Modern Classics Summarized: 1984
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лют 2017
- It's the mother of all dystopias! Long before YA dystopia rose to power, before the age of Young Attractive Heroes who Rebel Against The State and Also Find Love, there was just Winston Smith - a middle-aged man in poor health who Rebelled Against The State and Also Found Love. It just ended much less prettily for him.
1984 codified most of the modern dystopia tropes - absolute control of the media, black-bagging people who spoke out, and a lot of popular terms like "doublethink", "big brother", and "thought police". Unfortunately, a lot of those terms got stripped of context and thrown around for the sake of Extra Edge, and as a result they get used a little haphazardly. And there's nothing Red hates more than misused terminology, so here's the video outlining the ORIGINAL meaning of 1984!
PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=4664797
MERCH LINKS:
Shirts - overlysarcasticproducts.threa...
All the other stuff - www.cafepress.com/OverlySarcas...
Find us on Twitter @OSPUA-cam!
Fun fact: 1984 was censored in the US for being pro-communist and banned in the USSR for being anti-communist
I feel like Orwell would've been either really, really, proud of that or really, really furious.
That's the exact same thing as Karen's calling it racist to call them Karen's
@@f.i.r.e.5119 "Congratulations, you proved the book's point."
@@szymonnowicki8412 I think he was more of a "fuck you and all your factions" type of guy, myself.
oh my, it's like being a moderate only makes you hated by both sides.
"'We are the dead,' he said.
'We are the dead,' echoed Julia dutifully.
'You are the dead,' said an iron voice behind them."
Probably the biggest 'oh, shit...' moment in all of literature.
The Terminator emerges from the dark...
*"You are and will be dead"*
That destroyed me
I know right
I’m sorry.
“T H E” dead??
The crowd had gathered there to watch him fall, to watch their hopes destroyed.
They watched them beat him, they watched them break him, they watched his last defense deployed.
There was not a man among them who would let himself be heard.
But from the crowd, from their collective fear, arose these broken words:
We are the dead
We are the dead
Man, Winston could NOT be a more poor judge of character for someone whose job is literally rewriting history for the party. The woman he suspects of stalking and spying on him turns out to share his worldviews and finds him attractive, while the people he actually thought he could trust turn out to be spies for the party
Technically his initial observations weren't wrong. He thought Julia was watching him, she was. He thought O'Brien was too intelligent to be fooled by the Party, he was also right. It's the assumptions he made based off those observations that were wrong. Julia was watching him because she loved him, while O'Brien was completely self aware yet chose to serve the Party anyway.
I always found Winston to be pretty dull-witted for the protagonist. Sometimes frustratingly so. The people he chooses to trust or not trust are based on borderline arbitrary logic
I think this could be Orwell showing how well the Ingsoc's indoctrination works. Winston distrusts the rebellious Julia and trusts the party spies. The party has gotten so good at conditioning that the secret police are just naturally more trusted. As O'Brien says, the act that he and Winston have played out has happened many times before and will happen many times more in the future, and it has gotten ever more subtler as the party continues to map out rebellious nature and find more ways to condition it out of people.
@Logan Gantner You shouldn't forget though, that's exactly what the Party wanted. Poor and dumb citizens.
@Logan Gantner i imagine hes pretty socially stunted. Hard to have an accurate knowledge of society or hunan behavior when the society he's been raised in is oppressive and confusing.
"children relate to dytopia ,so they like it , adults cant , so they dont ."
jeez thats both truth and dark
When I read it, I didn't particularly like it but I never felt the existential horror some described.
Oh damnn…..
I agree that children might find it relatable, but I guess adults might find the sheer dreadfulness and existentialism more compelling.
@@nivedh2894 As a teenager I don't like it anymore.
The people in charge have absolute authority over you purely because of age and more pre-existing authority. They don't have to explain why they do anything they do. You don't know who to trust. They also like to track everything you do and want to know where you are all the time. There is no escape from them.
Am I describing a dystopia or a childhood?
@@kidlewinter5027 that's fair, actually
Fun fact: Room 101 was named after Conference Room 101 at the BBC. Which is a Conference Room where Orwell was forced to sit through long, unnecessary, and torturous meetings during his time working at the BBC.
When I read BBC I thought of something else....damn dirty mind
@@ryuketsutheproto2638 big black chickens ;)
This fact isn't fun at all. I demand a refund.
Skydiversiscoll I thought of the British Broadcasting corporations, like how didn’t I know this happened!
Seriously?
The last line of the novel hit me the hardest. “He loved Big Brother.” I’d never felt such a crushing since of defeat loss and hopelessness from a book until I read that line. It was intense lol
Agreed. I don't read many downer endings. Some are just _relatively_ happy (like the ending of the godly webcomic _The Cloud Maker),_ but some are straight-up rip-your-soul-out unhappy, like the endings of some of the newest StarKid musicals. But none of that comes _close_ to 1984. I had hope for Winston. I had hope we'd see some glimmer of hope of the Party's collapse. But _NOPE!_ He loved Big Brother.
Then I read the appendix and got that glimmer of hope back.
I had an entire mental breakdown about how the reign of the party couldn't last forever after all if you spend all your recourses on war then after many years there are no resources to continue that war.
and if there is no war then there is no ignorance and without ignorance there is no party
There is always hope and no matter how depressing the ending of 1984 is remember that nothing lasts forever.
even big brother will eventually fall........
@@katelystt Time, if nothing else brings down all empires....
@@katelystt But what if you and your supposed enemies are conspiring to keep the wars goin artificially, hmmm?
All three governments of 1984 have the same system of governance, right down to the heirarchies. And all three have a vested interest in continuing the wars - not because they are actually low on resources, but because it's how they keep the people in check.
There is no hope because for all intents and purposes, they are the *same government.*
The most downer ending I've ever experienced was the ending of the movie Brazil.
It's a dystopian movie where bureaucracy has consumed virtually everything in society. In the end, they show the protagonist escaping this life to live happily ever after with his crush.....except it's all in his mind. He's strapped to a chair and has gone insane- the only way he could escape his reality
Possibly one of the only male protagonists in fiction that is super on board for finding out about his partner's "body count"
Dante: Oh, my God. 37! My girlfriend s**ked 37 d**ks!
Not a good thing
@@jonathanmiller322 why not, open communication is important for healthy relationships, and some guys like "experienced" women
@@jonathanmiller322 yeah, an excellent thing actually
@@jonathanmiller322 Also, y‘know, that misplaced possessive notion of “not wanting another man to have had what‘s yours“ is incredibly damaging and honestly an absurdly primitive thing, the fact that this kind of behaviour is still a thing and some people consider it acceptable is depressing. In animals I believe it‘s called “mate guarding“, and it goes hand in hand with other patterns that reduce females to mere objects of male desire, including males fighting over them and the winner of said fights (in human terms) effectively raping the female.
Actually, Winston doesn’t really hate his job. It’s stated that he’s quite good at it and that he takes pride in the more responsible tasks he gets.
**visible confusion**
It can be both, speaking from personal experience.
You can absolutely hate studying and being a model student, but you can also simultaneously love being better than everybody else in your class
@@an18yearoldmongolianguy yo that username, combined with that pfp, is epic
I hate math, but I'm actually really good at it. You can be good at something you hate doing.
This is a bit late, but there's one small glimmer of hope in 1984, found in the absolute last place you'd expect it - the appendix describing Newspeak at the back of the book.
It's written in past tense.
This just made me cry harder than the summary
Sage Ferreira possible sequel coming in the future? That kind of implies one might happen.
@@dank_smirk9971 It was written in '49, there's no sequel coming...
RenaissanceHeavy well The Time Ships was written an entire century after The Time Machine as a sequel so I don't see why 1984 couldn't get one.
@Dank_smirk To make a sequel to 1984 is to place yourself squarely in the crosshairs of practically the entire cultural world, considering Orwell's clout. It's why the themes of the work is retreaded infinitely, not the singular situation of Ingsoc and Big brother itself.
"getting your kneecaps confiscated by the secret police"
yes
yes
Yes
Yes
yes
yes
The most terrifying part about this book is not the torture or complete control over the populous the party has, but the fact that winston lost in the end and even our protagonist couldnt stop the party
Yeah... it subverts what you expect entirely. After all, that’s how this usually goes - our hero turns to the good fight, slowly gets closer to the rebellion and ends up bringing down the big bad. In this case, it goes that way, then it takes the worst possible turn, and towards the end literally all hope vanishes, and then it just ends, the last sentence the lowest point you can imagine.
It's almost like part of the message is to organize as a group against an authoritarian regime, and not try to do it alone. Another part might also be a little paranoia goes a long way.
@@vxicepickxv I mean, part of the whole deal is you can't trust anyone. It's not even clear a real underground revolution group exists, and it's not all controlled by the party. That sort of thing makes it very hard to organise beyond extremely small cells.
There is a glimmer of hope. The book contains an appendix on Newspeak, which is written in past tense.
@@owenlewis4693 that's rather insane, the only hope is the stylistic design of the appendix
If I recall, the really scary thing about O'Brian was that he was a member of of thought police yes... but he was also legitimately rebellious and seeking out people to aid the cause. He was a prime example of double-think in action.
That's not correct. O'Brian wasn't a member of the thought police, but a high ranking member of the inner party. The owner of the pawn shop Cherrington was a member of the thought police. Also O'Brian wasn't legitimately rebellious, he only acted like that to catch people commiting thought crimes. He admitted being part in writing Goldsteins book, proving that Goldstein and his book are only bait in catching thought criminals. It's also explained that there is no real resistance against big brother and ingsoc and that they accuse people of rebellion against big brother, simply just to get rid of them.
