1984 by George Orwell, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 401

1984 by George Orwell, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 401

Hi I’m John Green and welcome to season
4 of CrashCourse literature. Today, we’re transporting you to one of
my favorite (slash least favorite) dystopias, George Orwell’s 1984. I feel like that eye is looking at me. The book starts like this:
It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast
in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory
Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along
with him. (1)
Of course it’s not just a swirl of gritty dust traveling with Winston; like everyone
in 1984, he’s never really alone. In Orwell’s dystopian future 1984, which
was published in 1949, the world is vile and gritty and the clock strikes 13 and citizens
are under near constant government surveillance. But you know what? Orwell did not correctly predict the future;
our clocks still stop at 12. Also, in the novel 1984, people routinely
disappear and evidence of their existence is erased from public records, and that doesn’t
happen much. Yet. 1984 is an indictment of specific governments. But it’s also a warning about the importance
of free thought and speech, and in today’s episode, we’re gonna discuss the historical
context in which 1984 was written and also its use of oppressive language. I want to think about whether Orwell suggests,
within the logic of this novel, that the written word can significantly alter the society in
which it is produced. And I mean that on at least two levels: Can
the novel 1984 change the actual world in which we live, and are characters in the novel
ultimately controlled by the language they, and their government, use? Spoiler alert: We’re all doomed. I’m just kidding. I mean, I hope I’m kidding. The truth is, as usual, it’s complicated. INTRO
George Orwell’s protagonist, the wind-blown Winston Smith, shares a first name with Winston
Churchill, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940-1945 and again from 1951-1955. And by replacing a lofty, aristocratic surname
(that evokes Churches. And Hills) with a common one (a Smith is a
metal worker), Orwell puts the fate of England in the hands of a working man, although this
one bends words, not metal, since he is a writer. As for whether Orwell’s Winston will prevail
as Winston Churchill did in World War II …of course not! Now, some dystopias end with the overthrow
of the horrible government, but Orwell’s tend to end with the bad guys and/or pigs
winning. And 1984 is very much a dystopia — a dehumanizing
society in which “there seemed to be no color in anything” and posters of a “black-mustachio’d
face gazing down from every commanding corner” bearing the now-famous caption, “BIG BROTHER
IS WATCHING YOU” (2). In this world, the government endorses something
called “doublethink,” which links contradictory beliefs. So you see slogans like: “WAR IS PEACE,”
“FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” are commonplace. The problem isn’t that citizens are told
the opposite of what is true. The real issue is that their experiences have
become so limited that they lack the perspective and the language to differentiate between
major concepts. But, let’s back up for a second and talk
about George Orwell. Here’s some “doublespeak” for you: George
Orwell is not George Orwell. He was born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903 to English
parents in Bengal, near the border with Nepal. His father worked in “quality control”
for opium, which is used to make morphine, codeine, and heroin, and the British held
a monopoly on the trade of opium for years and exported it to China, both for financial
gain and to subdue Chinese citizens. Although the Chinese government tried to get
the British to dismantle the India-China opium trade for 150 years, and there were wars fought
about it, they weren’t successful until 1910. Basically, this was one of the largest (legal)
international drug cartels in history. Ah, Colonialism: The Original Dystopia. I guess the original dystopia was actually
hunting and gathering. I mean, at least for those of us who hate
the paleo diet. God, I love processed carbohydrates. What were we talking about? Oh, right! Eric Arthur Blair, soon to be George Orwell! So as a kid, Blair moved to England and was
eventually sent to Eton, a prestigious boarding school. In 1922, he joined the imperial police in
Burma. In “Why I Write,” he explains that he
rejected imperialism after spending five years in the “unsuitable profession” of working
in the imperial police force and experienced poverty himself when he returned to England. Sensitized to the evils of colonialism, and
now “fully aware of the existence of the working classes,” Blair was on his way to
forming what he called a “political orientation.” He changed his name to George Orwell when
he published Down and Out in Paris and London in 1933. But he still hadn’t identified where he
“stood” politically. Then in 1936, he declared that he was
“against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” Democratic socialism basically uses democratic
means to create a political and economic structure that supports socialist goals. You might think of it as being a rejection
of unfettered capitalism. Orwell found the “real nature of capitalist
society” abhorrent because: “I have seen British imperialism at work
in Burma, and I have seen something of the effects of poverty and unemployment in Britain…. One has got to be actively a Socialist, not
merely sympathetic to Socialism, or one plays into the hands of our always-active enemies.” Orwell was against Stalin and totalitarian
strains of Communism as well. For instance, in 1936, when he went to Spain
to fight the Fascist leader, Francisco Franco, he joined the Marxist group, POUM (Partido
Obrero de Unificación Marxista). He didn’t join the main communist party. In Homage to Catalonia, he explains:
“the Communists stood not upon the extreme Left, but upon the extreme right. In reality this should come as no surprise,
because of the tactics of the Communist parties elsewhere.” These tactics, as seen in the USSR, include
the conscious use of propaganda, the repression of individual freedoms, and also state-sponsored
murder. But the point I want to make here is that
it’s not quite accurate for either the contemporary left or right to “claim” Orwell–his most
famous novels are anti-communist; but they’re also anti-capitalist. Mostly, they seek to show the ways that many
government structures are prone to totalitarianism, and they chart the slow, almost unnoticeable
descent into that totalitarianism. But in 1984 specifically, Orwell explores
the difficulty of retaining individual freedom within the confines of an oppressive society. In the book, the earth is divided into three
zones–Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia–which are constantly at war with one another. And Winston lives in London, the main city
of Airstrip One, which is a province of Oceania. He’s legally married to the stiff, brainwashed,
and desireless Katherine. Unable to produce children, they live separately
