Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Why was this removed?

A previous revision by an anonymous user ([1]) included a paragraph about the Big Brother Awards, this edit was reverted by User:Kingturtle. Why?

A general overhaul

I've just gone through the whole article, correcting grammar and spelling (which I've also made consistent), and removing repetitions, excessive and unnecessary detail, some rather lecturing passages, and inappropriate speculation that goes beyond the novel. I've just seen the debate about the Roosevelt speech; I left that in (it looked pretty convincing to me, and I knew of no reason to remove it), but removed much of the analysis and explanation, which seemed unnecessary. One of the illustrations is called "1984 fictious world map"; when I've worked out how to correct that I shall (though if someone were to beat me to it I'd not complain). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) So far, so good. I am in agreement but there is much more editing that needs to be done. I will address the issue of Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" in my reply to Ben. However, I would like to know what the source for this statement is: "Orwell acknowledged the influence on his novel of Yevgeny Zamyatin's Russian language We, completed in 1921." Yes, we know that Orwell read that book around the time that he was writing the book that became Nineteen Eighty Four, but what is the source for the statement that Orwell acknowledged that the book influenced his writing of Nineteen Eighty Four?
Using your standard of editing (with which I am in agreement), I do not believe that any of the following belongs in the article, because once this stuff is included anything gets tacked on and so I have removed it here. The BBC show has nothing whatsover to do with Orwell's book and if name connection is all that matters we will soon see Room 101 sleepware and Big Brother cookware added to the list! By the way, what does the picture have to do with anything? MPLX/MH 17:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your points in principle; the reason that I didn't remove the material was that many other Wikipedia articles follow the same pattern of listing tenuously connected things and events (if less extensively). The television programme's connection is, I suppose, stronger than the sort of branded goods that you mention, in that it does concern what the guests would most hate to find in Room 101 (though I agree that it's still pretty tenuous, and throws no light on the book). I assumed that the picture illustrated the Apple advert. I have no objection to the removal of any of the material below (but don't be surprised if there are howls of protest from other directions!). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comic Books

Alan Moore's V for Vendetta is a comic book about a totalitarian England which draws heavily on Nineteen Eighty-Four; it even has a room 101.

Television

The term Big Brother was borrowed by a reality television programme first produced in the Netherlands in 1999 and later copied by many other countries around the world. A group of contestants live in a house under constant surveillance, they are set many tasks and their progress is broadcast on television and the Internet. In what many intellectuals regard as a clanging irony, the show has become a pop culture phenomenon around the world.

Room 101 is the title of a B.B.C. television programme presented by Paul Merton. Guests on the show talk about the people or items they wish to send to Room 101.

Apple's 1984 ad
Apple's 1984 ad

Apple Computer based an ad on the book, creating a world famous commercial. It aired nationally in the U.S.A. only once, during Super Bowl XVII (1984), introducing the Macintosh due to be released. In the commercial, Big Brother symbolised IBM. A young athletic heroine, with an Apple logo on her chest, throws a sledgehammer into the screen where Big Brother is preaching propaganda to an audience of bald-headed "zombies".

Will someone please tell us what the following lines mean? What is the name of the recording, what are the details of it (tracks, lyrics, etc.)? This is another example of tacking on words that have no meaning. MPLX/MH 17:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Recordings

A concept album of music related to Orwell's 1984 has also been recorded by Rick Wakeman, with lyrics by Tim Rice.

What is the meaning of "It is quite possible that" in the following reference? Says who that "It is quite possible that"?

Influence / Inspiration

Literature

What is the meaning of "The atmosphere of control" in the following reference? All of this is getting way off the subject MPLX/MH 17:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):


TV/films/animation/series

On the specific point of the history-rewriting activities of the Ministry of Truth, I've inserted the point that "wartime allies such as the USSR were rapidly becoming peacetime foes ('Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy')." This seems to me to be at least as valid a link between the book and contemporary events as any with the dismantling of the British empire. Nealc 10:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems far more likely to be inspired by the changes Orwell observed in British Communists when the party line switched abruptly after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and then switched back just as violently when Germany invaded the USSR. Orwell wrote about this pretty often, IIRC. In particular, the falling out between the West and the USSR happened after Orwell had been well into writing 1984. -Ben 15:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair point. The official & newsreel (Ministry?) view of the USSR would also have reversed in June 1941 and been heading the other way again in March 1946 ('Iron Curtain' speech). These all look more like inspiration for airbrushed history than differences in report & reality of Empire - but this may be too narrow a point to spend a line on. Propose replacing the whole sentence with something like "Orwell is reported to have said that the book described what he saw as the actual situation in 1948 - after wartime enemies like the USSR had become fated allies overnight; in a country of bombsites, rationing and a possibly-radical new Government; with a world already being divided into 'Zones of Influence' by the powers at the Yalta Conference." Nealc 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Video games

Population of ...

This text is so POOR that it either needs a LOT of work or immediate deletion. It has just been added by User:81.52.217.7 and removed MPLX/MH 20:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Population of Oceania

Around 1~2% of the population consists of Inner Party members. While the Inner Party members have more luxuries than Outer Party members, and seems to have more freedom than Outer Party members. However, their freedom seems to be nothing more than an illusion, as O'Brien later on stated to Winston that they already got him a long time ago. Inner Party members acted as leaders and other things. However, the Inner Party members do not control the Party, the Party control them.

In today's term, Inner Party members are the rough equivalents as celebrities and famous people. Like president (George H. Bush), movie star (Arnold Schwarzenegger), musician (John Lennon), famous programmer (Linus Torvald), and so on.


Around 13% of the population consists of Outer Party members. The Outer Party don't have many of the luxuries that were enjoyed by the Inner Party members, and seems to have less freedoms than Inner Party members.

However, despite the constant surveilances by the Party and strict rules by the Party, the Outer Party member seems to have more freedom than Inner Party members, depending on their attitudes.

People like Winston seem to be oppressed, this might be caused of Winston's knowledge of the days before the existance of the Party, his rejection against the Party's actions, while in the same time, he feel like that he's powerless against the Party.

