Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Victory Gin

This article has a box that says their is an ongoing discussion about whether the article victory gin should be merged with this article. However, there is not a discussion topic about this merger, if there ever was one. I think that the merger box should be removed, and the articles should exist separately. In addition, there is no article on victory gin , merely a page that redirects to itself. Thanks! Greenblade99 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Victory Gin was deleted ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Gin (2nd nomination)|closed discussion). Victory gin, with the lower-case 'g', was a redirect to that article. I've just prodded it for deletion. I'll also remove the merger box from this article. Thanks. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

More Bias.

Remove this:

"The liberal radio program, The Mike Malloy Show began reading Nineteen Eighty-Four in late 2005 and vowed to continue doing so every night until whichever comes first: U.S. President George W. Bush is impeached, or the show is taken off the air. The reading was completed on May 11, 2006."

Not only is it baised, an advertisement for the show, it is factually incorrect to associate Conservatism with 1984.

Or add a paragraph that illustrates the fact that:

Liberals love big government Liberals have created more socialism in this country than any conservative Liberals have removed more freedoms than any conservative Liberals do not believe in personal responsibilty Liberals do not believe in the sanctity of life

Liberalism is an offshoot of Socialism, which is an offshoot of Communism; therefore Liberalism is more closely associated with the atrocities of 1984.

But what am I expecting? Libipedia, as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2006

Keep taking the tablets. The reference to the show is silly and should be removed as irrelevant. But the anti-liberal rant borders on lunacy. 1984 was a satire on totalitarianism, and there have been totalitarian or near-totalitarian regimes that were "conservative" or "socialist" or neither - and they resemble each other more than they differ, in methods at least. Exile 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's merely describing one radio version of the book. What's wrong with that? "The liberal radio program" could be removed though, as it's rather redundant anyway. And it's less of an advertisement for the show now that they stopped reading the book.--Ssj4android 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that section about the radio show should definitely not be included unless the radio show was very notable or its reading of the book had a lot of media coverage/made a big impact in any way, which i doubt. But i'm not sure why you used it as an opportunity to rant about liberalism in "this country" (whichever country you meant) or in wikipedia, "the free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit". KZF 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of maps?

Are the maps truly relevant? Is the impression not distinctly given in the novel that the people can be told whatever it is wanted that they believe? --GoAround 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Antisemetic

In the controversy section is says some people have called the book antisemetic. However, there's no sources and I doubt anyone has actually taken this stance. The actual antisemetic force is The Party. I mean, c'mon, to say that the book is antisemetic is to say that the book puts The Party in a positive light.

I for one agree. Sort of. There should be a Wikipedian award for 'Most Irrelevant Allegation of Anti-Semetism'. Orwell himself wasn't anti-semetic, and nor is this novel. End of. Except perhaps in a twisted way whereby one interprets silence on the subject of Jewishness as tacit acceptance of anti-semetism. But that's just paranoid crap from people who really ought to know better, patronisingly condoned by well-meaning people who also ought to know better. </rant> Where was I? Oh, yes. Orwell, anti-semitic? "1984" anti-semetic? Doubleplusunsense. Let's have some decent evidence. Garrick92 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And why have I spelled anti-semitic "anti-semetic" throughout in the above? Dolt as I am. The following quote should be waved under the noses of anyone claiming The Party is anti-semitic: "Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area."Garrick92 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Recordings in Related Works

While there are probably others, I fail to understand why Arctic Monkeys are listed as a related work. The only reason I can discern is from using '1984', but without any reference to any of the themes contained within, what relates it? Removed this reference, as it really doesn't have anything to do with the themes of the novel. I'll have a look through other references and remove any other redundant ones. --ChinaNailStorm 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

One-World government

"In fact, it is entirely possible that the other two powers themselves are fabrications, and the entire world is controlled by a single entity."

