I hadn't thought of that, but as we say to the young people on the spectrum I teach theater to, your right, your right, your absolutely right. Your right, oh thank you very much.
Rebuilding After Big Brother: A 1984 Story
- Thread starter DrDerp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1984 nineteen eighty four
1984 is written entirely from Winston's point of view, hence why we never see anything that he doesn't see.
I doubt either Winston or Julia would have lived longer than 1986. The Party seems to liquidate people fairly quickly after their release from MiniLuv.
I'd always believed O'Brien was telling the truth about Julia - he had no reason to lie. She wasn't political, she just bent the rules. It was her association with Winston that pushed her in that direction. I doubt that ThinkPol had much work to turn her around. The scar I'd always read as being the result of being knocked about by over enthusiastic interrogators.
I doubt either Winston or Julia would have lived longer than 1986. The Party seems to liquidate people fairly quickly after their release from MiniLuv.
I'd always believed O'Brien was telling the truth about Julia - he had no reason to lie. She wasn't political, she just bent the rules. It was her association with Winston that pushed her in that direction. I doubt that ThinkPol had much work to turn her around. The scar I'd always read as being the result of being knocked about by over enthusiastic interrogators.
Last edited:
Having read the Hugarian sequal, where she comes to life, as a moderate, in a revolution from above, I had wanted to hope otherwise. But The Wooksta! is probably right, the retirement plan of the Party, is a stay in a labor camp, and a bullet in the head.
Agreed, but then again for all we know they may have been lying about the year as well and the fall of the regime could have happened right after the end of the novel
Someone can be rebellious without being political, Julia may have not been looking to overthrow the Big Brother(which she realised was impossible anyway) but she was always shown to be very emotional
I disagree, he had plenty of reason to lie if their indoctrination wasnt as good as they hyped it up to be and in this timeline even more so since this version of O'Brien is full of shit("the world is divided in three super states I swear!")
Across her head? Sounds more like shrugging off the original text "oh she just got hit during the interrogation! Nothing to see here" rather than go with the more obvious and implied conclusion that she was indeed lobotomized
I dont see why Orwell would bring attention to that detail if it was just something random like she just tripping during the torture
Indeed
The Proles are the most human of anyone in the narrative of 1984, with all that entails.
Apropos of nothing: the scene of Winston at the movies always stuck with me. Among other moments, it speaks to the cognitive dissonance of the people in Oceania: how something so cruel and so morally bankrupt and outright evil has become rousing adventure and comedy. It speaks to the animal celebration of hate and anger as joy (and if you've dealt with anger issues or a righteous retribution complex, you can understand that, though you wish you didn't). It is all the worse because you're not sure if this is fiction or a documentary, or a mix of both.
But what I didn't think about is that this may be a dark parody "All Quiet on the Western Front". Orwell would certainly have been familiar with the book and film. However, in Oceania, it's not a horror or a shock. The exact same content is turned into a celebration and patriotism that excites and satiates the base instincts of man as a monster. It is not a shock to scare everyone to reassess and take note. Its integrated into the moral degeneracy of Oceanians and their national self. It reinforces what they think. Its a horrible pornography.
The content is the same. But the audience and their interpretation is different from that of a decent person viewing that exact same content. The State doesn't need to do anything with the message. The receiver is already making it exactly what they want within themselves. The very atoms of each individual "self" in the audience are so alien to look at this and laugh. You can show them good and they'll see it as evil and you show them evil and they'll see good. The message is always distorted to what they want to hear. No matter what you say for decency, you will not move them. That's the true horror.
But what I didn't think about is that this may be a dark parody "All Quiet on the Western Front". Orwell would certainly have been familiar with the book and film. However, in Oceania, it's not a horror or a shock. The exact same content is turned into a celebration and patriotism that excites and satiates the base instincts of man as a monster. It is not a shock to scare everyone to reassess and take note. Its integrated into the moral degeneracy of Oceanians and their national self. It reinforces what they think. Its a horrible pornography.
The content is the same. But the audience and their interpretation is different from that of a decent person viewing that exact same content. The State doesn't need to do anything with the message. The receiver is already making it exactly what they want within themselves. The very atoms of each individual "self" in the audience are so alien to look at this and laugh. You can show them good and they'll see it as evil and you show them evil and they'll see good. The message is always distorted to what they want to hear. No matter what you say for decency, you will not move them. That's the true horror.
Last edited:
The crude porn offered to the proles, is channeled into leader homage and war worship psychosis.
I'll add onto what I said, because it made me think. The question always arises "what do you do with these people?" That goes back to another question I asked here some time ago "what would your tyranny look like if the power were yours?"
What do you want to do with these people, who are so corrupted. So deaf. People who cannot be reasoned with. People who place their ignorance on a pedestal and celebrate it and make blood sacrifices to satiate it, covering themselves in glory and feeling clean. People who are not simply dismissive of good, but mock it and declare themselves good. What do you want to do with these people?
You want to hang them from every lamppost. You want to punish them. You want to hurt them. You want to twist a screw and watch them wince. You want to draw a scream for every hypocrisy, every smug grin, every evil done and every victim they threw to the slaughter. You want to nail them to a cross and make them a warning for everyone who thought they were good and right. You want to ritualistically expunge them from your soul, horrified that they can call themselves human and share the same species as you. You want to condemn them to Hell and be their torturer a thousand times over, drawing a visceral cleansing from their punishment and torment.