@@kanuni1979 I don’t entirely disagree with the original comment. I think enough references are made to O’Brian’s ability to doublethink that he could truly be resisting the Party while also assisting it. After all, reading what O’Brian tells Winston will happen when he is caught, you can see that what actually ended up happening wasn’t significantly different.
I remember wondering if the Brotherhood was pretty much an invention by the Party that they kept in balance as they could not pose a significant threat even if they were given some leeway. I mean, Winston and Julia were pretty much allowed to resist for several months before being caught. And on the point of O’Brian writing some of Goldstein’s book, I assumed it would have been revised in any case and that’s where O’Brian’s involvement came in.
What struck me was that, when we actually got to read Goldstein’s book, it didn’t appear to be a revolutionary text; rather, it just seemed like the Party’s manifesto. It didn’t read, to me at least, like a condemnation of the Party’s methods, but an academic text on the subject. This also pointed to the lines between the Party and the Brotherhood being blurred, and overall made me feel like there was utterly no hope, as nothing existed outside of the Party’s control.
I’m summarising my arguments because I really could write about this for pages and pages, but I think I’ve already rambled on enough for a UA-cam comment.
@@kanuni1979 His doublethink was convoluted - in order to attract genuine rebels, he would need to be genuinely rebellious; but he was also fiercely loyal to the Party. O'Brien was the perfect representative of what Doublethink does when taken to the extreme - a genuine revolutionary and a genuine loyalist in the same body, the same mind, and weaponized to draw in other rebels.
I think it's possible; the entire book is built around the void of truth. There are arguments for both sides that are, masterfully, both mutually exclusive and easy to accidentally entertain together.
@@kanuni1979 he said you will never know if the resistance is real
Ironically
in the US the book was banned for being pro-communist until 1968
and
In the USSR it was banned for being anti-communist until 1991
The cool thing is, its ironic for two reasons, because the two countries banned it for opposite reasons (showing that theyre both stupid) and because they banned it, as in censorship, as in literally the thing the book is trying to warn us about.
It was never banned in the United States. It was, in fact, adapted for radio in 1949 and 1953 (both times by NBC) and for TV in 1953 (by CBS). It was widely understood at the time as being anti-communist. Anyway, not even the works of Karl Marx were banned.
@@leepicmeatball115 Anti-communism meant then and has always meant opposition to the system of the Soviet Union. Nobody's up in arms to oppose some land-of-milk-and-honey utopia that Marx and Engels dreamt up. Either Stalin was a communist or no person at any point in history ever was. Either Orwell was anti-communist or "anti-communist" is a useless term, like "pro-kitten burning."
@@leepicmeatball115 psst, socialism and communism aren't the same thing
1984 is a critique of *authoritarianism*, which combined with socialism creates communism
@@leepicmeatball115 communism isn't the fucking end goal of socialism you dumbass, what do you think socialist anarchists are?
*BEGONE THOUGHT*
r/woosh
I knew i was gonna find this here somewhere
haha
@@ottovonbisquick6996 dude I hope u realized u were the idiot here, not the other guy, if u still haven't I pity ur intelligence
😂🤣 "😮 Oh no! She's hot! I must resist!" 😂🤣
So fucking stupid.
One aspect of the book that I never see people really talk about is that, had the party not placed all those fake revolutionaries and spies in his path, Winston would never have rebelled by himself. He says multiple times that he likes his job, that he enjoys completing the tasks he's given, that he finds comfort in having a place in the world - it's only when party agents essentially lead him by the hand that he becomes "openly" rebellious, and is then punished for it.
Such a great book.
Jan 6th
That's a great point. I think something similar with Syme. He was totally loyal, not just unconsciously following the rules, but passionately believes the rhetoric and the hype. But the party just had to kill the creativity they couldn't control, It would've become a threat. The party has to push these people into either extreme so the fear can keep up. If it Let's up for a second it will lose authority.
I love that people are still talking about this book. Love hearing all the different perspectives
@BLOODY ANGORA the entire thing was planned out. look who was in charge of making sure there was a lack of security that day. they infiltrated message boards beforehand to rile people up. the day of is insane-totally instigated the crowd. had a guy on a megaphone giving the crowd orders. truth is out there. they're censoring the crap out of it-that's why they won't release the footage. this post will most likely be taken down. if you're interested i could tell you more. it's madness what they got away with. genius move to villainize opposition and scare them into not protesting while they destroy the country from within
@BLOODY ANGORA did you happen to ever look at what I posted?
I always thought what they're doing is weeding out any form of rebellious fire in the people, so all that's left are mindless sheep and nothing more.
Fun fact, the guy portraying Winston Smith is the late Sir John Hurt, who also played the guy who got chestbursted in the first Alien movie, Doctor Who, and the fascist dictator in V for Vendetta. So he played both a dystopian protagonist and a dystopian villain.
He was a great Caligula in I, Claudius as well
He also got chestbursted at the end of Spaceballs too!
I KNEW I RECOGNISED HIM FROM SOMEWHERE
And O'Brien was played by Richard Burton - his last movie role before his death. Makes the part where he mentions that all the power he holds cannot stop his own frail decay all the more poignant.
Funny how he got chest-bursted by an alien in one movie, but then obsesses over them to the point of near-insanity in another movie. Also funny, the one with his chest getting bursted was much better...
"Will probably get vaporized, not because he wasn't loyal, but because he was too honest with his loyalty" Great just can't win now can you?
Actually, in the book, he suspects he'll get vaporised because he's too smart for the tastes of the regime- not because he's too loyal. At least, that's how I remember it.
@@jackfables3470 yes and no. His faith for the party is so unshakable that the love put into his work of the newspeak dictionary and the way he discusses them is too passionate for a blue clothes member
Oh you can win! By being a complacent, unhappy, gaslighted, mindless, shellshocked and existentially broken person!
The party appreciates that you now take a couple of minutes to interiorize this definition of winning.
Honestly, no, there is no winning in a dystopia. That's WHY it's a dystopia. Those in power have set up a way to KEEP that power no matter what anyone does. In a "perfect" dystopia, even the act of rebelling helps those in power to win.
@@mechamonkeymancityboat7785 What I remember is that he had a problem is doublespeak. He was to smart and like Winston could see reality, but unlike Winston he was overjoyed to be a tool in the Party's mindcontrol tactics. He was double plus about erasing the media in which we express complex thoughts.
Honestly, the part of the interrogation/torture scene in the book that terrified me the most wasn't Winston being tortured for seeing four, or him agreeing that there were five fingers--it was the part between those... when O'Brien asks Winston how many fingers he's holding up and Winston *genuinely doesn't know*
I think Winston didn't know how many fingers he was SUPPOSED to say O'Brien was holding up. And thinking about the implications of that is a whole new kind of terrifying.
@@rachelguderjahn2231 that reminds me of talking to political extremists
@@rachelguderjahn2231 he saw both 4 and 5 fingers
The part that was the most scary and trippy for me was when he finally asked if Big Brother existed in the same way he himself and O'Brien existed, and O'Brien said "You do not exist".
@@nickygian He was basically “unpersoned” and no longer existed in society
In another online community, someone once said something about Big Brother not being real and I was, like, "So the whole Ingsoc thing was a delusion on Winston's part? That's an interesting take." And I pondered that for a while, finding the idea more and more intriguing.
I got a response, "No, more like how Uncle Sam isn't real." And, I'm, like, oh.
XD That's funny
Did they think Ingsoc was a literal thing?
The thing that really made me made when I read 1984 was realizing that O'Brian literally _set Winston up._ He gave him the book, he pretended to be a member of the rebellion, he asked Winston and Julia if they'd be willing to _throw acid in children's faces_ if the supposed rebellion told them it was necessary, to which they said yes. Then, O'Brien threw that back in Winston's face, saying that Winston was such a horrible person for agreeing to such a thing, even though _he_ was the one who suggested it. Furthermore, O'Brian explicitly says that they (the upper party members), simply don't care about anything but having power for the sake of having power. I mean, not that it's surprising that the people in power in a dictatorial society want to hold on to it, but the fact that he explicitly admitted that power was _all_ they cared about, not even trying to make excuses was disturbing. If someone makes excuses to rationalize their actions, it implies they're at least capable of feeling guilt and care about the difference between right and wrong, so it might be possible to get through to them at some point. But if someone just literally doesn't _care_ about right vs wrong, well it makes them seem less human (although, to be clear, it doesn't _actually_ make them less human).
When I read _1984_ it was in my senior year of high school in my lit class. We had previously read _The Screwtape Letters_ and _Paradise Lost_ and O'Brien's amoral behavior seemed all to similar to that of the demon Screwtape and the character of Satan from _Paradise Lost._ My final paper for that class was all about the similarities between the three characters.
"good thing the world isn't falling apart" this will never age well
yeah...
Yeah.
Yeah
yup
Yeah
One of those books where you’re convinced there’s going to be a triumphant/happy ending. But it just never comes and the last lines leave you with a feeling of crushing defeat.
How to tell if you are an optimist or a pessimist. Whether you thought the book would have a happy ending or a bad one.
@@dreadcthulhu5 I prefer to the third option: realist. Because anyone who sees a book by Orwell with the dystopia tag on and thinks it will end happily is either trying to fool themselves or hasn’t read enough.
I haven't read the book since I was a teenager, but one of the parts I apparently missed is the foreword or appendix, which frames the novel as a historical text discovered after the party fell apart and democracy re-established itself.
George Orwell may have crushed Winston and Julia, but he left that spark of hope in there for the rest of the country. Things got better eventually... just not in time for the protagonists.