When I read this book in Grade 12, my teacher suggested to me that this particular idea could be true. At the moment, I still cling to this belief, especially when given other statements in the article concerning a "fabricated war" that "wags the dog." Darth Sidious 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add this, too: towards the end of the book, the "news" people say that the entire African continent has just been conquered by Oceania. Is it possible that one set of "news" is fed to the masses in general (ongoing "warfare"), while another is fed to dissidents about to be executed? The "conquest" of Africa gives the biggest hint of all towards a one-world government revealing itself to the unfortunate dissidents. Darth Sidious 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you should re-read the chapters from The Book which set out the baisc parameters. The southern half of Africa is part of the heartland of Oceania, which by tacit agreement is never invaded (as Oceania never invades the European mainland). North Africa is part of the disputed territories which all the time change hands and whose population is used as virtually slave labor. Therefore, if Eurasia had conquered South Africa and cut Oceania in two, that would have meant that the Eurasians had stopped "playing by the rules" and that the whole world-wide stricture is beginning to unravel. This is the reason why the news arouse the hope of Winston. On the contrary, when the Oceanians counter-attack and conquer North Africa, all that this means is that the enslaved masses of Morroco, Algeria, Egypt etc. would for some time have Oceanian masters until the Eurasians make a counter-attack across the Mediterranean and conquer it again. Just one more round among the endless rounds of the same game - hence Winston's final despair when he hears it. All this is assuming that all these battles are actually taking place. It is quite conceivable that it is all concocted and tailored specifically for Winston's benefit, and broadcast on the one telescreen in the Cherry Tree Cafe (or perhaps to some more telescreens in the immediate vicinity). O'Brien knows Winston virtually as well as winston knows himself, he could very accurately predict the effect these news would have on him, and it is worth the trouble to gain his final surrender. (Winston was important enough to the regime to occupy for a considerable period the time and energy of at least two high-level skillful operatives, O'Brien and Charrington.) It would be easy enough to deal with other people who heard the piece of news and find the discrepency when they talk with others, they would be told that they heard some lies produced by Goldstein's agents, and would swiftly forget it. Or gaining Winston's final surrender might be important enough to feed this piece of false news to the whole of London. Adam Keller 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But what if the Book itself were fabricated in this aspect? After all, the Party wrote this book in double-think mode. Wouldn't a one-world government manifesting itself in three forms be the ultimate conspiracy - kinda like the Clone Wars and my namesake? Darth Sidious 18:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[And this may not be coincidental with Orwell's atheistic anti-trinitarianism, as well]

Several typos

i've never written a wikipedia article, just fixed a few typos and broken links. there are several in this article, especially in the goldstein as trotsky paragraph, and i would normally just fix them, but i had never seen an article that's an obvious collaboration before, so i thought i'd ask if anybody minded? --DyNama 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're sure they're typos then go ahead. Iron Ghost 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a bunch of them yesterday. Grammer still needs a bit of work though--Acebrock 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put the whole thing through a microsoft word spellcheck and fixed anything I knew was mispelled or grammatrically incorrect. You'll find little edits having to do with spelling and grammer thoughout the article. adjust and review.--Acebrock 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

you got all the typos i'd seen! --DyNama 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tags

I think the sections in question have been cleaned up enough to warrant their removal, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

no one's objecting? I'll give it three more days just to be sure.--Acebrock 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove them now. Acoording to my time (PST) It's been three days. anyone objects put them back up and say why here--Acebrock 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Title

The title section read as: "Originally Orwell titled the book The Last Man in Europe, but his publisher, Frederic Warburg, suggested the change."

What was this change to? Was it to the current title? Was it just a different title? I would assume it is the current title; however, if one continues reading the article, it seems to be Orwell that chose 1984 (Origination of the title section). Furthermore, it seems redundant to have a section 'Title' and a section right after 'Origination of the title'.

Milligan's 1985

Any objection to adding a reference to Spike Milligan's 1985[1]? This was a parody of Nigel Kneale's television version of 1984, that followed the story line quite well. The 1955 radio broadcast was so popular they remade the episode a few weeks later (not just replayed, they re-performed the episode with slight variations from their original broadcast). --AGoon 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The first line...

