This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This article has a box that says their is an ongoing discussion about whether the article victory gin should be merged with this article. However, there is not a discussion topic about this merger, if there ever was one. I think that the merger box should be removed, and the articles should exist separately. In addition, there is no article on victory gin , merely a page that redirects to itself. Thanks! Greenblade99 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Remove this:
"The liberal radio program, The Mike Malloy Show began reading Nineteen Eighty-Four in late 2005 and vowed to continue doing so every night until whichever comes first: U.S. President George W. Bush is impeached, or the show is taken off the air. The reading was completed on May 11, 2006."
Not only is it baised, an advertisement for the show, it is factually incorrect to associate Conservatism with 1984.
Or add a paragraph that illustrates the fact that:
Liberals love big government Liberals have created more socialism in this country than any conservative Liberals have removed more freedoms than any conservative Liberals do not believe in personal responsibilty Liberals do not believe in the sanctity of life
Liberalism is an offshoot of Socialism, which is an offshoot of Communism; therefore Liberalism is more closely associated with the atrocities of 1984.
But what am I expecting? Libipedia, as usual. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
166.73.21.146 (
talk •
contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2006
Are the maps truly relevant? Is the impression not distinctly given in the novel that the people can be told whatever it is wanted that they believe? -- GoAround 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In the controversy section is says some people have called the book antisemetic. However, there's no sources and I doubt anyone has actually taken this stance. The actual antisemetic force is The Party. I mean, c'mon, to say that the book is antisemetic is to say that the book puts The Party in a positive light.
While there are probably others, I fail to understand why Arctic Monkeys are listed as a related work. The only reason I can discern is from using '1984', but without any reference to any of the themes contained within, what relates it? Removed this reference, as it really doesn't have anything to do with the themes of the novel. I'll have a look through other references and remove any other redundant ones. -- ChinaNailStorm 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"In fact, it is entirely possible that the other two powers themselves are fabrications, and the entire world is controlled by a single entity."
When I read this book in Grade 12, my teacher suggested to me that this particular idea could be true. At the moment, I still cling to this belief, especially when given other statements in the article concerning a "fabricated war" that "wags the dog." Darth Sidious 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add this, too: towards the end of the book, the "news" people say that the entire African continent has just been conquered by Oceania. Is it possible that one set of "news" is fed to the masses in general (ongoing "warfare"), while another is fed to dissidents about to be executed? The "conquest" of Africa gives the biggest hint of all towards a one-world government revealing itself to the unfortunate dissidents. Darth Sidious 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you should re-read the chapters from The Book which set out the baisc parameters. The southern half of Africa is part of the heartland of Oceania, which by tacit agreement is never invaded (as Oceania never invades the European mainland). North Africa is part of the disputed territories which all the time change hands and whose population is used as virtually slave labor. Therefore, if Eurasia had conquered South Africa and cut Oceania in two, that would have meant that the Eurasians had stopped "playing by the rules" and that the whole world-wide stricture is beginning to unravel. This is the reason why the news arouse the hope of Winston. On the contrary, when the Oceanians counter-attack and conquer North Africa, all that this means is that the enslaved masses of Morroco, Algeria, Egypt etc. would for some time have Oceanian masters until the Eurasians make a counter-attack across the Mediterranean and conquer it again. Just one more round among the endless rounds of the same game - hence Winston's final despair when he hears it. All this is assuming that all these battles are actually taking place. It is quite conceivable that it is all concocted and tailored specifically for Winston's benefit, and broadcast on the one telescreen in the Cherry Tree Cafe (or perhaps to some more telescreens in the immediate vicinity). O'Brien knows Winston virtually as well as winston knows himself, he could very accurately predict the effect these news would have on him, and it is worth the trouble to gain his final surrender. (Winston was important enough to the regime to occupy for a considerable period the time and energy of at least two high-level skillful operatives, O'Brien and Charrington.) It would be easy enough to deal with other people who heard the piece of news and find the discrepency when they talk with others, they would be told that they heard some lies produced by Goldstein's agents, and would swiftly forget it. Or gaining Winston's final surrender might be important enough to feed this piece of false news to the whole of London. Adam Keller 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
But what if the Book itself were fabricated in this aspect? After all, the Party wrote this book in double-think mode. Wouldn't a one-world government manifesting itself in three forms be the ultimate conspiracy - kinda like the Clone Wars and my namesake? Darth Sidious 18:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[And this may not be coincidental with Orwell's atheistic anti-trinitarianism, as well]
i've never written a wikipedia article, just fixed a few typos and broken links. there are several in this article, especially in the goldstein as trotsky paragraph, and i would normally just fix them, but i had never seen an article that's an obvious collaboration before, so i thought i'd ask if anybody minded? -- DyNama 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're sure they're typos then go ahead. Iron Ghost 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed a bunch of them yesterday. Grammer still needs a bit of work though--Acebrock 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the sections in question have been cleaned up enough to warrant their removal, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.