It may even have been those acts of rebellion by those two that helped spur on the eventual downfall of Big Brother. Even if other only vaguely noticed the smallest fragment of what Julia and Winston did, or worked out what was done to them, it probably helped ferment and inspire unrest.
Or it could just be my desperate clawing of hope out of a tragedy. Either way, a damn good book!
Just like real life!
What I found most crushing about the book both times I read it was the hope. Even the first time I read it I was pretty sure that there would be no happy ending, but I hoped that there would be, I wanted there to be a happy ending so bad that it hurt more when the expected bad end came strolling along. I found that the same thing happened the second time I read the book, even though I knew the end of the story was not happy, I kept hoping that the book would turn out well this time around.
even if there wasnt a screen in the apartment, wouldnt their constant banging be heard from below?
"hey why is the bed squeaking upstairs"
"jumping on the bed probably"
Where do you think the thought police was all the time? ;D
It's later revealed that Charrington was actually a member of the tought police but even before that he's presented to Winston as a sympathetic character who values the ways of the past, teaches him old timey nursery rhymes and stuff and knows full well what Winston and Julia want the room for and approves, plus as a prole he probably isn't really aware about the rules about sex which apply to party members. Before Winston decides to rent the room he also mentions that noone really visits his shop because people don't care about objects of the past anymore so it's highly unlikely that anyone else would hear them, and since the shop is in a prole neighbourhood where party members shouldn't go and the shop itself is somwhere a party member really shouldn't be so on the remote chance that someone did visit the shop it'd be a prole who'd probably just assume it was other proles (who have much more lenient rules around sex) and anyway would be equally ignorant about the rules regarding party members having sex.
Meanwhile, Upstairs...
**Winston does the Kazotsky Kick on the bed while Julia laughs**
@@Temujin1206 maybe he was unsure and reported anyways
@@metaparalysis3441 No, Charrington really is a Thought Police officer. He initially has white hair when Winston first met him but it became black when he burst in the room with the other officers...
I couldn't help but bitterly burst out laughing at the part when when Winston was thinking "O'Brien would be vaporized. Parsons, on the other hand, would never be vaporized. And the girl with dark hair - she would never be vaporized either." A perfect example of how looks and actions in a highly surveillant society can deceive you. It's ironic how Winston could be so wrong.
Interesting movie detail: the actor who played Winston in 1984 (John Hurt) also played the dictator leader of the authoritarian group Norsefire in V for Vendetta - essentially the exact opposite role.
John Hurt was an amazing actor RIP
Another actor kicker ...
Cyril Cusack plays the shoppe owner (who is revealed to be a part of the Thought Police ... or thinkpol). He also played the Fire Captain in Fahrenheit 451.
@Random Number that is a tough one
There's a reason they call it "acting".
he also led two rebellions playing Hazel in Watership Down
When Winston's work place crush was mentioned, my brain forgot Julia existed for a minute and was like "yea Winston was definitely gay for O'Brian"
Looking at your PFP i can see why youd assume that lol
@@ZeroOmega-vg8nq can you elaborate on that?
@@jpearseed1179 I assume that your character is vaguely similar to anime, though more close to say, Steven Universe design. Zero saw that, read your comment, and assumes you're a lesbian.
@@anubis7457 I'm bi so they'd be close. Also a friend drew this for me.
Women aren't funny
The things that people find terrifying about this story is always interesting. The fact that Winston loses is the point from the very beginning. He is a man alone. He already lost, he just didn't realize it yet. He believed that deception was the path to freedom, not realizing that he was already very good at doublethink. He believed he was free in his mind while his body was imprisoned. He believed he could find a way to reality by cutting away the people in his life until it was just him, not realizing that that was the intended process, to cut away all the people that could stand beside him, to atomize his experience. The only truth he could trust was his own, so when it became clear that he could not trust his own experience, his own faith, his own hope (which ended up being a single person, who was also being tortured and he could not save), everything fell apart. The ultimate victory of the party is that each person transforms into a panopticon of self within a panopticon of others. Every person only has freedom in their own mind, becoming hyper aware of every thought and feeling, constantly afraid that some component of his rebellion will sneak past the carefully crafted defences, with this very fear being the sign that sneaks past the defences. If one does not wholly and completely commit to doublethink resulting in devotion, their doublethink turns to fear, lit like a blazing standard in a sea of complacency. By restricting pleasure, this creates a new mark. One who would seek pleasure forbidden by the party winds tighter and tighter, until pleasure is accessed by subversive means, releasing tension. A release of tension in a world defined by hate, fear, and control shines even brighter than the fear born of rebellion. Thus it becomes that all expressions of rebellion become instantly visible without the need for rebellion to be observed. It is enough for it to have an effect. The story is not terrifying for the ending, it's terrifying because it ends with nothing having changed. This journal is his death warrant. The rest was just set dressing, a way for the reader to understand the depth of control, and the character of complacency. It doesn't need to be everybody, just enough people, and enough people is a proportion not a number, and that proportion can be tightly controlled by creating boundaries of acceptable thought. Physical walls are largely redundant when there are walls built of thought. Party members are able to take action and gain information inaccessible to the proletariat, but because they are 15 percent of the population, one person has an outsized impact, meaning that they can apply much more devious and complicated methods of control that would be impossible to employ on the whole population. And then within this 15 percent there is the Thought Police, likely 15 percent of them, so that even a true, dyed in the wool rebel, seeking comrades, is willing to betray his comrades to stay in a position of power, become a master of complacent doublethink while torturing his fellow rebels. And it goes even further than that. The last thing said to him is that they will let him live, and that he will only find peace when he truly loves Big Brother. This can be interpreted as "we won't kill you until we win", but I think there is a deeper, more insidious meaning. If he can truly love Big Brother, then it means he has changed his opinion. And if he can change his opinion once, he can change it again, making him a far deeper threat than if he remained rebellious. It is obvious from O'Brien that rebellion isn't the real threat, it's change. Not change in the fashion of intentional construction, rather change in the sense of chaos. Right up until Winston loved Big Brother, he was predictable, manageable. But in that moment, oddly enough, he expressed freedom in it's truest form, and so needed to have all capacity for agency removed. He didn't lose because he was brainwashed. He lost because agency was the cardinal sin. Every step of his rebellion was carefully controlled, all of his choices provided to him in a perfectly curated hall of mirrors, right up until the one time where he inhabited his agency. Doublethink is not truly loving big brother. It is loving him deeply and hating him virulently /at the same time/. Being both revolutionary and cop in the same body.
Fun fact, I am doublethinking and I don't know how to stop. I love and fear everyone. I desperately desire intimacy and am repulsed by it. I need autonomy and need someone to control me. I love myself and hate myself. Chances are, you're doublethinking too.
Thanks for this analysis
Wow! 🤔😮😯😐😑🤐😶
I can only imagine the terror Orville fans were going through at the end of 1983
Heard it got better in 1985
@@flow185back to the future makes everything better
orville ???
@@flow185heard something else happened in 1987 in hurricane, utah
@@pomegranate10017 or whatever the author's name was, I don't know
There was a Soviet writer that made one of the first distopian books.
Its called "We". You guys should look into it. It is criminally under rated.
I’ve heard of it, probably should read it, likely will just google it cause I’m a prole with no time on my hands
In fact, 1984 was very heavily inspired by this book. I think 1984 is slightly better, but that goes to show I think We is phenomenal as well.
That's a very vague name, do you know the author?
@@LookingGlass69 Zamyatin. If you type in We dystopia it'll come up.
@@combustible287 cool, thanks
We read this book in my class, and when we were discussing the ending, we found out that some books censored the end in which Winston is killed by the Big Brother, and talked about how it changed the book's message. It was absolutely terrifying that someone decided to censor such a key part of the book, and if we never talked about it, we would have never found out.
Wait what?? Big brother killed Winston? When? What edition is this in
i dont recall this part in the book even though its heavily foreshadowed that engsos will execute him in due time, though not by bigbrother personally as he is a carefully crafted fictional character whose only purpose is to give face to the government
I had no idea there were versions that changed the ending, thats crazy. I remember him dying in the version I read. At the end when Winston has been brainwashed and is in the cafe, he sees Big Brother on a screen and starts crying (like the three guys it shows earlier on). He thinks to himself that he truly loves Big Brother, and then right after that he gets shot in the back of the head.
Irony
literally 1984
I read this book when I was either 12 or 13, since I was on a whole "Wow society is crumbling time to read up" kick. I remember that whole speech about removing words from the language left me feeling super unsettled. I had to physically close the book and take a breather. Because in some weird, awful way, it *made sense.* I, as a writer and a general fan of language, was not expecting to be slammed with something so awful and so uncannily plausible.
Edit: Also I was not expecting how much smut was in it lol, that left me somewhat off-kilter
Yeah. I read it at 14 and I was a bit surprised at the, uh, contents.
It's that reason why it's banned in other places like India. That and Huxley's Brave New World...
There are two 1984's in you:
1. Thought provoking warning about the dangers of authoritarianism and satire of Stalinist/Fascist/Capitalist societies
2. Porn with a plot
@@saucevc8353 not the ao3 tags asfbdajhfsjfd
@@saucevc8353 This is literally 1984s
While I think this was a brilliantly crafted video, I thought it was a shame you missed out the section where Winston believes that he can make part of his brain agree with O'Brien, but maintain his own beliefs behind it, hidden from even his own surface consciousness, but when the time comes for him to be shot, he'll pull his own beliefs back to the surface, and he'll think them. The bullet will then destroy his brain, leaving the party unable to fix what he had just thought, and his rebellious thought would exist in spacetime forever, unpunished. An invisible victory of reason over the party.
