frightening, something that I would assume would shake someone to their core, especially if they were an outsider looking in. However, by the end of "Two Minutes Hate" Winston is screaming and yelling along to crowd instead of sitting silently in his seat as he was in the beginning. I also realized while reading this portion of the book that "Two Minutes Hate" isn't a place where you can say hate against anything, but a place where you're supposed to say hateful things against Goldstein and people who are on his side instead of those who are on the side of The Party. It's not a place where you can necessarily share your true opinions, but yet another place where you're thoughts, words and actions are being controlled. It's a scary thought that the people of Oceania can't even share their true thoughts to anyone in fear that they will be killed because they put their trust in the wrong person. As the people of the Oceania are described by Orwell, it seems to readers that none of them are very social towards each other. I believe this is yet another hint that there's not much trust between people nor between people and their government. As O'Brian is mentioned quite frequently in this scene, I get the feeling that he will become a largely important character later in the novel, even possibly leading a rebellion against The Party. I also believe that Winston and O'Brian will eventually become good friends and be the two leaders in a rebellion the people of Oceania can't even share their true thoughts to anyone in fear that they will be killed because they put their trust in the wrong person. As the people of the Oceania are described by Orwell, it seems to readers that none of them are very social towards each other. I believe this is yet another hint that there's not much trust between people nor between people and their government. I also, like many of you, found the scene with Mrs. Parsons and her children somewhat frightening. Winston, reflecting after leaving their house says, "With those children, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of on orthodoxy." He also describes her to have a frightened and gray look to her. The fact that a child would turn their own parents in to the Thought Police simply for having different opinions than the government is a really scary thing in my mind. I also find it odd that it seems as though the children aren't even really being raised by their parents, but instead, by a far too controlling government. It makes me question the government in our country because I know that I'm a person who sometimes comes home from school and tells my parents something that I learned that they don't necessarily agree with. It really shows that parents don't have as much control over their children's learning as they might like to, or they might at least like to think.
Kathryn, when the "Two Minutes Hate" was first mentioned in the novel, I though that it would be a chance for the people to be free and say whatever they wanted about The Party without having to worry about the Thought Police or being punished. However, it is only another chance for their opinions to be dictated by the government, as you said. As I was reading this scene, I found the people's response to the video about Goldstein very similar to how I think people in a cult would act. Even Winston, who agrees with Goldstein, became almost hypnotized and started yelling at the screen. The people were on the verge of riot over a simple picture on the screen. The woman next to Goldstein even threw herself over a chair with her arms reached out towards Big Brother's face on the screen murmuring "My Savior!" I wish someone would have asked her exactly what Big Brother had done that saved her. For such a powerful figure who is worshiped by so many, Big Brother is never seen except for the pictures on his face. What if he doesn't even exist?
Leah, I've been wondering the same thing. Is Big Brother an actual person, or just the government's way of controlling the population? It started to remind me of Napoleon in Animal Farm- while he definitely did exist, he became more and more secluded from the other animals. Maybe Big Brother did exist during the initial revolution, but either died or was unable to rule. Keeping his face prominent in society would present the image that everything was still normal and prevent power struggles. It would also start to turn him into an "immortal" figure, which could increase the government's power.
To answer one of Emily's questions- the one about why Winston's mother died- I have a strong feeling that she was taken away by the Thought Police for some sort of controversial rebellion against the Party and Big Brother. On page 29, the text says, "He must have, he thought, been ten or eleven years old when his mother had disappeared." The narrator specifically says "disappeared" and not "died." Also, on page 19, immediately after Winston had committed Thoughtcrime by writing "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" in his diary, he began describing the arrests that happened to those who committed it. "The arrests invariably happened at night....People simply disappeared, always during the night." Because of this connection, I get the feeling that Winston's parents had a tendency to go against the ways of the strict Party, and eventually got arrested and killed for it. Because of this, I think it's even more interesting that Winston himself is having these Anti-Big Brother thoughts. It's almost as if the resistance to power is hereditary, and the tendencies of his parents, though they're dead, are coming out through him. Another part of the story so far that I found extremely interesting was when he spoke of the dark-haired girl that wore the red sash around her hips as a symbol of the Junior Anti-Sex League. On page 15, right in the middle of the Two-Minute Hate, Winston was going through a range of radical thoughts. Specifically, the narrator says, "...he realized why it was that he hated her. He hated her because she was young and pretty and sexless, because he wanted to go to bed with her and would never do so, because round her sweet supple waist...there was only the odious scarlet sash, aggressive symbol of chastity." Winston sees her, and all pretty young women, as a symbol of everyone that is submissive to the Party's oppressive ways. He sees the red sash tied around her waist as the complete submissiveness of women to the rules the Big Brother imposes upon them. He says he doesn't trust women, because they were the ones most loyal and the ones who were the "swallower of slogans" that the Party throws at them as propaganda. His desire to take off her scarlet sash and do all of these unspeakable acts to her in bed is his mind's way of doing away with the strict ideas and rules that this society goes by. He wants, so badly, for Big Brother to be done away with, so he has these hallucinations of doing away with it by getting rid of the innocence and promised chastity of the young, loyal girls. It's his way, in his mind, of rebelling. A question I'd like to pose for others is, what is your opinions on the language that is used in 1984, Newspeak? What do you think shortening and limiting the language does in society? What's its function?
Jen, in respons to your question, I think that the government created Newspeak so they could further control the people. Also, by using Newspeak, there would be no slang which I think is the voice of Revolution and change. Not only are people not allowed to speak against The Party, but they are not able to because revolutionary words are most likely not in the Newspeak dictionary. Using Newspeak also limits the extent to which people can communicate with each other. Oceania is completely isolated from the rest of the world by the government and the war against Eurasia that is often spoken about through the telescreen. I wonder if the war is even real, or if The Party just makes up the war so the people will think they are "safe" in Oceania so they don't leave. If the people of Oceania were able to communicate with someone from Eurasia they might realize how corrupt the government really is. Finally, Newspeak stops the people from being able to code their words and keep secrets from the government, similarly to the acronyms and slang that I use that my mom doesn't understand at all because it's not her generation.
I agree with Leah, I think shortening a language would severely limit people's abilities to start a revolution. But I also think it makes people feel more like a community- speaking a language only their nation speaks would make them feel more loyal to their nation and therefore more loyal to the government. Also, going off of your idea about feeling safe in Oceania, I think it's partly the idea of the world and partly not being able to fit into other societies, if you only speak one language. It makes them feel more comfortable there, and less willing to leave.
I didn't even think about the existence of Big Brother, I just assumed he was there. I realize that this assumption is probably similar to someone who lives Oceania, someone who just trusts the government. It truly didn't even occur to me to question that what the government was saying was false, I just believed it as much as the citizens of Oceania.
Entry #2, 1984- Focus on narration and mood throughout novel
In this novel, the narrator plays a very large role in creating a desolate and foreboding mood. Unlike Animal Farm, where the third person narrator did not take a side and simply spoke with dramatic irony, the narrator of 1984 is obviously against The Party and such an oppressive and controlling dictatorship. At many points throughout the novel, I feel as if Winston's own opinion and the narrator's are one. While this narrative style makes the readers' negative feelings about Big Brother stronger, it also makes the novel more unreliable as the narrator is card stacking and only mentions the bad aspects of the government.
The strong opinion of the narrator makes it much more enjoyable for me as a reader because I feel less detached from the story and the characters. The narrator often posses questions to the reader such as "How could you make appeal to the future when not a trace of you, not even an anonymous word scribbled on a piece of paper, could physically survive?" These questions make me think deeper about the novel and help me to understand Winston's tough situation. The narrator also uses name-calling to sway the reader towards being anti-Party. For example, the narrator says that the people who might turn Winston in for having ink on his fingers are nosing zealots" and that the children brainwashed by The Party are "ungovernable little savages" and "eavesdropping little sneaks". The narrators' ability to put up with The Party seems to be wearing thin just like Winston's. This then leads me to think that rebellion is eminent.
Throughout the novel, I have worried about Winston's mental state. I completely support him in his dreams of freedom and rebellion, but at times it seems like he has lost control of reality. The first time I recognized this streak was when he first began his journal, is "seized by a kind of hysteria", and frantically writes over and over "they'll shoot me I don't care, they'll shoot me in the back of the neck, I don't care." Winston's obsession over the connection he believes he has with O'Brien also make me think he may be a little bit out of it. He has never spoken to the man and yet be is completely sure that O'Brien came to him in a dream and that they will band together against Big Brother! The whole thing seems to be a figment of his imagination and desperation. O'Brien is an Inner Party member, so Winston should be trying to stay as far away from him as possible if he is trying to start a rebellion. Winston believes O'Brien is secretly good only because of his "urbane manner" just like how the lower animals always agreed with Snowball because of the cute and harmless way he would sway when he spoke in Animal Farm. As the narrator of this novel has views almost identical to Winston's I do not think I can trust him either. If Winston has been driven mad with his hatred of the government, what's to say that the narrator is not the same?
Finally, I'd just like to pose a question for everyone. Winston seems slightly on the fence with his feelings about The Party, what do you think will be the breaking point for this? What will lead Winston to become completely anti-Party? Many characters and ideas have been introduced in the first few chapters of the novel, what part do you think they will play in Winston's mindset?
Leah, I feel as if this is a very good question, seeing as i just wrote my blog on this topic. Winston has all the reason to be anti-Party, and his job helps him. I think it is just a matter of time.
Leah these are all great questions for one, I am not really sure what will push Winston over the edge since he seems to some how be loyal to the party but not at the same time. This might have to do with the idea of Doublethink that he has introduced to us. I can see how you would say he is unreliable but I am not entirely convinced but this may be because it wouldn't surprise me that things like this could occur. In addition, for lack of a better word I don't think Winston has the audacity to create an anti party. While he has these feelings he doesn't feel like a hero he feels more like a Benjamin from Animal Farm.
To answer your question Leah, I agree with Zach. Although Winston strongly opposes the government and wishes its demise, I don't believe his is capable of bring about a rebellion. For one thing, he is uneducated on the subject of rebellion. His small acts of the journal and his rebellious thoughts are not ground for a government overthrow. He might attempt to create his own "Anti-Big Brother" clan, however, from what I have read, I do not believe he has the ability to do so.
While reading further on I noticed that many things seem to be going wrong for Winston, and that ever since “Big Brother” took over his life has not treated him well. For example, with the revolution and the institution of INGSOC, Winston lost both of his parents and his sister. Also, shortly after The Party took over, in Winston’s mind, the Party’s “undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act.” The Party makes sex a duty, not an enjoyable act. After the reader hears this, Winston thinks of the last time he had sex, and remembers an old prostitute. Both of these negative times in Winston’s life are clearly results of “Big Brother”, and leave him lonely. After these occurrences in Winston’s life I am wondering why he doesn’t choose to rebel in any way, or at least tell people about how the government isn’t always right. It is learned early that Winston changes records for the government so that they are never wrong, however I question why he doesn’t share the information with other people, and continues to help the government. Winston was taken into The Party’s orphanage after his parents died. Here he was taught to respect The Party and was trained for his job at the ministry of truth. The Party only encourages sex so that they have more people to support the party. Knowing how The Party trains the children to respect them, and The Party’s affect on Winston’s life give him all the reason to rebel. I understand that it is difficult do to the telescreens and the thought police, however his job at the ministry of truth gives him an advantage because he is able get his hands on government records and information. Overall, I am surprised that Winston chooses to continue his job helping the government after all that has happened in his life.