and are forbidden from remarrying. Winson’s primary pleasures include itching
a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, drinking shots of a “sickly, oily” Victory Gin
(which provides “the sensation of being hit on the back of the head with a rubber
club”) and writing in a “thick, quarto-sized blank book with a red back and a marbled cover”
(1, 5, 5). So you know, his pleasures are scant. Any life where one of the chief pleasures
is scratching an actual, literal itch, is not, like, a great life. I mean, it’s a good life for a dog, but
not a great life for a person. Then Winston’s pleasures, and anxieties,
experience a significant uptick when he begins an affair with the young, vital and beautiful
Julia. Despite being “ten or fifteen years younger,”
Julia boldly declares her love for Winston. Winston is incredulous: “I’m thirty-nine
years old. I’ve got a wife that I can’t get rid of. I’ve got varicose veins. I’ve got five false teeth.” And the reader may have doubts as well. I mean, when Julia replies, “I couldn’t
care less,” Orwell seems to acknowledge (but not apologize for) this particular breed
of middle-aged male fantasy. (122). But you know, it’s also a romance that serves
a plot. So, Winston and Julia meet secretly for months. They rent rooms from an antiques dealer named
Mr. Charrington in the plebian quarter of London. They confess their affair and anti-party beliefs
to O’Brien, a member of the Inner Party who seems to be sympathetic to their cause. And they begin reading a book that is allegedly
written by the underground resistance leader, Emmanuel Goldstein. They know that they’ll be discovered, tortured,
and (very probably) executed. Their victories–and yes they have some–come
from small moments of consciousness, human connection, and personal freedom. And these moments are tiny. For Winston, some of these moments include:
procuring a pen with a real nib “simply because of a feeling that the beautiful creamy
paper deserved to be written on” (7); succumbing to the ”balminess of the April air” to
stroll through the “labyrinth of London” (84);
Winston also purchases a glass paperweight containing coral, and all of this leads to
a cool point: despite the authoritarian nature of Ingsoc
(the perversion of socialism that dominates Oceania), moments of personal freedom like
these are commonplace. There’s even a word for them in Newspeak,
the new language that the government is developing: “ownlife, it was called, meaning individualism
and eccentricity” (84). But of course, the line between experiencing
an “ownlife” and engaging in political subversion is really thin. I mean, when Winston gives in to his “animal
instinct, the simple undifferentiated desire” to have sex with Julia: “Their embrace had
been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act” (128-9). There’s no ambiguity there. Making your life yours, making your choices
yours, is political. And also, having your own thoughts is political. I mean, The Party doesn’t just suppress
subversion through surveillance, and arrest, and torture, and execution, those oldies but
goodies from Totalitarianism for Dummies. In 1984, the government also suppresses individualism
by limiting language. Just four pages into the book, an asterisk
appears after the first mention of “Newspeak”: This asterisk interrupts the narrative flow,
breaking any bond that the reader may be (or, let’s be honest, may not be) forming with
Winston. And it entices the reader towards an appendix,
narrated by a scholar living long after Winston. The appendix explains that Newspeak had been
“devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc” (309) and that its vocabulary has
been designed: “to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral,
as nearly as possible independent of consciousness” (319). In other words, it’s meant newspeak seeks
to make it nearly impossible to express, and maybe in turn maybe even to THINK, revolutionary
thoughts. Let’s go to the Thought-bubble:
Newspeak has three main categories of vocabulary: The A vocabulary contains blunt words for
daily functions, like eating, working, and sleeping. These words don’t have multiple meanings. (The examples listed include “hit, run,
dog, tree, sugar, house, field”) The B vocabulary contains compound words that
blend a noun and verb to express a limited number of political or ideological concepts. Like, “Goodthink” means orthodoxy to party
policy. “Crimethink” is its opposite. And the C vocabulary is scientific and technical. It contains jargon accessible only to workers
in a particular field. The idea is that no individual will be able
to synthesize knowledge from multiple fields. So people will be able to do their work, but
not be able to understand the context in which that work is happening. And that’s one example of how, by trying
to limit what people can say, the government is hoping to constrain what they can think. And an interesting feature of the Appendix
is that it explains th contained many superfluous words and archaic formulations which were
due to be suppressed later” (309). This foreshadows that language will become
increasingly oppressive… Which, of course, is bad news for Winston
and his peers. But there is some good news for the rest of
humanity. Because you will notice that the appendix
is written in Standard English. As many readers (including Thomas Pynchon
and Margaret Atwood) have pointed out, this suggests that free thought and its expression
will ultimately prevail, and that language will once again be rich and complex and free. Thanks Thought Bubble. So how do we get back to free language? Well I’m a writer, and as such I’m almost
professionally obligated to believe in the power of language–and next week we’ll go
into more detail about the complicated relationship between thoughts and language, but I think
it’s worth mentioning now that while we don’t think entirely in words, language
does help give form and expression to complex ideas within us. I mean, that’s part of what books attempt
to do, but it’s also something we’re all doing all day, because we think in language. It’s one of the primary ways we communicate
our feelings and experiences to other people, but it’s also one of the primary ways we
communicate that stuff within us. And I think in 1984 Orwell argues that the
restriction of language is ultimately a form of restricting thought itself. It’s encouraging that Newspeak may ultimately
fail, but it does make me wonder: what thoughts can’t I think because of the language that
I’ve inherited? Next time we’ll also address a question
that should be on your mind (since you’re watching this video on something very like
a telescreen, possibly while in a government-funded school where the government is deciding at
least in part what you learn about): What can 1984 teach us about our current political
context and our relationship to what many have called “surveillance” society? And in a world where so many of us volunteer
so much of ourselves to the public sphere, is there value in private life? Spoiler alert: I think so. But we’ll talk more about that next week. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you then.