...Sorry to put the cat among the pigeons here, but the first line:

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) is a political novel written by George Orwell in opposition to totalitarianism.[1]

Seems to smack of authorial intention. I agree that Orwell's reasons for writing the book should be listed somewhere in the article, I just don't think they should be in the header. I would maybe even cut the adjective "political", and rewrite the first paragraph entirely. I haven't done this because I know how sensitive the article is, but I would appreciate some feedback on these comments.

Screen Adaptation #3

There is a new screen adaptation coming out in 2007, I think this should be mentioned both here and on the film page.

Prove it. VolatileChemical 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The World order in 1984

Interesting comments about the very nature of the unwinnable war here. Its ironic that a novel where the "powers that be' not only rule, but define reality itself....or re-define it at will. In that some of you astutely point out various scenarios with such as, war exists, but is on a much smaller scale than what the party implies. There not only is no war, but the other 2 super-states dont even exist, except as fake enemies in a fake-never ending war, and other possible scenarios. Whats interesting of course, is that the people inhabitating 1984 really have no idea what the *real* world situation is. Here in this articule, many of you are in the exact same situation as the people in 1984! You dont really know what the true 'world' situation is either. Ah the irony, maybe thats what George Orwell was after all along. Write about a regime that controlls the very nature of reality itself, and does such a thorough job of it, even its readers are left wondering where the truth really lies....brilliant. However from my reading of it, I interpt it this way. Logistically, it would be difficult for any one power to 'rule the world' espcially given the pre-1984 situation with its limited nuclear war and its aftermath, such as we see in 1984. However as Goldsteins book clearly points out, all 3 powers had a tacit and deliberate policy of *not* attacking each others 'core territories'. This implies the leaders of all 3 superstates do talk, do co-operate, at least as far as maintaining there own powers. This may be interpreted as a de-facto 'world goverment'. If one of the purposes of the 'war' is to destroy human labor and channel it into worthless non-productive directions, that works. Such a war would also have another 'benefit', tho Its never stated in this manner. It would be a good way for the 3 super-states to get rid of excess population as well. Trouble-makers,(or potential ones) surplus workers etc, could all be fed into such a 'war'. This too would suite the super-states quite well im sure. The war, most likely does exsist, however like some here have stated, its nature and extent are probably quite different from what even Goldsteins book implies. Most likely far fewer combatants, and much more limited in scale, yet just sufficent for the super-states requirements. I think its pretty safe to assume the other 2 super-states *do* exist, do fight over 'neutral territories' in the 3rd world, and more than likely co-operate at the highest levels. It wouldnt suprise me one bit if this war was managed to the point of battles being 'won' and 'lost' more or less by mutual consent too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 September 2006

Please remember that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not the subject matter itself. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Unnoted.

The line, "O'Brien, who represents the oppressive Party, is in many ways depicted as a member of the old British ruling class (in one case, Winston Smith thinks of him as a person who in the past would have been holding a snuffbox, i.e. an old-fashioned English gentleman)." within the subection "Orwel's Inspiration" contains a spoiler in that O'Brien's loyalty to the Party is not revieled until later in the novel. I'm not sure how this should/could be corrected, but I thought it worth noting.--72.57.128.5 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Also fixed the more obvious /* Summary of plot */. I'm not sure if other sections should get the warning too. Xiner 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The War

I think it should be noted that, the war may exist due to the fact of during hate week, the allies change, and the party would not have wanted hate week to go any differently than it should have, becuase if the allies changed mid week, then the party has no control over this "war" and if they did fabricate this serciona, then it should be noted as another way they are controlling the hatred of the Party MembersSlayerx675 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good thought but it's speculation, not reporting of facts. There's far too much of that in the article already. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Class

I'm raising the class to A because it is a very thorough and good article. Cbrown1023 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wild Speculation

The section "Orwell's Inspiration" contains a pretty vast repository of extremely speculative statments with very little verifiability or citations. The last paragraph about the Catholic Church is such a jump that I suggest this violates the neutral point of view guideline. If Orwell wanted 1984 to be a criticism of the Catholic Church's faith based practices, I think it would have come out a lot more clearly in the novel. As such, this is speculation without a source cited, and not suitable for an A class article. --Jarnor23 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It probably came out as clearly as he dared; he did want to get his book published, after all. Here's ten obvious parallels off the top of my head.