To go off of your point about Winston's rebellion Chris, I think the reason he won't rebel is because he is scared stiff about what the governmnet will do to him. He knows that the Thought Police will find him and "vaporize" him if he so much as thinks rebellious thoughts. The Party is so set on creating a perfect power throne that they are willing to loose many of their citizens in order to maintatin control. I totally agree with your idea though; I think Winston should rebel, he's not too happy with his current life. But I also believe the fear of dying or worse causes him to back down.
Entry 1- 1984- Thoughts on Beginning Pages I’ve only read the first couple pages of the novel and already I am bombarded with this sense of dystopia. It was hard to picture at first because of how abnormal it seemed compared to our society, but it didn't take long to capture me. One detail I noticed was how everything in the city “seemed to have no color in anything except the posters that were plastered everywhere.” (Page 2) I think Orwell did this to emphasize the fact that in that society, the only thing that mattered was the government. It also represented how the people weren’t allowed to think outside the box or have any creativity, which is shown through their colorless, uniform city. I could picture the hidden destruction that wreaked havoc inside society, which had been oppressed into secrecy by the threat of Big Brother and his Thought Police. They make sure to make it apparent that the people are being watched and listened to at all times by posting reminders all around the city, having “the dark eyes [look] deep into [their] soul.” They aren’t allowed to think for themselves anymore in fear of thinking a wrong way. Another detail that I noticed was that they use military time. This supports their totalitarian setting by showing how militaristic the society is and how strict the lifestyle lived was. (Page 4) Lastly, something I found interesting was how they call their branches of the Party the Ministries, making it resemble something religious in a sense. It gives a divine title to anyone who has a position in the Ministries, and it also makes them seem god-like and heavenly to the average social class. Then, they go on and introduce their code, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength,” which also goes along with this religious theme by mimicking the 10 commandments. You can also see this religious theme apparent in one of Orwell’s other novels, Animal farm; they too create a set of moral codes to which are supposed to be followed strictly, they give the persona of a prophet to the crow, Moses, and they even make mention of heaven, naming it Sugarcandy Mountain. I wonder if Orwell will reference this theme throughout, has anyone else noticed other religious symbols or metaphors?
These beginning pages made me think of the quote that we did a journal entry on by Thomas Jefferson; “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” It shows how Big Brother was able to control and oppress these people because people like Winston, for example, who know there is something wrong, choose to remain silent and just go with it. The Party knows that there are these people who question the system, which is why he continually instills fear among society in order to ensure that they remain silent. Because, he knows that if they were to speak out, many more would join with them and potentially cause their overthrow. This goes along with another quote that we examined in class by Claudian; “He who strikes terror in others is himself in continual fear.” This goes along with how the Party fears that one day, the people will overthrow them, so in attempt to stop this from happening, they instill fear upon the people in hopes of scaring them form doing anything irrational or potentially rebellious. I ask others: do you believe that the people of this dystopia will remain quite, like the animals did in the previous novel, Animal Farm, or do you believe that they will begin to speak out against the Party?
To answer your question Maya, I do not think the people could rebel against the Party and Big Brother, just like how the animals in Animal Farm didn’t rebel against the pigs. The Oceania people’s whole lives revolve around this illusion that they are safe and happy in this dystopia because the Party says they are. Similarly, Squealer constantly claims that the animals are living in perfect conditions, despite the reality that all laborers were starving. As well, the government causes so much fear in the population with the Thought Police, the Telescreen and even hundreds of posters claiming "Big Brother is Watching You," that the people are terrified for their lives, just like how Napoleon uses the dogs to strike fear throughout Animal Farm. Just like in Animal Farm, the population won't rebel against the established government because of their lack of knowledge and of their fear.
One thing I would like to discuss is Winston himself. We know nothing about his physical appearance except that he wears overalls as a sign that he is a Party member. Though we can assume that he looks different when he says "The majority of people in Airstrip One were small, dark and ill favored." (60) The reason this statement make me think he looks different is because of how he treats other people around him. Winston's general attitude towards people is a cynical one. While this may be due to jealousy or the mistrust he has over other people I have not yet determined. Still, there is a difference in how Winston seems to treat men and talk about them then he does women. For example, when Winston is talking to the old man about his past he gets angry but restrains himself from insulting him. Then we he talks about the prostitute he was with he retells it with malice and disgust and not for his own actions. As well, he automatically thinks that the woman from the ministry is a spy and speaks about her in a bad way since she is celibate. It seems that Winston only sees women as possessions or object of pleasure. For instance, he says while his wife may have been dumb he could have lived with her for the sex. Winston shows both his anger towards women and his lust with this statement. This prompted me to wonder whether or not Orwell himself was sexist like Winston seems to be. Sadly, I have come up with nothing to support or disprove this thought. On a short note I feel as if Winston himself isn't that intelligent, as he goes after the old man for information about before the revolution but decides not to ask the shop keeper about time before the Revolution when it seems like he has ample information. Still, Winston is unlike the other people in Oceania as he is aware of the trickery of the Party. However, does this make him intelligent or just observant. In my opinion I believe Orwell would say this makes him intelligent as Orwell made it clear through Animal Farm that intelligence is your best weapon against corrupt governments. My opinion however is that Winston is just observant and for some reason has decided not to trust the party. While his ability to not blindly follow suggest a shred of intelligence, I don't believe he is a genius. This may be due however to my new found dislike for Winston. It would seem that he hates everyone around them and is disgusted at there stupidity. That he would wish to do away with all of them. It doesn't help that he seems to have a blatant distaste for women that are not intelligent and ready to preform sexual actions. After reading some more and doing some more thinking I now fully agree with Leah that the Narrator is unreliable for more than one reason. He seems cynical like Winston and has a superior omniscient attitude. Which is funny to me because if the narrator was he would know wether or not the woman was a spy or if O'Briwn was a "friendly". A thought I just had was that Winston himself thinks he is omniscient in a way. He thinks he knows who will be vaporized and who will not. I do not approve of this arrogance or think he has the knowledge to make these assumptions. Since he has made it abundantly clear know one would even know who would disappear. With this thought how can you find similarities in who would be vaporized. Maybe he does have this knowledge and it hasn't been revealed to us yet. Another thing that is bugging me is that they keep mentioning Eurasia but we don't know what the condition in this place is. Is it similar to Oceania? Could Winston just go there for information? What is so terrible about them that they are constantly at war?!?!?! We only know what the narrator feeds us and in that he respect he himself is like the party able to change anything he wants to make his point. What do you guys think the deal is with Eurasia? As well I imagine London as a place full of rubble and not a bright place like the party makes it to be and not just where the proles live. How do you imagine London?
I don’t think I realized how absolute the power of the Party was until Chapter 4. In this chapter, we learn a lot about his job and his co-workers. The co-worker that stood out to me was the sandy haired woman that sat next to him. Her job was to delete the names of the people who had been vaporized, deleting their entire existence. This is terrible in its own right, but the part that really opened my eyes was that this woman’s own husband was vaporized only a few years earlier. I think that this sums up the power of the Party- this woman’s husband was killed by them and she continues to operate her job of deleting their names. She might have even had to remove her husband’s name, taking away the fact that he was even born. This really stuck out to me, and I think it did to Winston too, because when he explains the situation, he says “there was a certain fitness in this…” Another thing I noticed throughout my reading was how in this dystopian society, they are against love. On many occasions, there was mention of an anti sex league or pornography. On page 43, the narrator tells us of a section in the newspaper called “Pornosec…the lowest kind of pornography” which no one but the people who worked on it could look at it. This is odd to me, because if no one could look at it, why do they even make this section? Could this just be another case of the higher Party members having privileges over the lower members, except no one knows about it? It also says on the same page that they print “films oozing with sex” in newspapers, however it is not said who is allowed to look at these. On another page, the Junior Anti- Sex League was mentioned. This contradicts what is said before in this chapter, that no one is allowed to see the Pornosec. The reader can guess though, that love and sex are frowned upon. We can also infer that Winston doesn't agree with that fact, based on the dream he has with the brown-haired girl. This is another part of the book that shows that Winston doesn't agree with everything the Party says and he is even against some of their ideas. After this dream, Winston wakes up with the name “Shakespeare” on his lips. This is a type of dramatic irony because the reader knows that Shakespeare’s name is usually associated with stories of love or tragedy, while Winston has no idea what he was saying. I thought that this dream was almost foreshadowing the future that Winston has with his girl, although I am not sure how his story will end- with love or tragedy? Either could happen with a name like Shakespeare. I am interested in seeing how his story with this woman will turn out and if it turns out to be a big part of the book, or if it’s even important at all.
For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of 1984 has been the depth of The Party’s brainwashing on society. Even children, normally connected with ideals like innocence, are completely devoted to the government and its oppression. I feel like this is especially unsettling to all of us because we are encouraged to form our own decisions and make our own choices. The part that really stuck me was the part when Winston is contemplating how fanatical the Parsons’ children are when it comes to upholding the law. “Within two years those children would be denouncing her to the Thought Police. Mrs. Parsons would be vaporized” (61). The concept of vaporizing someone seems awful to someone living in our society, yet Winston is sure that these children would enable someone to do that to their own mother. They have lost the control of their own thoughts, it seems like. They blindly follow the government’s orders and take it all as the absolute truth. But while it is horrifying that they have been manipulated like that, it is obvious how it happened: they grew up in a secluded country with the government telling them only one version of the truth. The situation in Oceania is one that we would never want to exist anywhere in our world, and yet we know it has. Orwell modeled this book, and Animal Farm after communist societies, and we see how unjust and corrupt they are through them. But what really caught my attention was how accurately he predicted the future of some areas. 1984 was published in 1949, however, Oceania bears a striking resemblance to the country of North Korea, which is still communist today. But at the time of its publication, the Korean War hadn’t even started yet. While other communist governments ‘brainwashed’ their citizens in a similar way, the main similarity I noticed was the isolation of their citizens. Both North Korea and Oceania allow little contact with the outside world. Also, in both societies, the citizens are devoted, almost worshipful, of their leaders. Here’s an interesting article I found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16243995. Did anyone else find any connections between the Party and modern day governments? I’m curious to see how 1984 is still relevant in our world, and I think it goes to show how we will always be able to relate to literature.
