I have no idea... but I really kinda like this book. It gives a whole new appreciation for what we take for granted. The love of our parents, our right to be our own people, even our right to be alone. it's incredible (in a bad way)just what all Big Brother/ the Party is able to controll-what we say, how we act, even making us fear a simple twitch in our eye or drifting off into thought. I don't know how far into this others are, but I'm at the start of chapter 7, where it was just revealed that the Party even controlls your marrage life. This is all just a long rant saying that there are so many things we take for granted, up to and including our humanity, that we could just think about. not even act on it, just think on it.
So personally this book just left me feeling really mad, and very glad that we don't live in a world like that. The governing body surpresses any human emotion that anyone might have. Then if they don't like it when you do something they go in and brainwash you and tell you "We're going to "cure" you, but after we go through all this work to "cure" you we're just going to kill you anyway." This society really made me think of the Nazis except that they don't really seem to care what you look like. It makes me very glad that we live in America and are allowed to have the freedoms that we do.
So I just stumbled across the part on page 156 (middle of the page) where it says of Julia, 'She knew when to cheer and when to boo, and that was all one needed.' I thought about how much that relates to our lives even today, that people cheer and boo and walk away, about how much we put on masks, and that it doesn't matter how close you are to a person, you can't know every detail about their life (unless you're religious and believe in God, 'cause He does know). Some may say that the best thing to do would be to cheer and boo and move along and go through life as best you can, but then there are others ... I'm not sure if anyone will understand what I'm saying, but at least think on that quote.
In reference to Mr. Cowboycovell's comment about 'cures' and killing, I suggest you look again at page 255. In reading it then dwelling upon it, I realized that what they did was look at the past where it was at the hands of the ruler/s that the enemy died. The point of the party's process is to make the enemy into one of them; so much so that they beg to be killed for their crimes, and then they die at their own hands, making the Party completely blameless. At least, this is what I see...
After just a little bit of reading the book, I noticed a couple of things.
1) What do you think about orwell's style? If you've ever read animal farm, you would probably notice how similar the two books are in style. Do you think that orwell's style adds or detracts to the awesomeness of the book?
2) Do you guys think the book should be written in third person? It seems to me that a lot of what the narrator says is what winston is thinking. Personally, I believe that it would be better in first person.
So i think that the book wasn't only trying to describe on how the world would be with Oligarchical Collectivism, but also try to explain a little bit about human nature. Winston has all of these different view of the party as the book progresses and acts like a human today, until he finally practices double think in the end. The progression of the world stopped as the party retarded the human mind in making a uniform society. My question is- is that possible to create uniform minds like the party planned in the long run? (disregarding the "higher" and "lower" minds discriminating inner party from the proles)? With the different personalities we all have, was the whole long term idea of 1984 plausible?
I just finished reading the part where O'Brien turns against Winston and was kind of confused about what type of person O'Brien really was. Even though O'Brien was mentally abusing Winston, i think that he shared the same ideas as Winston. O'Brien may use working for the party as a cover up to what he really thinks.
He may dislike Big Brother and the ways of the Party, but he, like all the rest, are afraid of what could happen to him if he got caught for thought crime and such. I think that O'Brien wanted to please the Party to ensure that he didn't get into trouble. So,he used people like Winston and Julia to make himself feel safe, even though inside, he may envy the people who stick up for themselves.
You could also look at O'Brien the other way. As someone who really liked the Party and was dead set upon helping to make the society unpleasent. But to me, O'Brien didn't seem like that sort of person. He seemed like the intelligent type, who could see past the ways of Big Brother. Then again, he could have just been the sheep absent mindedly following the shepherd.
Well I finished reading 1984 and I have to say this book had a better ending than most books I've read. The government in 1984 is really something. I think the thing that made the most difference is their language. Newspeak is a really interesting idea. I wonder if the loss of words for a concept could really make it go away. I never really gave it much thought before, but I do think in words... so if the words for the things I'm thinking aren't there can I still think? I guess not. That is so bizarre.
Over all I liked 1984, it was thought provoking and, as Meri said, it gave me a new appreciation for our government. Surely (unless we were Proles) we'd all be vaporized if we lived in 1984.
I read this book near the beginning of summer, but the chapter that stuck out the most to me was Chapter 3 of The Brotherhood's Book, "War is Peace". I think this section had a very deep, but understandable meaning behind it. It told how through the act of war, the utopian society could function in it's oblivious way, and economy and society stayed the same. It was my favorite part to read of the book, and after doing so I felt a little like becoming a utopian dictator.
I started and finished 1984. It was creative for sure, but I found it pretty bleak and dark. I just started looking at this part of the blog and found some really great questions that I had to throw answers at.
One is, “What do you think about Orwell's style?” I do not like his style. I find it to be very tiresome and hard to read.
The next is, “Do you guys think the book should be written in third person?” For what it is, I think that third person is the best person for this book.
Another is, “With the different personalities we all have, was the whole long term idea of 1984 plausible?” It is indeed plausible, and has been done before, although not to such an extent as written in this book. Look at Russia’s history. Under Lenin, Stalin and others that I don’t know so well, doublethink was the only way to LIVE. The thought police were real and the people didn’t have the freedom to think what they wanted.
The last one I saw was, “What do you all think is the general cause of oppression from any given government?” I think that oppression comes from men with greed for power. Greed is a disease and no matter how much of the something that you have it will never be enough with greed by your side.
