It’s terrifying how we are living this story at the moment.

Every single person needs to read this book. Will clearly show how we are being manipulated and how our privacy is being violated. How the so called government strip you away from being human and there’s nothing you can do about it.

It’s just not about the people and the government but also we as human are changing for the worse because of our lifestyle and lazy choices.

I find the writing really accessible and I do feel even teenagers will find this story fascinating/thought provoking.

Just grab this book if you haven’t already!

misogynistic shit

FIVE BRILLIANT AND TERRIFYING STARS!

Well, that’s just horrifying with what I just read!!

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

You’re wondering if you should read this? YES, without a doubt! It’s one of the best books written about a tyrannical government and the propaganda they instill on their citizens.

The beginning of 1984 starts off slow. But settle in because it it's a slow burn to a frightening conclusion.
We’re introduced to the character of Winston Smith and he works for the Ministry.
The Ministry is controlled by Big Brother. Big Brother not only controls what you can read, but whether history is really history, what to watch, who to hate, to not having sexual intercourse.
It’s not a healthy or rewarding environment to live in.

Any feelings of love, freedom or intellect are stamped out of you.

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

Winston feels that there is more to life then the constant propaganda and lies of Big Brother and starts an intellectual quest to find out the TRUTH!

This is not a happy book. This book does not make you sleep better at night.

I believe George Orwell did a wonderful job writing a cautionary tale of what could happen if society gets lazy with democracy, not finding out the truth and starts believing government propaganda.

This book introduces you to the subtle and frightening ways in where government will control all thought, all decisions, introduce doublespeak or fake news and must always be in control of power.
The poor, the disenfranchised and anyone questioning decisions of the government will be taken care, reprogrammed to LOVE Big Brother and THEN disposed of. No martyrs in this system because then the downtrodden would have someone to fight for!
Democracy and voting does not exist in this dictatorship and freedom will be destroyed.

Seriously, if you want a good example of what a dictatorship looks like that controls the press, introduces lies and keeps the poor down with governmental decisions, look no further then this book. GO READ IT NOW!

n  “Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.” n

Orwell caught me off guard. After a slow start, the novel picked up the pace. It was depressing, dark and hopeless. For some reason, every time Winston's name is mentioned, I think of Winston Churchill. This is not a story about revolution or making world a better place, but the story about a corrupted power and what you get if you connect two incompatible ideologies - fascism and Marxism. It's brilliant.

By the year 1984, the world has been divided up into three major nations - Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania. Oceania is where our protagonist lives. The one Party rules and Big Brother reigns, watches and controls everything. There's only one language and it's the Newspeak, or rather some kind of an anti-language, whose purpose is to limit speech and understanding and leads to the loss of literature. Individuality is frowned upon and leads to being labelled as a traitor of the Party. The nation is always at war, words are disappearing from the vocabulary, everyone are monitored through telecasters, even bad thoughts are a crime. As much as we know, only one man knows something is wrong and not even he is ready to fight for the change.

The world-building is so fully described, detailed and terrifying that it looks like Orwell visited such place and wrote it all down. The society in the book has no written laws, but many acts, mostly bad thoughts, are punishable by death. The main message is that censorship and brainwashing are a key to a greater power.

Orwell explores the idea of how we are controlled in life and how we control others in return. At times, he suggests war brings peace and unity, whether it's the war with ourselves or with others. I don't think that anyone has done a better job in showing realistic nightmare of a society without basic civil rights and a government with complete and unchallenged control. I believe every single person who had read this book recognized some similarities between the plot and the societies nowadays.

It's a cold and cruel vision of the world in which people can be forgiven for hating and violence. This novel brings up a few questions. Does controlling the truth and history enable us to control how other people think? Who is the real enemy? Is it a few sociopaths who control everything or the rest of us when we act like sheep? It bring up the everlasting dilemma - was Hitler really the one to blame or 90% of Germans who voted for him? Those methods of controlling life will eventually kill what makes life worth living. Freedom of mind is something we all should take for granted. We all want to believe we’re untouched by governments' propaganda, but are we? Why humans feel the need to destroy and control each other? This book is bleak, lifeless, frightening, disturbing and extraordinary. A book from 60 years ago, set 30 years in the past, is still horribly relevant today.