While reading chapter three, I could not resist from comparing the various scenarios to those in Animal Farm. While Winston is doing his Physical Jerks, he tries to remember his childhood. Ultimately, he fails. He thinks about how there are no physical mementos or records of the past, which fogs his memory. The Ministry of Truth deletes or "vaporizes" certain people from all documents if they have committed a thought crime. Winston is shown working in the Records section of the Ministry of Truth, and must erase a certain person from a speech. This illustrates how the government is built on lies, and can rarely be trusted. The Party has also erased any sign of a life without Big Brother. However, Winston is probably not the only person who realizes this. This shows the fear that lies in the people, and how it is overpowering their consciences. This also hints that the people in Oceania, mostly the officials of the Party, have had their minds tampered with, although this is not clear. This is one of the most prominent examples of 1984 relating to Animal Farm. In both stories, there are characters that go along with the changes and don't seem to mind them, while there are the select few that question the ideas of the upper, more powerful class. In Animal Farm, Boxer and Clover question the pigs choices, but are not educated well enough to figure out their corrupt ways. Benjamin realizes that there must be something wrong, but does not act upon it. Benjamin's actions are similar to Winston's. Winston knows that the records have been changed and that Big Brother is invasive and wrong, but is obviously too afraid of the consequences. It seems that most people sense something wrong, but want to believe in the Party. Then there's a large amount of the population that does not know that the government is corrupt, due to them either being ignorant or a child. The children don't know a life without Big Brother, and cannot tell the difference. The children are already being corrupted, and this suggests that in at least ten more years, there would be no one left to oppose the system. I can't help but wonder how much of the population of Oceania questions Big Brother and the Party, or if Winston is only one of few.
In *Chapter 1*, the first aspect that struck me was the propaganda that the government used. As Laura said before, the government continually attempts to brainwash the citizens in order to legitimize their power and policies. Their success can be seen in the “Two Minutes Hate” when everyone gathers together to call out Goldstein and essentially hate him for a full two minutes. This surprised me and made me question the government’s personal security. If they depend upon the people to hate Goldstein in order to remain in power and continue their wars, then if someone were to stand up and explain the other side, their entire system would crumble. To expand off of that topic, the Telescreen also supports that idea. The government understands that it might not last and strikes fear into the civilian population in order to maintain control. In this way, the government is absolutely unstable and fearful, possibly more so than the people themselves. Also, the journal or diary that Winston begins writing on *page 8* however was not surprising. After he briefly explained the state Oceania was in, I did not expect much from him. Actually, his grammar and thought process on paper was more than I expected. Due to the absolute oppression the government puts upon the people, they would not want them to become very educated because then the people might learn about freedom and civil rights and overthrow the government. Unfortunately for the government, this chapter reveals what I believe will be a recurring theme in this novel: rebellion. Since Winston started the journal, he must finish it, or it will at least provoke him to silently oppose the government forces. Lastly, one of the scariest aspects of 1984 that I found was the amount of wars this country wages. My first thought was that the people must be totally depressed and oblivious to the degree of violence Oceania performs. As described on page 3, the whole city of London was decimated; “...vistas of rotting nineteenth century houses, their sides shored up with balks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs with corrugated iron...and the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air...[and] had created a larger path...” What first came to my mind was how does the government pay for such war? And what are the human costs? The party must put so much pressure upon the people to pay for the military, so much that everyone is poor. Winston himself, a government man, cannot even eat bread for lunch because he needs to save it for breakfast. The state that this entire country is in, what with the destroyed streets, the awful government and the desolate population, I can only imagine what the citizens look and feel like. Most likely, the entire public of Oceania are war torn individuals living in the bowels of society, taking food when they can get it and living in the illusion that their government is best. I can only hope that as the story progresses, the lives of these citizens will improve.
Knowing George Orwell's style though, do you really think their lives will improve? Of course, we may want to see there be a happy ending for the characters, but when we think about what the function of Orwell's novels are, they are always sending out a warning to people about what we may become as a society. He tries to scare us, through his books, with the cruel possibilities of the future. So when you look at it in that sense, it's almost like there's no way this book can have a happy ending. Otherwise, no one would fear what we might become- which, according to Orwell, is something we should definitely be doing.
I completely agree with Laura’s last post- I too believe that one of the most unsettling aspects of Oceanian society is how blatantly exposed they are to ridiculous propaganda. It’s almost incredulous to think that anyone could fall for slogans like “War is peace” and “Ignorance is strength” and the government telling them that they’d NEVER been at war with Eastasia, when even someone with a simple mind could remember that this is not true. The problem is, this does happen. And the citizens do submit to these ridiculous claims. And the government can achieve this is ways that actually aren’t so abstract as one might think, which is what makes this book so scary. For one, the government eliminates any sources of history. Like Winston discusses on page 34 and 35, this lack of definite knowledge of the past and crucial events in history is truly a handicap. “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened- that surely was more terrifying than mere torture or death…. But where did the knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness…” (Pg 34). The fact that the Party has complete control over what the citizens do or do not know about their own past is a frightening way of keeping people at bay. How can people revolt to “go back to the way it was” when no one knows what that was like? It is like in Animal Farm, when the animals completely submitted to their cruel lives because they could not remember that their lives had actually been better before. Another way the government keeps the population under controlling by manipulating their minds is through the 2-Minute Hate, which I find so interesting. There is a Youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WupvCZhKMnM) that I found from the movie version of 1984- which just coincidently happened to be released in 1984- that displays the exact same scene of the first 2-Minute Hate, including when Winston and O’Brien’s eyes met. Something that I finally noticed through seeing the clip was the different color clothes that people wear, based on their rank in society. In the front of the room are people wearing black clothing, while the people, who make up a much larger percentage, sitting behind them wear blue. In Brave New World, people in society also wear color-coded uniforms, except in BNW, there are more ranks than those in 1984. They both have in common the separation of the inferior and superior. What’s is even more interesting about this video clip though is that you can see, the ones wearing black, who have superior ranks in society, have no outer reaction to the video whatsoever, while the ones in blue, the average day commoners, are screaming and yelling and reacting so strongly. Maybe this means that the 2 Minute Hate truly is just to brainwash the commoners, and the superior members of society are just too intelligent to be affected.
Jen, that video clip was actually really frightening. After watching it, I feel that I can really better understand the chaos that ensues after even the slightest mention of Goldstein. Something else I noticed was the almost apologetic look that Winston gave O'Brian right before he began screaming right along with the crowd. Winston also looked like he was going to be sick the entire time. I found it strange that the people in the front, the ones wearing black, didn't show anything resembling the slightest reaction to the video. I would have thought they would have been the most likely to react because they would have the strongest hatred against Goldstein. This video clip really helped me to better understand the whole concept of "Two Minutes Hate".
As I was reading chapter three and Winston was performing his daily Physical Jerks, I thought that it really showed how controlling this society really was. When she calls him out individually, saying, "6079 Smith W! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that!" it really shows the intensity of these cameras on everyone's lives. They literally see your every move. Ironically, today I was watching something on Youtube and they mentioned a new camera coming out called a Memoto. These cameras are basically designed to capture your every move so you don't forget all the "little moments" but it reminds me A LOT of 1984. The cameras are designed to capture almost your entire life and that's really what the cameras in this book are designed for. These Memotos were obviously designed for something fun, as shown by this commercial (http://youtu.be/QsXeMrqNG9c) but they could definitely take a huge turn for the worse when they start to be used as something against another person or group of people. These cameras make me wonder if our society will ever become anything similar to the one portrayed in 1984. If you had asked me last week if I thought a society such as this was possible, I would have said no in a heartbeat. Now, I'm not so sure. Something else that stood out to me in this scene was how nervous Winston became after getting yelled at. Orwell says, "A sudden hot sweat had a broken out all over Winstons body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never showed his name! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away." Winston, especially, seems quite nervous to be under the scrutiny of the government. Perhaps it is because of the notebook that he has recently been keeping with all of his private thoughts in it that could easily put him to death. This poor man's life seems awful, especially because he is living in complete fear.
I totally agree with you Kathryn about the videologging. The fact that people today are creating a possible market for that has the possibility of turning disaterous. If the technology is used primarily for the purpose of "reliving memories," as the video says, then it might be harmless. However, if the government takes control and uses it to the extent that Oceania does, then it could oppress an entire population.
After finishing *Chapter 3,* I couldn't help but notice the similarities that 1984 and Animal Farm share. First of all, the terrible conditions that the animals and Oceania's population are living in practically mirror each other. The people of Airstrip One and the animals are both very poor and hungry. Also, in Animal Farm, Napoleon had trouble deciding which neighboring farm to trust, Pinchfield or Foxwood. In 1984, the Party has difficulties with trust as well as it constantly switches alliances between Eurasia and Eastasia. Finally, the propaganda used by both political systems is quite similar. Napoleon mainly uses card stacking, glittering generalities, and name calling to brainwash the animals into believing that the pigs' system is best and that any other way, namely Jones', is terrible. The Party uses the exact same techniques for the same purposes; it feeds the population with only one side of the argument while blaming the other for murder, treason, disgrace and many more horrid acts. In these ways, I believe that Orwell has a specific message that he wishes to convey to the audience. I am not exactly sure what it is, but he must have had a reason for writing two books that are very similar to each other. Another aspect that I found very interesting was on page 24, when Winston describes the children in 1984; “It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed [before]... some... “child hero”... had overheard some compromising remark and denounced his parents to the Thought Police.” This quote made me greatly concerned about the state of Oceania because of the way Winston describes the children. My first thought was about the families. If these children are so devoted to the government and so absolutely in love with the rules, regulations and restrictions posed by them that they don’t care about their own parents, then, in a sense, they are robots of the government, born to do the Party’s dirty work. However, these children cannot be blamed. These policies were forced upon them as children and this is all that they know. As Laura stated before in a previous post, they are living in a secluded environment, totally cut off from opposing opinions, preventing them to think for themselves. But the children still want to learn, and they turn to the Party to teach them because it’s the only thing they know. That is why I am so terrified for this society. If these children grow up with that mindset, then there will be no chance for revolution because the new Oceania population will be swarming with these brainwashed loyalists. One question I would like to pose is this: If the children grow as the novel progresses, does anyone think Winston will take their development to heart? Perhaps he may try to convert them to Anti-Big Brother, making make them notice a different side, or will Winston turn his back and give up?
While reading chapter 2, something interesting that struck was the behavior of the children of Mrs. Parson. In this dystopia, the public hanging seems to be the social event that every child wants to go to. In comparison to our society, we view this event to be gruesome and definitely unacceptable to a minor’s innocent eyes. The Party purposely does this in order to brainwash the kids into thinking that this is acceptable to do to people who don’t conform to society. This also relates to Leah’s first post about how kids in modern days are exposed to the same violence in video games, which is being questioned whether or not it is a cause of kids acting irrationally. While looking into the subject, I also found that people are researching whether or not violence on TV has a negative impact of children: http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=children+and+TV+violence§ion=Facts+for+Families In the case of this novel, it does seem to make the kids more bloodthirsty and violent towards others; “I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!” (22) Winston in the passage notices this and describes the growing drive in the children as a “calculating ferocity…[with] a quite evident desire to hit or kick.” But it was when Winston mentioned, “Nearly all children nowadays are horrible,” that peaked my interest. This line implies that the children hadn’t always been so horrid, which poses the question, what made them change? Winston not only makes the hint of a different past in this quote, but also previously in chapter two when he says, “but with some women one used it instinctively,” implying that in the past it was commonly used before things changed. (20) This makes me wonder: what was life like before everything changed? My hunch is that more of the past will be revealed as we read further into the story, has anyone else noticed any other clues? My fear for this society is that as society gets farther from the past, there will be less and less questioning of whether or not the change was the right thing for society. If this questioning disappears, then the hold that the Party and Big Brother has on the people grows stronger and stronger. By going directly to the root of the future-the children- the Party and Big Brother have a way to influence what they want them to think without any bias of the past. And they did this by creating the Spies program, a way to control children in an organized way. Now, the children have no chance to think for themselves because they are being told what is right and what is wrong in their prime development. Which is why Winston’s generation seems to be the last one with a slight ounce left of individual thought. Now, as Winston puts it, all the children “[adore] the Party and everything connected with it.” Could this be this dystopia’s last chance at a better life?
