Philosophy discussion

Has anyone read this book? I'm a little over halfway in and it seems to be quite redundant. Both as a writing style and as a review of my political knowledge. I realize it's considered to be a "top book of all time" but I can't seem to get behind it. Please tell me the ending is worth it.

Has anyone not read this book! Philosophically it is very interesting. Newspeak is a language in which certain ideas cannot be expressed, because the words you would need to express them have been eliminated. Could such a language exist? The truth of a proposition is not determined by the state of affairs in the real world, but by the Party (Ingsoc). How would you challenge this concept of truth if you lived in such a world, assuming you were free to do so? For the orthodox party members there is no "real" world. (Actually the logical positivists views are not so far removed from those of the Ingsoc idealogues in some respects.) What is "beauty" in the world of 1984? Syme thought getting rid of words was beautiful. To us the sound of Newspeak is a hideous barbarity. But Orwell had the idea of Newspeak from BBC English. Listen to newscast English today and you can catch the ugliness of Newspeak.

Miles, in what sense did you find it redundant?

"1984" is definately worth reading. Though the book has been hampered by it's own fame, (everyone thinks they know the plot and theme) that fame exists because "1984" is a powerful piece of fiction.

Of the three great dystopias, ("1984", "Brave New World" and "Brazil") "1984" is the strongest. While "Brave New World" and "Brazil" show us societies controled with bread and circuses, (thank you Cicero) "1984" demonstrates the disturbing truth behind the story of how Stalin could keep a live bird in the palm of his hand. "1984" does not try to dazzle you with scent organs or concern you with the problems of the intellectual elite in some distant future. "1984" gives us a hero who is as flawed as we are and then drops us into a world that is always as close to ours as Room 101.

J., good post!

(but recall "panem et circenses" is Juvenal rather than Cicero.)

My apologies to Juvenal.

Thank you for the correction, Martin.

I hadn't noticed or heard of the connection between newspeak and the BBC before. It does fit in with one of the jokes hidden in "1984". Specifically, Orwell named Room 101 after a conference room at the BBC. I guess he wasn't a big fan.

I was surprised looking at the GR reviews a few days ago that nobody connected the book to anything going on today. People tend to think it applies to a world long gone, but it is more relevant now than it was when it was published.

I've heard "doublespeak" used more nowadays. My favorite 1984 word is "crimethink," but that hasn't really caught on in the mass culture.

Miles, the thought-provoking message in the book doesn't come clear until close to the end, so I'd keep reading.

There is a suggestion of crimethink behind certain aspects of Islamic extremism but otherwise it hasn't got quite that bad.

Also isn't it usually in the book as thoughtcrime which seems to make more sense ans sticks out more in my memory form reading it a good while ago.

Here's an interesting site I just came across that lists most or all the vocabulary of Newspeak.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-...

It looks like a good reference to guide readers of the book, but I can't vouch for all the words or definitions given. I'd almost forgotten, too, that there was (and had to be) an official enemy of the state.

No, I think crimethink is beginning to dominate our modern western industrialised society. Here is a striking example,

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/...

Clearly no crime has been committed here, except in the mind of the man sentenced to imprisonment. The severity of the sentence that might have been imposed (15 years imprisonment) is completely Stalinist. Murderers do not usually serve more than 15 years.

There are similar processes in Britain, as well as penalties against Muslims for having thoughts the state has chosen to criminalise,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7084801.stm

Here is another Orwellian angle to Martin's link, quoting:

Handley will also be required to serve three years of supervised release and undergo a "treatment program" that will include psychological testing and polygraph examinations to "reveal possible new criminal behavior," which he will have to help pay for ...

The paragraph is remarkable for the use of what's known as public language to disguise what's actually taking place. Nobody, having read it, can give a clear account of what exactly the state will be doing to this prisoner.

In the book, crimethink has what turns out to be a subjective definition that depends on authority figures.

Clearly no crime has been committed here, except in the mind of the man sentenced to imprisonment.

Or, perhaps, in the mind of the prosecutor.

Very few novelists can claim to have written books that are not only entertaining as fiction, but are also philosophically poignant. Orwell was one that was able to do both. The only other one that is on a similar level would be Dostoevsky. Not surprisingly, both of them had been party to politically revolutionary groups and held socialistic ideals in their youth. It is fairly clear both were also jaded with those ideals but still allowed them to influence their writings. I don't put Orwell quite as high as Dostoevsky, but he's up there. (In anticipation of Camus, Kafka etc etc being named -no, I don't put them on that level either).

Erik,

Just Orwell and Dostoevsky?

As an American, I have to nominate Twain and Steinbeck. Each wrote at least one version of the great american novel. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for Twain and "The Grapes of Wrath" for Steinbeck. Both are brilliant novels through which the reader confronts philosophical problems that have stymied many a mind.

I suppose that the most insideous part of thoughtcrime is that we are all thoughtcriminals. The powers that be convince us that one particular thought is more dangerous or perverted than our particular deviance, and therefore must be removed to protect whatever (seriously just pick one: the children; decent society; democracy; etc. etc.). One by one we fall til none remain.

J. wrote: "Erik,

Just Orwell and Dostoevsky?

As an American, I have to nominate Twain and Steinbeck. "

I don't want to take away anything from those authors -or even Kafka or Camus. A lot of it could be personal preference, but I don't think any other novelist has had the same impact; not only in formulating terms that have entered into everyday parlance, but also had the same degree of originality and subsequent influence that those two have had. Note terms like "thoughtcrime", "big brother", "Orwellian", "thought police"... etc etc. Orwell was really quite intuitive. He described some things that wound up being prescient in retrospect. Dostoevsky may not have increased modern vocabulary, but he was incredibly prescient as well. He is now recognized as being one of the earliest examples of existentialism (along with Kierkegaard). From what I can tell, very little that was novel entered into existentialism subsequently -it simply became more and more nihilistic. I am open for examples to be provided that show that I am wrong. I just haven't seen anything to the contrary however.

For me 1984 is a question on clarity and convenience. All aspects in the book if it is newsspeak, Love is War or 2+2 = 5 are somehow related back to Wittgenstein's publishing's around the same time.

Politically it frightens me as I see most in this book as happening such as the hate weeks in west against against Russia or alternative China and vice versa. Also many of manipulation for propaganda, big brother etc. are almost written as the instruction book for some politicians.

Cay wrote: "Also many of manipulation for propaganda, big brother etc. are almost written as the instruction book for some politicians. "

Noticed that too. Even if Orwell was never an official Fabian member he seems to have been influenced by them. The importance of propaganda in socialism does suggest that Fabian socialism played a significant role in Orwell's writings. It seems almost certain that he was influenced by some group.