Winston's greediness..
Just had a thought about Winston. It was mentioned earlier on that Winston had caused the death of his mother and sister because he had been too greedy, isn't this also the fact when Winston was too greedy to want to overthrow the Party? If he had not been so greedy as to want to overthrow the Party, to create a new Party, he wouldn't have caused Julia and his own death. Yep, just a random thought.
Propaganda!
"Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful." www.propagandacritic.com
Sounds familiar?liek the book ain't it...=)
for more info on propaganda, please visit the website above!=D
What's so bad abt propaganda anW?
Just a sudden inspiration to talk about the propaganda that has been going on in 1984, i.e the doctoring of history.(Actually, they do not really interfere with the history as in the heritage and stuff of Oceania, they only give story books whereby they say life in the past is bad life now is good. Which like my points below say, they are only making life now look good and in that way it is a necessary evil. For mroe elaboration, look on) Like my title suggest, What's so bad abt propaganda anywaY? I was reminded about my project work, whereby my group's proposal to solve the problem of migration was to use propaganda!(in a subtler way, otherwise known as National Education.=P) Then, our ideas were shot down by Mr Colin Cheong, who said that using propaganda was bad. But then, the only way to make the people stay is to tell them what is bad about the outside and what is good within Singapore! Thus, I saw the parallel between my project and what the Inner Party is doing(Both are telling their citizens what is bad outside and good inside!) I would think that both my group's proposal and what the party is doing, are actually what I would call, a neccessary evil. It is needed to create a peaceful life and ending. It is needed to solve the problems at hand. Thinking about it now, I approve of the propaganda that the Inner Party has been doing but not the way that they get around to doing it.
Now, I shall try to provide another view to propaganda, to what many believe that what the party is doing is wrong. Be open-minded lit people to what I have to say! I shall discuss about what the party has been doing in two parts: Part I: doctoring the history of Oceania to make it look like the Party is always right, Big Brother is always right, Part II, the enemies, although changed but they make it seem like it's still the same party.
Part I: Doctoring the history of Oceania, i.e, what is inside is good
By doctoring the history of Oceania, they are creating a beautiful picture of Oceania and it's people, that they have been meeting quotas and such. What makes us think that the people opf Oceania are not happy this way? In this way, athough it is 自欺欺人 (loosely translated to decieve others decieve ownself) , but the people are not complaining right? Then you may say, maybe they dont dare to say anything because they are too surpressed, and that being surpressed is not being happy. Well, it may not sound like a good thing to us who has been exposed to the concept of democracy, but if they have gotten used to it after a long time such that they do not feel like they are being surpressed but merely accept it as a way of life, then that can be happiness in itself too what. How can we judge by our own standard whether they are happy anot? Right? Furthermore, by shutting the people of Oceania from news of other countries(as infered by me or is it mentioneD?) , it is a good thing actually too. As the chinese saying goes, 人比人气死人（means er..comparison will only make one feel bad. Something like that. Sorry for the bad translation.), so by giving them nothing to compare, they will feel very happy as though they are the best. Like the saying goes, ignorance is blisS!(not strength!haha) So it is not a bad thing afterall. Without anything to compare with, they will feel contented and will not ask for more. Another thing would be to doctor the accounts such that it would appear that they have had more to eat(like chocolate) than yesterday. Although it is an act of 自欺欺人 (loosely translated to decieve others decieve ownself) yet again, but if it makes them happy, makes them think that they have had more to eat than yesterday, then why not? Probably the Party has already erased from them the fact that the had lesser to eat yesterday actually. Maybe they do not really care about that. To see it in good light, what the Party is doing is to create a fantasy for them that life is good, and they would feel happy as a result. Maybe if they made it more convincing to people, like having some bad reports at times(like what we have in papers), then maybe there would not be so many disgrunts with propaganda that the party uses. Isn't Utopia a fantasy too? Why is Utopia a good fantasy and that keeping the people in fantasy not good?
Part II: Doctoring the information as to who they are at war with.
