Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Rocket bombs

The author/s of this article refer to rocket bombs as a type of technological progress, yet the germans bombed the crap out of england with v2 rockets in the end days of ww2, much like the rockets described in the book. Therefor, I believe these do not deserve to be in the same catagory as floating fortresses.

=Can anything be trusted in this article?

Most of the "truth" is written by a member from the inner party, as he said himself. So, was everything he wrote that we understood of the real world a lie and know one really knows what is going on in the real world, or what brought them to such a point OR did he write the truth because it didn't matter one way or the other.

-G

It's a book. Written a LONG time ago. It's VERY inaccurate. It doesn't matter.NIN 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The map is wrong

I noticed that India isn't part of Oceania. One of the characters says that India was captured... tea, remember?

-G

Do we know this as truth or propganda?

(the map says india is disputed, so is now correct)

Discussion

The Hebrew language Wikipedia article dedicates a large section to the obviousness of the criticism of Communism in the book. It states that, in fact, the conditions in the Soviet Union in 1948 were strikingly similar to "1984" in practically all aspects, even minuscule ones. Thus "48" turns to "84", fixed-frequency "radiopoints" turn to always-on "screens", while constant history rewriting, total ideological control and betrayal of personal integrity under systemic pressure are very accurately described. When I read "1984" in the USSR (samizdat edition of mid-80s), I very much felt this book IS about the history of this country. I don't get this feeling from reading the current article, though. Maybe, like in Animal Farm, the article should state upfront and emphasize this particular aspect -- exactly because those who didn't grow up in the USSR might not be aware of what seems to be the author's intent. Guybas 07:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The books Orwell writes are very political, and against the governorment. George Orwell has stated many times that this book is based on United Kingdom and United States. The article says so. anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.184.29 (talk • contribs)

Essentialy, that is correct.•Jim62sch• 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

To keep a flow to this page I have moved some subjects around but I have not deleted, changed or amended any text. MPLX/MH 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Goldstein as Trotsky

Anyone else thought this? Has it been commented on? - FrancisTyers 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Many times. I recently got the "centennial edition" of 1984 and that is repeatedly mentioned in the foreword. Prehaps a little too much. --Acebrock 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is, just as Snowball was Trotsky in Animal Farm, though there the parallel with Russia was more direct. --Saforrest 00:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that it is revealed in the end that Goldstein is a fake. Trotsky was quite honest in his revelation of a "Revolution Betrayed." The material written by Goldstein, on the other hand, doesn't say much with regards to the Inner Party's relationship with the revolution that brought it to power. Darth Sidious 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Some people think that Goldstein is inspired in Emma Goldman,an anarchist who fight in the Spanish Civil War (like Orwell....).

<pedant alert> It is not "revealed that Goldstein is a fake". It is revealed that his book is a fake. Whether Goldstein and the Brotherhood actually exist is another matter. O'Brien refuses to answer Winston on the latter point and makes no reference to the former. Since Big Brother's non-existence is frankly admitted to Winston by O'Brien, it's (IMHO) a reasonable inference that Goldstein doesn't exist either -- but there's no evidence to clinch it. </pedant alert> Garrick92 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

does this belong?

Orwell acknowledged being influenced by Zamyatin's dystopia 'We', written in 1921 and published in English that year. It is the archetype of the modern dystopia, portraying the fate that might befall all of us if we surrender our individual selves to some collective dream of technology and fail in the vigilance that is the price of freedom. 'We' depicts a total police-state in which citizens live under constant surveillance in all glass apartments. It first appeared in Russian only in 1918. Zamyatin was a Russian engineer, disillusioned by the 1917 revolution who lived for a short time in Britain. Zamyatin's influences, like Orwell, included H.G Wells who, though famous for painting glorious Utopian futures, also depicted a number of anti-Utopian stories as well.

