When it comes to dark dystopian visions of the future, George Orwell's 1984 is the standard-bearer, the prototype. It's not a subtle work, by any means, but it is an extremely powerful one. It's a dire warning about totalitarian government, an indictment of censorship, a defense of the nuances of language, and a text book on brainwashing, all rolled into one. It relentlessly follows the logic of its premise to its most extreme conclusion. It makes no compromises; it takes no prisoners. It drives its point home like a railroad spike through the skull, and it achieves a sort of strange ruthless beauty as a result. When I first read the book nearly twenty years ago, if someone would have asked me if there was one thing in this world where people could not possibly miss the point, I would have said, 1984.
But alas! Time and experience have shown me otherwise. I've seen quite a number of misinterpretations, misapprehensions, and misapplications of the book and it's ideas over the years. Some read the book as a political novel, specifically a roman a clef' of Soviet Russia. This is a strictly journalistic reading, as if the book were simply a magnification of newspaper headlines and historical events. Although the story operates in a political milieu and the landscape has a certain Soviet touch to it, there are much more universal themes at work. It's about the group mentality, mass hysteria, blind devotion, obedience driven by fear, the corruption of absolute power, the boot stomping on the human face forever. It's about the individual vs. the state, reality vs. consensus, freedom vs. control.
To look at Big Brother and see only Stalin is to miss the forest for the sake of one mustachioed tree. Big Brother is the archetypical figurehead. In the story he serves at a galvanizing point of focus. He consolidates the power of the party in a single individual, serving as an object of unquestioning loyalty for the people and a point of reference for the agendas of the party as a whole. It's a mistake to look for any one person in Big Brother. Even in the book itself, it's not entirely clear if Big Brother is a real person, and it's strongly hinted that he isn't. It's the principle at work that matters, the people's response to Big Brother. In fact, you could even go through and replace every instance of the name "Big Brother" with the word "God", and I think you'd be quite surprised and more than a little disturbed at the result. In the end, Big Brother isn't nearly as important as the atrocities committed in his name.
On the other hand, the term "Big Brother" has recently developed into a sort of short-hand for surveillance of any kind. While I can certainly appreciate the term becoming a sort of watchword reminding people of their right to privacy, such a reading of the term is a gross over-simplification. As a result, some people fail to see the difference between the U.S. Patriot Act and a store's closed-circuit security camera. They focus so much on the surveillance, that they forget that the issue is really about rights. Big Brother isn't about cameras, it's about the attitude behind the cameras that says, "If they've got nothing to hide, then they shouldn't mind if we have a look." It's about inferring suspicion, making crimes out of thoughts, and building prosecution out of pure speculation about your intentions.
And then, as with any work which has become such an iconic part of the culture, you have people who come out of the woodwork to apply their own pet theories to it. Robert Pirsig, in Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (a book which deserves some consideration of it's own one of these days), applies a particularly misguided interpretation. In addition to his heap of other missteps in his quest for "Quality" with a capital Q, he declares that 1984 represents a rationally efficient society. Well, I don't know what book he was reading, but there doesn't seem to be anything particularly rational about Oceanic society, and as for efficiency...well, as Goldstein himself says in "The Book", "Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police." But I suppose if you imagine a world like 1984 when you think of reason, then you're going to see a reasonable world when you look at 1984.
But it wasn't supposed to end up like this. "1984" wasn't supposed to become a pointless buzzword of paranoia that people stopped taking seriously a long-time ago, something indiscriminately applied to anyone's vague dis-satisfaction with their government, another bogeyman, another internet Hitler. "Big Brother" wasn't supposed to be become a casual joke and the title of a reality TV show. 1984 was supposed to be the guardian, the antidote against the very world that it was warning us about. Don't let them disarm the book. Don't let them relieve the guard from his post. 1984 is just the sort of thing we need to keep 1984 from happening.
here, here. Imagine what he could have done had he written 1985!
ReplyDeletebtw, that looks a bit like you in the picture. I knew there was more to you than meets the eye. Optimus Bryan!
ReplyDeleteI take it you mean the one at the top. The guy on the bottom has way too much hair.
ReplyDeleteYeah he does look like you.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, how about a Dytopian world created by CERN that had monopoly over Time Travel and uses that to control the world. So no matter what rebels do all CERN has to do is flick a switch and their existence gets erased. The only way to stop them is to steal one of the time travel machines and travel back say 2011 to prevent the first time machine from being created.