While people like Julia doesn't seems to showed the attitude of oppression, this might be caused due to Julia's lack of knowledge of the days before the existance of the Party, her non-rejection attitude regarding the Party's actions (her attitude similiar to what Jesus said in regarding "do not fight evil"), and she do what ever she wants to do through devious ways.

Then there are people like Winston's wife, who are nothing more than the living embodiment of the Party's ideals due to the mental condition done by the Party. Winston later on suffered the same fate.

In today's term, Outer Party members are the rough equivalents of businessman, journalists, teachers, clerks, and so on.


Around 85% of the population consists of Proletarians (Proles). This type of the population has the most freedom since that the Party don't control them or can't control them, at least not directly. Proletarians are not Party members, but the Party regulary manipulate them and redirect them to do what the Party want, though, Proletarians have no obligation to comply toward the Party's wishes.

Proletarians will never go against the Party, due the fact that they have nothing against the Party and vice versa.

In today's term, Proletarians members are the rough equivalents of laborers, farmers, and so on.

Further additions, changes, etc.

The text above was inserted today without a specific notation on the History of the article and this makes it difficult to spot vandalism or even major changes such as the one above without referencing earlier editions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to insist that when changes are made to existing articles that the person making the changes should note what they are on the entry line when saving them. If not then the unnamed changes should be reversed to avoid the bother of trying to determine what changes have been made. I note that someone else has made another change but I can't figure out what it is. MPLX/MH 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same person has made similarly illiterate changes to a number of other articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Furthermore, the extrapolation of NEF to today is speculation that doesn't belong in the article. Hell, we might as well go revise Nebuchadnezzar, Alfred the Great, and Chiang Kai-Shek to add parallels to modern times. -Ben 03:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"NEF"?

Can I just vote that years don't need acronyms...? (Yes I know it isn't in the article, but it threw me out in the talk page). Notinasnaid 11:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hear! hear! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something I picked up a while back on alt.books.george-orwell. If it ever makes it into the article, remove it and come kick me. -Ben 14:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Problems with Nineteen Eighty-Four

I've just moved this section here; it first struck me as being rather too anoracky for an enclyclopædia, but as I copy-edited it I decided that it was also much too thin. The supposed plot-holes are either insignificant or easly accounted for. For example, that a U.S. dominated area adopts a U.K. style of government might be surprising, but is hardly contradictory. The point about surveillance is misplaced; the point is that at any time one might be being watched — that doesn't imply that one is in fact always being watched. The tidied-up text, with duplicate links removed and a bit of grammatical/style correction is as follows: 

Literary scholars debate the true purpose of ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' — is the novel
meant to portray a futuristic nightmare British society, is it a critique of British society in
the late 1940s, or is it simply another attack on Stalin's Russia? The answer is a combination
of the three. However, the novel suffers from several major plot-holes which cannot satisfactorily explained.

The concept of Oceania is confused throughout the novel. In ''1984'', it is repeatedly pointed
out that Oceania is controlled by the IngSoc Party (English Socialism, a future version of the
Labour Party), but the entire state was created by the United States. This is contradictory
— if the United States had created Oceania, why would they turn to a British system of
government? It is repeatedly mentioned that a revolution occurred in Britain at some point
shortly after the end of World War II, but it is never stated if similar revolutions took place
across Oceania, specifically in the United States.

The government of Oceania is also debatable. Airstrip One, and its capital London, are
provinces of Oceania (the novel mentions the fact that Airstrip One is the third most
prosperous province of Oceania, presumably behind the United States and Canada). However, the
location of the Oceanic government is never revealed. It is implied that [[New York]] is the
capital of Oceania, but if this is so, why are the major centres of government located in
London, a mere provincial city? It can be argued that each province has its own centres of
government, but this is further frustrated by the question of local government — just how
much power does the IngSoc Party have outside London?

Technology provides a further plot-hole, specifically in terms of the telescreens. Throughout
the novel it is mentioned that London is dotted with two-way telescreens, which act as 24-hour
televisions, providing an outlet for propaganda, but are also cameras, allowing security
operatives to watch people. The novel makes it clear that people are never sure when they are
being watched, and so always act in a conformist way if they are within the range of the ever-
present telescreens. However, the concept of constant surveillance is fundamentally flawed
— ''who is watching the watchers''? If everyone has to be kept under surveillance, who
keeps an eye on the thought police? Also, can the thought police be watching everyone all of
the time? This is highly unlikely, due to the size of the population (it is mentioned in the
novel that Airstrip One has a population of around 300 million, an impossible number to keep
under constant surveillance). It is also mentioned that surveillance only really works in urban
areas, and that in the countryside, surveillance devices are virtually non-existent.
This is an essay. Without NPOV and attribution work I support removing it. 119 18:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, "critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations." ... According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction "Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book-reports, rather the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one." So, it is welcome to see something that isn't a simple plot summary. Goodness knows, there are enough annoying and useless articles about books which are just second rate book reports, without an ounce of insight. But, that said – this stuff does indeed seem too thin, especially the confusion about the difference between "might be being watched" and "are being watched"; it is established in the UK that CCTV cameras do change behaviour, and everyone understands they are not watched all the time. Notinasnaid 19:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm speaking from memory here, but also: nowhere is it stated or implied that New York is the capital city of Oceania; 300 million is given as the population of Oceania, not Airstrip One; the stuff about surveillance is weak (no one's watching the watchers, they're abusing their power, that's the whole point.) I support removing it. Robin Johnson 14:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All of this overlooks the possibility (and note that this is based on a viewing of the film and not a reading of the book, so forgive me if I'm out of line here) that it would make no difference to the plot if Oceania as a whole - and indeed, Eurasia and Eastasia - were just fictional entities designed to perpetuate the illusion that the eternal war was one of conquest rather than a means of wasting resources. If that were the case then the rest of the world might just as well be a radioactive desert, "Oceania" just a small piece of England that had somehow survived, and the bombs supposedly being dropped on it by its enemies could be its own.... Lee M 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. It would make no difference to the plot of the Pickwick Papers either. Robin Johnson 12:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, Pickwick didn't feature an all-powerful organisation that claimed to rule half the world. Anyway, if that is what Orwell intended, it would at least put a slightly different complexion on the events of the novel. I'm also reminded of a line from Tolkien (from memory): "you may question the worth of my deeds when they are proved worthless." Lee M 01:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

