Was Oceania just Great Britain?

[Upvoteanthology]

Meant to carry on the current argument in the Map Thread, as not to derail it any further. If this doesn't belong in Maps (it proooooooobably doesn't ), I can request for it to be moved. So yeah. Here's my post from the Map Thread:

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.

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.

 

[Tom Colton]

Part of the chilling charm of the novel is not only that we can't be sure, there is no way that Winston (or we through him) can ever know the truth of your question, as encapsulated in this exchange:

Winston: "Does Big Brother exist in the way I do?"

His torturer*: "You do not exist."

*Yeah, that's right, I didn't spoil a 78-year old book. Go me.

 

[Asami]

I honestly think the story is stronger if Oceania was just by itself alone; I mean, there are overt references to a nuclear exchange at some point in the 1960s -- so maybe things are just... idk.

 

[Gog (♀)]

It's possible? I'm not sure if it was ever revealed if Goldstein's book was real or not becuase if it was then no, if it wasn't then who knows? We don't see anything outside of London and a reference to Cornwall (IIRC?)

 

[SargentHawk]

It's always just been Great Britain in my mind. I like the story better as a UK going the route of North Korea (but to even more extremes).

It's also much more realistic as opposed to the three super states depicted in the book in my mind.

 

[ElectricSheepNo54]

Isn't there also a theory that Oceania actually controls the entire world?

 

[Goldstein]

Cross-posting from the Map Thread

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.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

It's always just been Great Britain in my mind. I like the story better as a UK going the route of North Korea (but to even more extremes).

It's also much more realistic as opposed to the three super states depicted in the book in my mind.

I always imagined something similar. I don't think a totalitarian state could keep control of the Americas, South Africa, Australia, and Britain, all while fighting a global war.

 

[Indicus]

It's possible? I'm not sure if it was ever revealed if Goldstein's book was real or not becuase if it was then no, if it wasn't then who knows? We don't see anything outside of London and a reference to Cornwall (IIRC?)

Goldstein's book was made by the book-making machines, I believe

I always imagined something similar. I don't think a totalitarian state could keep control of the Americas, South Africa, Australia, and Britain, all while fighting a global war.

Remember that the global war was a farce, but I agree with you.

 

[Goldstein]

Remember that the global war was a farce, but I agree with you.

In which way the amount of territory of a country relates to its sustainability? Oceania has, the book hints, roughly 300 million people, and said people is stripped of any political inclination and ruled by state-bred bureaucrats of the reclamation centers of a world war. If anything, its Totalitarian nature and its extension (that allows for a perfect autarky) are points in favor of its sustainability, not points against. And if Oceania is unsustainable, today's China sould be more than four times less sustainable.

 

[CannedTech]

While I like the idea as an AH concept, I certainly agree that the story loses a bit of its impact if Oceania is just GB, in the context of that being the setting of the book itself that is. I'm not sure why people have this idea that this option being the more "realistic" option is the better option. Shit, it's a story criticizing totalitarianism, it's not meant to be a 100% accurate AH look into the future or somesuch.

 

[Goldstein]

While I like the idea as an AH concept, I certainly agree that the story loses a bit of its impact if Oceania is just GB, in the context of that being the setting of the book itself that is. I'm not sure why people have this idea that this option being the more "realistic" option is the better option. Shit, it's a story criticizing totalitarianism, it's not meant to be a 100% accurate AH look into the future or somesuch.

Yeah. Even if it were unrealistic, assuming it's just Britain because of that, is the equivalent of assuming that, as Warhammer 40.000 isn't a realistic setting, it all happens inside the mind of a British woman high on mescaline.

 

[Upvoteanthology]

While I like the idea as an AH concept, I certainly agree that the story loses a bit of its impact if Oceania is just GB, in the context of that being the setting of the book itself that is. I'm not sure why people have this idea that this option being the more "realistic" option is the better option. Shit, it's a story criticizing totalitarianism, it's not meant to be a 100% accurate AH look into the future or somesuch.

Exactly agreed. While I appreciate the idea that a totalitarian state CAN stretch the truth like that, I feel like it loses part of its impact.

 

[rvbomally]

While a fun idea for certain scenarios*, I'm not a fan. I'm actually rather annoyed by the tendency of people to bring up the theory whenever 1984 pops up.

Whenever a 1984 map is posted, the chances of "Oceania is just Great Britain" being mentioned approaches one.

(The smile was sarcastic)

As others have said, the point behind 1984 is that there is no hope for mankind. The system, as established, is eternal. There is no escape across the Channel. "Oceania is just GB" seems to me like a futile attempt to inject hope into an expressly hopeless setting. It's like all of those annoying ASOIAF WIs trying to prevent the Red Wedding. "Oh, I don't like this setting's bleak nature! I can fix it!" No.

*Those are effectively something else with a 1984 shout-out, such as a realistic TL about a Cuban Missile Crisis war. The Oceanian regime is just one aspect of a greater story.

 

[CannedTech]

As others have said, the point behind 1984 is that there is no hope for mankind. The system, as established, is eternal. There is no escape across the Channel. "Oceania is just GB" seems to me like a futile attempt to inject hope into an expressly hopeless setting. It's like all of those annoying ASOIAF WIs trying to prevent the Red Wedding. "Oh, I don't like this setting's bleak nature! I can fix it!" No.

