George Orwell's

[7189]

Is the most frightening book ever written.

What do you think?

[Intifada]

it is a good book.

i think it is more of a warning than anything else.

[SittingBull47]

true. it scared the hell out of me. The ending is very disappointing and full of suspense at the same time.

[Nickademus]

i enjoyed the book, but the first time i read it i was kinda hoping that he would succeed and actually rebel .... just hoping and it was kinda disappointing when they weren't successful. but i think it really makes a really good point about the difficulty of beating the system.

great book though, but then again i'm a huge fan of distopian type fiction.

[FatFreeMilk]

Damn I'm really looking forward to reading this. I borrowed it from the library for a while but the beginninng was kinda slow so I had to return it before I got very far.
I know what Imma read this summer. Pfft, forget my friends.

[(*]

"1984" seemed very real.
I liked "A brave new world" more. Better writing, and a whole lot smarter.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

The scariest book ever is Bram Stroker's Dracula. ;)

Serious.

[SittingBull47]

The first time I read "Brave New World" i was a freshman, and wasn't interested in that type of genre. (in fact, i wasnt interested in anything that had to do with society) but i'm going to have to pick it up again and compare it to 1984.

[Akasha]

very good book...they should remake the movie

[(*]

Another book in a similar category "Fahrenheit 451"
Awesome. I heard that they are making another movie, I believe Mel Gibson is involved.

[The Rotten One]

The entire point of 1984 is to show you the power of media. So shut off your cappie TV before 2+2=5 and Nike+Bush=Good.

A Brave new World WAS a much better book, but I think that currently 1984 has a bit more relevence.

[Hate Is Art]

I prefered Animal Farm, just because of it's simplicity and childlike nature but with the dark side under neath of furry facade of talking animals.

[The Rotten One]

Animal farm was almost TOO short and simple. But I like the term "furry facade". Animal farm is all about the failure of a new society, whereas 1984 is all about the actually battle against the system, which is a little closer to what us lefties are going through.

[freemind]

1984 was excellent, as was Animal Farm. Fahrenheit 451 is really good, one of my favorite books ever.

[truthaddict11]

i have never read a book that scared me, when I read The Shining in my sophmore year of high schoolo, I was disapointed it didnt scare me one bit, and I didnt see the movie before when I read it. Kinda disapointing. Some of the best books I have read though were by Kurt Vonnegut. Pick up Slaughterhouse Forty-Five when you can.

[7189]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:13 PM
very good book...they should remake the movie
Definitely! My dream is to make a film of this masterpiece. However, I think I would name it Room 101, instead of 1984. Afterall, we are in the year 2004!

[Hate Is Art]

whats farenheit 451 about? may have to check it out?

btw has anyone read Gullivers Travels, im going through it at the mo, its very good, you should check it out.

[MiniOswald]

mm although animal farm was about the russian revoloution it didnt quite fit as old major who represented lenin died before the revoloution started

[Saint-Just]

I didn'tfind 1984 scary, its just rubbish propaganda. It will never happen, it is an impossibility. The Soviet Union was not like that.

An example is that in the book Orwell attempts to mirror the non-aggression pact the USSR made with Nazi Germany and then the subsequent war with Nazi Germany as the way Oceania switches from one enemy to another in one ephemerao moment.

However, the USSR agreed on non-aggression since the USSR could not defeat the Nazis, and indeed in the second world war it was a long and arduous battle. In addition, Communists had been combating Fascists on the streets across Europe for decades. The pact was made when the Nazis invaded Czeckoslovakia, and although the allies had promised not to let that country be taken by the Nazis they did nothing, it became apparent to the Soviets that the Allies would not offer any protection.

Orwell is the classic example of a bourgeois socialist and a repeater of anti-Communist lies.

The book should serve to highlight the hypocrisy of the United States, the United States is not a free society, it is like 1984 in many ways.

[STI]

Loved it. It's the kind of book I would (and have) read again to see if it ends differently.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The media control in 1984 really reveals some truths about Ameriac and the media here.

I doubt the USSR would ever have gone in that direction, but America has used the media to subliminally manipulate Americans. It's easy to see that socialism, progressive politics, and communism have become increasing unpoppular in the U$ after mass media. the lies invented about the communist bloc have probably contributed, but the sublinal shit is there, man!

Most Americans are very sexist, homophobic, and nationalistic. Many are also somewhat racist, not to mention the law enforcement which is extremely racist, especialy around here in Florida.

[Raisa]

I think 1984 is a great book for all Communists and Socialists to read.
Because we should not be naive about authoritarianism and censorship. Most of us ( I'd like to say all, but theres always a pervert) are not fighting for what was represented in 1984.

keep it real,you thought criminals!