1984 is one of those books that i think should be required reading for every single person on the planet. It would give a twisted few bad ideas but it would give the rest a case of the shivers and the nerve to say "I don't freaking THINK so bubby! Not in my lifetime, anyway!"
ReplyDelete@Cyber: Are we talking about a book, or the real thing here?
ReplyDelete@Rev: Absolutely! (although the "required" part might be a contradictory, but I get what you're saying. I do think...I hope, at least...that the book is featured frequently in high school curriculum. I see it often around school supply time on a rack with Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies.)
Smartass comment #1: I would like to see a commentary on book which people REALLY absolutely cannot miss the point: Everyone Poops.
ReplyDeleteSmartass comment #2: Did you just take a poke at the Patriot Act? That's just . . . unpatriotic, man.
Smartass Comment #3: Better a Big Brother than an Overly-Affectionate Uncle.
Comment That Actually Takes Your Content Seriously: Words and phrases do tend to lose their oomph if they are overused, especially if they are overused incorrectly. You have a point. Calling a convienience store's security system Big Brother is the same sort of watering down of a concept you get when you accuse a private radio station of infringing free speech because it fired a controversial talk show host.
Not a book Brian but if you say it was real then it's subjective to my own delusions. Heard of the faster than like neutrinos that CERN reported but had yet to confirm?
ReplyDeleteThe only books I read are either fiction time travel stuff, non-fiction Quantum Dynamics,Special Relativity or Thermodynamic stuff and Pseudo-Physics conspiracy.
I liked the first part of your essay very much: well-written, trenchant, structured.
ReplyDeleteBut then I reach the last part and then you reveal the idea implicit in your title: book as weapon--an idea which you seem to approve.
1984 is a novel, whose strength comes from the art of literature. Misquotation is the fate of literature when it reaches a certain level of fame. As you and I know from recent discussions in another place, many of us are tempted to judge a work of literature by any means other than actually reading it.
You appear to think that the purpose of
1984 is to be a kind of nuclear deterrent, a bulwark against the set of undesirable tendencies so vividly taken to extremes in the book--perhaps one of the essential books in an atheist's Bible!
Fair enough as a point of view. But your last paragraph is drained of meaning by the "supposed to" cliché--1984 wasn't supposed to be this, 1984 was supposed to be that. What is that supposed to mean? It's a novel, supposed to be read, not a manifesto. It belongs to everyone, like the plays of Shakespeare, to quote or misquote, to read or ignore.
Novels don't need defending or protecting. We have been through this nonsense before with other books. The works of Nietzsche (which are more literary than philosophical) have been paraded as pro-Nazi, anti-semitic and the very opposite. What were they "supposed to end up like"?
It's easier to get free from religion than from old-time Bible-thumping.
@Doug: Yes, the "free speech" thing is another good example.
ReplyDelete@Cyber: That's so heavy reading.
@Vincent: Well, at least you liked the rest of it ;D
Seriously though, it did strike me that I was going for a "one true way" kind of interpretation here, which may seem a little rigid and hardline..."Bible-thumbing" as you call it. Naturally, people are free to read the novel any way they wish and of course it "belongs to everyone."
On the other hand, I was trying to make the point that Doug mentions above, the idea that certain words and concepts enter the public lexicon and get "disarmed" through overuse and misapplication. He and I were talking about that the other day with free speech, as I mention above. "Free Speech" has gone from a watchword against government censorship to a complaint by obnoxious people that no one, anywhere at anytime can tell them to politely...please...shut the hell up. As a result, the term gets robbed of its meaning and it becomes possible that we forget what "Free Speech" is really all about. In fact, Orwell himself wrote something about words getting distorted in this manner in a little book he called 1984. And that's my point, that Orwell has added an invaluable number of such concepts and terms to our culture, and it saddens me to see them watered down in a similar manner.
