[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 246 KB, 1000x750, cropped-big-brother-is-watching-1984.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5217998 No.5217998[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

********************SPOILER ALERT*****************

DON'T READ THIS IF YOU PLAN ON READING 1984 BY GEORGE ORWELL

hey /lit/, i just finished reading 1984, but i am confused about a number of things. let me ask you a few questions:

why was winston not allowed to know whether or not the brotherhood existed?
how did winston forsee the future in his dreams?
this might be wrong, but they raped julia in room 101, didn't they?

>> No.5218016

>>5217998
Room 101 was about confronting you with your worst fears to break you. For Winston it was rats, I doubt Julia of all people would be afraid of dick.

>> No.5218050

>>5217998
>this might be wrong, but they raped julia in room 101, didn't they?

was she scared of rape

>> No.5218052

>>5218016
>opposed to rape (durr) = afraid of dick

Great conclusion

>> No.5218076

>>5218050
>>5218052
ehhh it's been a while since i read it. Where does it say she was afraid of rape?

>> No.5218150

>>5218050
>>5218076

she saw sex as the chief way of revolting against the party. i imagine raping her would make her associate sex with the party as thus take that away from her, leaving her without a way to rebel, which was the sole thing keeping her going.

plus, at the end when she and winston meet in the park, he places his hand around her waist and feels that her hips have broadened and stiffened, much like his own obdervation of the prole who sings below mr charringon's window as she hangs out her washing, whom he noticed had had many children.

my guess is that winston was in the ministry of love for years, enough time for julia to be raped enough so that she had had a few kids.

>> No.5218181

>>5218150
>i imagine raping her would make her associate sex with the party

yeah i'll pay that. Decent analysis

>my guess is that winston was in the ministry of love for years, enough time for julia to be raped enough so that she had had a few kids.

Possible... never considered it though


Fuck I just remembered how depressing this book is

>> No.5218205

>>5218181
it's a sullen read. the entire time i was reading it i clung unto different hopes - hope that o'brien would do something to make things alright, then that goldstein would make an appearance, then after they joined the brotherhood i hoped they would achieve something (not sure what), and then i hoped that winston would somehow overcome his interrogators, but at the end when winston is a raging alcoholic, alienated from julia, i gave up hope. that was about 3 pages from the end.

it is so fucking well written. i basically experienced the party as winston did - only at the very end did he give up hope and realize that the party was indominable.

>> No.5218208

>>5218076
>Where does it say she was afraid of rape?

It doesnt you dumb fuck, thats the point we're making

>> No.5218226

>>5218208
yeah, this.

julia wasn't afraid of rape, she was afraid of the idea of an inability to rebel, which is what raping her accomplished, since she used sex to rebel.

>> No.5218259
File: 13 KB, 633x758, 1369032232427.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5218259

>>5218205
>tfw

>> No.5218313

>>5218205
jesus that's exactly what it is, you keep hoping it'll all be over and there's always a light at the end, maybe it'll be alright, and then there is nothing left.

>> No.5219064

OP here, anyone got any ideas about the 1st 2 questions?

also, why did o'brien take so long to capture winston? he let winston and julia have their freedom for months when he knew from about a week after their meeting that they were thought criminals.

>> No.5219121

>>5219064
It was to crush their dreams completely. He created a hope of a revolution only to completely demolish those dreams. Big Brother can in that way defeat any opposition by having people's minds changed completely.
tld;dr Big brother doesn't kill his enemies, he turns them into his allies.

>> No.5219361

>If you plan on reading 1984
>As in, one who has not read it yet.
How in the nine levels of hell is it possible for someone to reach adulthood and have never read that book in their life?

>> No.5219386

>>5219361
I thought it was quiet apparent from the capitalized spoiler tags that OP is a teenager asking for help with summer reading who migrated over from plebbit or tumblr.

The automatic assumption of rape inclines me to believe it's a tumblr teen.

>> No.5219405

>>5219361
by not living in the anglosphere, perhaps

>> No.5219581

>>5219361
I didn't read it until I was twenty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>> No.5219609

>>5218205
Well if you really want hope then you can cling to the appendix on new speak being written in past tense.

>> No.5219622

Was I wrong if I hated this book? It felt like a cheesy warning or a clumsy message rather than a story. There was obviously a story as well, but it wasn't good or interesting. The only part I liked was the beginning where we only got to examine the setting.

When I read it as a kid I suspected I just didn't get it, but now that I've read it again it still isn't good. Why is it hailed as a masterpiece?

>> No.5219629

>>5219361

Probably 95-98% of people in the western world haven't read it.

On /lit/ more than 90% of people have.

Welcome to selection bias

P.s. my figures are legitimate

>> No.5219808

>>5219622

You're not "reading into it" enough. Just keep in mind Orwells intentions aswell as when he wrote it, his contemparies and in light of other works at the time such as down and out in London and Paris

>> No.5219813

>>5219629
> Mandatory High school read in anglo-american world
> Not widely read

>> No.5219824

>>5219361
is this even a serious question? you know how many fucking books the category "world literature" even contains? i bet you havent read every important fucking book either

>> No.5219826

>>5219813
The only thing they made us read in bongland high-school was some Shakespeare and a big anthology of culturally enriching poets bastardising First They Came to be about Yams, moaning about not being allowed in a restaurant during the apartheid or how BBC news readers don't speak in regional accents.

