Should have read classics discussion

Our book for December-January is . Having never read the book, I am excited to move it into my currently reading pile. Due to its ideas about government and society, I was curious, as a starting point, what people have heard or what their impressions are about this book? Did anyone read this in high school?

I read it in high school and remember a little about it.
Like the big brother factor but little else.

I too am looking forward to reading this.

I've never read it but very interested.

When the book came out 1984 seemed so far in the future and the concept like science fiction, which I've never really liked ( still don't, except for Dune ) Now,however, I'd like to read it just to see how much of the book actually came to pass in 1984---which NOW seems so long ago.

I read this book not all that long ago and I loved it in a "this book really freaked me out" sort of way! I am looking forward to some good discussions about absolute government power and our own freedoms that we take for granted, not to mention how close we really are to being monitored (i.e. online, in grocery checkout lines and public surveilence cameras, stoplights, intersections, etc..)no matter where we go and not even realizing it!

Never thought I would be interested in this but I felt like I should read it because of all the reference to it and its ideas that I hear people discuss. Also, I have really loved some young adult dystopian society type books lately so this sounds along the same vein of thinking...I am definitely looking forward to reading it.

I was wondering if we should change the finish date for 1984? It is finishing in February, that might be a bit long for this book. I also realize that the Holidays are coming, so just wanting to get some feedback from everyone. I don't want to make the group reads drag on, but I also don't want people rushed and not able to participate.

Hmm... I have to purchase the book yet. Which I will do on Saturday. I won't be reading it right away. Since I have started another book. BUT as you know I am a fast reader LOL. A finish date in December would suit me.

I, too haven't located a copy and haven't really gotten started on Lady In White--so Feb works for me! Especially with travel over Thanksgiving and family and friends here for Christmas-New Year's!

After looking at all the challenges that I'm currently in, February is ok for me also. Just wanted to get others opinions. I can get in over my head when it comes to reading!

Feb will work great for me too now that I think about it as it will allow me to make a dent in my to read pile. LOL

Ok, I think that we will just leave it and if we all get Sharon's speed reading skills for the Holidays, then we can consider what to do in January!

Eek. I'm already about 100 pages in. Maybe I should stop and pick it back up again closer to Feb. Sounds like that works better for everyone.

Hey Lisa, Let's change the ending date to Jan. 30th. I know it is only one day different but it then appears like we are finishing it in Jan. Or we can set the finish date at Jan 15th so the last two weeks could be discussion time or time for slow pokes like me to catch up. That way most members can have it read and discussed by then and we can head into Feb with a new book. So then our calendar would be: we are finishing Woman in White by Nov. 30th, and reading the Birds Christmas Carol in Dec. and reading 1984 for Jan. Would that make more sense? However, if someone wants to start 1984 now or in Dec. then it gives you plenty of time to complete with the holidays and such...What do you think?

Sounds fine with me.

I'll do my best

I like that idea, I too have a large to read list.

Since the Birds book didn't take very long, I started today. It will be the January read, so we won't start discussing it until then.

I too started 1984. I might get it finished before Christmas. I kinda hope I do so I can start another book after the holidays.

I am starting 1984 today. Marie

Sorry to say that I a finding this book BORING!!! I am just 1/4 through it and have to force myself to pick it up and read. UGH!! I want it finished so I can move on to another book.

Oh no! I was hoping this would be an interesting one. Maybe it will get better towards the end?! I had my suspicions about this one though. My mom is reading it and she was not that thrilled with it!

This reminds me of what happened when we tried to read Gulliver's Travels. None of us could get into it, so we voted to move on to another book. Remember that we have only one rule in this club! Don't torture yourself! HAHA, maybe waterboarding would be nicer!

I felt like I had to force myself to get through some parts of the book. I didn't think it was a great novel in that sense but to think that he wrote it in 1949 is seriously mind blowing to me.

Does anyone find it ironic that this was written by a socialist? I just find that extremely interesting.

I am sorry to say that I got to abandon this book. I have tried to get into it but cannot. So moving on to another in my to read pile.

Hey, no problem! That happens! I just started it, so we will see how it goes! Enjoy your next book Sharon!

I had no idea that he was a socialist. That actually makes it much more interesting and cautionary in that instance. I looked it up on wiki and this is what I found:

In the essay "Why I Write" (1946), Orwell described himself as a Democratic Socialist. Thus, in his 16 June 1949 letter to Francis Henson of the United Automobile Workers about the excerpts published in Life (25 July 1949) magazine and The New York Times Book Review (31 July 1949), Orwell said:

My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.
—Collected Essays

I had no idea what the difference between the different tenants of socialism was so after some checking I found this definition:
"Democratic socialists have normally defended the role of the public sector, particularly as regards the provision of key services such as health care, education, utilities, mass transit, and sometimes also banking, mining, and fuel extraction. However, their economic vision has often included a mixed economy with a greater emphasis on worker and consumer co-operatives, credit unions, family farms and small businesses, as compared to authoritarian Marxist-Leninists. In India, democratic socialists have to varying degrees seen the traditional village-based peasant economy as a model to be supported and enhanced.

Regarding tactics, democratic socialists include a spectrum of positions, from those advocating nonviolent resistance against capitalism, or the possiblity of violent resistance under certain circumstances, to those committed exclusively to anti-capitalist reforms through parliamentary means (see evolutionary socialism and Fabianism). Democratic socialists advocating direct action may tend to similar positions with anarcho-syndicalism (with which democratic socialism shares the characteristics of being both anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian), although democratic socialists characteristically do not regard the state itself as an evil to be abolished"

Sounds very confusing, but I somewhat get the general idea. It seems to me that the more control a "state" has, the more of a chance that a totalitarian state can emerge. No matter what the name of the political system is or their lofty goals.