Somehow I think this would fit better under Mr. Zamyatin's page, but some of it can be kept here I think, primarily the first sentence.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)

I agree. Why do we need, for instance, biographical information about Zamyatin in an article about Nineteen Eighty-Four? A couple of sentences would be plenty here. Hbackman 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed all but the first sentence If anyone can make get some more info on how it influenced 1984 without turning it into a bio, feel free to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)

Why do I keep forgetting to sign my comments? If I do it again, please remind me on my talk page. just try to be polite about it please.--Acebrock 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the paragraph on the influence of We (novel) on 1984, citing Shane and Russell. Using these sources, more could be added along the lines of what is in We (novel) on the same subject. --Jtir 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Novel Cover

Could we switch the picture of the Novel Cover to this cover picture: http://library.umf.maine.edu/1984/ ? I think that it would look better, but I don't know how to do it. 204.49.209.120 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Naah...I'd rather stick with the first edition cover. Makes more sense - and better represents the book. There are probably a few dozen (if not hundred) different covers. -- Chris Lester ^talk 09:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is really outside Airstrip One?

Would it be worth noting that due to the fact that we never see any further than London and the surrounding countryside, that the only account of history and the ongoing war is the one that the Party provides (either themselves or through Goldstein's book), and that the only indication we get that the world outside Airstrip One actually exists is a short scene involving Eastasian prisoners, there is no real reason not to believe that either the three states are not just governed by the same ideology, but by the same people (like in The_Penultimate_Truth), or that "Oceania" is in fact confined completely to Airstrip One, and beyond Great Britain life goes on more or less as normal? I remember looking at this when I had to study the book in my Final Year at High School, but am unable to find anything online which references this (possibly simply due to my poor search skills) if simply stating the possiblity would be original research. Reveilled 02:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be original research, yes. If you can point to some notable person who has made this point somewhere, and report on that, that'd be encyclopedic writing - but that's not what you're proposing. (Also, your suggestion doesn't fit with the idea that a perpetual, unwinnable war is the only way that any of the States can exist. There is no real threat of conquest, so the States don't have to use rational thought. Read the "War Is Peace" chapter in Goldstein's Book again.) Robin Johnson 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One reference that might help is Frank Winter, ‘Was Orwell a Secret Optimist?: The Narrative Structure of the Appendix to Nineteen Eighty-Four’, in Essays from Oceania and Eurasia: George Orwell and 1984: Papers Presented at the Orwell Conference, University of Antwerp, 11-13 November 1983, ed. by Benoit J. Suykerbuyk (Antwerp: Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen, 1984), pp. 79-89. Winter reads NEF as a satire of Burnham's vision of the world as three interlocking but separate political ideologies that hold each other up, each providing an "other", an idea of evil, for the other. This reading would suggest that there is something outside of Airstrip One, and could be cited, but I think goes beyond what is necessary in an encyclopaedia article. The question is, in my opinion, a little moot; there are more interesting questions to ask about the text; however, it is an question that would be (and, I think, is) of interest to Winston. --James Kemp 01:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I was hoping was that someone could find or would know of the sources I remember reading this idea from in school (the Frank Winter one might be, but I don't think I've read it). But as to it not fitting with a perpetual unwinnable war, remember that Goldstein's book, at least according to O'Brien, was written by the party, and so only opposes their position in the way they want it to. There doesn't need to be an actual war, as long as the people believe there's an actual war. If the same people run all three states, they can have the armies of each of the three states fight against one another. If Oceania is confined to Britain, "war" produce can be sold abroad, and soldiers for the "war effort" can be drawn from other, imaginary parts of Oceania. The fact that Oceania is never at war with Eastasia and Eurasia suggests that the Outer Party of Airstrip One's image of the war is being tailored to suit the Inner Party's ends, and as such, when it claims to be at war with Eastasia, it could easily be at war with Eurasia, Eastasia, both, or neither.

Having spent four years in school studying the political message of Nineteen Eighty-Four, I'm pretty fed up of the other questions, and given my interest in Alternative history, it is the setting of the book that interests me most nowadays. But it may be that such questions are outside the scope of the article nevertheless. Reveilled 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggest posting reference to Winter, Frank in the article, in "Further Reading" if not in Bibliography with a reference in the article. --GoDot 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Darkness at Noon

Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon should be added the related works. Both books feature a dystopic view. There are strong parallels between the end of Nineteen Eighty-Four and the full story of Darkness at Noon. Somebody is in the prison of a totalitarian state, and his counterparts want a confession from him. Both protagonists use this reflect on the way a totalitarian regime functions. Of course, the parallels go only so far, and in Koestler's novel - as opposite to Orwell's -, the torturers do not try to deprive the main character of his (dissenting) ideas. In my youth, Darkness at Noon was actually listed as a forerunner to Nineteen Eighty-Four. A google search for both names still gives a lot of hits. -129.247.247.238 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I've added it and alphabetised the list.--James Kemp 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Orwell himself reviewed Darkness at Noon, and the issues discussed in the review are very much those of 1984; I think he even might have cited it as an influence elsewhere. --Saforrest 00:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Main article at 1984