100 thoughts on “1984 by George Orwell, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 401

  1. John it is 2019 and your actions in supporting a certain political party that supports Communism and Socialsm along with spying on political figures of a certain type; Also I believe you believe in thinking the same way like your political beliefs. Please read 1984 again. I believe you are moving in the wrong direction.

  2. Easy access to the ideas of 1984 is the movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam. Orwell wrote the book in 1948 based on his experience of bureaucracy in the BBC. He thought England would become a dictatorship by the far future date of 1984. That date passed without dictatorship happening, but now he is proven right in one respect, with England being a highly surveilled state.

  3. At 13.15, he references the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that we can only think the thoughts that our language allows. As Wittgenstein put it, " the limits of my language are the limits of my world." My own contribution to this is that English has a verb tense , the Present Perfect, that allows us to think of actions as incomplete, ongoing. This contributes greatly to our thinking about processes and development.

  4. And this explains why the left use 1984 as a rule book rather than the warning it is.

    The left need to lay off the Leninade.

  5. Socialism leads to totalitarianism. Was Orwell telling us that 1984 was an image of how things should be?

  6. 13 is a reference to the "11th hour" its the opposite of one hour before as its an hour after the clock strikes 12 meaning its too late…

  7. People have disappeared. American journalists, whistleblowers, and the person who released the panama papers also died mysteriously.

  8. It didn't happen in Britain, but it certainly is happening in China. We chat is the all seeing eye over there.

  9. Here's some doublespeak for you! "People with penises can be women", and "Diversity is inclusive (as long as you're not a straight white male)". Then we've got political correctness erasing language, so there's that as well.