And yet, in wanting that, in desiring that, you are no better than them. That animal is in you. They allowed it to control them. That is their sin. But that animal is within you as well. It comes out with enough justification. Its a marriage of logic and reason with the visceral and anger (even righteous anger). This is why tyranny begets tyranny. It is rare to turn the other cheek, to stay your hand and to seek true justice. And that justice may involve executing the criminals, but for the reason of justice, after a process of unbiased justice and not for revenge. But its the only way you rise above the animal and the only way you do not become your enemy.
What do you want to do with these people, who are so corrupted. So deaf. People who cannot be reasoned with. People who place their ignorance on a pedestal and celebrate it and make blood sacrifices to satiate it, covering themselves in glory and feeling clean. People who are not simply dismissive of good, but mock it and declare themselves good. What do you want to do with these people?
You want to hang them from every lamppost. You want to punish them. You want to hurt them. You want to twist a screw and watch them wince. You want to draw a scream for every hypocrisy, every smug grin, every evil done and every victim they threw to the slaughter. You want to nail them to a cross and make them a warning for everyone who thought they were good and right. You want to ritualistically expunge them from your soul, horrified that they can call themselves human and share the same species as you. You want to condemn them to Hell and be their torturer a thousand times over, drawing a visceral cleansing from their punishment and torment.
And yet, in wanting that, in desiring that, you are no better than them. That animal is in you. They allowed it to control them. That is their sin. But that animal is within you as well. It comes out with enough justification. Its a marriage of logic and reason with the visceral and anger (even righteous anger). This is why tyranny begets tyranny. It is rare to turn the other cheek, to stay your hand and to seek true justice. And that justice may involve executing the criminals, but for the reason of justice, after a process of unbiased justice and not for revenge. But its the only way you rise above the animal and the only way you do not become your enemy.
Last edited:
You are quite correct Emperor Norton. The attitude of the victor, needs to extend a hand to the vanquished.
It seems to me, that some of the smarter members of the Outer Party might start a revolution from above.
I've just read the timeline & it's terrific. In the original book it's my understanding that in the book, Oceania dated its formation to about 1948. The author is talking about the late 50s, saying in particular that India had been independent for a decade. It's the authors choice, of course.
The rump British government is essentially powerless. It isn't in a position to advise the Monarch because it doesn't have the power to advise anyone. I think it would've set itself up in Halifax; it's nearer the UK & in Ottawa they'd be almost completely a puppet on the Canadian government. It's possible that the Canadians displace the British in advising the Monarch, but more likely the Monarch will retain some independence being able to play the Canadians, the rump British & other dominions off against each other. The Americans, being the big kid on the block will be influential. With a hostile government in Great Britain, expect the Canadians, Australians, NZ & the US to become even closer than IOTL. This grouping may collectively advise the Crown.
Had the POD been in 1948, then some in India may have had 2nd thoughts about becoming a republic. I doubt that the 2nd thoughts would have been strong enough, but the dynamic is now a bit different with the Crown binding the Commonwealth together in opposition to the British government. In the 1950s, I guess a deal would have been made on independence for the residual empire. Australia & NZ may have taken over from the British in Malaysia, & certainly would have have advised the Crown in regard to Pacific colonies such as the Solomon Islands & Fiji. In Africa, independence would occur, but the dynamics of becoming a republic may have been different. African nations may see the Crown as binding them with CANZ against a hostile British government. Malta would likely have remained a Crown dominion & British colonies in the Caribbean may have keen on annexation by Canada or the US. And is the 1956 Suez crisis butterflied away?
Without a Prime Minister Harold MacMillan, there will be no Winds of Change speech. Without an influential British government opposed to apartheid, South Africa may not become a republic, & Rhodesia will probably be granted independence. The Monarch will want to avoid any losses from the team.
The rump British government is essentially powerless. It isn't in a position to advise the Monarch because it doesn't have the power to advise anyone. I think it would've set itself up in Halifax; it's nearer the UK & in Ottawa they'd be almost completely a puppet on the Canadian government. It's possible that the Canadians displace the British in advising the Monarch, but more likely the Monarch will retain some independence being able to play the Canadians, the rump British & other dominions off against each other. The Americans, being the big kid on the block will be influential. With a hostile government in Great Britain, expect the Canadians, Australians, NZ & the US to become even closer than IOTL. This grouping may collectively advise the Crown.
Had the POD been in 1948, then some in India may have had 2nd thoughts about becoming a republic. I doubt that the 2nd thoughts would have been strong enough, but the dynamic is now a bit different with the Crown binding the Commonwealth together in opposition to the British government. In the 1950s, I guess a deal would have been made on independence for the residual empire. Australia & NZ may have taken over from the British in Malaysia, & certainly would have have advised the Crown in regard to Pacific colonies such as the Solomon Islands & Fiji. In Africa, independence would occur, but the dynamics of becoming a republic may have been different. African nations may see the Crown as binding them with CANZ against a hostile British government. Malta would likely have remained a Crown dominion & British colonies in the Caribbean may have keen on annexation by Canada or the US. And is the 1956 Suez crisis butterflied away?
Without a Prime Minister Harold MacMillan, there will be no Winds of Change speech. Without an influential British government opposed to apartheid, South Africa may not become a republic, & Rhodesia will probably be granted independence. The Monarch will want to avoid any losses from the team.
Perhaps if that happens, Verwoerd will have the sense to expand the Bantustan program, or undertake Botha style reforms twenty five years earlier, and buy time,