The title section read as: "Originally Orwell titled the book The Last Man in Europe, but his publisher, Frederic Warburg, suggested the change."
What was this change to? Was it to the current title? Was it just a different title? I would assume it is the current title; however, if one continues reading the article, it seems to be Orwell that chose 1984 (Origination of the title section). Furthermore, it seems redundant to have a section 'Title' and a section right after 'Origination of the title'.
Any objection to adding a reference to Spike Milligan's 1985 [1]? This was a parody of Nigel Kneale's television version of 1984, that followed the story line quite well. The 1955 radio broadcast was so popular they remade the episode a few weeks later (not just replayed, they re-performed the episode with slight variations from their original broadcast). -- AGoon 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
...Sorry to put the cat among the pigeons here, but the first line:
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) is a political novel written by George Orwell in opposition to totalitarianism.[1]
Seems to smack of authorial intention. I agree that Orwell's reasons for writing the book should be listed somewhere in the article, I just don't think they should be in the header. I would maybe even cut the adjective "political", and rewrite the first paragraph entirely. I haven't done this because I know how sensitive the article is, but I would appreciate some feedback on these comments.
There is a new screen adaptation coming out in 2007, I think this should be mentioned both here and on the film page.
Interesting comments about the very nature of the unwinnable war here. Its ironic that a novel where the "powers that be' not only rule, but define reality itself....or re-define it at will. In that some of you astutely point out various scenarios with such as, war exists, but is on a much smaller scale than what the party implies. There not only is no war, but the other 2 super-states dont even exist, except as fake enemies in a fake-never ending war, and other possible scenarios. Whats interesting of course, is that the people inhabitating 1984 really have no idea what the *real* world situation is. Here in this articule, many of you are in the exact same situation as the people in 1984! You dont really know what the true 'world' situation is either. Ah the irony, maybe thats what George Orwell was after all along. Write about a regime that controlls the very nature of reality itself, and does such a thorough job of it, even its readers are left wondering where the truth really lies....brilliant. However from my reading of it, I interpt it this way. Logistically, it would be difficult for any one power to 'rule the world' espcially given the pre-1984 situation with its limited nuclear war and its aftermath, such as we see in 1984. However as Goldsteins book clearly points out, all 3 powers had a tacit and deliberate policy of *not* attacking each others 'core territories'. This implies the leaders of all 3 superstates do talk, do co-operate, at least as far as maintaining there own powers. This may be interpreted as a de-facto 'world goverment'. If one of the purposes of the 'war' is to destroy human labor and channel it into worthless non-productive directions, that works. Such a war would also have another 'benefit', tho Its never stated in this manner. It would be a good way for the 3 super-states to get rid of excess population as well. Trouble-makers,(or potential ones) surplus workers etc, could all be fed into such a 'war'. This too would suite the super-states quite well im sure. The war, most likely does exsist, however like some here have stated, its nature and extent are probably quite different from what even Goldsteins book implies. Most likely far fewer combatants, and much more limited in scale, yet just sufficent for the super-states requirements. I think its pretty safe to assume the other 2 super-states *do* exist, do fight over 'neutral territories' in the 3rd world, and more than likely co-operate at the highest levels. It wouldnt suprise me one bit if this war was managed to the point of battles being 'won' and 'lost' more or less by mutual consent too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 September 2006
