• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Lit ► George Orwell



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,385
Awards
10
Nope. I've had it for ninety or so rep-points now.

But in all reality, the Party only really always needs an enemy, the friend is an optional part, but that there's that extra nation fighting the enemy, that there is two fighting a certain one, adds to the idea that they've done something bad enough that more than one group sees it as something wrong.
 

Hidden

A boy named Crow
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,615
Awards
6
Age
35
Location
A world that never was
Website
www.freewebs.com
"'What about Eurasia and Eastasia? You have not conquered them yet.'
'Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we did not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceana is the world.'"
1984, Part 3, Chapter 3

I think your reasoning is good, that Eurasia and Eastasia are simply the trappings of power, but do these supposed nations really carry any significance in the story at all? Do they carry any significance in relation to the Cold War?



Also, not necessarily to change the topic, but to (re)introduce a new and important one--what of Orwell's essays? I really think they're some of his best work. "Shooting an Elephant" is an obvious place to start.
George Orwell said:
I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with
perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter
to shoot a working elephant--it is comparable to destroying a huge and
costly piece of machinery--and obviously one ought not to do it if it can
possibly be avoided. And at that distance, peacefully eating, the
elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and I think
now that his attack of "must" was already passing off; in which case he
would merely wander harmlessly about until the mahout came back and
caught him. Moreover, I did not in the least want to shoot him. I decided
that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not
turn savage again, and then go home.

But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It
was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute.
It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the
sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited
over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot.
They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a
trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was
momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to
shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got
to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward,
irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle
in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the
white man's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun,
standing in front of the unarmed native crowd--seemingly the leading
actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to
and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this
moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he
destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized
figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall
spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis
he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and
his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. I had
committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got
to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind
and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two
thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away,
having done nothing--no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at
me. And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long
struggle not to be laughed at.
I honestly don't think you can understand Europe's imperial history if you do not understand this basic, elusive motivation of a nation possessing what appears to be absolute power. This is what Orwell gives insight into.

Edit: I should have placed this link awhile ago, but here's a very useful site for this thread. George Orwell - Complete works, Biography, Quotes, Essays
 
Last edited:

Faris

Perfect Harmony
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
3,674
Location
Brisbane, Australia.
Yes they do. They pretty much enforce the whole structure behind Oceania's or rather the Party's power. Without Eastasia and Eurasia, The Party would have nothing to ground their total control on.
 

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,385
Awards
10
Without Eurasia and Eastasia to focus their hate and fear on, the citizens under the party would quickly realise the 'evil', ridiculous and unnecessary control and power that the party has. By having the allied nation, it shows to the citizens that the Party isn't totally evil and that others are willing to side with it.
 

Hidden

A boy named Crow
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,615
Awards
6
Age
35
Location
A world that never was
Website
www.freewebs.com
All excellent points. But they still seem so peripheral, so vague and out of focus. What really seems the key to the Party's power, their key piece of opposition, is Goldstein.

"The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon and yet they will always survive. This drama that I have played out with you during seven years will be played out over and over again generation after generation, always in subtler forms."
1984, Part 3, Chapter 3

Maybe this is the same case with Eurasia and Eastasia--but Goldstein just seem to me so much more present, so much more 'real', even if his face and his book have been totally fabricated by the Party.
 

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,385
Awards
10
It's much easier to hate a single person than to hate an entire nation.

One person is definite.

A nation has thousands or more people. Not every one of them can feel the same way. Hugely ambiguous and hard to nail down.
 

Faris

Perfect Harmony
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
3,674
Location
Brisbane, Australia.
If you're thinking along those lines then does Goldstein matter? He does in the same sense that the other two nations matter. Goldstein is used as an enemy within the nation to help spread fear where as the other two nations (well, one at a time) are also used to spread the same fear.

Both are catalysts in the parties absolute control over Oceania.
 

Hidden

A boy named Crow
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,615
Awards
6
Age
35
Location
A world that never was
Website
www.freewebs.com
Both are catalysts in the parties absolute control over Oceania.
On this I think you're right. But Goldstein is different in the way that Winston is different--they are both the 'final' end of power, that nerve on which the Party will continuously press harder and harder. Note in the passage above that there are two things O'Brien says will exist forever: Goldstein's heresies and the drama played out between O'Brien and Winston, always in subtler forms.

Eastasia and Eurasia both just seem out of date to me, as though perhaps once they served as a crude object of power, but at this point they have largely outlived their purpose. This is what I read in O'Brien's response: "Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us." Perhaps this is not the case, but they both just seem so utterly unimportant, and not really something that works as a direct parallel to the historical cold war either.


And seriously, as much as I love 1984, we're missing out on a goldmine in Orwell's essays here. If anyone interested in this thread hasn't read them, they should read at least one, available here: George Orwell - Complete works, Biography, Quotes, Essays "Shooting an Elephant" (quoted a few posts above) is one of the most famous and excellent.
 

Superwes

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
493
I read it in....lets see, in 7th grade, about a year ago. And no, it wasn't for a project. I enjoyed it
 

Wehrmacht

cameo lover
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
14,057
Awards
3
Location
brland
1984

Finished this a few days ago

Holy shit this book. I don't think any fictional world I've ever read about has ever been as depressing as the neo-fascist Oceania. Makes you think about what beautiful, beautiful things privacy and freedom are.

The book raises some pretty interesting metaphysical ideas as well. In what form does the past exist? What and who can determine what the truth is? How does one keep himself in power forever? etc

Needless to say I think this is one novel everyone should read.
 

Pelafina

lately, lovely
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
4,002
Awards
6
I second this, literature-referencing clothing is neat.
 

Reflection

Princess of Heart
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
5,379
Awards
8
Age
31
Location
California
dohoho will do

sam posted one like it a while back...lets see

37012894v11_350x350_Front_Color-Black.jpg

super awesome
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top