Talk:George Orwell

Proposal for expansion
Criticism of nationalism seems to be a common theme in Orwell's works and I think that this article could benefit from a section on it. For starters, I am going to read Orwell's essay "Notes on Nationalism". I aim to present my work either here, on the talk page, or in a sandbox. Leucippus Talk 13:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

no sizzle in the romance between Winston and Julia
This is for discussion. It is an interpretation, but I recognize that much of dating is an attempt top prove desirability as a mate, and for some people that includes the fostering of an impression of intellect and kindness. Verbal acuity is of course evidence of intelligence and formal learning, both of which have strong correlations with kindness, morality, and the rejection of violence. Stupid people typically have little subtlety in their verbal expressions. Note well that the debasement of language in the world of 1984 has much the same effect in human relationships.

The sex drive is so primitive that it is not particularly human. In the stupefied world of 1984, romantic love is impossible to express, so attraction between men and women is reduced at best to lust and at worst to a desire to commit rape. That romantic love is impossible is but another expression of the dehumanization of people, and arguably one of the most offensive features of the dystopian society.

I put this in the talk pages because I am not certain that it belongs in the body of the main article until further refined. Pbrower2a (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

addendum: A sizzling romance is of course the norm in fiction. The absence of sizzle in the romance seems deliberate. Orwell was a good enough writer that he knew what he was doing. He apparently thought his tale so compelling that romantic failure fit well.Pbrower2a (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with Newspeak
Eliminating a word does not eliminate the 'concept or thing' it represents; and can increase confusion ('are you one of the few able X or one of the less able X?') Anna Livia (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly would future generations come to learn what something is without language to refer to it? Especially if that referent was abstract. If you can provide a concrete example of that, I’d find your criticism more plausible. I am not sure how something can be thought about if it cannot be expressed propositionally. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC).
 * Back when I was a regular on Tumblr a common type of post listed words (usually non-english) that meant emotions very specific to situations. I related to them long before I heard of those words.--2friedeggs (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * if no words exist for a concept one would be created AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we use multiple words to describe the same thing, aka . In French, they have an adjective to describe something that costs money and they distinguish free as in price from free as in freedom. All stuff we don't have in English. LongStylus (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The point of Newspeak is that the vocabulary was being increasingly constrained and circumscribed so that people would think as 'the powers that be' wished them to. Whether this would be 'practical in practice' (for a variety of reasons) is another matter - and the epilogue suggests that the attempt ultimately fails. Anna Livia (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Likely because of circumlocution above. It also neglects the fact that not everyone thinks purely in language. Picture thinkers exist.--2friedeggs (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All these objections ignore the fact that synonyms and analogous sentences exist for the words that we have yet to learn. We learn them via having the language complex enough to as to describe their meaning. A perfect example is shaudenfraude. You weren’t without the language to describe the feeling without the german word. Y’all need to read some Wittgenstein. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC).
 * Whether Newspeak would be ultimately successful in completely eliminating heretical thoughts (as defined by the totalitarian government) is not something 1984 itself gives an answer to, but I think there is something to be said for the idea that it may have had some success in narrowing and directing the discourse, but would probably not reach the ultimate goal of eliminating heretical ideas altogether.
 * It implies that the attempt fails and I do not believe it would be successful.--2friedeggs (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A sci-fi book that makes a point of the latter is volume 4 of the late Gene Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun series, entitled The Citadel of the Autarch, first published in 1983. It has a society of people known as the Ascians who are ruled by The Group of Seventeen. Ascians are only allowed to speak in quotations from texts authorised by The Group of Seventeen in an attempt at preventing heretical speech and thought. Yet the book presents an example of how such authorised quotes can be used to tell stories that may even be subversive by ascribing analogies and inferences to such quotes and combining them in creative ways. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 'As an example' - consider the problems that could arise where the range of shades and variants of the colour has been reduced to the single 'blue' (though there might be comparatives - 'light, middle and dark' which could be linked to 'short, middling and tall' and similar triads).
 * There will always be reasons for linguistic change and there are better ways of controlling the situation than attempting to control thoughts ('meddle not in the ways of the rulers but concentrate on making a living').
 * Eventually there will be a point where people start to think 'Big Brother was around when my parents were children, and I now have children - this does not make sense.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * no seems to actually speak newspeak in 1984. winston smith didnt. his superiors didnt. the proles were left to own devices more or less so they didnt. it seems to be the language of official communication but no place else. its bbc english. the official newspeak, artificially constricted would be infected with the vernacular constantly and be a sisyphean task to purge unofficial additions. i bet no one was screaming newspeak expletives in room 101. i bet newspeak would effectively only serve as busy work for bureaucrats needing to hit quotas AMassiveGay (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would we in Real Life actually understand something written in Newspeak? Could 1984-the-book be written in Newspeak? Anna Livia (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Gay is right - the appendix makes it clear nobody speaks Newspeak as their native, that almost the only things which are in it are the front page article of The Times and perhaps the Ministry's internal communications to Smith. Even the Parson's kids history book is in Oldspeak, which means the conversion rate is very slow. But it's also pointed out that the Party has given itself 66 more years to complete the transition and it's aiming for evolution, not revolution on this one - that over decades, more and more Newspeak will supplant Oldspeak ones. Ie basically 'guided language growth'.