I feel that 1984 should redirect here, moving the current 1984 to 1984 (year). There is currently a reference to this article at the top of 1984, but 95% of the readers must click on that link to go here. I quote WP:D without a better way of putting it: Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? This would just be in the reader's best interests, which in my opinion are more important than Wikipedia naming standards. Any opinions? ~ PseudoSudo 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The only reason I would expect 1984 to point to the year and not the book is that other years' articles fit that naming convention, and I wouldn't know that if I hadn't been around Wikipedia a while. Robin Johnson 11:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more important that our years be standard then a few people have to click an extra link to get to the article. For one thing, it's absurd to have to say Joe Blow died on [[March 26]], [[1983]], but Jane Blow died on [[July 12]], [[1984 (year)|1984]], so we'd constantly have links to 1984 which should go to 1984 (year).--Prosfilaes 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hbackman 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good point, which I didn't think of. So I'm not for redirecting 1984 here after all. Robin Johnson 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. ~ PseudoSudo 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-referential wikilinks?

There seem to be a large number of wikilinks on this page which reference via a redirect straight back to this page. Should these be detected and cleaned up? ThomasWinwood 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Prosfilaes 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

care to give some examples? I can clean them up straight away.--Acebrock 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What?

In reading this page, I noticed that there seems to be a theme throughout of Orwell wanting Socialism to be the primary governing system in the world. In reading his works, I was under the impression that he was leaning more toward warning people away from that sort of thing rather than acting as its poster child. I mean, the whole dystopian situation in 1984, the clear oppression of rights in Animal Farm, etc. -- it just seems that whoever wrote this page was not performing their duty as an unbiased reporter of fact. In fact, it seems to me as though he was trying to convince others that his interpretation of Orwell was correct, not giving fact about it. The opinion's OK, but if it's necessary to put it in, please save it for its own section on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.120.233 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is about as much historical question whether Orwell was a socialist as there was if JFK was a Democrat. To try and judge it just from Animal Farm and 1984 is missing the body of his writing and thinking.--Prosfilaes 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Orwell distinguished Socialist/Marxist/Communist ideology from Soviet policy; he quite openly described himself as a Socialist and fought in a Marxist brigade in Spain. A good quote on this topic is this one from Orwell's essay The Prevention of Literature, which both illustrates his socialist convictions and his distaste for Soviet totalitarianism:

One can accept, and most enlightened people would accept, the Communist thesis that pure freedom will only exist in a classless society, and that one is most nearly free when one is working to bring such a society about. But slipped in with this is the quite unfounded claim that the Communist Party is itself aiming at the establishment of the classless society, and that in the U.S.S.R. this aim is actually on the way to being realized.

--Saforrest 00:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Satire

I think that the definition of satire fits the way that Orwell portrayed totalitarian governments in 1984. Ansell 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Satire doesn't necessarily imply humour, which is probably what people are thinking when they remove the word. 1984 is a satire in that it uses allegory and exaggerations to make points about the real world. I'm pretty sure I've said exactly this elsewhere in the archives of this talk page. Robin Johnson

I read this book in a class on satire, and while I was at first surprised to see it on the syllabus I definitely came to see how it fits into that category. Definitely leave the note that it is satirical in the article. Hbackman 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It definitely didn't affect me as such. Are there any citations from well-known fiction critics and other authors that call it satire? Amazon doesn't use satire in its description of the book. Google shows a lot more references to it as sci-fi than satire (and the satire refences get a big boost because it's in Wiki). Science fiction uses "uses allegory and exaggerations to make points about the real world". In fact, most fiction does in some way. Compare The Forever War. I would describe 1984 as political sci-fi. Given that the sci-fi aspect of it is essentially gone, a political/social tragedy/horror novel.In1984 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Satire is typically associated with comedy, because that is the easiest way to lighten its message. Satire itself is the use of "Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity" [1] Personally, I see the book as using irony to ridicule what was occuring in totalitarian states at the time. Totalitarian governments dont generally take well to people saying they are stupid, hence the use of irony in his fictional future. Its method may be similar to science fiction in that it chooses a future time period, however that doesn't necessarily need to leave satire out of the picture, genres are necessarily singular. Ansell 22:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble doesn't refer to it as satire either. Where are the citations for it being satire?In1984 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the references was in the bibliography already,

"West, W. J. The Larger Evils – Nineteen Eighty-Four, the truth behind the satire. Edinburgh: Canongate Press. 1992. ISBN 0-86241-382-6"

Don't know why I missed that one. Other references were from amazon.co.uk and an essay on the topic. Note, if you want more there are more available, but its not an unsubstantiated comment anymore.

