1984 Blog

  Winston’s torture is completely unjustified. The superstate of Oceania has gone too far, even if “order” exists. All the atrocities can’t be worth it, to achieve a society like Ingsoc has.  We can see the same dilemma in many instances in the world where we may have gone too far. War, being an obvious example. We can justify it all we want, but it ends with killing regardless. Reading 1984 made me think of the ways people often resort to decisions with statements like “we did what we had to” or “there was no other way”. But, yes actually, there is always another way. In a similar manner, I’m sure Oceania could have prospered in another fashion. The world war in 1984 in general allows stability in each superstate, at the cost of constant war that doesn’t actually change anything itself. Ultimately, 1984 has shown me to always have an open mind. 

  Fallout: New Vegas is a post-nuclear apocalyptic video-game set in 2281, in the Mojave. Playing as the main character, the game begins with you being shot and buried... but a robot saves you. On a quest to find who and why you were put in such a dangerous situation (your memory is mostly gone as you took a shot to the head), you eventually find yourself in the city of New Vegas.  As you uncover secrets of the city, you find out a mysterious “Mr. House” is responsible for saving the city from nuclear attack hundreds of years ago, and now is behind the scenes of everything that happens there. Somehow, he has reached a near-immortal state. We never get to see his body, only a face on a screen very much resembling big brother. The reason I was reminded of Mr. House when reading 1984, is because you are eventually faced with the decision on who to entrust the fate of the Mojave to. Mr. House runs New Vegas through an oppressive system, but nobody feels like they are being oppress...

  Google is everywhere. It's common knowledge that “Google knows too much”. The reach it has is similar to that of the government in 1984 , if not more. Obviously, 1984 showcases an organization that uses its reach for evil. Google is arguably not evil though. But, how far is too far? Should we be scared? Reading 1984 , I realized if someone, or a group of people were to fiercely pursue anything similar to 1984, they'd have the means to. That made my perspective reading 1984 shift, to one that could only imagine how close we could be to this dystopia.

  There are many ways to rebel against an establishment. In numerous cases, there are large organized movements, with an end-goal in mind. Often, at the very least, demands are made. On the other hand, as we see in 1984 , there are small ways to rebel against the system. Julia especially is an example of that. But, what are small ways to rebel in the real world? I eventually found a community online where people share specific experiences where they just rebel, not against anything in particular, but still with a common theme. Some examples included at their job they may not like, against bills they have to pay, dress codes, and so on. It was fascinating to see the minimal actions that seem to go a long way.  Though it is up to the individual as to how far they are willing to rebel, it's interesting to see that even in 1984 there are the slightest ways to do so.

  The importance of the past is evident in these readings. Winston is fascinated by Charrington’s possessions, and what they symbolized before the revolution. These items are rebellious to Ingsoc’s tendency to alter and wipe history, and it made me think of another dystopian novel, The Giver. If you haven’t read it, I highly suggest you do. The similarities between the two is the way in which new-society lets go of the past, and uses that erasure to their advantage, or to achieve a goal. In 1984, it is simply to quell any rebellion and control the minds of people, but in The Giver, it's used to forget feelings that could cause conflict. Anything too far on either side of the spectrum has been completely forgotten by the community in The Giver . The past and what we can learn from it are crucial to who we are. 

  In this reading, we get a sense of “newspeak”, and how Ingsoc uses it to further its goals. Some words and phrases are simplified, others simply no longer exist. Individualism is completely erased. If such a method truly works, it must mean that the way we speak through our free will provides us individuality. So, I reflected on what in our speech makes us individual.  For one, we can assume a certain dialect. In Oceania, it makes sense to eradicate dialects, as they are extremely nationalistic. On the other hand, there is the subject of vocabulary. I would imagine that words expressing our desires or other viewpoints provide us individuality (words such as dream, extraordinary, heartbreaking, etc.). Ultimately, I thought it was interesting how Ingsoc basically un-evolves human behavior itself to unite everyone, and it shows how important language is to us.