>> No.5219833

>>5217998
>this might be wrong, but they raped julia in room 101, didn't they?
oh god
remember how julia says something like "...but at that point you want it to happen to the other person instead of you. in that moment you really mean it"

so she basically begged for winston to be raped in the ass

>> No.5219842

most overhyped book ever. it's just dreadfully boring until the end. you don't get the party feel at all, it feels way too forced, which is why orwell continously needs to remind you that this is happening in london instead of letting the world he tries (and fails) to create speak for itself

>> No.5219846

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5Ste5xRAA

just leaving this here in case someone is interested

plz go easy with the fedora comments if u dont like hitchens

>> No.5219870

>>5219386
nope. i just hate spoilers. they always get you right when you least expect it, especially on the net.

i found out the ending to series 1 of game of thrones via a youtube comment on the music video for Dido's White Flag. I like warning people.

>> No.5219876

>>5219842
>don't get the party feel
that could be the point. it was alien to winston, and it remains alien to the reader as well until winston is brainwashed.

>> No.5219881
File: 1.51 MB, 252x189, ykj2r.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5219881

>>5217998
******Faggot Alert****

OP do your own homework.

>> No.5219882
File: 1.65 MB, 300x196, 1344689929543.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5219882

>>5219833
it's like poetry

>> No.5219887

>you will never drink victory gin

>> No.5219893

>>5219887
thanks for reminding me of gin you rotten son of a bitch, the shops are closed

>> No.5219894

>>5219876
good point

>> No.5219895

>>5219881
not homework. don't know why you assumed that, you're as bad as /sci/.

its kinda sad that you can't discuss any classics on /lit/ because faggots assume that you are asking for homework tips.

>> No.5219896

>>5219842
This

Also it's a conceptual failure.

>hurr durr uber-stalinism is taking over the world!!! totalitarianism!!! unceasing war!!!!

in the end none of that happened and the only use of the book was to help neocon hacks justify 'freeing' iraq

I fucking hate Orwell

>> No.5219897

>>5217998
>they raped julia in 101, did they?

No, they probably starved her of cock, actually.

She was just a classic slut making excuses to hop on dicks i.e. "fucking like a whore is rebellion". She had serious daddy problems.

So no, they probably just had some big hung mandigo warrior get his cock hard and bounce around the room while she drooled over it.

>> No.5219901

>>5219895
4chan people arent nice, most of them have too much time so they come here to shitpost

dont let it get you down

>> No.5219906

>>5219842
>don't get the party feel

maybe you're brain is dysfunctional and you have to have everything described, even dirt, the way Dostoyevsky aka nothing happens aka can't write for shit aka can't influence anything without saying "I am influencing you" aka hack hack hack aka boohoo russian shit.

?
hmm, faggot?

>> No.5219909

>>5219897
lol.

why did her hips broaden and harden like the prole with tons of kids then?

>> No.5219914

>>5219896
but orwell was a social democrat

>> No.5219916
File: 66 KB, 339x328, 13935067643582424124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5219916

>>5219906
FUCKING

#REKT

HOLY SHIT
>mfw

>> No.5219921
File: 12 KB, 350x300, orly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5219921

>>5219914
ORWELL WAS A COMMUNIST?

INTO THE FIRE IT GOES THEN

>> No.5219925

>>5219914
Yes, that's entirely the problem

He capitulated to the actual methods of control in capitalist society by creating some ridiculous stalinist-hitlerian strawman.

I fucking hate Orwell.

>> No.5219928

>>5219896
>in the end none of that happened

is that the point of literature?

>> No.5219930

>>5219925
>strawman

might want to read up on north korea

>> No.5219931

>>5219928
He thought it was a grave possibility. That's why he wrote 1984. Read his essays after Hiroshima.

>> No.5219933

>>5219909
those vagina exercises that women do so they can give themselves orgasms on command

>> No.5219934

>>5219896
yeah, pfft, orwell was shit at predicting, eh? should have hit up nostradamus.

you're an idiot.

>> No.5219940

>>5219931
yes, but does the previous post imply that every book that talks about a possible future is shit as long as that future doesnt come true?

>> No.5219942

>>5219909
>the only way to impregnate a woman is putting dick in her

okay buddy

>> No.5219949

>>5219942
why would they go to the trouble to impregnate her without also destroying sex for her?

she rebelled because th party hated sex. if the party had sex with her, though, then her world would come crashing down, since it would then not become an outlet for rebellion any more.

>> No.5219953

>>5219949
maybe they sowed or burned her vagina shut

>> No.5219959

>>5219949
>>5219953
they gave her a lobotomy
and she craved cock because she was a whore
she made up an excuse 'law school' or 'party rebellion' much like a whore, hers specifically was towards Big Brother, her manifestation of her daddy who she found of wasn't perfect much to late in life.
She was a fucking slut
end
game over
got what a whore deserved

>> No.5219964

>>5219959
>>>/pol/

>> No.5219966

>>5219959
how sad is your life anon

>> No.5219970

>>5219930
even North Korea is a massive exaggeration

>>5219934
>>5219940
Orwell predicted the direction society was moving in. He wrote against it. Society did not move in that direction. This ended up in his book not critiquing the actual mechanisms of control in society, and for social forces to justify their current authority by appealing to Orwell's stupid fantasy as the dystopia they are against. It was a catastrophic failure of judgement.

>> No.5219977

>>5219970
well what society are you actually talking about here man, great britain? what about the rest of the world

>> No.5219987

>>5219977
>well what society are you actually talking about here man

World society in general; the evolution of global capitalism

>> No.5219990

>>5219964
>>5219966
not nearly as depressing as hers

>but but anon, sluts should be praised for their sexual prowess and spread of STD's with their whore ways

>> No.5219993

>>5219959
jesus christ.

seeing as she was born in a time when all children were basically deprived of parents, i highly doubt that.

>>5219970
in what was probably the most politically turbulent time in all history, i am absolutely not surprised. he got remarkably close, given that anything could have happened.

