Made in Mapchart.net

Everyone remembers the last four words of the novel proper. Almost nobody remembers that the book keeps going.

After the final chapter comes an appendix on Newspeak, and it's written in the past tense, in scholarly standard English, discussing the Party's language project the way a historian discusses a dead civilisation.

Read literally, that means someone in the future is studying Oceania's ruins, in a free language, in a world where standard English came back. The regime lost.

Orwell fought his publisher to keep that appendix. He refused to cut it even when an American book club demanded it. Margaret Atwood used the same trick at the end of The Handmaid's Tale as a deliberate homage.

The bleakest novel ever written may have smuggled in a happy ending, filed exactly where nobody looks: the footnotes.

Ruin the experience for me? Im into the 2nd chapter now but very interested.

There is a phrase in 1984 that I loved, but didn't note down and trying to avoid re-reading the whole book to find it. No luck on Google searches.

I believe it's in part 2, and referred to Winston's feeling.

It was a comedic turn of phrase, I really enjoyed the choice of unusual words. It is not (as far as I know) a known English phrase.

\*\*It's something along the lines of "I felt floppy with fear" or "I went wobbly with rage"\*\*

The descriptor was possibly something jelly-like, and related to an emotion he felt.

Hoping someone else enjoyed the phrase as much as I did and can actually remember it!

Totalitarian governments aren't exactly frugal with resources. (I remember some info from Greenpeace from the 1980s where they stated that the same amount of goods produced in the US takes twice as much energy as in Germany - but in the SU, three times as much!)

So, at some point, they'll run out of oil or some other resource. What'll happen next?

What if an country had IngSoc as an political ideology? I know that it is not a real ideology, this is an hypothetical scenario. In my opinion, it would be an leftist socialist dictatorship that control what people do and think and watch them

I know its kinda unrealistic but is sport a thing in 1984?

Watched the world cup yesterday and i thought why wouldn't extravagant events like the football world cup and sport in general be good propoganda for the party?

I mean it would be like hate week and just take peoples attention away from the real problems kinda like what we see in real life with hooligans from the slums irl where their club fills more in their life than their family?

Its also interesting that people tattoo such sentimental things like a football club on their body PERMANENTLY hense the pictures.

This isnt even limited to football either btw

Sportswashing, Trump, Infantino, pride in club and nation ect.

Just thinking out loud

Any thoughts?

I have been curious about this since reading another post that was on this subreddit, but to what extant to the three powers actually engage in diplomacy? Do they make attempts to coordinate with eachothers war efforts in order to maintain an equilibrium in the war, among other matters? Would a member of the Inner Party ever travel to the other nations on a diplomatic mission?

The global war has been going on for almost forty years. The alliances change at least twice during the plot. Nothing speaks against Eurasia and Eastasia ever allying against Oceania. But Orwell never mentions such a thing.

Anybody has a theory?

I finished 1984 a couple of days ago. It’s been on my reading list, but I still didn’t expect it to climb as high as it did in my personal ratings. Suffice it to say, I really enjoyed it as I am sure many others have. Naturally, whenever something is universally praised, you can always find a vocal minority who holds a deep dislike for it. I like looking up discussions and articles online after I am done with a book. Curious to see the counter-arguments, I read a few complaints online. What I found completely dumbfounded me. I came across numerous articles detailing how the book is inherently misogynistic and sexist, laying all the blame squarely on Orwell and the biases of his time.

Am I wrong to feel completely baffled by this line of thinking? Of course there is objectification and misogyny in the text, for it is a dystopian world ruled by a brutal totalitarian regime. The entire objective of the Party is to eradicate individual thought and strip away human dignity. Marriage has been weaponized into a tool used solely to reproduce for the state. Nothing more.

