I also don't really know what to make of Syme and Winston's relationship. Winston and he hang out as friends, or at least friendly-ish acquaintances, but it also says "it was a fact that if Syme grasped, even for three seconds, the nature of his, Winston's, secret opinions, he would betray him instantly to the Thought Police. So would anybody else, but Syme more than most" (55). He's kind of hard to pin down, because he seems to like Winston while simultaneously being the first person who would betray him. I guess he's more loving toward his job and the infamous Big Brother than to someone who invests time in him like Winston does, which is kind of sad, but I'm honestly not sure Winston even likes him that much. Maybe he's just using Syme as a faceless someone who he can interact with. Do you think he actually feels friendly towards Syme?
Thursday, October 27, 2016
1984
So far, 1984 isn't really what I expected it would be, but it's an interesting book nonetheless. I especially like the symbolism of the ever-present face of Big Brother, watching and hearing pretty much everything Winston does. It reminds me a lot of T. J. Eckleburg's eyes in The Great Gatsby. Big Brother makes Winston more careful and wary of everyone, which adds a constant worry and suspicion of any new characters. I think it gives a sort of unease, because I'm not sure who he can trust. Do you think Winston will ever meet Big Brother? I think he might somewhere along the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Rachel! It's definitely possible that Winston will meet Big Brother. However, I doubt it'd be in a face-to-face context. I think that, if Winston succeeds in his dream of "annihilating the whole culture" (39), I think it'd be from an indirect act rather than a direct one. Perhaps if Winston was able-bodied or larger in stature rather than having a "smallish, frail figure" (4).
ReplyDeleteAs for Winston's relationship with Syme, I'd argue that it's less of a relationship and more of a strictly co-worker sort of situation. True, Syme and Winston are very kind to each other, but the author makes it clear that "friend... was not exactly the right word" (62). In my opinion, it is more likely that Winston acts as Syme's "comrade" for the only reason that they work together and Winston is too emotionally exhausted to waste time hating someone. Do you think that's what could be prompting Winston's attitude, or does that seem too convoluted?
One thing that I don't completely understand, though, is the symbolism of this book. It seems at times that 1984 is supposed to be a cautionary tale, but it also seems like it's supposed to be purely fiction. Do you think there's more to the symbolism? Is the government of Oceania supposed to represent more than just a dystopian England?
Hey Verity! For your comment on Winston and Syme's relationship, I think you might be right about Winston just being too tired to hate Syme, especially since "a Party member had no spare time" (81).
DeleteAs for the symbolism of 1984's setting, I think it's a combination of caution to the reader and fiction. Obviously, not everything that happened in the book could have happened by the actual year 1984, so I think that part is supposed to be just futuristic what-if. However, I also think that it's a warning for people as to what people allow themselves to believe. In the book, "the Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command" (81). The common people were obviously tricked into denying everything they once knew was right, so there is caution to be seen in what and where the reader gets information.
The thing I don’t understand is how no one remembers times before the Revolution, like when Winston tries to talk to the old man about his life when he was young, but “the old man’s memory was nothing but a rubbish heap of details” (92). Even Winston’s childhood memories are seemingly locked away from him. When he smells chocolate, “the first whiff of its scent had stirred up some memory which he could not pin down” (121). How is it that no one remembers life before the Revolution? Did the Party make it so?
I think that the reason no one remembers what life was like before the Revolution is because the Party has influenced current society so much that people forgot what life used to be like. A line that particularly stood out to me about this was "In the end the party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it" (102). Further, it is evident by Winston's position as a historical modifier that the Party is frequently using propaganda to keep everyone in line. When something is constantly reinforced on a large group of people so heavily and for so long, they tend to forget what life was like before the influence began. Of course, as Winston points out in chapter 3, the lack of photographs and documents of life before the war has caused even himself to have fleeting memories of his childhood.
DeleteThe question that I pose to you is about Winston himself- is the main character a good person? The obvious answer is yes, he is the voice of rebellion in a cruel dictatorship. However, it is also clear that he is selfish, lustful, and violent at times. What really tipped me off was when he told Julia that "[he] hated the sight of [her]. [He] wanted to rape [her] and then murder [her] afterwards." (152). These aren't things good people say. What are your thoughts?
I think that Winston is complex, because he can’t really be described as fully good or bad. You are right in that he is a voice of the rebellion, so that’s obviously good, and he believes in the proles’ ability to overthrow the Party, but he’s not without a dark side. As a voice of the revolution, he’s bound to encounter violence in search of a political overthrow, but he seems almost too willing at times. A part that shows this to me is when O’Brien asks what he and Julia are willing to do to bring change, and he asks things like “You are prepared to commit murder?...To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?...If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face—are you prepared to do that?” (172). Winston immediately agrees to all, with no hesitation, and earlier in the section he even talks about how he almost killed his wife. The darkness in his character is off-putting to me, especially because he’s the protagonist.
