1984 – w/out any surveillance, please

Utho · 12-14-2008, 12:10 PM

The name of George Orwell has become synonymous for an all-penetrating surveillance; same as with the date of 1984.

I really like the book, but I do not deem the omipresent „eye of the state“ as „message“ of the story.
Literature is always down to interpretation of the individual, and my interpretation of 1984 sees the surveillance-thingy rather as s th like „the nose to the face“ – an integral part, but not the thing itself.

I wonder, has anyone an opinion/interpretation on/of the book?

Eclipsing the Son · 12-14-2008, 02:36 PM

Talking to you seems to be pointless. I'm not going to give you another opinion until you respond to my responses to you in the Stephen King and Cradle of Filth threads.

Godslayer Jillian · 12-14-2008, 02:52 PM

Yeah? Well, then what's the integral part?

Felreaper · 12-15-2008, 05:54 AM

I truly do like the book, but my interpretation of it is the omnipresent eye of the government...

JCC · 12-15-2008, 08:54 AM

Well, this is what Utho was saying. Nineteen Eighty-Four is not about surveillance, it never was, surveillance is a part of the story. Like saying that the nose is the entire face.

Apathy's_Child · 12-15-2008, 01:05 PM

The main thrust of the story is state control. The idea of the walls in your home watching you is a central image, and a crucial part of the whole, but there's so much more going on - the state also uses the threat of war, paranoia, and the erosion of both privacy and natural impulses. The state's main function in people's everyday lives is to destroy their ability to experience emotions leading to behaviors that might constitute a threat to the state: sex, love, and friendship, namely. It keeps people separated by fear, mistrust and the devaluation of sex, and forcing people to betray each other through torture.

Surveillance is frequently not involved.

Godslayer Jillian · 12-15-2008, 01:30 PM

Surveillance might not be the central theme of the story, but totalitarianism is.
It's not about the individual. Orwell doesn't write like that.

JCC · 12-15-2008, 01:33 PM

Nobody claimed that the book was about individualism.

Apathy's_Child · 12-15-2008, 01:36 PM

This is totalitarianism which works on the heart of the individual, which is a well-documented occurence. In the real world, it often starts with curbing artistic freedom - this is a dramatized imagination. Of course that's all about totalitarianism; however, it's also about its effects on individuality and freedom. You can't possibly argue that it's not about the ways in which individual, autonomous natural impulses are subverted as a means of control.

Godslayer Jillian · 12-15-2008, 01:45 PM

I don't think that's what he meant when he said "Literature is always down to interpretation of the individual" though.

Apathy's_Child · 12-15-2008, 02:03 PM

I don't believe the argument I gave above suggested it was, so I don't quite catch the point of that statement.

Godslayer Jillian · 12-15-2008, 02:23 PM

Sorry, I thought you were talking to JCC.

Apathy's_Child · 12-15-2008, 02:31 PM

Oh, okay. It's all good.

While we're here though, in the name of my idol Pedantry, it doesn't really counter any point JCC made either.

Godslayer Jillian · 12-15-2008, 02:48 PM

Not countering; just explaining how individualism could have been relevant as it was mentioned in the original post.

Utho · 12-20-2008, 12:56 PM

Thanks for the opinions.

I deem stuff like "Double-think", "Reality-control", and the concept of social hierarchy Orwell employs in his dystopia as the really cute/relevant parts.

In Orwells world, there is no truth apart from the one that is presently dispersed by the media. No matter what was said before. People are taught better not to remember - and not to question the "real" truth they get on a daily basis.
Another interesting concept within the book is the "endless war" - economic system, in which the perpetual war has become one of the essential and dominating factors of the whole society.

"Who owns the past, owns the present - who owns the present owns the future." - A very significant moral of the story, described in the course of Winstons experiences and refections.

Beyond this, Orwell took on the phenomenon of "linguistic reduction", and evolved it into his concept of "new-speak"; a revolutionary topic for the time in which the book was written. Actually it is only now that (open) scientific papers start dealing with this phenomenon.

To me, 1984 is the ugly twin of Huxleys "Brave new world". Both describe social systems that are designed to create an easily managed society. Orwell designed it as a full-blown dystopia, Huxley was not as nasty - in a way.
Both works are consistant with Machiavelli and even with what can be derived from the works of Sun-Tsi (Art of war).

(I always wondered if Orwell wrote "1984" and "Animal Farm" with the same message in mind. It looks like he did one in a shape that the "Proles" could understand, and one for the more educated.)

Godslayer Jillian · 12-20-2008, 01:06 PM

You kind of annoy me.

Utho · 12-20-2008, 02:41 PM

Do you think I should care? - Who are you?
Or rather, who am I to you?
What annoys ya? - Be frank, I am just a kraut-sucker from the internet. You may think of me as some kind of troll - if it helps you to speak your mind. ;-)

(I´ll be back next weekend - so you´ve got time to think.)
;-)

Tell me I am wrong!

Mr. Filth · 12-20-2008, 02:44 PM

Wow. You're really deep.

Godslayer Jillian · 12-20-2008, 03:12 PM

Lot's of anger for someone pretending they don't care about me.
You know what annoys me about you? Your uncanny ability to state the obvious.
But even in stating the obvious you're wrong. We all understand Orwell's use of Ingsoc; we all understand the message he was conveying; we all understand doublethink.
Yet you state these as if you have brand new insight into 1984 when you can't even synthesize the examples you mentioned.
"Whoever controls.... bla bla bla" You threw that in, but didn't explain it. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you are terrible at conveying meaning.

And Brave New World's ugly twin? For fuck's sake!!
1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and WE, are all the same type of dystopian literature, and all of them are equally horrendous futures. Why the hell do you think extreme consumerism and the removal of free will of lower castes is 'not as nasty'?

And the worst part:
I always wondered if Orwell wrote "1984" and "Animal Farm" with the same message in mind.
NO SHIT

However you also said It looks like he did one in a shape that the "Proles" could understand, and one for the more educated

You read 1984 and yet you think like this?!
You sicken me.