Your reference to it being horror still doesn't seem to have any support, your citations referred to it as sci-fi, as opposed to the current references which specifically say that he wrote it as a satire for the present. Ansell 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have an unknown book, written by an unknown author, an uncredited "synopsis" of reader reviews of a little sold edition of the book that's combined with another book by a different author, and an unknown student's paper to support that it's satire. My citations included:

• The Saturday Review, June 11, 1949 (year of release) by William Soskin
• Time's review of the book included in its 100 best list
• A credited review posted with a major edition of the book on Amazon

Consider that and the following a reminder about the well-known part of citations.

• A compilation of three 100 best novels lists in which 1984 is described as speculative fiction
• Barron's Booknotes quotes of 7 critics reviews

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by In1984 (talk • contribs) .

We also have the fact that it was included in at least one college course about satire, which I think has some weight. (If you really want citation for that, I can try to find somewhere to scan the syllabus or see if I can find it online.)

I do think that it fits the definition of "satire," even if it's sold as something else. It's a complex book that fits into many different genres; it would be difficult and/or unwieldy to try to advertise it as a combination fiction/science fiction/satire/political novel/what have you, so people who are discussing it just pick one or two genres that they feel most people will be interested in and/or understand.

Hbackman 22:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would need something more than a claim regarding it being used in college course. How it gets/got used and in what college and what professor. Does the author just happen to teach at that college? I agree about trying to cram all the potential genres it fits into at the beginning being unweildy. I think it may be better not to put a genre at the beginning and provide a genre section for those interested in that aspect of the book.In1984 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The teacher of that course didn't write any books relating to Nineteen Eighty-Four as a satire. She just included Nineteen Eighty-Four on the syllabus.

I think that calling it a "political novel" and including a section on genre later in the article is a good compromise.

Hbackman 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Of your links, one, amazon, categorises it as science fiction, that is not the be all and end all of categorisations. Amazon doesn't create truth. The other links you do not specifically refer to the book as science fiction. One of the lists refers indirectly to it in the following direct quote:

"Although some works recognized as classics of science fiction (or, more broadly, speculative fiction) are on the list (e.g., Frankenstein; Dracula; Nineteen Eighty-Four), Burt specifically excluded works that seemed to veer too much from primarily naturalistic and contemporary-oriented narratives, thus excluding from consideration most science fiction and fantasy"

This is hardly a reference to justify it not being classed as satire, let alone a good reference for it being "speculative fiction". Satire does not mean humour, as defined above it is strictly an academic definition. Your first removal only referenced the fact that you did not think of it as "funny", since then you have only indirectly rebutted the satire view by giving the amazon category as your reference, and another for "speculative fiction." They hardly give a solid argument for either view. I am not opposed to it being subclassified as science fiction, but it is clearly a political novel, and it is within the specific definition for satire as given above. I do not know of anyone who comments that Orwell created the novel as a futuristic science fiction type novel because he wanted to make it a good work of entertaining fiction, as science fiction novels must be to sell well. Ansell 10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ansell, you're still arguing your point and not providing any citations that make it. My citations, regardless of what genre they placed in, did not call it satire. One even refers to it as "realism". I can live with a description elsewhere on the page, such as in a genre section, that deals with all the various opinions. I think it would be just as well to link them to a site where opinions and book-rating are welcome, like Amazon. In the meantime, citing some kid's "homework" is far from the published reviews I provided.In1984 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess in the discursive section of 1985 has 1984 pegged as satire, by reference to real-life events in 1948. The war's over, but rationing goes on; electricity gets cut off every other day, etc. He even has Big Brother located in a popular billboard of the time (for Bennett's correspondence college, iirc). Burgess's work on 1984 was way out in front and I think he's a pretty good support for claims of some satirical intent on Orwell's part. In fact the first words of the main body of 1985 are "Orwell's 1984 is essentially a comedy" (which is answered by his fictional interlocutor with "A WHAT?") Garrick92 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Orwell's inspiration