I think that the main point about this war thing is that whoever they are at war with actually does not matter, what matters is that those people they are at war with is BAD!only Oceania is GOOD! So, so what if they doctor the information as to who they are at war with? Will it make a differencE?Either way, the P-O-Ws will be foreign people. It's just like telling you you had a apple when you had an orange. Does it matter which u ate? They are both fruits anyway. All that the Inner Party needs is to infuriate the people, is to make them angry, such that they will be loyal to the Party. As history has taught us, many political parties often use such tricks like picking fights with neighbouring countries such that citizens will feel a certain sense of patriotism towards that country such that they can win the elections. Well, since their war is quite a harmless one, it's like fake war just to get people to be patriotic, what's so bad about that? It is not like by lying that they have been at war all along with this country, they kill extra 1 million people or sth right? It is not an important fact. They are only making the outside look bad such that the inside looks more attractive right? What's so bad about that?
Just a gentle reminder before I sign off, what I am defending in this blog is the use of propaganda and not the Party itself. Yes. that's all. Actually, i dont really know if im making sense to the people reading this. Ha! cos it's all clear in my head but dont know if i put it across properly. Yes. Good night!
1984 vs The machine stops-- The Difference issue
Okay, the name of my blog is 1984 vs 2004 but I have no idea what to compare the two with(no inspiration yet..:) ) So I shall compare 1984 with The Machine Stops by E.M Foster instead, a short story that I read for my literature course last year. While doing the short story last year, I did not notice that I was actually doing someting on Utopia. The Machine Stops is a story about this guy who was not contented in living in the Machine,( which is as the name suggest, a machine that provides all the neccessities of life within each individual's own cell and it seems like utopia because the people never ever had to work and they do not need to get out of their room at all,it was an easy life) and the people's over-reliance on the machine leads to its downfall eventually. I was reminded of the story while reading the book because why is it a pertinent fact that in Utopia, there can be no room for differences? In The Machine Stops, as the guy is opposed to the idea of living in the machine and wants to get out. Similarly, in 1984, Winston opposes to the idea of living under the Party and wants to rebel. Why is there not a space for difference in Utopia? Must everything be the same? This is pertinent in Utopia, whereby everyone was dressed the same(as in 1984, blue overalls), had the same routine. Is this a fact of utopia that there is no space for differenceS? Seems like it after three literature texts point towards the same fact. Hmm. Shall sleep now after massive blogging today. =)
Where is the love?
Well, between Winston and Julia, I never thought love existed between them at all. For Winston, it was more of lust and the thought of getting something that seems unattainable was just to boost his ego, such that he would feel that he has accomplished something big. For Julia, it was lust too. All she wanted was just one who would have sex with her, who dared to go against the party, as these people are rare. Seeing that Winston was one of them, she jumped at the chance. So what love is there to talk about when all they see in each other is sex? Furthermore, Julia was uninterested in the things that Winston wanted to do, going against the party and such, they had difficulty communicating and all they ever enjoyed doing together was sex. What love is therE? Where is the love? Thus, it came as no surprise when they both betrayed each other. There was no love to begin with. Do the people in 1984 know how to love? I think not. Just look at the Parsons family, there isn't the basic foundation of family love. They do not love each other. I think that they would be happier to turn each of them in to the Thought Police to gain favour. Each person is for his own in the state of 1984, like the inner party, they are all for their own power too. 1984 is a pathetic state(in my view) which contains no love at all.
1984 in relation to history!
When reading 1984, I couldn't help but notice several parallels to several events and symbols that I have learnt in history. First significant one would be relation to Industrial Revolution. In the book, there are certain references to the past that I found similar to the IR, like the existence of coal mines and the mention that children are working in mines and such. Second would be the reference to liberty, as seen by Winston imagining Julia taking her clothes off in a liberal way, like the sans-culoutte women used to do(if i remember correctly.) Thirdly, was the reference to Shakespeare, whereby Winston mentioned Shakespeare. I found these references interesting as it was relating many of the things I have learnt. Was George Orwell making such references on purpose or are they a mere coincidence or am I thinking too much? If it was on purpose, then evidently George was against the industrial revolution, which was happening when he wrote the book. The IR, as i have learnt brought many hardships to the people in the initial stages. Perhaps that was why George Orwell was against it. Just food for thought, though there might not be great significance. Haha. =P
Some notable quotes..