The line, "O'Brien, who represents the oppressive Party, is in many ways depicted as a member of the old British ruling class (in one case, Winston Smith thinks of him as a person who in the past would have been holding a snuffbox, i.e. an old-fashioned English gentleman)." within the subection "Orwel's Inspiration" contains a spoiler in that O'Brien's loyalty to the Party is not revieled until later in the novel. I'm not sure how this should/could be corrected, but I thought it worth noting.-- 72.57.128.5 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that, the war may exist due to the fact of during hate week, the allies change, and the party would not have wanted hate week to go any differently than it should have, becuase if the allies changed mid week, then the party has no control over this "war" and if they did fabricate this serciona, then it should be noted as another way they are controlling the hatred of the Party Members Slayerx675 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm raising the class to A because it is a very thorough and good article. Cbrown1023 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The section "Orwell's Inspiration" contains a pretty vast repository of extremely speculative statments with very little verifiability or citations. The last paragraph about the Catholic Church is such a jump that I suggest this violates the neutral point of view guideline. If Orwell wanted 1984 to be a criticism of the Catholic Church's faith based practices, I think it would have come out a lot more clearly in the novel. As such, this is speculation without a source cited, and not suitable for an A class article. -- Jarnor23 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It probably came out as clearly as he dared; he did want to get his book published, after all. Here's ten obvious parallels off the top of my head.
1.Big Brother as an all powerful ruling family figure who's existence, though questionable, was used to control the masses. (Christian notion of a "Heavenly Father" who ruled the world as a benevolent dictator) 2. Youth Anti Sex League ( Catholic rules of "chastity" persist to this day) 3. Specialized language use as thought control( contrast Catholic "heretic" with orwellian "oldthinker") 4. Rote, ritualistic practices (stand, sitting, kneeling in masses) -- paralleled by orwell mass excercises 5. Control of information through control of literacy (all across the middle ages) 6. Extensive Spy Network (the confessional was a means for people to report on their neighbours in the middle ages) 7. Use of torture to bring out "the truth" (Grand Inquisitors; Room 101 ) 8. Forced "confessions" ( Gallileo; Winston Smith) 9. Unelected Party Elite acting as a quiet ruling class -- so too the cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church. 10. Faith without or despite evidence of the senses as a cardinal virtue ( orwellian doublethink, the Catholic "miracle" of transubstantiation, Papal "infallability")
The Catholic Church was the greatest authoritarian establishment across centuries of European history, with power and influence spanning thousands of years, elements of which persist to this day. Orwell would have to have been blind to have ignored it's influences. It is only logical to assume that he did not.
The part of Appendix on Newspeak is a bit POV towards it not being a secret ending. There are sentances and grammar that simply DO NOT MAKE SENSE unless the appendix was written in the world of nineteen eighty four as part of past tense. Clearly, I believe Orwell has put the hidden ending in but I'm not advocating anything other that a fair, neutral POV paragraph.
"possibly implying a more ambiguous ending for the novel than is commonly thought"
No, it IMPLIES a ending where the party has been overthrown. It doesn't imply an ambiguous ending. It may or may not be true but it doesn't imply ambiguity, it implies a definite resolution.
"Furthermore, it could be argued that Orwell, as an advocate of plain English, would be unlikely to underpin such a significant plot detail with such a subtle clue."
Oh come on, where is the citation? Who argues this? Why would Orwell be unlikely to put in a subtle clue simply becuase his essays about how academics should write in plain English?
This whole paragraph should be reworked.