I've tagged this section as POV. The wholesale dismissal that Orwell took the USSR under Stalin as inspiration for his vision of Oceanian society, and instead took the British Empire as inspiration, is blatantly POV, and a rather marginal view at that. Stalinism was not the only inspiration for 1984, but it was an important one, maybe even the most important. This section needs to discuss several points of view, namely that 1984 was inspired by Stalinism, that it was inspired by the British Empire, and perhaps other views as well. Peter G Werner 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Granted that the current claims are not referenced, this may sound silly, but do you have any references for that POV, ie, reviewers who suggest that Orwell did actually take the USSR for his vision. Keep in mind that Stalin didn't really rise to power in the way that we think of now until after WWII. This book was written in that period, so it is possible, however, the current claims do not seem unplausible to me. They correlate well together. Ansell 22:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a literary scholar, so no, I don't have references on hand at the moment (though with a little digging next time I'm at the library, I'm sure I could produce plenty). However, the writers of the competing POV don't exactly have references either. I've gone over the history pages and found that back in January, a certain 192.115.19.55 removed all previous references to Stalin, Russia, and socialism. This was clearly an attempt by 192 to play Ministry of Truth. I've reverted previous material back in, but have kept 192's contributions. However, that section is now in strong need of cleanup and integration. I'll do so as I find time, but if anybody else wants to take a stab at it before then, be my guest.

I'd also like to point out that your timeline for Stalin is just plain wrong. Stalin's rise to power took place in the 1920s, and had established the system of full-blown Stalinism by the early 1930s. World War II simply brought Stalin to an unprecedented level of power internationally. Orwell had directly experienced the apparatus of Stalinism during the Spanish Civil War - the Spanish Republic, the Spanish Communist Party, and International Brigades were thoroughly Stalinist and dominated by the Soviet NKVD. Orwell was fighting alongside the POUM, a Marxist opposition party, and witnessed the full weight of Stalinist oppression that was unleashed upon the POUM. Peter G Werner 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I was thinking of the international rise in power when I said that he came to power then, however, his actions prior to WWII could definitely have influenced Orwell prior to the war and therefore be put into Nineteen Eighty-Four. I wasn't aware of Orwells history with respect to the Spanish Civil war. Thanks for figuring out who tried to slot this one down the memory hole. Ansell 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to echo and expand a bit on Peter's remarks. The Stalin-era show trials were a direct inspiration for Orwell, as well as a major turning point in the minds of many European socialists and American members of the "old left", who found themselves increasingly in agreement with Hayek that pure socialism led inevitibly to the gulag. This was the intellectual birth of the "new left" who believed in achieving the goals of socialism via the modern democratic welfare state. Mje 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's rather a bold leap in your second sentence, Mje. Many democratic socialists were and are disgusted with Stalin and the Soviet state, without thereby coming into agreement with Hayek's theories on socialism! --Orange Mike 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Nineteen Eighty-four

I think at 80k for the article so far it is big enough to justtify a split, such as a split of the History section. To bring up a comment that was archived recently, [2], I would say that the history section would be a good place to split. Ansell 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with having a history section is that very little history is given in the book, so it would be almost impossible to make a useful article. The history section in the article would not be nearly so long without so much guesswork - it states that the Revolution began in Britain and spread to America, that Rutherford's cartoons resembled British life at the start of the revolution, that "the outbreak of war might have followed the withdrawal of US troops from Europe" - there is not a word to these effects in the book, and no other sources are cited. Then we have:

To reconstruct [the history of 1984] one needs to try combining the hints scattered in "1984" itself with the analysis and predictions contained in Orwell's non-fiction writings....

and the eight paragraphs that follow it. This is pure original research, and almost none of it has any direct connection to Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's interesting stuff, but it doesn't have a place in any article, let alone deserve its own. Robin Johnson 10:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article as a whole has a rather small number of items supported by verifiable source citations (four!) and a rather large amount of analysis, opinion, and original research. It seems to have degenerated into a fan appreciation of a fictional universe instead of being an encyclopedia article about a novel.