>> No.5220002

>>5219990
why do you hate sluts, are you gay or something? more likely, you are just mad that other people get the privilege of fucking more women while you still remain here.

that seems to be the only basis for hating sluts. take a trip to /r9k/ and you will notice how correct i am.

>> No.5220015

>>5219993
>>5219993
>children were deprived of parents

not so
she had whore parents too
that's why they were killed
>DADDY WHY DID YOU LEAVE
>DADDY HATES ME FOR LEAVING
>DADDY GOT TAKEN AWAY FOR BEING AN IDIOT ...I MEAN..IM A WOMAN WITHOUT RATIONAL THOUGHT SO HE LEFT ME WAAA
>SUCK A DICK SUCK A DICK SUCK A DICK

>> No.5220016

>>5219993
>in what was probably the most politically turbulent time in all history, i am absolutely not surprised. he got remarkably close, given that anything could have happened.

Wrong. The welfare state collapsed during the 70's and the market and multinational corporations took over social provisioning. Exactly the opposite to what Orwell thought would take over (Stalinism) happened.

>> No.5220021

>>5220002
I hate sluts because sluts are sluts, quite simply.
>lets suck all this dick
>then lets cry when someone calls me a whore

see?

>> No.5220022

>>5220002
why would a gay person hate sluts? are you retarded?

>> No.5220025

>>5220016
I mean for god's sake, 5 years after Orwell wrote the damn book Stalin died and the Khrushchev thaw happened. So much for Big fucking Brother.

>> No.5220028

>>5220021
>when guys fuck all the women they can get its fine

(v:

>> No.5220033

>>5220028
ofcourse that's fine it's an obvious biotruth that guys should be allowed to fuck as many women as they wnt and further treat them as replaceable beings.

>> No.5220035

>>5220028
what?
You assuming that I am selectively describing women is sexist as fuck, you fucking pig.

>> No.5220043

>>5220025
iraq under sadam, north korea

>> No.5220044

>>5220021
so you think that women complaining on the internet makes sex with, adventurous hot women not worth it?

good lord.

>> No.5220049

>>5220044
again with this misogynistic bull shit
>sluts = women only

holy fuck

see
>>5220035

>> No.5220052

>>5220025
big brother was an embodiment of the party. it wasn't about one man, it was about one system of government, which is quite apparent today.

look a the US, ffs. they have a country full of educated, rich people believing that they are the good guys.
also, he chinese communist party fits the oceania bill quite well, as does north korea, as did the soviet union

>> No.5220053

>>5219896
Maybe that's WHY it didn't happen

>> No.5220058

>>5220049
what's wrong with men (or women) having multiple sexual relations

>> No.5220062

>>5220058
>STD's
>unwanted pregnancies
>too many tortured kids without parents
>too many women dead from worthless unwanted pregnancies
>too many people

understand?

>bbbbuuut condoms and bb-b-b-birth control

whores usually don't use these things

>> No.5220069

>>5219894

Not him but it seems pretty plausible to me. Orwell is very good at giving you a feel for surroundings I find. There's a sort of familiarity to his writing.

>> No.5220073

>>5220062
you act like its a disease. it's just people doing what they want.

OR, you can force sluts to stop being sluts and you'll have a bunch of sexually repressed squares knocking around.

you are exaggerating things beyond belief. what is so evil about someone liking sex and having it? it really is none of your business.

>> No.5220074

>>5220002
Because in my mind its a way to express love and it loses its meaning if you do it with everyone. I also tjink it have been a part of what destroyed the nuclear family.

But i still have sex with them when i can, im such hypocrite.

But I do think that there are some valid reasons.

>> No.5220078
File: 590 KB, 999x491, conbi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5220078

>>5220062
>whores usually don't use these things
?
I don't really see spikes in STD's or abortions/pregnancies here, in fact the numbers seem to go down over the past few years.

Maybe you have a case of pic related

>> No.5220083

>>5220074
>Because in my mind its a way to express love and it loses its meaning if you do it with everyone.
in other peoples' minds it's just a fun pastime

>> No.5220090

>>5220073
>exaggerating things beyond belief
>aids
>abortions everywhere
>teenage pregnancy on the rise

>>5220078
your source is bias, faggot

>> No.5220092

>>5220090
>your source is bias, faggot
My sources are figures from government research agencies

>> No.5220095

>>5220074
society evolves, get over it.

>> No.5220101

I wish I'd never mention that i think julia was raped. then the thread might still be on topic.

>> No.5220104

>>5220101
mention any of these
>rape
>homos
>feminism

and pol just comes like flies on shit

>> No.5220115

>>5220021
>>5219990

Try making a point without greentexting.

>> No.5220128

>>5220092
>trusting the government

well then holy fucking goddamn shit let me get on me knees and bow you insufferable fuck-fag

>> No.5220141

>>5220128
this.

not a single world government should ever be listened to, especially the US and similar governments.

>> No.5220150

>>5220141
>>5220092
daily fucking reminder that government agencies were paid good money by the government to say that lead was safe as shit, that you could even eat lead, lead lead lead, lead is the new way.

lol

this is why the world fails

>> No.5220158

someone please put this thread out of its misery

>> No.5220168

>>5220158
>i have been defeated
>lol misery
>plz delete
>much embarrassed

>> No.5220194

>>5220016
actually the collapse of the welfare state is still happening in northern and western europe

>> No.5220199

>>5220021
how is it your problem that she sucks a ton of dicks? you can suck a ton too if you want to. guess you are just mad you ain't get yours sucked

>hurr durr women suck way too much dick
>whish i got mine sucked :'(

>> No.5220236

>>5220199
it's my problem because her filth is all too fucking common

>> No.5220263

>why was winston not allowed to know whether or not the brotherhood existed?