What is about this infobox? IMHO it blurs the line between fact and fiction. Str1977 (smile back) 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
hmm, that's idd very long... and it will probably get gigantic if every one is going to add his favorite. In which form are you going to add those wars ? Can you make some kind of table so it doesn't look that big ?
-- Garo 08:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be multiples in this book.
Perhaps "for feelings of victims toward tormentors" should be "for feelings of victimization by his tormentors"? Or maybe it makes sense and I'm just not seeing it. Oddity- 08:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
garnama1.ytmnd.com : A comparison of Wikipedia maps from 1985 and "1984" respectively.
Are the links in the "Other Links" section really necessary? They seem more dedicated to criticizing the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy rather than discussing Orwell's novel 200.119.236.211 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole section English Socialism (especially the first half) is too long and reads like a very wordy essay.
Example "Such a revolutionary regime, which Orwell found highly desirable and was actively trying to bring about in 1940, is of course a far cry from the monstrous edifice presided over by Big Brother, which was his nightmare a few years later."
Do we really need to have all this? Isn't this section supposed to be about Ingsoc from the book? Rather it seems more like personal opinions of Orwell's views of socialism here there and everywhere. I think it needs to be much more concise and less off topic. Thoughts? The machine512 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A number of years ago, I read an article (probably in a magazine) talking about another then-recent book that some other author had carefully crafted that was set in the same universe and time period as Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, and was told from the perspective of one of the other countries Oceania was at war with/was allied to, and my hazy memory of it suggests the title of the novel was also the name of the country in question. Looking up Eastasia on Amazon.com doesn't bring up any such novel, though. Neither does a search for Oceania there.
For H. G. Wells' The Time Machine, there is the novel The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter, which is set in the same universe as Wells' work. And the article The Time Machine references several other sucb novels.
H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds also has a semi-sequel written by a different author that I read sometime in the early 1980s or so, having the premise that the Martians had actually come across from an alternate-universe Mars to the Mars of H. G. Wells' Earth and tried to invade that Earth from there, eventually lost that war, and decided to invade the Earth of their own universe afterwards even though that other Earth was more technologically advanced... and so the people of that Earth recruited some people from "our" Earth who had lived through the invasion to come help them. I don't remember the title or author (it was a book checked out from the local library, and is probably long gone from there...). I see no reference to it at The War of the Worlds though.
If someone can track down the Nineteen Eighty-Four sequel, it would probably be worth it to add a reference to it here. And if someone can track down that War of the Worlds sequel, I'd figure it would be worth adding a reference to it at The War of the Worlds.
Comments?
-- Nomad Of Norad 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In the article the following paragraph, sounds to like a POV stance. I would wonder equally well, why we donot consider the dialogue between O'Brien and Winston, and O'Brien's prophecy of control and domination, of 'Humans are infinitely malleable' as the dreadful prophecy to even come true (considering Winston being killed in the end).
One essential consequence of doublethink is that the Party can rewrite history with impunity, for "The Party is never wrong." The ultimate aim of the Party is, according to O'Brien, to gain and retain full power over all the people of Oceania; he sums this up with perhaps the most distressing prophecy of the entire novel: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.
i had always thought that from the comments of the old man in the london underground that after world war II that the united states used its atomic bomb technology to conquer england, as well as the rest of oceania. coudl someone verify this?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.70.103 ( talk) 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Could someone put {{fact}} by all the stuff that needs to be referenced? I see none of those tags in the sections where references are needed and it helps to know what needs to be referenced.
I'm wondering (his dreams see the future, he can feel people and their thoughts at times) and was surprised to see no mention in the article. There are several instances that seem to be showing he is.
I've removed this section for now:
Some people believe that Orwell was a man who saw the future and prophesied the loss of personal freedom and the increase in control that would be brought about.
mainly because of its weasel words, but also because i'm not sure this is the right place to include it in the article. Maybe it would be better placed under the 'futurology' section lower down? KZF 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)