Meta: I need to reflect more on the massive amounts of media that I consume. My mom suggested I start writing "book reports" on the books that I finish, so I will. These posts will be more of the stream-of-consciousness type, so expect poor writing and half-formed thoughts.
[Warning: 1984 spoilers below. Don’t read this unless you’ve read the book or you’re a bum that won’t ever read it. ]
I just finished reading 1984 for the first time. Here are some quick thoughts about it.
1. Truly an influential book. It’s hard to believe that this was authored over half a century ago.
Like any educated, self-respecting adult, I’ve read quite a few young adult dystopian books, and it’s easy to see the inspiration that they all draw from what seems to be the grandfather of the genre. It was almost hard for me to believe that this is where “thoughtcrime” and “Big Brother” were coined, as they were already familiar concepts as I read the book. While I (foolishly, perhaps) expected the book to read as an obviously outdated book, it still read as a totally modern book, and perhaps even a bit scarier now, as the technologies envisioned by Orwell all exist today.
2. It’s so depressing because hope is pointless.
Maybe I’ve just gotten used to the popular kinda-happy-ending novels of today where the 17-year old heroine finally saves the day 75% of the way in the third book of whatever trilogy she finds herself in. The eventual “conversion” of Winston towards the end of the book, though depressing, was really not that surprising. As O’Brian said, “You’ve known all along”, and I did. Like Winston and Julia, I was caught in the foolish hope that maybe everything would work out okay and they would never get caught, only to have that hope shattered. I was not so much surprised as I was disappointed, finally resigned to the futility of it all and disappointed for falling into the temptation of hope.
3. The power of language
The most novel idea to me in this book was that of the power of controlling language (the themes of censorship and surveillance have been beaten to death in recent days). By controlling the words and definitions of such words that people use, thoughts can be controlled. Though this is pragmatically impossible, it’s interesting to think about how the language we are bound to changes the way we think and act and how the evolution of language reflects the evolution of society.
In particular, I wonder what our “lingual blind spots” are. What are thoughts and concepts that are difficult to grasp for us simply because we have few words to accurately describe them? These are concepts kept from us not because of intentional censorship but rather societal apathy or ignorance.
Last Sunday at church, the sermon was translated from English to Chinese, and it was very interesting to think about the things that the Chinese interpreter struggled with - the concepts that were not easily transformed from one language to another. In this case, I seemed to notice that English statements of ambiguity were difficult to translate (or I could just be an idiot and imagining things). But I wonder what words and concepts would be hard for an English interpreter. Perhaps one of the dozen different Eskimo words for snow. But are there others of more consequence that Americans would have a difficult time understanding?
Here’s my totally uneducated guess: for me, I know nothing of poverty, of extreme hunger, of living in continual fear. I know that these are blind spots in my life, things that I don’t truly understand and I doubt would be able to articulate. I wonder if other languages have words that describe conditions and feelings that I haven’t even imagined. Aside: it’s amazing to me that authors can convey these concepts that they have not personally experienced, like the author of “Name of the Wind” not actually having played any musical instrument.
4. It will never happen.
When I say “it”, I mean a continual, endless tyranny as that described in the book. In “Chapter I : Ignorance is Strength” of “Goldenstein's" brilliant ungoodful book, Orwell writes: “The aims of the [High, Middle, and Low] are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim….is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.” While generally true, I think that Goldenstein missed the reason why so many kings and kingdoms have fallen - and that the High are never content being the High.
The pride of the human heart is undeflateable its desire for power insatiable. Those in power are never content with their power. Whether it’s the most powerful overstretching their armies in attempts to conquer the world (see Alexander, Hitler) or the almost-as-powerful overthrowing the most powerful to get more power (see Julius Caesar), the High are never content just sitting as the High, especially when there some more powerful than others within the High. Towards the end of his “treatment”, O’Brian said to Winston, “Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.” It is this intoxication of power and the consequent discontentment that would ultimately undo the military and political stalemates envisioned in 1984.