1.Big Brother as an all powerful ruling family figure who's existence, though questionable, was used to control the masses. (Christian notion of a "Heavenly Father" who ruled the world as a benevolent dictator) 2. Youth Anti Sex League ( Catholic rules of "chastity" persist to this day) 3. Specialized language use as thought control( contrast Catholic "heretic" with orwellian "oldthinker") 4. Rote, ritualistic practices (stand, sitting, kneeling in masses) -- paralleled by orwell mass excercises 5. Control of information through control of literacy (all across the middle ages) 6. Extensive Spy Network (the confessional was a means for people to report on their neighbours in the middle ages) 7. Use of torture to bring out "the truth" (Grand Inquisitors; Room 101 ) 8. Forced "confessions" ( Gallileo; Winston Smith) 9. Unelected Party Elite acting as a quiet ruling class -- so too the cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church. 10. Faith without or despite evidence of the senses as a cardinal virtue ( orwellian doublethink, the Catholic "miracle" of transubstantiation, Papal "infallability")

The Catholic Church was the greatest authoritarian establishment across centuries of European history, with power and influence spanning thousands of years, elements of which persist to this day. Orwell would have to have been blind to have ignored it's influences. It is only logical to assume that he did not.

Talk about giving 'wild speculation' a bad name. The only possible answer to this last point is spherical, and in the plural. /:¬\ Garrick92 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Appendix on NewSpeak POV

The part of Appendix on Newspeak is a bit POV towards it not being a secret ending. There are sentances and grammar that simply DO NOT MAKE SENSE unless the appendix was written in the world of nineteen eighty four as part of past tense. Clearly, I believe Orwell has put the hidden ending in but I'm not advocating anything other that a fair, neutral POV paragraph.

"possibly implying a more ambiguous ending for the novel than is commonly thought"

No, it IMPLIES a ending where the party has been overthrown. It doesn't imply an ambiguous ending. It may or may not be true but it doesn't imply ambiguity, it implies a definite resolution.

"Furthermore, it could be argued that Orwell, as an advocate of plain English, would be unlikely to underpin such a significant plot detail with such a subtle clue."

Oh come on, where is the citation? Who argues this? Why would Orwell be unlikely to put in a subtle clue simply becuase his essays about how academics should write in plain English?

This whole paragraph should be reworked.

Which bits DO NOT MAKE SENSE unless the appendix is assumed to be a false document from the world of 1984?

Presumably you don't think that the whole book is supposed to be a post-Ingsoc biography of Winston. Why is the appendix different?

Also, why do you think the appendix mentions Winston by name, if it is supposed to be some academic document written in a future after Winston was vapourised?

In any case, your having answers for these won't be enough - you'll need to find references to notable publicatinos advocating that point of view, or else it's original research.