I think it is long past time to talk about providing source citations for the items in the article that conform to the verifiability policy, and gradually, and with due consideration, removing the portions that do not. I'll bet that if the portions that cannot be supported by reference to published sources were removed, the article would easily be less than 32K.

P. S. And just to state the obvious, you cannot just say "the novel itself is the source." "The World of Nineteen Eighty-Four." Statements such as "The world described in Nineteen Eighty-Four contains striking and deliberate parallels with the Stalinist Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi Germany" need to have source citations, and while paraphrases and summaries of plot elements may not need references, many individual facts from the novel itself ought to be referenced by page number. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dpbsmith. It looks to me that the article has become a dumping ground for opinions. A memory hole in the form of a garbage dump. OTOH, the novel can be a source for very specific descriptions, such as how one of Orwell's invented words gets used and the Appendix with regard to newspeak.In1984 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I do think that before large sections are removed wholesale we should briefly discuss them on the talk page to make sure that everyone (or almost everyone) is okay with removing those sections, just so something that someone else thinks is vital for whatever reason doesn't get deleted without discussion (which might lead to edit warring). Hbackman 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This part contains many references and quotations not only from the novel itself but also from Orwell's non-fiction articles in which he tried to predict his future. I think that when the novel leaves unclear many details of what exactly happend in its 1950's, but you find in his non-fiction written in the 1940's predictions of what he thought was going to happen in the coming decade, that is quite a legitimate source for trying to find out what he meant. Adam Keller 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Trying to find out what he meant is not what Wikipedia is for! There's a big, big difference between a source you report on, and a source yout take material from, analyse, and come to your own conclusions about. Wikipedia does not permit the latter. Robin Johnson 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we had this discussion once before. The page on Wikipedia poilcy to which you refer states that "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." So far the policy. Collecting all the information scattered in "1984" itself which bears on the history which led to the situation descrcibed, plus relevant information in Orwell's non-fiction articles, seems to me precisely the kind of "source-based research" defined here.Adam Keller 13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You could make a very interesting article here - Predictions of George Orwell, anyone? - by collecting and organising predictions from his other work. Thinking about how these slot in to the world of 1984 is your own research. Robin Johnson 14:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"One of the first?" No way...

I've changed the sentence

one of the first and most cited works of dystopian fiction in English literature...

to

one of the most famous and most cited works of dystopian fiction in English literature...

"One of" is always vacuously true, but Jack London's The Iron Heel appeared in 1908 and meets the criteria of "dystopian fiction in English literature" in every way and completely typical of the genre. (Jack London also wrote a number of dystopical short stories). That's just the one I'm familiar with offhand. I'm sure there are others. A number of H. G. Well's future societies, e.g. in The Time Machine, are rather dystopian. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

P. S. If John Stuart Mill coined the term in 1868, it's rather hard to believe it took eighty years for anyone to get around to writing one... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1984 is definitely not just "one of". The timeline that the dystopia page links to[3] goes even further:

the most elaborately anti-totalitarian dystopia and the politically most influential dystopia of all times, is published. It advances and consolidates the dystopian themes of systematic opression and mind control. Until the making of Blade Runner, it is basically the sole Dystopia prototype.

I don't think we'd be insulting Tolstoy or Shakespeare by calling some of their work dystopian.In1984 21:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Give credit where due; suggest adding above to article. "Until the [publication] of" Do androids dream of electric sheep? (1968) and "the making of Blade Runner (1982),"

• Dick, Philip K. (1968). Do androids dream of electric sheep? New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. ISBN: 0-345-40447-5. First published in Phillip K. Dick: Electric Shepard, Norstrilla Press.
  Zelazny, Roger (1975). "Introduction" to Do androids dream of electric sheep?
• Scott, Ridley. Blade Runner. Los Angeles: Warner Brothers, (1982).

--GoDot 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Winston Smith compared to Winston Churchill

Considering the nature of the book, it seems very unlikely that the name "Winston" was taken from Winston Churchill.

There have been suggestions that the primary character was named Winston after Winston Churchill, who had been British Prime Minister during the Second World War.

It doesn't really hurt to mention suggestions but it just makes the article more bloated, and I don't see how anyone could see Winston as Winston Churchill. It's as if a 'rebellious' character named George in an a dystopian authoritarian state were compared to George W. Bush.

So, should this be removed?