One of the most confusing yet most interesting aspects of 1984 is the implementation of Newspeak. At first, and even still, the concept made no sense to me - what’s the point of creating an entirely new language when a perfectly functioning one already exists? How does eliminating words make communication any easier? However, as I continued reading, I realized that the purpose of Newspeak is not to help people express themselves, but, in fact, the complete opposite: Newspeak was created by Big Brother’s regime to “narrow the range of thought” (page 52), to make it physically impossible for one to even conceptualize emotions or opinions which the Party does not approve of. By eliminating the English language as we know it, the government makes it literally impossible for one to rebel, for, if there is no way to even formulate the idea that the Party is wrong, how can anyone ever go against it? As much is said by Syme in his conversation with Winston in the canteen, although he sees this as a positive advancement. The way in which Syme describes his work in Newspeak left me thoroughly confused; he proudly exclaims that “it’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words... Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?” (pages 51-52). He boasts that with “Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.” (page 52) and that “The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking... Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” (page 53). I was so perplexed by Syme’s statements because of how utterly contradictory they seem to me. How can someone be so enthusiastic knowing that the work they are doing is literally taking away people’s ability to think for themselves? Doesn’t Syme know that it is his own “range of consciousness” that he is disintegrating? The fact that he praises and agrees with the development of Newspeak and its effects is unsettling, and makes me wonder how one can possibly justify the elimination of opinion, and as a result, in Syme’s own words, consciousness? The hold that Big Brother has over the public must be extreme if he can convince an intelligent person such as Syme that to destroy thought is a good and beneficial action.
Big Brother is watching this blog!
ReplyDeleteTest
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter of 1984, something that really struck me was the passage on “The Hate”. As Winston describes the figure of Goldstein and his alleged wrongdoings, I noticed the similarity between him and Snowball from Animal Farm. In both cases, an obviously corrupt government is creating an enemy for everyone to hate. It mentions that Goldstein “had been one of the leading members of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself” (11). Goldstein was competition to “Big Brother” and therefore, in order to eliminate the chance of his power being challenged, he turns everyone against him. Napoleon does this with Snowball, blaming him for all of the animals’ problems and turning him into a public enemy in order to secure his power.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of “The Hate” that I found worth mentioning was the ideals that Goldstein talked about in the clip. He spoke of freedoms similar to the freedoms that we have in our country today, for example the freedom of speech. The government is projecting this as despicable whereas we do not see having freedom as a bad thing but in fact part of our basic human rights. This showed me that, although it is still the very beginning of the novel, the state of Oceania is awful and the people are brainwashed to believe what the government tells them to believe. I am curious to continue reading and discover if Winston’s inkling that “Big Brother” is corrupt will play a role in the story.
Emily - this is a thoughtful and insightful first blog. Thanks for starting the thread.
DeleteEmily, I completely agree and was thinking the same thing when I read about Goldstein. There are many similarities and patterns between both of the novels by Orwell that we have read so far this year. I also noticed that Orwell uses many animal comparisons in 1984. While describing Goldstein, he says that his face "resembled the face of a sheep" and that "the voice too, had a sheeplike quality." It puzzled me that Orwell would choose this animal to signify Goldstein because he is a rebel and believes that the government is unjust while, in Animal Farm, the sheep mindlessly follow Napoleon as if they were absolutely unable to think for themselves and work to supress the comments of any lower animal that may renounce Napoleon's superiority. At first, I was confused because these ideas contradict eachother, but I then realized that Orwell may have interpreted the sheep to be the person who refuses to see the other side and be sensitive to others' opinions. This would make sense because the other animals believe the sheep are wrong and the people living in 1984 believe Goldstein is wrong. The sheep reference exaggerates the difference in opinions rather than their actual standpoint. How do you think these animal accreditations are related?
DeleteI agree with you fully; a huge portion of Orwell's work was based around communism. To me, 1984 is Animal Farm with people. Considering how depressing it is (At least to me), I'd say that the personification in Animal Farm did a bang-up job keeping Animal Farm from growing too depressing.
Delete*Page 7* At first, after reading a few pages of 1984 I realized that the term “VICTORY” comes up a lot, for example, it is written on cigarette packages, the place in which Winston lives, “Victory Mansions,” or “VICTORY GIN”. At first I found the idea of victory ironic because I knew that the book portrays a dystopia. The term victory is ironic in a dystopia because the idea of victory is often associated with greatness and success. Both greatness and success would not be commonly found in a dystopia.
ReplyDeleteAnother idea to be associated with the term victory is that the government, (the party) is trying to fix this dystopia. The thought of victory unites the people, and makes it seem as if they are all fighting for one cause. If the party is able to unite the people and create peace, there will be nothing to fear and the negative aspects of this dystopia may begin to disappear.
*Page 26* By page 25 and 26 the reader learns that Winston’s homeland won a war in India. This immediately gave me another idea about the term “victory” and its association with the party. When I learned that they were at war I associated the “VICTORY CIGARETTES” and “VICTORY GIN” with war bonds of World War I. This would imply that the money spent on the cigarettes and gin is helping to fund the war.
After reading further on it has become clear that the party is ruling over the people with fear and tyranny. Being a dystopia I found it ironic that Orwell used fear and tyranny in 1984 because he also used it in Animal Farm. This is ironic to me because Animal Farm, at first, was a utopia for the animals, even while the pigs were ruling over them in a tyrannical way. In Animal farm, the dogs created fear for the pigs to over power the animals, in 1984, Big Brother appears to be a tyrannical leader, and uses the thought police and vaporization as fear. Therefore I found it ironic that the same form of government was used in both a utopia and a dystopia novel written by the same author.
Chris, I love how you compared the victory cigarettes and victory gin to war bonds in WWl, this would make sense as it would further unite the people and be a form of propaganda. By using victory cigarettes and gin, the people would feel like they have some ability to influence their government and it would also rally support and patriotism. This can also be supported by the effect the victory gin has on Winston. At first, he is starving but knows he must ration his bread. When he drinks the gin, it it described as "nitric acid, and moreover, in swallowing it one had the sensation of being hit on the back of the head with a rubber club" but it does make him feel better and less hungry. While the people ignorantly feel like they are taking an active part in the government by using these victory products, they are really another way for The Party to maintain absolute control over their subjects and allow no freedom. In response to your last paragraph, I think that Orwell is trying to show that the idea of a dystopia is an opinion and, while one person may be completely happy with the government, another may think that the government treats the public like slaves. What you think is right and wrong, your moral compass, all depends on your values and life-experiences.
DeleteIt is impossible not to notice similarities between 1984 and Animal Farm. As I was reading chapter 1, the most interesting thing that I noticed about the book was the Telescreen that takes up most of the wall in Winston’s home. He might not be in view of it, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t hear the propaganda that is told from it every so often. This type of propaganda reminded me of Animal Farm, because this use of advertising was very prominent there as well. On page 26, the Telescreen tells Winston of “… A glory description of the annihilation of a Eurasian army, with stupendous figures of killed and prisoners…” The telescreen is sending this message to the people to prove to them that the Party is doing something to help them. In a way, the job of the Telescreen reminded me of Squealer from the story, since he was usually the one talking about how well the animals were doing even when it was obvious that they were not doing very well at all. The telescreen also tells Winston that “… the new Floating Fortress which had just been anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands.” (page 24) which is another example of how it tells propaganda. The machine uses card stacking to show the success of their side, yet says nothing about the other, purposely trying not to show their weakness. It also uses name calling, connecting the Goldstein to the Hate and the forces against the Party.
ReplyDeleteAnother similarity I noticed between 1984 and Animal Farm was on page 20, when Winston says, “-you were supposed to call everyone comrade…” Immediately the thought of the pigs calling the rest of the animals and themselves comrades came into my head. This could not be mere coincidence- I think that Orwell did this on purpose to show the reader that the Party may want other people to think that they are just as equal as them, but just like the pigs, they believe that they are more.
Anna, I agree with you that there are multiple connections between this novel and Animal Farm. Besides being used as a form of propaganda, I think the government uses the telescreen to wear out the people and keep them emotionally defeated. The way military music is continuously playing on the telescreen is similar to how, during the Strangeways Prison riot in 1990, loud music was played outside the prison and lights were shown at the roof so that the prisoners could not sleep and would eventually have mental breakdowns and surrender. The telescreen does spread news like Squealer did in Animal Farm, but the controllers of the telescreen are nameless and unknown, making it much more ominous. Squealer was so persuasive because of he agreeable demeanor, but in 1984 the people do not have a choice but to listen to the telescreen.
DeleteWhat really grabbed my attention in the beginning of 1984 was Winston’s job. He modifies statements- namely, government predictions- so that they match up with the actual outcome. It makes sense why a tyrannical government would designate people to do this, so that they always appear to be correct. Always seeming right would start to have an effect on people’s opinions of their leaders, and increase the government’s power. With the level of brainwashing we’ve already seen in Oceania, I think it would be rather easy to go from merely good at predicting outcomes to omniscient, and from there to god-like. People are more likely to follow orders if they believe it comes from a god, and so the government gains power.
ReplyDeleteI saw many similarities between Winston’s job and Squealer’s in Animal Farm. Both readjust figures so that the government seems right, and the populace has no idea what’s actually going on. Winston notes that “a great deal of time you were expected to make them up out of your head” (41), and Squealer’s “statistics” aren’t accurate either. They both downplay shortages to maintain the façade of a successful government, making for an ignorant, yet docile population.
The people accept these “facts” because of a clever move on the part of the government. They ensure that only certain people know exactly how much the news is being altered, so that most people just acknowledge it as the truth. Knowing that not all the figures in the news are true definitely influences Winston’s view of the government, and I think it makes him less trustworthy of it. I am interested to see if he will continue to be skeptical, or give in to ignorance. I feel like his job would prevent the latter, but the sheer amount of propaganda might win out in the end.
The alteration of events in 1984 got me thinking about how much of our history is really true. Recently, people communicate more, so it would be hard to just change the story of how an event played out. But a few centuries ago, when few people were literate or knew what was going on in other parts of the world, how can we know that accounts of the time were accurate? Select few actually wrote down the state of events, so how biased were they? Did anyone alter history in favor of one side? The saying goes that the winner writes history. But can the winners be trusted? I’m not sure. No side shoulders all the blame for any one event, but when retelling it, people have a tendency to embellish their version of events, to make it more agreeable. And if only one view is recorded, it is accepted as a fact. So the question is; how many ‘truths’ are actually false?
Laura, I agree with your comparison between Squealer and Winston. I also think that they can be compared by the idea that Squealer is often seen changing the commandments so that the pigs are never doing anything wrong. For example not sleeping on beds "with sheets". In Animal farm the "with sheets" is italicized to show that the commandment has been change. This is similar to Winston's job revising articles, as you already mentioned, to make sure that the government is never wrong.