B.B.C/BBC

I haven't had time to confirm this with certainty, but I think that you'll find that – before the semi-literate culture of image consultants and the like – the B.B.C. did indeed use the required punctuation in the abbreviation of the name. Given that we're talking about the 1940s, therefore, it seems appropriate to use them. (Incidentally, I think that I should pass on some excellent advice that I once found on the side of a pot of yoghurt: ”Farmer's Wife hints: keep cool“). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) your reversion on this is disruptive. BBC is used by the BBC. All references on Wikipedia are to BBC. The many articles about the BBC all avoid periods. AT&T is also addressed this way. I have run into this sort of editing before and it annoys me considerably because it does not assist in making things easier as some Wikipedians do (and I really appreciate their work), but it confuses and obstructs while adding absolutely no knowledge to the article. This is not the place to begin a campaign to change the language to the way you see fit. American English is different from British English and some people (like me) spent half their life in England and half in the USA (without periods) and sometimes this means learning how to spell words all over again. Wikipedia is international in scope and it should try to be as easy to understand by the majority of people as possible. You can of course change it again and change all similar spelling and if you do, I say lotsa luck because I will sit on the sidelines and see what happens. If sanity prevails modernity will win. As for using B.B.C. because at some point in time the BBC used to do that, well, whatchagointodo with an article on Henry VIII? MPLX/MH 16:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that you need to calm down, get off your soap box, and take a blood-pressure pill. I'm not starting a campaign, disrupting anything, pushing British English over U.S. English, nor any of the generalisations you're making from one minor incident (though I might add that other people have made the point that Wikipedia policy is to use British English in articles on British topics, like this one). I'll ignore the peculiar notion that people wouldn't understand 'B.B.C.', and your final comment (which I don't follow at all).
The fact is that I reverted once (with an explanation on the Talk page, unconnected to most of your rant), in response to one other revert (with an all-caps explanation in the edit summary only). I had no intention of reverting a second time; I simply wanted to put forward a reason for my position to see if other people agreed. A glance at my edit history might have suggested to you that that was the case. Anyone would think that there was something about the form 'B.B.C.' that acted on the rage-centres of some people's brains — oops, I've done it again (mushroom cloud rises over Tunbridge Wells). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) I do not enjoy the kind of dialog in which you chose to subjectively judge both things and people. This results in your use of subjective language that can only incite ill will. The policy of Wikipedia is for everyone to get along by discussing subject matter in as NPOV way as possible without using language that may be negatively construed by the person who it is intended for. The tone of the language that you are using is coming across as being smug and self-righteous and I have to restrain my leg from figuratively jerking my foot upwards into the rear end of the person who is writing in this fashion. Please cut it out. I have straddled both the UK and USA cultures and one of the reasons why I am here and not there is because I had enough of self-opinionated and self-righteous nonsense. I prefer plain speaking and I also prefer civility in all things. Please learn how to get along with others and how to stick to the facts. Your attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. MPLX/MH 20:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Know thyself. Beams and motes. Glass houses. You get the idea. Look at the exchange above; who first used words like 'disruptive', phrases like 'this sort of editing', 'confuses and obstructs', 'campaign to change the language to the way you see fit [sic]'. You also admitted to being annoyed. I, on the other, hand, responded to the revert of my editing with a calm, polite explanation of why I'd made the edit in the first place (which, incidentally, was part of a much more extensive editing effort). You might disagree, in which case you could have explained your disagreement in the same manner and tone. Instead you went off like a cheap firework.
I'm not sure whether the problem is a chip on your shoulder, or some personal encounter in the past that I've forgotten about, or if you're just naturally irascible. It's not a pretty sight, whichever the explanation. keep your thoughts about violent attacks about fellow editors to yourself, keep a sense of proportion, and – who knows – this sort of exchange might happen less often. (By the way, is it only your own plain speaking and other people's civility that you value? Yes, thought so.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Obviously you do not intend to be civil or polite. I will ignore further communication. MPLX/MH 16:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My imagination or what?

There used to be an explanation about Orwell's work at the BBC (while it was under the control of the wartime Ministry of Information), as a source of his inspiration. What was wrong with that? This business of deleting knowledge is getting out of hand. MPLX/MH 16:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences back. Suspect they were gutted in the shuffle. -Ben 01:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

small edit.

i took the liberty of removing an unintelligible bulletin at the top of the article.

Unintelligible??? Guess you haven't read the book lately.

The Party can't last forever

"...for all their brutality, the regimes are not going to burn themselves out in strategically significant conquests or technological arms races. Rather, they have reached a stable equilibrium which could theoretically last forever."

A point that seems to have been overlooked by critics is that Orwell wasn't aware of environmental issues (they didn't really come to the fore until about a decade after the book was written). From an ecological perspective it seems obvious that the eternal war of attrition will eventually devastate whatever bits of the Earth's ecosystem haven't been ravaged by nuclear war, and the political system will break down amid starvation and chaos. Lee M 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, apparently the ecological implications of nuclear war weren't understood when the book was written - or not by Orwell, at least - which is why Winston and Julia meet in a wrecked church "where an atom bomb had gone off years before" (as I recall). But if this point "seems to have been overlooked by critics", it's probably original research, which doesn't belong in the article. Robin Johnson

i added the following

it should not be read as an attack on marxism as a whole (Orwell himself was somewhat of a trotskyist, and fought in the POUM during the spanish civil war), but stalinism in particular

One cannot understand the book without understanding who Orwell was.

That's oversimplistic to the fringe of non-sense. 1984 is a criticism of totalitarism in general. I do not understand why everybody does this fixation on stalinism, is it something to do with the moustache ? Lots of detail actually are from the United Kingdom of the 40s (I won't even bother mentioning the obvious allusions to nazism and fascism). Rama 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2 + 2 = 5 and the doctrine of the Trinity

I can't put this in the article as I've never seen it discussed and it would therefore be original research, but it seems obvious to me.