But as soon as Winston has considered this, O'Brien appears, and says something along the lines of: "You've had thoughts of deceiving me."
I personally think that might be the most terrifying section in anything I've ever seen, read, or listened to.
the reason O'Brien appears is because Winston screams about Julia.
*"1984 Was Not Supposed to be a Handguide...."*
Fun Times, ehs?
should have told me earlier!
An allegory?
@Olivia Bailey (student) Sadly 1984 in particular HAS come true. Telescreens are here...radicalization of the populace and more. "Alternative Facts" is Ignorance is Strength.
@@ferox965 Baby Bush said we create our own reality.
were doing this to ourselves. lmao we willingly buy phones knowing full well they know our location within 400 feet, we willingly give apps access to our camera, mic. bet hitler wishes apple was around so they could sell tracking devices that know everything about you marketed as convenient pieces of tech.
0:47 actually it was written in 1948 (hence why 1984 became the title) and was PUBLISHED in 1949. this wouldnt be important if not for the fact that Orwell wanted it to be published 1948 because of the popular support of stalin by the uk at the time. By 1949 public opinion was beginning to change and thus the novel was no longer too controversial for publication... which orwell resented as he missed the big oppurtunity to trigger all of Britain
So writers shamelessly cashing in on hot-button issues has always been a thing, as it turns out.
I would love to trigger Britain whilst in Britain, too bad I am an American. I know what'd trigger a large majority of Britain. *Pulls out a book called 'big book of facts' and starts listing every statistic of capitalism vs socialism and democratic republic vs every other type of government.* (Edit was due to an autocorrect at time of writing)
Orwell’s failing health probably contributed to the late publication of 1984 as well.
@@flyingturret208thecannon5 What? I think your statements are a bit too generalised there... Because I doubt every one of us thinks in exactly the same way. In fact, I'm sure we in Britain have differing opinions to one another...
laimonas šileika of course, but there’s usually two main POVs on political issues. I’ve heard rumors that Britain is stuck in a bubble, which, I’m stuck in my own bubble due to being conservative. I’d assume that a majority of Britain would be for one of the many liberal policies
So, I actually READ this book, but it was years and years ago and not so much fun that I feel like doing it again... but the thing is, I have this really clear memory that the story has a subtle 'framing device' built into the beginning and end that implies that the book actually exists in a later, less-dystopic world, after the evil party has fallen to a Proletariat uprising, after which Winston's old diary somehow gets discovered and then turned into a book to help show the people how utterly terrible the old government was. In other words, the framing-device suggests that Winston ultimately WAS RIGHT about the seemingly-invincible party eventually being brought down, and thus provides a subtle, uplifting finale for all the misery.
Problem is, I'm not sure if this is just a detail that tends to get ignored when people talk about the book because, ya know, if you bring up 1984 it's not to talk about how oppressive, fascist governments inevitably fall... or if it was something that was added by a publisher in some versions of the book in an effort to soften the unrelenting misery of its narrative, the same way stories sometimes get tacked-on happy endings or have downer finales censored away in order to appeal to a wider and less depressed audience.
Or perhaps I just imagined it. Memories can be so... unreliable.
Well, good thing you can check the book and see that the appendix that describes Newspeak is written entirely in the past tense. This is the only indication throughout the book (that I know of) that implies a happy ending.
@@candiman4243 Ah! That may indeed be the detail I am remembering - or, rather, various speculations and analyses thereof. Certainly subtle, but intriguing I'd say.
Is it possible that you're remembering the framing sequence from "The Handmaid's Tale"?
@@MadGabLunatic Never read OR watched that one, so it seems unlikely. :P
@@MadGabLunatic They have the same thing, to entirely different purposes. 1984 is about building the most complete authoritarian nightmare possible, but adds this because it does not believe such a thing can actually win - even this most complete domination will eventually be reduced t oa footnoe. The Handmaid's Tale is instead counting on the reader noticing that this forever-state of dictatorship is actually very recent, and that the elements of it that seem contradictory are not errors of writing but the entire point - Gilead is very new and very vulnerable, and like most authoritarian states only projects the image of timelessness. This also serves as a warning about just how quickly these things can come to pass.
I remember my English teacher saying that Big Brother could be a real person or not and the hierarchy of the party could be existent but nonexistent at the same time. This is where I think “double think” kind of comes to play. Obviously like the protagonist, I cannot double think for my life so it was hard to understand this book
Who even runs Oceania? Where is their Capitol? Is it in America? Australia? Where did it start? I love that these questions are all left unanswered, the highest authority figure we see is O'Brian and he's only the leader of the Ministry of Love... in London. Only London.
Big Brother as a character might not even exist
As someone who reads a lot of eldritch horror and is interested in Quantum physics this isn't very far-fetched to me, the same way a photon is a wave and a particle the party is the big brother and the system the governments it, capitalism isn't one guy making things it's the class system itself
In the first 40 seconds red basically just said "Childhood is a dystopia"
Or dystopias treat people like children.
I am 11 years old right now and I can confirm, childhood is a dystopia
@@caitlinanzovin1146 don't worry little one, you won't rememember these days in a bad light.
My ex and I both agreed that childhood sucks when we were together. Then one day after our divorce, my son came home and said that he asked his dad why there was no Kids' Day and he said "Every day is Kids' Day." And I was, like, "Oh, my God. They got him."
@@caitlinanzovin1146 tos breaker, laugh at and report this user
Ah, 1984, everyone's favourite book to use as an argument against the opposition.
yeah, but only the bad guys do it, you can trust me, my political beliefs are logical, and and based in science, I won't tell you what science, because that's what the bad guys *want* me to do
@@cediviannareeda4305 and if you honestly want to see the TRUTH, you will look for that evidence and science yourself, anything that contradicts it is false!
@@raiderfox7229 or, or, I trust the majority of scientists won't have some singular ulterior movtive or overarching unflappable bias, in other words, I trust scientists to do the one thing they became scientists to do
@@cediviannareeda4305 But the science is wrong because it inherently goes against what I've been told, and the people who told me that must know better!
@@raiderfox7229 I'm sorry, I took that in a very confontational direction
I totally agree on the initial reflection. Many children are treated like the people in 1984. Always watched, told what they should do and think, every aspect of their life controlled, and the most unlucky ones have people who'd gladly design room 101. I read it once and I'll say it until the day I die: children are people, not property.
i swear i've seen you in another comment section, i think it was a portal one
@@spytf2-pb3yo I've been in a lot of comment sections, Portal related too, so probably yes.
One of my favorite things about this book is how unreliable any of the information you get is. It's unclear if anything Obrien is saying is really true, or if there actually was a rebellion and the party is just pretending there isn't. By the end of the book not only is what Winston is hearing unreliable, but even the things he's thinking and his memories are unreliable, leaving the audience to try and figure out what is true in a sea of lies and half-truths.
Nice profile name.
Doesn't that break the story?
This feels like one of those “Get money and improve your life books” if it was written by Lovecraft.
If it were written by Lovecraft, then Big Brother would be eaten by Cthulhu and the members of The Party would be driven to madness by the Great Old Ones. Both of which I would pay good money to see!
AnimeboyIanpower i’d love to see a lovecraftian version of 1984
Also, there would be more racism.
@@AnimeboyIanpower but then you would also see the great old ones and go mad
@@bowmanc.7439 Who says I haven't already?
"V is for Vendetta" is what happens when you look at "1984" and go, "You know who would be the perfect opposition to Big Brother? The Phantom of the Opera!"
😂😂😂
Lmao Winston became big brother in that film
something something you can't kill an idea
@Goodman It didn't help that he wrote the title wrong.
Rofl
@@mikkalasse If you can't beat them join them.
In the U.S. Army, there's this phrase - "Perception is Reality." It's meant to remind you that if people think you're not doing the right thing, it's basically as bad as not doing the right thing.
Every time some one says it, I think about 1984. Reality is reality. Perceptions are what are fallible. That is all.
thats actually nineteen eighty fortnite
Really missed the point
It's also funny because of course the US military would engage in 1984-like behavior. 1984 was all about the use of endless war to brainwash and oppress people, and nobody knows more about endless and pointless wars than the US fucking Military!
truth is but a fable agreed upon all hail the party
Ok, so, I just read the book and in the last chapter there is a specific description of Julia. She has a scar on her forehead barely hidden by her hair. Am I wrong in my interpretation that she got a labotomy?
Who knows how she got her scar, have you paid attention to what they were doing to Winston? They made him love Big Brother, and didn't even have to use lobotomy.
Maybe? Lobotomies are performed by going around the eye and breaking the bone behind the eyeball to get into the brain. Foreheads got a lotta bone to get through.
O'Brien mentioned that they would use neurosurgeory to someday "abolish the orgasm." It might be they did that to her.
Maybe! Or basically what I thought when I read it was that they really had let the rats loose on her face. Yikes either way
@@paytonlewis3438 but they didn’t threaten her with rats. they only did that to Winston, because that’s what the worst thing in the world was to him.
it could be that the scar was from the thing they tortured her with in room 101, but i don’t think it was rats.
I remember reaching the end of the book in the dead of the night desperately waiting for a happy ending ( I had only read YA dystopia at this point) and it never came. It literally broke me and I started crying. I had never cried over a piece of literature or art ever before.
Fahar Lida Felt the same way reading Animal Farm. Those bastard pigs.
That’s... that’s the point...
I read 1984 right when I was wanting to read a book where the protagonists failed, so I was really happy with the ending. It was also middle school, so I don't think I got hit by the full weight of it.
Read the appendix.
