Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

I was told be a few people that my mind would be blown. But it's just not. I'm a little disappointed. The ending was practically anti-climactic for me. I must have missed something.

Winston gets arrested, tortured, etc. He goes to Room 101 where apparently he will learn to love Big Brother (the final step). He sells out Julia, in fact wishing for her to be hurt so that he would be set free. From this, I suspect, he loses any remaining love for her.

Flash forward to his life anew. He seems to be fully one with the party, though he doesn't yet love Big Brother. Then there is a supposed Victory and he is so happy that he finally loves Big Brother. END.

Maybe it just didn't affect me like it did other people (either by my state of mind or how I read it)? Or am I missing something crucial?

What's the significance of this: "The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain." Is that just symbolic?

 

[rareside]

Way to mark spoilers! Damn you!

I'm reading it again, actually, and I had forgotten some of it... not having read it for a good 5 or 6 years... but I will continue to read it, despite your best attempts to stop me! And I guess I shouldn't be mad anyway, since I have read it before and all.

As far as enjoyment is concerned, the reason I'm reading it again is because it was my favorite "forced" book we had to read in high school. Others prefer Brave New World by Huxley, have you read that one?

 

[Teddman]

I never found it to be a thoroughly enjoying book either, or even one that holds up that well. I think it's known more for the impact it made when it came out and its influence, rather than how great a piece of literature it is.

After all, it came out in 1949, when 1984 was thirty-five years off... Probably would have been more fun to read when it was a dark tale of the future and not an implausible fantasy of the past.

 

[Socreges]

Way to mark spoilers! Damn you!

Unless people expect: "It's Good! Ok, thread over!".... the title is a spoiler warning in and of itself. I'll edit, though, just to be safe.

I never found it to be a thoroughly enjoying book either, or even one that holds up that well. I think it's known more for the impact it made when it came out and its influence, rather than how great a piece of literature it is. It came out in 1949, when 1984 was thirty-five years off... Probably would have been more fun to read when it was a dark tale of the future and not an implausible fantasy of the past.

Couldn't disagree more. I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't enjoy it. Really, I thought it was wonderful. A lot of Orwell's ideas are based in reality and parallel a lot of what I've studied, so I think it holds up presently and will for centuries.

For instance, the class struggle prevalent in human nature, reality existing only in the mind, potential power of states, etc

I just expected more from the ending. The closure was perfect and satisfying. But again, I expected a larger twist.

 

[rareside]

Heheh, I was just joking.. It's just the feeling you get when you re-watch a movie or re-read a book and kind of hope for a different ending... hoping the proles will unite and overcome Big Brother or something...

Glad you enjoyed the book though. I'm only just part the part where he and Julia meet in the field for the first time. I loved Winston's honesty when he told her he wanted to smash her face with a stone when they passed on the street. I wish I could be that honest.

 

[Socreges]

Heheh, I was just joking.. It's just the feeling you get when you re-watch a movie or re-read a book and kind of hope for a different ending... hoping the proles will unite and overcome Big Brother or something...

I can't remember if I ever thought that might actually happen, but I expected Winston to participate in some kind of rebellion. I thought Goldstein would play a role. And I was hoping that there would be more information on Big Brother and the beginning of the Party, although I'm sure now that no Big Brother actually exists. Hard to imagine such an entity without a sovereign, though.

Glad you enjoyed the book though. I'm only just part the part where he and Julia meet in the field for the first time. I loved Winston's honesty when he told her he wanted to smash her face with a stone when they passed on the street. I wish I could be that honest.

I loved little things like that. And how practically everyone was ugly. Even Julia was apparently just very average. I can't think of many stories where the love interest wasn't attractive.

 

[CajoleJuice]

I don't know what type of "twist" you were expecting at the end. I think people make a big deal about the ending because it is so hopeless. It basically says that humanity has no chance against such an overwhelming, all-powerful force such as the Party. It's a very depressing ending in my opinion, and it reflects how Orwell was himself dying as he finished the book.

 

[Teddman]

Well, overall I just felt the book was a little slow-moving and boring, plot wise. I never connected too much with any of the characters either, and the climax wasn't as affecting as I expected.

The ideas & cautionary vision were great and original though, I don't deny it deserves to be held up as a classic.

