#1 Posted by Inverno (13284 posts) - - Show Bio

For to many people, Ninety Eighty Four is the book. One of the most iconic stories in the English Language about a dystopic world where the bad guys win forever more and its praised beyond any objective quality. However I think the concept itself seems a little outdated, not only the title. Do you guys think its still possible to happen in this modern age everything that happened in the book? Better yet, is it possible to take place in any realistic scenario? Because to me, 1984 is just as realistic as Alice in Wonderland. There is no way the Party would be able to run the world they way they do. At their very core, they are Dick Dastardly-type villains who only win because Orwell says so, in any other scenario, their world would quickly crumble. What you guys think about it?

#2 Posted by PowerHerc (85335 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think it's silly at all.

It's already more real than most people think or will admit.

#3 Posted by MysteriousUsername (1210 posts) - - Show Bio

@CaioTrubat:

Originally it was going to be called 1948, because Orwell felt the date didn't actually matter given the party simply lies about what year it is anyway. It could take place at any time. While the premise may seem a bit far fetched, it still drives home how horrible the future could become if too much power is thrust into the wrong hands. Orwell wasn't predicting the future, he was simply showing how power is wielded in the wrong hands.

Although I prefer Brave New World myself, as I think it is unrealistic for a party that's only goal is basically being evil. I find it much more realistic and creepy that the "evil" government has all the good intentions in the world.

#4 Posted by Sideslash (5918 posts) - - Show Bio

No, it's not, IMO, at least.

#5 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

@CaioTrubat said:

At their very core, they are Dick Dastardly-type villains who only win because Orwell says so, in any other scenario, their world would quickly crumble.

They don't win because he said so. They win because the populace, the lower class, are the only hope of freedom.

And they've all been brainwashed into stupidity.

#6 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

I can see what you mean when you say silly -- imagining what would need to transpire to get to such a state without thinking something would halt it at some point I think is a very fair take on it. That's why I take such novels as the exaggerated warnings they are, a possibility, a reality, a depiction of control of the populace and how easy it would be considering the fragile sense of self humans born into that environment could conceivably have.

I enjoy it more when read with a perspective of it being symbolic and search for things that can be arguably applicable now in our world as is.

#7 Posted by RazzaTazz (8968 posts) - - Show Bio
@CaioTrubat: It is one of the main trio of dystopian literature along with Fahrenheit and BNW.  I am not sure about silliness, it is its form of literature.  There are still dystopian novels made (Hunger Games being an obvious example) but these don't break into the genre like these three do.  It is hard to say if it is still relevant, to some it is, to others it never was.  It is an allegory though for human nature, and I think in that it serves a purpose even if not one that is pertinent at all times.  
#8 Edited by TheSwordsman (1954 posts) - - Show Bio

@InnerVenom123 said:

@CaioTrubat said:

At their very core, they are Dick Dastardly-type villains who only win because Orwell says so, in any other scenario, their world would quickly crumble.

They don't win because he said so. They win because the populace, the lower class, are the only hope of freedom.

And they've all been brainwashed into stupidity.

I will agree that many are brainwashed but some are aware and are just afraid of wrongful imprisonment, death, torture, injury, etc. Most good or decent people nowadays, by their very nature, are not willing to go to the lengths that evil people do to secure power nor are they willing to sacrifice and persevere, as others in the past have, to achieve a just society.

On topic: We have been living in an "Orwellian" society for some time. It is not silly, but rather a stark reality.

#9 Posted by guttridgeb (4832 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope, its an amazing book with a concept that is (IMO) scarily possible.

#10 Posted by Phaedrusgr (1667 posts) - - Show Bio

@MysteriousUsername: I believe that the world we're living in is a mix of these two books, 1984 and a Brave New World. Actually, I read it in a modern philosopher's essay. Carrot and stick. Think about it.

#11 Posted by Renchamp (2989 posts) - - Show Bio

This thread is silly. I can understand someone not liking the way a story is told. I personally don't like the writing style of "Lord of the Flies." I would never, however, call that book "silly" or as realistic as "Alice in Wonderland." There is a reason certain literature becomes classic. Forget the time involved and look at the morals and symbols. You don't have to love all of it, you don't even have to love any of it, but calling it "silly" is ignorant. No one gets mad at Dickens because his musings on Industrialism is outdated. (Well, I guess some can - again, ignorantly.) Literature is not about pleasing you the reader but about expressing an idea or feeling of the author. Again, you don't have to like something, but your opinion means very little to the true artist who has done an objectively masterful job. (And "1984" and "Alice in Wonderland" are classics for very different reasons. It's like comparing Batman to Deadpool.)

@RazzaTazz: And way to bring Bradbury into the mix. I feel he gets overlooked all too often.

Moderator
#12 Posted by Inverno (13284 posts) - - Show Bio

@Renchamp: Whoa dude, chill out. I didn't say the book is terrible. I just don't take it seriously.

