Nineteen Eighty-Four
What an excellent book.
People will look at this book and say that it's a warning against totalitarianism. I will say that, yes, they are right. Yet if you look further into this book, there is an even more fundamental warning (at least I think so).
It seems to me that Winston was defeated by Big Brother at the end because he tried to 'come to grips' and 'understand' what was happening. It's a vicious little circle, trying to comprehend what cannot be comprehended. It's also frightening for this very same reason.
Sometimes there simply is no 'answer'. Even then, O'Brien tells Winston that it's about power, pure and simple. That was the only motivation, if it could be called that. To a certain extent, you can't compete with that. The square peg in a round hole syndrome.
Reading the book, I was gripped by the logic of O'Brien's rationale for the existence of Big Brother and the excuse for totalitarianism. I felt sorry for Winston because every attempt at logically trying to circumvent O'Brien's attacks met with failure. Yet Winston was RIGHT. Everyone who reads this book or watches the movie K NOWS this. Yet any attempt to logically prove our correctness is often countered. That is why polemics is such an infantile game.
I'm currently reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East". Every page reminds of George Orwell's messages. Melissa, you asked by do we continue to believe lies? Kim suggests it's not the role of government to micro-manage. Of course, the answers (and the questions) fall within the same spectrum, variations on a theme, so to speak.
There is no logic to any of this besides the logic created for it. The logic is it's own world, man-made and obviously so. Within the walls, it's a risk to conceive trying to breach them yet....
People will look at this book and say that it's a warning against totalitarianism. I will say that, yes, they are right. Yet if you look further into this book, there is an even more fundamental warning (at least I think so).
It seems to me that Winston was defeated by Big Brother at the end because he tried to 'come to grips' and 'understand' what was happening. It's a vicious little circle, trying to comprehend what cannot be comprehended. It's also frightening for this very same reason.
Sometimes there simply is no 'answer'. Even then, O'Brien tells Winston that it's about power, pure and simple. That was the only motivation, if it could be called that. To a certain extent, you can't compete with that. The square peg in a round hole syndrome.
Reading the book, I was gripped by the logic of O'Brien's rationale for the existence of Big Brother and the excuse for totalitarianism. I felt sorry for Winston because every attempt at logically trying to circumvent O'Brien's attacks met with failure. Yet Winston was RIGHT. Everyone who reads this book or watches the movie K NOWS this. Yet any attempt to logically prove our correctness is often countered. That is why polemics is such an infantile game.
I'm currently reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East". Every page reminds of George Orwell's messages. Melissa, you asked by do we continue to believe lies? Kim suggests it's not the role of government to micro-manage. Of course, the answers (and the questions) fall within the same spectrum, variations on a theme, so to speak.
There is no logic to any of this besides the logic created for it. The logic is it's own world, man-made and obviously so. Within the walls, it's a risk to conceive trying to breach them yet....
posted by sleiman @ 9:51 PM
2 Comments:
At 6:09 PM, June 06, 2006,
KH said…
Some questions/comments...
1. I think that Winston's downfall may have been the attempt to understand / comprehend using the wrong context. It was easy for O'Brien to understand, therefore I'd suggest that he was asking the right questions.
Is it better to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the reasoning or to attempt to place yourself in a context in which to understand it, even though you may later refuse to acknowledge it anyway?
2. Who said Winston was right?
3. i said that it's not the role of citizens (not Government) to micro-manage - better quote me right next time, boy! :)
At 1:11 AM, June 07, 2006,
Anonymous said…
It was easy for O'Brien to understand because he had control over the situation. He was dictating to Winston the rules of his game, or rather, the game that he himself had fallen into.
Whenever Winston would try and circumvent it, O'Brien would simply ask, "So?" Winston then became stuck because how do you explain first causes?
Any kind of reasoning is fine, as long as it stays within it's own boundaries. Once outside though, it has to contend with other 'rationalities'. It seems to me that the more one tries to control, the weaker one's own position really is, not withstanding any political, finanicial or military clout (do all of these stem from weakness in the first place?).
Big Brother's strength lay in it's removal of all other modes of thought, all of the competiton so to speak. I realise that it's a paradox to say so, but I have no doubts whatsoever that Big Brother's victory is a direct result of it's inherent weakness.
I think that you've hit the nail pretty much on the head when you asked if it was better to place yourself in a context in which to understand the reasoning, even though you may later refuse it.
Winston simply could not understand this lust for power. He didn't know how (or perhaps that it was even possible to do so) to extrapolate from his own feelings and emotions in order to identify, even briefly, with O'Brien and the Party.
We all certainly have the capacity to ask "Why?" yet I wonder how many of us are confident enough not to require an answer. Winston was desperately seeking answers to his, dare I say, 'legitimate concerns', yet he never seemed to accept that the answers he was receiving was as good as it was going to get.
The only way for him to 'accept' it all, was, in the end, to be emotionally and psychologically destroyed.
Was Winston right? Well, right makes might but not when there is more might than right.
PS: Do you think that there'll be a sequel, "1985"...
Post a Comment
<< Home