 * I don't think Newspeak was to so much to 'correctly guide' people's thoughts, more to make it easier to think/talk without actually really using the brain (bellyfeel/duckspeak) and even more important, to render 'conversation' effectively extinct because it's become boring. Newspeak only really allows three types of conversation; the humdrum (A), politics (B) and technical (C). A good case in point is the fictional 'Comrade Ogilvy'; a man who had no recreations, no personality and no conversations apart from Newspeak 'B' topics (which shall be very dull, as you already agree on everything). It's why Syme was vapourised. He knew Newspeak's ultimate goals (produce duckspeakers, make conversations extinct) but was too openly nerdy to hide his knowledge/insights on it. (And to answer Anna's point; 1984 couldn't be written in Newspeak for it lacks the vocab to express many of the topics within it. That is unless you accept pages with simply 'THOUGHTCRIME' splashed over it repeatedly. It's possible you might be able to get the gist of shorter messages, however; Newspeak is 'English-like', similar to say some programming languages.)


 * Anyway, the ultimate effect of this would be almost nil unofficial 'development' in Newspeak. There are no real conversations, so no new coinings. Newspeak has already utilised (seemingly) the obvious 'clippings' and compounds. All media is under their control, so no way say a writer could make a new term without permission. And as this is a static world, there shall be no need for new words to sum up new knowledge, products, locations or situations. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

misuse of orwell's work
its not misuse, its repurposing of his work. if its even that. the word 'orwellian' exists as distinct concept removed from his works, serving more to embody the ideas of surveillance, disinformation, propaganda, blatent denials of reality, euphemisms for brutal actions, etc taken to the extreme. it can refer to these ideas as a whole but doe not need tp. it it can refer to specific parts as is relevant. oftentimes its is an exaggeration to declare something as orwellian, but oftentimes this knowing hyperbole, a rhetorical device, to intentionally demonise what is other wise unobjectionable, or to highlight the dangers of a policy of some short might realistically present. thats not misuse, its rhetoric. some times it just fatuous, but sometimes its for effect, and sometimes, is pretty on the on the nose and we should be worried.

it makes no difference if the detail of orwell's work differ in fundamental ways to what orwellian is being applied to. it makes difference if it is applied to things orwell did not intend, or indeed to things orwell was himself a fan of. orwellian is not the work of orwell. it is merely inspired by some of his works, or more accurately inspired by some of the broad themes in some of his works, but it has a life of of its own orwell did not create the word orwellian and he cannot dictate what does or does not get the tag of orwellian. nor can we decide what is or is not orwellian using any kind of reference to what orwell 'intended'.

orwellian is a different concept to taking his actual works and saying they are about this or about that and what orwell meant by something or had in mind. though again thats not misuse, its reinterpretation, and thats still can be valid even if we know some readings are the antithesis of what we know orwell meant or intend in his works and his known stated beliefs. people read can read books with no knowledge of the author or their body of work and come to very different ideas of what was meant because without being made explicit the meaning, a piece of work on his own can often be read in very different ways. one can read 1984 and never read or have the slightest interest in ever reading the road to wigan pier AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can criticize something as "orwellian", it isn't
This is a common rule of thumb used by people because "orwellian" has been overused to the point of being meaningless but didn't Winston get away with his (hidden) journal for awhile? Thoughtcrime might be relevant here.--2friedeggs (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See above for why this is false AMassiveGay (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is false, what I said? Or the rule of thumb I stated in the header? At any rate, it doesn't appear to make the header (That if you can criticize an "orwellian" state, it isn't) false. It seems to be more of a redefining of what "orwellian" means instead of how people usually use it.--2friedeggs (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposals for division...
Simply put, suggest that 'Animal Farm' and '1984' gets their own pages. Thoughts? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is, if I did create a page titled '1984' would all the old redirects that took them to Orwell before re-redirect automatically? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)