Because part of Winston's "Room 101"-ing was the destruction of his hope for an outside intervention. They didn't just crush that hope, they made it so uncertain that he stopped even being able to care about it. They took his worldview and robbed it of the only thing that existed outside the party's complete domination of society. The realisation about the notebook was part of this paradigm shift - they wanted him to build up a space "outside" the party and then realise, crushingly, that his best efforts were laughable to it the entire time.

Basically this: >>5219121

Winston's escape was hope, dreams, the possibility for change. The book is about demonstrating that freedoms and virtues need to be defended, because there is NO virtue or truth that is ineradicable. Even change itself can be eradicated.

>>5218205
>hope

This too. The book is fucking amazing and I'm kinda sad it's slotted as FASCISM IS BAD :/ cudgel moralising high school lit forever. It's about the death of Winston's hope and it conveys this through by drawing you in and destroying yours. You feel what the poor bastard feels himself.

I thought it was interesting how I hoped for WINSTON to be the seed of change, or people like him, because he's the all-important protagonist. And then when he loses Goldstein, you lose him, and you're left on that final depressing-as-fuck note, despairing for the shitty 1984 world the same way Winston must have felt when he first doubted Goldstein. Part of me wanted to write goddamn fanfiction where everything turns out better.

>> No.5220287

>>5220263
Who hurt you anon?

>> No.5220305

>>5220287
lol.

Meant for: >>5220236

>> No.5220308

>>5220287
>>5220305
Damnit you made me read over >>5220263 to see if I had inadvertently revealed some horrible personal angst or something.

>> No.5220320

>>5220194
Exactly. So what is the relevance of 1984?

>> No.5220332

>>5220308
Sorry friend.

>> No.5220335

>>5220320
NSA = big brother

>> No.5220345

the part where winston talks to the old man about his past was fucking scary to me. that's when you realize how comprehensive the party's purges are. the old man couldn't remember shit, he just rambled about inane details about his early life and couldn't even recall what the world was like - that is why he was one of the few old people left. makes you realize that all other people who even minutely remembered their past must have died in the great purges of the 50s, which was kept fairly ambiguous till that moment.

>> No.5220367

>>5219813
>high school students in the U.S.A. actually read what they are assigned
You aren't from here are you? Or were you homeschooled?

>> No.5220399

>>5220236
>>5220168
>>5220090
>>5220062
>>5220033
>>5220021
>>5220015
>>5219990
>>5219959
>>5219953
>>5219942
>>5219933


>>5219901
>>5219901
>>5219901

>> No.5220459

>>5220399
this

i just noticed right now the sheer magnitude of shitposting going on here

>> No.5220605

>>5220399
o i am laffyn

>> No.5221042

So, how did winston forsee the future in his dreams?

>> No.5221129

>>5219896
Actually Orwell was right. Take the US for example, the most powerful single country in the world in both GDP and military strength. There isn't a single party, but rather two. In SMDPs like the US it is actually impossible for third or more parties to be successful, however the two will always be at war with each other shifting allies in a constant bread and circus routine. There is strict censorship where the corporatist media scheme ends. There is no actual free press or free speech. People actually do disappear and get tortured. The government tries people for treason for publishing "classified information." Martin Luther King Jr. was a target of the FBI. Labor leaders have been and probably still are targeted by the FBI. A SWAT team destroys your apartment for growing some plants, or insulting the Republican Party at their convention. Lavabit is shuttered because it won't be the telescreen for the NSA. Big Brother is watching, and Orwell was right. We just haven't progressed to the level he predicted yet.

>> No.5221149

>>5221042
The same way Orwell foresaw the future in his book.

Jesting aside, it was foreshadowing. It wasn't meant to be literal. It added to the way the plot unfolded.

>> No.5221479

>>5220194
>citation needed

>> No.5221508
File: 228 KB, 348x350, 1313008741297.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221508

>>5218150
FUCK, it all makes sense now.

>> No.5221555

All these comments saying 1984 is redundant and a failure because Stalinism failed.

Not like 1984 wasn't more widely targeted at Totalitarianism; perhaps people are getting confused with Animal Farm or something. Idk.

>> No.5221561

>>5221479

Health and Social Care Act 2012, for example.

>> No.5221650
File: 16 KB, 250x250, 1353023355289.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221650

>>5219833
kek

>> No.5221680
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1349863262014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221680

>>5219887
victory gin is shit.

>> No.5221750
File: 185 KB, 580x686, 1369032051237.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5221750

>you will never have a qt risk life and limb to deliver a note saying "I love you"

>> No.5221760

>>5221750
Says you. This is now on my bucket list.

>> No.5223317

>>5221750
this

>> No.5223365

>>5219896
>conceptual failure
>didn't come true

The one thing is not the other.

>>5219914
>orwell was a social democrat

Orwell was a democratic socialist. There is all the difference.

>>5219925
>He capitulated to the actual methods of control in capitalist society by creating some ridiculous stalinist-hitlerian strawman.

I don't think it counts as a 'strawman' when it's based on reality (I mean, you're aware that both Stalin and Hitler actually existed, right? But regardless, Stalin is way more relevant than Hitler).

Orwell would have had a lot of fun with you, I think. You seem to regurgitate stock phrases that have no particular bearing on reality ('conceptual failure' etc). I can imagine him lampooning 'The Orwellian octopus has been smashed by the hammer of truth and the jackbooted lapdogs have been scattered to the four winds'.

>> No.5223369

>>5219970
>orwell is responsible for how people have abused his work

No.

