Map Thread XIV
- Thread starter MorningDew
- Start date
- Status
Lost the game
Banned
Six of one at this point. Sao Paulo is bigger than Lisbon and the King-Emperor spends more time in Rio.
Highlighting the evil of The Party wasn't really the theme of the book though (or at least I don't think it was. There is substantial argument to be made in regard to what Orwell intended with the book and what one gained from it). The Party's dystopian nature was less important, in my mind, than exactly how it was dystopian. If the rest of the world was all hunky-dory then you wouldn't really have 1984 anymore, you'd have the Hunger Games or something along those lines. Because the rest of the world was bad (or because it was bad as far as we know) we have not the option of escaping to Russia or China but rather can only struggle with what exactly it is that makes Oceania bad, which makes it a rather valuable as a thought experiment.
The goal of "1984" was not to build a plausible world; it was to build a world with a purpose. Essentially to showcase how governments take advantage of a gullible, fearful citizenry to establish fascist totalitarian governments and how they alter every aspect of society in order to remain in power. As such everything about Orwell's dystopian world needed to support this theme of anti-totalitarianism and anti-fascism, not satisfy the plausibility police.
Tallest Skil
Banned
It was Marxist, but totalitarianism is totalitarianism, really. And why does that preclude the ability to leave? We've seen successful totalitarianism in the real world; it has nothing to do with the scope thereof. North Korea is no less Oceania than just the island of Great Britain would be.
If there's no point in fighting, there's nothing to learn. 'You lose because you lose, forever' doesn't teach anything. The book illustrates what happens when you let government take you past the point of being able to fight. Oceania most certainly was an isolated nation. The idea of perpetual war being possible (in the manner described) is impossible operationally; it was simply to give an excuse for... well, what we're seeing a lot now–ludicrously high inventory to sales ratios, warehouses of product buybacks, and production for the sake of production, lest the economy destroy itself.
Upvoteanthology
Donor
Exactly. One of the hooking points of the story, for me, was the fact that there wasn't any way for the party to be taken down. The reason why I was so intrigued by the book was because these totalitarian regimes had no way of collapsing, and the fact that the entire world was like this only pushed it farther. The Party was easily crushing the resistance, as that's how Orwell intended to write it. All the other countries, if real, *are* invading Oceania, and the prospect of an eternal war is scary. The idea that all of humanity is under this oppression, the fact that these states WON'T fall was what sold the book for me. The reason I made my "Good 1984" scenario last year was because I didn't want to face the fact that 1984 was bad. I wanted, in my head, to have some parts of the world go on scot-free. Even in the "plausible 1984" timelines I've read, people put in extra states fighting a resistance, and loosening the hold of the three superpowers. People strive to add in some element that will make this world better in their mind, but Orwell intended to make it so that it couldn't be done.
I find that people like to do this to explicitly grimdark scenarios, like 40K and ASOIAF. Of course, I generally try to do the opposite.
Exactly why I still think, despite how interesting the "Oceania is only Britain" theory is to consider, I think it's false and that the whole world is a totalitarian hellhole.
I always saw it is Marxist-fascism, if that's even a thing. Admittedly, the fascism aspect really only comes about because of the time period Orwell was writing in. Probably just railing against Marxism, as you have said, but I like to think he includes a few jabs at fascism for good measure.
I find it interesting that you use the word teach because I would argue exactly the opposite. Teaching and learning, in my experience, is less the process of imparting knowledge and more the process of finding cracks in what we already know. Such a tautology is certainly true and expressed within the book (boot stomping on human face, etc.) but is unsatisfactory, which forces us to confront why it's unsatisfactory. If Russia and China were the liberal good guys, the takeaway would be "You lose because the bad guys are winning" which gives a much simpler answer: fight with the good guys. With this situation, however, Winston is given no such knowledge or even reason to believe that life outside of Oceania is better, but still secretly believes that there must be more to life than what The Party says or provides to him. When he's being tortured he proclaims and insists that the stars are real and 2+2=4. He claims loyalty to his ideals. He states with conviction that there is a world outside of the narratives we weave for ourselves and that there is a way forward that promises a better life. But his acceptance of Big Brother in the end silently leaves us with an answer more sinister than The Party ever could have manufactured: Is there?
I apologize if I ranted on a bit. It truly is an interesting bit of fiction.
Technically speaking, Fascism was born out of Socialism. Mussolini was initially a member of the Italian Socialist Party, from which he was kicked out due to his radical views.
I find that people like to do this to explicitly grimdark scenarios, like 40K and ASOIAF. Of course, I generally try to do the opposite.
Which brings me a question: has anyone ever done a Warhammer 1984 scenario? I guess it would be grimdark on steroids.
Was Hong Kong and Macau independent? Also why China was in different color than usual communist one?
Macao is still Portuguese, Hong Kong is Australasian, and I made China gold because I wanted to show Soviet dominance over it and the default pink just clashed with Soviet red, in my eyes.
Dorozhand
Banned
Orwell himself never abandoned Socialism. Like many in his generation he was turned away from Communism after disillusionment with Stalinism. It is also valuable to remember that the world of 1984 was very much born out of the world in which Orwell spent his youth. A tripartite world divided between Western Imperialism and Capitalism, German and Italian Fascism, and Soviet Stalinism. Fighting in the Spanish Civil War he saw all three of these factions come into play and contend with one another, and also came to realize that none of them were really that different and the ideologies had long been discarded in favor of totalitarianism and naked power grabs. In Catalonia he thought he caught a brief glimpse of what socialism could be, before it was squashed back down to the ground by all three parties.
He wasn't kicked out for his "radical views", he was kicked out because he came to value nationalism over class struggle, and basically completely inverted a good many of his political positions.
Goldstein
Banned
Which setting impacts more: OTL, where North Korea exists, or one where the whole world is under North Korean standards and there is no way to hide?
The "Britain only" theory is interesing as an AH approach, and I appreciate takes on it, but taken as a default lecture, it utterly betrays the spirit of the book. It turns a universal mesage against Totalitarianism and dehumanizaion into a "it could happen in a certain country" (no shit, Sherlock), downplaying it to the point it was entirely unnecesary to write it. The fact that there's not a single crack from wich the outside world could filter and hint the real situation becomes so hard to explain (not to tell the details that support the notion, such as the parade of foreign-looking and resigned prisoners, a scene that even loses its human fiber if Winston's reflections about them don't match what they really are) that one could well argue that it being the whole world is much easier to justify. It makes Goldstein's book meaningless, and turns the cynical view of O'brien on it equally meaningless, making the entire work to lose depth and layers of meaning. Also, nothing about Orwell and his declarations about his book suggests that he had that interpretation in mind. I agree with the Death of the Author line of thought, but I don't agree that all possible interpretations about the meaning of a work of fiction are equally worthy, and assuming a limited scope as the default explanation for what happens there makes an enormous disservice to the book, IMO.
Besides, all we know about the past of the book suggests Transnationalism, a destructive WWIII and a Cultural Revolution. The three of them, in that order, are not at all hard to plausibly justify unless one is intellectually lazy. We tend to think more nation-states=more plausibility, when historically that trend has only continously existed after WWII, and probably just thanks to the UN protocols.
Upvoteanthology
Donor
Here you go! ^_^ I feel like the argument should be moved here, instead of being discouraged on the Map Thread.
- Status