1984 Socratic Seminar - 10.23.15

I would describe the ending of 1984 as a sad ending. I would say that it is a sad ending because Winston's originality and hatred for the Party and for Big Brother have disintegrated and he is now left loving both the Party and Big Brother, as seen in the quote, "He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." (Orwell 173) It is also sad because the reader had expected originally that there would be a sort of uprising within Oceania, but that ending had not been received and it was the complete opposite of what the reader was expecting and wanting. Furthermore, the ending was sad because his "love" for Julia was gone as he would give her up to death as seen in Room 101 when he was about to be killed by rats he said, "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia!" (Orwell 166) So from all of this, I do believe that the ending was sad.

The Last Words - 10.21.15

     My interpretation by the last statement in George Orwell’s novel 1984 is the very last lines where it says that Winston loves Big Brother, however, I was challenged by a fellow classmate into thinking that his official last words in the book were “We must meet again” (Orwell 170) when he was having a conversation with Julia. So this caused some confusion, but I am going to stick with my interpretation that Winston’s last statement is “He loved Big Brother” (Orwell 173)

     My response to Winston’s last statement relates to just how devastating I thought it was that Winston, Julia and the so called “Brotherhood” could not band together and take down the Party. It also made me feel that there was no hope left for Winston and the world of 1984, and just how crazy it is that the Party could manipulate literally everything, find out the ones against them, and brainwash them into loving the Party once again. If there were to be an alternate ending to this novel then I would have appreciated it so much more. For instance, if he were to have died as a martyr of the Brotherhood’s cause and not given in to giving up his “love” of Julia and his undying hatred of the party.

     Why would Orwell ever end the novel this way though? I think he ended it this way in order to leave the reader thinking about what will continue to happen in the future for Winston and the rest of Oceania. I also think he ends it this way, because as we talked in class about “Orwell versus Huxley” and how Orwell’s version was that what we hate will one day take over us and ruin the world. I believe that he is trying to prove that there is no way you can get behind a government that censors everything and is controlling of every little thing you do, no matter what. 

     In conclusion, I am entirely devastated by Winston’s final “words” in 1984, even if I misinterpreted what the actual last words were. I also believed that Orwell ended this novel just to let the reader think and contemplate about what would happen in the future after the ending of the book. Orwell had left me thinking and wondering if Winston was going to end up being killed by the party, and if he was going to still be “loyal” to Big Brother in the end.

The Role of Conflict & War - 10.13.15

     The role of conflict and war in George Orwell’s novel 1984 goes off of the idea that “War Is Peace.” In chapter seventeen we realize that in fact Oceania is not actually at war with anyone, they are in fact bombing themselves in order make it seem as if they are at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. This tactic is key to maintaining peace among the masses in Oceania. With the “war” going on it helps bring out patriotism and devotion to one’s country. From the massive devotion and sacrificing for their country it contributes to keeping people in control and peaceful. What have we learned about war? We have learned that it helps keep the people at large in check and patriotic to their country.  “The very word ’war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist.” (Orwell 117) This quote is telling us that war does not have the same meaning as it did before. War is defined today as armed conflict between different nations or states. In 1984 it would be defined along the lines of maintaining peace through trickery by pretending to be at war with other nations. 

     With Julia’s assertions on the ongoing war and the government’s activities, I would respond to her with acceptance but I would question whether or not she was brainwashed. She states that she did not realize that the war was a sham when he brings up the subject that only four years earlier that Oceania had been at war with Eastasia, and she also believed that the Party had invented airplanes. I would greet her with acceptance when she says, “It is always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies anyway.” (Orwell 89) By Julia saying this it makes the reader know that she actually does in fact realize that the Party has been lying to her and that everything she does in her daily life is manipulated by those in charge above her.

     In conclusion, 1984 by George Orwell has a overlying role of war and conflict. We have learned that war is a sham and that everything is manipulated and edited in the media and in the “past”. Also, we have learned that the statement “War Is Peace” is actually factual as the new definition of ‘war’ is maintaining peace through tricking the population by pretending to be at war with other nations and in fact just being at war with oneself. Julia’s assertions about the ongoing war and the government’s activities are somewhat frightening to Winston and to us, the reader, as she does not realize some of the same things that Winston does, such as the war being switched from nation to nation every few years.

Torture in 1984 - 10.12.15

I feel that Julia was pretty accurate in her statement that the Party can torture someone and make them say things, but that does not mean he has to believe it. In my opinion it must be extremely difficult to brainwash someone unless they are gullible, however, governments could use techniques like propaganda to brainwash people. I do think that few governments brainwash their citizens through techniques like propaganda in order to assist the population in going against an idea or group, or maybe to help boost nationalism or prosperity in the country. For example, propaganda in 1984 could be the "Two Minutes Hate" and how everyone is shouting at the image and words of Goldstein. The Two Minutes Hate helps group the citizens of the Party into hating Goldstein even more from his words that are against the party, whether they are true or not. An example of "brainwashing" or propaganda today (or within the past 100 years because that's the only thing I can think of) would be Rosie The Riveter and how that idea helped boost the women workforce before and during World War II. Technically I do not really think that last example is "brainwashing" but it is helping set the mind that women in the workforce can help contribute to the economy and it is also helping women gain more "rights" instead of being a typical stay at home mother.

Invasion of Privacy? 1984 - 10.6.15

     In George Orwell's novel 1984, the reader can see that there is a recurring theme of having your own privacy invaded, even in your own home. “The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard.” (Orwell 2) This quote clearly shows that everyone in the Party is being watched and monitored to see if they will commit thoughtcrime against the Party. In chapter one on page four we find out that Winston owns a diary, and we also learn that he takes very careful measures so that he will not be found with it. He realizes that he should not sit in the range of the telescreen while writing in the diary as he was very possible he would be punished by death if he was caught. So by sitting in the corner of the room by the bookcase he was not able to be seen by the telescreen, only heard. 

     In order to connect this to the modern day invasion of privacy, I would like to connect this to something that Alisyn brought up in class last week. She talked about how Microsoft’s XBOX Kinect could always be listening to you and watching, since it does have a camera and a microphone. In fact, a news article from Daily Mail says that the Kinect device is always listening for a command by the user. Which then means that words, sounds, and actions can be seen as well as heard by Microsoft. Also, that is not all, Apple’s Siri records everything you say but Apple responded saying that all of your words are anonymized. Then again, on Daily Mail they give a reference to the book 1984 saying “Big Brother” and how one of Samsung’s new TV’s are able to pick up on everything said in front of them. I believe that the invasion of privacy is not to the same extent as it is presented in 1984. In 1984 the people are deprived from basic rights, for example, they are deprived of freedom of speech. If they were to speak out they would be killed by the thought police. Today we have freedom of speech as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, but we are still monitored to protect national security. 

     In conclusion, the invasion of privacy is at a much larger scale in 1984 rather than it is today, even though there are plenty of ways major corporations and the government could look in and listen to our everyday conversations and actions.

Surprising Elements in 1984 - 10.5.15

The most surprising element in 1984 by George Orwell is how they alter the "past" in order to make the Party stand out and seem as if they are always correct. It stands out to me because the whole basis of the Party seems to rely on the idea of perfection, just as they are trying to perfect a language called Newspeak which is basically the shrinking of the English language in order to make it impossible to commit thoughtcrime. I didn't have much of a response other than the fact that I was questioning why they even altered texts and articles in order to make themselves seem perfect.