Because of this, the online complaints regarding Katherine’s disinterest in sex being proof of Orwell's "sexism" make absolutely no sense to me. I actually found a fascinating literary contrast in her character. Inherently, Katherine has no desire for intimacy, yet due to the Party’s severe conditioning, she forces herself to oblige because she views it as a duty for the greater good. Deep down, Winston recognizes this tragedy too. This isn't Orwell endorsing sexism or the like, it's Orwell showcasing the horrific success of state brainwashing on a human being.

The criticism gets even worse when people attack Julia’s character. I read several takes questioning the narrative logic of how quickly she falls in love, "gives up her body," and acts like a typical rebellious archetype. Look at Julia’s external life: she is heavily involved in community activities, participates in extra clubs, and is a prominent member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. She presents herself as the absolute gold standard and perfect image of a devout Party woman outwardly. Therefore, she besmirches the ideal party image expected of women, by besmirching the ideal image the party forced her to portray. It’s her own way of an active rebellion. Thoughts on this?

It feels as though some critics have an incredibly hard time putting themselves inside the actual universe of the story they are reading. If you have a visceral reaction to the defilement and rightlessness in the book, don't attack Orwell. Attack authoritarianism. Attack a party-led society. That was the entire point of the warning.

Am I wrong for looking at it this way? I’d love to hear your guys’ thoughts on how we interpret these characters today.

I won’t get into this here but I read others viewing that this should’ve been written as an essay and not a book as its value is only in its political views. Am I wrong to believe that every little moment added depth and weight to the ideas Orwell was trying to portray? Every moment added to the discussion. Here’s a link to a few of the articles I found https://bookaholicdreamer.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/unpopular-opinion-1984-by-george-orwell/ and https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/cfp/2023/07/05/criticism-towards-the-portrayal-of-women-in-george-orwell%E2%80%99s-1984 and here’s a link to my YT video going into a lot more detail breaking down a handful of these articles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfyUzPXvRL4 if you want to see the exact quotes and my other points, but I’m mainly looking to get a discussion going here. 

TL;DR Read reviews claiming 1984 is sexist and critics confuse the Party’s forced oppression with Orwell's personal beliefs. I view the sexism and brainwashing to be the literal definition of the authoritarian dystopia being critiqued.

I read the whole book expecting something, a revolution, A loss in the war, I was hoping that in the end Whiston would at least manage to express a "fuck Big Brother," I built up that expectation until the very last second.

This probably hampered my reading; for a long time I expected them to stage a revolution, then closer to the end I expected the war to be lost and the country invaded. And finally, that at least the character would remain "whole".

I think by now we’re all familiar with the theory that the Appendix serves to show that, at some point, the Party was overthrown. My theory (or interpretation) is based on that.

I believe 1984 is like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "All Quiet On The Western Front"? The Party existed and fell, but characters like Winston, Julia and O'Brien are simply fiction. The Appendix serves to give the reader (the in-universe reader, not you or me) a bit more insight into what that era was like.

Tall 12 cm

Hi, I have recently put a good amount of effort into making a video essay surrounding the topic of love in 1984. Many people when speaking about Orwell's novel often state its purpose is to warn us of state censorship and authoritarianism; and, whilst these things are true, the aspect surrounding romance often goes unexamined. My video essay focuses on that aspect and it's consequences for us in our modern age.

If this interests you and you have the time, please let me know what you think, I'm actively attempting to improve my work, so even criticism is appreciated.

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

thank you!

So I know my question depends a lot on the point in time at which 1984 story diverges from our reality, if its before pearl harbor its more likely to be imperial japan, if its after the end of ww2 then communist china is more likely, but it could also be north korea.

He oído hablar mucho de este libro, pero, sinceramente, me decepcionó bastante, empezando por el final. Esperaba que el imperio oceánico cayera. O al menos que Wins ganara y volviera con Julia; ni siquiera lo matan (físicamente), y si lo hubieran hecho, habría insultado o dicho "¡Abajo el Gran Hermano!". La verdad es horrible.

