My little review of 1984 by George Orwell
As I attempt to hurdle
over my short attention span & address 1984, again in my mid-life, I find
myself quite naturally soaking in all of the dreary yet tense atmosphere
throughout the novel. Unavoidably approaching it as a Gen X-er, one could not
escape the references to 1984 throughout my life as we delve further into a
world of homogeneity & behavioural tracing & tracking through
technology. Through this, one could forever place ourselves parallel to
Orwell’s uncanny ability to foresee what would become of us. I won’t dwell on
those issues that seem obvious and apparent, but I will comment on what stood
out to me, and we’ll see what might resemble or not.
|
|
|
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/ |
What I found to be
striking in Orwell’s account of an intrusive future led by the ideal of Big
Brother is the fact that Orwell created concepts such as:
- Thought police: whereby,
through watching a proletariat’s (citizen worker of a
totalitarian system) behaviour that one could tell if they were loyal or
not to Big Brother.
- Newspeak: an entirely new way of simplifying
language which dumbed down entire societies by reversing word etymology
and creating edition upon edition of Newspeak dictionary. This was used to
deliberately change and control the method in which people could
communicate with each other over just a few decades.
- Combining continents: by reducing borders
between countries and continents until there are only three. Information
is falsified by various forms of ‘news’ that, in fact, nobody really knows
which continent is at war with which, and who is the enemy and who is not.
In so doing, Orwell demonstrates how easy it is to instil distrust between
factions, playing on fear.
Before I go any
further, I think it needs to be said that ironically, one of the first
‘Reality’ TV shows, “Big Brother”, using the references from Orwell’s novel, became
a popular ‘Fly-on-the-wall program, viewing has, in fact, been bastardised to
the point that it lost the original meaning. What is funny about the TV show is
that the viewer is watching rather flamboyant, extroverted people trying to
compete to be the most loved and to win a great prize. Big Brother, in 1984, demands
certain behaviours to become a submissive follower. Inability to do so will be
deemed a Thought Crime by the Thought Police and will be punished. Homogeneity
is manipulated inasmuch as the player in the TV series attempts to make
themselves stand out the most and therefore participate in showing off and
forcing themselves into awkward situations. In 1984, the only time excessive
behaviour happens is when we see Winston Smith join other Proles at the cinema
to watch short propaganda films which are intended to bring shame to
individuals and to incite hatred for those against Big Brother.
What is
interesting is to be alongside Winston Smith’s thoughts as a sympathiser and
try to work out (as he distrusts everyone), who is watching him and his
thoughts. We realise how severe the act of having our own thoughts is when we
learn that he considers himself to be watched for his facial movements to give
away what he is thinking. Right at the beginning, though we know very little
until he writes down his thoughts, which it seems, he is also unaware of until
the point the pen reaches paper. Small relief is given when he can hide these
thoughts, as he has an angle of space where he can hide from the cameras. The
reader can relate as society’s eyes are everywhere, especially in small towns,
with social media prevalent. The only other space that is private is an open
meadow, away from cameras or watching eyes.
When
Winston hires an apartment from a diddly old man, the reader finds themselves
in a transitional point whereby sex can take place but there are no
repercussions. As if everything we read at this point is pending. The nursery rhyme, symbolic of innocence,
childhood, undiscovered meaning, and early literacy, was so hauntingly used to
bring about Winston’s show of ‘disloyalty’ in a public manner, to a stranger.
Julia,
Winston’s sex partner, is a character I had trouble connecting with. I found
her to be a heroine of sorts or rather, wanted her to be. She seemed brave and
rebellious, but there was still something missing. It was pointed out [should
put quote in here] that she didn’t have the same level of thought, although she
was the instigator and influencer in Winston’s coming out. While I enjoyed what
she brought to the story, I was nevertheless disappointed by her to some degree,
and she disappeared quickly than she appeared. I don’t know if this was a
tactic that Orwell used in order to show that she wasn’t as driven as Winston
ideologically, or if Orwell himself was from an era where he couldn’t
conceptualise an equal in female stature.
O’Brien was
hard to read and frustratingly so as we learn of his role. We still find
Winston able to relate to him as he does Winston, and that reasoning with him
to the last moment was not impossible. The nature of his conversational
dictator made this reader second-guess his motives right to the end, but
perhaps this was also intended.
The fact that there
was a document to explain how the totalitarian existence had come about and how
it was being used to rewire an entire society remains with me. Was it, in fact,
planted to expose a potential rebel to the Thought Police?
In all,
1984 left me breathing shallow for a long while, while my brain worked to make
the connections where there perhaps were none. Leaving me in as much distrust
of the system as the protagonist felt right through his conscious thought.