1984 is one of the classic examples of dystopian literature, and was chosen among the TIME Magazine's Top 100 Novels of the Century. Terms from the novel have now become common usage in contemporary lives, such as 'Big Brother', 'Thought Police', 'Room 101' and even 'Orwellian' based on the author- George Orwell.
Although named as 1984- a Novel, it is much more than an ordinary novel. Viewed as a political satire and as a commentary against English socialism, Orwell rejected it and said it was mainly his concern for a purely totalarian world following World War 2, and the Nascent Cold War which propelled him to write the novel. Orwell considers it “a warning, not a prophecy. I set the story in Britain to show that English-speaking countries are not above happenings of this kind: that totalianarism, if not fought against, can triumph anywhere”. Some believe it was Orwell's prophecy for the year 1984, while some believe it to be the reversal of the last 2 digits of the year in which it was written- 1948, there are many other possibilities regarding the name such as centenary of the socialist Fabian society founded in 1884, or the poem 'End of the Century, 1984' by his first wife.
1984 is written as a third-person narrative, although Orwell often makes huge digressions to get us into the mind of the protagonist- Winston Smith. Divided into three parts, each part has been written in a different tone. The first part introduces the reader with the political setting- the land of Oceania, the Party, its ideologies- Ingsoc, the language it uses- Newspeak and its hideous policies of Thought Police, Doublethink, Crimestop in a very calm manner, without making it seem repellant in the text. The slogans of the party are repeated at regular intervals such as “Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength”, which in effect familiarizes the reader with the world of Oceania allowing him to dwell in it. The contradictions of the world are reflected where Ministry of Truth falsifies past, Ministry of Peace indulges in War and suchlike. The pervasive image of Big Brother with moving eyes accompanied by the line “Big Brother is Watching You” serves as a constant reminder about the scrutinization of activities, words and even thoughts by an authority who never reveals himself. Lack of trust between any two members is evident as the Party members are bred with a hatred towards enemies, whose existence is questionable till the end of the novel. Throughout this part, the tone is that of constant fear, of being overheard, of deprived freedom with intermittent intrusions of hope, such as when he visits the proles “If there's some hope, it lies in the proles”.
The second part of the novel has a completely different tone, although the same setting. The tired protagonist desperately searches for some hope to instill a revolution, and search for like-minded people. In one of the “Inner Party” members- O'Brien he expects a similar hatred towards the party, but only on the basis of instincts and no firm beliefs, since it is impossible to have one. In this part, he comes across the girl he despised earlier- Julia, just to start loving her endlessly here. The change in tone
The third part robs the novel from the developing prospect of a revolt, when Winston has been arrested for committing “Thought Crimes” along with Julia, although they never see each other. The tone of the novel gets darker even than the first part, as the setting is in the prisons of Ministry of Love which deals with torture to the criminals. Apart from mental harassment and lack of freedom, here he is subjected to physical harrowing in attempts not of confessions, but to rectify his memory and get him to “love Big Brother”. There is no hope whatsoever in the writing style, and each page directs the reader towards a more horrible state than before, as the Party declares hatred and its propagation apart from retention of power immortally as its sole aim. The troubling diktat of the Party is heard "Who controls the future, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past". There are scenes of shock, when Winston can't identify himself, instances when he cries for mercy, in pain and the final scene of torture when he pleads to transfer his torture to Julia. Pessimism surpasses all the precedented levels, as Winston's rebellion has diffused by the end of the novel.
Thus, Orwell writes in varying tones being able to bring forward his concerns to the audience in a devastating manner, making the possibility of a totalitarian world seem so real and leaving the audience terrified through the much appreciated piece of art.
Siddharth Bhattacharya
2008MT50461
sidadidas@gmail.com
09953327714
www.messingtheunmessed.blogspot.com
It was a long time ago when I first came across this novel. Maybe, I was too naïve at that time to get the full import of “1984”, but I remember having this feeling of being divulged by a torrent of apparently alien words like – ingsoc, newspeak, thoughtcrime, proles and so on and so forth.
ReplyDeleteWhat else hit me was the immense power vested in the ‘Big Brother’ to CONTROL ever thing in relation to the Party-members. So we have Winston exercising or cheering or shouting as and when commanded by the loud-speakers. Also, the idea of the telescreens taking in every movement, every word spoken – really freaked me out.
