"Images of 1984" - Stories from Oceania

[poster342002]

I think that Eric Blair is a must have in this timeline. Only problem is who will write "1984" if he gets too deep into politics?

Perhaps Eric Blair in this ATL still goes on to be a novelist - but one employed by the Ministry of Truth to write sycophantic, pro-regime propaganda novels. Maybe he even writes a bestselling cautionary tale called "1984" - in which a tale of the chaotic horrors of a world without the Ingsoc regime or Big Brother is depicted!

Or maybe he becomes the British equivalent of Solzhenitzin or Kanan Makiya - who exposed the horrors of life in Communist Russia and Saddam's Iraq respectively?

 

[poster342002]

Another thought occurs to me regarding the identity of Big Brother...

In the 1980s, the leader of the Greater London Council, Ken Livingstone (who went on to become Mayor of London somr years later) had a moustache. Ken is a very shrewd politican even in OTL, so is it perhaps possible that in the 1984 ATL he was able to climb even higher within the political scene - eventually assuming the position of Head of State (Big Brother) itself?

 

[zeitenschmiede]

I've never thought of BB being the head of state. He may very well have existed, perhaps having borne an important position within the party, but in 1984, he is either dead or a mere figure-head.

Remember that single-person dictatorships are most likely not very effective, because the one on top constantly has to play off the different fractions against one another to stay in power.

Seeing this, I'd rather classify Oceania as a authoritarian oligarchy with a bunch of party Bonzen on top.

 

[Weaver]

The problem with taking the description of BB in 1984 as the truth is that the image will have been frozen since about 1960. Check out the official portraits of Stalin right through from 1929 or so....he never ages.

Now which of the possibles is it?

Enoch Powell born 1912
Oswald Mosely born 1896
Michael Foot born 1913
Tony Benn born 1925
Aneurin Bevan born 1897
Hugh Gaitskell born 1906
Harold Wilson born 1916
James Callaghan born 1912
Rupert Murdoch born 1931

I bet BB is on that list.

To z. (above) Oceania was ruled by a Collective Oligarchy per 1984. But BB could still be real...imagine if Stalin's death in 1952 had been kept secret and Khruschev, Beria, Malenkov, and Bulganin etc had simply ruled behind the scenes.

 

[zeitenschmiede]

Big Brother played an important role during the crisis right after WWII, so it is rather unlikely that he was born after, let's say, 1920.

 

[zeitenschmiede]

To z. (above) Oceania was ruled by a Collective Oligarchy per 1984. But BB could still be real...imagine if Stalin's death in 1952 had been kept secret and Khruschev, Beria, Malenkov, and Bulganin etc had simply ruled behind the scenes.

So pretending a famous leader is still alive while in fact he isn't makes him....real?

 

[Weaver]

Certainly..in accordance with the principles of doublethink...

Two plus two equals five if the Party requires it.

 

[Will Ritson]

Under the influence

Some great ideas in there. Particularly like the idea of having Red Ken as Big Brother..! One person has got it right as to who Big Brother is in the year 1984.

I think that the two major influences that spurred me on to do this was reading "What if Gordon Banks had played?" by Anthony Wells and "A State of Denmark" by Derek Raymond (Review).

Great quote from "A State of Denmark" in that review:

The English were desperately naïve: ironically centuries of democracy had made them so. They thought that however greatly the world changed, they would never have to fight for their freedom again, that the country would magically remain the same…

Great book; maybe my favourite AH novel.

 

[Tolkiene]

"So pretending a famous leader is still alive while in fact he isn't makes him....real?"

I think that might be quite possible. It could occur if the oligarchs ruling Oceania all lack the clout to seize power for themselves individually and replace the cult centred around Big Brother with one based on their person.

So in order to give their regime legitimacy, they instead choose to continue as if Big Brother was still among the living and propagate a personality cult that makes him appear as a demigod - in North Korea, after all, Kim Il-sung is officially eternal president of the republic, only in this case the party inner circle would even deny that Big Brother had died in the first place.

As for Ken Livingstone, he was born in 1945, so he would still be very young when the revolution occurs. Though that might not prevent him from getting involved in it later on - once he rises to power, he could have history re-written in order for him to appear to have been involved from the start, even though that would not have been possible due to his youth (Kim Il-sung had history re-written so that he appeared to have been the supreme commander of all Korean resistance forces to the Japanese, whereas in fact he was just one of many, similarly to the fact that it is stated that Kim Jong-il was born on Mount Paektu in North Korea, whereas in fact he was born in Russia).

The problem is, of course, that the earliest date at which Livingstone would be able to become very active would be the late 70s (Beria became first party secretary for Georgia at age 32, so it is not wholly implausible for an alternate Livingstone to achieve something similar).

Based on what I know, the concept of Big Brother would by that time already have been set in stone, meaning that there must have been a Big Brother - unless, of course, Livingstone perhaps usurps the role of Big Brother instead of becoming the original one in the first place.

 

[Will Ritson]

"So pretending a famous leader is still alive while in fact he isn't makes him....real?"

I think that might be quite possible. It could occur if the oligarchs ruling Oceania all lack the clout to seize power for themselves individually and replace the cult centred around Big Brother with one based on their person.