I agree that the "it could be argued" sentence is weaselly. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a go. I do think the "happy ending" stuff is completely false, mind. The underlying message of much of Goldstein's Book, and Part Three of the novel, is that the Party is capable of lasting forever. An appendix amounting to "But guess what, it didn't!" is, frankly, crap, and Orwell doesn't write crap. Robin Johnson (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I am much happier with the revised paragraph, it has a much more encyclopedic feel. Currently I am studying overseas at a non english speaking university, meaning I don't have my copy of 1984 with me and I don't think I can borrow one to give specific examples, but will see what I can do. Also, forgive me for my over-passionate original comment. To the point at hand, as is spoken about the Atwood (essay that is cited) the Appendix is written in third person - if it was an Appendix written by Orwell to help the reader understand it surely would be written in first person, being from Orwell's point of view. As Atwood points out (whom by the way is a towering figure of Literature in her own right) since it is written in third person past tense then "For whoever has written the essay on Newspeak, the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four is over". I mean, you cannot argue against that simple step of logic. What you can say is that it was an oversight on Orwell's part, but you are obviouslly an experienced Orwell reader, do you think this is likely? That is my opinion, and as long as wikipedia provides a reasonable argument for it, then I am happy. Lastly on a personal note, I don't think you need to look at the ending as "But guess what it didn't" as crap. Because Orwell has made his point that the party is CAPABLE of lasting forever, it simply depends on how much faith one has in the proles. Atwood: "...Orwell had much more faith in the resilience of the human spirit than he's usually been given credit for." I am not trying to talk you round, per se, I am merely saying that to view the Appendix as the 'hidden' ending is not "crap", it is simply Orwell saying that the novel itself is the main body of work, the main point he wanted to get accross but, as long as we stay aware, he has faith in humanity.

But the whole novel is written in the third person in the past tense. That is how most novels are written. "Whoever has written the essay on Newspeak" is George Orwell, and for him the world of Nineteen Eight-Four is not over, because it never existed, because it is a fictional world he created. It would make no sense at all for the appendix to be written in the first person, because there are no characters in it. Anyway, this isn't what talk pages are for (they are for discussing improvements oto the article, not a discussion forum for the topic itself) - glad you're happy with the changes to the article. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that's the point, you are saying the appendix exists outside the novel, it is an appendix that Orwell has written to help us explain newspeak, therefore it would be written first person from Orwell's perspective. If the whole novel is written in third person, and so is the appendix, then the appendix is PART of the novel. If it is a true appendix from Orwell to us it is written in first person from Orwell's perspective. Which leads us to the Atwood quote of the world of 1984 being over.  :) PS. I said I was 'much happier' and there has been a huge improvement with the paragraph in question, but I still think it could be given more weight. Not just from my point of view, but since this is actually one element of nineteen eighty four that is still debated in academic circles I support a huge larger paragraph and more intense focus on the issue, from both sides. Just an idea.

Chapter 1 is part of the novel, and consistently uses the past tense when referring to Oceania and the Party. Chapter 1 is not written "in the first person from Orwell's perspective" - that would make no sense at all, because Orwell is not supposed to be there. Nobody claims this means Chapter 1 is written by an unseen character in a happy future - it's written by the same omniscient third-person narrator that Orwell uses throughout this and four other novels. Why should the appendix be expected to be any different?

Conversely, "Goldstein's Book", which is a false document, is written in the present tense, and the fact that it is a false document is made very clear. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a shot at rewriting it. I just wanted to make the argument clearer and more presice, and also get rid of the idea of a false document, which wasn't technically an apt description. DrDisco

Infobox The War of Nineteen Eighty-Four

What is about this infobox? IMHO it blurs the line between fact and fiction. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As the writer of, and person who added, the infobox in question, I would like to if I may present an unneccesarily long yet in no way complete list of other articles about fictional wars or battles that include Infobox:Military Conflict. And here it is:

