Alla inlägg under juni 2010

Av 1984 - 3 juni 2010 18:13

A few years ago I was on my way to a competition and I slept on youth hostel called “Esperantogården”. I thereby became acquainted with the artificial language called “Esperanto”. It was made by dr L.L Zamenhof in 1887 to simplify communication between countries and therefore diminish the misunderstandings and conflicts in the world. The language was meant to serve as a second language in every country. Since his intention was that it was going to be taught in every nation and learned by generally everyone, he made it as a mixture of many languages. However, the most essential part is that he made it very simple and easy to comprehend. Compared to other existing languages Esperanto had very few exceptions when it came to rules and word order etc. Since I am not the greatest fan of studying language, lo and behold, the language instantly caught my interest. It was very tempting because of the logical construction and almost total absence of exceptions.

Still, my point is that the language “Newspeak” brought this to my mind when reading the appendix to the novel. To some extent the two languages (“Esperanto” and “Newspeak”) resemble each other. First of all they both are artificially made by human, every language spoken by mankind is of course made by human, but what I mean is that they are created during a relatively short period of time and they are built from the foundation. On the contrary, every “regular” language has evolved trough time from the same early sounds that our ancestors long time ago managed to utter. They have all taken different paths to the condition that they are in now. Newspeak and Esperanto however are both results of dramatic changes of current languages. Newspeak is a product of English while Esperanto is a compound of several languages.

Secondly, they both are founded on logic and easily comprehensible rules. For example, in Newspeak there is only one way of turning a noun in to an adverb or adjective, you simply add the suffix –ful to turn it into an adjective and –wise to turn it in to a adverb, thus speed becomes speedful and speedwise. This may sound convenient and may as well be, however the absence of variation should probably make the art of literature and even common oral conversations utterly deficient.


Av 1984 - 2 juni 2010 18:00

Winston changes during the story. In the beginning he is a bit negative towards The Party and his contempt for it and the happenings increase, maybe because the influence of Julia and her attitude to The Party, but in the end he is indoctrinated and ends up loving The Party more than anything. He had his freedom, but it turned out to be slavery. I believe Orwell wishes to show his readers that if you spend too long time in an environment like in Oceania you, like Winston, will sooner or later go with the flow and consider it the best thing in the world. One aspect of why he indicates this might be due to the fact that many of the allied stated that every citizen in Nazi-Germany was a Nazi, believing all the same as the Nazi leaders, and later on accused them of not doing anything when they heard of concentration camps. The Germans on the other hand were deceived and just followed the crowd (people are liquid) and even if they believed the concentration camps to be true, they could not prove the existence and the horrible on goings. Another problem turned out to be the gathering of enough people to force the Nazis to put a stop to it. The act of resistance was illegal.

Another thing indicating that freedom is slavery is the fact that The Party is limiting the language in order to minimize the use of words and thereby taking away the possibilities of thinking for oneself. The Party should do all thinking for you. Again Orwell shows how important it is to think for yourself, because the people in the 50’s did not think for themselves really, especially not during WW2. If thinking for yourself you would probably get arrested and be forced to confess that you’ve lied and really believe the “right things” just as Winston is “forced” to do.

Concerning communism and equality, the war bring ransoms and Winston’s edition of “THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM” stated that the war is necessary in order to have the ransoms and therefore the people would agree to having their “luxury” withdrawn. Furthermore, the “Inner Party” members would instead get hold of many luxurious products such as sugar or coffee. It is true that in some communistic countries the leaders had it significantly better than the common man. Orwell gives his readers a hint that many people did never realize the politicians had it a lot better than they.


From my point of view, Orwell struggles to convince his readers that all things happening in Oceania could just as well take place in a dictatorship, such as in Nazi-Germany or the Soviet Union. He does this by telling the story about Winston in ways like how he is affected by the plot of the book and his thoughts and reflectance about it. Orwell writes about actions which the present man finds very unlikely to happen in our part of the world, while the people in 1950 (after the World War II) knew such actions really took place or strongly suspected they took place.

Take the constant monitoring from the telescreens, which are located everywhere. The inhabitants in Oceania are constantly surveiled and if thinking disagreeably with The Party they would face charges in Thought Crime. This is similar to the SS in Nazi-Germany. The people of Oceania are monitored in an equivalent way to the people in Nazi-Germany. I believe Orwell wants the reader to see for oneself what it was like living in a dictatorship especially during WW2. Orwell does therefore present his text in a very certain but critical way in order to prove these actions real and not fictitious (though it may be fiction). Ordinary people, like Julia, knew or suspected the bugging to be true. Julia even states that “I bet that picture’s got bugs behind it” I find this rather amusing because it turned out to be true. They actually were bugged but never had a thought of it, just as any person in a dictatorship. In addition to the most useful usage of the telescreens as described above, one can see another usage; the symbolic use. The Nazis had the swastika almost everywhere in order to create unity and to scare the people, to remind them what would happen if they were negative towards the Hitler regime.


Av 1984 - 2 juni 2010 17:20

When reading this novel, many questions appear. Why did Orwell write this and whom was he writing for? Was the book written for the future, for the people of his time, or mainly for his own need to express his anxiety and hatred?  Perhaps is it a mix of them all. Orwell’s novel unquestionably catches my interest, and obviously, I live in the future of his time. For that reason, if the book was written for people living in the future, he definitely succeeded.

The book is filled with many complicated words and terms. Moreover, I find the language quite complicated from time to time. Therefore, in my opinion, the readers of the book have to be slightly older (or extra gifted in language). In addition, in order to be able truly to understand the meaning of the book, one must have knowledge in society, history, and politics. Although I believe, the book definitely is readable either way, since the novel itself is very thrilling and moving.      

Finally, the novel is well adjust to somewhat advanced readers, and as I have mentioned before, it leaves you with many thoughts about politics, supervision, war and the future in general, which almost certainly was exactly what Orwell wanted.  


Av 1984 - 2 juni 2010 16:23

As mentioned previously in different ways,”1984” is a highly political novel. Intended to affect and enlarge the reader’s view of society and hopefully, according to Orwell, amend it. To do so Orwell endeavors to use an advanced language, and in many respects he also succeeds. “1984” is not preferably meant to entertain, but to affect. That is one reason for using an advanced language. Because low level vocabulary has a tendency to make the author look slightly uneducated, this in its turn means that the authenticity and cogency of the arguments agitated decreases. Therefore, by avoiding that, his novel has a greater likelihood to influence and perhaps change the readers mind.

Secondly, the setting has great importance in the novel. First and foremost, the title has been set to “1984” by Orwell. This at the time of the writing was in a relatively near future. Only that fact increases the curiosity among people, and since the novel is meant to influence, it is positive considering that more persons presumably will read it. Moreover, the environment in the story is essential for the theme. By describing a nightmarish scenario where you cannot shun from the government’s supervision, not even in your own home, Orwell intend to frighten the reader for what may be reality in just a few decades. There is a great number of details described that, I assume the lion’s share of the readers find unpleasant and would not enjoy in their daily life. For example the fact that everyone has to wear the same kind of clothes, or being served the same kind of food in the canteen every day. These kinds of details may appear to be rather insignificant. Nevertheless, they make the story more elaborated and substantial and to some extent more trustworthy.


Tidigare månad - Senare månad


Fråga mig

0 besvarade frågor


Ti On To Fr
2 3
<<< Juni 2010

Sök i bloggen

Senaste inläggen





Följ bloggen

Följ 1984 med Blogkeen
Följ 1984 med Bloglovin'


Skaffa en gratis