Dave's Reviews > 1984
1984
by
by

In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith is an open source developer who writes his code offline because his ISP has installed packet sniffers that are regulated by the government under the Patriot Act. It's really for his own protection, though. From, like, terrorists and DVD pirates and stuff. Like every good American, he drinks Coca-Cola and his processed food has desensitized his palate to all but four flavors: sweet, salty-so-that-you-will-drink-more-coca-cola, sweet, and Cooler Ranch!(tm). His benevolent overlords have provided him with some war happening somewhere for some reason so that he, and the rest of the population, can be sure that the government is really in his best interests. In fact, the news always has some story about Paris Hilton or yet another white girl who has been abducted by some evil bastard who is biologically wired by 200,000 years of human evolution to fuck 12-year-olds, but is socially conditioned to be obsessed with sex, yet also to feel guilty about it. This culminates into a distorted view of sexuality, and results in rape and murder, which both make for very good news topics. This, too, is in Winston's best interests because, while fear is healthy, thinking *too* much about his own mortality is strictly taboo, as it may lead to something dangerously insightful, and he might lose his taste for Coca Cola and breast implants. The television also plays on his fears of the unknown by exaggerating stereotypes of minorities and homosexuals, under the guise of celebrating "diversity", but even these images of being ghetto-fabulous and a lisping interior designer actually exist solely to promote racism and homophobia, which also prove to be efficient distractions.
For some reason, Winston gets tired of eating recycled Pop Tarts and eating happy pills and pretending to be interested in sports and manufactured news items. But, in the end, they fix him and he's happy again. Or something.
For some reason, Winston gets tired of eating recycled Pop Tarts and eating happy pills and pretending to be interested in sports and manufactured news items. But, in the end, they fix him and he's happy again. Or something.
2571 likes · Like
鈭�
flag
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
1984.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
July 28, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 166 (166 new)
message 1:
by
Malissa
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:45AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jul 29, 2007 03:35PM

reply
|
flag



PS. Well put.

True, but in the novle both britain and the americas are part of Oceania.


I like this novel a lot, but does anyone really think that Orwell鈥檚 vision actually came true, outside of North Korea and other such isolated, backwards hell-holes? The idea that it did seems to be very appealing to a lot of people for some reason.

The Patriot act and an increasingly police state approved because of fear mongering about terrorism threats both within and outside the US.
Three wars ongoing - more than any other country - while still continuing to preach peace and tolerance.
Military spending that doesn't result in technological advancement and the opposite where the economy is concerned.
A general sense that someone who criticizes the government and it's military excesses is unpatriotic.
Senate proposals such as an internet kill switch and even hundreds of sites being seized under spurious excuses.
In California, cops can demand to read your texts. In Arizona, anyone suspected of being an illegal on sight could be asked to provide documentation. It's not difficult for cops to come up with a reason to crash into your house with assault rifles or put a tracker on your vehicle. People are being stripped nude and groped at airports. If Orwell's future hasn't arrived yet, it's very near and the US government has all the resources it needs to make it happen.

But I respectfully disagree.
Here's a list of ways in which I think America is the opposite of Oceania:
-You were able post a comment that is extremely critical of the US government. Anyone can do that, and in a huge variety of media.
-You can protest laws that you think impinge on your freedom. You might not succeed but you are certainly free to try.
-Many people in America have very similar views to those you've expressed. (The above comments show that, but there's also the evidence of the many films, books, editorials, activist groups etc that openly criticise government policies). If America were oppressive of free thought and expression in a similar way to Oceania, popular anti-government opinion could not exist. And not only that - the anti-government side actually has huge cultural currency and sway. It's by no means underground. Filmmakers like Michael Moore and others have power and credibility. In many universities it seems that being a radical is a prerequisite for being cool. In 1984, even the tiniest suggestion of radicalism makes you an instant pariah, and then you鈥檙e tortured and killed.
-In Oceania, the government controls information absolutely. In America, government documents are routinely leaked and even low-level government misbehaviour - for example, claiming too much on expenses 鈥� can be exposed. And when it is exposed, the public has no hesitation in baying for blood. This is nothing like Oceania.
It's not perfect, but the modern Western democratic system is better than anything that went before as far as I can see. I think we're freer now than we ever were in the past.
I agree that the bad things about America which you've pointed out are apt for criticism, but I think the comparison to Oceania is not fair.