Second Robotech War	Ministry of Magic	First Robotech War	Star Forge
Battle of Yavin	Invasion of Naboo	War of the Ring	Dagor Bragollach
Dagor-nuin-Giliath	Nirnaeth Arnoediad	Third Robotech War	Battle of Bespin (Galactic Civil War)
Battle of Cato Neimoidia	Battle of Coruscant	Battle of Endor	Battle of Felucia
Battle of Geonosis	Battle of Hoth	Siege of Barad-dûr	Battle of Kashyyyk
Battle of Mygeeto	Battle of Dagorlad	Battle of the Field of Celebrant	Attack on Tantive IV
First Battle of Beleriand	Battle of Utapau	Battle of Bywater	Battle of the Camp
Dagor Aglareb	Dagor-nuin-Giliath	Battle of Dale	Battle of Five Armies
Battle of Fornost	Disaster of the Gladden Fields	Battle of Greenfields	Battle of the Hornburg
Destruction of Isengard	Battle of the Morannon	Battle of Kamino	Battle of Nanduhirion
Nirnaeth Arnoediad	Battle of Jabiim	Battle of Osgiliath	Battle of the Pelennor Fields
Battle of Mon Calamari	Battle of Tumhalad	War of Wrath	Battle of Muunilinst
Battle of Ruusan	Battle of Telos IV	Duel on Yavin IV	Battle of Autobot City
Barrel Roll Offensive	World War I in Timeline-191	World War II in Timeline-191	Battle of the Three Navies
Battle of Camp Hill	Battle of Hope Nation	Operation Blackbeard	Battle of Mars
Battle of Metropolis	Battle of P3Y-229	Red Rebellion of 1915-16	Second Mexican War
Battle of Rio Grande	Battle of Saturn's Rings	Battle of Manticore	Battle of Beruna Ford
Battle of Bajor	Battle of the Burning Plains	Battle for Carvahall	Battle of Cardassia
Dominion War	Chin'toka	Battle of the Council	Battle of Deep Space Nine
Earth-Romulan War	Battle of the Cowshed	The Destruction of the Twelve Colonies	General War
Klingon Civil War	Fall of London (War of the Worlds)	Battle of Maxia	Forever Red
HMS Thunder Child	Battle of Sector 001	Battle of Hulao Pass	Battle of Wolf 359
Battle of Klendathu	Battle of Macragge	Battle of Pine Summit	The Revolution (Animal Farm)
Battle of Sishui Pass	Cold War (Battlefield 2142)	Horus Heresy	Krikkit Wars
War of 704	Great Jedi Purge	Mandalorian War	Yuuzhan Vong invasion

If adding that infobox to all those pages blurs the line between fact and fiction as much as it does on this page, by all means remove the one on this article, but only if you remove the templates on all those other articles as well. VolatileChemical 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the infobox, but that's completely bogus - something being present in other articles doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing in this one. Robin Johnson (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, that's idd very long... and it will probably get gigantic if every one is going to add his favorite. In which form are you going to add those wars ? Can you make some kind of table so it doesn't look that big ?

--Garo 08:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find a box template to space it out or put it into coloumns. VolatileChemical 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There, that looks better. VolatileChemical 21:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Deus ex machina

There seems to be multiples in this book.

• People like Winston could come up with these anti-Ingsoc ideals and could secretly tell others about them, invisibly gaining support bit by bit. Deus ex machina: the telescreen puts Winston and all other thoughtcriminals under constant surveillance and scrutiny, almost unable to spread his viewpoints or concepts.
• Inconsitencies, cover-ups, rectifications, or changing of doctrine instantaneously could be easily detected by many, many people remembering the near past when what Big Brother or the Party was saying was different or wrong. Deus ex machina: Doublethink automatically aligns every Oceanian to whatever the Party happens to be saying at a certain time. It provides that people can't detect inconsitencies in doctrine or ideology because no one can remember the things for them to be consistent or inconsistent with.
• If a country like Oceania, even highly watered down or decreased in severity, existed in a world like our own now, like our own around Orwell's time, even some version of either where socialism or communism was much more common, concievably other states would intervene drastically to improve the totalitarian system set in place by the Party. Deus ex machina: There's only two other countries, and they both work exactly like Oceania. There's no force of democracy or freedom to stand up against this repression and dictatorship and power-mongering because there is no longer anything in the world but repression and dictatorship and power-mongering.

Does anyone else agree with my assertions?