#13 Posted by kuonphobos (4904 posts) - - Show Bio

After the Patriot Act and even recent revelations concerning the NSA and privacy law I seriously cannot se why 1984 (as symbolic) cannot be taken seriously.

Set literature aside and just look into Nazi Germany and the midset of the average German citizen if an actual historical cognate is needed. Then take a gander at the CIA and FBI during the Cold War and beyond.

Now consider the proliferation of cameras in major cities like London and the capabilities of satellites. Factor in the rise of the internet age and the level of saturation within the West of the information/digital age.

There has never been a time in human history when so much can be controlled by so few and with so little interest on the part of those being controlled.

Jus my 2 pennies....

#14 Posted by Illuminatus (9489 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos: I agree with this guy's beginning sentiment about the behavior coming from the US Federal Government, as well as many of the individual State legislators. It is wholly indicative of an agenda to suppress the American people if need be, and if you factor this in with the further perpetuation of the insolvent borrowing addiction that the government has seemed to adopt, it all makes sense.

#15 Posted by JediXMan (31275 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know. I find 1984 to be quite interesting. I'm also a fan of The Machine Stops.

Moderator Online
#16 Posted by TheAmazingImmortalMan (3863 posts) - - Show Bio

I really like 1984, so no I do not find it to be silly

#17 Posted by MysteriousUsername (1210 posts) - - Show Bio

@Phaedrusgr said:

@MysteriousUsername: I believe that the world we're living in is a mix of these two books, 1984 and a Brave New World. Actually, I read it in a modern philosopher's essay. Carrot and stick. Think about it.

That is chillingly plausible.

Luckily I think most people have more freedoms than the average citizen of either novel.

Although sadly I can think of some places that where this is the definite case.

#18 Posted by BumpyBoo (10618 posts) - - Show Bio

I love the idea that this is where anyone would draw the line, when it comes to Orwell and silliness. Animal Farm? Pigs talking and walking on two legs? I can see that happening. Totalitarian government and constant surveillance? Pfft....now you're just being silly :P

Moderator
#19 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

Normally, I'd agree about a silly concept book and its over-hype. But this is the book I reference every time I hear about the joys and blessedness of a Communist Empire.

Although, of course, the real life happenings of the Soviets and other Communist extremist groups pale the ones referenced in the book. At least in my opinion.

#20 Posted by Inverno (13284 posts) - - Show Bio

@BumpyBoo said:

I love the idea that this is where anyone would draw the line, when it comes to Orwell and silliness. Animal Farm? Pigs talking and walking on two legs? I can see that happening. Totalitarian government and constant surveillance? Pfft....now you're just being silly :P

Now you got me there :P

#21 Posted by BumpyBoo (10618 posts) - - Show Bio

@CaioTrubat said:

@BumpyBoo said:

I love the idea that this is where anyone would draw the line, when it comes to Orwell and silliness. Animal Farm? Pigs talking and walking on two legs? I can see that happening. Totalitarian government and constant surveillance? Pfft....now you're just being silly :P

Now you got me there :P

Hehe! ^_^

Moderator
#22 Posted by batkevin74 (11209 posts) - - Show Bio

@CaioTrubat: Have you read the book? Unless you've read the book there's no point getting on my high horse about this. Not watched the movie, read the book

#23 Posted by Markus_Langbourn (387 posts) - - Show Bio

The greatest novel of all time? No, it's not silly. 
 
And the Party didn't take over the whole world. It's sad in the first chapter that there are always three states fighting for dominance.

#24 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@Markus_Langbourn said:

The greatest novel of all time? No, it's not silly. And the Party didn't take over the whole world. It's sad in the first chapter that there are always three states fighting for dominance.

Actually we don't even know if that's true at all. That's one of the points of the book. All information we have comes from the party so we have no idea if he world actually looks like they say or not. It could as well be true that there is just one global state which falsifies records of its enemies to keep the populace in check, or that the state only encompasses England but makes itself appear far larger for the same purposes.

As for the OP, no, the book was never realistic or plausible, not when it was written, not now. George Orwell intentionally wrote an exaggerated version of a totalitarian state to warn us of the dangers totalitarianism presents, he did not write what he thought was a realistic scenario in any way.

#25 Posted by Inverno (13284 posts) - - Show Bio

@batkevin74: I see somebody is willing to get mad about somebody else's opinion over a unintentional comedy.

@AtPhantom said:

Actually we don't even know if that's true at all. That's one of the points of the book. All information we have comes from the party so we have no idea if he world actually looks like they say or not. It could as well be true that there is just one global state which falsifies records of its enemies to keep the populace in check, or that the state only encompasses England but makes itself appear far larger for the same purposes.

As for the OP, no, the book was never realistic or plausible, not when it was written, not now. George Orwell intentionally wrote an exaggerated version of a totalitarian state to warn us of the dangers totalitarianism presents, he did not write what he thought was a realistic scenario in any way.

Thank you, that was exactly what I was thinking.

#26 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@CaioTrubat: Mind you, I don't think that makes the book's message any less powerful.

#27 Posted by Inverno (13284 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom: Fair enough.