I believe Orwell completed the book in 1948 (hence 84) but he couldn’t get it published until 1949 - thinking I got that from a Christopher Hitchens interview of George Packer ( about Orwell). NEWSPEAK like Kellyanne Conway’s (2017) “Alternative Facts?”
Hi. I have a much different view from yours about almost every aspect you discussed. It would take a long essay to fully discuss these disagreements, so I’ll try to get across my viewpoint briefly: 1. Don’t let the year, 1984, be the focus of your thoughts. Many of the ideas and concepts brought up in the novel are in various stages of fruition. Don’t think about, oh, that’s in the past and hasn’t happened, so it’s weird. Rather than focusing on concrete dates, focus on concepts and how the dystopia is formed in separate, but interrelated, concepts (language, technologies, etc.). 2. Your dislike of the ‘world building’ (I hate that term, btw) in the first part of 1984 with wishes of getting to the story completely misses the whole point of the book, imo. This is, at heart, not a story about Winston Smith, but uses him as a vehicle to describe the world in which he lives. In other words, the ‘world building’ is the point. That’s why Big Brother, the thought police, doublespeak, and other parts of the world he describes have become such tropes in our culture, rather than the forgettable plot. Orwell uses the plot points to further describe the dystopian world in which the characters live. 3. There are parallels to the world we live in throughout the book, and the integration of these forces of the government he describes have become more present as time goes along. By encouraging readers to not think of them, in my mind, is antithetical to approaching this book in the most fruitful way. I find it ironic that you set up your channel about book clubs, but then discourage readers from engaging in a free flow of ideas about how aspects of this dystopian vision are coming to fruition in our contemporary world and what, if anything, we can do about it. Again, that is the point of reading 1984, in my view. I’ll leave another comment with several parallels that I have picked up on in order to flesh out this point. 4. Your thoughts on the misogynistic and anti-Jewish ideas in the novel again miss the mark. 1984 is first and foremost a cautionary tale about allowing the world inhabited by Winston Smith to come to fruition. Therefore, being written soon after the holocaust and having the Uber-state’s enemy #1 as a Jewish intellectual can be seen time and again throughout history as what totalitarian movements do. If you read the antisemitism in the book as a prescription, you are reading it wrong. The same for the misogyny you perceive. Julia is a strong character who, like Winston, is stuck in a terrible world. Their love story in the face of their world shows how incapable that world is of producing any feelings of love, as we experience them, and leads to objectification and hate. Your dislike of that is the point! 5. Your contention that 1984 should not be taught in schools is both ironic and totally misplaced. I feel you came to the book with misplaced expectations and you didn’t get what Orwell was trying to convey. It is a rare book that has become more relevant with time, and offers great material for discussion and thought…especially for a book club! I like having discussions with people I disagree with, as if everyone agrees, nobody learns. I agree with you that it is not a pleasurable read, the lack of pleasure for me is in seeing elements of Orwell’s world creeping into our own. Thanks for your video and thoughts.
Thanks for laying out all of your ideas--I appreciate the discussion! I'll just loop back on number 4 here to say that I get that 1984 is a cautionary tale, and in spite of that, I found Orwell to be tripping over his own apparent bias. Taking Julia as an example, I don't find her to be a strong character. She reads, to me, more like a traditionalist male version of a strong woman who's still created to please the male character. The love story didn't work for me at all. I found her character to be sexualized for the benefit of Winston.
@@BetterBookClubs Thanks for your reply! I understand your point of view, and Orwell may have had the view of women as objects, I don’t know. Most men of that day (and even up to today) are somewhat chauvinistic pigs, sorry to say. What I was trying to say is that if all you have is the novel itself, the dystopian setting is the context for Winston to have his chauvinistic ideas and actions. In other words, being constantly watched by thought police and told by authorities your whole life that sex is dirty, as the state did to Winston, was what caused his character to act the way he did. Since the book as a whole was a cautionary tale, perhaps part of what Orwell was cautioning against was treating other people as objects(?). In fact, the men who have manipulated our society to “put women in their place” are displaying the misogyny in our society that the state did in 1984. In both cases, it’s reprehensible.
I read Animal Farm in HS but not 1984. I was aware of it of course but never gave it much thought. So my comments should take that into consideration. It sounds as if Orwell was accurate to what we are seeing now. We are a very misogynistic world and country and antisemitism is always just under the cover but now out again. It sounds as if the parallels are accurate but of course human nature doesn't change so if he understood that well it would have been easier to think about the future as we are experiencing it. Isn't it a good idea to discuss the ideas presented in this book. If students don't understand that these ideas were alive and well in the 40s, and for much longer, doesn't that cause more of a disconnect in our time and future? TY for your careful review. UPDATE after reading the linked article. I understand more clearly the problem.
Glad you enjoyed the article link. I totally agree with the parallels you're pointing out to our world today. Just not sure this is the first book I'd choose to elicit those discussions.