 

[Socreges]

I don't know what type of "twist" you were expecting at the end. I think people make a big deal about the ending because it is so hopeless. It basically says that humanity has no chance against such an overwhelming, all-powerful force such as the Party. It's a very depressing ending in my opinion, and it reflects how Orwell was himself dying as he finished the book.

See, I knew that. But it never hit me, y'know? I was expecting something completely different. An ending not unlike an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Ruined everything.

 

[Ferrio]

This is a book on social commentary, not a fucking novel where the "good guy" wins.

It was orwell's view of how a ruling government could control a population with constant threat of wars, brainwashing, altering of facts and history. And how possibly the world could end up.


Winston was just an example of how the populace will NEVER be able to throw over the government. And the whole Goldstein is most likely a ruse of the government to

1. Give the people a mutual hate of something other than the government.
2. To weed out anyone that might cause trouble.

Nor does the government just want to erradicate these people, they want to totally crush any hope they had, rat out any friends they had, and get them to love Big Brother before they finally executed them. Cause it wouldn't be a victory for the goverment if Winston or anyone died for the ideas.



Read Animal Farm if you want another look on Orwell's thoughts.

 

[Socreges]

This is a book on social commentary, not a fucking novel where the "good guy" wins.

Who said it was!

I expected a twist. But certainly not a positive one.

It was orwell's view of how a ruling government could control a population with constant threat of wars, brainwashing, altering of facts and history. And how possibly the world could end up.


Winston was just an example of how the populace will NEVER be able to throw over the government.

Nor does the government just want to erradicate these people, they want to totally crush any hope they had, rat out any friends they had, and get them to love Big Brother before they finally executed them. Cause it wouldn't be a victory for the goverment if Winston or anyone died for the ideas.

I hope you're not explaining this stuff for my sake. I did know all of that. I was just curious if I had missed something about the end. Turns out it just didn't affect me as much as it should have.

Well said, though.

And the whole Goldstein is most likely a ruse of the government to

1. Give the people a mutual hate of something other than the government.
2. To weed out anyone that might cause trouble.

Reading this helped me realize something else: O'Brien pretended to be a traitor to the party in order to completely expose Winston. Right? But looking back, that seems so unnecessary. They had so much proof that he was a thought-criminal.

Read Animal Farm if you want another look on Orwell's thoughts.

I forgot about that one. I might go grab it.

 

[EviLore]

Well, overall I just felt the book was a little slow-moving and boring, plot wise. I never connected too much with any of the characters either, and the climax wasn't as affecting as I expected.

You've set new standards for bad taste, teddman. Wow. Not enough chapters involving a musclebound protagonist awash amongst a sea of blood and severed limbs as he skillfully cuts through his enemies, all the while simultaneously fucking his large-breasted companion? *boggle*

I never found it to be a thoroughly enjoying book either, or even one that holds up that well. I think it's known more for the impact it made when it came out and its influence, rather than how great a piece of literature it is.

After all, it came out in 1949, when 1984 was thirty-five years off... Probably would have been more fun to read when it was a dark tale of the future and not an implausible fantasy of the past.

Implausible? Was all of the novel's insight lost to you? It easily remains relevant today.

 

[AniHawk]

You've set new standards for bad taste, teddman. Wow. Not enough chapters involving a musclebound protagonist awash amongst a sea of blood and severed limbs as he skillfully cuts through his enemies, all the while simultaneously fucking his large-breasted companion? *boggle*



Implausible? Was all of the novel's insight lost to you? It easily remains relevant today.

No kidding. Though as much as I loved 1984, I think Brave New World painted a more realistic view of the future where people are conditioned, not forced into what they believe. Where an oppressive government is the master in 1984, in Brave New World, it is entertainment and technology.

 

[Minotauro]

I just finished rereading 1984 last week actually. Personally, I absolutely love it. I don't know what you were looking for in the ending but it pretty much floored me. It's just so heartbreaking. His meeting with Julia in particular really got to me. It was like a movie where, once the credits start rolling, you just keep sitting there staring at the screen.

 

[Crazymoogle]

The closest thing to a 1984 'happy' ending is actually the "Praise Big Brother" show from season 3 of the comedy show SCTV, in which the show's version of Charlton Heston shouts out against his oppressors. ;-)

 

[GG-Duo]

In terms of high school dystopian reading...