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:43 PM
I think 1984 is a great book for all Communists and Socialists to read.
Because we should not be naive about authoritarianism and censorship. Most of us ( I'd like to say all, but theres always a pervert) are not fighting for what was represented in 1984.

keep it real,you thought criminals!
1984 is anti-communist. Communists will censor what they want, the people will chose to censor reactionaries and reactionary ideas. Its part of class struggle. In many ways 1984 distorts reality, so it is not pertinent to the real world. And where it is, it is a reflection of American society.

[Hate Is Art]

It just shows what happens if people let authortarian governments take control. I didn't find it in any way a mirror of US oppression.

1984 is anti-communist it's anti-authortarian.
Orwell was very critical of both political sides, left and right, unlike many leftist's who worship the CCCP and Cuba mindlessly, and will try and justify every action taken by these countrys.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by (*@Apr 6 2004, 06:07 AM
"1984" seemed very real.
I liked "A brave new world" more. Better writing, and a whole lot smarter.
1984, was leagues better than brave new world, in terms of skill in writing, plot and ity just flowed better.

[Hate Is Art]

MiniOswald, old major is Marx not lennin, lennin isn't it Animal Farm.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Chairman Mao is absolutely right.

In order to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it's tool of oppression need to be fought by any means. This includes censorship, violence, anything.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 7 2004, 10:20 PM
The book should serve to highlight the hypocrisy of the United States, the United States is not a free society, it is like 1984 in many ways.
I agree, but not the society of the US, the society of capitalism. That is the value of 1984.

I think it is far too simplistic to dismiss the book as "anti-Communist lies". I don't see it as anti-communist at all, because I found little of communism to be represented by the society of 1984. They call each other "comrade" sure, but I don't see much good about that.

1984 is excellent. The plot isn't particularily interesting, but I admire the examination of political ideas very much. The idea of the permanent war and the need for an enemy (war on terror/war on drugs/terrorists/Saddam/bin Laden). The denunciation of people ("anti-American"). The essay at the end on Newspeak is fascinating too - how our words shape our thoughts.

I could go on, but my memory wanes.

[The Rotten One]

Actually, in Animal Farm Napoleon is Lennin (not Stalin, as some think). Lennin is the one who scapegoated and exiled Leon Trotsky (Snowball).

Farenheit 451, for whoever was wondering, is about a world where "firemen" burn books to oppress the people. Books burn at 451 degrees.

And brave New World, as far as style, rules over 1984 with an iron fist,

[Hate Is Art]

Napoleon is Stalin! The book is centred around the Russian revolution yes, so Old Major is Marx telling people about the idea of communism. Snowball and Napoleon are Trotsky and Stalin respectively, you can tell because of their debate's on issues and Trotsky's eventual exile which happened after Lennin's death so thus could have had nothing to do with Lennin.

Also the major war vs the Germans (the farm, i forget the name) is ww2 which happened under Stalin's rule not Lennin's.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by canikickit+Apr 9 2004, 02:11 AM--> (canikickit @ Apr 9 2004, 02:11 AM)
Chairman [email protected] 7 2004, 10:20 PM
The book should serve to highlight the hypocrisy of the United States, the United States is not a free society, it is like 1984 in many ways.
I agree, but not the society of the US, the society of capitalism. That is the value of 1984.

I think it is far too simplistic to dismiss the book as "anti-Communist lies". I don't see it as anti-communist at all, because I found little of communism to be represented by the society of 1984. They call each other "comrade" sure, but I don't see much good about that.

1984 is excellent. The plot isn't particularily interesting, but I admire the examination of political ideas very much. The idea of the permanent war and the need for an enemy (war on terror/war on drugs/terrorists/Saddam/bin Laden). The denunciation of people ("anti-American"). The essay at the end on Newspeak is fascinating too - how our words shape our thoughts.

I could go on, but my memory wanes. [/b]

I agree, but not the society of the US, the society of capitalism. That is the value of 1984.

That is true. What makes the U.S. unique is its status as a big imperialist power. There is no evidence of that in 1984. 1984 is meant to be a Britain that has become similar to the USSR in the future.

There are certain things to be an example of socialism in 1984. People calling each other comrade but also everything being under state control and the fact that it was meant to be a representation of the USSR. The same kind of architecture in 1984 buildings was used to design buildings in the USSR.

It may not seem significant to us that all people may call it each comrade, but in the case of people being identified by their roles in society it is a great step. We don't address each other in socialism as businessman and boss and policeman and worker etc. But we think of people like that too often. We aspire to have a higher status than others. As Orwell said, the words we use are important. By calling each other Comrade it does give the impression that we are all of an equal status. Of course the reality has to match the impression given, unlike in Orwell's book.

[The Rotten One]

Ummm...

