Yes or Necessary Illusions
There's an awful lot of stuff on you tube of speeches and so on, sometimes his wit and humour is lost
Molgrips you have to look past the way governments behave, and look at what those behaviour patterns are trying to achieve IMO
That's what I'm aiming to do.
Read Chomsky, then we'll have another crack at this
Of course as molgrips says, technology may be the counter to that - it's becoming hard for news to be buried these days with twitter, etc though as molgrips alludes to, if that were to be controlled...
Funnily enough, I was having this discussion with a few friends last week. There was a piece on R4 (I think) about it being 25 years since Tiananmen Square yet the anniversary was more or less being ignored internationally and not even mentioned in China. A survey of students over there had been undertaken and it was something like 90% of them had no idea the anything had happened and those that were aware of something believed there was a protest - not a single mention of the massacre or "Tank Man". Apparently, if it is 'googled' within China you get nothing other than its location and a map.
If that report was genuine then it is really quite scary, IMO of course.
it is prophetic in the sense that it is the principle of control of the population by secret methods.
What's really disappointing is the naivety, the amount of data held by various organisations about so much of your behaviour is huge.
The reason 1984 is relevant is not that it specifically referred to the Eastern Block, but that it showed a principle that the state has no conscience in achieving its aims, even at the expense of the people it purports to serve.
Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
Read a bit of Chomsky
[img] 
[/img]
Great book, and neat little Kurt Cobain quote there
it is prophetic in the sense that it is the principle of control of the population by secret methods
Not really, he was simply following on from what had already been happening, and on a much larger scale than now.
Molgrips, there's no shame in admitting you were having bad day the other day. A number of posters have proved generic accuracy about the topic, there's no need with the continued insistence of it being a Stalinist template to be.
Now, have a nice weekend 🙂
Noooo, the scale of data collected and stored today is unimaginably greater than it was in 1948, It is also captured in greater depth and far more easily analysed to provide a profile of you.
The reason 1984 is relevant is not that it specifically referred to the Eastern Block
Isn't Britain called Airstrip One, the potential launchpad for a a US strike againmst the evil eastern communist block? Ipso facto, it's not a far left but far right society, the warning not being about far right or far left ideaologies but about a totalitarian state. In a far right state, the power lies with the Capitlists, the point made IIRC when Winston went for a drink with the proles and got the history mixed in with the good old days of a pint as opposed to a litre/half litre of beer. Just like Daily Mail readers pining for some "good old days" that never really existed.
Kryton: firstly, I was just fine the other day, not cross or anything. Secondly, no-one can be accurate about this topic because the topic isn't "are we being watched?" but "what was Orwell trying to say?" and no-one can prove that.
Back to the interesting debate then - Roger, the scale of data collected now is of course greater but the scope of investigation is far narrower. In the book, everyone is under threat and even one word out of place could see you disappeared. Far closer to Soviet era than the present day.
I see the similarities of course between modern monitoring and Big Brother but that is simply a coincidence. The context of the book is different to the present day and hence this is not what Orwell was talking about.
Ipso facto, it's not a far left but far right society
Stalin showed us how a society can be both. And yes the book is about totalitarianism of course. But the further question is, can you have communism without it?
Comparisons to communist era surveilance?
Please, we're not even close. Yes we have better means but definitely no will to do so. Read about Romania under Ceausescu or read this for perspective: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26838177
That all said and done, 1984 does have a resonance with todays society, if it makes people examine their civil liberties and how they choose to give them up (or not) then it's no bad thing.
Then watch Brazil.
The totalitarian influence and control depicted in 1984 is not exclusive to either the right or the left.
It's shared by any religious or politial movement which reminds us how difficult, awkward and inconvenient free will can be and urges us to subjigate our ability to think in favour of ignorant, populist propoganda.
Given the promise of higher definition television, cheap alcohol and the ability to sneer at our neighbours we will vote for anyone that fails to remind us what a rancid, vile, venal species we actually are.
Bit busy right now so I can't read all the previous postings, apologies I'm sure that they are spiffing.
In answer to your question, yes. Yes you should read it. On a base level it is a pretty good read. However the second half about state control and double speak is [b][u]VERY[/b][/u] relevant. Surprisingly so.
Read it, you won't be disappointed.
I see the similarities of course between modern monitoring and Big Brother but that is simply a coincidence
What is your point here? They are monitoring us for the benign reason / to "protect" us rather to "spy" on us. Is that not doublethink?