I believe Orwell completed the book in 1948 (hence 84) but he couldn’t get it published until 1949 - thinking I got that from a Christopher Hitchens interview of George Packer ( about Orwell).
NEWSPEAK like Kellyanne Conway’s (2017) “Alternative Facts?”
Totally!
Hi. I have a much different view from yours about almost every aspect you discussed. It would take a long essay to fully discuss these disagreements, so I’ll try to get across my viewpoint briefly:
1. Don’t let the year, 1984, be the focus of your thoughts. Many of the ideas and concepts brought up in the novel are in various stages of fruition. Don’t think about, oh, that’s in the past and hasn’t happened, so it’s weird. Rather than focusing on concrete dates, focus on concepts and how the dystopia is formed in separate, but interrelated, concepts (language, technologies, etc.).
2. Your dislike of the ‘world building’ (I hate that term, btw) in the first part of 1984 with wishes of getting to the story completely misses the whole point of the book, imo. This is, at heart, not a story about Winston Smith, but uses him as a vehicle to describe the world in which he lives. In other words, the ‘world building’ is the point. That’s why Big Brother, the thought police, doublespeak, and other parts of the world he describes have become such tropes in our culture, rather than the forgettable plot. Orwell uses the plot points to further describe the dystopian world in which the characters live.
3. There are parallels to the world we live in throughout the book, and the integration of these forces of the government he describes have become more present as time goes along. By encouraging readers to not think of them, in my mind, is antithetical to approaching this book in the most fruitful way. I find it ironic that you set up your channel about book clubs, but then discourage readers from engaging in a free flow of ideas about how aspects of this dystopian vision are coming to fruition in our contemporary world and what, if anything, we can do about it. Again, that is the point of reading 1984, in my view. I’ll leave another comment with several parallels that I have picked up on in order to flesh out this point.
4. Your thoughts on the misogynistic and anti-Jewish ideas in the novel again miss the mark. 1984 is first and foremost a cautionary tale about allowing the world inhabited by Winston Smith to come to fruition. Therefore, being written soon after the holocaust and having the Uber-state’s enemy #1 as a Jewish intellectual can be seen time and again throughout history as what totalitarian movements do. If you read the antisemitism in the book as a prescription, you are reading it wrong. The same for the misogyny you perceive. Julia is a strong character who, like Winston, is stuck in a terrible world. Their love story in the face of their world shows how incapable that world is of producing any feelings of love, as we experience them, and leads to objectification and hate. Your dislike of that is the point!
5. Your contention that 1984 should not be taught in schools is both ironic and totally misplaced. I feel you came to the book with misplaced expectations and you didn’t get what Orwell was trying to convey. It is a rare book that has become more relevant with time, and offers great material for discussion and thought…especially for a book club!
I like having discussions with people I disagree with, as if everyone agrees, nobody learns. I agree with you that it is not a pleasurable read, the lack of pleasure for me is in seeing elements of Orwell’s world creeping into our own. Thanks for your video and thoughts.
Thanks for laying out all of your ideas--I appreciate the discussion! I'll just loop back on number 4 here to say that I get that 1984 is a cautionary tale, and in spite of that, I found Orwell to be tripping over his own apparent bias. Taking Julia as an example, I don't find her to be a strong character. She reads, to me, more like a traditionalist male version of a strong woman who's still created to please the male character. The love story didn't work for me at all. I found her character to be sexualized for the benefit of Winston.
@@BetterBookClubs Thanks for your reply! I understand your point of view, and Orwell may have had the view of women as objects, I don’t know. Most men of that day (and even up to today) are somewhat chauvinistic pigs, sorry to say.
What I was trying to say is that if all you have is the novel itself, the dystopian setting is the context for Winston to have his chauvinistic ideas and actions. In other words, being constantly watched by thought police and told by authorities your whole life that sex is dirty, as the state did to Winston, was what caused his character to act the way he did. Since the book as a whole was a cautionary tale, perhaps part of what Orwell was cautioning against was treating other people as objects(?). In fact, the men who have manipulated our society to “put women in their place” are displaying the misogyny in our society that the state did in 1984. In both cases, it’s reprehensible.
I read Animal Farm in HS but not 1984. I was aware of it of course but never gave it much thought. So my comments should take that into consideration. It sounds as if Orwell was accurate to what we are seeing now. We are a very misogynistic world and country and antisemitism is always just under the cover but now out again. It sounds as if the parallels are accurate but of course human nature doesn't change so if he understood that well it would have been easier to think about the future as we are experiencing it. Isn't it a good idea to discuss the ideas presented in this book. If students don't understand that these ideas were alive and well in the 40s, and for much longer, doesn't that cause more of a disconnect in our time and future? TY for your careful review. UPDATE after reading the linked article. I understand more clearly the problem.
Glad you enjoyed the article link. I totally agree with the parallels you're pointing out to our world today. Just not sure this is the first book I'd choose to elicit those discussions.