1984's end was the downer to end all downers, yes, but I got a tiny bit of hope back after reading all the way through. The appendix is more or less an explanation of Newspeak and the new government and why it all was how it was.
Why is that so hopeful, you ask?
It's written in the past tense, from an objective, almost scholarly point of view. Implying that, at the time this account is written, the Party is long-gone.
@@f.i.r.e.5119 Fuck. I never thought about that. And I just finished the book yesterday AND read the appendix. I was thinking "Wait, why is it referring to Newspeak and the Party like it's still within the same universe?"
is it just me or is the kittens really distracting me from the words been spoken? *gasp red is trying to divert our attention from the truth! RED IS BIG BROTHER CONFIRMED
flappy fabby So... big sister?
The 2 Minutes of Hate just became the 2 Minutes of Love when she showed the kittens. The kittens have the ability to kill their human overlords, so Red is actually planning a kitten revolution so she became "Dank Empress, Big Sister of the World, Undisputed Kitten Wrangler."
Thomas Shealy purrfect
Holy cat yesssssss
Red Sister!!!
I remember reading Animal Farm by George Orwell (Before I even knew it was a required summer reading going into 9th grade pre-AP English) and enjoying the story. But the more I re-read the book the more and more I realized and picked up the subtle hints and messages. It always fascinated me, about how good the writing was and just how true it all was. 10/10
Do you have any examples of the subtle hints and messages?
@@airplanes_aren.t_real right off the top of my head I can think of how, in my opinion, Boxer’s motto “I will work harder” and how he eventually works himself to death in an attempt to achieve a better way life for himself and the other animals at the farm is possibly referring to/hinting at/ or however you want to say it, how in any economy but in this case communism people may have a tendency to assume that the problem to why their is so bad and has been steadily declining is a product of their own laziness even if that couldn’t possibly be the case because it was set up to be a losing battle at the start by those in charge and wanting to keep the less powerful/influential to busy with other tasks (important or not) that keep the poor to busy to worry about anything else other than their own/their family’s survival. So they, the poor, think that the way to counter act it is to just work harder, and harder, and harder until eventually they die all in attempts to create a better life for those after them even though doing so was in vain the whole time. Of course when they work harder there have to be minor improvements/minor progress to deceive the worker into thinking that what their doing is working when in reality it’s really not.
I don’t know if anything I said made much sense. I’m not always the best in transferring my thoughts to words and when I do I usually end up confusing whoever I’m talking to…
@@chrysaor5171 interesting interpretation, you managed to translate your thoughts into writing very well
I wonder what kinds of small rewards they give to people in communism
@@airplanes_aren.t_real Don’t know. I may wrong about that anyways. Don’t exactly have in depth knowledge about the inner workings of communism. Just the basics.
@@airplanes_aren.t_real Just realized I accidentally skipped over at least one word. When you think faster than type (or write) be like-
:’D
I always wondered why Winston feared rats so much. Apparently after his mother died, due to Winstons involvement he left the scene for a not definite period of time and later returned to his mothers face being eaten by rats. He had the trauma of her death plus the image of rats eating her and all of this caused by him and O'Brien found out. Then using that fear plus the fear of the rats eating his face, due to being right in front of him and O'Brien having control of the doors caused him to panic and scream to do this to Julia.
Honestly I just assumed the government deliberately raises its citizens to have extreme phobias of specific things just so they have something to torture them with if they become thoughtcriminals.
Winston's mother left the family home after he stole their chocolate ration as a young boy. It was suspected she died but never confirmed in the book, unknown to Winston himself.
“There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always, do not forget this, Winston. Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.”
O’Brien, 1984
Agh
But maintaining the boot-stamping is impossible. The party’s construction of society takes active effort or uphold while in any society there will always be a Winston or a julia. the party’s ideology will wear and tire but the eternal humanity of love and freedom will remain shining forever. Simply put, the party is not the natural state of things, and the status quo will always return because nothing lasts forever.
@@papapiggie6697 And? The construction they have created requires Winstons and Julias to stamp on and reconfigure. There has to be an enemy. "Goldstein and his heresies will live forever. Every day, at every moment, they will be discredited, spat on, held up for the rubbish that they are....and yet they will always survive." I've suspected the Telescreens are programming people. There's an oddity where Winston's handwriting changes entirely, and Parsons suddenly blurting Down with Big Brother in his sleep.
It doesnt matter if its right or left boot
It will still step on you
The movie movie "Brazil" (1982) really seems to be about 1984 by George Orwell, especially calling the government propaganda machine the "Truth of Ministry."
The most depressing moment when the narration said "HE TRUELY LOVED BIG BROTHER" and the most hopeful part was during the appendix the narration uses past tense while talking about the party, which means that the party eventually fall.
Who knew hope could come from a simple change of tense?
While I find it hard to believe Orwell would write for so long about how big and scary the party is then only to hint at its destruction in the appendix, Orwell is very clever in his wording, so I wouldn't put it past him to do that
Even if the party did collapse, that might not be necessarily a good thing. The vast majority would unfortunately be too brainwashed and uneducated at this point to know what a humane or democratic society would look like and would probably be devastated and angry if their beloved party suddenly disappeared and stopped supplying them with food and entertainment. Rather than sunshine and rainbows, it would be a horrifying post-apocalyptic Mad Max-esque world in absolute violent anarchy where everyone’s out to kill each other for food and supplies.
for all we know thats what the 'party' wants us to think. To have hope and then pull the rug from under us. just being cheeky.
@@pancakes8670 It's true though. A society like 1984 is a short-lived one and will collapse on itself. I'm sure Orwell is not disillusioned with this and the destruction is inevitable.
This book was given to me by my 7th grade english teacher who was trying to help me with my bad habit of launching into 20 min diatribes of why the school system was corrupt and ultimately geared toward control rather than learning.
The diatribes increased, and now I'm one point short of being an anarchist.
Wait, so was she agreeing with you or disagreeing with you,this book is more about how the main protagonist long for change but cannot speak out due to fear of being killed. So was your teacher encouraging you to speak out more or nudging you to stay complicit
And than everyone clapped
"This is like when people get banned from Twitter" - thinker of high level ideas
@Nish The Great a right to free speech isn't a right to a megaphone
1984 is a horror novel: change my mind
How can I change your mind if it’s factually correct?
@split haven How?
@split haven What did I do wrong?
BB has not said it was a horror novel
It is indeed a phycological horror to reveal the horrors of reality when humanity stops holding itself accountable for suffering and the balance of power is destroyed
How the party discouraged creativity is striking. Syme is a thoughtful and talented man, and he is more loyal to the party and the Ingsoc ideology than the rest of people in the room combined. He is the only one who is not blindly following, but truly believed with real passion. Yet the party saw a need to remove him, in case he somehow became a danger in the future.
Winston thought that Parsons would survive because he's basically an animal who just accepts whatever the party tells him... but then Parsons also gets arrested in the end. Its baffling
And so he got *vapourized*
@@pancakes8670 I fully believe that Parson's daughter fabricated his father's sleepy confession. Parsons was too loyal and stupid.
That was probably inspired in large part by Stalin. During his reign of terror, people were not allowed to paint portraits if they weren't portraits of him.
Not that this is something unique to him. You can find similar restrictions in extremist religious sects as well.
1984 is one of the most depressing classics I've ever read. I thought Wuthering Heights was depressing, but that's bright and cheery compared to Oceania. I think you're right too. People seem to either misquote or over-quote 1984, or maybe over-simplify it. It's much more in-depth than we think. Orwell put a lot of thought into it.
I definitely would not be a V. Probably a Winston, except not smart enough to get away with it for very long (or lucky enough to get laid before my inevitable end).
IT WAS A DEPRESSING MOVIE TOO.
I was fascinated with double-think when I first read this book as a 12 year old child. It's genuinely horrifying but also incredibly easy to do once you master the trick. So for a couple of years I falsified plenty of my own memories just for funsies. Now I can usually remember both the "real" memory and the "fake" memory, but I can't remember which is which.
I also think "newspeak" is incredibly interesting! In alt-right movements, incel forums, pedophile "support groups" (recruitment groups) there's a dogmatic form of language that uses memes, portmanteaus, acronyms and even new greek or other forms of language to stifle unique thoughts about the movement. Super interesting!
nineteen eighty fortnite
You indoctrinated yourself to apply a dystopian concept to your brain IRL when you were 12. _On purpose._ *For fun.* *_And you succeeded._*
That is a mix of stupid, impressive, metal and funny I've never seen before; congrats 👏
well that or you made this up for internet points but that's boring so I'm going with my first assumption
@@anonguy772 I assure you I've not made it up. For example here's one I remember very well.
It's Thanksgiving. But for some reason the butter dish is not on the Thanksgiving table, but on the coffee table. I have two memories of the events that occurred. One is where I took the butter and put it on the coffee table myself. The other is where my Dad put it there. I remember deciding to falsify one of the memories, but I don't remember which one I faked. Did I put the butter on the coffee table in order to fake the scenario? Or was the butter being on the coffee table so weird and random that I spontaneously decided to doublethink then and there?
The other one I remember well is playing Truth or Dare with my friends. I was asked to do something incredibly embarrassing. But for the life of me I can't remember what it was, because I was so embarrassed I spent the next year making up alternate embarrassing scenarios for that Truth or Dare session. I must have come up with twenty memories or more. I remember kissing a boy. I remember taking my shirt off, making a stupid face, kissing one of the girls. It's possible the real event isn't even one of the ones I remember now, because all of them are equally both clear and fuzzy in my mind. This one worked especially well since the more often I imagined fake scenarios, the more often I would pretend the real one was also fake, to the point where I found myself questioning if the Truth or Dare game even happened at all, or if I made the whole thing up in my head.