Actually, Lenin had Trotsky exiled, Stalin had him assassinated.

The book blends around Soviet history quite a bit What I have gathered is that the battles over the windmill were WWI, because after that Germany and the USSR became allies, as did the neigbors and Animal Farm. All this spans Lenin and Stalin.

The Fight in the last chapter is the precursor to WWII. So in many aspects, Napoleon is very much both Lenin and Stalin. I think he begins as Lenin and becomes Stalin.

[Hate Is Art]

Trotsky didn't leave Russia until 1928, 4 years after Lenin's death. Lennin and Trotsky were very close friends.

The book isn't meant to be taken literaly as a history of Russia, just as an interpretation.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

the whole notion of 'big brother watching you' is superb. The thoughtpolice is also excellently done. Orwell really made a good book when he wrote this.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

1984 is notanti-communist and Orwell was not a bourgeoius socialist, he fought in the Spanish Cical War in the POUM for fucks sake you idiot, more than you have ever done or will do.

It focuses on the lessons he took from his experiences, have you read Homage to Catalonia.

I dont think I need to refute your points on this board to be honest.

[redstar2000]

To be sure, 1984 is a (poorly written) polemic against "Stalinism".

But I think people are overlooking the real message that the book sends: popular rebellion is impossible.

Recall the scene in the market place where the "proles" riot...they are "incapable" of revolution, only of mindless rioting.

And the message is quite similar in Animal Farm...when the pigs become the new humans (ruling class), the rest of the animals do not rebel.

In other words, boys and girls, rebellion is either impossible or will only lead to a new form of tyranny as bad as or worse than the one that you overthrew.

Is it really any kind of mystery why these two pieces of shit are still in print?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

Oh come on Redstar. Thats not the message at all. The works point to the dangers of totalitarianism and the counter-revolutionary nature of centralized elitist power. Something you yourself have spoken on many times.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But Redstar thinks that, in reality, when the people are dissatisfied with something they would rebel. He thinks that Orwell doesn't protray people as they really are. Which really doesn't make any sense when you look at... er, the world. :lol:

[Hitman47]

well just requested the book in the local library :)

[redstar2000]

He thinks that Orwell doesn't portray people as they really are.

Precisely!

Orwell doesn't simply explicate the "dangers" of centralized state power...he portrays them as inevitable and triumphant.

He assumes that either people "cannot rebel" (in 1984) because "Big Brother" and the state apparatus is "too powerful" and the people are "too stupid" (the "proles") or that if people do somehow rebel and are victorious, the consequence will simply be a new ruling class (as in Animal Farm).

I don't see anything "progressive" or even relevant in those two books with regard to a revolutionary outlook.

The real message is "accept capitalism"...because the alternatives will be "even worse".

Fuck that shit! :angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree with you that it falsely portrayes the outcome of communist revolution, but it also makes the false assumption that the revolution will fail because of the vanguard.

My problem with his books is that they completely overlook the importance and success of having a political aparatus of the working class such as a vanguard.

When people are dissatisfied with something, Orwell suggests that they're powerless to do anything, with or without the aid of a vanguard. They are indeed powerless without a strong vanguard leadership.

[synthesis]

In my opinion, Orwell is a question of context. Socialism was a much more "open" dynamic back when Orwell was writing - only three years after the end of World War II. America wasn't that far away from the massive surges in the popularity of radical leftist politics in the 30's. There was still a lot of question within the left (intra-partisan, I suppose you could call it) as to whether socialism should be 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian.'

Orwell considered himself a democratic socialist. This is different from bourgeois socialism, as Engels outlined in his 'Principles of Communism.' I digress, however - the point is that Orwell was trying to make a case against authoritarian socialism. Over the years, due to both real and propagandistic reports of Communist totalitarianism, Communism came to be associated with authoritarianism in general. Since the idea of 'libertarian' socialism has largely disappeared from the public eye, people tend to assume that Orwell was attacking Communism as a whole, rather than just one branch of it.

The way he wrote the book doesn't really lead readers to assume anything else, or that there is another possibility besides totalitarian socialism. There's constant references to the 'proletariat', most old national barriers have been destroyed, and the government is even called English Socialism. Ingsoc has bits of both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia mixed in together; for example, there is a reference made to blond hair and blue eyes being the state-pushed ideal image. Orwell seems to be implying that they were one and the same, a platitude often repeated by capitalists. There are other items in the book which are more or less allegories of the recent events and current scene of Orwell's time.

To put it in a simpler manner, my perspective is that Orwell delivered to our enemies one of their greatest weapons, completely without the intent to do so.

[Quidam]

If not my all time favorite, this book is definately one of my favorites.
I like dystopia novels, they are interesting to read.