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

And let's not forget the most famous and disturbing 2+2=5. When you think about it, ever since tribes were formed, maybe even before that, there always was some kind of a war. Even today we can speak of informal Third War that is happening right know in Africa and Asia. It's almost like humans feel more comfortable in war than in peace.

"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."

This quote speaks for itself.

“In the face of pain there are no heroes.”

This sentence is crucial for the last third of the book. For those who haven't read it yet, there is only one way to find out what Orwell meant with this quote. READ THE BOOK NOW. I must admit, the ending wasn't what I have expected, though there was no other way it could've ended. I won't say it's was a tragic ending, but it was necessary.

Winston is smarter than many other citizens, but he is also discontent, paranoid, weak-willed and passive-aggressive. He's not special in any way nor young, attractive or strong. He doesn't find strength within himself, he doesn't "save the world". Maybe the fact that he's unsuccessful is what is important about 1984. He tries, he fails, and he could be any one of us.

“To die hating them, that was freedom.”

Well, at least he had a goal.

Winston's relationship with Julia was tender and a necessary escape from the reality. Unfortunately, their bond is established purely on physical attraction. He treats her like she's a sex toy. He thought of her as someone with limited intelligence and had to be patiently told each detail that others could immediately comprehend. In a way, Julia is our true hero of the novel because she was the only one who made even small attempts at being genuinely happy.

“You're only a rebel from the waist downwards,' he told her.”

One of the rare humorous moments in the book.

Check out my blog!

„Nimic nu este ilegal de vreme ce nu mai există legi”.

Nici Întuneric la amiază nu-ți lasă gustul acesta de zădărnicie și inevitabil. Romanul lui George Orwell interzice orice speranță și orice iluzie. Răul devine ceva de ordinul firescului. Și mai trist este faptul că O mie nouă sute optzeci și patru nu descrie doar o lume trecută (comunismul sovietic, nazismul german) și nici nu prescrie una nouă, construită de o închipuire malefică. Lumea din roman este, pentru milioane de oameni, însăși lumea în care trăiesc. Astăzi.

Să presupunem că e ora 13, într-un an pe care Winston Smith nu-l poate stabili cu precizie. Protagonistul lucrează ca funcționar în Ministerul Adevărului, trebuie să rescrie trecutul și să-l facă imprevizibil. Se află în slujba lui Big Brother, un individ ipotetic, un conducător luminat, un tătuc amabil. Nu l-a văzut niciodată aievea, deși chipul lui opac, afișat peste tot, îi este foarte cunoscut. E un membru din familie, un bătrînel benign și simpatic, un frate mai înțelept. În definitiv, Big Brother nici nu trebuie să existe, e suficient să se discute mereu și mereu despre el: cuvintele au puterea de a da viață oricărei fantezii utile.

Winston Smith face parte dintr-o elită, poartă uniforma prestigioasă a Partidului și el însuși contribuie la perpetuarea societății. Rescrie date, planuri, mistifică realitatea și stabilește, împreună cu alți funcționari, Adevărul, fiindcă Adevărul provine întotdeauna din însumarea minciunilor. Și chiar dacă lucrează conștiincios, Smith are neșansa să-și amintească vag - și, uneori, să viseze - scene dintr-o viață complet diferită. Cîndva a avut o mamă, o soră. Londra arăta altfel, se plimba printr-o pădure.

Winston Smith e, prin urmare, un cetățean vulnerabil, un credincios cuprins de îndoieli. Și-a păstrat o identitate. Mai are un sine. Încă nu a cunoscut camera 101 și nici metodele folosite în Ministerul Iubirii. O întîlnește pe Julia, se îndrăgostește de ea (mai întîi, fac dragoste într-un luminiș din pădure, apoi în clopotnița unei biserici ruinate), cunoaște un grup de „eretici”, speră. Sfîrșitul aventurii sale e cuprins în această frază:

„Două lacrimi cu iz de gin i se preling de o parte şi de alta a nasului. Dar gata, totul este bine acum, lupta s-a sfîrşit. A cîştigat bătălia cu el însuşi, îl iubeşte pe Fratele cel Mare...”.