--A Sunshade Lust 23:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I say take it out. Hbackman 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Down goes Winston. At least until cited.In1984 01:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I think that's important to say where the main character of a book got his name, and I think it's fairly well established that Orwell used Churchill's name for his character. Barron's booknotes says the name comes from Churchill. This site, which is probably one of the best Orwell websites, also says so. I think more academic citations could be found if people still need convincing.--Bkwillwm 04:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Academic citations would be nice. :) Hbackman 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Hbackman, I'd like to see more. I'll add back in abbreviated form with only the Barron's citation. The other citation reads like a direct copy of it (or maybe Barron's is copying the site). Anyway, neither provide any additional context on how they arrived at the their conclusion, but Barron's does have authority.In1984 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have found this page [4] which seems to explain why Orwell would name the character after Churchill, which, with the quote found at this page [5], assuming the quote is true, gives a good explanation as to why Winston Smith's name is inspired from Churchill.

"More like those of a human being than of a public figure."

George Orwell praises the writings of Winston Churchill

The other possibilities I have found is that Winston was used for the roots of the name (According to wikipedia "Winston is a name deriving from the old saxon / norse words "wynn" meaning "good" or "beautiful" and "stonn" meaning town or place."), or maybe for irony as this page [6] suggests. But in the end, I find that if Orwell admired Churchill, Winston was most likely inspired from Churchill. I must say that I don't see why Orwell liked Churchill, but it seems to be the case. --A Sunshade Lust 05:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing a bad job of finding literary criticism on 1984, but I'll rephrase my earleir claim. I don't think its accepted as fact that Orwell named Smith after Churchill, but I do think its a very common interpretation.Here's a Signet classic teachers guide that backs up the naming after Churchill. Also, I don't think it's fair to assume Orwell used Churchill's name out of respect or beacuse Winston Smith is in any way like Churchill. I'm pretty sure Orwell supported Atlee over Churchill. Comments like these suggest he was even to the left of Atlee. Point being, I don't think Orwell particularly liked Churchill, but that doesn't stop him from having other reasons to use the name.--Bkwillwm 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious reason for Orwell to do it, which does not require him to particularly like Winston Churchill - historical continuity. Winston Smith was born in 1944 or 1945. At that time, British parents giving their child the name "Winston" were in most cases refering to Churchill (just as German parents in the same time bestowing the name "Adolf" were refering to Hitler). A Btitish reader in 1948 could be expected, when encountering the name "Winston Smith", to think: "Winston Smith? That must be one of the wartime babies. My God, is that the future which is in store for them?"

Moreover, throughout the book, Smith is constantly searching for traces remaining from the past before the party took over. Orwell is having a mild joke upon his hero - a joke which a British reader in 1948 could easily share - by having Smith never realise that his own first name is just such a remnant. Adam Keller 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well said! --John Lunney 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1984 and Communism

Cut from "inspiration" section:

However, since the book was used for decades as a staple of anti-Soviet propaganda, this aspect of it was obscured from its widely-known image — though quite obvious to an intelligent reader.

It should also be noted that Oceania’s standard practice of declaring POW's to be "war criminals" as a justification for killing them outright might be considered as Orwell's criticism of the Nuremberg Trials conducted by the victors of WWII against the losers — another aspect of this book which did not quite fit with using it as Cold War propaganda.

Thus, it is plausible to perceive the novel as a prognostication of the British society in which Orwell grew up set in the future rather than to see it strictly as propaganda opposed against and attacking the Soviet Union. The best indication of that is the very fact that the book is still arousing considerable interest at present — whereas, had it been no more than a piece of anti-Soviet propaganda, it could have been expected to disappear and be forgotten with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990.

All of the above is one point of view. It should be sourced, rather than presented as objective analysis. Perhaps some of this was cribbed from Walter Cronkite's forward (or afterword?) to the US paperback edition. Alternatively, maybe the publisher just picked Cronkite to expound on this POV.

The other point of view, i.e., that Orwell was using 1984 (like Animal Farm to criticize the Stalinist USSR and similar totalitarian governments, is very unpopular amoung modern socialists, but it is indeed the other major POV about 1984. Both POVs should be in the article, not just one.

How about this:

• Critics disagree over what social and political elements Orwell was criticizing in 1984. Anti-Communists regard the novel as a vivid portrayal of what could happen in England or America if Communism took hold there. Socialists prefer to emphasize aspects of democratic countries which, if they worsened, would be as bad as conditions under Stalin.