DeleteIn chapter 3, Winston describes the dream he has of his mother and begins to recall his family. He mentions something very interesting that had me wondering: "...they must die in order that he might remain alive, and that this was part of the unavoidable order of things" (30). I have concluded a few things from this quote.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the quote shows that it wasn't always as terrible of a government as it is now. Currently in the book, citizens under the rule of "Big Brother" are not allowed to love or be loved, only to hate or be indifferent. Through Winston's dream, he shows that his mother loved him enough to die for him and, therefore, the government that exists today was not always in power.
Also, I can infer that when the rise of the "Big Brother" state occured, people had to make sacrifices. For an unknown reason, Winston's mother, sister, and father had to die so he could live.
I am curious to discover what, if anything, the government did to cause the death and hardships of people. What happened when this manipulitive government came to power? Why did Winston survive and his mother didn't? Does it have to do with gender? Age? To conclude, Winston's strange memory dream poses many questions about the past of both Winston and the government he lives under.
When I first opened the novel it gave a sense of fear and a watchful feel. For example, Winston can be an area where he can not be seen by the telescreen but still can be heard. He has to make sure he isn't heard and can't be seen when he is writing in the journal. This is similar to how Napoleon ends up ruling by fear in Animal Farm by using the dogs. Big Brother uses the ThoughtPolice , spies and the telescreens to secure his rule. I don't know how you guys feel about this but it is very frightening to think that every movement you make is being watched. Sadly, I think to a certain extent out world is like this today, there are cameras in every corner and most people have camera phones form which they can take pictures of others.
ReplyDeleteAs well this idea that your neighbors are watching your every move. That your children would turn on you because they have been trained to love Big Brother and the Party. That they are in fact brainwashed in a sense. This is seen when a Parsons child throws something at Winston and calls him "Goldstein",(24) public enemy number one. This is also ironic in its own as Winston has just written something illegal and that could eventually make him a criminal just like Goldstein. This seems to mildly bother Winston as he serves the party but as shown in the two minute hate he despises Big Brother.
Another thing that bother me were the paradoxes, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."(4,16) Now this is very troubling as we know these very statements to be false. However, like Winston later states is that there is no past, only what the Party wants to be kept. So how could anyone know if these statements are false. The "Ignorance is Strength" saying shouldn't be odd as Orwell spoke on the subject of ignorance in Animal Farm. While right now it might not be a main theme or component of the novel it should not surprise us that Orwell added this a part of the Party's slogan. In addition another paradox that Chris has already pointed out is things constantly labeled with victory. This is ironic on many fronts as Winston has mentioned that Oceania is at constant war and there is never really an end and thus no victory. As well, "Victory Cigarettes" (26) are ironic as Victory has such a positive connotation while cigarettes usual come with a negative connotation. In conjunction it doesn't seem to make sense that the Party allows vices. I only say this since it seem like they want to keep everyone physically fit even if they aren't soldiers. This is seen when Winston preforms the Physical Jerks on page 32. In all this makes for a very weird society that I haven't quite figured out but what I have figured out is that it scares me. I our country never comes to such a thing. Do you guys ever believe that we could get to such a state as Oceania has?
Zach, you make a very good point throughout your blog entry and I would like to elaborate on some of your ideas.
DeletePrimarily, when you explain the paradoxes, specifically "Ignorance is Strength," I agree that the government is brainwashing the citizens to make them believe only what the Party wants. In addition, what I took from that is the Party is also trying to corrupt the population. Since a government requires its people to participate in it, or at least believe it has power, I think it is attempting to remain in power and use the citizen's ignorance to their advantage but only giving them one side of the argument, theirs. This type of propaganda helps them keep their power since the people have no idea what a different life is.
Secondly, to respond to your question, I don't believe this country specifically could turn into an Oceania but somewhere else it might. The United States was built off of freedom and the idea that the people rule the government. Therefore, a totally controlling government has little chance of erupting in this society. However, as seen in other places, dictators ruled their countries absolutely and attempted to control every aspect of the population. For example, the Arab Spring was an attempt to overthrow governments similar to Oceania's, though not as extreme. But due to the constantly expanding societies and an increasing popularity in the "Western Mindset," I do not believe that an Oceania government will arise in the near future. Yes, there is always a possibility, but I do not believe it has an imminent arrival.
Entry #1, 1984- Focus on children's actions in chapter 2
ReplyDeleteThe use of the word "comrade" at the beginning of this novel struck me as another outstanding similarity between this novel and Animal Farm, but what surprised me more was the way Mrs. Parson's children acted towards Winston. In this scene, Orwell is not only emphasizing the innocence of these children but also how simple it is for them to be manipulated and corrupted. Personally, I found their actions horrifying and worried for Mrs. Parsons because she is obviously a little bit scared of her children and the monsters they may become.
It is not a mystery where Mrs. Parson's children learned their bad habits and malicious nature. They are constantly surrounded by bad influences and are most likely educated according to the narrow-minded values of The Party. They are victims of their society because every other outlet in their lives that may offer an alternative to their bleak city is either censored by The Party or illegal. To make matters worse, their father is a devout supporter of the government simply because he is unable to think for himself and is not very bright, in fact, his character reminds me very much of Boxer. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I guess, for his children have inherited his ignorant acceptance. Since Big Brother is the strongest figure in their society, they will dedicate their lives to him. Also, if another political rival overthrew him, they would probably immediately renounce their allegiance to The Party and join this new figure. They are a family of followers.
While Mr and Mrs. Parson should be the head of their family, their son has completely dethrones them. This scene is not long, however, it is extremely clear that the young boy feels he is above the rest of his family: "Why can't we go see the hanging?" roared the boy in his big voice. His demeanor is also described as being "vicious". This is a perfect example of careful word choice by Orwell. The children have grown up around violence, and killing people has now became a source of entertainment for them. They have been completely brainwashed by The Party similarly to how Napoleon raised his pack of dogs to become bloodthirsty. This scene reminded me of when I was in elementary school, and there was this huge controversy about video games, and how they are too violent for kids. Here's an article I found about it: http://www.education.com/reference/article/violent-video-games-desensitization/
Many claimed that video games desensitize children, which I completely agree with.
It saddened me that Mrs. Parson's was afraid of her children. As someone with divorced parents who lives with only my mom, I can not even comprehend the detachment between Mrs. Parsons and her children. In the novel, Winston was struck by "the look of helpless fright" on the her face and the way her "eyes fritted nervously" just like I was. This scene reaches its peak when her son shoots something at Winston with a catapult and Mrs. Parson's must restrain him. He originally was only pretending to shoot Winston, but this final action shows that he will not hesitate to physically hurt someone, even if he barely knows the person. I am excited to see if these children reappear in the novel and what role they will play further in the story.
Leah, I completely agree. The second the word "comrade" was used, I immediately thought of Animal Farm. This word is a synonym for ally, partner, and even friend. However, In both of the novels, it rarely gives off a friendly air. It appears as almost forced and bland. I also agree with your point about Mrs. Parsons and her children. I find it very disturbing that the "Junior Spies" even exist. The fact that some children would actually send their own parents to the authorities is very frightening.
DeleteOnce I started reading the book, I almost immediately felt uneasy and distressed for the people living in this dystopia which they call "Oceania". From the impoverished proles to the officials in the Party, everyone is being watched by the Thought Police and Big Brother. There is virtually no escape from the Thought Police, as they look into the citizen's mind and read their thoughts. I personally think this is the most disturbing part of the novel, because there are restrictions in speech, writing, actions, and thoughts. There is no place for someone to be perfectly private with themselves due to them constantly being watched. Something that bothered me from the start was the coined motto of the Party, which is inscribed on the wall of the Ministry of Truth headquarters, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"(4). This saying is very strange in general, and it is very discomforting. Today, if someone were to say these, they would possibly be deemed insane. These six words are each antonyms of each other, and the fact that the government is saying that they are the same is deranged.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the first couple chapters, I couldn't help but think of an episode of The Twilight Zone, a television series that premiered in the late fifties, early sixties. There is an episode named "It's a Good Life". This episode shows a small town that is quietly terrorized by a little boy, who has the power to read people's minds and "do bad things" to the people that supposedly don't like him. Near the end of the episode, a man finally has endured enough of the little boy and speaks his mind, while the others watch fearfully. The boy then kills the man with his powers, and no one speaks their mind. This constant fear of not being able to say what you want is very similar to the plot of 1984. Both the novel and the television series give off a creepy feeling to the reader/viewer.
I am personally very curious about how this novel will play out, and if Winston will ever be reprimanded for going against Big Brother and the Party.
When I started this book, I realized how great of a country we live in. Winston is someone who is constantly living in fear of death because he disagrees with the government while we live in a country where people aren't grateful enough for their rights. I also found it extremely disturbing when he began to describe "Two Minutes Hate" and how violent it gets. He says, "Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room." I found this image frightening, something that I would assume would shake someone to their core, especially if they were an outsider looking in. However, by the end of "Two Minutes Hate" Winston is screaming and yelling along to crowd instead of sitting silently in his seat as he was in the beginning. I also realized while reading this portion of the book that "Two Minutes Hate" isn't a place where you can say hate against anything, but a place where you're supposed to say hateful things against Goldstein and people who are on his side instead of those who are on the side of The Party. It's not a place where you can necessarily share your true opinions, but yet another place where you're thoughts, words and actions are being controlled. It's a scary thought that the people of Oceania can't even share their true thoughts to anyone in fear that they will be killed because they put their trust in the wrong person. As the people of the Oceania are described by Orwell, it seems to readers that none of them are very social towards each other. I believe this is yet another hint that there's not much trust between people nor between people and their government.
ReplyDeleteAs O'Brian is mentioned quite frequently in this scene, I get the feeling that he will become a largely important character later in the novel, even possibly leading a rebellion against The Party. I also believe that Winston and O'Brian will eventually become good friends and be the two leaders in a rebellion the people of Oceania can't even share their true thoughts to anyone in fear that they will be killed because they put their trust in the wrong person. As the people of the Oceania are described by Orwell, it seems to readers that none of them are very social towards each other. I believe this is yet another hint that there's not much trust between people nor between people and their government.
I also, like many of you, found the scene with Mrs. Parsons and her children somewhat frightening. Winston, reflecting after leaving their house says, "With those children, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of on orthodoxy." He also describes her to have a frightened and gray look to her.
The fact that a child would turn their own parents in to the Thought Police simply for having different opinions than the government is a really scary thing in my mind. I also find it odd that it seems as though the children aren't even really being raised by their parents, but instead, by a far too controlling government. It makes me question the government in our country because I know that I'm a person who sometimes comes home from school and tells my parents something that I learned that they don't necessarily agree with. It really shows that parents don't have as much control over their children's learning as they might like to, or they might at least like to think.
Kathryn, when the "Two Minutes Hate" was first mentioned in the novel, I though that it would be a chance for the people to be free and say whatever they wanted about The Party without having to worry about the Thought Police or being punished. However, it is only another chance for their opinions to be dictated by the government, as you said. As I was reading this scene, I found the people's response to the video about Goldstein very similar to how I think people in a cult would act. Even Winston, who agrees with Goldstein, became almost hypnotized and started yelling at the screen. The people were on the verge of riot over a simple picture on the screen. The woman next to Goldstein even threw herself over a chair with her arms reached out towards Big Brother's face on the screen murmuring "My Savior!" I wish someone would have asked her exactly what Big Brother had done that saved her. For such a powerful figure who is worshiped by so many, Big Brother is never seen except for the pictures on his face. What if he doesn't even exist?