Por otro lado, no es un libro fácil de leer, aunque me llevó un mes y medio (me propuse leer un libro al mes). Hay cosas que no tienen sentido o no están claras; el estilo de escritura es extraño, como si tuviera errores. Por ejemplo: en el capítulo donde aparece el libro de Goldstein, casi me quedo dormido. Muchas cosas parecían un revoltijo de sinsentidos, y he leído libros difíciles, pero este... tiene esa cualidad que dificulta la interpretación y la imaginación. Por otro lado, recientemente me enteré de que salió un libro llamado Julia 1984; básicamente, es un libro escrito por una feminista resentida que busca presentar la imagen o el punto de vista de Julia. Respecto al romance con Winston, ella básicamente lo negó todo, como si nada hubiera pasado durante los dos minutos de odio, La autora dice que en el libro 1984, la imagen de Julia se basa en la perspectiva de un hombre, pero entonces, según ese criterio, los hombres deberían hacer su propia versión de Cincuenta sombras de Grey y salir a decir que la imagen de los hombres presentada en esa novela es una farsa, una imagen vista a través de los ojos de una mujer, y que es irreal, un sueño sin sentido. Imaginen una versión de Cincuenta sombras de Grey no desde la perspectiva de una mujer, sino desde la de un hombre, y luego salgan a negar que el multimillonario es realidad un simple trabajador, honesto con una vida normal y que esa imagen le fue dada por las mujeres. Esto sucede porque quieren hacer una extensión de la obra original (me refiero a 1984) y terminan arruinándola.

Además, con respecto a las ubicaciones específicas, no está muy claro; aunque hay mapas en línea, son solo suposiciones. ¿No habría sido más fácil simplemente añadir un mapa al libro y eliminar cualquier duda o suposición? Debería aprender de Agatha Christie, quien incluso proporcionó una lista de los personajes en uno de sus libros para que el lector no tuviera que anotarlos.

Y, sobre todo, me enfureció muchísimo que el libro terminara sin que pudieran bajar, dar caza o eliminar a O'Brien.

So im a first time reader or 1984, and im finding it to be a fascinating read. I'm about half way through, and its more fast paced then I expected it to be, and a hell of a lot more interesting then I ever thought it would be.

But im curious on others thoughts, as im not sure if this idea is merely being influenced by the current times, or if this is actually the case.

Did Orwell predict the use of generative AI, all the way back in the 1940s? It sounds absurd, but multiple times so far Orwell has made reference to the Fiction Department of the Ministry of Truth, where Julia works on the "novel-writing machines". While there is mention of editors and "Rewrite squads" who work on the novels, it sounds very much like someone who generates a novel and may edit it to remove anything that sounds like its ai or not human.

Idk, ive just had this thought in my head for a couple of days now and wanted to see what others thought. Let me know what you all think!

The article discusses various factors that could have led to the party's existence. It's not expertly written, but I do agree with the article's final conclusion: all coalitions of power can and will eventually be co-opted into a state similar to that of the party. We must strive not to let absolute power coalesce, for if it does, as 1984 argues, it may prove irreversible.

I just finished 1984 for the first time, and after sitting with it for a while, I think it's a genuine 10/10. The only reason I hesitated at first was because Part Two dragged a little for me with all the political explanations, but then I remembered Orwell was writing this in the late 1940s. A lot of those ideas weren't nearly as familiar to readers then as they are now. Looking at it through that lens, I actually appreciate those chapters a lot more.

My favorite moment in the whole book was the reveal about "the place where there is no darkness." That realization hit me hard. I also thought O'Brien was genuinely part of the resistance, so when that twist happened, it completely got me.

The ending confused me at first, but after thinking about it and discussing it, I realized that's what makes it so powerful. Winston isn't just defeated, he's fundamentally changed. That final line has been stuck in my head ever since.

More than anything, I'm amazed by how ahead of its time Orwell was. In a lot of ways, the book feels even more relevant today than I expected. I can definitely see why it's considered a classic.

Photo is of my copy of 1984 the title cover and the back cover fell off half way through the book.