Winston Smith writes "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

Part of Winston Smith's forcibly-coerced indoctrination centers around the effort to make him concede that two plus two make five if the Party says so; that is, if the Party says so, it is his obligation really to believe that it is true, not to feign belief that it is true.

Now ask, "When, in real life, does a person face a demand to believe in the truth of an arithmetical inequality?"

The obvious answer would seem to be a youth being indoctrinated in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In the words of the Athanasian Creed, "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty." If this subtle doctrine is presented or understood in even a slightly muddled way, it seems rather like a demand to believe that three really equals one.

I for one certainly find it easy to imagine an intelligent and critical-thinking boy being bullied by an unimaginative religious instructor, and getting the impression that the Church requires that he "really believe" that the Godhead can be three and one at the same time. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. -Ben 13:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the "2 + 2" discussion is a direct reference to anything, it's probably a follow-up to a discussion of the same sum in 'We' by Yevgeny Zamyatin, in which an advocate of 'nonfreedom' argues that it would be an absurdity "if two and two were to get notions of some sort of freedom" and add up to something other than four. Orwell counters this by saying that it is irrationality, not rationality, that is dangerous, and has the state preaching that two and two make five. This is also OR, so it shouldn't really go in the article; the existing (I think) link to We is enough. But I believe it is intended more as a reference to the general notion that repeating the same obvious lie often enough will make it true. (The Trinity thing being, in my opinion, another good example of this.) Robin Johnson 15:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Trinity thing seems rather unlikely to me. It is of course entirly possible for one thing to have three distinct qualities. A more obvious parallel would be the old Jesuit doctrine of "black being white." Iron Ghost 14:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that drawing present-day parallels to 1984 is can of worms we shouldn't open in the article. -Ben 15:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, but I'm making a parallel to the counter-reformation, not to present-day. Orwell himself noted (in The Lion and the Unicorn I think) the re-emergence of certain human types, long thought extinct, such as the inquisitor. As such I think the parallel is relevant. Iron Ghost 19:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Orwell's general appeal and 1984's almost universal applicability almost invariably lead to comparisons with anything an author doesn't like. Big Brother is used to describe tobacco corporations and anti-smoking activists. Doublespeak is any perceived inconsistency in an opponent's argument. I'm afraid that if we start describing parallels that were never actually cited by Orwell himself, the article will quickly descend to a debate ob current politics at the name-calling level.
Based on my reading of Orwell, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he thought the doctrine of the Trinity was absurd. However, I'm pretty sure he never wrote about it as an explicit example of 2+2=5. If we were to decide to include parallels, it would problably be more fruitful to talk about historical events Orwell wrote about, like the UK Communist Party's volte-face after Hitler invaded the USSR, or each side's inability to acknowledge attrocities commited by their own forces during the Spanish Civil War.
Also, it's not relevent to my point about the article, but the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't seriously disputed in the Reformation or Counter-Reformation, at least compared to how it was disputed during the Enlightenment, or how ecclesiology and soteriology were debated during the Reformation or Counter-Reformation. But point taken that it's not a "present day parallel". -Ben 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. When I said "The Trinity thing seems rather unlikely to me" what I meant was I did not think Orwell was getting at that in 1984. I gave the alternative example of the Jesuit doctrine of believing black is white because Orwell himself drew the parallel between the counter-reformation mentality and that of his own age (In the Lion and the Unicorn). I agree with you that speculation of this kind does not have a place in the main article, which is why I am writing it here. Iron Ghost 18:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahh -- now I get it! D'accord. -Ben 22:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure -- It just sounds as if the trinity is worth more than the sum of its parts. ~Inkstersco

Concerning the appendix on Newspeak

I noticed this:

"The appendix is written in the style of an academic essay, and appears to offer some hope in that it refers to Newspeak and the Party in the past tense, suggesting that it was written in a future in which the Party, and undoubtedly the three powers of Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia have collapsed and ceased to exist."

This makes little sense to me; why should it not simply be taken to be written in third-person narrative like the rest of the novel? No one suggests that Winston's story is written by a post-Ingsoc biographer. I suppose I might have missed something, so I thought I should post this before deleting the offending sentence (or adding another to the effect that what I allege here is at least as possible) in case anyone has reason to disagree with me (which I shall gladly hear, or, rather, read).

As no one has deigned to reply, I'll remove the offending remark anyway. If anyone subsequently objects, please tell me why.
The Newspeak appendix is written in the style of an academic essay, which is why the sentence said so. The statement that the appendix may have been written as if it was by a writer from after the fall of Oceania is a logical conclusion, which is why it's in the paragraph. I guess I don't understand your confusion. I'll put the paragraph back in in a week or so unless someone pops up and explains why not to.
It is indeed in said style (a statement which my editing preserved), but why should that be deemed significant? The rest of the novel could be said with equal justification to be written in the style of a selective biography (selective in that it covers only a short part of the subject's life) or part of a history, but no one, I think, infers from this that a post-Ingsoc biographer or historian is narrating Winston's doings after the Party's fall. The essay, it seems to me should be considered likewise: it is in the past tense because that has for years and years been the convention adhered to in almost all third person prose narrative; it is not referred to as being a document found in an archive or similar, a device occasionally used elsewhere in literature. That it is essay-like rather reflects its subject (an invented language as opposed to anyone or anything with more concrete existence, such as a person, place or organisation) than indicating any hint on the part of Orwell as to what happened. Remember that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a deliberately pessimistic satire; if Orwell had wanted to offer hope, I doubt that he would have done so in such a thoroughly oblique manner. The inference that the essay is written after the downfall of Ingsoc, to my mind, smacks of over-eagerness to Discover What The Author Really Meant.
I agree that the "happy ending" stuff is absolute nonsense. Orwell was a huge advocate of plain English; if he'd wanted us to know that Ingsoc ever fell, he'd have said so. Part Three of the novel goes to great pains to emphasise that "the rule of the Party is for ever," and there's no way he'd go back on it in a simple "but it did't," especially not concealed in such an oblique way. There's no logical conclusion from the fact that the essay is written in the past tense, because there's no claim that the essay itself was written in the world of 1984, any more than the whole novel was. Robin Johnson 10:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
As it's been a week, I've made the edits - the section was getting out of hand and becoming an essay. The revision I've put in place is probably a little tainted by my own POV, but frankly, I still think it's a silly argument and really ought to be removed totally. Robin Johnson 11:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Just found an interesting essay which touches on the Appendix to 1984: [2]