Stalin showed us how a society can be both.
No he showed you can have a left wing despot and a right wing despot
He was a left wing one.
he was not personally both left wing and right wing.
What Rusty said
yes, read the ****ing thing. it's not long. As far as I can tell, Chomp-sky is right on lots of stuff, in theory.
no-one can be accurate about this topic because the topic isn't "are we being watched?" but "what was Orwell trying to say?" and no-one can prove that.
Many, many reders, critics and commentators have pretty much reached a consensus regarding this, which differs quite a lot to your interpretation. Which I think is far too linear and binary; 'if things aren't [i]exactly[/i] like they are in the book, then they aren't similar in any way'. That's far too simplistic and naive, and I think you should employ a little lateral thinking to your approach. You might tehn enjoy the book more.
Out of interest Molly, how much other Orwell material have you read? ( newspaper articles essays speeches on so on) not just his novels or orher published non fiction?
In some ways you're correct 1984 IS a book about A particular future the Could have arisen in a society decimated from the terrors if WW2. However Orwell himself ( as did many others) saw a much greater picture, and warned as much in many articles about the rise and centralisation of govt power and propaganda
You don't need to be quite so disparaging. I don't think books are to be interpreted by consensus, and I'm very capable of understanding the complexity of the ideas in the book.
'if things aren't exactly like they are in the book, then they aren't similar in any way'
See, you've interpreted my point in an unsubtle way. My point isn't that they aren't similar, my point is that they are similar for different reasons. And that the book is not sci-fi i.e. it's not about intrusive technology it's about totalitarianism in general. And we don't live in a totalitarian state.
Out of interest Molly, how much other Orwell material have you read?
None, but they are on my list. I remember reading some quotes and extracts and I was just as impressed with those words as I was with the two most famous books.
And that the book is not sci-fi i.e. it's not about intrusive technology it's about totalitarianism in general. And we don't live in a totalitarian state.
1984 is very definitely sci-fi!
[i] And that the book is not sci-fi i.e. it's not about intrusive technology it's about totalitarianism in general. And we don't live in a totalitarian state.[/i]
Its a love story set in a futuristic Britain. It's not about a Totalitarian state, its about Winston and Julia
Not read the whole thread, but for the OP... it sure as hell isn't going to make you dumber by reading it
See, you've interpreted my point in an unsubtle way
I've applied the same approach as you've employed.
And that the book is not sci-fi i.e. it's not about intrusive technology it's about totalitarianism in general
You're making absolutist statements based on your subjective experience of reading the book. Be prapared for others to disagree with you.
Intersting that you read the situation in which the book is set, as a vision of a Stalinist totalitarian state, yet seemingly choose to omit the referrences to Nazism; particularly the use of the image of 'Goldstein' by the state, which is a direct referrence to how such states and agencies use a mythical notion of 'others' to instill fear and hate within subjects.
Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of
Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face,
with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard--a
clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile
silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles
was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a
sheep-like quality.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
although a graphic novel so ignored by many, this also seems to be a vision of future which tallies worryingly with 1984 and the way we are heading. Particularity with the make the people so fearful of something they surrender their choice to the government. I mean it's not like anti-terrorism can be used to erode civil liberties or that we could be led into war for mythical weapons of mass destruction now is it?
1984 is very definitely sci-fi!
Why do you say that?
You're making absolutist statements based on your subjective experience of reading the book.
I didn't think I was - what did you think was absolutist?
1984 is very definitely sci-fi!
Why do you say that?
1) It's fiction
2) It's set in the future
3) Things like the telescreens
Why do you claim it isn't?
Science fiction, to me, is a story *about* the science or technology, not just something futuristic that has technology in it.
So Bladerunner yes, Star Wars no.
In 1984 they manipulate the people for. The fact that it's done with telescreens isn't important - it has happened for real before that stuff was invented.
If you can point to ONE incidence of someone being disappeared by the authorities for being anti regime, I'll concede a point.
Various hundreds of people disappeared to Guantanamo, and many other resort locations whose names we don't even remember?
And most people don't give a sht, because their minds are full of One Direction and other manufactured entertainment. Much like the proles, in fact ....
So Bladerunner yes
Swerving wildly off-topic - do you think Bladerunner is about technology? I think it's about a man in love, and what it means to be in love, set against a futuristic noir background.
