Talk:George Orwell/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 11 April 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

"Divers"

Divers is a valid word in this context, but pretty old-fashioned nowadays; I was going to correct it but I liked it and left it in. Totnesmartin 13:04, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Left-wing writer?

I'd like to reach consensus on this. --JayJay4ever^??? 20:10, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The guy who coined the term EngSoc as a pejorative, a "left wing writer"? I'd think of him as a rational centrist in a world bent on and twisted by dictatorships from what were then the right and the left. The modern terms could only apply loosely (as today, where they change meanings as one changes country...) ħuman 20:23, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll bet he was a SCIENTIST also. Yup, a SCIENTIST. Bohdan2 20:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, he was a self-proclaimed socialist… --λινυσ^(☮) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, the edit comment should have been "…and neither 1984 nor Animal Farm was actually about communism." My mistake. --λινυσ^(☮) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if you guys saw, but I changed the first instance from "left-wing writer" to "anti-authoritarian writer", which I think is more accurate of 1984 and Animal Farm. However, I left the second use, "left wing writers and journalists who fought...". But feel free to make it better, explain it more deeply, whatever. ħuman 21:50, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

That's the best definition, Human. Above all, Orwell was anti-authoritarian and anti-fascist. Many people (for example: Conservapedians) believe that 1984 was an allegorical reference to Russia only. --JayJay4ever^??? 12:20, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow, there was a discussion about this? Orwell was a socialist his entire life, ending his life as an "anarchist". I don't see how he wasn't left-wing. ClothCoat (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it ironic that this article goes to great lengths to explain how Orwell was Left-wing, and how 1984 only applies to Right-wing beliefs... Immediately after the Animal Farm portion linking to Horseshoe Theory. 184.4.158.60 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Balance

Orwell is an almost mythic hero to many but there are also many problematic aspects to him: antisemitism, sexism, an allegation of attempted rape, and claims some of his most famous journalism was untrue, such as Shooting an Elephant. Wikipedia covers a lot of this but you'd probably have to go to authoritative sources like the Crick biography. Annquin (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What is obvious is that our article on him demands a qualitative and long-lasting expansion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A curious inversion

I removed this:

In spite of most modern societies not being full of pervasive cameras recording their every move and telling people what to do, the nature of television advertising (and programming) at a psychological level may have a similar effect - people watching it absorb the idioms presented to a greater or lesser extent, with those idioms having a normative effect. As a result, behaviour is "controlled" through a probably unplanned feedback loop: Advertisers try certain concepts, or memes, to promote products. Sales of the products to an extent determine the effectiveness of the meme, creating selective pressure on which memes work and for what. The memes are then refined over "generations," with the additional background selective pressure of the advertisers' goals. In other words, the one pressure the population at large is not allowed to introduce is "what they really want." Their contribution is to inform the advertising industry "how to get us to do what you want." So, rather than Big Brother watching us, we watch Big Brother.

Since it is interesting but tangential and more importantly uncited. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It has a seductive phraseology; and I suspect the influence of Richard Dawkins; but, you're right it has a place more in an essay than Orwell's page. And I only watch Big Brother 'cause my wife insists on putting it on. --Scherben (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Proles and Newspeak

The proles are allowed to continue speaking (an evolved/Newspeak flavoured version of) Oldspeak - at what point will they and the rulers be unable to communicate with each other? The Thought Police might not actually recognize the rebellion until it is too late. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The thought police could still speak oldspeak as well, couldn't they? It's been ages since I read the book so I could be wrong. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The main baddie spoke Oldspeak quite well. In fact, Newspeak was barely used if I remember right. I think it was just used for the sample newspaper articles that Winston rewrote. A messy death is your first warnin'. 18:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

But the problem might still arise - and the text is given in OurPresentEnglish as we would not necessarily understand AltHistory1984English. And, as we well know, intonation can give words a totally different meaning.

The captcha question is 'notepad and pen' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

They only need a few people who speak both old and newspeak to translate any suspicious behaviour, I think Orwell intended for us to think that there wouldn't be an uprising. Christopher (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Language drifts; closed doors (which is what Newspeak to some extent represents) operate in both directions; we are in a more fluid relationship with 'the authorities' than was the case in Orwell's time - and, despite decades of Sovietspeak a man on a tank was able to wind up the Soviet Union like a defunct business. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Newspeak effectively eliminates scientific development - and will close the minds of the authorities to what is happening. If you-the-administrator do not understand the concept of freedom, revolution etc, you may not understand the problem you are being told about.

Or, perhaps, Newspeak is aimed at #the members of the Outer Party# to keep #them# from revolting. 86.145.120.222 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Goldstein was destined to be as immortal as BB. The stated aim of 'newspeak' might have been to remove all possibility of 'thoughtcrime', but true to the principles of 'doublethink', it would fail to do so (Goldstein's heresies would continue to be uncovered), whilst at the same time being completely effective. The Party was also convinced that Proles would never revolt by themselves; and why would they, when kept in complete ignorance of their condition? Scherben (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Big Brother is watching

Doesn't this imply a paternal benevolence as well as a veiled threat? Scherben (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This was the whole idea of doublethink and newspeak, yes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

But doublethink isn't really needed. The promise of benevolence and threat combined is all part of the demigod status given by the Party to Big Brother, with Goldstein being its obverse. A straightforward black and white orthodoxy doesn't necessarily carry the connotations of doublethink. --Scherben (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is someone talking about me?Doublethink (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The world of 1984

Would be quite different to ours: smallpox would still be rife, no nuclear power (but no Chernobyl), Colonel Stanislav Petrov would have no claim to fame, no North Sea Oil - and the coal on Airstrip One might well be running out.

But we are not told what is happening outside the London area. Anna Livia (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"But we are not told what is happening outside the London area." - Not unlike the media bubble of now (he says snarkily, ignoring Salford Media City and Channel 4's proposed move.) --Scherben (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Were you there? section

Is slightly inaccurate. It's a Ministry of Love statement made by Winston's interlocutor/torturer, O'Brien as a rhetorical point (the Party will is all of existence and reality); and is one that must contradict official Party education (Doublethink, remember) for Winston to have learned about them. --Scherben (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

One problem with Crimestop

It prevents/distorts contingency planning - it is doubleplusungood to think about possible disasters so they cannot be avoided. Anna Livia (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia

These places have to fall in at least a few hundred years right? Without fossil fuels these nations can't run or keep up their total surveillance. They can't develop new energy because there is no science in 1984. Doublethink (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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 circumlocution. 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)