There were other times I remember attempting it and it working, but now both the true and fake memories are so fuzzy I don't remember any of it.
I think part of why I stopped is because soon after I spent a lot more time online, and it's incredibly difficult to convincingly fake your memories, when you have access to records of everything you've been doing. Nowadays, if I say something embarrassing it's probably on Discord or a text or email and easily checked. Photos on Facebook would act as reminders of the true events, etc etc. It requires a certain level of distance that's harder to achieve.
EDIT: For the truth or dare one, I wanna make it clear that I falsified those memories on purpose. I remember being aware that if I made up enough scenarios, I wouldn't remember which one was real. I realize when rereading it that it sounds more like I gaslit myself, which is sort of true, but I also knew what I was doing. I could have stopped at any time, and I would probably remember the event a lot better, but I actively chose not to do that lol.
@@seqka711 congrats, you gaslit yourself
@@metaparalysis3441 Gaslit Gatekept Girlboss'd
"This is probably also why the chocolate is so bad"
Careful Red, your ace is showing
Gracen Blackwelder the chocolate in the novel probably tastes like cheap chocolate or rubber. And I'm also an ace who loves chocolate
Chocolate's good, as long as it's not super cheap.
Gracen Blackwelder I theorize that dark chocolate isn't actually delicious and it's just a lie the hets tell us to keep us from the delicious white chocolate.
Dread Pirate Robin .....what does that have to do with chocolate....?
What the hell does any of this mean
"Imagine a boot, crushing down on a human skull, forever"
Face, it’s face
The sad thing is that's probably someone's fetish
@Elalae La oh god
@@CineMasterDamian Rule 434, if it exists, it's probably someone's fetish.
@@ButWhyMe... Did you go through that book just to say that???
Hello guys, I've read in the comments that people found different endings as some editions of the book censored the ending, so I wanted to clarify this: I've read the book in Italian translation (2nd edition), and apparently, in the 1st edition, his death is only foreshadowed, while in the 2nd edition, it's explicit, so he dies. Essentially, when he leaves the Ministry of Love, he believes in everything the Party says but doesn't love the Party. They set him free as his worldview has changed, until the announcement of a battle victory. Upon hearing this, he realizes he loves the Party and Big Brother, and soon after, the Thought Police take him to a dark alley and kill him.
Interestingly, that's not the "true" ending of the book. The last pages are "Notes," written in the past tense and seemingly useless, as they're not mentioned elsewhere, and you discover them only after finishing the book. At that point, you already understand their meaning, and this is intentional because the notes are written by someone otherthan the author. The notes are in the past tense because the Ingsoc no longer exists; they were written in a future where the Party had fallen. Thus, the book serves as a "history book." Why else would anyone living during the Ingsoc era need to know what Ingsoc is?
4:58 (the panel explaining thoughtcrime):
I also find it funny how many people complain of “Orwell’s nightmare” when a website removes overtly racist, homophobic, etc, content.
This video was doubleplusgood.
I was going to say that :(
:)
thirteenfury exactly
Best comment ever! Lol
I see what you did there
Dylan [Smith] maybe it's only ridiculous because its unfamiliar
As I've grown older and broadened my understanding of politics, I begin to see why 1984's seemingly apolitical depiction of totalitarianism works so well.
Totalitarianism, at its core, does not actually care about political philosophy. Only _Power_ .
Which is to say, whether it's Fascist or Communist, the result is the same. Because the forces that drift societies and governments toward autocratic control don't really care what philosophy they champion. The people who form Totalitarian governments use ideas like Communism, Capitalism, Nationalism, Socialism, Racial Superiority, and Religion as tools to gather popular support.
The Nazis, for instance, called themselves "National Socialists", despite that not really be accurate to their goals and philosophy in practice. They just knew that both Nationalist and Socialist Germans would respond positively to a political party that appeared to support those ideas. It's also why the Nazi Party embraced Neo-Classicalism, Science (both legit and pseudo-), and the Occult. These things weren't really important to the folks in charge of the party, they just lent the regime popular support and an air of legitimacy. Actual examinations of Nazi science reveal half-baked theories and hogwash meant to justify racism and antisemitism, while Nazi occultism embraced a mish-mash of ideas from throughout the world, even if some of it (like what they cribbed from India) failed to support the Germanic critical race theory Nazism was going for. Major Scientific and Occult "experts" in the party gained and lost favor with said party, depending on what was most politically convenient at the time.
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, you have both the Soviet Union and China. The USSR's founders spoke at length of the Communist utopia they promised, yet didn't actually have a _plan_ for how their new government would transition from state-controlled command economy to collectivist paradise. They ushered in the new regime, and assumed it would work itself out. Unsurprisingly, it did not, as various Soviet leaders spent more time consolidating power, destroying rivals (real or imagined), and making life miserable for the Russian people. China, meanwhile, has almost completely abandoned Communism as an economic policy, preferring to embrace Capitalism _alongside_ their Command Economy. It's gotten to the point where modern university students and proponents of Marxism in China have been persecuted _by the Chinese government_ , because these students keeping want to promote the rights of workers.
Yes, _Communist China_ is so far removed from its stated goals that it is punishing protestors for _championing Communism_ .
With this in mind, the government depicted in 1984 makes much more sense. It's a state that has reached late-stage Totalitarianism. All pretenses used to establish the regime have long ago fallen away, and indeed are subject to change depending on what Ingsoc finds most convenient at the moment.
The system - the institution - exists solely to perpetuate itself. No matter how much it must control the actions, words, and even thoughts of the citizens.
This is a really great comment. I got nothing to add just wanted to say that.
This is a great comment, and while I would contest parts of it, I think that the core idea is fairly insightful and true.
You're just... So spot on! I wish I could sum up my thoughts on this book this well because I had the same feeling when I read it recently.
At the start I was looking for clues as to whether The Party was supposed to be left or right leaning. And then at the end when O'Brien tells Winston that their only motivation is power it really clicked for me; The Party is just distilled totalitarianism.
that is why socialism=communism is bullshit, you can have capitalism+socialism where capital promotes well being and can have communism-socialism when the state owns everything but doesn't care about the work laws
@Jorge Alejandro Paez
It's not tho.
Nazi are far right.
The left- right spectrum failed in the 1910s, wich is why the authoritarian - anarchist (big/small government) was added, crating the political compass.
Obviously there are other ways to think about it but none of them hold much water.
Interestingly; Orwell actually took a lot of inspiration from his time working at the BBC for the ministry of truth, a lot more thank parallels to Nazi Germany or the USSR. This was because he basically was forced to report blatant mistruths just because it would increase moral and help war time attitudes.
The book was not just a critique of the totalitarian regimes of yestderyear, but a board critique of authoritarian behaviours that states behave in.
1984 is a harsh read.
"A boot stamping on a human face-for ever.”
that one moment when Winston realized the old guy was actually a thought police this whole time was the biggest bruh moment in literature
O'Brien?
Legit
@@AinsleySunny no mr charrington
i like how ‘bruh moment’ is both so right and so wrong to describe that scene
god i love it when gen z describe books.
"Encouraged to report even on their closest comrades."
That's how my great grandfather ended up in Gulag. Apparently he had a book by a banned poet.
Holy shit that's awful. I read about how that would happen in school but it was sadly just a passing footnote.
My grandpa’s brother was a prisoner of Zion. Probably for the same reasons
yup, my morfar was sent to a "work camp" during WWII after being turned in by his best friend
@@Grim_Sister עכשיו אתם בארץ?
dynadude כן, הוא נפטר לפני כמה שנים
This book changed my life. My views on politics, economy, human nature, history... all completely changed after reading this book.
What disappoints me is how people talk about the WHAT and the HOW of the dystopian government, but no one ever mentions the WHY: "The intoxication of power."
George Orwell’s last warning : “There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: don’t let it happen. It depends on you.”
“Good thing the worlds not falling apart right”
*laughs in 2020*
laughs in real life hunger games
quote didn't age well.
Hi Dave I’m Dave.
@@Stephanie-sy9oy hi dave strider
Oh lord...
This was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual
omfg lmAO
Society😢😢
@@EggBoxGaming115 joker
OMG, this is so deep. 😭🤔😂😭🤔👆👄😴😢🙄👍
Well, look at the extracts from Goldstein's Book. It explains so much, it's easy to try and use it's words as guidance.
To me, the scariest part is them both betraying each other, but that part also gives me some hope. Some people will do anything to protect someone they love, some people would face the rats and take it.
Doesn't the book say that nothing matters when there is physical pain involved? As in it doesn't matter how much you love a cause or a person, if they torture you enough you'll say or do anything to make it stop, because you're only thinking of the pain. Don't get me wrong, I love the "No, not them, hurt me!" trope, but from what I've heard, the survival instinct tends to get very selfish.
@@tarniabook3076 that’s true in some cases. But what about a mother getting tortured to protect her child? A parents instinct to protect their child is greater than their need for survival, it’s etched into their DNA. So yes I think that physical pain is not always overpowering… and I think that their is some hope😅😭
@@eviannecasey6685 With the way Room 101 works, they'd probably start torturing the kid instead, in order to guilt the mother into surrendering and loving Big Brother (bc the mother's worst fear is, presumably, her child getting hurt or killed while she's not able to protect them). Like "All your child's pain and misery can end RIGHT NOW if you just admit you love Big Brother! If you continue with this nonsense, your child will be killed and it will be YOUR fault!"