>> No.5223398

>why was winston not allowed to know whether or not the brotherhood existed?
It didn't. O'Brien wrote the book.
>how did winston forsee the future in his dreams?
He didn't; rather, Mr. Parson read Winston's mind. This was a reference to our capacity for marvelous unconscious knowing -- same with how the proles just knew when a bomb was about to drop. There are numerous allusions to incredible psychic powers in 1984
>this might be wrong, but they raped julia in room 101, didn't they?
No. Maybe. Perhaps.

>> No.5223401
File: 233 KB, 1638x647, The Tears Burn My Eyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5223401

>> No.5223408

>>5223401

I don't understand the what the picture of Giamatti is intended to convey.

>> No.5223412
File: 2.76 MB, 1280x720, Miles.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5223412

>>5223408
It's the part in Sideways when all of his hopes and dreams and his soul are crushed and swept away in a single sentence and he has to try his absolute hardest to keep himself together and he almost fails but he tries to keep on smiling but he id dead and gone inside.

Sideways a GOAT

>> No.5223413

>>5223398
Pretty much the whole book was one massive mindfuck, it was today, not some warning against a dystopian world. And it was excellent.

>> No.5223419

>>5223412

I can see that it works, but it's a tad obscure. I enjoyed the film but only saw it once.

>>5223413
>it was today, not some warning against a dystopian world.

This is a strangely persistent myth. You can't read James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution and You and the Atomic Bomb without noting their publication dates and understanding what was in Orwell's mind at the time.

>The future map of the world, with its three great super-states is, in any case, already settled in its main outlines: and ‘the nuclei of these three super-states are, whatever may be their future names, the previously existing nations, Japan, Germany, and the United States.’

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh.html
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb

>> No.5223427

>>5218226
She didn't use sex to rebel, actually. That was simply an allusion to Stockholm syndrome. Julia didn't care one whit about revolution, but it was all simple pleasures for her. Women, typically, have a much easier time of enjoying subservience, because, well, they're a lesser being when it comes to power in this world. Maybe she was raped, I dunno. The point of the whole thing, though, was to insist upon one state of consciousness, one philosophy of being, and she already resided in that state. Simple punishment, which she would then have associated with her promiscuity, would have sufficed (I dunno?)

1984 isn't for everyone, it's for a certain sort of soul.

>> No.5223428

>>5223427
It sucks that the book is thought of as student fodder.

It is really good.

>> No.5223430

>>5223427
>She didn't use sex to rebel, actually.

Long time since I read it, but I'm pretty sure it's explicitly stated that she does (remember the Anti-Sex League and how she talks about the Party trying to turn people away from non-procreative sex to channel their energies towards devotion to the Party).

And FWIW Stockholm Syndrome wasn't described until the 1970s.

>> No.5223431

>>5223419
>This is a strangely persistent myth.
It's correct and obviously so -- the whole thing is a play on current human psychology; basically to explain the old man sitting on a bar stool who we all know so well. 1984 is a nightmare, rather a warning -- sure though, it takes to extremes what's current.

>> No.5223434

>>5223431
>It's correct

No, it's not. See the aforementioned essays. Orwell certainly based its construction on things contemporary to him - Basic English and Klemperer's diaries for Newspeak, for example - but it was definitely an attempt at prediction.

>> No.5223443

>>5223430
Orwell was well-tuned into all things psychological. And remember, perhaps, where they're lying in the bed together and Julia is completely disinterested in Winston's reading the book. Her's wasn't a revolt so much as an enjoyment, where Winston had nothing but in revolt -- it wasn't about sweet tastes, or sex, for him (and the reasons for this are explained too -- him stealing the chocolate from his dying sister as a child). Heck, the bible has been well-ahead of modern psychology for thousands of years. That Orwell wasn't in the field doesn't mean he's denied acute awareness.

>> No.5223445

>>5223434
Wrong. It's named 1984 to laugh at Huxley and his "Brave New World". Sure, he imagined a world that could be a lot more intrusive, but the core message of the book is, "this is what this is, and it's never going to change."

>> No.5223450

>>5219813

>Actually reading the books you were assigned in school

Smart kids ran foreign essays through internet translators and fixed up the grammar after

>> No.5223456

>>5217998
i assumed they castrated her in some way

>> No.5223459

>>5223443

Their revolts were different, that's all. Mere disobedience is no less rebellion than plotting revolution.

I don't even understand why you're referring to Stockholm Syndrome. I can't see where it applies.

>>5223445
>Wrong. It's named 1984 to laugh at Huxley and his "Brave New World".

Wrong. It's name 1984 because he came up with the title while working on it 1948. A year later and it might have been called 1994.

BNW isn't a utopia so I begin to see that you're fairly clueless on this subject generally.

You haven't addressed the point about Orwell's contemporary non-fiction and I suspect that you won't, so I'll bid you adieu and leave you with something more on your level:

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

>> No.5223460

>>5223445
As a furtherance of that, the "Two Minutes Hate" was a dig at Zamyatin's "Two Hundreds Years War" in We, which brought about the supposed utopia. In each case, Orwell bites back at the anti-utopians with the world as it is now, for the anti-utopians alway seem to forget about that. The "Two Minutes Hate" is church ritual, by the way, which Orwell found soul-destroying (that's irony, right?)

>> No.5223466

>>5223459
>I don't even understand why you're referring to Stockholm Syndrome. I can't see where it applies.
It's just a typical woman thing. The bible even says it: "Woman has fallen furthest." They don't concern themselves with transcendence, as men do, but always with better navigation of this world ---it's like women's fetish for shoes, basically; Julia wasn't about revolution or transcendence, but nice shoes.

>> No.5223476

>>5223466
>continues not to make sense
>has possibly just googled 'Stockholm Syndrome' and decided to drop it.

'k, thanks.

>> No.5223477

>>5223466
Woman care not for transcendence beyond this world -- they accept it as all that is, they know a god in man -- but only for navigation of it.