I absolutely hated Brave New World. The switch of protagonist is absolutely retarded. The rest of it reads like a good What If adventure than a commentary/whatever. But hey, it has

Spoiler

a negative ending too

. 1984, on the other hand, is absolutely amazing. I've only read it twice, but I can still remember scenes from it.

btw Did anybody else get EXTREMELY CREEPED OUT during Fahrenheit 9/11, when Michael Moore starts quoting 1984?

 

[pnjtony]

1984 wasn't supposed to be a look at our future. It's just a possibility and how things might go down. It's a look at how absolutely fucked up life would be if we let shit get outta hand. My GF said she didn't like it in high school cause that's not what 1984 was like at all and I had to convince her that it wasn't trying to predict the future at all. It was just a book on totalitarianism.

There was a twist...Winston really did love Big Brother at the end. and did what him and Julia said the party could never do which is make them stop loving each other.

“Under the spreading chestnut tree / I sold you and you sold me: / There lie they, and here lie we / Under the spreading chestnut tree”

And Animal Farm isn't so much Orwells ideas as it's an easier to understand explination of the Russian Revolution

If you wanna be creeped out, go watch Orwell Rolls In His Grave. It's a documentary about the US media since the early 1980's and the direction it's moving.

 

[Dilbert]

1984, like A Clockwork Orange, is one of those books where the ending is almost irrelevant. The point of the book is to raise some provocative ideas about our social structure and values, and it's hard to evaluate it on the basis of plot alone.

As far as I'm concerned, it REMAINS one of the single most relevant books that I've ever read. Anyone who thinks that "1984" was twenty years ago doesn't fucking get it. When people start throwing around terms like "war on terror" with a straight face, it's time to force them to go back and reread Orwell.

And, as mentioned earlier, Animal Farm is an allegory about the Bolshevik Revolution. It has very little to do with 1984.

 

[impirius]

I didn't enjoy the ending of 1984, but I certainly appreciated it. Watching Winston and Julia be driven inexorably toward their fates after the Party moves in on them is depressing, slow, and uncomfortable. It just keeps moving along, giving us bits of hope and crushing them soon afterward, until finally there's nothing left. That's how it had to happen. The book's message wouldn't be as powerful otherwise.

 

[Hitokage]

As far as I'm concerned, it REMAINS one of the single most relevant books that I've ever read. Anyone who thinks that "1984" was twenty years ago doesn't fucking get it. When people start throwing around terms like "war on terror" with a straight face, it's time to force them to go back and reread Orwell.

The instant they started talking about sacrificing some civil liberties here and there because we were "in a war" I knew something was horribly wrong. They openly admit to having no clear objective or timetable for this "war", and the opponent is a vague label of activity rather than a specific group or nation. Choice quote from Ashcroft on freedom making us insecure too.

Note: I have yet to read 1984, so I'm not really talking about the book here.

 

[dog$]

Sorry to interrupt (I have little to add other than me liking the book) but...

Way to mark spoilers!

it came out in 1949

What. The. Fuck.

 

[Teddman]

You've set new standards for bad taste, teddman. Wow. Not enough chapters involving a musclebound protagonist awash amongst a sea of blood and severed limbs as he skillfully cuts through his enemies, all the while simultaneously fucking his large-breasted companion? *boggle*



Implausible? Was all of the novel's insight lost to you? It easily remains relevant today.

Whatever, man. I found it a dry read, and not very entertaining, that's all I'm saying. The ideas/insight/relevance I was not disputing.

EDIT: As far as being "implausible," well in hindsight it was. Simply put, 1984 didn't turn out to be anywhere close to Orwell's vision. Shortly after its original publication part of the appeal was that it still seemed possible in three decades' time (McCarthyism and all that).

 

[pnjtony]

Whatever, man. I found it a dry read, and not very entertaining, that's all I'm saying. The ideas/insight/relevance I was not disputing.

EDIT: As far as being "implausible," well in hindsight it was. Simply put, 1984 didn't turn out to be anywhere close to Orwell's vision. Shortly after its original publication part of the appeal was that it still seemed possible in three decades' time (McCarthyism and all that).

Dude...That wasn't Orwell's vision of what 1984 would be like. He chose a date somewhere in the future. He wrote the book in 48 and just reversed the date so it'd be plenty away from the date he was living in.

I can't believe it's that hard to "get".

And it's absolutely relevent. Look at our nearly single sourced media and constant state of war and forgetting old alliances when we're at war with them. I think it's more relevent now than at any other time in history.

 

[Socreges]

I bought Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival today. Now that is an actual prediction of a dark future which may be realized.