Removed speculative comments about slogans

I removed these passages from the article, on the grounds that they are speculative and rather poorly written:

For example, "War is Peace" when analyzed through the explanations in Goldstein's book, seems to describe the state that is achieved when the public is focused on a war. Problems and issues in the homeland are glossed over by the events and news of the ongoing battle. It also says how war is executed simply to burn excess surplus of goods that would otherwise elevate the standard of living in society - and a poor society is easier to control than a wealthy one (it also hints that the real purpose behind all war is this).

When "Freedom is Slavery" is analyzed (again through the book Goldstein "wrote") is a throwback to capitalist society. The book and O'Brien refer to them as suit wearing, overweight men with top hats and canes who owned everything around them. As such they had power and control over individual people through their wealth and influence. Therefore a free society isn't free per se, because a capitalist, or someone higher on the "food chain" would be your boss or master, and thus you are the slave. When exercising doublethink, by not having such freedom, you are not a slave since the individual gives themselves to the Party unconditionally - as O'Brien would argue, the individual lives forever through the Party. Thus there is no disparty between both and there is no slavery.

Lastly, if you look at "Ignorance is Strength" you can find something that applies to daily life. The more informed a person is, the more they question, the more they are unsure of the world and existence around them. An intelligent, informed person in this fictional world would question the authenticity of Big Brother, perhaps challenge that the views of the Party are not the best views. However, an ignorant person will blindly accept that Big Brother reigns supreme, that they love the Party and B.B and that the "Party is always right." In short, through doublethink, ignorance is a form of strength.

-- Karada 08:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


  • You call it speculative, but those speculations do in fact occur in the novel. Maybe you know, but it is the content of the illegal book that Winston was reading. The illegal book was alledgedly written by Emmanuel Goldstein — this is later confirmed as untrue, but nonetheless, it plays an important role to illustrate doublethink. I agree with removing them, however, as the topic is discussed in the article Goldstein's book. Thus, I made a reference to that article. Punkmorten 12:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Is "1984" satirical or not?

I've taken out the word "satirical" from the initial description of 1984 as a "satirical political novel". 1984 is a lot of things, but satire is not one of them. I don't think I'm being nit-picking about this; I think characterizing the book as satire would be misleading to someone who's never read it. It implies a level of humor that, of course, is absolutely not there.

I'm interested to hear from anyone who disagrees, and apparently there must be someone --- not only was this change revereted sometime after 10 July, but I don't even see that mentioned in the history. Can someone explain how/why? I'm still a little green on Wikipedia, sorry. Thanks. Feel free to e-mail me. --BrentDanzig 08:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Satire doesn't necessarily imply humourousness. Nineteen Eighty-Four is a satire in that uses analogies and exaggerations to make points about the real world. But I don't want to get into a one-word edit war, so I won't put it back in until I see someone else's opinion. It used to say 'darkly satirical' - perhaps that was better (although 'dark' was one of Orwell's pet-hate meaningless words, so perhaps not.) Robin Johnson 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
There is also an argument which states that 1984 is a satire of James Burnham's writings, and the general political climate amongst intellectuals in the late 30s/early 40s. See an essay entitled "Was Orwell a Secret Optimist" in Benoit Suykerbuijk (ed.), "Essays From Oceania and Eurasia", University of Antwerp Press. It's a hard book to find, tho'; the British Library has a copy, as does Liverpool University and Cambridge University. Don't know about the states. --James Kemp 23:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok, interesting. I might stand corrected. I didn't know all that. --BrentDanzig 10:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

From a letter from George Orwell to Francis A. Henson dated 16 June 1949:

"I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that somthing like it could arrive."

I should say that's pretty conclusive. The word "satirical" should be reinserted. Iron Ghost 14:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Recordings section

Am I alone in thinking that the "Nine Inch Nails" connection is a bit tenuous? If it must be explained in so many words, then I do not think it belongs next to the other, more easily grasped, references to the work.--ASL 20:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Living Standards

A large chunk of the living standards section seems to have disappeared. It was rather long, but it contained stuff on the living standards of the inner party, which is important. Perhaps it should be restored and edited more cautiously. Iron Ghost 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Airstrip One

I always imagined that Airstrip One was just Britain -- and assumed that Ireland would be Airstrip Two. Is it stated anywhere that A1 encompasses both islands? Ben-w 23:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't: Airstrip One "had been England or Britain". This could mean anything from just England to just Great Britain the whole of the British Isles. Robin Johnson 11:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
He probably uses the two words when referring his own childhood memories of people talking, so you cannot gain too much detail from that. ~Inkstersco

Mr Charrington's telescreen

I've always wondered what the significance of the telescreen repeating what has been said by Winston or Julia when they had been caught in the bedroom suite in the beginning of part 3? It that supposed to represent anything?--James 03:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion page is for discussion of the article, not of the novel itself. To break this rule and answer your question, I don't think it represents anything in particular, just the fact that the telescreen offers no consolation, just impenetrable authority, and that all the assumptions Winston and Julia make ("They can see us now," "We might as well say goodbye") are correct. Robin Johnson 13:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It's a sort of mercilessness, like that scene in Aliens when the girl says "My mummy said there were no monsters, no real ones, but there are", and Ripley(Sigourney Weaver), who is putting the girl to bed, says the worste thing one can say to a child: "Yes, there are." User: Inkstersco 19 Oct.