I agree that, in certain ways, we are freer than people in the past; but I think that's because the government can't effectively censor the internet and other new media. It's definitely trying as I mentioned. I think the biggest threat to liberties is the invocation of counter-terrorism measures as a valid reason to ignore the constitution. In today's America, the most power isn't in the hands of the media, or the opposition, or public sentiment; it rest with the politicians. Even though the different political parties harangue each other over differing ideologies, in practice their methods aren't very different (compare Bush militarism with Obama's). Also, the American public has the general sentiment that it is unpatriotic to not support the troops and whatever "hipsterness" might exist on college campuses, most people still agree that terrorism is a threat that should be pursued vigorously and if they aren't keeping quiet about excesses, they don't oppose it vehemently like the Vietnam War protests in the 60s. In my opinion, these gradual lapses build up and it's shocking that it's even possible for people to be violated in airports when it's obvious that it's been more luck than vigilance that's prevented any repeat terrorist attacks. As for not being able protest successfully; I think if your complaint isn't ever taken serious, you might as well not complain and it doesn't bode well for American democracy that that is increasingly the case.
About the government leaks: Bradley Manning has been made a scapegoat for releasing incriminating documents about the murders of innocent people. That's another point that's worth noting: in the new world of American hegemony, the life of anyone who isn't American has very little value compared to an American life. In my opinion, the wars in the Middle East have wrecked much more havoc to those people than the terrorist attacks ever did in the west and it's resulted in even more recruits to terrorism (think endless war). But that's very little accounted for.
Consider also that whatever is being taught in public schools must be sanctioned by the government for the schools to receive funding and if say, the government were to overstep its bounds(as is the case with anti-sharia proposals) and make counter-terrorism required reading, terrorism is linked with Islam so it is possible to subtly inculcate into children a sense that Muslims are inherently bad.
I don't mean to be melodramatic and I do realize the West has the freest kind of government but I think when compared to communist governments, excessive acts of violence are easier to sweep under the rug or ignore altogether because people believe that their freedom is inviolable.
I could go on and on about similarities but this is supposed to be about reviews and I've already said way too much.




Obviously Dave's review is also a "farcically" exaggerated version of life as we know it today. Hilarious!
Eion - Have you read anything that has been report in the news lately about the government that hasn't been "taken to absurd extremes" as you so eloquently put it?
Your comment begs to question whether or not you have been conscience in the last 15 years, but alas, that is a topic for another time.
Very well written Dave.


Second - All of the media, whether it is supplied from the governments view point or the so-called "people's" view point, it's grossly exaggerated, spun and skewed.
Don't know where you got anti-government in anything that I said, nor anti-American. People aren't against the government per se, but the policies that certain political parties wish to enforce on others with out the lawful right to do so.
If you want to get into a discussion about actual detailed view points, BRING IT ON. We will see just who actually thinks here and who doesn't. But if you want to fight like a child, call each other names or paste labels on everything that is said with out basis or fact, then I think we will just have to be done with our discussion.

: )

Don't worry, I'm better now. At least it wasn't an interrogation room.
I mostly forgot about this review, but I'm really glad that it has inspired so much debate. You guys are really cool. I especially appreciate Eoin, who seems to think that I'm a dummy, for taking the time to elaborate on his/her reasons for disagreeing instead of just calling me a dummy. I shan't try to refute any of his/her points because, as Jamie pointed out, I just wrote the review to be a dick. I was really tired of monks forcing me to wake up at 4am and shve my head every morning and was feeling really anti-authoritarian.
This is why I love the Internet.


Yevgeny Zamyatin 's We novel is much better. I recomend it to everyone who liked 1984

George Orwell believed that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) must be partly derived from We.[3] However, in a 1962 letter to Christopher Collins, Huxley says that he wrote Brave New World as a reaction to H.G. Wells' utopias long before he had heard of We.[4][5] Kurt Vonnegut said that in writing Player Piano (1952) he "cheerfully ripped off the plot of Brave New World, whose plot had been cheerfully ripped off from Yevgeny Zamyatin's We."[6]