 

[Teddman]

Dude...That wasn't Orwell's vision of what 1984 would be like.

I can't believe it's that hard to "get"..

Semantics. It was his vision of what 1984 could be like.

I "got" the book just fine, I simply didn't enjoy it as much as you. Maybe part of the problem was that I'd read dark and dystopian works like Fahrenheit 451, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, A Clockwork Orange around the same time, dulling me to some of 1984's impact.

 

[pnjtony]

no it's not dude. It's not like he said "In 36 years this is what I think the world will be like" The date is arbitrary. It could have been 1963 or 2267 it DIDN'T MATTER. It WAS NOT a prediction book like you seem to think it is.

 

[Teddman]

Duh, I didn't think Orwell was trying to be Nostradamus or anything.

It could have been 1963 or 2267 it DIDN'T MATTER.

The choice of the year 1984 certainly DID matter. It was set in the future, but not that distant of a future to be removed from what was going on in contemporary America. It was a time within the lifetimes of many readers. It was a provocative way of suggesting that this dark scenario was possible in something as brief as 35 years' time.

And whether or not it was a conscious choice, I still think it had more impact when his vision still actually seemed possible in the year 1984--why do you think he named it after a specific year? Otherwise he could have just called it Big Brother.

 

[Memles]

Enjoyed the book...read it by choice, and had to do a comparison to the movie. The movie is kind of meh, but the book definitely worked for me.

I had a choice of whether or not to present the book/movie to my Grade 11 English class or not...it was a very easy decision to make, so I waited until the next term's book. The reason? Someone in the class read the novelization of Star Trek V and compared it to the movie. I think Orwell might have been lost on 75% of them. Their reactions to watching 2001: A Space Oddysey (My English teacher had a strange idea of "teaching", if you ask me. He was a pedophile too) sealed the deal.

 

[Socreges]

I'm not sure where you've taken the argument, Teddman, but:

"and not an implausible fantasy of the past....As far as being "implausible," well in hindsight it was. Simply put, 1984 didn't turn out to be anywhere close to Orwell's vision."

This is wrong. No point in spinning it.

For the record, I think its pointless to have high school students reading 1984.

 

[pnjtony]

I'll admit it was nice to have a date in the fairly near future, but it wasn't nessesary. It certainly could have taken place at any time. It could have taken place in the middle ages. It was about totalitarianism which can exist at any time.

 

[Teddman]

I'm not sure where you've taken the argument, Teddman, but:

"and not an implausible fantasy of the past....As far as being "implausible," well in hindsight it was. Simply put, 1984 didn't turn out to be anywhere close to Orwell's vision."

This is wrong. No point in spinning it.

For the record, I think its pointless to have high school students reading 1984.

You don't think that this scenario seeming possible by the year 1984 wasn't part of the book's initial appeal?

 

[Socreges]

You don't think that this scenario seeming possible by the year 1984 wasn't part of the book's initial appeal?

We're not talking about APPEAL, though. That is wholly subjective. You are inferring INTENTION.

 

[Memles]

You don't think that this scenario seeming possible by the year 1984 wasn't part of the book's initial appeal?

I think this is, in part, true. At that point, there was still veritable-near totalitarianism governments (I'm sure we're looking in Stalin's direction at this point, as he did with Animal Farm) and the idea of this practice, in full form, spreading to the entire world...surely, it had some power as a "What if..." piece. Mind you, it remains prevalent to this day, IMO, so it was not the only draw.

 

[Teddman]

Well said, Memles.

We're not talking about APPEAL, though. That is wholly subjective. You are inferring INTENTION.

I was talking about appeal and subjective enjoyment of the book though. My initial quote that started all of you after me about what was "implausible":

Probably would have been more fun to read when it was a dark tale of the future and not an implausible fantasy of the past.

 

[Dilbert]

I can't believe that this whole discussion is now centered around the TITLE. Jesus Christ.

 

[Memles]

I can't believe that this whole discussion is now centered around the TITLE. Jesus Christ.

It's a book that makes it very easy to get wrapped up in even the simplest of concepts, and its title happens to be one of them. I tend not to think of it myself, but at the same time it is hard not to wonder why the date was picked, if there WAS any significance, and how maybe our viewpoint on the book might be if we hadn't yet reached the year in question.