Well, it's been a while since I watched it and I don't think I was paying much attention but isn't it about the sentient human-like "robots" and the implications of that?
Well, for me it was about a human's reaction to that environment. But anyway, it was not to say who is right or wrong, just that the film can be legitimately seen in different ways.
Stars Wars isn't Sci Fi?
Clearly you missed all the space ships an' lasers an' aliens an' shit, huh? 🙂
Yes of course. And a lot of stories are essentially the same but with different contexts - hence the '7 plots' idea.
Blade runner is film noir.
From femme fatale to first person narration to the cinematography, to the questionable moral outlooks of all the protagonists
Stars Wars isn't Sci Fi?
Most definitely not!
it's been a week since the OP, have you put your hands on a copy?
I disagree with you, but I understand what you mean. For you it's Hard Sci Fi or nothing, so if its about science ( proper debatable, usable science) then it's Sci Fi, soft Sci Fi ( where spaceships are 'just' FLT as a plot device) just happen in context of the novel or film, and could be anything.
Right?
Swerving wildly off-topic - do you think Bladerunner is about technology? I think it's about a man in love, and what it means to be in love, set against a futuristic noir background.
Bladerunner is Frankenstein in the future. It and the book it's based on (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?) is about what responsibility we have to our creations when our creations become self aware, sentient and emotional. Do we just switch them off because we don't like then even though what we've done is teach them to think for themselves. For most sentient beings, the ultimate goal is self-preservation, so when we create sentient beings can we really complain when they do what sentient beings - preserve themselves? To me that's what top science fiction is about, creating the environment to ask questions about ourselves. Like if we have the technology to create a truly totalitarian state should we?
molgrips - MemberStars Wars isn't Sci Fi?
Most definitely not!
I like you molgrips, you're funny - do you do children's parties?
Are you tying to claim that having previously been told in other times and places neither A Fistful of Dollars or The Magnificent Seven are actually westerns?
Yeah I suppose so. If the science plays a part in the plot, then I guess I consider it scifi. In Star Wars, the planets could be countries, the Death Star could be a big army or something, and it'd be clearly a fantasty story no arguments.
1984, if you read it along with Animal Farm, struck me as a warnings against the dangers of totalitarianism of whatever political hue.
It's the logical conclusion of Orwell's journey from idealism > disillusionment with socialism/communism, which he chronicles in Homage to Catalonia - he goes out to fight against fascism but comes home having concluded that the communists on "his" side were just as much a shower of bastards as their opponents.
In 1948 when it was written, the threat of living under a totalitarian state would have seemed very real. Nazism had just been defeated but Stalinist Communism was probably not entirely discredited as a political idea and it was well worth Orwell's while to dissuade left-leaning people of its merits.
It stands comparison with fictionalised accounts of life under totalitarian regimes that were written around the same time, such as Arthur Koestler's [url= http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30672.Darkness_at_Noon ]Darkness At Noon[/url] and Hans Fallada's [url= http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6801335-alone-in-berlin?from_search=true ]Alone In Berlin[/url]. Anthony Burgess' [url= http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/587926.1985 ]1985[/url] is an amusing deconstruction of 1984 which shows how rooted it was in the austere and exhausted postwar period when it was written - e.g. Room 101 and the interiors of the various "ministries" being inspired by Orwell's work for the BBC at the time.
Its apparent prescience with regard to the present day is almost accidental, and as much a result of so much of the language of the book being absorbed (often erroneously) into mainstream language.
edhornby - Member
it's been a week since the OP, have you put your hands on a copy?
Yes I read it. I chose not to post anymore becuase everyone else has spoken for me vs Molgrips. But I am agreeing with the generalisations and also interested in some of the variations of opinion.
My comparison of Goldstien to Bin Laden was no mistake - as someone else pointed out, this could be him, Hitler, Hussien, Gaddafi etc by the symbology and meaning of the fixation to the public of an arch enemy is the same.
It's the logical conclusion of Orwell's journey from idealism > disillusionment with socialism/communism,
This!
Hence my recommendation on page one to read the works chronologically so as to understand his journey and how the ideas formed.
Its easily forgotten that one of the sub-plots of '84 was that you never know whether the perpetual state of war was merely a masquerade to justify to the people the constant shortages of day to day items.
Also one to throw out there in dystopian concepts is Heinlein's Starship Troopers (needless to say I'm talking about the book, not the travesty they called a film)
