... The character in it reads a whole chapter of another fictional book right inside it. Maybe even two.
(1984 - I am looking at you!)
Tags:
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Comments
erm... no. Why?
And if the blog post was not clear enough - in the book 1984, the guy actually reads out two chapters from another fictional book.
That is as great as having a book start "I went to the bbc news website and the headline was "Tory MP quits post over expenses" I was intrigued so I clicked on the title, Conservative MP Andrew MacKay has quit as parliamentary aide to David Cameron over what the party said was an "unacceptable" expenses claim. Mr Cameron has said all Tory MPs must be able to defend their allowance claims after a series of damaging allegations about MPs' claims..."
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It's not pretentious because the whole book is so obviously a philosophic postulation of totalitarian oligarchies, as such the educated reader understands that the fictional book is actually a device employed to serve no other purpose than to counter the arguments of Ingsoc and provide a voice of sanity. The true heineousness of the Ingsoc system is revealed when it is revealed that the real writer of the book O Brian (and be sure that if it's not this O brian then it's the archetypal O Brian that the specific O Brian is merely a metaphor for) constructed these sane arguments with understanding of their import and yet still remained very much insane.
It also serves to inspire the books protagonist and giuve him faith in the face of malevolent doctrine. I would say that the reading of the chapters is not pretentious, rather it is the voice of Orwell defiantly declaring all that is wrong with Ingsoc and those real world leaders who find much of Ingsoc to be a reflection of their own ideologies.
Pretty deep for a writer of talking-animal stories. :badgrin:
As a note: Ingsoc is a shortened form of English Socialism just like Nazi was a shortenened form off National Socialism.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
1984 is a brilliant book
It's a bit preachy and IMO it gets a few important things wrong.
I personally do not think the level of totalitarianism shown in that book is possible to be sustained over a long period of time, no matter how much technology is used.
And killing people AFTER making them true believers is stupid and a waste of resources. (Saying that, I did get the point being made that anyone can be broken.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
When the main character's personality is over described.
well yeah it was slighly exaggerated
but ur also forgetting the soviet union, a totalitarian regime existed for soooo long!
Totalitarian yes, but not to the same degree (though maybe the lack of technology was a factor?) and it fell.
Look on the other side - the US. They play it nicely with most of their own citizens atleast, and they are still standing - even though their ideology of capitalism has failed over the past year.
My major problem with the book was not that totalitarian regimes cannot exist (they can), but that the one depicted was wasting energy in futile ways - for instance only killing "dissidents" after they have been broken to such a degree that they start to believe in the regime.
If someone is going to topple a totalitarian regime, unless the regime is extremely weak or incompetent, it will be toppled from the top instead of the bottom - probably with the right hand of the leadership, the side that is normally used to keep others in line.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Reading 1984. On Page 32 so far (usually I'm a faster reader).
But so far I am beginning to get hang of the concept and it kind of reminds me of the dictatorship and Adolf Hitler even though, I'm not sure who the dictator is and who Big Brother is.
Reading the comments on this blog is not helping.
Dude, you're SO naive!! Take the wool from over your eyes!!
Aldous Huxley said (in the '40s!) that an oppressive/totalitarian govt wouldn't ever be able to exist for a long time, because people wouldn't stand for it and it would be too difficult/costly to have large repressive agents of social control (police/army etc).
SO... a totalitarian govt with nous would make people like/choose/accept their position without argument - this would be done by 'selling' the idea to them so they felt like they weren't being oppressed. This is clear to see in many parts of the world today. Institutions such as the Family, Schools and the Media are sometimes described as 'ideological state apparatus' for this reason (i.e. they condition us into contentedly accepting the status quo).
Was it Orwell who said that a smart dictatorship would remove words such as 'Freedom' and 'Justice' from the dictionary, thereby removing the concepts themselves from people's minds? I don't think that's necessary - it's easier to constantly drum into people's skulls that 'Choice is Good' and (parallel to that) 'Choice means private healthcare' (or whatever). Another example might be 'Freedom is Good' being taught alongside 'Muslims hate Freedom'. If you change the meanings of words (or at least put lots of connotations with other things into the meanings of the words), then it's a good way to control a large population.
Hey, at least in Syria people were scared to complain about the government because they were frightened they'd 'disappear' if they were overheard by the secret police - in Britain people just complain and then don't do anything about it - blinded into thinking that democracy actually gives us a choice in how we are governed.
But there are no such thing as lizard men.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
would "pretend happiness" be different from real happiness?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I'd like to think so.
Like the way hunters used to catch wolves. They'd stick a knife in the snow, with the blade pointing upwards, and the wolf would smell the blood and come for a drink. As the wolf licked the blade it would cut it's tongue but not realise it, and then it would keep on drinking and drinking, thinking it was having a lovely meal, all the while it was slowly bleeding itself to death.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
also, most people are blind to the real, human cost of their 'happiness'. i.e exploitation of people in other countries to make it possible for us to live this way.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
That is clever! Is it real?
This is a bigger problem.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
As far as I know. It's also a pretty accurate metaphor for free-market capitalism, if you ask me.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Halfway through - really enjoying the book