 

[drohne]

it's a cliché worth repeating: futurist fiction speaks about the present more richly than it speaks about the future. "the present" being orwell's present. orwell's future totalitarian state is more a critique by amplification of the political and cultural realities of his time than it is a literal prediction of the future. there are obvious references to stalinism and nazism, but it more subtly dissects english socialism, contemporary media, and the vulgarization of the english language. that 1984's future was never fulfilled or that it isn't strictly plausible are relative trivialities.

i think the novel's greatest social (rather than aesthetic) merit is in the resonant questions it raises and refuses to clearly answer. can we think richly and originally if our language won't accommodate it? how deeply can cultural indoctrination intrude? etc.

wasn't that a pleasant flashback to highschool english, its compulsory texts, and its particular style of boredom? now let's never do this again.

 

[drohne]

as for the ending, i think it makes most sense as an ironic inversion of literary type. novels often end with a old man on his deathbed, achieving an ecstasy of understanding and reconciliation as he dies. the first examples that comes to mind are rabbit at rest and the corrections. which are both terrible examples because they came half a century later and are themselves inversions of literary type, but you'll have to trust me: A LOT OF BOOKS END THAT WAY. winston undergoes a similar ecstasy, and it's written in similar language, but it's actually a HORRIBLE, DEPRAVED ecstasy of subjugation and nullification of self. which, depending on your temperament, is chilling, bleakly hilarious, or both. i liked it tremendously.

 

[pnjtony]

It's a book that makes it very easy to get wrapped up in even the simplest of concepts, and its title happens to be one of them. I tend not to think of it myself, but at the same time it is hard not to wonder why the date was picked, if there WAS any significance, and how maybe our viewpoint on the book might be if we hadn't yet reached the year in question.

I said why it was picked. He wrote it in 48 and just flipped the numbers

 

[Socreges]

I think this is, in part, true. At that point, there was still veritable-near totalitarianism governments (I'm sure we're looking in Stalin's direction at this point, as he did with Animal Farm) and the idea of this practice, in full form, spreading to the entire world...surely, it had some power as a "What if..." piece. Mind you, it remains prevalent to this day, IMO, so it was not the only draw.

Absolutely. No one is disagreeing that the book had a particular appeal during that time.

I was talking about appeal and subjective enjoyment of the book though. My initial quote that started all of you after me about what was "implausible":

Intention:

"Simply put, 1984 didn't turn out to be anywhere close to Orwell's vision."

 

[Dyne]

I personally thought the book was a mindscrew. I read it in English class, but read most of the actual book in one night, as a cram. I don't know, I think I was too young for the concepts. My mind was just boggled. I think I'll read it again in a couple years before I get to a solid opinion on it.

 

[Hitokage]

i think the novel's greatest social (rather than aesthetic) merit is in the resonant questions it raises and refuses to clearly answer. can we think richly and originally if our language won't accommodate it? how deeply can cultural indoctrination intrude? etc.

Narrowing ranges of emotion by boiling them down to trite phrases is a documented method of cultic indoctrination(aka brainwashing).

 

[SickBoy]

And whether or not it was a conscious choice, I still think it had more impact when his vision still actually seemed possible in the year 1984--why do you think he named it after a specific year? Otherwise he could have just called it Big Brother.

He offered to allow his American publishers to use a different title for the book: "The Last Man in Europe" -- which had in fact been the other title he was considering.

That's all I've got to say about the title... now if the conversation steers back towards the content...

-SB

 

[Boogie9IGN]

I couldn't finish the book when I tried a year ago, just lost interest. Rented the movie though, and the end scenes were great

 

[pnjtony]

I thought the movie was horrible. All the really scary things were gone and it only concentrated on his relationship with Julia and his re-insertion into the matrix (hehe). John Hurt was exactly how I pictured Winston though so that was cool. A little 80's bush wasn't bad either.

 

[Prospero]

Now that you've read 1984, it's time to listen to:

Reason being that, back in 1974, Bowie attempted to mount a stage musical based on 1984, but was denied the rights to it by Orwell's widow. So he slapped a couple of extra songs onto the material he'd already written and called it "Diamond Dogs." Not Bowie's best album, but it's interesting--some of it wouldn't be out of place on a Nine Inch Nails album.

 

[Dilbert]

Narrowing ranges of emotion by boiling them down to trite phrases is a documented method of cultic indoctrination(aka brainwashing).

Also, a prerequisite for being a Republican these days, it would seem.