= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Orwell and fictional evidence for dictatorship stability - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (79)
Isn't that line about a foot stomping on a human face forever a quote from O'Brian? If so, it's the kind of thing he'd like to believe, but it wouldn't be the sort of thing that could be known, and is less likely to be accurate considering that atmosphere of lies that Oceania had.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Orwell meant it to be taken straight.
Second thought: O'Brian might not have believed it himself (what does belief mean to an Inner Party member?), he just might have been saying it to get Winston to despair.
One of the other implausibilities of the book is that people who get hurt in dictatorships are generally just ground up by the system, they aren't targeted by a highly intellectual stalker.
And Margaret Atwood made this point:
Plusuntrue. This may simply be a conventional way of indicating that Orwell is discussing a fictional universe; there is nothing in the text to indicate that the narrator of the appendix resides within the world of 1984. Similarly, when SM Stirling ended "Marching Through Georgia" with an appendix of Draka history and weapons, it was in the past tense, but it wasn't obviously an in-universe work; it had information not readily apparent to any Alliance writer, but attitudes neutrally non-Draka.
No, I don't think he'd like to believe that, and that's one of the major points of the book.
The horror of the book is twofold.
Everyone could be against the system, and wish it weren't so, but still be efficient and effective cogs in the machine. The machine does not require willing cogs. O'Brien seems more resigned than a true believer, but he obediently plays his part as a cog.
The other horror is the ability to take up WInston like a piece of meat, grind him up like hamburger, and mold him into whatever shape they wanted. Make him believe whatever they wanted, make him love or hate whatever they wanted.
There is a tradition in a lot of fiction to glorify the idea that people can't be broken, that they can hold one small piece of themselves inviolable. Winston thought he could hold on and not betray Julia. Wrong.
Another example of such glorification was Bigger Thomas saying "you can't make me do nothing but die". Guess again. Your'e a meat machine with buttons, and if we press the right buttons in the right order, you'll beg and plead to be given a chance to please us, and you'll mean it. You'll want to please us.
If you apply enough pressure to a tool - well, the tool won't do anything you want. It might do something. It might just break.
No one ever said dictatorships end cleanly. The question is how far you can bend a real society made of real humans before you compromise its functional integrity.
On the other hand, this can also be applied optimistically, to the human tendency towards corruption, abuse of power etc.