>> No.5223481

>>5223476
You're an idiot.

>> No.5223485

>>5223477
A perfect illustration of this deification of men by women is Ayn Rand, btw.

>> No.5223487

>>5223481

:0

>> No.5223494

>>5223466
>quoting the bible

le shiggy diggy doo

>> No.5223495

>>5223487
Dude.....the fucking final act, right before the curtains fell, was Winston declaring he loved Big Brother. It was Stockholm syndrome ---or not just Stockholm syndrome, but what love is. The "syndrome" makes it sound like that love is any different to any other type of love, but it isn't. Love is simply a choice.

>> No.5223498

>>5223495
Stockholm syndrome is basically just a manifestation of love that shows us its true colours. Heck, sunsets are pretty because the sun is a great big burning bastard and if we didn't find it pretty doing a dance for us every now and again, it'd be fucking debilitating to have that great bastard up there.

>> No.5223502

>>5223494
The bible is a profound work on human psychology. There's a reason there are over 2 billion Christians . . . and it's not God.

>> No.5223505

>>5223495
>Dude.....the fucking final act, right before the curtains fell, was Winston declaring he loved Big Brother. It was Stockholm syndrome

>>5223427
>She didn't use sex to rebel, actually. That was simply an allusion to Stockholm syndrome.

I may have picked him up wrong, but it really seemed like he was using SS to explain Julia's promiscuity rather than the ending.

>> No.5223507

>>5223502
>what is gullibility

>> No.5223510

>>5223505
I was saying that Julia was already where she needed to be. Only Winston was partaking of spiritual revolt.

>> No.5223512

>>5217998
Didn't read your post, not going to. Thanks for throwing that spoiler alert in OP, not many anons do that and ruin a lot of books. Thanks, OP, I appreciate it.

>> No.5223513

>>5223507
>what is a retard
It's you.

>> No.5223517

>>5223513
Shit.... I'll need to take a computer break now.

That was fucking intense. I'm shaking. You won this one.

>> No.5223521

>>5223510
>Only Winston was partaking of spiritual revolt.

Nah. They gave her the same treatment, after all. It was just rebellion in a different direction and style.

>> No.5223528

Wait, wait, wait. So the title of the book was actually modeled on the year it was written? HAS THE PENNY DROPPED YET?

>> No.5223534

>>5223521
And yet the end result was different. Julia wasn't in revolt, just misbehaving. The entire sting was about Winston, the book, the meetings with O'Brien, everything. Seriously dudes, this is obvious. Feel free to think she was raped, though. Maybe Orwell left that there for the depraved.

>> No.5223554

The most absurd thing about the world is that there are so many retards in it. Any of you catch that part in Bruce Almighty where the bum is hold up a sign reading "Thy Kingdumb Come"? It was fucking brilliant.

>> No.5223557

>>5223534
>And yet the end result was different.

It seems about identical. Furthermore, even if it was 'different', this is no surprise to my claim that their rebellions were different in nature.

>Feel free to think she was raped

I never said that, but it's not relevant, either. What happened to her in Room 101 is as irrelevant as the specifics of what was used to break Winston.

>> No.5223560

>>5223557
Sure.

>> No.5223573

>>5223528
>HAS THE PENNY DROPPED YET?

>it was totally about Orwell's contemporary surroundings
>this is different from what most people believe and therefore true
>there may well be an extensive body of writing from around the same time
>wherein Orwell expressly predicts the future emergence of three global super-states and so forth
>and predicts the elimination of civil liberties and the right to dissent based on his notion that most people don't particularly like freedom and so forth
>Orwell may have supported the Labour government under whose rule he wrote the book
>to the point of famously supplying them with a list of names of people he suspected to be Stalinists, crypto-Stalinists and fellow travelers to prevent their infliltrating the MoI
>but nevertheless all the while, he was writing a devliciously satirical send-up of them
>we know this to be true, again, because most people believe otherwise
>the very lack of evidence is all the proof i need

>> No.5223609

>>5223573
And do shut up you retard.

>> No.5223616

>>5223609

Shan't.

>> No.5223630

>>5223616
Well, you're dumb. And btw, I fully concede that there is some element of dystopia in it (I mean obviously there fucking is), but it is, first and foremost, a work on modern society. The point of it is to look around and see 1984 now (or when Orwell was around; 1948 -> 1984, get it?)

>> No.5223635

Oh, and earlier, when you misunderstood me, I was saying Huxley was an anti-utopian, as was Zamyatin, for Orwell's being a utopian slandering them.

>> No.5223640

Thanks for that bit about 1948, btw, lol. You have strengthened my powers of pwnage.

>> No.5223647

>>5223630
>Well, you're dumb.

And you are disagreeing with an expert on a subject about which you know very little. I can't think of a better in-the-flesh definition of 'dumb' than just that.

>>5223640
>i'm being wrong and nobody can stop me

Enjoy.

>> No.5223646

>>5223640
>>5223640
>>5223640
top fucking kek

>> No.5223655

>>5223647
>And you are disagreeing with an expert on a subject about which you know very little. I can't think of a better in-the-flesh definition of 'dumb' than just that.
Mate, you're retarded. It's obvious. I'm the expert, you're a dullard.
>>5223646
You're an idiot.

>> No.5223660

Don't fucking steal my ideas and make money off them btw. Shit, how do I copyright this shit.

>> No.5223669

>>5223655
>I'm the expert

>>5223640
>Thanks for that bit about 1948

I've honest-to-god heard that as a question in a pub quiz. You have an approximately high-school level understanding of the text and background information on the book and on Orwell at more or less the same level.

