Sign in with Facebook
Bill Kerwin's Reviews > 1984
1984
by
This book is far from perfect. Its characters lack depth, its rhetoric is sometimes didactic, its plot (well, half of it anyway) was lifted from Zumyatin’s We, and the lengthy Goldstein treatise shoved into the middle is a flaw which alters the structure of the novel like a scar disfigures a face.
But in the long run, all that does not matter, because George Orwell got it right.
Orwell, a socialist who fought against Franco, watched appalled as the great Soviet experiment was reduced to a totalitarian state, a repressive force equal in evil to Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. He came to realize that ideology in an authoritarian state is nothing but a distraction, a shiny thing made for the public to stare at. He came to realize that the point of control was more control, the point of torture was more torture, that the point of all their "alternative facts" was to fashion a world where people would no longer possess even a word for truth.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
Orwell’s vision of the world is grim; too grim, some would argue, for it may deprive the faint-hearted among us of hope. But Orwell never wanted to take away hope. No, he wished to shock our hearts into resistance by showing us the authoritarian nightmare achieved: a monument of stasis, a tribute to surveillance and control.
Here, in the USA, in 2017, our would-be totalitarians are a long way from stasis. Right now they’re stirring up chaos and confusion, spreading lies and then denying they spread them, hoping to gaslight us into a muddle of helplessness and inactivity. They are trying to destroy a vigorous democracy, and they know it will take much chaos and confusion to bring that democracy down. They hate us most when we march together, when we occupy senate offices and jam the congressional switchboard, when we congregate in pubs and coffee houses and share our outrage and fear, for they know that freedom thrives on solidarity and resistance, and that solidarity and resistance engender love and hope. They much prefer it when we brood in solitude, despairing and alone.
Which reminds me...one of the things we should never do is brood about the enemy’s ideology (Is Steve Bannon a Fascist? A Nazi? A Stalinist?), for while we try to discern his “ideological goals,” the enemy is busy pulling on his boots, and his boots are made with hobnails, with heel irons, and equipped with toecaps of steel.
Finally, it does not matter who heads up the authoritarian state: a bully boy like Mussolini, a strutting coprophiliac like Hitler, a Napoleonic pig like Stalin, or a brainless dancing bear like Trump. Whatever the current incarnation of “Big Brother” may be, the goal is always the same:
by
This book is far from perfect. Its characters lack depth, its rhetoric is sometimes didactic, its plot (well, half of it anyway) was lifted from Zumyatin’s We, and the lengthy Goldstein treatise shoved into the middle is a flaw which alters the structure of the novel like a scar disfigures a face.
But in the long run, all that does not matter, because George Orwell got it right.
Orwell, a socialist who fought against Franco, watched appalled as the great Soviet experiment was reduced to a totalitarian state, a repressive force equal in evil to Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. He came to realize that ideology in an authoritarian state is nothing but a distraction, a shiny thing made for the public to stare at. He came to realize that the point of control was more control, the point of torture was more torture, that the point of all their "alternative facts" was to fashion a world where people would no longer possess even a word for truth.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
Orwell’s vision of the world is grim; too grim, some would argue, for it may deprive the faint-hearted among us of hope. But Orwell never wanted to take away hope. No, he wished to shock our hearts into resistance by showing us the authoritarian nightmare achieved: a monument of stasis, a tribute to surveillance and control.
Here, in the USA, in 2017, our would-be totalitarians are a long way from stasis. Right now they’re stirring up chaos and confusion, spreading lies and then denying they spread them, hoping to gaslight us into a muddle of helplessness and inactivity. They are trying to destroy a vigorous democracy, and they know it will take much chaos and confusion to bring that democracy down. They hate us most when we march together, when we occupy senate offices and jam the congressional switchboard, when we congregate in pubs and coffee houses and share our outrage and fear, for they know that freedom thrives on solidarity and resistance, and that solidarity and resistance engender love and hope. They much prefer it when we brood in solitude, despairing and alone.