Possible Timeline

I took out the "Possible Timeline" section[3] recently added by HowardDean because I feel it is clearly original research. Since my edit involved deleting an entire section of the article, I thought I would just post it on the talk page. -Parallel or Together? 14:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk of "purpose\inpiration"

I think the best way to create an objective (encyclo-worthy) description of "The purpose of 1984" is to turn to Orwell's own work. In Notes on Nationalism he starts the essay by describing something that he cannot find words for, and at the end admits that he does not know what do about it. In the end, he invents jargon in 1984(Newspeak), and creates a sort of common denominator society. His "extended nationalism" according to his essay,is not the property of any one ideology, and does not even seem to rest on ideology at all. He lists all sorts of things, from Zionism, to Nazism, to Celtic Nationalism. Basically 1984 seems to be a solution to the problems raised in that essay -- A unification of all the vague social nastiness of the 1920s - 1940s. It seems to say to the world -- "why not just go for a shag in the woods once in a while?"

I didn't want to sound too opinionated and comparative in my addition of the "Themes" section (I don't think a comparative essay is encyclopaedic enough). If you find it repetative feel free to "normalise" it into the article.

However, I think 1984 is an exercise in lateral thinking -- Marking down 1984 as an attack on one regime or another would make redundant the fact that he chose a fictional society as an example -- He must be trying to compare certain things by creating a platonic mediator. English-speaking people (i.e. readers) were already horrified at Communism in general, and would continue to be for some years. It seems really to reconcile Nazism, Communism, Political Catholicism, yadaydayda(I pointed strongly to Notes on Nationalism where he conflates these seemingly opposite ideologies with similar behaviour, should any Political Catholics have a go at me). One theme of the novel is similar groups of people believing they are different. Oceania is exactly the same sort of place to live in as Eastasia, although the people aren't allowed to think that.

Different identity- same thing. Identity for identity's sake : major theme -- "The object of power is power".

Note that 1984 features a mental technique called Blackwhite. Note also "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides." --St. Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises

Additionally, I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that Ingsoc is a future Labour party -- The only reference to Labour in the novel is in the old prole man's ramblings, simply meaning he went to a public meeting in, say, 1940 or something like that. It just describes the "old order", but in rubbishy detail. You could be right, but marking down 1984 as an attack on one party is worse than having it as an attack on a regime. ~Inkstersco


The Appendix

I've just edited the above section, as it seemed to me to be more of the beginnings of an academic essay than an encyclopedia entry. The POV also seemed a little slanted. --James Kemp 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarianism / USSR / Nazi Germany

When I discuss 1984 with people they frequently seem to believe it is anti-Stalinist/Communist when it is really anti-Totalitarian and I wonder if the same mistake has been made here. In the synopsis parallels are made with Stalin's Soviet Union, but just as many parallels can be found with Nazi Germany. Perhaps something along the lines of the following can be added....

Further parallels can be found with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union; the rigourous class structure similar to that in Nazi Germany, proles = Jews, blacks, disabled, homosexuals. Outer party = your average German. Inner party = members of the Nazi party. Leader worship is a common trait amongst right wing societies, it is just as true of Big Brother as it was of Hitler. Joycamps are no different to concentration camps or gulags. 1984 had the thought police, Hitler and Stalin had their own secret security forces spying on citizens. The daily bouts of exercise are reminiscent of nazi propoganda films of group exercise.

There are also several quotes by top Nazis that Orwell may have drawn inspiration from;

  • “The broad mass of the nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” - Adolf Hitler, in his 1925 book Mein Kampf
  • “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” - Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels
  • “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials

Political geography

I would suggest that specific mention of the uncertainty of the boundaries of the three super powers and that it was possible that it was merely the one power this was often mentioned or hinted at.

Third Person

Shouldnt wikipedia articles be written in third person? I mean, I found various occurences of e.g. "we discover that" etc in the text.

For example, shouldnt "The only real knowledge that we have is that" be changed to "The only real knowledge that is known is that" or something? --85.49.231.112 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very common, even the norm, in literary criticism to use "we" in lieu of, say, "the reader." --Tothebarricades 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No. It convolutes the language and makes the articles harder to read. There's nothing 'unprofessional' about writing plain English. Just my opinion, of course. Robin Johnson 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I use "one may notice" instead of "I noticed" for my non-first person writings (essays and such)--Acebrock 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, using "I" is still taboo in general. --Tothebarricades 09:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that it should be written in third person. It is, after all, an encyclopedia, and I think it is unprofessional to write informally in an encyclopedia. Chocolateluvr88 10:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I find myself often using we or I, but I don't find it to be wrong. To me it makes me feel like I'm a part of what I'm talking about and makes it more personal seeing that I am often speaking my opinion.--JP 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Smart Idiot

1984 chosen as a reasonable point on Orwell's timeline for the future?

I have always thought that maybe the year 1984 was chosen because it went along the timeline that Orwell predicted. Right now I am working on a dystopian novel that follows such a timeline (which will be fully established when I submit it because I don't know when I will). By the time 1984 was reached most people wouldn't remember life before the revolution especially because most older people, according to orwell, were killed in the great purges and the rest forced into intellectual surrender. That and people born after the revolution would only know the history that the party taught them. But, then again this is just how I see it.--Acebrock 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to "History according to 1984" section

I do find the new material that's been put in this section over the last few days very interesting. However, I suspect it to be largely original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If it can be sourced, that would be nice. Otherwise, I propose quite a big revision the section, by which I mean removing most of it. Robin Johnson 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It's really good stuff, and it seems a shame to have to get rid of it. Morwen - Talk 15:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who put in this material. What happened was that originally I just put in a single paragraph. On the following day I looked in and found an editorial note stating "citation needed". So I proceeded to quote from Orwell - from "1984" itself and from his relevant non-fiction articles - on what my description of the history leading from Orwell's reality in 1948 to the society of "1984" is based. Is that is "original research"?