DeleteLeah, I've been wondering the same thing. Is Big Brother an actual person, or just the government's way of controlling the population? It started to remind me of Napoleon in Animal Farm- while he definitely did exist, he became more and more secluded from the other animals. Maybe Big Brother did exist during the initial revolution, but either died or was unable to rule. Keeping his face prominent in society would present the image that everything was still normal and prevent power struggles. It would also start to turn him into an "immortal" figure, which could increase the government's power.
DeleteTo answer one of Emily's questions- the one about why Winston's mother died- I have a strong feeling that she was taken away by the Thought Police for some sort of controversial rebellion against the Party and Big Brother. On page 29, the text says, "He must have, he thought, been ten or eleven years old when his mother had disappeared." The narrator specifically says "disappeared" and not "died." Also, on page 19, immediately after Winston had committed Thoughtcrime by writing "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" in his diary, he began describing the arrests that happened to those who committed it. "The arrests invariably happened at night....People simply disappeared, always during the night." Because of this connection, I get the feeling that Winston's parents had a tendency to go against the ways of the strict Party, and eventually got arrested and killed for it. Because of this, I think it's even more interesting that Winston himself is having these Anti-Big Brother thoughts. It's almost as if the resistance to power is hereditary, and the tendencies of his parents, though they're dead, are coming out through him.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the story so far that I found extremely interesting was when he spoke of the dark-haired girl that wore the red sash around her hips as a symbol of the Junior Anti-Sex League. On page 15, right in the middle of the Two-Minute Hate, Winston was going through a range of radical thoughts. Specifically, the narrator says, "...he realized why it was that he hated her. He hated her because she was young and pretty and sexless, because he wanted to go to bed with her and would never do so, because round her sweet supple waist...there was only the odious scarlet sash, aggressive symbol of chastity." Winston sees her, and all pretty young women, as a symbol of everyone that is submissive to the Party's oppressive ways. He sees the red sash tied around her waist as the complete submissiveness of women to the rules the Big Brother imposes upon them. He says he doesn't trust women, because they were the ones most loyal and the ones who were the "swallower of slogans" that the Party throws at them as propaganda. His desire to take off her scarlet sash and do all of these unspeakable acts to her in bed is his mind's way of doing away with the strict ideas and rules that this society goes by. He wants, so badly, for Big Brother to be done away with, so he has these hallucinations of doing away with it by getting rid of the innocence and promised chastity of the young, loyal girls. It's his way, in his mind, of rebelling.
A question I'd like to pose for others is, what is your opinions on the language that is used in 1984, Newspeak? What do you think shortening and limiting the language does in society? What's its function?
Jen, in respons to your question, I think that the government created Newspeak so they could further control the people. Also, by using Newspeak, there would be no slang which I think is the voice of Revolution and change. Not only are people not allowed to speak against The Party, but they are not able to because revolutionary words are most likely not in the Newspeak dictionary. Using Newspeak also limits the extent to which people can communicate with each other. Oceania is completely isolated from the rest of the world by the government and the war against Eurasia that is often spoken about through the telescreen. I wonder if the war is even real, or if The Party just makes up the war so the people will think they are "safe" in Oceania so they don't leave. If the people of Oceania were able to communicate with someone from Eurasia they might realize how corrupt the government really is. Finally, Newspeak stops the people from being able to code their words and keep secrets from the government, similarly to the acronyms and slang that I use that my mom doesn't understand at all because it's not her generation.
DeleteI agree with Leah, I think shortening a language would severely limit people's abilities to start a revolution. But I also think it makes people feel more like a community- speaking a language only their nation speaks would make them feel more loyal to their nation and therefore more loyal to the government. Also, going off of your idea about feeling safe in Oceania, I think it's partly the idea of the world and partly not being able to fit into other societies, if you only speak one language. It makes them feel more comfortable there, and less willing to leave.
DeleteI didn't even think about the existence of Big Brother, I just assumed he was there. I realize that this assumption is probably similar to someone who lives Oceania, someone who just trusts the government. It truly didn't even occur to me to question that what the government was saying was false, I just believed it as much as the citizens of Oceania.
DeleteEntry #2, 1984- Focus on narration and mood throughout novel
ReplyDeleteIn this novel, the narrator plays a very large role in creating a desolate and foreboding mood. Unlike Animal Farm, where the third person narrator did not take a side and simply spoke with dramatic irony, the narrator of 1984 is obviously against The Party and such an oppressive and controlling dictatorship. At many points throughout the novel, I feel as if Winston's own opinion and the narrator's are one. While this narrative style makes the readers' negative feelings about Big Brother stronger, it also makes the novel more unreliable as the narrator is card stacking and only mentions the bad aspects of the government.
The strong opinion of the narrator makes it much more enjoyable for me as a reader because I feel less detached from the story and the characters. The narrator often posses questions to the reader such as "How could you make appeal to the future when not a trace of you, not even an anonymous word scribbled on a piece of paper, could physically survive?" These questions make me think deeper about the novel and help me to understand Winston's tough situation. The narrator also uses name-calling to sway the reader towards being anti-Party. For example, the narrator says that the people who might turn Winston in for having ink on his fingers are nosing zealots" and that the children brainwashed by The Party are "ungovernable little savages" and "eavesdropping little sneaks". The narrators' ability to put up with The Party seems to be wearing thin just like Winston's. This then leads me to think that rebellion is eminent.
Throughout the novel, I have worried about Winston's mental state. I completely support him in his dreams of freedom and rebellion, but at times it seems like he has lost control of reality. The first time I recognized this streak was when he first began his journal, is "seized by a kind of hysteria", and frantically writes over and over "they'll shoot me I don't care, they'll shoot me in the back of the neck, I don't care." Winston's obsession over the connection he believes he has with O'Brien also make me think he may be a little bit out of it. He has never spoken to the man and yet be is completely sure that O'Brien came to him in a dream and that they will band together against Big Brother! The whole thing seems to be a figment of his imagination and desperation. O'Brien is an Inner Party member, so Winston should be trying to stay as far away from him as possible if he is trying to start a rebellion. Winston believes O'Brien is secretly good only because of his "urbane manner" just like how the lower animals always agreed with Snowball because of the cute and harmless way he would sway when he spoke in Animal Farm. As the narrator of this novel has views almost identical to Winston's I do not think I can trust him either. If Winston has been driven mad with his hatred of the government, what's to say that the narrator is not the same?
Finally, I'd just like to pose a question for everyone. Winston seems slightly on the fence with his feelings about The Party, what do you think will be the breaking point for this? What will lead Winston to become completely anti-Party? Many characters and ideas have been introduced in the first few chapters of the novel, what part do you think they will play in Winston's mindset?
Leah, I feel as if this is a very good question, seeing as i just wrote my blog on this topic. Winston has all the reason to be anti-Party, and his job helps him. I think it is just a matter of time.
DeleteLeah these are all great questions for one, I am not really sure what will push Winston over the edge since he seems to some how be loyal to the party but not at the same time. This might have to do with the idea of Doublethink that he has introduced to us. I can see how you would say he is unreliable but I am not entirely convinced but this may be because it wouldn't surprise me that things like this could occur. In addition, for lack of a better word I don't think Winston has the audacity to create an anti party. While he has these feelings he doesn't feel like a hero he feels more like a Benjamin from Animal Farm.
DeleteTo answer your question Leah, I agree with Zach. Although Winston strongly opposes the government and wishes its demise, I don't believe his is capable of bring about a rebellion. For one thing, he is uneducated on the subject of rebellion. His small acts of the journal and his rebellious thoughts are not ground for a government overthrow. He might attempt to create his own "Anti-Big Brother" clan, however, from what I have read, I do not believe he has the ability to do so.
DeleteWhile reading further on I noticed that many things seem to be going wrong for Winston, and that ever since “Big Brother” took over his life has not treated him well. For example, with the revolution and the institution of INGSOC, Winston lost both of his parents and his sister. Also, shortly after The Party took over, in Winston’s mind, the Party’s “undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act.” The Party makes sex a duty, not an enjoyable act. After the reader hears this, Winston thinks of the last time he had sex, and remembers an old prostitute. Both of these negative times in Winston’s life are clearly results of “Big Brother”, and leave him lonely.
ReplyDeleteAfter these occurrences in Winston’s life I am wondering why he doesn’t choose to rebel in any way, or at least tell people about how the government isn’t always right. It is learned early that Winston changes records for the government so that they are never wrong, however I question why he doesn’t share the information with other people, and continues to help the government. Winston was taken into The Party’s orphanage after his parents died. Here he was taught to respect The Party and was trained for his job at the ministry of truth. The Party only encourages sex so that they have more people to support the party. Knowing how The Party trains the children to respect them, and The Party’s affect on Winston’s life give him all the reason to rebel. I understand that it is difficult do to the telescreens and the thought police, however his job at the ministry of truth gives him an advantage because he is able get his hands on government records and information. Overall, I am surprised that Winston chooses to continue his job helping the government after all that has happened in his life.
To go off of your point about Winston's rebellion Chris, I think the reason he won't rebel is because he is scared stiff about what the governmnet will do to him. He knows that the Thought Police will find him and "vaporize" him if he so much as thinks rebellious thoughts. The Party is so set on creating a perfect power throne that they are willing to loose many of their citizens in order to maintatin control. I totally agree with your idea though; I think Winston should rebel, he's not too happy with his current life. But I also believe the fear of dying or worse causes him to back down.
DeleteEntry 1- 1984- Thoughts on Beginning Pages
ReplyDeleteI’ve only read the first couple pages of the novel and already I am bombarded with this sense of dystopia. It was hard to picture at first because of how abnormal it seemed compared to our society, but it didn't take long to capture me. One detail I noticed was how everything in the city “seemed to have no color in anything except the posters that were plastered everywhere.” (Page 2) I think Orwell did this to emphasize the fact that in that society, the only thing that mattered was the government. It also represented how the people weren’t allowed to think outside the box or have any creativity, which is shown through their colorless, uniform city. I could picture the hidden destruction that wreaked havoc inside society, which had been oppressed into secrecy by the threat of Big Brother and his Thought Police. They make sure to make it apparent that the people are being watched and listened to at all times by posting reminders all around the city, having “the dark eyes [look] deep into [their] soul.” They aren’t allowed to think for themselves anymore in fear of thinking a wrong way. Another detail that I noticed was that they use military time. This supports their totalitarian setting by showing how militaristic the society is and how strict the lifestyle lived was. (Page 4) Lastly, something I found interesting was how they call their branches of the Party the Ministries, making it resemble something religious in a sense. It gives a divine title to anyone who has a position in the Ministries, and it also makes them seem god-like and heavenly to the average social class. Then, they go on and introduce their code, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength,” which also goes along with this religious theme by mimicking the 10 commandments. You can also see this religious theme apparent in one of Orwell’s other novels, Animal farm; they too create a set of moral codes to which are supposed to be followed strictly, they give the persona of a prophet to the crow, Moses, and they even make mention of heaven, naming it Sugarcandy Mountain. I wonder if Orwell will reference this theme throughout, has anyone else noticed other religious symbols or metaphors?