Which reminds me...one of the things we should never do is brood about the enemy’s ideology (Is Steve Bannon a Fascist? A Nazi? A Stalinist?), for while we try to discern his “ideological goals,” the enemy is busy pulling on his boots, and his boots are made with hobnails, with heel irons, and equipped with toecaps of steel.
Finally, it does not matter who heads up the authoritarian state: a bully boy like Mussolini, a strutting coprophiliac like Hitler, a Napoleonic pig like Stalin, or a brainless dancing bear like Trump. Whatever the current incarnation of “Big Brother” may be, the goal is always the same:
A nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face.
3462 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
1984.
Sign In »
Quotes Bill Liked
“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
― 1984
― 1984
Reading Progress
May 28, 2007
– Shelved
Started Reading
February 6, 2017
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 310 (310 new)
message 1:
by
Jon
(new)
Feb 06, 2017 06:07PM
Thank you for putting all of this so clearly. Ideology is nothing but a distraction. The point of control was more control. Wow. Thanks again.
reply
|
flag
But the problem seems to be that there is no right side to ideology--ideology has your thinking ready for you, prepackaged, as it were. Therefore it is best to be wary of both "sides" and frightened of neither. I would stand in solidarity with people, not ideologues--so you see the difficulty.
Axolotl wrote: "But the problem seems to be that there is no right side to ideology--ideology has your thinking ready for you, prepackaged, as it were. Therefore it is best to be wary of both "sides" and frightene..."Yes! Standing with people is always a stand against authoritarianism and vice versa. And the test of an ideology--if you feel drawn to one--is how it interferes with and limits the rights of people, and how it may make their lives better.
I'm now fixated on "brainless dancing bear." It's an ear worm that I can't get rid of. But it does at least replace his face. Isn't it amazing that the folk who have most are the folk who are most resentful? I don't understand it.
I like your response above about the test of an ideology.Good review.
This review feels 'right'. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts it has definitely made me think.
I had a different impression from this book. I thought the main story was the man's (almost illogical) fear of communism because of its anti-religious approach, as Orwell was a fairly religious person.Igor
Thanks for a thought provoking review. I tend to agree with Axolotl's comment —subscribing to an ideology, any ideology, reduces one's ability to think for yourself. Instead, I prefer to look at a given idea and let it either stand or fall on its own merit regardless of the ideology of who came up with it. The result in my own life has been that I no longer identify with any political party because they are all too beholden to their ideologies and too intolerant of each other.
That was a nice review!
Outstanding review. It's been a long time since I read 1984 ... I'm going to read it again.
Excellent. I really need to read this one again.
Searing, Bill. Yes, the book gets much wrong, for the reasons you give, but it still has a powerful, scary, and highly relevant message. And yet we haven't learned.
I think I just accept that the characters don't have depth because, as people, they aren't deep. Winston Smith is shown to have no admirable qualities, between O'Brien's exposure of his character and his childhood memories (though he believes them unreliable). He remembers being a spoiled, selfish child; and as an adult, he lacks the strength to do the one thing that would dignify him and defeat O'Brien: choose his own death by letting the rats eat him. Julia? She just wants to have sex with Winston and enjoy his company--I think the novel says she had had affairs before. It's no wonder that she surrenders to the torture immediately. They're both weak. I believe they were meant to be.And O'Brien? He is given no background, no explanation of why he's such a monster. (I speculate that he is *not* a particularly high-ranking member of the Inner Party, because if he is, why is it his job to interrogate a prisoner? Possibly he's just an IP investigator and interrogator. Since the Party lies as needed, I have no difficulty believing O'Brien lied that he had anything to do with the writing of the false Goldstein manual.
It is especially revealing of Winston's (lack of) character that O'Brien asks Winston to do many horrible things for the Brotherhood, such as child abuse and disseminating venereal disease, and Winston immediately agrees to. This is later the backbone of how O'Brien's demonstrates that Winston is not morally superior to the Party.