Adam Keller, Israel

I think it is, unfortunately. See WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources - you are doing your own (very interesting) research based on primary sources, and quoting those sources, but the research - the reasoning you are applying to what you find in these sources - is your own. There are WikiMedia sites which do allow this sort of thing - have a look at the "other options" on that page. I hope there is somewhere to put your discussion, because it is definitely worth reading. (A similar section called "possible timeline" was removed some time in the last couple of months, for similar reasons, which might be merged into the same non-Wikipedia article.) I won't make any edits to this 1984 article for another few days, so as to let this discussion run its course. Robin Johnson 10:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What I see on the page you refered to is: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." It seems to me that "source-based research" as defined there is precisely what I did. Adam Keller

There's a difference between information gathered from primary sources, and interpretation and analysis of that information. A lot of the assertions made in the new material - such as that the state of Israel was ephemeral in Nineteen Eighty-Four, that the bombing of Colchester was the outbreak of the nuclear war, that nuclear bombardment destroyed Britain's industrial capacity - and the general tone of "this seems to imply that..." rather than "this says that..." - do not come directly from those sources, but from your own analysis of them. It'd be nice to hear what a few other people have to say about this. Robin Johnson 12:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re the bombinh of Colchester Orwell is quite clear "Winston could not definitely remeber a time when his country had not been at war, but it was evident that there had been a fairly long interval of peace during his childhood, because one of his early memories was an air raid which seemed to take anybody by surprise. Perhaps it was the time the atomic bomb had fallen on Colchester." This seems quite a straigtforward interprretation of the primary source. . It is true that Orwell does not say explicitly that Israrel which was created at the time he was writing would not survive, but he does mention Jews in the Middle East in 1984 as being refugees in boats being mercilessly bombed, which makes the situation quite obvious. I might be sensitive on this issue since it happens to be my country and every time I read this part I think that in another life it might have been me in that boat, but this is urrelevant for this discuassion. Anyway, I have said what I can, I now must go back to my work. Let Wikipedia decide on this, I have the material saved on my computer and if it is wiped I will try to find some other place to publish it. Adam Keller

Call this what you want but I found, in the 'centennial edition,' that there is speculation that george orwell was actually predicting what he thought the world would be like for his son's generation when he called the novel 1984. If anyone can get a scond source then go ahead and add it.--Acebrock 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Orwell and Ireland

The controversy section appears to imply that Orwell may have had an Anti-Irish bias based on the evidence that he gave the novel's chief villian an Irish name. Does this really belong in the article? What is the basis of such an accusation? Iron Ghost 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this was just a sarcastic response to the charge that Orwell was "antisemitic" just becuase he gave a Jewish name to the character that the regime (who are the real villains!) considered a villain, which in fact makes him a good guy. I don't think Orwell had an anti-Irish bias, at least you need far more eviidence that just this. Still, it is an interesting question, why did he use just this name? I mean, there is nothing specially irish about this character aside from his name. There are some English people with irish or Scottish or french names which usually indicates where their ancestors came from. But why use this name? Does anybody have an idea?

I think the anti-Irish sentence is being a bit over-sensitive tbh. Is there any actual evidence that this has caused controversy with Irish people? Personally I would have thought they would be praising their own countryman for being the pinnacle of the anti-establishment movement, standing up against the system like that, after all as you rightly point out the real villains are the system, not O'Brien. -- Francs2000 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that there is any particular significance in the choice of the name. Its a fairly common name in Britain. Iron Ghost 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Orwell the Prophet

In his novel 1984 George Orwell paints a frightening picture.

Thanks for sharing. --Descendall 00:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Religiosity

I think the following line in the "Religosity" section maybe incorrect

"Goldstein (described as goat-like, as is the devil in Christian tradition)."

I have read the novel many, many times and can only recall Goldstein as being described as "sheep-like" and a possessing a "bleating" voice. Never as a goat.

Although it is only one line in a large document, I think for the sake of thoroughness this should be altered (assuming I'm correct of course) 220.233.30.162 11:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)alexwank

Yep, not in the book, not attributed to a secondary source, looks like it should be taken out. I think this article is infested with OR and will probably go through it some time soon, although I'm a bit afraid of making a one-man crusade of it. Robin Johnson 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Probsbly this is derived from Goldstein being described by Orwell as "having a small goatee beard" (like Trotsky who is genrally considered the inspiration for Goldstein - and Big Brother has a moustache like Stalin). Does having a goatee beard make a person "goat-like"?

  • The text currently states that Goldstein is "described as sheep-like, as is the devil in Christian tradition." Does anybody know of the devil ever being described as sheep-like? Presumably the text previously read goat-like and was corrected. However, as this statement stands, it doesn't make alot of sence, so I'll remove it if there aren't any objections. Iron Ghost 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, i agree 100%. i was planning on pointing this out after the inital change was made but never got around to it ~alexwank

Related works

The "related works" section is suffering from "listitis" and should be cleaned up. When the list starts including quotes from filler tracks from New Zealand rock bands, it's time for action. Anyone agree/disagree? Previously I've moved these lists to their own article where such things can be added without losing the main article under 60k of bullet points. --Jgritz 03:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

It is also significant that the main organ of The Party is the The Times. This is certainly not taken from the practice of the Bolsheviks, who did not take over the established newspapers of Tsarist Russia but created their own papers. And the Party also publishes low-level papers, full of nothing but crime, gossip and soft pornography, for the consumption of "the proles". The Bolsheviks, who had a puritan streak, never did anything remotely the like, but such papers are very much part of British life (in Orwell's time and even more nowadays).