I was reading this book while I was sick, and I think that it made me sicker!LOL Wow, this is quite heavy!

I came away with the same understanding as you. That explanation is confusing but it is very evident in the book that he is afraid of what an 'all-powerful' government can become and trying to warn us of what can happen.

I just finished reading The Hunger Games and was shocked at the parallels between it and 1984. I'm so glad I read 1984 prior to reading it.

I am going to try to get my copy today.

I must say that The Hunger Games was one of my favorite books from this year. I do see the scary connections between Big Brother and Panem.

Lisa wrote: "I must say that The Hunger Games was one of my favorite books from this year. I do see the scary connections between Big Brother and Panem. "

I really enjoyed it even though I wasn't very hopeful from the beginning because of the major similarities to (which I've only seen the movie, haven't read the book yet) and 1984. I thought I might start getting bored but Collins kept the story interesting.

I have never heard of Battle Royale. Might have to check that out. Did you see our group discussion on Mockingjay? We just had to discuss it when it came out.
I might need to take a break from dystopian novels after 1984, though!

Lisa wrote: "I have never heard of Battle Royale. Might have to check that out. Did you see our group discussion on Mockingjay? We just had to discuss it when it came out.
I might need to take a break from..."

I'll need to check out your Mockingjay thread when I finish the books. I just started Catching Fire today.

Just a heads up, the movie Battle Royale was very violent so the book probably is too. I loved it though. I saw it at our annual film festival here. It was very controversial and I think the book has even been banned.

I completely understand needing a break from dystopian novels. ;) That's kind of how I felt after reading , I felt like I was 'under the dome' for so long.

Yeah, I can see from reading the reviews on that one, that you would need a break. Sounds like The Simpsons Movie plot! LOL!

1984 is all checked out at my library...darn; I had to settle for the Playaway version. I also checked out a DVD that is a documentary about the ideas presented in the book. I'll let you know what I think.

I finished 1984 and it reminded me of a quote by
John Emerich Edward Dalbery-Action. First Baron of Action (1834-1902).
" Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

I had no idea to who that quote was attributed to. However, the sentiment in it is quite correct.

I am a few chapters into this and so far I like it.

I must say that dystopian novels do tend to bring out interesting ideas and questions. What has struck me so far about this book, is the general lack of basic humanity among the Party people. It almost seems like the perfect Party member is one that acts, thinks, and becomes like a mindless zombie. Personal individuality is either frowned upon or forbidden. In fact, there is no individuality, except among the proles, and they are considered on par with animals. Even in The Hunger Games, there were times that individuals had laughter, family, and community spirit. It is scary to think that what makes us "human" is gone in the Party.
I was also thinking about how the history is rewritten at regular intervals. It seems so shocking, but really history is usually written by the victors of most struggles. It is an interesting thought that Winston had about does history really happen if only one person remembers it. Rather like a tree falling in the forest question.

One of the constant aspects of this story is Big Brother. The term is almost overused in today's society. I'm sure that none of us can go through the day without some sort of survellance on us. I find it shocking to think about having "telescreens" in our house, watching, listening to everything that we do. Granted with technology today, it is easier to have this aspect come true, but how much of it is self-imposed? Between Facebook, Myspace, the online phonebooks, and (yes) Goodreads, it is almost impossible to stay hidden in today's world. Of course, the difference is that we have the choice to be "hooked up", but it is rather funny. This sounds rather harsh, sorry about that!

So is this a self-fulfilling prophecy... I can see your point about Facebook, Goodreads, and other places we place photos or info about ourselves. For Pete's sakes, online advertisements even pop-up for our favorite stores. But what about all the other monitoring that we don't even think about like traffic and store cameras, and email or cell-phone monitoring...wow, do we really have any privacy anymore? Is anyone bothered about it? What is an acceptable amount and at what level will we think things have gone too far?

What is worse, the abrupt, forceful taking of one's liberty, or the gradual, incremental taking?

The forceful taking of liberty of course seems worse because it seems so drastic and dramatic all at once. The gradual taking of ones liberty's can go on with grumblings but no uprisings and as generations come and go the young people don't even know what they are missing. But the forceful taking allows for more hope because people know what is different and despise those who squelched their liberties thus making them more likely to lead or call for rebellion.

Lisa wrote: "In fact, there is no individuality, except among the proles, and they are considered on par with animals. Even in The Hunger Games, there were times that individuals had laughter, family, and community spirit. It is scary to think that what makes us "human" is gone in the Party."

I thought, for the most part, that the people that live in the districts in The Hunger Games are the equivalent to proles in 1984. I would think the higher up you go in that kind of government the more controlled the people are, their thinking needs to be controlled so the power doesn't shift.

I found the language control was very interesting. While, I think in theory the idea that limiting people to a specified group of words may initially have the intended effect. However, I think it would only be a matter of time for people to have their own language innovations, such as verbal inflection, positioning of words, etc.

I agree, Kerri. At least with a forced, abrupt taking away of freedom you would still retain who you are. The gradual chipping away at the fundamentals of what it is to human is much more devastating in the long run.

spoiler alert: OK, although I am only 5 chapters into this I think the language deletion idea is crazy. I wish I could somehow understand what the point is to diminishing everyone's thoughts and humanness. I wish I could get into the mind of Big Brother...why would he want thoughtless robotic people...what is the point? I can understand brainwashed, but not thoughtless. This is a very interesting yet weird society that has been created.

Kaila,
Right on target you are with the language control. Just think of the subtle things people do when they have to wear uniforms. People could come up with alternative messages in their few words...but would they? I mean, is Oceania full of thoughtless robots or brainwashed beings? I am still trying to get my mind around the point of Big Brother and this society. I realize that the author is trying to point out the dehumanization of the people but why...for what purpose does it truly serve?