1) Individuality(now) vs Community(past)
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone:
From the age fo Big Brother, from the age of doublethink- greetings!"
2) Pessimistic? Optimistic? Both?
"Now that he identified himself as a dead man, e has to keep himself alive for as long as possible."
3) Full Authority
"Those who controls the past controls the future. Those who control the present controls the past."
Emmanuel Wanna-be!
1)Emmanuel's book
Initially, before reading till the end, I thought that Emmanuel's book did not exist and that it was actually Winston who was going to write the book and that he was going to be the Emmanuel Goldstein's figure that everyone hates. There were parallels drawn between Winston's diary and Emmanuel's book, like they both do not have a title, as claimed by the programme on the telescreen and the speaking bad of BB. I had the thought that maybe Winston was subconsciously thinking that he is Emmanuel Goldstein who stood up against all the evil deeds that the party did and hence wanted to write the diary. I thought he imagined himself to be a superhero. Well, I was wrong, but just for the record, I write down this wrong assumption. =)
Slogan mania
1)The three slogans:
The war slogan, WAR IS PEACE, reminded me of a quote that I came across last year, when I was doing a social studies essay question. The quote is by Aristotle and it goes like this : "We make war that we may live in peace." I was wondering if George Orwell formulated the slogan after this quote. When I was doing the question last year, I was thinking what a weird theory that was, as it doesn't make sense to me at that point how can war ensure peace when it causes so much destruction and the aftermath of the wars are disastrous too. Just take a look at WWII, whereby the citizens of Nagasaki( and the other country I cannot remember) suffered many years after the atomic bomb was dropped, even till today. It doesn't make sense why so much destruction was carried out just to ensure peace. Couldn't a treaty solve it simply? I think behind it all, countries make war such that they can conquer more territories, be more powerful. It is all about power. However, in 1984, I could see their logic behind this slogan, through the book that was supposedly written by Emmanuel Goldstein. Initially I thought the three slogans were mad, they were so ironic and it doesn't make sense at all. It was only thereafter, after reading Emmanuel's book that I realise e slogan holds true for the state of 1984. But, how can it be true for real life where everyone is fighting for their own power. It's only that in 1984, that they fight for internal power and external power. Maybe it is due to the fact that they cannot extend their external power that they concentrate on their internal power. So does the slogan hold true after all? I doubt so. They only hold true, if certain circumstances hold true, i.e, in econs terms ceteris paribus and these conditions are only present in the novel and not in real life. Hence I think the first slogan is rubbish. About the other two, I dont really have much to say as I haven't really pondered about it. Till the next time then.
My 1st impression..
(Sorry for the late blog, was trying to finish the book.)
My first encounter with George Orwell's 1984 was during one of my unseen prose test last year, whereby my teacher extracted a part from the book. The passage that I had was the one whereby Winston had to repair Mrs Parson's pipe for her.(Pg 24,line 24- pg26,line 10). My first impression was that this book is horrible. It portrays the children as such hateful brats and that they love to see people being hanged, being killed and the mother is so scared of them. It is scary. It's as if the normal hierachy of society is destroyed and the kids do not obey their mother. After walking out from the test, my feelings were, I never want to read such a sick book, as even the kids, the suppose to be innocent kids are robbed of their innocence and it was scary to think how the adults of the book would be. As people always say, first impression counts. Maybe when I read the book I was biased due to my first impression, and hence I read the book with utmost disgust. My first impression of the book remained with me till I finished the book and the book is horrible and terrifying to read and it is such a psychotic book. My first impression was correct. I shall go into the further aspects of the book in detail in my next entry.
Official Opening
This is to test if this reading blog works. Test Test.