And if not? They'd just drag them both out back and shoot them, then wipe them from the records :S
I want to read the book but I also know the feeling of hopelessness and defeat would be even more poignant if I knew the whole story and I don't know if I can handle that with the dystopia-like reality that has been the past few years
Well it could easily leave you feeling "holy heck I sure am glad I don't live *there* "
12:17 I remember describing this to a friend as “he finds her attractive for political reasons”
And he's just so, SO angry at her because she's part of the Anti-sex league and she'll never sleep with him. Would you think she might, if didn't have that red sash?
I think it's also incredible how much the narrative of similar stories have shifted. It makes the whole thing jarring to younger people that are fed more heroic rebellion stories.
When i read 1984 i remember very vividly the scene where Obrien asks how many fingers he has held up. And i remember that i once asked the same question as a kid, i would ask my mom why four was named four and not five? And why 2 plus 2 is four and not five? So it really struck a chord to have something so close to home be used in such a terrifying way, moat of what obrien said resonated with 5 year old me believing that reality is just how you percieve it, and that if everyone in the world said 2 plus 2 is 5 then it would be 5 because truth is subjective to the masses but objective to the individual. And that last scene, the last paragraph where winston is walking and he sees a poster that says that big brother loves you, and he loves big brother before he died struck an even deeper chord because it wasnt a loss for winston, in his subjective reality, he was happy, but it was a loss for the masses, because all hope is extinguished and all hope is lost. One of the most life changing books ive ever read, and great video, you just gained a new subscriber
I personally see 1984 as a messed-up reversed Hero's story, where Winston is at odds with the status quo and goes on the journey to stop it. But instead of changing the world, the world changes him and he feels at peace, like his actual journey was to be "normal" again. It might sound weird, but I believe it's an interesting thought.
hypatia forest I would argue more of its commentary on a dystopia. Once a true tyrannical government with a healthy dose of dystopian future comes about, there's nothing you can do about it.
Until it inevitably collapses due to mismanagement. Newspeak alone would have degraded the intellectual capacity of the party leadership (which has to come from children after all) until they simply couldn't govern effectively. The internal security agency's stop being so effective and the whole thing breaks down. Think of it as nature's backup plan.
That or massive plague wipes out so many people it's not sustainable and society collapses, one way or another.
But the point is that even machines can collapse, one way or another, maybe not quickly, but in time. Tyrannies will always end up over thrown, or so thoroughly destroyed so that a new order can arise. It is cyclic. life leads to death, and death to life. The bad will give rise to good, and the good to bad, no matter how metaphorical, indirect or even directly it is caused.
@Josiah Sepulveda If it's worth anything to you, there have been dictionaries and whatnot of Newspeak published, and they heavily imply that by the time of writing, IngSoc has fallen.
@Josiah Sepulveda The appendix of the book. It contains a dictionary for Newspeak, the constructed language of the Party, and the language it's written in, and the terms it uses to refer to the Party, heavily indicate that the Party has been overthrown.
"The Beginner's Guide to Eating The Rich" I'm crying
Step 1: turn on that one Motorhead song and CRANK THAT SONUVABITCH UP!
I swear the 'You are the dead' line was the only time I've been jumpscared in a book.
nineteen eighty fortnite
Had a math teacher that was one of my favorite teachers in Middle school recommend this book (Animal Farm too) to me. I loved it as this dystopia struck with me forever for such a very interesting concept of super nations and crazy authoritarian governments. "War is Peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" is something I still think to this day and possibly one of my favorite quotes/lines from any novel. The movie with John Hurt was pretty solid and I thought the movie's track for the INGSOC anthem is beautiful for a super nation that exists in this dystopia. I had to read it again for English class in High School and I seem to enjoy it more and more each time I reread it. Thanks Mr Huttner for such a great recommendation
This is my second time watching this and I have to say the book, when I read it in middle school, really struck a very unpleasant chord with me because I experienced gaslighting as a child and still as an adult occasionally find myself thinking things like "just because I remember it doesn't mean it actually happened."
That's really something no one should be able to relate to. I'm sorry
Same
I once convinced myself that I was making up needing glasses because of the gaslighting I experienced as a child (I was often told I was making up everything from colds to spiders to seeing my ex-stepfather breaking things and worse). I can't see the big E at the top of the chart without them.
Fortunately it was pretty easy to check reality in that case, but the fact that I still ran into that thought process as an adult... Gaslighting is the worst.
It sucks that you had to go through that too, but you're not alone in it.
@@revan552 sure, but once you remove the gaslighting, you pretty naturally and easily learn how to sort that out, and it's not the most helpful reminder during the process.
Sometimes
Thinking your memories are false is terrifying. I hope you're healing well
"Recuperate with kittens" was the best part of my day.
Edit : Never mind, i saw the rest of the video. Feel good novel of the century indeed.
10/10, Helped overthrow the party, keep the girl, and keep my mind, would recommend.
I love that you actually took a moment in the thought crime explanation slide to say "people telling you that you're a dick for being a dick doesn't make it a police state"
The addendum at the close of the book is core to the text and needs to be mentioned in any reading of the book. It's a short breakdown of the way Newspeak and other Party social mechanisms would work, but it is written entirely in-world, and it starts with 'Newspeak WAS-'. This is a vital component of the book's message, as is this small explainer being written as though to an audience who has probably never even heard of any of these concepts before, or if so wouldn't understand them - it is saying that no matter how vast, overwhelming and total the power of this dictatorship may seem, it is destined to be defeated, and defeated so comprehensively it will one day also be a simple footnote in another book. Big Brother is not a book about authoritarian practise winning forever, it is a book about what it looks like when it thinks it has won, even though it will eventually lose.
Notice how Winston guesses oposite motovations for each person. The lady being the spy and o brian being good. When the reverse is true.... if he was just better at judging people motivations.
Damn you spoiled me a 100 years old book. Jk
@@csharpcoffee almost
@@csharpcoffee jsjshs
Oa
Except iirc in the book O'Brian mentions that coming across as secretly one of the good guys is 90% of his job. He mentions things like the subtle twinkle in his eye that indicates intelligence and wit. Wilson is a smart sheeple who is working his way out of sheepledom, but all he has to work with for training is sheeple. Yeah, if he could judge people better it would help, but he was outclassed because The Party had guaranteed he'd never had the chance to develop the necessary skills, while also having an expertly trained opponent available in just the right position to catch people like him.
Taking a math class in this dystopia must be hell. One day the answer to 1x-7=6 is x=-1 and the next it’s 5. Good luck on your test.
It would be more like.
1 nuke= 300,000 heretics burned.
1 bullet=1 captured savage executed. 1 nuke+ 300 bullets still equals 300,000 firing bullets into nuclear explosions won't cause more death
Don’t be silly, you wouldn’t go to school in 1984.
@@sajanpatel4956 r
Lol
1x-7=6
+7 = +7
1x =13
x=13
To this day, 1984 is the most soul-crushingly depressing book I've ever read.
Loved this video! Having read 1984, listening to someone else's thoughts and in-depth analysis without the frills and pompousness of usual literary analysis is great! More Classics Summarised would be amazing!
That reminds me of a question I heard one time on a certain Warhammer related channel.
"Which would be worse, an evil tyrant who knew he was evil, or an evil tyrant who thought he was good?"
That feels oddly relevant to this episode.
@mrE365
This is why, in fiction, the best villains tend to be the ones who think their intentions pure. They're significantly more believable.
Personally I think villains like Kirei Kotomine from the fate franchise the more compelling archetype for villains. He knows what he's doing is wrong yet tried his hardest to be good until giving in to his dark urges.
@mrE365 As someone once said somewhere: "Your villains are the opposite team's heroes!" It gives villains motivation and makes them relatable.
Except in 1984 there really is no opposite team. Which imho improves the "villainy" even more, because reading it I immediately felt it was fishy; I suspected Goldstein to be a hoax. And still the 'revelation', if you will, hit really hard. You just cannot win in any way, shape or form in the long run. Hence you should celebrate the small victories while they last.
In a way, Big Brother is a tyrant that really doesn't care too much if he's evil or not. "He" believes himself to be RIGHT, and that is all that matters.
The thing is, according to O'Brien's rant at the end, the Party is actively seeking to make people suffer simply because they can. A government that sees the future as 'a boot stamping on a human face forever' is one that knows that they're evil, in my opinion.
So, basically, the leader of Animal Farm VS Adam Susan (the tyrant in the GRAPHIC NOVEL VERSION of V For Vendetta) ?
One thing I absolutely love about the movie: when Big Brother is shown, look at the way the people pose. The pose is symbolic in two ways: firstly, the citizens have their arms crossed, reflecting the slogan "ignorance is strength". Secondly, it looks as if these people have their hands tied, symbolising how they have embraced the prison that is their lives.
These videos are so good. Your ability to summarize complex themes and ideas in a way that's both super quick and still reasonably understandable is wicked impressive.
“After you finish it there is nowhere to go but up!” Unless you are me and choose to immediately start reading Handmaid’s Tale just to really kick yourself while you’re down.
"Propping up straw men and tearing them down in a show of strength"
Nope, that's not happening on every single major media outlet, nope that's not happening at all...
I don't know about cable news, but I don't really see that much in decent newspapers, other than the occasional idiot they let do an opinion piece. You know who I do see doing that constantly? Conservative talking heads like Ben Shapiro, who either completely make up stuff, or will talk to hundreds of people and then show two or three idiots who either completely misunderstand the point, or who just suck at debating, and say that they "Owned libs with facts and logic." I'm not making up the numbers of people they talk to to get those, I'm at a major college in a state that's decently conservative and I've seen a few people, mostly pro lifers, with a bunch of cameras harassing everyone who walks by trying to get them to debate them (I once debated one and he just made the same three points over and over, after I had already answered those, because, turns out, these people can't actually debate someone who has taken even a single debate class).
