Chris' thoughts on 1984, Part 3

Did Big Brother really exist? Did Goldstein really exist? The answer to these question is that it doesn’t really matter if either of them existed. They were only embodiments used by the Party to represent good and evil. As the book explained Big Brother earned his name in order to give it a protective family reference. Someone who could be trusted and always there for you.

At one time Goldstein might have been a resistance fighter, chosen to be the face of all that was wrong with the world. Had he lived he might have been years dead by Winston’s time but still used subversively (kind of reminds me of Osama bin Laden).

When Winston asked O’Brien if Big Brother existed, O’Brien said that he did. But when pressed further, as to whether or not he was a flesh and blood man, O’Brien was vague, never getting pinned down. O’Brien claimed that Winston was not a real man anymore, but according to Winston’s definition of what a ‘real man’ was, Winston did exist. So by O’Brien’s definition, both are true. O’Brien defined man differently from Winston, therefore he did exist. But he didn’t exist because he does not occupy space in the way that Winston defined man.

Coming back to my point, it doesn’t matter. People thought that Big Brother existed, and therefore he had power. They were told that he was watching, and therefore were kept in check more by fear than by any real threat. With all of the people populating the world it would be impossible to watch everyone at once. But if people thought they were always being monitored, they would behave, just in case. The power is in not knowing.

It reminds me of an article I read of Michel Focault. In discussing the panopticon, the prisoner in the cell cannot see if the ward is watching him, and therefore will behave in accordance to whether or not he thinks he is being watched. If he is trying to do what he thinks is expected of him, he will behave in the chance that he is being watched.

Big Brother, and more specifically the Party hold power not because they have the ability to monitor everyone at once, but because they hold the illusion that they can watch everyone at once. People know the punishments for disobedience and therefore behave, and even train their thoughts to keep them safe from the thought police.

It is only those who give the Party reason to suspect them that are monitored, as is the case with Winston. He took and strange look from O’Brien to be a signal, and acted upon it. He was set up, and after he acted, he was monitored full time. But the majority of the people who spent their lives in front of a telescreen were probably not watched 24/7. Power, as always is more heavy when the illusion of power holds it up.

Chris' thoughts on 1984, Part 2

The ‘Big Brother’ created by Orwell was so stunning that decades later we still hear the term used quite frequently. It has even increased usage with all the clamoring of government spying on citizens. But I don’t think that it is appropriate to compare. Big Brother watching in Oceana is a far cry from what we think of today. The purpose of government spying in 1984 was to control people, to force them into appropriate behavior and to prevent deviations from the Party. In Orwell’s world the spying was a way for the government to keep people from finding the truth or acting upon it. I don't think that’s the case today. I don’t see people who are spied upon kidnapped, tortured and murdered because they disagreed with the Party. Sure, people may be implicated in crimes against the people of our country, but it is for the purpose of keeping people safe.

The term ‘Big Brother is Watching’ is meant to suggest that everyone had better keep on their toes and follow all of the rules set forth, or face the most severe punishment. In our case, any watching that may go on is for protection, not as a tool for incrimination. I think that George Bush is a bad man. Recent polls would suggest that I amnot alone in my opinion. I don’t have to hide my journal the way Winston did. His thugs aren’t going to come along and ‘disappear’ me as a thought criminal.

Chris' thoughts on 1984, Part 1

I have several thought on 1984, and I am going to post them severally, so that people can make specific thoughts about specific items. But I will warn you ahead of time, my thoughts start out at the conclusion of the book and are tied to the final paragraph, so if you have not finished the book, please come back and review at least this first post later.

Okay, having said that, I pose the question: Did they kill Winston at the end of the book? The wording is very vague, but does suggest that he was shot. During the interrogation O’Brien told Winston that eventually he would be killed, and Winston himself even mused about the fact that one day when he didn’t expect it he would be shot in the back of the head. The last paragraph says, “…the struggle was finished.” And the next to last paragraph says “He was walking down the white-tiled corridor [in the Ministry of Love]…an armed guard at his back…The long hoped-for bullet was entering his brain.” Was he only reliving the events of the inquisition, or was the bullet real?
And if the bullet was real, what does that say about his ‘rehabilitation’ and about the Party itself? I understand that O’Brien didn’t want to kill him until he believed in the party and Big Brother, because by doing so he was martyred. Or could it be that the whole set of events that came after his release had been a dream? His meeting with Julia, the time spent in the Chestnut, his new job, did any of it really happen? Or did it all take place in his mind in the Ministry, ending with that long awaited bullet?
I realize that I am posting more questions than I am answering, but it is a hard ending to decipher. Orwell’s purposely vague wording makes interpretation difficult. I could have Googled someone else’s thoughts on the matter before posting, but decided not to. If you want me to give my opinion to the questions posted, here they are:

I don’t think that Winston was killed at the end of the book. O’Brien explained to him that once the conversion was complete that Winston would not be capable of feeling anymore. And if that is the case then there is no reason to kill him. But it doesn’t answer the question as to why all thought criminals Winston dwells on are killed and Winston is spared. I don’t have an explanation for that.

In regard to his rehabilitation and the Party, I don’t think that the Party successfully reached its goals. The Party may have broken him and rendered him useless for rebellion, but his conversion was not real. His change of thinking came not from a real change of heart, but from a fear for himself and those he loved. If a man is to truly convert he must convert because he wants to, not because he is forced, by whatever means.

1984

Good day!

We have been a little slow getting our book club up and running, be we have finally chosen a new read. We have decided on George Orwell's 1984. So look for comments soon, and feel free to add anything you see fit.

And remember: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength!

In many ways I agree with Coby. I was disappointed in the lack of character development, and not just with Santiago. I think that the boy was only mentioned by his proper name once, and that was at the outset. Being referred to as ‘the boy’ really didn’t help me to identify with him. I also struggled with the flatness of the Alchemist. I realize that his purpose was to act as the sagely guide for the boy, but the fact that he always had the answers didn’t sit well with me. Why does he always have the answers? What is his background? How did he get to be as wise as he was?

However, I did like the fact that the young man had to travel all the way to Egypt in order to realize that his happiness was at home where he had started. I agree with Coby that the worldly riches he discovered upon arriving at his starting point was disappointing. But the ending did resonate with me. How often do we think that the only way to be successful is to pursue a distant goal, only to find when we get there that we are more happy at our starting point? Often times we need to step away from our current circumstances in order to appreciate them.

Overall I am happy that I read the book. I think it was good enough to read once.

Coby's take on The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho

Well I shall be the first to give my thoughts on the book. My general impression is: MEH! I was fairly underwhelmed at the book. I found it to be a bit trite and bland. I think Coelho rushed through everything so fast that there really wasn't any character development. I really didn't care much for Santiago as I never really identified with him.

Another point of irritation for me was the major focus on the 'personal destiny' and that if you fail to make the choice at a young age soon you will loose it and regret it forever. It has a rather fatalistic approach on life and I disagree with that approach. Essentially, if you don't make the right choice as an adolescent you are going to live in regret for the rest of you life. I don't see how that is something positive that we would want to convey.

Also, did Santiago have any real trials? He seemed to have one trial but it didn't last longer than what seemed to be an hour or two before the solution presented itself. This had the affect of driving me further from his character in that, from my life experience, my trials last a long time and generally no solution is quickly presented.

I know that this is rushed, much like the book was, but I feel that really the 'treasure' of his personal legend should have been the experience and in the end the knowledge he gained outweighed any possible gold and jewels he could dig up. But alas, Coelho throws to us the most irritating kind of ending where the treasure is where you started and didn't bother pointing out that the real treasure was not the gold.