But, people can look at the book anyway they want. Far be it from me to say otherwise. If Robert Pirsig wants to read it as an indictment of reason, that's his prerogative. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with that assessment, or even grant it the respect of declaring it a possibility, any more than "Free Speech" means I'm forced to listen to what he has to say. I think he's wrong. Period. And I'm well within my rights to say so, just as he is within his rights to say otherwise. There are certainly nuances and shades of meaning which are open to interpretation with 1984, just as there is with any book, but I don't think that latitude is unlimited. I think there are certain core themes and messages behind the book which are undeniable and irreconcilable with conflicting points of view (just as it may get your hackles up to hear me declare that points are being made in a certain book about Dogs). But that's me. Other people are free to their opinions. Let's hope they stay that way.
And yes, I agree that a novels primary purpose is to be read and enjoyed, not to beat people over the heads with it. I get that. On the other hand, you have to admit that there's a sense in which the book is intended to be taken as a serious warning, just as, say Uncle Tom's Cabin was meant to spread the word against slavery. Yes, it would be a shame to see these books only in that light, as "message" books. True. But at the same time, the messages are there, and they were put there quite intentionally I believe.
ReplyDeleteOn a matter of orthography: "bible-thumping" occurs 551,000 times in Google. I wasn't familiar with "bible-thumbing" but there it is, a mere 13,500 times. For the avoidance of doubt, I meant and wrote the former, Mr Paler-than-Grey.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious now about Pirsig's attitude to 1984 as revealed in his novel, which I read several decades ago. To avoid the chore of reading it again, would you happen to have a chapter or page reference?
It was Mr Paler-than-Grey whose hackles were raised by a certain bock which has nothing to do with Dogs, not your declarations about that book.
But I do accept your point that novelists often have a message to convey, which is the very essence of the inspiration which made them embark on the enormous effort of writing a novel. But I always think of it as their message, rather than an impersonal disembodied message that can be detached from the text and made into a distillation of its own. When that happens, it gets transformed into into public property, via quotes or even the novel's title, and - to maintain the distillation metaphor - is used like vodka or gin as the potent ingredient of all sorts of cocktails, of which the original author might have disapproved.
As for words getting "disarmed" through overuse and misapplication, yes it is most regrettable. Unfortunately for the English-speaking world, America disgraces itself constantly, for example in ransacking vulgar slang words for the almost random decoration of ordinary discourse. Such as ass, which should be spelt "arse" to distinguish it from donkey.
But that's me, Bible-thumping (with a p), where the bible in question is probably Fowler's Modern English Usage, where "modern" means 1926.
Yes, you caught me on a misspelling. It should be "Bible-Thumping" Quite right.
ReplyDeleteAs for Pirsig, I'm going to have to look that up. My copy of that book is one of the only one I ever defaced by going through with different color-coded highlighters to mark different passages. I thought this would help me to find things, as the book is a fairly unorganized affair, which makes for fascinating reading, but extreme difficulty when trying to use it as a reference. In other words, I haven't been able to find the passage. Perhaps Google can help me, as it has helped you.
P.S: I whole-heartedly agree, and more definitely regret, that America plays way too fast and loose with our language...which is really your language. We only adopted it, and share joint custody, and we've been a bit of an irresponsible step-parent towards it.
ReplyDeleteGood idea about Googling. The only reference to 1984 comes on Page 194. There is no reference to Oceania.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the extract, I suspect that memory may have in your mind distorted Pirsig's view of the matter. What struck him as undesirable was the exclusion of "Quality" from the mix.
To quote Wikipedia on the book (its last para):
Pirsig aims towards a perception of the world that embraces both sides, the rational and the romantic. This means encompassing "irrational" sources of wisdom and understanding as well as science, reason and technology. In particular, this must include bursts of creativity and intuition that seemingly come from nowhere and are not (in his view) rationally explicable. Pirsig seeks to demonstrate that rationality and Zen-like "being in the moment" can harmoniously coexist. He suggests such a combination of rationality and romanticism can potentially bring a higher quality of life.
Would you object to such a formulation - in itself and as a representation of Persig's position as portrayed in the novel?
Now I'm misspelling names. Pirsig.
ReplyDelete(By the way, as long as we're pointing out misspelling, I should say that I'm not familiar with the "bock" in question. ;D)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it took some hunting, but I found the Pirsig. The situation is a bit more complicated than I remembered, so it'll take some putting the quote into context:
After conjuring up this vision of a Quality-less world, he was soon attracted to its resemblance to a number of social situations he had already read about. Ancient Sparta comes to mind, Communist Russia and her satellites. Communist China, the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley and the 1984 of George Orwell.