  10. Considering his personal politics, it's a bit ironic to see this dude giving his thoughts on this book

  11. "This machine kills fascists" so your laptop reads. Really. Because all fascists are left wing draconian communists. Every one of them. So you're not left wing? Explain yourself.

  12. Who'd have thought it would all come true, the press only printing what the Government and monopolies want us to see AND then came the Internet and messed it all up people's giving us there own views and opinions and many lies being 😀 brought to the front , All 😢 good things come to an end and now the gallows await the naughty free thinker's and the circle will once again be completed we will surely meet in the special camps built for re-education purposes.OO there's a knock on the door byyyyye…

  13. People vanish all the time, murdered, buried forgotten. Happens in a lot of Countries. The police in England are trialling Facial Recognition, during the trial a guy who objected and covered his face up was fined £90.00 for hiding his face. There are also even more programmes even more ambiguous trails going on in towns and cities around the world. “Wake up and smell the ashes“

  14. Isn't welfare for the poor and universal healthcare simply liberal policies and "socialism" is the collective ownership of industry. The memetic "seize the means of production".

    If the government taxes people to pay private doctors provide healthcare, that's hardly socialism.

  15. Recently here in the UK a man retweeted an edgy joke and two days later received a call from a police officer.
    This officer questioned him about it saying " I just wanted to check your thinking"
    1984 is here already.

  16. Soooo like how you wanted to censor people on YouTube? Yeah? Censorship is totalitarian you subversive commie trash, they’re using you as a tool.

    Great video tho, big ups my man great work as always.

  17. It seems to me that everyone misses the most important context of the book..

    The book is not about how things would be for us, the 80% proletariat in this society. The book is about the 20% party, the people who are in control and changing history.
    The book is more about your JFK, princesses Diana, john Lennon, or John Travolta some one who is in the party, part of the deceptions but wants out and is made an example of.

    The experience of the proletariat or how the average man perceived this society was to say that they sang songs, hung laundry, worked and generally paid little attention.

    This book is not a dystopian novel it a documentary!!🤔

  18. Communism is very left(socialist authoritarian) and the right today is (capitalist libertarian). Goerge Orwell is wrong on that. Plus the right and left during that time wanted more government in the early 1900s wanted more government on both sides of the isle. Then the right weaned off on government expansion while the left geared up harder on this.

  19. and newspeak is used today more and more

    Illegal immigrants are now asylum seekers

    I see in this a hyper moral trend into totalitarian system …

  20. Could there be subjects, disciplines and concepts we haven’t yet realized? Perhaps they are wreaking havok upon our collective reality and pushing us into unwanted circumstances, simply due to our lack of awareness of their existences.. If you acknowledged them, move past the past and finally remember we are all universal magicians, what would you wish for?

  21. 1984 saw one of the worst genocide of Sikhs minority in India. Government sponsored killings of Sikhs who stood against intolerant rule of congress government and several other oppressions.

  22. JESUS! I subscribed long ago an recently caught up. Dude, great vid as always, but you look so hung over! Did you have a new child or got a divorce? I speak from experience, with all three scenarios.

  23. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Nobelprize winner and himself victim of the Bolshevikparty in Gulag.

    “You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media in the hands of the perpetrators.”

    “We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But without Jews, there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew, nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish terrorists have murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.”
    – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

  24. Wow, imagine being a "democratic" socialist and writing against totalitarian thought control, but then some decades after people of your own affiliation use your dystopian book as a textbook for mind control, rewriting history and coming up with orwellian slogans like "diversity is strength".

    Orwell must be rolling in his grave. If he had been alive today he would have realized that "evil" capitalist imperialism is not nearly as evil as cultural marxist revisionist socialism.

  25. Let's see which side is trying to silence voices, and discredit true investigative journalism today…. hmmmm I wonder

  26. Imperialism is not capitalism yet you criticize imperialism and then say it's a criticizism of capitalism… Even socialist countries can be imperialist…

  27. Albert Einstein made a nice observation on the relationship between Thought and Language. He argued that Language cannot be the basis of Thought, because we often have difficulty finding the proper words to describe our ideas. So, in Einsten's view, an idea enters our brain first, and then our brain searches for the best words to express that idea to other people.