The question of three hundred million people doing the same things and having the same face has also long-term consequences because, should the regime change, the thinking will remain the same for a long time to come.
Orwell's point was that authoritarianism in the modern world comes from the state and that's socialism.Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler were all avowed socialists.
![[Name Redacted]](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1347082397p1/287915.jpg)
"FREE SPEECH IS HATE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH IS HATE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH IS HATE SPEECH!"
John wrote: "Orwell's point was that authoritarianism in the modern world comes from the state and that's socialism.Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler were all avowed socialists."
No, I don't think this was Orwell's point at all. Orwell himself was a socialist, a democratic socialist (like Bernie Sanders). But he despised authoritarian states which adopted the word "socialism'" because they gave socialism a bad name.
If you can lead me to a direct Orwell quote which proves your point, though, I would be interested to see it.
Great review, Bill: short, sharp and to the point. We should all bear it in mind, always. Thanks.
I can lead you to the facts that all the men I mentioned were socialists.Yes, I agree that Orwell was a democratic socialist, but I would argue that term is nearly meaningless today. The Scandinavians are not socialist. A word that Sanders used to describe Denmark, which he was roundly rebuked for by the Denmark Prime Minister.
I should've been more clear. In his books Animal Farm and 1984, Orwell is clearly using the Soviet Union as a template to work from.
The modern western state will not be taken over by kings or strongmen, but instead will be taken over by the Left, espousing 'fairness' for the people. Venezuela, though not Western, is just the latest example.
John wrote: "I can lead you to the facts that all the men I mentioned were socialists.Yes, I agree that Orwell was a democratic socialist, but I would argue that term is nearly meaningless today. The Scandina..."
Mussolini was a passionate socialist early on, but abandoned it later for fascism. Hitler used the socialist name to get labor support, but never really embraced the concept (for him, nationalism and and socialism are the same thing). Soon, he began to lock the socialists up, along with the Communists. They were some of the first people to be sent to the concentration camps. Stalin, of course, was a socialist.
Your comment about Animal farm is obviously true, but does not make your point about Orwell's beliefs about socialism, taken as a whole. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but don't attribute it to Orwell.
Unless, of course, you have some concrete proof--an actual quote, perhaps?--to back it up?
I read 1984 and Brave New World in H.S. I thought it was truly depressing, without hope. It had its lessons, but I prefer Brave New World. Re: Mr Ego, it IS amazing that his BIG LIES don't seem to bother very many. Maybe it's the internet that has shaped our vision these strange days. Thanx!
I recommend Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom as well. An attempt at explaining authoritarianism . Although a bit dated and redundant at times I found it enlightening.
Maria wrote: "I recommend Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom as well. An attempt at explaining authoritarianism . Although a bit dated and redundant at times I found it enlightening."A fine book!
Mussolini never stopped being a socialist. As he said about his creation/conversion to fascism. A worker confronted him and questioned why he was worried about the International Worker and not more about the The Italian worker? Fascism is just socialism with a nationalistic agenda.
The question of Hitler's being a true believer or just a power hungry demagogue is unknowable - probably shades of both.
However, what I resist is the notion that somehow if Hitler''s beliefs weren't pure that doesn't cast Socialism in a bad light.
A famous bank robber replied when asked, why he robbed banks, bc that's where the money is.
Socialist politics, regardless if their idealistic or machiavellian, always end up answering a similar question. Why be a socialist? Bc that's where the votes are.
Socialism fails bc at its core the system is devised by people and run by people. No one has the acumen needed to be the Philosopher King a real socialist architect would need, and no one has the altruism, or the ability to impute that altruism once he's left the stage, to those who follow.
Most recent lesson is the hell hole Venezuela has become.
John wrote: "Mussolini never stopped being a socialist. As he said about his creation/conversion to fascism. A worker confronted him and questioned why he was worried about the International Worker and not more..."You express your views passionately. I'll let you have the last word.
From this point on, this comment thread is reserved for matters that pertain more directly to Orwell.
