Didn't really enjoy it. Not only did it fail to really change any of my current viewpoints, especially regarding privacy, it actually reinforced some of them as well--and never in the book's favor. Even as an entertainment piece, I felt the story was very boring and predictable (who didn't suspect O'Brien to be part of the Thought Police all along?), and I honestly had a lot of trouble stomaching some of the more preachy and pandering bits. I hated all of the characters--every single one, especially Julia--so it was hard to care for or sympathize with basically anyone, making for a very emotionally draining read. The one thing I got from the story itself was that it simply made my misanthropy grow ever stronger.

That aside, I wanted to talk about some of the book's major themes, because why not. I ended up disliking a lot more of its aspects than I liked, and of course, this book is absolutely adored by pretty much everybody else, so it's probably worth it to hear some other people's perspectives on the book.

First of all, to the book's credit, I went into reading it with a number of prejudices in mind:
1. Everyone in Winston's world is being watched, 24/7.
2. This book is anti-communist/anti-socialist.

Of course, both of these things are false. Not everyone is watched--only government officials are. 80% of London (or Airstrip-One, whatever) are proles who are essentially "free" from the Party's watch. Or at least, that's how I understood it. The government officials aren't even watched 24/7--or at least, Winston isn't sure about it. They could be, but it's made clear that he is uncertain, and that he's always living in fear and paranoia because of it.

The book itself isn't anti-communist or anti-socialist at all--indeed, Orwell himself was a committed democratic socialist. What it is, simply, is anti-totalitarian. The political leanings of the Party aren't really made clear, and I'm assuming that's done on purpose (I mean... its called "The Party"), and that Orwell wasn't really trying to attack any one political ideology with this story. So that was a relief.

However, what I really, really disliked were the ways in which Orwell went about "warning" us  about this totalitarian regime that could "feasibly" consume America if we're not careful.

Instead of focusing on the worst aspects of the Party's regime, Orwell spent a lotm more time writing literary polemic about "muh privacy" and "muh sexual desires." Some of the most cringeworthy lines that stuck out in my head the most are the ones where Winston is pitifully lamenting about the fact that he's always (potentially) being watched by all the tele-screens everywhere, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for him. I'm supposed to feel all scared and afraid of that prospect. I'm supposed to care about my privacy.

Well, I don't, Orwell.

Sorry, but fuck privacy. To this day, I still want government cameras everywhere, watching everything and everyone, at all times. That sounds like an excellent idea to me. No criminal, none at all, would ever be able to get away with any sort of crime ever again--it would just be a matter of catching them.

Don't like being watched? Stop breaking the fucking law, then.
You're not breaking the law? Then you have nothing to worry about.

Of course, the book makes attempts at countering that sort of mindset by making the Party's policies impossibly ridiculous, with the introduction of the Thought Police. The Thought Police watchfully observe the tele-screen and pay special attention to everybody. Instead of only acting when they actually see someone committing a crime, Orwell decides to go full retard, and makes the Thought Police act out even if they see somebody make the slightest facial twitch. Once they've noticed that you twitched your face, they will capture you at night, and you will be "vaporized", never to be seen again, because you potentially thought an "ungood" thought. Facial twitches are suspicious.

...This is... supposed to be... believable.

Well, it isn't. This is called paranoia fuel, and it's essentially all the story boils down to.

The constant fear-mongering by Orwell was infuriatingly pandering, and I hated it. I hated how I was supposed to be on Winston's side, and I hated having my emotions manipulated for the sake of getting me on his side. If you care about your privacy in the sense that you'd have a problem with the government watching you everywhere, it's hard for me to think of you as a rational person, instead of a frightened little child. Assuming the government has good intentions (and why in the fuck wouldn't they), there is no reason to fret, unless you are a criminal. Orwell CONVENIENTLY makes his government corrupt as possible to the point of sheer unrealistic-ness. The Thought Police is not, in any way, realistic. They're a total contrivance designed solely to fear-monger, and fuck that. Fuck privacy. I do not fear Big Brother, and neither should you.

The other big topic I really got sick of was this disgusting pro-sex mentality that the book seems to have. Julia is an unlikable character because she's a disgusting skank, and she doesn't care. While she hates the Party for the same reasons Winston does, she ultimately is a self-serving cunt--using sex as a symbol for rebellion, but really, at the end of the day, she just likes having sex.

Why does sex have to be in everything? The Party had it backwards, sure--sex should be done only for recreation, not to reproduce. Otherwise, the anti-sex policy is actually a good idea, too. So again, the book fails to convince me in any way that I should agree with it. I'm just supposed to pretend like having sex is a great way to rebel against your government, and that it's okay to use women as sex objects to fuel some kind of limp, impotent agenda. Yes, I said "sex object". Even from a feminist perspective, the book didn't do anything for me.

Not everything about the book sucked, though. One aspect of the Party that I think we can all agree is evil, stupid, and well-executed story-wise is the Ministry of Truth, the place Winston works at. His job is to "rectify" news articles that contain "ungood" or "doubleplusungood" content, like, for example, containing mentions of peoples dubbed "unpersons" by the Party. In the event of a mentioned unperson, Winston is ordered to delete that information and replace it with a bunch of nonsense in support of the Party. Additionally, if the Party ever fucks up internationally, with the war going on, Winston is ordered to make it seem like they actually did something good. That's a little fucked up, and I wish the story focused more on this aspect more than it did anything else, because not only is it evil, it actually kinda seems feasible in a totalitarian state. Haven't Hitler and Stalin taken similar measures doing their reign? With censored photographs and rewritten news articles and such.