13 comments:
I have no idea... but I really kinda like this book. It gives a whole new appreciation for what we take for granted. The love of our parents, our right to be our own people, even our right to be alone. it's incredible (in a bad way)just what all Big Brother/ the Party is able to controll-what we say, how we act, even making us fear a simple twitch in our eye or drifting off into thought. I don't know how far into this others are, but I'm at the start of chapter 7, where it was just revealed that the Party even controlls your marrage life. This is all just a long rant saying that there are so many things we take for granted, up to and including our humanity, that we could just think about. not even act on it, just think on it.
So personally this book just left me feeling really mad, and very glad that we don't live in a world like that. The governing body surpresses any human emotion that anyone might have. Then if they don't like it when you do something they go in and brainwash you and tell you "We're going to "cure" you, but after we go through all this work to "cure" you we're just going to kill you anyway." This society really made me think of the Nazis except that they don't really seem to care what you look like. It makes me very glad that we live in America and are allowed to have the freedoms that we do.
So I just stumbled across the part on page 156 (middle of the page) where it says of Julia, 'She knew when to cheer and when to boo, and that was all one needed.' I thought about how much that relates to our lives even today, that people cheer and boo and walk away, about how much we put on masks, and that it doesn't matter how close you are to a person, you can't know every detail about their life (unless you're religious and believe in God, 'cause He does know). Some may say that the best thing to do would be to cheer and boo and move along and go through life as best you can, but then there are others ... I'm not sure if anyone will understand what I'm saying, but at least think on that quote.
In reference to Mr. Cowboycovell's comment about 'cures' and killing, I suggest you look again at page 255. In reading it then dwelling upon it, I realized that what they did was look at the past where it was at the hands of the ruler/s that the enemy died. The point of the party's process is to make the enemy into one of them; so much so that they beg to be killed for their crimes, and then they die at their own hands, making the Party completely blameless. At least, this is what I see...
After just a little bit of reading the book, I noticed a couple of things.
1) What do you think about orwell's style? If you've ever read animal farm, you would probably notice how similar the two books are in style. Do you think that orwell's style adds or detracts to the awesomeness of the book?
2) Do you guys think the book should be written in third person? It seems to me that a lot of what the narrator says is what winston is thinking. Personally, I believe that it would be better in first person.
So i think that the book wasn't only trying to describe on how the world would be with Oligarchical Collectivism, but also try to explain a little bit about human nature. Winston has all of these different view of the party as the book progresses and acts like a human today, until he finally practices double think in the end. The progression of the world stopped as the party retarded the human mind in making a uniform society. My question is- is that possible to create uniform minds like the party planned in the long run? (disregarding the "higher" and "lower" minds discriminating inner party from the proles)? With the different personalities we all have, was the whole long term idea of 1984 plausible?
I just finished reading the part where O'Brien turns against Winston and was kind of confused about what type of person O'Brien really was. Even though O'Brien was mentally abusing Winston, i think that he shared the same ideas as Winston. O'Brien may use working for the party as a cover up to what he really thinks.
He may dislike Big Brother and the ways of the Party, but he, like all the rest, are afraid of what could happen to him if he got caught for thought crime and such. I think that O'Brien wanted to please the Party to ensure that he didn't get into trouble. So,he used people like Winston and Julia to make himself feel safe, even though inside, he may envy the people who stick up for themselves.
You could also look at O'Brien the other way. As someone who really liked the Party and was dead set upon helping to make the society unpleasent. But to me, O'Brien didn't seem like that sort of person. He seemed like the intelligent type, who could see past the ways of Big Brother. Then again, he could have just been the sheep absent mindedly following the shepherd.
What do you all think is the general cause of oppression from any given government?
Well I finished reading 1984 and I have to say this book had a better ending than most books I've read. The government in 1984 is really something. I think the thing that made the most difference is their language. Newspeak is a really interesting idea. I wonder if the loss of words for a concept could really make it go away. I never really gave it much thought before, but I do think in words... so if the words for the things I'm thinking aren't there can I still think? I guess not. That is so bizarre.
Over all I liked 1984, it was thought provoking and, as Meri said, it gave me a new appreciation for our government. Surely (unless we were Proles) we'd all be vaporized if we lived in 1984.
I read this book near the beginning of summer, but the chapter that stuck out the most to me was Chapter 3 of The Brotherhood's Book, "War is Peace".
I think this section had a very deep, but understandable meaning behind it. It told how through the act of war, the utopian society could function in it's oblivious way, and economy and society stayed the same. It was my favorite part to read of the book, and after doing so I felt a little like becoming a utopian dictator.
I started and finished 1984. It was creative for sure, but I found it pretty bleak and dark. I just started looking at this part of the blog and found some really great questions that I had to throw answers at.
One is, “What do you think about Orwell's style?” I do not like his style. I find it to be very tiresome and hard to read.
The next is, “Do you guys think the book should be written in third person?” For what it is, I think that third person is the best person for this book.
Another is, “With the different personalities we all have, was the whole long term idea of 1984 plausible?” It is indeed plausible, and has been done before, although not to such an extent as written in this book. Look at Russia’s history. Under Lenin, Stalin and others that I don’t know so well, doublethink was the only way to LIVE. The thought police were real and the people didn’t have the freedom to think what they wanted.
The last one I saw was, “What do you all think is the general cause of oppression from any given government?” I think that oppression comes from men with greed for power. Greed is a disease and no matter how much of the something that you have it will never be enough with greed by your side.
Post a Comment