r/1984

Do you think it's deserving of the cultural significance it's gained over the years?

I recently finished reading the book after hearing about it online nonstop. I wanted to understand what people meant when they said an Orwellian future and would constantly reference 1984 when it came to anything dystopian.

Do you guys believe it's now become more culturally relevant than ever?

With governments putting the footdown on regulation and security, as well as the move towards a world where "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"

What are your guy's thoughts? Any input and discussion is greatly appreciated :)

Was recommended this book by a coworker but was told to make sure it wasn’t an altered version how would I be able to tell if it is.

I think the book says there were like 12 million party members total and I imagine everyone’s watched, including thought police members. If there were around 200 thousand agents of the TP how could they keep track of everyone, including themselves?

Hey, just a thought, and ik it's not that deep but it's just a bit interesting to think. In a world like 1984 or at least a government like the superstates were to exist, then how would they be able to monitor people in undeveloped countries. Take south America for example where there's just huge amounts of pure jungle and wilderness, or Africa. How can big brother really maintain control in a country like Colombia or Brazil and others

Is it possible that Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia don't even exist? And that Ingsoc doesn't have any influence or control past the British Isles but they just say they control half the world? What evidence is there for or against this theory?

The recurring theory - "Do the superstates exist", is often refashioned into separate declarations such as, "Oceania is only Britain", and everything else pertaining to an unacceptance of the presented world view.

Of course this is due to the Party controlling information and reality. So we get, "Well dude if they faked X then maybe Eurasia doesn't exist, nothing can be believed."

People that make this claim think they have figured something out and reached some elucidation beyond other readers. Unfortunately this is not the case and ironically it is they who are falling at the first hurdle. 

I will offer my rebuttal of these theories below.

THE SUPERSTATES DON’T EXIST 

We know they exist because Orwell tells us so in the "book" within the book (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism)

"But Bro, the Party wrote the book."

No, the Party did not write the book. Orwell did. And he wrote it for YOU to better understand his world. It was a gift shoehorned into the novel for the reader's understanding.

Now dealing with this from inside the novel let us examine it further:

"The best books tell us what we already know."- Winston, when reading the book, knows it is true.

Winston also says, "I understand the HOW; I do not understand the WHY"

You see, he knows what he is reading is true. He knows because most of it he can verify for himself because he lives it.

The "Book" is not only about the Superstates but Oceanic stratified society itself. Everything he reads completely checks out.

HE DOES NOT LEARN ANYTHING NEW FROM THE BOOK!

If the superstates don't exist, the entire economic engine driving Ingsoc collapses.

"But dude, maybe they lied about a certain bit."

Why? Everything makes perfect sense, for a totalitarian state, consuming surplus, stupefaction of the masses, sustaining Insog.

These confused theories mix up in-universe propaganda for narrative unreliability.  

The "book" is the Party's manifesto.
The description of the Superstates makes sense and the world was heading inexorably reshaping itself toward this.” splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century."

There is no serious reason to doubt this. There is no serious reason to doubt anything in the "book".

Authorial Intent

If the book within a book was a pack-of-lies then the novel switches from totalitarian critique to a shallow, “It was all a dream” type mystery. This was NOT Orwell’s intention. Orwell was not writing a plot-twist thriller. He was writing about real world scenarios and these feeble theories only strip the book of its thematic weight.

If Oceania is just Britain, and the world was not in a perpetual stalemate state of war, then Oceania would soon be conquered or economically dwarfed by whatever real world power that actually exist.

O’Brien’s admission.

- He lets Winston ask him anything in Miniluv. He is vague only on the existence of the Brotherhood. He is upfront with the rest - affirming the nature of reality and power. O'Brien  confirms that the description of power, the superstates, and the mechanism of control outlined in the book is accurate. The Party didn't invent a fake world order to trick Winston; they documented their own operational philosophy because power is its own justification.

Orwell also wrote about this superstate scenario in one of his non-fiction essays.

I trust this theory has now been put to bed. For five minutes until someone resurrects it.

I have just finished reading past Winston's and Julia's first meeting in the forest away from everything.

I'm not going to provide much backstory but I have a friend also named Julia going through a lot in life that is hurting me.

I know that the book has heavy themes I started reading expecting it but now with that connection I basically just need a place where I can ask without spoilers should I put the book down at least until real life sorts itself out, because while it may sound stupid I am now directly correlating 1984's Julia's with my friend and I don't want to go through more than I already am because fuck when you're friend goes through a lot it hurts you.

He said that after torturing him and changing his mindset he was going to kill him, but at the end of the book he didn't. Also, was Mr. Charrington an O'Brien? Or were they two different people?