I, on the other hand, have read two biographies of Orwell and four volumes of his collected essays, criticism and correspondence. The gulf between our respective understandings of the subject is Grand Canyonesque. You are verging on debating physics with Hawking, whether you even realise that or not.

>> No.5223671

>"hurr i'm an expert"
Oh, I am laffin. Thanks for the ego-boost, too. Damn, I feel like a cunt now. A smart cunt, though.

>> No.5223672

>>5223671
>A smart cunt, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>> No.5223674

>>5223669
lmfao. Yeah, well, I have a high genius level IQ and have won national awards in both art and math. Truth. Oh, and I've read BNW and Zamyatin's We an have the largeness of mind to make the necessary comparisons to know I'm right. I wonder, expert anon, did you catch the bit where Orwell leads us on to think Mr. Charrington is Julia's grandfather? Answer fast, I gotta go get a haircut.

>> No.5223680

>>5223672
Oh, haven't you controlled me so well now. And says the "expert." LOL.

>> No.5223683

>>5223674
>i now make up various things

The sad part is you almost certainly know I'm not lying.

>>5223680

Go get your hair cut you silly boy. Girls still won't like you (no-one does or ever will).

>> No.5223684

>>5223683
LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF. Answer it retard: how does Orwell lead us on to think Charrington is Julia's long-lost grandfather?

Oh, and I obviously get chicks with my credential retard. I'm literally a celebrity where I'm from. Not lying. Hate like the bitch you are.

>> No.5223686

>>5223684
Oh, perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm also very handsome.

>> No.5223696

Don't you want to know how he leads us on to think Mr. Charrington is Julia's long-lost grandfather, anon? And how Orwell literally sticks his head out through the book afterwards to laugh at us? Just put down your retarded ego and I'll explain a beautiful part of the book to you.

>> No.5223701

Too late. Enjoy having deprived yourself by your own insistent stupidity.

>> No.5223704

>>5223684
>dude dude dude my teacher said this to us one time and i wrote this sick essay about it got a fuckin B+ beat that son oh wait ya CAN'T

I yield.

>> No.5224141

>>5223704
And it's still fucking funny. Oh, and I had a cute chick flirting with me while she cut my hair. I'll probably tap that next time I'm out in town. You mad bro?

>> No.5224180

>>5223427
I disagree. Her entire life revolved around rebelling against the party. She believed, unlike Winston, that the party was indominable and that the best way to fight it was by doing exactly the opposite of what they wanted (when it was safe enough to do so).

They wanted no pleasure from sex - she had lots of it.
They wanted no love between men and women - she had lots of it.
They wanted party members to love big brother and the party - she ferociously hated them.

Plus, Julia had had no education about sex whatsoever except that it was disgusting. She wasn't aware of the fact that sex COULD be pleasurable and primal. She knew sex only as just another thing which the party had complete control over and that is what drew her to it.

>> No.5224195
File: 130 KB, 600x431, 38626804-80c9-4d4a-820c-777f8dd2c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5224195

>>5221129
>Actually Orwell was right

stopped reading

>> No.5224196

>>5223495
Winston DID love big brother towards the end. It wasn't Stockholm Syndrome, it was a complete and thorough brainwashing. They stripped him of literally all hopes he had, most importantly the hope that the party was in the wrong. In the end, they convinced him, completely, that he was insane. Since at that point he 100% the party, he began to love big brother, not because he felt gratitude towards him but because, using doublethink, they had forced him to believe that he did love big brother.

Like O'Brien says - reality is in one's own mind. He even mentions solipsism.

>> No.5224340

>>5224196
It's the same thing as Stockholm syndrome bro -- a choice made to love a thing where there's no alternative.
>>5224180
Yeah, yeah, whatever ----but if you had any notion of female psychology, you'd see she was just the common female. First sex is power, then it's choice. I think that erotic fiction is woman's first choice has something to do with this, actually -- shows us that there's much more being taken into account. With men, it's all just a picture, really.

>> No.5224352

And to hammer in the difference between Winston and Julia, Orwell has Julia bring some chocolate she stole to their hideout, Winston having become something else through stealing chocolate from his dying sister as a child.

>> No.5224363

>>5224352

That foreshadows the betrayal you clown.

>> No.5224370

>>5224363
What does that even mean? Whose betrayal? That was what set Winston apart -- again, common psychology; elder siblings will often suffer some grief at their selfishness, having been so absorbed by their own littleness.

>> No.5224384

>calls me a clown
>is incomprehensible
I'm right retard.

>> No.5224385

>>5224370
>What does that even mean? Whose betrayal?

""I betrayed you," she said baldly. "I betrayed you," he said."

Though I no longer hold out hope that you will ever stop pretending to have the first clue about this high-school standard text.

>> No.5224394

>>5224385
You're a retard. How does that relate to our look into Winston's past? "Oh, he stole chocolate as a child, he's gonna do it again," I suppose. You're wrong and have a tiny mind.

>> No.5224402

You're actually pathetic, mate. Honestly. Ask me nicely though, and I'll explain how he sets us up to think Charrington was Julia's grandfather.

>> No.5224417

>>5224394

He steals chocolate and is transformed; a defection from the traditional bonds of filial love.

She steals chocolate and they share it - shared chocolate, shared betrayal - a defection from the traditional bonds of romantic love.

And this, again, is sophomoric stuff. Utterly quotidian and apparently 100% beyond you.

>>5224402

No-one cares. I know you're proud of the B+, but honestly, no-one cares, no-one has ever cared and no-one in the future will come to care how something something Julia's grandfather. I last read the book well over ten years ago.

>> No.5224421

>hurr winsten don't care bout julia, he steal choclate form dying sista
And yet Orwell is a utopian preaching peace, love, and whatnot -- not even close to a minsanthrope; even fucking adopts kids.