VolatileChemical 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree strongly with the first two points. I hate to sound arrogant, but do you fully understand deus ex machina? The telescreen is not a device merely to drive the plot forward, the idea you are constantly being watched is an important part of the plot. The exact same goes for Doublethink, it is an important part of what Orwell is trying to say, not merely something he invented to drive the plot forward. I don't think the third point is Deus Ex Machina either, but I am not convinced I fully understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could expand? DrDisco

I think the whole novel is the reverse of deus ex machina - Orwell uses the plot to illustrate the features of the world, not the other way round.

Obligatory slap-on-wrist to everyone, including me: talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the subject matter itself. Robin Johnson (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And, might I add, doublethink is very real in authoritarian states, though perhaps not as dramatically as presented in the novel. It's an effective survival trait. --Sumple (Talk) 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

a typo?

Perhaps "for feelings of victims toward tormentors" should be "for feelings of victimization by his tormentors"? Or maybe it makes sense and I'm just not seeing it. Oddity- 08:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it means how victims feel about their tormentors. I'll see if I can rephrase it for clarity. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought 'twas interesting:

garnama1.ytmnd.com : A comparison of Wikipedia maps from 1985 and "1984" respectively.

Links

Are the links in the "Other Links" section really necessary? They seem more dedicated to criticizing the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy rather than discussing Orwell's novel 200.119.236.211 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a good enough excuse to remove the whole section, especially since some of them doen't even remotely fit your biased description. Come up with a rationale for the removal of each link you object to and justify hyere before making such widescale arbitrary decisions. Nick Cooper 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that user's actions were justified. The excuse is "they're not relevant to the article", and they're not. I see no issue with removing them, and reviewed most of them after they were deleted. If you want them there, you need to justify why they're on topic and notable, not the other way around. *Spark* 12:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of those links: they were personal essays, home pages, and even obscure web comics, many not directly related to 1984 at all. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

English Socialism

The whole section English Socialism (especially the first half) is too long and reads like a very wordy essay.

Example "Such a revolutionary regime, which Orwell found highly desirable and was actively trying to bring about in 1940, is of course a far cry from the monstrous edifice presided over by Big Brother, which was his nightmare a few years later."

Do we really need to have all this? Isn't this section supposed to be about Ingsoc from the book? Rather it seems more like personal opinions of Orwell's views of socialism here there and everywhere. I think it needs to be much more concise and less off topic. Thoughts? The machine512 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• The whole section is offtopic, mostly WP:OR and needs to be deleted. Though I suspect deletion of that much text would trigger the antivandalbot to restore it. *Spark* 12:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, there already is an article on Ingsoc and I think we should mirror some of that and delete the long paragraphs of off topic jargon. The machine512 20:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Other novels in the same universe?

A number of years ago, I read an article (probably in a magazine) talking about another then-recent book that some other author had carefully crafted that was set in the same universe and time period as Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, and was told from the perspective of one of the other countries Oceania was at war with/was allied to, and my hazy memory of it suggests the title of the novel was also the name of the country in question. Looking up Eastasia on Amazon.com doesn't bring up any such novel, though. Neither does a search for Oceania there.

For H. G. Wells' The Time Machine, there is the novel The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter, which is set in the same universe as Wells' work. And the article The Time Machine references several other sucb novels.

H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds also has a semi-sequel written by a different author that I read sometime in the early 1980s or so, having the premise that the Martians had actually come across from an alternate-universe Mars to the Mars of H. G. Wells' Earth and tried to invade that Earth from there, eventually lost that war, and decided to invade the Earth of their own universe afterwards even though that other Earth was more technologically advanced... and so the people of that Earth recruited some people from "our" Earth who had lived through the invasion to come help them. I don't remember the title or author (it was a book checked out from the local library, and is probably long gone from there...). I see no reference to it at The War of the Worlds though.

If someone can track down the Nineteen Eighty-Four sequel, it would probably be worth it to add a reference to it here. And if someone can track down that War of the Worlds sequel, I'd figure it would be worth adding a reference to it at The War of the Worlds.

Comments?