It occurs that this is trying to "disprove" the connection between the Party in 1984 and the Bolsheviks. I don't really care if there is a connection or not, but this needs to be reworded and cited. There may be other neutrality problems. - FrancisTyers 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it needs to be cited, unless someone noteworthy has made this observation. Unless that's the case, it needs to be removed as original literary criticism. --Saforrest 04:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, I was going to suggest that, but decided to err on the side of tact. I agree with Saforrest. WP:NOR! :) - FrancisTyers 18:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I already removed it. agreeing with all f the criticism--Acebrock 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Newspeak

I feel that newspeak was meant to be used to help destroy emotions by not allowing you to say what it is that is being felt. If anyone has other ideas about newspeak I would like to here about it.--Smart Idiot 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Smart Idiot

===>Several uses As I understood it, the primary use for Newspeak was to make thinking revolutionary thoughts impossible by removing the vocabulary for them (e.g. "freedom.") -Justin (koavf), talk 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have heard that too, but (not arguing your point) it seems that the destruction of words makes people less emotional which lead to the apathy seen in 1984. I think that George Orwell was trying to say that total demoralization in the value of lives would lead to the world represented in 1984. Examples of such demoralization include the movie that the people were watching and laughing at while women and children were being killed and the destruction of emotions through words.--JP 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Smart Idiot


Zamyatin and Orwell

The extent of Zamyatin’s influence on Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has been much debated. Orwell admitted that he was interested in such books and had been making notes for something along those lines. However, in his 4 January 1946 review of WE in Tribune, he states: ‘The first thing anyone would notice about WE is the fact - never pointed out, I believe - that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World must be partly derived from it.’ In a letter to F.J. Warburg on 30 March 1949, he also remarks: ‘I think Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World must be plagiarised from (WE) to some extent...’ Clearly it is unthinkable that Orwell would consciously set out to do the self-same thing, but nowadays it is his book which seems to have the more striking parallels with Zamyatin’s novel.Huxley, incidentally, always denied having read WE.

Good judges have generally rated Zamyatin the superior artist, particularly in his use of ironic humour. Zamyatin’s hero D-503, unlike Orwell’s Winston Smith, is actually an enthusiastic supporter of the One State and it is with comic horror that he finds himself subsiding haplessly into heterodoxy. Some plot elements are obviously common to both works: their heroes keep incriminating diaries for example; Zamyatin’s Guardians are Orwell’s Thought Police; love is posited as an irrational but humanising passion set within a milieu of political authoritarianism; both heroes find themselves temporarily outside their world, in a haven where love can flourish undisturbed; both are eventually crushed in similar ‘scientific’ fashion by the apparatus they have challenged, and both turn into submissive shells to demonstrate that the final horror is not hatred, but indifference. Orwell’s Winston and Julia can meet without emotion; D-503 can watch his lover destroyed without a qualm.

There are, however, also important points of difference between the novels. Orwell saw Zamyatin as having strong leanings towards primitivism: the free, hairy folk outside the green wall of Zamyatin’s One State are preferable to the monstrously rational, dehumanised activity within. Orwell has reservations here. His equivalent primitives, the ‘proles’ he finds frightening in their energy. Described wholly from the outside and utterly undifferentiated (the ‘middle classes’ are all individuals), they are huge, even bloated, despite starvation conditions. Their animality (‘mare-like buttocks’) strikes Winston as beautiful, but ‘they have no mind’ and are content to absorb an endless diet of pornography, violence and sport. A grimmer symbol than Boxer in Animal Farm, one feels they reflect Orwell’s resigned view of the majority of his fellows. Even if one day the proles somehow overthrow the Party, the world would hardly be more congenial to Winston.

Zamyatin’s D-503 may be crushed, but unlike Winston he is not alone: the rebellious ‘Mephis’ are very numerous and the end of the book shows them still undefeated - according well with the famous remark in the novel that just as there is no final number, so there can be no final revolution.

Ultimately, perhaps, what draws the books together is a fundamental similarity of philosophical approach. Orwell says of Zamyatin in his Tribune review:

‘The guiding principle of his State is that happiness and freedom are incompatible... The Single State has restored happiness by removing their freedom.’ This view probably derives, in its modern formulation, from Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor in The Karamazov Brothers. [Dostoevsky also plays with the 2+2=5 concept] Orwell’s Grand Inquisitor, O’Brien, similarly considers that ‘the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better.’

Orwell thought that WE, written in 1923 as he supposed, was unlikely to be aimed at Stalinist dictatorship: ‘What Zamyatin seems to be aiming at is not any particular country but the implied aims of industrial civilisation.‘ Zamyatin himself in an interview given in 1932, after he had emigrated from the USSR, claimed: ’This novel signals the danger threatening man, mankind, from the hypertrophy of the power of the machine and the power of the state - any state’. Nor need he have been disingenuous about this. We are better aware than Orwell was of the use of terror under Lenin, of course, and though the book was in fact banned in 1921, the first to suffer this fate under the new Soviet censorship Glavlit, it had circulated in Petrograd literary circles before that, and the first draft dates to 1919 in fact. A perusal of the two novellas Zamyatin wrote in Newcastle in 1916-17 and published in Russia in 1918 (described as ’remarkable in every way’ by Martin Amis) makes it clear that WE is simply the same vision of a static, imposed uniformity nightmarishly developed and extended. That Lenin and the Bolsheviks fitted the pattern was certainly clear to Glavlit in 1921, and recent research has shown that the figure of the Benefactor is indubitably based on Lenin, but the pattern itself, and its informing philosophy was established years earlier and owes much to Zamyatin‘s Newcastle experience.

Incidentally the word 'prole' is first used, I believe by Jack London in The Iron Heel (1908). It is also used by Orwell's Newcastle friend of the '30s Jack Common.

Orwell's wife Eileen O'Shaughnessy from South Shields on Tyneside worked at the Ministry of Food during WWII and Bernard Crick, in his biography of Orwell, considers that the Ministry of Truth owes as much to her experience as to Orwell's at the BBC. Her input to the book should not be disregarded.

See my Zamyatin research at http:/pages.britishlibrary.net/alan.myers


Bandalore 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the article

(I am referring to this edit). Ackk, don't be so hasty to trim the article of content! The parallels with real-world fascism are one of the main points of the book and should not be trimmed out because of length concerns. Anyway, when an article gets too long, you don't just start slashing it left and right, you break it up into subsections. I think a "History of Nineteen Eight-Four" or something page might be warranted. Just don't go excising important content. --Cyde Weys 11:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is far too much original research in this article. What was taken out in that edit is a very good example of the problem. In my opinion, it needs a lot of trimming indeed. Robin Johnson 11:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nineteen_Eighty-Four/Archive_3&oldid=1137047089"