>> No.5224426

>>5224417
Retarded. The difference is Julia's still the same young child, having had nothing to jar her from it, while Winston is in spiritual revolt.

>> No.5224447

>>5224426
>they don't share a symbolic effect because they are actually different characters

Are you familiar with the phenomenon of 'Swift Boating'? That thing where you pre-emptively accuse your opponent of faults in a sphere where you stand to face a bad reaction from the public? I think this explains your constant use of the word 'retard'.

Now, you probably wrote The Best Essay On 1984 Ever Written By A Down's Syndrome Person and I'm sure the ribbon looks swell. And if you want to wear it everywhere you go, well, follow your bliss, young man. I would have you do nothing else.

>> No.5224468

>>5224447
Are you familiar with the phenomenon called hypocrisy, oh Sir-Much-Older-Than-Me?

And yes they are different characters and obviously so. Again, the entire sting is about Winston, not Julia. And again, Orwell is hardly a misanthrope. What? He felt nothing for his stealing chocolate from his dying sister? It was just another thing -- just another thing like him and Julia? Interesting that his being broken ties in with that, though -- thanks again.

>> No.5224476

>>5224468
Again he stole the chocolate and betrayed his loved ones, and at that point he had nothing. I hadn't realised that, thank you -- but again it's proof that they're both different characters and that Winston was in spiritual revolt.

>> No.5224481

>>5223696
not him, but i'd very much like to hear why my charrington is julia's grandfather.

>> No.5224488

>>5224481
I'll explain it there shortly, anon -- must go eat dinner real quick.

>> No.5224502

>>5224340
there was no choice. he was forced to love big brother because all other parts of his psyche were eradicated. it's like programming a computer - it will do exactly as you have told it to, just as winston thought exactly how they wanted him to by rewiring his mind.

also, female psychology did not exist in the book. all those who were female enough to have such urges were purged in the 50s. this is evident by the fact that the unusually old man in the pub only survives because his memory sucks. the only reason julia is allowed to be kept alive is because she isn't a sex crazed lunatic as you suggest. she is rigidly thinking robot.

>> No.5224503

>>5224476
>again it's proof that they're both different characters

Which has never been contested (Jesus, you really are quite thick).

>and that Winston was in spiritual revolt.

SPIRITUAL REVOLT!!!

I would argue against that phrase if it meant anything, but it doesn't, so I can't.

>>5224488
>lemme paraphrase the essay so it sounds less essayish - i'll say 'fuck' a few times, that's the ticket - and I'll FOR SURE bore you to death! B+ BITCHES

>> No.5224512

This is my first ever time on /lit/...is it always so fucking hostile?

I thought /fit/ was bad. Jesus.

>> No.5224543

>>5224512
>This is my first ever time on /lit/...is it always so fucking hostile?

Not always quite so hostile, but usually at least a little bit hostile. Orwell is one of those topics that create a lot of steam. Idiots think Knowing About Orwell is like the mark of a true intellectual and Serious Person, snobs hate his prose and resent his cachet, actual people who are big into Orwell despise the misconceptions of the idiots and the snobbery of the snobs and the political dimension gives an extra frisson (/new/ is always lurking).

I'd say Orwell is up there with god/atheism in terms of shitmagnetism.

>> No.5224595

>>5224543
>god/atheism
shit, really? i remember a time on /b/ when you couldn't refresh page 0 without seeing a thread about that.

>> No.5224609

>>5224503
Wow, you're petty. So what age actually are you, dude? And I'm saying they're *very* different characters, obviously.

Anyway, other anon, it's in the poem about the churches that both Charrington and Julia recite to Winston, and with the same words around to suggest repetition of Charrington on Julia's part, and so we get thinking, in the height of the comfort they've found in their terrible world, that maybe Charrington is Julia's long-lost grandfather (also mentioned, and mentioned as to have told her the poem) to top it all off.........and then there's the huge crash that is Charrington being Thoughtpolice and Winston gets landed into a cell with a fat alcoholic lady suggesting she might be his mother, which is Orwell laughing at us, had we fallen for his games.

>> No.5224637

Holy fuck, I really broke that old dude.

>> No.5224647

>>5224609

That was worth every second of the build-up. It would have been worth ten times the wait.

>> No.5224657

>>5224647
It's better if you have the largeness of mind to fall prey to Orwell's tricks, anon -- basically, I shared dialogue with Orwell himself in reading 1984, where you didn't. Who's the expert now, old man?

>> No.5224669

>>5224657
>Who's the expert now, old man?

Still me, sorry.

>> No.5224683

>>5224669
No, you're a petty retard. Hope that goes well for you. You do seem fairly set as regards capacity for delusion.

>> No.5224690

Anyway, your retardation aside, it has been educational chatting with you, so thank you.

>> No.5224709

>>5224690
>thank you.

Welcome.

>> No.5224712

>>5224709
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbGs_qK2PQA
;D

>> No.5224975

>>5224609
this is interesting, but i find myself unconvinced. then again, i can't see any other reason for that poem.

>> No.5227003

this may be the most disgusting thread I've seen on /lit/

>> No.5227158

>>5224195
You must have done that with 1984 too. How was the wikipedia article for it btw?

>> No.5228580

>>5227003
how

>> No.5229429

The book as a whole isn't that great, but the third part, which describes what is happening to Winston after he got kidnapped is really excellent.

>> No.5231322

>>5229429
the whole thing was exciting to me.

i like the end of the 1st part the best, when he reads the note and it just says "I love you." Never saw that shit coming in a million years.

>> No.5231333
File: 423 KB, 1405x1080, 1388591228848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5231333

>>5227003
Good thing you revived it.