--Nomad Of Norad 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Boot on face, as most distressing; POV ?

In the article the following paragraph, sounds to like a POV stance. I would wonder equally well, why we donot consider the dialogue between O'Brien and Winston, and O'Brien's prophecy of control and domination, of 'Humans are infinitely malleable' as the dreadful prophecy to even come true (considering Winston being killed in the end).

One essential consequence of doublethink is that the Party can rewrite history with impunity, for "The Party is never wrong." The ultimate aim of the Party is, according to O'Brien, to gain and retain full power over all the people of Oceania; he sums this up with perhaps the most distressing prophecy of the entire novel: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.

The Creation of the superstates

i had always thought that from the comments of the old man in the london underground that after world war II that the united states used its atomic bomb technology to conquer england, as well as the rest of oceania. coudl someone verify this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.70.103 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

What needs to be referenced?

Could someone put {{fact}} by all the stuff that needs to be referenced? I see none of those tags in the sections where references are needed and it helps to know what needs to be referenced.

I added a reference to the sentence "After the war Orwell expressed his surprise that events had proven him wrong." which some tagged with a 'fact' tag, as I happened to have read that particular essay recently. I also changed the sentence a bit, as Orwell admitted this in 1944, while the war was still ongoing. Mvdwege 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Winston psychic?

I'm wondering (his dreams see the future, he can feel people and their thoughts at times) and was surprised to see no mention in the article. There are several instances that seem to be showing he is.

Orwell often put stuff like that in his novels, in his letters (not to hand at the mo) there's reference to a book on Rhine's telepathy experiments that he was reading. He makes the comment: "I can't get properly interested in telepathy until it can be developed into a reliable method." Orwell certainly accepted that it existed, but my own feeling would be that this is more of a note for the wpedia entry about Orwell (the author) than a 1984 subtopic. (There are also -- according to Peter Davison -- a couple of allusions to Masonic ritual in 1984. The one I really remember is in Winston's dream: "We shall meet in the place where there is no dark". This is supposedly Masonic, but I can't find a reference supporting Prof PD. Any apronisers out there care to clarify?) Garrick92 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't what talk pages are for (take this to my talk page if the answer is too long), but where did Orwell write that he believed telepathy existed? The comment you quoted seems to imply the opposite.

Back on topic, a Wikipedia editor thinking that things in the novel "seem to be implying" this or that just isn't enough. If some noteable scholar wrote something claiming Winston is psychic, that can be mentioned. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it shouldn't be put here, so here goes. I can't agree with your inference. The quote I gave is itself proof that Orwell believed telepathy existed. He's talking about deferring any study of the subject until the practice of it becomes more precise (i.e., about leaving it to experts). What he thought might happen in the future (from his time), I really don't know (the emergence of super-telepaths with 'pixture-perfect' precision?). What I think on the subject is neither here nor there, but it's pretty clear that Orwell didn't have any basic quarrel with the purported existence of telepathy. [ON EDIT:] Sorry, missed your bit about source: again, I don't have it to hand (I post from work) but it's in volume four of the collected essays, journalism and letters. It's a letter, although I can't remember to whom.Garrick92 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

I've removed this section for now:

Some people believe that Orwell was a man who saw the future and prophesied the loss of personal freedom and the increase in control that would be brought about.

mainly because of its weasel words, but also because i'm not sure this is the right place to include it in the article. Maybe it would be better placed under the 'futurology' section lower down? KZF 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job - I completely agree with your edit, if only on the grounds that you've removed some absolute nonsense. Orwell might have predicted loss of personal freedom and the centralisation of power through some intellectual process (just like scientists are able to predict with some degree of certainty weather conditions next week, based on their knowledge of today's weather conditions and a general understanding of how weather systems changed) but to claim that Orwell "saw the future" is a load of crap. --Jim (Talk) 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i find it annoying when people describe Orwell as a 'prophet' and 'visionary' on the merits of this book KZF 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)