Just look at Ben Shapiro trying to debate that British guy (who was a conservative by British standards), and ending up just making ad hominem attacks and leaving early. They can only debate strawmen and people who have put no thought into their positions.
@@auroraourania7161 A vital part of any successful alt-right platform is to misrepresent, embellish or outright fabricate. I recently came across a Paul Joseph Watson video on cultural relativism. Despite the extremely favourable like/dislike ratio (98% or so positive!) I didn't have to look him up to realise the foul tactics he used to prove a point. Suffice it to say, I was not surprised to find out he's affiliated with InfoWars once I did look him up.
A decent chunk of the examples he provided were in some way or another related to Sweden. Great! That made it awfully convenient for me to research the stories beyond the sentence or two provided in the short video. One particular example was summed up into:
"Foolish Swede girl, Zaida Catalán, goes to Congo. In her political career she's expressed support of open borders. wHaT hApPeNeD tO hEr? Beheaded on film and thrown in a shallow grave."
It doesn't explain WHY she was there or what she was doing. In reality she wanted to make contact with the Kwamina Nsapu rebels who are known to rape and employ child soldiers while giving them drugs. Bad idea? For sure. Foolish girl? No. She was a journalist on a mission to expose high ranking military officials. Somehow they got a hunch of this, which she reportedly became aware of a couple days before she, Micheal Sharp and their escort was lured into trap. The film was published by the government in an attempt to make it look like the rebels killed her, they fucked up though because the guy who gives the orders is giving it in a language that's liable to get you killed around the real rebels.
Let me say this again. She was not foolish. She had used a pen-looking object to get military officials on tape bragging about having commited atrocities. This was later followed up by legal action against the officials because the pen with the incriminating evidence had not yet made its way back to her when she was executed. The only way this could fairly be summed up into one sentence is mentioning that she was a journalist who died in the line of duty, neither of which seemed to be of any interest to our resident dickhead Paul. Probably cuz his career in journalism will never carry the same weight that hers did... Nah I'm joking, obscuring that fact because of a personal insecurity would be mild compared to the real motive.
(source: Staffan Lindberg)
Were some of the other examples he put forward more in line with his neatly summed up version? Yeah, I won't deny that (most *are* missing nuance though). Is putting them side by side with Zaida Catalán fair? Fuck no! Someone get this guy an InfoWars tattoo on his forehead so people know to stay away... This is textbook propaganda shit for fucks sake.
@@auroraourania7161
I watch his show from time to time (I don't necessarily agree with everything the man has to say), and I have yet to see something he just simply completely made up. Please provide an example, cuz I do not see what you're saying.
I see what you describe FAR more on the Left end of the spectrum. For example: Russia-gate, the various people promoting the (exaggerated to the point of being a) myth of the wage gap, the insistence that Antifa aren't violent communist street thugs, etc. However, this is NOT to say that it doesn't happen on the right at all. For example: the birther conspiracy theory, the "Planned Parenthood sells baby parts!" idiocy from a while back, 95%-99% of the stupid shit Alex jones says, etc.
Things tend to be far more nuanced than "right wing man a liar and bad".
Jake Schaafsma ah yes, generalise an entire group of people just because of someone you don't agree with and some idiots who're a part of that group EVEN THOUGH the other side is also filled with idiots who complain about every little tiny thing.
Do YOU know who I constantly see doing that? People defending Antifa, people claiming that the wage gap is real, every major left-wing media outlet like Vox that likes to villainise anyone who disagrees with them, I think you're aware of Big Red and Anita Sarkeesian, and many many more idiots who belong to the left side.
You're talking awfully terribly at Ben Shapiro, yet give no example of what he said or did that was stupid. And all those compilations of Ben Shapiro 'destroying liberals', you realise they're not made by him nor does he think he's 'destroying' anyone, right? Please actually watch some of his videos instead of "he has different political views, therefore he's bad even though I know nothing about him". Oh, and that interview? You realise some people can still make mistakes right? Not everyone is a saint and not everyone is 'right' all the time. And it's rather conviennent that you said nothing about the British guy who was being a jackass and asking irrelevant questions and was only trying to rile up Ben. But noooo, Ben was the bad guy in that interview...
I've seen plenty of sexist people on the left side and people who hate men and white people as well. I don't live in America (or the west in general) so I don't experience your environment but I've literally seen college campuses that don't allow white people for whatever reason, and I've seen actual videos of people beating up the people who voted for Trump and I've seen people who are pro-abortions believing that if a woman got pregnant the father has no right or opinion on whether or not she can abort the baby or not, yet if the woman decides to have the baby the father must 'man up' and provide and support her and the baby.
So yeah, conclusion is you're biased af. There are liberals AND conservatives who're terrible, shocker huh? That there's always some bad apples in every batch?
@@louisaniathemagnificent8246 people are stupid, may God help the world one day figure out as a whole who those people are
"Sounds like Revolu-" * gets shot in the head*
Joshua Hoener
No you would get sent to room 101
Viva le revolution
Though published in 1949, he wrote it for the most part in 1948-see how that’s fun? 1948/1984? That’s what we were told while reading it in class, and back in 1984 at that! Timing is everything!
Nice treatment and I’m loving your commentary!
This is the second video I watched that has gone on about online assholery being somehow incorrectly usurping newspeak for their own purposes! How dare they! Can someone maybe explain what that’s about? I’m old and give little attention to assholes on the Internet!
after reading the book, I was like "that's it?! he gets brainwash and so is her girlfriend and the world they are living is still cruel world."
Then my professor was like "Yep and it sucks. Some people won't always have the hero's ending we all dream of."
10:44 “water is wet” YET SOME WOULD DARE TO SAY THIS MAN IS NOT AN INTELLECTUAL
"Doublethink" sounds an awful lot like cognitive dissonance and gaslighting
As was explained in the vid, doublethink is a mental means of getting around cognitive dissonance, where you fundamentally recognise something is wrong. It absolutely is gaslighting, but doublethink is where you allow to contradictory ideas to coexist without conflict, whereas cognitive dissonance is the understanding that two ideas are in fact conflicting.
It's gaslighting without cognitive dissonance I think
Formal if you self-inflict it, latter if it's from the outside.
@@mccookies3664 no, it's both, and it's neither, and their's 4 of them
There is no better example for it than to say doublethink is where you believe 2+2=5. And in your mind, it's true.
I was 11 when I read this book and I completely understood the hopelessness of not having clear cut lines of what will and will not get you punished. As a kid from an abusive family it felt familiar to be scared and confused by authority that you have absolutely no power to speak up against.
The torture scene in particular really frightened me because I knew what gaslighting was like even though I didn't have the words. "I decide what the truth is and everything that paints me in a negative light is a lie and will get you punished" was a familiar sentiment in my house.
I was in a similar situation so I'm afraid i genuinely don't understand your reaction, and thus the reactions of those in the book. My reaction to that sort of oppression was to dig in harder and refuse to give my abusers what they wanted. It came naturally, with no effort to maintain it. So can you explain, if that's not asking too much? I apologize if it is.
@@BJGvideos People react to trauma differently so that's really no surprise. My response tended to be a mix of "this is all I know, so that's just how parents are" and on the other side "keeping my head down, being obedient and never disagreeing will get me punished less". Keep in mind, I was just a little child with very little life experience. All I knew was life inside my family.
I don't wanna dismiss or diminish your experience but maybe you were just never at that breaking point where you had to weigh your options between rebellion and survival.
@@lightsideofsin8969 Well that's just it, I WAS, and I figured it would never get any better if I did nothing. I feared for my life quite frequently, so I figured things couldn't get worse if I tried to change them.
@@BJGvideos Again, people respond to trauma differently and our experiences probably weren't exactly the same. These things are not universal or easy to quantify. I don't wanna play trauma olympics here.
@@lightsideofsin8969 Neither do I. I apologize if I came off that way. But I'm always confused, and "people respond differently" seems to be the primary answer I get, which is true and all but it doesn't explain why that reaction is so common while mine seems to be so rare as to be unheard of in many confrontations I've had. It's frustrating. I want to understand but I just can't figure out human behavior.
I love that i've watched the channel for a while and now it finally has overlapped with my college courses. Love you guys !💜
1984 is like a big, complex panopticon. "big brother is watching" but you don't know when and where he is watching you in particular, so you have to assume he's watching you all the time. What a hellish existence, dehumanizing and also deifying to the man in the center watchtower.
Just like the US in 2019.
@@peachesrambo4037 They do say that 1984 is being used as a manual.
Not all parts of 1984 is being used (otherwise your statement would have been removed etc) but combined with Brave New World (also written by a British man) the freedom to say that 2+2=4 is becoming less fashionable (Orwell even said that the only reason why the NSDAP did not get people to believe that 2+2=5 was because they needed the citizens to count)
U right m8
Caiã Wlodarski I can see SOME parallels between 1984 and our own society. It’s nowhere near as bad, but the government isn’t 100% honest with the public about our affairs in other countries, and we are under surveillance 24/7 in one way or another. It’s not all bad tho... we still have our freedom to think and believe however we want to, regardless of how many people bitch and whine and call U a racist, homophobic bigot or a liberal cultural Marxist on Twitter.
@@artofthepossible7329 To paraphrase Neil Postman: We are not *forbidden* to think some things. We are just bombarded with a thousand half truths until we aren't sure anymore what to think, while even those thoughts are drowned in a sea of sparkly ads and awesome new toys that make us forget there ever was something we - oh, look, another tweet from- wait, what was I writing about?