Now, the point he's making here is part of the larger theme of the book. He sums it up a few paragraphs earlier, "If Quality were dropped, only rationality would remain." His point is that Quality is kind of the icing on the rational cake, and the examples he gives are supposed to be models of utilitarian efficiency which have dispensed with Quality as something superfluous. Of course, he later contradicts this (and rightly so) by saying the Quality should arise intrinsically out of good work and good design, and not be slapped on the surface as window-dressing. And yet, here he is treating it like window-dressing, like something that could be removed from reason and not hinder its efficiency in the slightest.
Ah, but the point here is 1984. My problem is that I disagree with the characterization of Oceania as a society who has stream-lined everything into a no-nonsense, no thrills or frills, model of efficiency and order. Sparta perhaps, but not Oceania. Oceania does go about it's business of brain-washing and subjugating it's citizens and distorting the public records with ruthless efficiency. But the problem is with this business itself, not the fact that it doesn't take time to smell the roses of Quality.
Sorry. I was writing my last comment, before I had a chance to read your previous one.
ReplyDeleteAs to where I agree with Pirsig...well, it's not a simple answer. There are points he makes that I absolutely agree with, and others that I couldn't disagree with more. On the whole, I appreciate what he's trying to accomplish and trying to say. I just don't always agree with how he's trying to get there. This is especially regrettable considering the character's mental breakdown in the story.
Oddly enough (and you'll like this), I think part of his problem is that he treats "Quality" as something too objective, too disembodied. In a sense it's objective, but in another sense it isn't. The differences between a Quality-built a house and one built like crap are very real and aren't just a matter of opinion, and yet these differences are also entirely contingent on the house being a domicile for human habitation. Remove human experience from the equation and you have two structures of wood and nails and no real way of saying which is better than the other.
This is the sort of thing that leads some people *ahem* to get the wrong idea about reason. Some people think that being reasonable means to build a liveable house and to consider anything beyond that (like windows for example) to be an unnecessary "irrational" indulgence. That's what our friend Mr. Pirsig seems to be suggesting about 1984. However, when you realize that any evaluation of the house is contingent on human values, then you come to see that isn't about "rational" or "irrational"; it's about what you want out of a house. If you're looking for a house where you can watch the sunset and see the leaves change color, then there's nothing irrational about wanting windows.
ReplyDeleteYes, what you say about Pirsig's book brings it back to me, and then I found it on my shelf, and started to read at random. I don't think public philosophizing fits well with mental breakdown.
ReplyDeleteIs not mental illness the result, or even the cause of, an unmanageable unhappiness? No good trying to philosophize yourself out of that. But never mind that. The book deserves its fame. But there are bits in it of very dubious value: mainly the bits talking directly about philosophy.
Oh yes, it's an ambitious and fascinating book, even if I don't agree with some it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the mental breakdown, it's frustrating to read it and watch someone mired in a pit, trying to dig themselves out only to get stuck deeper. Of course, it's hard to say how much his pursuit of Quality led to his breakdown, as Pirsig himself suggests, and how much other factors, emotional or even physiological, had to do with it...an "unmageable unhappiness" as you say.
Did he really have a breakdown like that, by the way? Is that part of the story true? I always assumed it was. I guess I should go back to Google or Wikipedia and find out.
Wikipedia informs me that the story is true, that he was hospitalized for schizophrenia and depression and received shock treatment.
ReplyDeleteIt also says that the book was rejected 121 times, which is almost even more sad. As you said, it deserves it fame. And it definitely deserved to be published. How could somebody look at a book like that and say, "Nope, not for us."?
As I've said all along. Some of history's greatest thinkers have been just a little on the unhinged side. Of course not all mad men are great thinkers. Some of us are just plain nuts.
ReplyDeleteI'm a conversation killer.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I've been a little tied up lately... And not in a fun way.
ReplyDeleteSo which of the greatest thinkers do you think were a little on the unhinged side? It’s just that I’m not sure whether the psychiatric verdict is one I’d necessarily agree with. Or shall I try and do some research on this?
ReplyDeleteBryan, I have some fun rope you could use if you need it recreationally. (evil grin)
ReplyDeleteHmm.... Leonardo DaVinci, Nikola Tesla, HP Lovecraft, Philip K Dick, Isaac Newton... I'm sure there are others. But it's still early in the morning for me.