  28. What about military time? I use that. Also Missing 411 people. They go missing and are not found or found under very mysterious conditions. I think we are almost living in this dystopian Orwellian. IMO…. ✌💓💡😊

  29. Of course a book can change a society. The bible and many books by Theodor Geisel come to mind. Not just about any information can in the right place. Fiction or nonfiction.

  30. Actually, Fascism is Leftist, not right. Far right is actually the absence of government. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are all versions of the same totalitarian repression. Crony capitalism isn't capitalism it is closer to fascism. There is little difference between industry owned by the state and industry permitted a virtual monopoly by the state.
    Yes, we already live in a world of "doublespeak." The Left has hijacked the terms liberal and progressive as examples. Thomas Jefferson was a "liberal" and his philosophy is despised and rejected by the Left. "Pro-choice" is another form of doublespeak, it presents the killing of a womb-bound human as though you are deciding on paint color, or having fish for dinner versus beef.
    "The Affordable Care Act" is yet another example of Leftist doublespeak as it is anything but affordable to those actually paying into the system. I can go on, but we are very close to George Orwell's vision of the future. The previous administration's limitless spying on Americans, the weaponizing of state bureaucracy and the obvious one-sided media pretty much confirm that.
    However, unlike Europeans and Asians Americans have never been under a feudal system and will revolt no matter how hard the Left tries to impose its will. There will be no "utopia" in America, but once imposed there will be great violence in retaliation against the Left and their agents.

  31. So George Orwell predicted ISIS would be produced and everybody would join it in western countries due to the "revolution" caused by immigrants and minorities?

  32. orwell and huxley, were both fabians, predictive programming, may be a better term for their respective foresight?.

  33. It is hard to avoid the parallels between the concepts of 1984 and today's society and structure. Google, Youtube, Twitter, Pinterest etc are all working in concert, supporting Democrats with both financial and physical support, to suppress an ideology from expression. Shadow banning, outright banning, algorithms to sort out one sort of speech, all are similar to the tactics of Newspeak in 1984. Additionally, the left continually tries to suppress individual words or phrases by labeling them as "racist" or "hate speech" thus moving the body of knowledge in a particularly narrow range of expression. When I was a young man, I'm now 61, the Democrat party was known to be the party of free expression, the party of tolerance, and the party of the people. Today the very same party has morphed into an Orwellian nightmare where they shut down free expression with speech control and Antifa violence, they tolerate no one outside their ideology again by Antifa/Black lives matters violence, and they are now the party of large tech corporations which are abusing their reach to control the masses. Is it a revolutionary act to suppress opinions you disagree with, or to engage those ideologies to further the understanding?

  34. John Green: “most of you are probably watching this in a school right now”

    Me: bold of you to assume I’m not alone in my house at night binging literary content

  35. Really, Mr. Greene? Big Brother re-wrote a.k.a. "revised" history, much like young academics today. Doesn't "Crash Course" revise history, just like Big Brother "corrected" history? 1984 is now…at least on college campuses.

  36. The way big tech is run today. The political correctness that plagues hollywood and the far left communists, 1984 is more relevant today than ever before.

  37. I've always wondered if the appendix was written in standard English to show that our current system was the most evolved form of oppression since the later writer would have been accustomed to the most oppressive vocabulary. I know the party is spoken of in past tense, but given what we've read about rewriting history, can we believe what we are reading? I think the appendix is just another form of big brother operating in their own rewritten history.

    We run into the issue of why such free thought would have been allowed, but then you question whether it's actually free thought you're experiencing (then down the rabbit's hole you go lol).

  38. but the Government doesn't win, this is hinted by the appendix being written in past tense, and in canon, as in, the vocabulary of the party is no longer a part of this canon, meaning the party has fallen, the proles rose up.

  39. I love the way this book caused me to give up all hope, as well as made me hate all authoritarian humanity. JK. :0)

  40. I don't agree with the theory of the appendix in the book. Just because it's written in standard English doesn't mean newspeak will revert back to normal speech. It's more likely that someone within the inner party is the one writing it. Someone not affected by newspeak

  41. In the decades since the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, there have been numerous comparisons to Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World, which had been published 17 years earlier, in 1932.

    They are both predictions of societies dominated by a central government and are both based on extensions of the trends of their times.

    However, members of the ruling class of Nineteen Eighty-Four use brutal force, torture and mind control to keep individuals in line, while rulers in Brave New World keep the citizens in line by addictive drugs and pleasurable distractions.