Çok etkileyici bir korku ütopyasi ,herkeze Gönül rahatlığıyla tavsiye edebileceğim kült bir roman.1984 distopya alanında yazılmış en iyi romanlardan biri, sisteme sıkı bir eleştiri niteliğinde. Ve ayrica Orwell'ın hayal gücüne hayran kalmamak imkansız.

İllede okuyun diyebilmek ne güzel.

I'm gonna ask myself a mandatory question and say nothing more.

Why the fuck had I not read this book before?

Time for a reread and a review.

Federico has just posted an excellent review on this novel

Shattering revisit to our future

I read this and was broken by it in my twenties. I was newly out of college and entrenched in a job that was going nowhere and a life that was also flat and without interest when I picked this up. My own existence was so dreary at the time that I was actually heartened by the fact that I could go out and buy a candy bar which poor Winston could not.

This is a brilliant dive into what our world could become and already has to a certain extent under Trump. Trump's continual dribbling of lies has become so common place that no one is shocked anymore. We have become battered into apathy, like the lovers in the book. If the people continue to hate, fear, and mindlessly follow this traitor to democracy, we have only ourselves to blame.

I once had a really inane and unintelligent review here that drew some trolls and unwanted attention, so I took down that review because I generally hate any kind of negativity and it makes me extraordinarily anxious to have any kind of criticism (constructive or destructive) pop up on my ticker feed on a semi-regular basis (I don't really need that); and it's especially disheartening when that criticism deals with a book that so many intelligent people love. I hope that one day I will return to this book and really grasp what it is that so many people love about it, but until that day, I suppose I can continue bashing it to the discomfort of all of us. My main issue at the time was that the book wanted to argue about these political ideas through a story, and it left me wondering why a story was even necessary in the first place. I think I was pretty reductive in my approach to works that combine artistic expression and politics. However I thought that if the author really wanted to convey a point about a political or social issue, why not resort to the good old, syllogism and debate format? I think the answer to this should be obvious; it should make me look blatantly particularly provocative for having made that point. The reason why it’s a book is because it has reached such a wider audience as a work of fiction, than if it were to be a political essay (which probably would reach only a handful of those in academia and those working in that field of study). It’s hard to deny the impact that this book has had, and how many people it's reached. Who doesn’t use the terms “double-think” or “big brother” when discussing any issues involving oppressive bureaucratic systems, or other similarly related issues? (This doesn’t change that the fact that the book has really boring characters and the writing is bland as hell (and it especially doesn’t change the fact that I love literature that is focused on character and language which is well out of Orwell’s wheelhouse, but I can’t hate on Mr. Orwell too much because the late, great Bonnie, had such affection for him and let’s face it: she was a far more intelligent and thoughtful reader than I was or will be!))

It was aspects of its simplicity that I resisted. And not just the simplicity of prose and character, but the simplicity of us versus them, the people vs. Big Brother.

I’d like to hear 1984 written from the perspective of Big Brother. The dynamics of government, government control, and the temptation of power is what most interests me the most. I think it’s easy for us, mere individuals and lowly citizens on the bottom of the food chain, to abstract a single oppressive entity, the single “big brother” which has its own motivations and intentions acting as its own agent which oppresses us. But this misses out on a large portion of the truth. Any oppressive system (barring outright Monarchs) came about from a large complicated set of cause and effect which makes it difficult to point to any one person or party who is culpable. I’m sure all the reasons behind any given dictum or law, are extremely complex and this complexity has to render incomprehensible any abstracted notion of a singular entity with nefarious intentions behind it. (Hey Otis, am I still on topic, by the way?!?!)

I’d like to hear that story because I think that no matter which perspective you take on any difficult, community-wide (society-wide) issue, it will be seen as “us versus them”; you’ll never get to the real source of what causes all these problems and issues no matter the perspective because you'll see it through the eyes of one person caught up in a society-wide issue (I think this was what Kafka was expressing through a lot of his work).

I’d like to put this idea out there because certain fanaticism, while understandable, can get a little out of hand. This says nothing about the rights and wants of any one person or individual within the system, by the way. It says nothing about submitting to authority merely because the dynamics operating within that authority is complicated. I just feel that this is a piece of the puzzle that’s often left out of the conversation (and left out of this book!) What are big brother’s intentions? And how did these rules come about? What conditions brought about these decisions and dictums? What is it about a society that resulted in such oppressive and strict rules?

I’d like to read that part of 1984. Maybe Orwell will write a sequel.

i'm not making any point in particular...just that if you have any intention of reading a book about totalitarianism and apocalyptic government, written by a man who believed in democratic socialism as the solution...well, now might be a good time.

----
full review

I had been meaning to read this book for a long time, but I finally did it based on a friend’s (hi Dario) insistence. It took me way longer than expected to finish it, and once I managed, said friend requested (in all caps) a text-message review. Here is that unaltered review for your perusal.

Message 1: I THOUGHT IT WAS MOSTLY A VESSEL FOR A CERTAIN LINE OF THINKING

Message 2: WHICH WAS CARRIED ACROSS IN GOLDSTEIN’S BOOK AND O’BRIEN’S DIALOGUE AT THE END

Message 3: AND WHILE THOSE PASSAGES WERE SMART AND WORTHY OF PUBLICATION, THEY ULTIMATELY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE AS AN ESSAY

Message 4: BUT NOWHERE CLOSE TO AS MANY PEOPLE WOULD HAVE READ IT AS AN ESSAY

Message 5: anyway in the end i thought much of it was unnecessary but overall it’s a deeply impressive work

Message 6: i was lowkey astonished at how long the goldstein “passages” were

Message 7: but some of the ideas there were remarkable

Message 8: i found myself skimming at some points, and then i was mad at myself for skimming bc it’s like the whole point of the book, and then i was mad at the author for conveying the most important ideas in such a lazy way

Fin.

In conclusion, yes, I am the type of nightmare-person who responds to texts by breaking up sentiments into dozens of messages.

Sorry.

Bottom line: This was good but I wish it had been one or two political opinion papers instead! Sorry again!

I've put off writing a review for 1984 because it's simply too daunting to do so. I liked 1984 even better after a second reading (bumping it up from a 4 star to a 5 star) because I think that, given the complexity of the future created by Orwell, multiple readings may be needed to take it all in. I thought it was genius the first time and appreciated that genius even more the second time.

Orwell had a daunting task: creating a future nearly half a century away from the time period in which he was writing. This future had to be its own complex, independent society, but it also had to be the natural end result of the totalitarianism Orwell witnessed in the communist and socialist regimes of World War II. That's part of the horror of 1984: this future is a recognizable one, even in the 21st century. It's easy to see how those in control can, through manipulation and propaganda, maintain that control simply for the sake of sating their own power hunger. It's easy to say "no one could ever tell me what to think or what to do," but the Party's use of Big Brother, the Thought Police, the Two-Minute Hate, and Doublethink make it easy to see how a person's ability to think independently and discern fiction from reality can be eroded when there is no touchstone to fact. Revising and rewriting the past to make certain that Big Brother and the Party are always correct has effectively eliminated historical accuracy. How can one think and reason in a society where everything is a fabrication?

Another facet of 1984 that I find fascinating is the relationship between Winston and Julia. Winston claims Julia is a "rebel from the waist down," engaging in promiscuity and hedonistic indulgences forbidden by the Party. She doesn't care about social injustice or defining "reality"; she only longs for what will make her feel good in the moment and only rebels far enough to get what she wants. By comparison, Winston is an intellectual rebel, constantly worrying over the issues of truth and freedom and the real, unvarnished past, but limited in how far he's willing to push the boundaries (until he meets Julia). Together, they make a complete rebellion--physical and mental, but apart they find themselves impotent to stand up to the Party.

A cautionary tale, social commentary, and exemplary example of dystopian fiction, 1984 is one of those perfect novels that not only entertains, but forces one to think about the danger associated with giving any one person or entity too much power or control over our lives--issues well worth consideration in post-9/11 America.

Cross posted at This Insignificant Cinder