These beginning pages made me think of the quote that we did a journal entry on by Thomas Jefferson; “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” It shows how Big Brother was able to control and oppress these people because people like Winston, for example, who know there is something wrong, choose to remain silent and just go with it. The Party knows that there are these people who question the system, which is why he continually instills fear among society in order to ensure that they remain silent. Because, he knows that if they were to speak out, many more would join with them and potentially cause their overthrow. This goes along with another quote that we examined in class by Claudian; “He who strikes terror in others is himself in continual fear.” This goes along with how the Party fears that one day, the people will overthrow them, so in attempt to stop this from happening, they instill fear upon the people in hopes of scaring them form doing anything irrational or potentially rebellious. I ask others: do you believe that the people of this dystopia will remain quite, like the animals did in the previous novel, Animal Farm, or do you believe that they will begin to speak out against the Party?
To answer your question Maya, I do not think the people could rebel against the Party and Big Brother, just like how the animals in Animal Farm didn’t rebel against the pigs. The Oceania people’s whole lives revolve around this illusion that they are safe and happy in this dystopia because the Party says they are. Similarly, Squealer constantly claims that the animals are living in perfect conditions, despite the reality that all laborers were starving. As well, the government causes so much fear in the population with the Thought Police, the Telescreen and even hundreds of posters claiming "Big Brother is Watching You," that the people are terrified for their lives, just like how Napoleon uses the dogs to strike fear throughout Animal Farm. Just like in Animal Farm, the population won't rebel against the established government because of their lack of knowledge and of their fear.
DeleteOne thing I would like to discuss is Winston himself. We know nothing about his physical appearance except that he wears overalls as a sign that he is a Party member. Though we can assume that he looks different when he says "The majority of people in Airstrip One were small, dark and ill favored." (60) The reason this statement make me think he looks different is because of how he treats other people around him. Winston's general attitude towards people is a cynical one. While this may be due to jealousy or the mistrust he has over other people I have not yet determined.
ReplyDeleteStill, there is a difference in how Winston seems to treat men and talk about them then he does women. For example, when Winston is talking to the old man about his past he gets angry but restrains himself from insulting him. Then we he talks about the prostitute he was with he retells it with malice and disgust and not for his own actions. As well, he automatically thinks that the woman from the ministry is a spy and speaks about her in a bad way since she is celibate. It seems that Winston only sees women as possessions or object of pleasure. For instance, he says while his wife may have been dumb he could have lived with her for the sex. Winston shows both his anger towards women and his lust with this statement. This prompted me to wonder whether or not Orwell himself was sexist like Winston seems to be. Sadly, I have come up with nothing to support or disprove this thought.
On a short note I feel as if Winston himself isn't that intelligent, as he goes after the old man for information about before the revolution but decides not to ask the shop keeper about time before the Revolution when it seems like he has ample information. Still, Winston is unlike the other people in Oceania as he is aware of the trickery of the Party. However, does this make him intelligent or just observant. In my opinion I believe Orwell would say this makes him intelligent as Orwell made it clear through Animal Farm that intelligence is your best weapon against corrupt governments. My opinion however is that Winston is just observant and for some reason has decided not to trust the party. While his ability to not blindly follow suggest a shred of intelligence, I don't believe he is a genius. This may be due however to my new found dislike for Winston. It would seem that he hates everyone around them and is disgusted at there stupidity. That he would wish to do away with all of them. It doesn't help that he seems to have a blatant distaste for women that are not intelligent and ready to preform sexual actions. After reading some more and doing some more thinking I now fully agree with Leah that the Narrator is unreliable for more than one reason. He seems cynical like Winston and has a superior omniscient attitude. Which is funny to me because if the narrator was he would know wether or not the woman was a spy or if O'Briwn was a "friendly".
A thought I just had was that Winston himself thinks he is omniscient in a way. He thinks he knows who will be vaporized and who will not. I do not approve of this arrogance or think he has the knowledge to make these assumptions. Since he has made it abundantly clear know one would even know who would disappear. With this thought how can you find similarities in who would be vaporized. Maybe he does have this knowledge and it hasn't been revealed to us yet.
Another thing that is bugging me is that they keep mentioning Eurasia but we don't know what the condition in this place is. Is it similar to Oceania? Could Winston just go there for information? What is so terrible about them that they are constantly at war?!?!?! We only know what the narrator feeds us and in that he respect he himself is like the party able to change anything he wants to make his point. What do you guys think the deal is with Eurasia? As well I imagine London as a place full of rubble and not a bright place like the party makes it to be and not just where the proles live. How do you imagine London?
I don’t think I realized how absolute the power of the Party was until Chapter 4. In this chapter, we learn a lot about his job and his co-workers. The co-worker that stood out to me was the sandy haired woman that sat next to him. Her job was to delete the names of the people who had been vaporized, deleting their entire existence. This is terrible in its own right, but the part that really opened my eyes was that this woman’s own husband was vaporized only a few years earlier. I think that this sums up the power of the Party- this woman’s husband was killed by them and she continues to operate her job of deleting their names. She might have even had to remove her husband’s name, taking away the fact that he was even born. This really stuck out to me, and I think it did to Winston too, because when he explains the situation, he says “there was a certain fitness in this…”
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I noticed throughout my reading was how in this dystopian society, they are against love. On many occasions, there was mention of an anti sex league or pornography. On page 43, the narrator tells us of a section in the newspaper called “Pornosec…the lowest kind of pornography” which no one but the people who worked on it could look at it. This is odd to me, because if no one could look at it, why do they even make this section? Could this just be another case of the higher Party members having privileges over the lower members, except no one knows about it? It also says on the same page that they print “films oozing with sex” in newspapers, however it is not said who is allowed to look at these. On another page, the Junior Anti- Sex League was mentioned. This contradicts what is said before in this chapter, that no one is allowed to see the Pornosec. The reader can guess though, that love and sex are frowned upon. We can also infer that Winston doesn't agree with that fact, based on the dream he has with the brown-haired girl. This is another part of the book that shows that Winston doesn't agree with everything the Party says and he is even against some of their ideas. After this dream, Winston wakes up with the name “Shakespeare” on his lips. This is a type of dramatic irony because the reader knows that Shakespeare’s name is usually associated with stories of love or tragedy, while Winston has no idea what he was saying. I thought that this dream was almost foreshadowing the future that Winston has with his girl, although I am not sure how his story will end- with love or tragedy? Either could happen with a name like Shakespeare. I am interested in seeing how his story with this woman will turn out and if it turns out to be a big part of the book, or if it’s even important at all.
For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of 1984 has been the depth of The Party’s brainwashing on society. Even children, normally connected with ideals like innocence, are completely devoted to the government and its oppression. I feel like this is especially unsettling to all of us because we are encouraged to form our own decisions and make our own choices.
ReplyDeleteThe part that really stuck me was the part when Winston is contemplating how fanatical the Parsons’ children are when it comes to upholding the law. “Within two years those children would be denouncing her to the Thought Police. Mrs. Parsons would be vaporized” (61). The concept of vaporizing someone seems awful to someone living in our society, yet Winston is sure that these children would enable someone to do that to their own mother. They have lost the control of their own thoughts, it seems like. They blindly follow the government’s orders and take it all as the absolute truth. But while it is horrifying that they have been manipulated like that, it is obvious how it happened: they grew up in a secluded country with the government telling them only one version of the truth.
The situation in Oceania is one that we would never want to exist anywhere in our world, and yet we know it has. Orwell modeled this book, and Animal Farm after communist societies, and we see how unjust and corrupt they are through them. But what really caught my attention was how accurately he predicted the future of some areas. 1984 was published in 1949, however, Oceania bears a striking resemblance to the country of North Korea, which is still communist today. But at the time of its publication, the Korean War hadn’t even started yet.
While other communist governments ‘brainwashed’ their citizens in a similar way, the main similarity I noticed was the isolation of their citizens. Both North Korea and Oceania allow little contact with the outside world. Also, in both societies, the citizens are devoted, almost worshipful, of their leaders. Here’s an interesting article I found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16243995. Did anyone else find any connections between the Party and modern day governments? I’m curious to see how 1984 is still relevant in our world, and I think it goes to show how we will always be able to relate to literature.
While reading chapter three, I could not resist from comparing the various scenarios to those in Animal Farm. While Winston is doing his Physical Jerks, he tries to remember his childhood. Ultimately, he fails. He thinks about how there are no physical mementos or records of the past, which fogs his memory. The Ministry of Truth deletes or "vaporizes" certain people from all documents if they have committed a thought crime. Winston is shown working in the Records section of the Ministry of Truth, and must erase a certain person from a speech. This illustrates how the government is built on lies, and can rarely be trusted. The Party has also erased any sign of a life without Big Brother. However, Winston is probably not the only person who realizes this. This shows the fear that lies in the people, and how it is overpowering their consciences. This also hints that the people in Oceania, mostly the officials of the Party, have had their minds tampered with, although this is not clear. This is one of the most prominent examples of 1984 relating to Animal Farm. In both stories, there are characters that go along with the changes and don't seem to mind them, while there are the select few that question the ideas of the upper, more powerful class. In Animal Farm, Boxer and Clover question the pigs choices, but are not educated well enough to figure out their corrupt ways. Benjamin realizes that there must be something wrong, but does not act upon it. Benjamin's actions are similar to Winston's. Winston knows that the records have been changed and that Big Brother is invasive and wrong, but is obviously too afraid of the consequences. It seems that most people sense something wrong, but want to believe in the Party. Then there's a large amount of the population that does not know that the government is corrupt, due to them either being ignorant or a child. The children don't know a life without Big Brother, and cannot tell the difference. The children are already being corrupted, and this suggests that in at least ten more years, there would be no one left to oppose the system. I can't help but wonder how much of the population of Oceania questions Big Brother and the Party, or if Winston is only one of few.
ReplyDeleteIn *Chapter 1*, the first aspect that struck me was the propaganda that the government used. As Laura said before, the government continually attempts to brainwash the citizens in order to legitimize their power and policies. Their success can be seen in the “Two Minutes Hate” when everyone gathers together to call out Goldstein and essentially hate him for a full two minutes. This surprised me and made me question the government’s personal security. If they depend upon the people to hate Goldstein in order to remain in power and continue their wars, then if someone were to stand up and explain the other side, their entire system would crumble. To expand off of that topic, the Telescreen also supports that idea. The government understands that it might not last and strikes fear into the civilian population in order to maintain control. In this way, the government is absolutely unstable and fearful, possibly more so than the people themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the journal or diary that Winston begins writing on *page 8* however was not surprising. After he briefly explained the state Oceania was in, I did not expect much from him. Actually, his grammar and thought process on paper was more than I expected. Due to the absolute oppression the government puts upon the people, they would not want them to become very educated because then the people might learn about freedom and civil rights and overthrow the government. Unfortunately for the government, this chapter reveals what I believe will be a recurring theme in this novel: rebellion. Since Winston started the journal, he must finish it, or it will at least provoke him to silently oppose the government forces.