I felt like the concept of Newspeak was silly and pointless. The idea behind Newspeak is to eliminate all synonyms and words that have negative connotations. Therefore, nothing is "bad"--they are "ungood". The stupid thing about this system is that it gives words like "ungood" negative connotation simply by its meaning. I'm not sure if that's the point, and the Party is supposed to be myopic like that, but it just seemed kinda pointless, and just another way to contrive more fear and anxiety and paranoia.

Those were the biggest things I wanted to talk about, anyway. Overall, I found the book to be deeply unsatisfactory, but I never really had any good expectations going in. Perhaps some of the users here could shed some light onto Orwell's genius, because clearly, I don't see it.

TL;DR

1984 is an emotionally-charged, fear-mongering book that tries too hard to make you paranoid, and utterly fails if you consider yourself an intelligent person. While some aspects of the totalitarian state were actually easy to be against, the book failed to shake me from any of my current ideological practices. I still think privacy is for scared criminals only.

Quote

Sorry, but fuck privacy. To this day, I still want government cameras everywhere, watching everything and everyone, at all times. That sounds like an excellent idea to me. No criminal, none at all, would ever be able to get away with any sort of crime ever again--it would just be a matter of catching them.

Don't like being watched? Stop breaking the fucking law, then.
You're not breaking the law? Then you have nothing to worry about.

So unjust laws should be followed and not broken?

Yes.

If you don't like the law, change the law.

Don't break the law.

It astounds me why you haven't just killed yourself yet seeing as how little enjoyment you garner from life.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 14, 2015, 07:57:36 PM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 14, 2015, 07:53:03 PM

fuck off with your totalitarian police state bullshit

I'm sorry that you can't own a lobster.

God you're a such a dumb fucking piece of shit. I sincerely hope you fucking blow your brains out.

LOL

What did you think of Winston's conversation with O'Brien? That and the ending itself were the highlights tbh.

Have you read Brave New World? IMO much better counterpart that tackles similar topics, save doublethink. 1984 was really only interesting on that subject, everything else more or less served to establish the concept.

Anti-communism is a great thing

Quote from: eggsalad on October 14, 2015, 08:38:41 PM

Have you read Brave New World? Much better counterpart that tackles similar topics, save doublethink. 1984 was really only interesting on that subject, everything else more or less served to establish the concept.

Doublethink was an interesting concept, I'll give him that. Brave New World is next on my agenda, but after reading the premise, I have to wonder what makes it better than 1984.

Huxley is a much more poetic writer and although people are quick to describe the world as a dystopia it doesn't exist solely to torture those inside it. While EngSoc was an entity that exists outside anyone's moral boundaries, the order in BNW is something I can sympathize with and I think you might too. The conflict arises from broken characters in an orderly world as opposed to the opposite in 1984.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 14, 2015, 08:40:47 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 14, 2015, 08:38:41 PM

Have you read Brave New World? Much better counterpart that tackles similar topics, save doublethink. 1984 was really only interesting on that subject, everything else more or less served to establish the concept.

Doublethink was an interesting concept, I'll give him that. Brave New World is next on my agenda, but after reading the premise, I have to wonder what makes people think I'll like it more than 1984.

Because while 1984 really doesn't mesh with your values (in combination with its over-the-top setting), BNW revolves around the ideas of struggle and literature instead of privacy and totalitarianism.

I feel like BNW observes government in a much more mature light than 1984. 1984 assumes the most malicious of all intents is the core of the ruling powers, while BNW realizes that government is a reflection of the people's true values. Sometimes those collective values conflict with other values held by the people.

And man those last two lines got me thinking about the ending of Stalker again. If you guys like artsy movies you should watch it.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 14, 2015, 08:43:20 PM

What started as just mindless sex between the two ended up developing into a genuine love; otherwise, I doubt Julia would have gone as far as she did otherwise. Then, at the very end, they feel absolutely nothing for each other. There was no going back for them, and we're straight up told what's going to happen to them. Winston broke, and we get to hear it for a chapter in that perspective. I realize you weren't fond of the premise, but having someone you've been following for some hundred and something odd pages give in during the final stretch is something that isn't done all that often, and that's probably why it had such an effect. He, in every sense of the word, lost in his struggle that he's had since the beginning of the book.

O'Brien is highly intelligent, and he makes sure not to hide that in his chat with Winston; he knows exactly what's going on in the world and whole-heartedly believes it's the right thing. Even worse, Winston can't even argue against him besides saying "you're just wrong!". I don't know, maybe it's the same as the reason why I liked the ending, but you don't see the protagonist losing those kind of motivation-defining arguments very often.

That's all well and good, but I don't automatically like things just because they're done different, you know what I mean? Like I said--I totally suspected O'Brien was part of the Thought Police almost right out of the gate. When the reveal came, it just gave me an eye roll.

As for the Julia thing, I guess that was executed pretty well, but I mean... I hated their relationship anyway.

Now that I think about it it really did feel incredibly unnatural. I think I let it pass because of how unnatural the world felt.

Orwell tends to make things morally one-sided.
You should read Animal Farm (short allegory story you can do it in one sitting), at least there you can sympathize with the characters because they represent real people that suffered in real events. Although the thing is also pretty shallow for interesting concepts.

those are some pretty retarded opinions man

B-B-B-B-BUT THEY'RE GONNA SEE ME MASTURBATE!!!

Orwell's best works were his essays tbh.