To be honest, I'd say that 1984 is a rather major exception to my general stance on these things due to it being a political work. If this were any other work, like say ASOIAF, I'd likely be one of those people.

 

[Bleh]

In which way the amount of territory of a country relates to its sustainability? Oceania has, the book hints, roughly 300 million people, and said people is stripped of any political inclination and ruled by state-bred bureaucrats of the reclamation centers of a world war. If anything, its Totalitarian nature and its extension (that allows for a perfect autarky) are points in favor of its sustainability, not points against. And if Oceania is unsustainable, today's China sould be more than four times less sustainable.

Administration issues can certainly pop up when a state holds vast amounts of territory. Obviously the hostility of the local population is a more urgent variable but lots of land can be a problem too: this highway needs to be longer, we need even more governors for these various subdivisions, etc. Chinese and Oceanian governance models are extraordinarily different so it's difficult to make a comparison between the two; not least of all because any Oceanian sustainability would have to be inferred from their ability to suppress insurrection, given that this is really the only variable for nation-state stability that the book focuses on.

Also, in regard to your earlier post, wasn't it more or less established that Goldstein's book was meaningless? I always thought that was a brilliant move on The Party's behalf; regulating insurrection into a form that fit within their governance structure.

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.

Tomato, to-mah-to I suppose

 

[Thande]

To be honest, I'd say that 1984 is a rather major exception to my general stance on these things due to it being a political work. If this were any other work, like say ASOIAF, I'd likely be one of those people.

I can understand why people want to get hope into 1984, but if you do, do it in a thematically appropriate way. I've often pondered that the most feasible in-universe way to change the status quo in 1984 is for something like Wings Over The World from H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come to be formed in a forgotten corner of the world. An organisation that would seek to bring an end to the endless war and enforce peace, but just as ruthlessly as the totalitarian powers it opposes and with no more regard for the wishes of ordinary people.

 

[Bleh]

I can understand why people want to get hope into 1984, but if you do, do it in a thematically appropriate way. I've often pondered that the most feasible in-universe way to change the status quo in 1984 is for something like Wings Over The World from H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come to be formed in a forgotten corner of the world. An organisation that would seek to bring an end to the endless war and enforce peace, but just as ruthlessly as the totalitarian powers it opposes and with no more regard for the wishes of ordinary people.

I like this idea, particularly because Goldstein was a Trotsky analogue and Trotsky opposed Stalin's 'Socialism-In-One-Country'. It would be a phenomenal twist if later on in the 1984 universe a Goldstein-inspired revolution manages to overthrow The Party but eventually ends up creating the totalitarian, global superstate that Goldstein describes in his book.

 

[Goldstein]

Administration issues can certainly pop up when a state holds vast amounts of territory. Obviously the hostility of the local population is a more urgent variable but lots of land can be a problem too: this highway needs to be longer, we need even more governors for these various subdivisions, etc. Chinese and Oceanian governance models are extraordinarily different so it's difficult to make a comparison between the two; not least of all because any Oceanian sustainability would have to be inferred from their ability to suppress insurrection, given that this is really the only variable for nation-state stability that the book focuses on.

Ability to insurrect? Are we talking about the same book? Insurrectionist ideas are impossible to articulate in a coherent manner, and by the time they could form in your brain you're a dead man walking anyway.

As for logistical difficulties, it's explicitly stated that the vast majority of the population lives totally isolated and confined to its local territory. I'm sure the average OTL European country is much harder to administer.

Also, in regard to your earlier post, wasn't it more or less established that Goldstein's book was meaningless? I always thought that was a brilliant move on The Party's behalf; regulating insurrection into a form that fit within their governance structure.

It's established that the Party wrote it. Nowhere it says that what the content of the book is not true. In fact, it says the opposite. And if we don't believe O'Brien in that the content of the Book is true, why we believe him when he says that he took part in its redaction?

As others have said, the point behind 1984 is that there is no hope for mankind.

I'm not into that extreme either. The nature of the world simply doesn't allow for anything to be eternal and unchanged, even less so Human-made systems. Something's life can be almost indefinitely extended by blind chance, but ultimately all is subject to transformation. The Party is at war with entropy, so to say, and perfect control is, like perpetual motion, a pipe dream. Said that, it could last in a recognizable form for thousands of years... but most probably for much less (a couple of centuries at best), as the fuckers stopped research before they could know how the planet and its natural resources work.

 

[CannedTech]

I'm not into that extreme either. The nature of the world simply doesn't allow for anything to be eternal and unchanged, even less so Human-made systems. Something's life can be almost indefinitely extended by blind chance, but ultimately all is subject to transformation. The Party is at war with entropy, so to say, and perfect control is, like perpetual motion, a pipe dream. Said that, it could last in a recognizable form for thousands of years... but most probably for much less (a couple of centuries at best), as the fuckers stopped research before they could know how the planet and its natural resources work.

I'd say I agree there too actually. On that note, here's an appropriate B_Munro scenario.