Not only the activities but even the language and history and news-records were altered (revised) - as and when deemed necessary by the Party. This clearly demonstrates the concept of ‘one, who controls the present, controls the past ’.
It was only when I had plodded through a considerable part of it that I began to have an active interest in the life of Winston Smith – our hero. He still has something of a rebel in his heart. And as he starts the love affair with Julia (another Party member), we are brought to the edge of our seats – not knowing if and when he will be caught and turned into an “unperson” for his “crimethink”.
He does get caught. His stint in the Ministry of Love, where he is systematically brain-washed and de-sensitized in ‘Room No 101’, culminates in his complete breaking-in symbolized by his betrayal of Julia.
One may ask how it is that just about no one happens to see through. And therein lays the beauty with which Orwell created this dystopian world. Nobody rebels because NOBODY KNOWS the wretchedness of their existence. The propaganda has been carried out with such thoroughness and vigor that people never get to know their state of ‘willing enslavement’. Moreover, in the State-controlled media they have nothing else to compare with.
The uniformity of opinion, the Party-controlled ‘frenzy and insanity’ , the unending WAR, against an Enemy one is never sure of who’s existence and a perpetual state of want - all form a very cheerless and depressing picture. One is left to wonder, with trepidation, whether all this may not become our reality.
HELISH SHARMA
2009PH10744
1984
ReplyDeleteI think that the review of 1984 was very well written, with most of the major points being covered, especially the literary styles in different parts of the novel (which I did not notice while reading it).
However, One thing that I felt is a little underrated in the review is about the message that the author wants to send across. Orwell's hatred of communism is well known, and both his two famous works ('1984' and 'Animal Farm') portray a very negative image of Communism. Both contain events that corresspond directly to the rise of communism in Russia (see http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm). In this context, I find 1984 very similar to works of Ayn Rand, because they tell a story mainly to push across a philosophy to readers.
Another concept, that is somewhat specific to this course, is how time is presented in Goldstein's book. Goldstein first notes that the structure of society remains essentially the same across time, i.e. having 3 classes having essentially the same characteristics and all changes in such structure being superficial. He then argues that the current political structure is a very stable political system, which will never end. Thus, he is presenting the same repetitive view of time as Marquez in Hundred Years.
Speaking as a huge fan of 1984, I must say that 1984 is most memorable not for it's story, but rather the political theory that Orwell expounds.
Apoorv Gupta
2007CS10160
B. Tech, IIT Delhi
@Helish : 'One may ask how it is that just about no one happens to see through.'
ReplyDeleteThis is a fact, which I feel, is true even in real life. If we think about it, do we really know the truth of what is happening outside the little campus area we live in? Just yesterday, a 'terrorist' was caught in a 'shootout' near IIT. The newspaper reported it so, but that does not make it true.
We don't know the truth about the naxals, or about Kashmir, or about Arunachal Prasad, or the Khalistan movement. Whatever we know about these things is what we have read in the papers, and may or may not be true. After all, all journalists are human beings and may be influenced by feelings of patriotism or regionalism etc.
Another point that I should have maybe mentioned beore is how much 1984 seems like China under Chairman Mao to me. (I am going upon the wikipedia page on Mao here). Mao ordered everybody to start iron production in villages, and iron was produced in very small proportion of bad quality. Nobody wanted to admit mistakes, so they over-reported the iron production. "Mao's policies and political purges from 1949 to 1976 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 to 70 million people."
Hey Apoorv,
ReplyDeleteLet me point out, if you read pages on Orwell he makes it very clear he is not anti-Communist. You must learn better in life, to distinguish between communism and tyranny.
Even, Trotsky (Snowball in Animal Farm) had Communist views, and so did Lenin and Marx. It was just Stalin he hated, since he happened to work under his regime. He has stated often, he is "not anti-communist".
I would protest in comparing this with Ayn Rand. Personally, whatever Ayn Rand writes I am not impressed with it. She is more self-righteous.
I would sometime later explain (after majors) what separates the two, and why they are in entirely separate leagues.
(In brief, I believe Ayn Rand was far more shortsighted than Orwell)
Another point is, as you said reporters are human and can be biased by feelings of patriotism and region.
I would like to point out, above these they are biased by commercialization and write what the reader wants to listen.