Lastly, one of the scariest aspects of 1984 that I found was the amount of wars this country wages. My first thought was that the people must be totally depressed and oblivious to the degree of violence Oceania performs. As described on page 3, the whole city of London was decimated; “...vistas of rotting nineteenth century houses, their sides shored up with balks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs with corrugated iron...and the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air...[and] had created a larger path...” What first came to my mind was how does the government pay for such war? And what are the human costs? The party must put so much pressure upon the people to pay for the military, so much that everyone is poor. Winston himself, a government man, cannot even eat bread for lunch because he needs to save it for breakfast. The state that this entire country is in, what with the destroyed streets, the awful government and the desolate population, I can only imagine what the citizens look and feel like. Most likely, the entire public of Oceania are war torn individuals living in the bowels of society, taking food when they can get it and living in the illusion that their government is best. I can only hope that as the story progresses, the lives of these citizens will improve.
Knowing George Orwell's style though, do you really think their lives will improve? Of course, we may want to see there be a happy ending for the characters, but when we think about what the function of Orwell's novels are, they are always sending out a warning to people about what we may become as a society. He tries to scare us, through his books, with the cruel possibilities of the future. So when you look at it in that sense, it's almost like there's no way this book can have a happy ending. Otherwise, no one would fear what we might become- which, according to Orwell, is something we should definitely be doing.
DeleteI completely agree with Laura’s last post- I too believe that one of the most unsettling aspects of Oceanian society is how blatantly exposed they are to ridiculous propaganda. It’s almost incredulous to think that anyone could fall for slogans like “War is peace” and “Ignorance is strength” and the government telling them that they’d NEVER been at war with Eastasia, when even someone with a simple mind could remember that this is not true.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, this does happen. And the citizens do submit to these ridiculous claims. And the government can achieve this is ways that actually aren’t so abstract as one might think, which is what makes this book so scary. For one, the government eliminates any sources of history. Like Winston discusses on page 34 and 35, this lack of definite knowledge of the past and crucial events in history is truly a handicap. “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened- that surely was more terrifying than mere torture or death…. But where did the knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness…” (Pg 34). The fact that the Party has complete control over what the citizens do or do not know about their own past is a frightening way of keeping people at bay. How can people revolt to “go back to the way it was” when no one knows what that was like? It is like in Animal Farm, when the animals completely submitted to their cruel lives because they could not remember that their lives had actually been better before.
Another way the government keeps the population under controlling by manipulating their minds is through the 2-Minute Hate, which I find so interesting. There is a Youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WupvCZhKMnM) that I found from the movie version of 1984- which just coincidently happened to be released in 1984- that displays the exact same scene of the first 2-Minute Hate, including when Winston and O’Brien’s eyes met. Something that I finally noticed through seeing the clip was the different color clothes that people wear, based on their rank in society. In the front of the room are people wearing black clothing, while the people, who make up a much larger percentage, sitting behind them wear blue. In Brave New World, people in society also wear color-coded uniforms, except in BNW, there are more ranks than those in 1984. They both have in common the separation of the inferior and superior. What’s is even more interesting about this video clip though is that you can see, the ones wearing black, who have superior ranks in society, have no outer reaction to the video whatsoever, while the ones in blue, the average day commoners, are screaming and yelling and reacting so strongly. Maybe this means that the 2 Minute Hate truly is just to brainwash the commoners, and the superior members of society are just too intelligent to be affected.
Jen, that video clip was actually really frightening. After watching it, I feel that I can really better understand the chaos that ensues after even the slightest mention of Goldstein. Something else I noticed was the almost apologetic look that Winston gave O'Brian right before he began screaming right along with the crowd. Winston also looked like he was going to be sick the entire time. I found it strange that the people in the front, the ones wearing black, didn't show anything resembling the slightest reaction to the video. I would have thought they would have been the most likely to react because they would have the strongest hatred against Goldstein. This video clip really helped me to better understand the whole concept of "Two Minutes Hate".
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading chapter three and Winston was performing his daily Physical Jerks, I thought that it really showed how controlling this society really was. When she calls him out individually, saying, "6079 Smith W! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that!" it really shows the intensity of these cameras on everyone's lives. They literally see your every move.
ReplyDeleteIronically, today I was watching something on Youtube and they mentioned a new camera coming out called a Memoto. These cameras are basically designed to capture your every move so you don't forget all the "little moments" but it reminds me A LOT of 1984. The cameras are designed to capture almost your entire life and that's really what the cameras in this book are designed for. These Memotos were obviously designed for something fun, as shown by this commercial (http://youtu.be/QsXeMrqNG9c) but they could definitely take a huge turn for the worse when they start to be used as something against another person or group of people.
These cameras make me wonder if our society will ever become anything similar to the one portrayed in 1984. If you had asked me last week if I thought a society such as this was possible, I would have said no in a heartbeat. Now, I'm not so sure.
Something else that stood out to me in this scene was how nervous Winston became after getting yelled at. Orwell says, "A sudden hot sweat had a broken out all over Winstons body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never showed his name! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away." Winston, especially, seems quite nervous to be under the scrutiny of the government. Perhaps it is because of the notebook that he has recently been keeping with all of his private thoughts in it that could easily put him to death. This poor man's life seems awful, especially because he is living in complete fear.
I totally agree with you Kathryn about the videologging. The fact that people today are creating a possible market for that has the possibility of turning disaterous. If the technology is used primarily for the purpose of "reliving memories," as the video says, then it might be harmless. However, if the government takes control and uses it to the extent that Oceania does, then it could oppress an entire population.
DeleteAfter finishing *Chapter 3,* I couldn't help but notice the similarities that 1984 and Animal Farm share. First of all, the terrible conditions that the animals and Oceania's population are living in practically mirror each other. The people of Airstrip One and the animals are both very poor and hungry. Also, in Animal Farm, Napoleon had trouble deciding which neighboring farm to trust, Pinchfield or Foxwood. In 1984, the Party has difficulties with trust as well as it constantly switches alliances between Eurasia and Eastasia. Finally, the propaganda used by both political systems is quite similar. Napoleon mainly uses card stacking, glittering generalities, and name calling to brainwash the animals into believing that the pigs' system is best and that any other way, namely Jones', is terrible. The Party uses the exact same techniques for the same purposes; it feeds the population with only one side of the argument while blaming the other for murder, treason, disgrace and many more horrid acts. In these ways, I believe that Orwell has a specific message that he wishes to convey to the audience. I am not exactly sure what it is, but he must have had a reason for writing two books that are very similar to each other.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect that I found very interesting was on page 24, when Winston describes the children in 1984; “It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed [before]... some... “child hero”... had overheard some compromising remark and denounced his parents to the Thought Police.” This quote made me greatly concerned about the state of Oceania because of the way Winston describes the children. My first thought was about the families. If these children are so devoted to the government and so absolutely in love with the rules, regulations and restrictions posed by them that they don’t care about their own parents, then, in a sense, they are robots of the government, born to do the Party’s dirty work. However, these children cannot be blamed. These policies were forced upon them as children and this is all that they know. As Laura stated before in a previous post, they are living in a secluded environment, totally cut off from opposing opinions, preventing them to think for themselves. But the children still want to learn, and they turn to the Party to teach them because it’s the only thing they know. That is why I am so terrified for this society. If these children grow up with that mindset, then there will be no chance for revolution because the new Oceania population will be swarming with these brainwashed loyalists.
One question I would like to pose is this: If the children grow as the novel progresses, does anyone think Winston will take their development to heart? Perhaps he may try to convert them to Anti-Big Brother, making make them notice a different side, or will Winston turn his back and give up?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEntry 2-1984-Children’s Behavior
ReplyDeleteWhile reading chapter 2, something interesting that struck was the behavior of the children of Mrs. Parson. In this dystopia, the public hanging seems to be the social event that every child wants to go to. In comparison to our society, we view this event to be gruesome and definitely unacceptable to a minor’s innocent eyes. The Party purposely does this in order to brainwash the kids into thinking that this is acceptable to do to people who don’t conform to society. This also relates to Leah’s first post about how kids in modern days are exposed to the same violence in video games, which is being questioned whether or not it is a cause of kids acting irrationally. While looking into the subject, I also found that people are researching whether or not violence on TV has a negative impact of children: http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=children+and+TV+violence§ion=Facts+for+Families
In the case of this novel, it does seem to make the kids more bloodthirsty and violent towards others; “I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!” (22) Winston in the passage notices this and describes the growing drive in the children as a “calculating ferocity…[with] a quite evident desire to hit or kick.”
But it was when Winston mentioned, “Nearly all children nowadays are horrible,” that peaked my interest. This line implies that the children hadn’t always been so horrid, which poses the question, what made them change? Winston not only makes the hint of a different past in this quote, but also previously in chapter two when he says, “but with some women one used it instinctively,” implying that in the past it was commonly used before things changed. (20) This makes me wonder: what was life like before everything changed? My hunch is that more of the past will be revealed as we read further into the story, has anyone else noticed any other clues?
My fear for this society is that as society gets farther from the past, there will be less and less questioning of whether or not the change was the right thing for society. If this questioning disappears, then the hold that the Party and Big Brother has on the people grows stronger and stronger. By going directly to the root of the future-the children- the Party and Big Brother have a way to influence what they want them to think without any bias of the past. And they did this by creating the Spies program, a way to control children in an organized way. Now, the children have no chance to think for themselves because they are being told what is right and what is wrong in their prime development. Which is why Winston’s generation seems to be the last one with a slight ounce left of individual thought. Now, as Winston puts it, all the children “[adore] the Party and everything connected with it.” Could this be this dystopia’s last chance at a better life?
One of the most confusing yet most interesting aspects of 1984 is the implementation of Newspeak. At first, and even still, the concept made no sense to me - what’s the point of creating an entirely new language when a perfectly functioning one already exists? How does eliminating words make communication any easier? However, as I continued reading, I realized that the purpose of Newspeak is not to help people express themselves, but, in fact, the complete opposite: Newspeak was created by Big Brother’s regime to “narrow the range of thought” (page 52), to make it physically impossible for one to even conceptualize emotions or opinions which the Party does not approve of. By eliminating the English language as we know it, the government makes it literally impossible for one to rebel, for, if there is no way to even formulate the idea that the Party is wrong, how can anyone ever go against it? As much is said by Syme in his conversation with Winston in the canteen, although he sees this as a positive advancement. The way in which Syme describes his work in Newspeak left me thoroughly confused; he proudly exclaims that “it’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words... Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?” (pages 51-52). He boasts that with “Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.” (page 52) and that “The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking... Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” (page 53). I was so perplexed by Syme’s statements because of how utterly contradictory they seem to me. How can someone be so enthusiastic knowing that the work they are doing is literally taking away people’s ability to think for themselves? Doesn’t Syme know that it is his own “range of consciousness” that he is disintegrating? The fact that he praises and agrees with the development of Newspeak and its effects is unsettling, and makes me wonder how one can possibly justify the elimination of opinion, and as a result, in Syme’s own words, consciousness? The hold that Big Brother has over the public must be extreme if he can convince an intelligent person such as Syme that to destroy thought is a good and beneficial action.
ReplyDelete