DeleteOn a different note, what did you think of Mr. Charrington’s true identity and ultimate betrayal of Julia and Winston? Did you see it coming? I for one had no idea. He seemed so innocent and sweet, and he seemed very deep in cover. He talked with Winston, and even brought up rhymes he knew because it “occurred to [him] that [Winston] might be interested” (151). I definitely thought that out of all the characters, Charrington would be the last one to be a member of the Thought Police.
I can't say that I predicted Mr. Charrington's role as a member of the Thought Police. However, I had a mild suspicion that something was not as it seemed. When Orwell described Charrington as "another extinct animal" (189), I became certain. Making a character once thought trustworthy no longer trustworthy was actually a pretty brilliant move in this context. It reiterates the deception in the 1989 universe, emphasizing that things are truly not as they seem.
DeleteYour thoughts on Winston as a complex character seem fairly accurate, but I'm becoming progressively more convinced that he is not a good man. His words and actions are less and less excusable as the story goes on. He may be against the party, and that's "good", but fantasizing about killing his wife The excerpt "Their luck would hold indefinitely, and they would carry on their natural intrigue, just like this, for the remainder of their natural lives. Or Katherine would die, and by subtle maneuverings Winston and Julia would succeed in getting married" (191). I can't get behind these words, even if he is the main character and crucial to the Revolution. Do you think O'brien shares the same twisted mentality? Is there a reason Orwell portrays members of the Revolution as cruel and flawed? Could this be more symbolism?
I agree that Winston’s weird fantasy of Katharine dying is a definite sign that he is not a good man, especially as it’s continual. As for O’Brien, after reading the end it’s obvious that he is twisted as well. It stuck out to me especially when he tortures Winston and promises him they “will crush [Winston] down to the point from which there is no coming back. Things will happen to [him] from which you could not recover, if [he] lived a thousand years” (256). As for why everyone in the Party is cruel, I think it goes back to the warning of what the reader accepts in media. The Party was placed in power slowly, but they nonetheless managed to gain enough control to force everyone into being monitored and created a whole world where trust is a luxury people don’t have.
DeleteI was honestly surprised at the revelation of O’Brien’s loyalty and belief in the Party and Big Brother. It continues the mistrust and suspicion displayed throughout the whole book. I was really shocked that Winston was broken down though. It makes sense, since he was tortured so bad and broken down mentally and physically, but usually the protagonist comes out on top. Before the scene with the rats, O’Brien asks how Winston feels about Big Brother and Winston says “I hate him” (282), but the last line is “he loved Big Brother” (298). Did you think he would end up being a supporter of the Party? Or did you think his hate and rebellion against everything Big Brother is would continue?
The ending definitely took me by surprise. As much as I hated Winston, I did want the rebellion to succeed.
DeleteIn hindsight, though, I feel the ending is more realistic this way. There are a lot of things in today's government- and even more so in the 1940's at the time of publication- that are unjust. Yet, no one does anything about it. I feel that Winston shares the same dilemma as many people today. Seeing the injustice is the easy part; acting upon is what tends to be challenging.
Again, it really took me by surprise that Winston's character arc was not the stereotypical man v man conflict. Instead, it was Winston at war with himself, which he absolves by giving in to his surroundings. The line "He stopped thinking about war" (364) is a simple yet moving sentence. Winston is able to enjoy a quiet meal at a cafe without being in constant turmoil about the war, even with Big Brother watching him from afar. It makes me wonder- is it better this way? The Party is a cruel, manipulating dictatorship, but Winston is happier this way. Individually, this is clearly the best outcome for Winston, though it may not be best for the liberation of society as a whole. He has assimilated back into Oceania peacefully. It would be so easy to condemn Winston for his actions, but the reality of the situation is that this is how almost everyone in society is. We all have issues that we feel strongly about, but scarcely do we act out upon it.
I feel that the moral of the story is much easier to see with this in mind. Often, the route of integration is much more convenient than the route of action. Orwell seems to be warning us that going against what society wants may be out of the way & uncomfortable, but it is better than being hypnotized back into submission.
It's really excellent the way your analysis of Winston carries through your analysis of Orwell's cautionary message. Do you think he fits the definition of "antihero," especially as he gives in at the end? Great point about the simple syntax in Winston's capitulation. Notice how all your observations work together to point out that Orwell is condemning the inaction of society today even as horrible systems and movements are widespread and people tend not to fact-check. Way to go, Orwell, for continued relevance.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete