1984 - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Mike C · 01-16-2006, 06:27 AM

If it doesn't sound like your 'thing', all the more reason to read it.

And AF isn't a story about animals.

Mike C · 01-16-2006, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

Eh, Orwell was actually talking about communism in the book and what would happen if it spread throughout the world. England was no totalitarian state.

I'm afraid you're mistaken, Hodge. AF was about Stalinism, 1984 was a satire of Britain as it was in 1948.

You have to remember that although Britain was not a totalitarian state as such, it was still suffering from food rationing and censorship of news was happening much as Orwell described it, and England was a bleak and desolate place to live. Orwell himself worked for the ministry of information and the BBC and was responsible for such tasks as Winston Smith is protrayed as carrying out. He's also been linked with MI5. 1984 is an exercise in taking the environment you live in and stretching the point to it's logical conclusion.

The ministry of truth and the ministry of love were based on real government buildings and room 101 existed (and still exists, in every country in the world) albeit under a less sinister name.

His identification of England as Airstrip One was quite visionary when you consider the relationship we now seem to have with the US.

If you want to know more I'd recommend his recent biography, which gives context to a lot of what Orwell wrote and demonstrates quite ably that Orwell only ever wrote (as we advise newbies every day) about what he knew.

Londongrey · 01-16-2006, 06:54 AM

Hodge, you also need to understand what similairites and differences that Orwell had with Winston Churchill when viewing England to get a very good insight into 1984. What many people find surprising is that Orwell had a deep love of England, and a respect for it. That is often over-looked when people read 1984.

Like Mike said above his biography is very interesting and informative, offering a new perspective on his work.

colvin11 · 01-16-2006, 04:28 PM

I wasn't saying it should be happy at all, him getting tortured and broken doesn't strike me as being particularly 'happy'. It is the very last bit, after he says to do it to her, tha tspoiled it

Mike C · 01-17-2006, 12:31 AM

And again I will tell you that the last part is an essential part. It shows that Winston's rebellion is futile, and that Big Brother is so confident that room 101 has broken him that he is allowed to live. Therefore instead of having the potential for martyrdom, he becomes a warning to others. His confession is broadcast on TV. He has become dehumanised.

Londongrey · 01-17-2006, 10:46 AM

I agree with Mike,

Orson Wells had a long standing interest in the history of poverty in England, there are many paintings, etchings and the like which were known to Wells that portrayed the true dehumanisation of the poor in England. These pictures were not popular at the time, going back into Georgian times, but they depict a social history that Wells found fascinating.

I think 1984 is one of the few books in which you have study properly the author, study the real background to the authors interests and perspective.

Then you find depths in the book which you cannot reach on a one-time read.

Londongrey · 01-17-2006, 10:48 AM

I should just also add that this fascination with poverty in his own country is somewhat more important when you consider how he lived towards the end of his live and eventually passing away with TB.

Mike C · 01-17-2006, 12:41 PM

Uh, dude... Orson Wells?

Orwell lived in a state of near poverty thoughout a large part of his life. Keep the Aspidistra Flying is damn near autobiographical, but then most of his work is to a greater or lesser degree.

Londongrey · 01-17-2006, 02:47 PM

DOH!! I always get those two confused in my head!! George Orwell I mean of course.

Wilderness · 02-04-2006, 07:55 PM

I studied this book in my literature class last year and I didnt enjoy it. I liked the idea of it and what it was trying to say, but I don't like how it was done. I donno, I hated it at the time but now, 3-4 months later, I'm not too bla about it. I dont mind it right now.

I started reading it with really high expectations. That is probably why I was so disappointed.

I think Orwell is brilliant and the book is genius, but it just wasnt for me.

Lani

Mike C · 02-05-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilderness

I studied this book in my literature class last year and I didnt enjoy it. I liked the idea of it and what it was trying to say, but I don't like how it was done. I donno, I hated it at the time but now, 3-4 months later, I'm not too bla about it. I dont mind it right now.

I started reading it with really high expectations. That is probably why I was so disappointed.

I think Orwell is brilliant and the book is genius, but it just wasnt for me.

Lani

Hi Lani

I'm curious as to where 1984 fell short in your expectations. You say you had high expectations, and that Orwell is brilliant, book genius etc. but you were disappointed.

Is it because you had to study it rather than read it for pleasure? An age thing? His writing style? Lack of relevance to your world?

Not grinding any axes here, just genuinely curious. And have you read any other Orwell?

simon woodhouse · 02-05-2006, 12:17 PM

I read the book for the first time last year and really enjoyed it. The scene where Julia put the make-up on, but wasn't very good at it because she'd never done it before, was really touching. Some bits of it were quite funny as well, in a macabre sort of way, especially Winston's neighbour being proud of his own children having him arrested for treason.

A couple of weeks after I finished the book the film was on TV. What a let down. I couldn't watch more than half of it. Though life was bleak in the book, I think they over did it in the film. But then again, good books very rarely make good films.

Wilderness · 02-07-2006, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Hi Lani

I'm curious as to where 1984 fell short in your expectations. You say you had high expectations, and that Orwell is brilliant, book genius etc. but you were disappointed.

Is it because you had to study it rather than read it for pleasure? An age thing? His writing style? Lack of relevance to your world?

Not grinding any axes here, just genuinely curious. And have you read any other Orwell?

Hey
I have read Animal Farm, which I also very much didnt like.
It is maybe because we had to study it, and maybe because we had to cram it into very little space.
(However, I have read a lot of books that we have studied in class that I really enjoyed learning about..it depends on the teacher I think)
But I dont know.
I had heard it was brilliant and the best book I would read...and it just wasnt.
Maybe if I was a bit older, I would have appreciated it more.
I think it was a combination of his writing style and the story. I think the first part and a bit of part 2 was just a lot of rambling. He was blurting out the facts that we needed to know about where the story was set and what life was like. It wasnt revealed slowly as the book progressed, which is usually what happened, but was written all at once. (if that makes sense to you).

If a modern day literary fiction author were to re-do it...I would probably like it. (I think)

Sorry..that was a lot of rambling but I didnt really know how to answer your questions so I just let my mind wander.

Hope that answers your questions!

Lani

Mike C · 02-07-2006, 02:57 AM

Thanks Lani, it does.

pride.in.introspection · 02-12-2006, 09:26 AM

I found Animal Farm better than 1984.