So in order to give their regime legitimacy, they instead choose to continue as if Big Brother was still among the living and propagate a personality cult that makes him appear as a demigod - in North Korea, after all, Kim Il-sung is officially eternal president of the republic, only in this case the party inner circle would even deny that Big Brother had died in the first place.

As for Ken Livingstone, he was born in 1945, so he would still be very young when the revolution occurs. Though that might not prevent him from getting involved in it later on - once he rises to power, he could have history re-written in order for him to appear to have been involved from the start, even though that would not have been possible due to his youth (Kim Il-sung had history re-written so that he appeared to have been the supreme commander of all Korean resistance forces to the Japanese, whereas in fact he was just one of many, similarly to the fact that it is stated that Kim Jong-il was born on Mount Paektu in North Korea, whereas in fact he was born in Russia).

The problem is, of course, that the earliest date at which Livingstone would be able to become very active would be the late 70s (Beria became first party secretary for Georgia at age 32, so it is not wholly implausible for an alternate Livingstone to achieve something similar).

Based on what I know, the concept of Big Brother would by that time already have been set in stone, meaning that there must have been a Big Brother - unless, of course, Livingstone perhaps usurps the role of Big Brother instead of becoming the original one in the first place.

Excellent..!

In the book Winston notes that BB invented the helicopter; BB is Lord Nelson, standing on top of his column in "Victory Square" in commemoration of the Battle of Airstrip One.

So we need a combination of a moustachioed politician and someone that can control the news and media... I wonder..?

 

[zeitenschmiede]

Presenting him as a figure-head due to internal struggle still doesn't make BB the real leader of the country...

 

[Weaver]

Hello Enoch and Rupert.



Edit..could be Oswald instead of Enoch.

 

[poster342002]

Livingstone perhaps usurps the role of Big Brother instead of becoming the original one in the first place.

That was pretty much what I had in mind. My thought was that he skillfully played the political machine in order to climb the Party and state ladders over time in order to become the current Big Brother by the year 1984. He would certainly be adept at doing this, being one of the "new generation" of politicians to make their career entirely within the Ingsoc era. As has been pointed out, he was born very closely in time to it's seizure of power - so would not have been a "fish out of water" when he chose his career in politics. He'd know pretty much how to play the game and rise within the Ingsoc system.

Once he'd attained the "Big Brothership", he then could indeed order official history re-written in order to ascribe him a far bigger role and sense of importance in the nation's history.

 

[HueyLong]

I don't particularly like the Oceania as North Korea idea. Its just not sustainable.

In North Korea, people still know that there is a South Korea. They still know somewhat about the state of the world outside of their borders.

However, a state like Oceania would require no one (not even the Inner Party) knowing about the outside world. Which sort of requires no outside world beyond one at least vaguely similar to the propaganda given.

 

[Tolkiene]

There are, of course, the logistical problems which you have mentioned.

However, if we accept the alternate viewpoint that Oceania does in fact cover the British isles, the Americas and Australia, the question is how socialism arose in both the remnants of the British Empire and the US (especially in the US) and how comes it is called English Socialism?

Compared to these issues, I think the concept of "Oceania" being just an English version of North Korea is more plausible, unless we somehow find a way to rationalise that the US, the UK and so on have unified to become a bolshevik superstate.

 

[Tyr]

There are, of course, the logistical problems which you have mentioned.

However, if we accept the alternate viewpoint that Oceania does in fact cover the British isles, the Americas and Australia, the question is how socialism arose in both the remnants of the British Empire and the US (especially in the US) and how comes it is called English Socialism?

Compared to these issues, I think the concept of "Oceania" being just an English version of North Korea is more plausible, unless we somehow find a way to rationalise that the US, the UK and so on have unified to become a bolshevik superstate.

The US, Canada and Australia are English?
I just took it to mean English in the broad sense, not as in England. More 'anglo-saxon' type.
I like the N.Korea version too though.
And its not set in 1984 if we assume realism, no way it can rationally be. Thats too short a time.

 

[HueyLong]

Orwell originally wanted to entitle it 1948......

 

[Tolkiene]

"The US, Canada and Australia are English?
I just took it to mean English in the broad sense, not as in England. More 'anglo-saxon' type."

It is all a bit confusing. According to Goldstein's book that appears in 1984, Oceania was formed after the Second World War, as far as I remember, and covers the two Americas, Australia, Canada and the British Isles, yet its ideology is supposedly called Ingsoc or English socialism.

Of course that could, as you say, mean "English" in the broadest sense (I bet the Oceanian "comrades" in Latin America would be happy about that, but there's always the Cheka), but that does not explain how all these territories were unified into one single socialistic polity akin to the Stalinist Soviet Union of the 30s.

 

[Will Ritson]

There will be an explaination of how these other regions "become" part of Oceania, but not until the late 1960s and early 1970s.

 

[poster342002]

It is all a bit confusing. According to Goldstein's book that appears in 1984, Oceania was formed after the Second World War, as far as I remember, and covers the two Americas, Australia, Canada and the British Isles, yet its ideology is supposedly called Ingsoc or English socialism.

There is the possibility, of course, that Goldstein's book was itself either a total piece of misinformation put out by the regime - or at least has been heavily re-written by it. Who knows what it's original contents, as written by Goldstein, may have been?