Okay, maybe not quite balanced enough, but perhaps we can work on this together. Any takers?--Uncle Ed 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is no necessary cotradiction, and those who see one are promoting their own agenda rather than try to understand Orwell. Orwell had deep accounts to settle with both the British Empire and the Soviet Union. As a young man he went to Burma as a colonial policeman and returned as a staunch enemy of the empire, but he remained a patriot to his last day. Some years later he went to Spain as a revolutionary fighter and returned as a staunch enemy of the Soviets, but he remained a socialist to his last day. The most likely is that he conceived of Oceania as embodying and amplifying the worst features of both the British Empire and the Soviet Union. Adam Keller 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then let's say that. --Uncle Ed 20:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Eric Blair wrote 1984

• "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." [7]

Now I know that the Wikipedian(s) who "own" our Totalitarianism article want to reduce the concept to a "typology", but it refers to fascism and Communism, political systems that seek to control "not only information but also individual thought and memory" [8]. --Uncle Ed 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The book refers to far more than Fascism and Communism. Unlike "Animal Farm", the meaning of which was as close to the surface as a two inch rock in an inch of water, "1984" is like the Mariana Trench. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, "typology" is correctly used in the article -- in fact it is one of the rare true uses of NPOV in this encyclopedia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but hardly any of our readers will understand the meaning of the word. It's like Newspeak to them. Better to have a section explaining why it's so important to some writers to label the term "totalitarianism" a "typology". It only confuses our readers, in the intro (which might actually be the purpose). --Uncle Ed 02:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why there's a wiki-link. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another cut

It must be said however that democratic socialism back then had a different meaning (more revolutionary) than it does today. In fact, Lenin often characterised himself as being a democratic socialist. Perhaps it can be explained by the following: Democratic socialism now means socialism through (parliamentary) democracy (non-revolutionary) while back then it meant something more like socialism which is inherently democratic.

I keep hearing that Eric Blair was a "socialist" and that he never opposed Communism and that neither Animal Farm nor 1984 was meant in any way to be critical of Stalin's USSR or Totalitarianism in general. My friends keep telling me that these political novels should be taken only as extrapolating trends in the English-speaking democracies.

It strikes me that such twisting of Blair's intent smacks of the same kind of historical revionism he satirized in 1984. But let's not try to "settle" the issue. Let's try to balance the two interpretations.

Now, can somebody please dig up some material on Orwell's own comments about 1984, totalitarianism, Communism, and/or socialism? That may tell us what he "really meant to do" in more depth than the quote in the section above.

And can we get some quotes and sources for litereray criticism (or political interpretation) which do one or both of the following:

• say that 1984 was only about the West, like England, drifting away from its founding ideals of freedom of speech, etc.
• say that 1984 was also or primarily about the USSR and similar countries

I don't want to impose my own idea on this article, so please help me present both sides of this dispute. --Uncle Ed 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that he expreesed it very clearly in the article "Towards European Unity" which is quoted in this Wikipedia page and which was written at nearly the same time as "1984". What he says there is that he is hundred percent for Democratic Socialism and hundred percent against the Soviet Union. What he wanted and hoped for was a socilist federation of Western Europe (including Britian, of course). He predicted that if there was any real chance of that, both the Soviets and the Amercians will try to supress it, and the Europeans would have to fight both. Adam Keller 21:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The book is not anti- any specific country, it is written on a far deeper level than that. In a way, it is almost the other bookend to Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here". Delve deeper. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The book may not be anti- any specific country, however, Orwell has clearly criticised the UK, US, and USSR in his books. But seeing it as a simple anti- book is shallow. --A Sunshade Lust 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that was my point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary: + cit so cl, see Talk. (Add citation reference.)
{{Citation needed}} in article text. Fromm and Pynchon refs. are frequently plagiarized elsewhere on the Web, as an engine search for key phrases can demonstrate.
Suggest "External Links" -> "Further Reading", per WP:MoS. [ Further reading/external links ].
Suggest cit. with "Retrieved [date]", since external links can break (per Embedded links). --GoDot 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The book is a satire on totalitarianism, and draws on examples from Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and in wartime and postwar Britain. Orwell had good reason to dislike the Soviets after his experiences in Spain. It was not specifically a satire on the USSR (whilst Animal Farm certainly was)

Exile 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)