Hi Bill, thanks for the reminder that we shouldn't waste time trying to figure out why Trump/Bannon/McConnell/Ryan are doing it.They have power. They want to keep it. They want more power.
Our silence is acquiescence. Our power is telling someone else the truth.
Brainless dancing bear..... OMG that was brilliant. Thank you for making my day
Thank you for this review. Yes, Orwell got it right.... Thank the gods Trump and the GOP are not quite there yet...."The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.
The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.
We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Well done, Bill, we have to keep telling the truth about what's going on with Trump and the Republicans. They're willing to hurt millions of people to throw some tax breaks to their wealthy friends.
John, you're missing the point. it didn't matter if Mussolini or Stalin called themselves socialists. They were dictators. The ideology someone claims means little if their actions are different. You seem to be here to complain about the left. Well, we would not be talking of a want - to - be dictator with a president Sanders.
They used their ideology to get power.Read the nazi platform or take a moment to see that Mussolini was a life long socialist.
Just as when Willie Sutton, the bank robber, was asked why he robbed banks, and he relied bc that's where the money is, so politicians glom on to socialism bc that's where the votes are.
Have you been keeping up with the goings-on in Venezuela?
Dictatorships have been leading right through Socialism since Lenin wrote "What is to be Done?". I resist the notion that somehow socialism is not to blame for these risings. Once you put the mob at your back and start demanding the gov't pick winners you are asking for exactly what happens again and again.
War is peace, Freedom is slavery,
Ignorance is strength.
If you want a vision of the future,
imagine a Republican boot stamping on a human face,
Forever.
seems like you fell for the trick, mediocre art desperately invoking fear-mongering imagery that anyone can use to slander political opponents
As you said, it is a flawed book, but an important one. I taught it often when I was a high school teacher. History shows us that it does not make much for a liberal democracy to fall. We think it cannot happen here, but our democratic institutions are teetering.
Great review. I read Zamyatin's 'We' earlier this year and to be honest I wasn't all that keen. I keep meaning to read 1984.
Linda wrote: "Great review. I read Zamyatin's 'We' earlier this year and to be honest I wasn't all that keen. I keep meaning to read 1984."I know what you mean. I admired We but was never really moved by it.
Bill wrote: "Linda wrote: "Great review. I read Zamyatin's 'We' earlier this year and to be honest I wasn't all that keen. I keep meaning to read 1984."I know what you mean. I admired We but was never really ..."
What bothered me was the relationship between him( number long forgotten) and the woman he became obsessed with (number long forgotten). And the relationship between him and the woman who loved him. I just got fed up with the stereotypical bad woman/good woman. Because Iwhatever was not honest where as Uwhatever was - I have remember first letters :)
Linda wrote: "Bill wrote: "Linda wrote: "Great review. I read Zamyatin's 'We' earlier this year and to be honest I wasn't all that keen. I keep meaning to read 1984."I know what you mean. I admired We but was ..."
My reaction was different, but based on many of the same things. I just thought that, after you removed the sci-fi stuff and the interesting, though often irritating, experiments with revolutionary and nonrevolutionary language, the reader was left with kind of a sappy--and essentially conventional--second-rate romantic triangle.
D - I think his number began with 'D' - thought his world was perfect, he only broke the rules because of his obsession with I, not because he realised his world was bad. I was using her sexual power over him to get what she wanted, I don't understand why Zamyatin did that. Maybe my translation was not the greatest. I - me :) am tempted to try a different one.
This was very inspiring and a reminder I needed in these times when it is easy to despair. Thank you!!!
Alice wrote: "This was very inspiring and a reminder I needed in these times when it is easy to despair. Thank you!!!"You're welcome! I feel both honored and pleased to know that I my review inspired you in these difficult times.
Yeah, Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein. Oh wait...
I agree, I love 'brainless dancing bear.' Fabulous review, Bill. After hearing about the seven banned words, I thought it might be time to re-read this classic.