    In October 1949, after reading Nineteen Eighty-Four, Huxley sent a letter to Orwell and wrote that it would be more efficient for rulers to stay in power by the softer touch by allowing citizens to self-seek pleasure to control them rather than brute force and to allow a false sense of freedom:

    "Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience."

    Elements of both novels can be seen in modern-day societies, with Huxley's vision being more dominant in the West and Orwell's vision more prevalent with dictators in ex-communist countries, as is pointed out in essays that compare the two novels, including Huxley's own Brave New World Revisited.

    Comparisons with other dystopian novels like The Handmaid's Tale, Virtual Light, The Private Eye and The Children of Men have also been drawn.

  42. First George Orwell never wrote 1984, 1984 is a movie script based on the George Orwell book 1948 by Ralph Gilbert Bettison
    and William Templeton. That book your waving around read the cover first nowhere does it say BY George Orwell.

  43. It's just occurs to me again, watching this video, that one of the biggest – yet most common – contradictions within humanity is the self-assured fool. He knows nothing, yet is totally convinced that he is an expert. Arrogantly oblivious, irreverent and pompous, he flaps his gums, tragically incognizant of his own spectacle and absurdity.

  44. Orwell was Left to the max. Democratic socialism is just a buzzword. It is literally socialism which is leftist along with communism and nazism

  45. And the West's oligarchs have march right into the pit … as if 1984 were a magnet. What they forget though, is that either their allies, the destroying invaders, or victorious patriots will give them their just due.

  46. And the liberals are playing the Orwellian word game. Illegal immigrants become undocumented aliens or dreamers, infanticide become women’s choice, prostitutes are sex workers, men can be women and vice versa.

  47. Although the appendix is in standard English and in the past tense, I do not think the author is implying that the nightmare of that society will eventually cease. It is just a conventional way of writing in English so it could be understood by the people living at the time of writing.

  48. Socialism and Communism sleep in the same bed. Go to bed with one, and you're likely to get surprised from behind by the other.
    And unfettered capitalism is just another term for anarchy and strong man rule.
    What's left? Read your John Stuart Mill. Mind your own damn business, let other people do what the hell they want to do, as long as it doesn't bother you. Yes just you. Unless someone actually personally asks you for help, and makes their business your business, mind your own damn business.

  49. 1984….ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS written in the past 100 years. PREDICTIVE about alot…. completely wrong about some. Take ''A BRAVE NEW WORLD + 1984 = upcoming future, here in the USA.

  50. 1984 characters show up across fictional barriers in books & movies right up to John Wick’s Winston & the Continental Hotel. Where real life Orwell/ Blair stayed after being “plugged” or shot in the neck by fascists in 1930’s Spain. Orwell’s endtimes: when doublethink is internalized without awareness of cognitive dissonance. 2030 or 2050? When the world or humanity would unknow freedom. Via BCI? Subplot of “2049” movie? Trump? 1984, ab’t future Stalin’s & Hitler’s & metaphysics minus anything spiritual. Worse than E. German inspiration for 1984, the GDR, Stasi, KGB & Col. Putin. Maybe. Maybe not.

  51. I think most of us if not all , have had a feeling or thought of which you cant express it in the spoken language, so maybe it is limiting !!!

  52. I made the mistake of reading 1984 when I had postnatal depression and it really upset me. "How could I prevent my son from growing up in such a nightmare world?" I thought. Then I happened to come across a review of 1984 written by Isaac Asimov, for whom I have great respect. He said it was a bad book because it was so black-and-white with no grey areas and that the Proles would rebel against such a system, so that made me feel better.

  53. I read this book for fun a few days ago and I loved it. I plan on reading it again other than when I have to read it for school.

  54. Having specific "speak" for different occupations in the novel, is a mirror of the current use of compartmentalization, used today for the deep state and the  corporate world  to commit crimes. It's quite simple, all a  worker knows is what he is working on, his job and what he needs to complete it.  In many applications, entire conspiracies can be carried out and the individuals that were involved don't even know that they were a part of it.   It's like making a small metal part for a Defense Dept. contractor, but, never knowing what it goes to or why. There are many other parallels, like blood pressure monitors in super markets, that now want you to identify yourself will eventually impact the cost of your health care by reporting you.  It's everywhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *