The importance of rats

While Winston and Julia are in the room above Mr.Charrington  and they lie in the bed after loving each other a random visitor appears. A rat appears scaring Winston immensely. Why is the rat there? what is the purpose of the appearance of the rat and why is Winston so afraid of it? 

Would you agree to say that the rat is foreshadowing an event? I personally believe that the rat intrudes in the perfect little world that Winston and Julia have created from themselves to demonstrate that nothing is ever safe. They will be caught and there is nothing one could do about it. The rat is a very important and loaded symbol I would like to hear your opinions on. Rats are known for representing horror scenarios and are known to bring terrible things along with them like disease. Furthermore they are connected to the underworld, they know their way through underground tunnels and travel through the secret but of life. What would you say is the importance of the role of the rat? 

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=rat+sketch&um=1&hl=de&safe=strict&client=safari&tbo=d&rls=en&biw=984&bih=680&tbm=isch&tbnid=cb8NGnTvzaPE6M:&imgrefurl=http://katarinasart.com/sketchbook.html&docid=OUD_MPIVSuR_gM&imgurl=http://katarinasart.com/ratsketch.gif&w=307&h=223&ei=k7nRUPjSFKnP0QWLsYG4Bg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=579&vpy=134&dur=499&hovh=178&hovw=245&tx=103&ty=131&sig=104706566274776253960&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=187&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:96

It is true that rebellion is the thing that unites Julia and Winston; however, the more I read, the more differences i m able to recognize. First taking a step back we can see the different physical and background elements. Being free, and young in contrast to Smith being older and unhealthy man in a poor physical state ; her ideologies slightly differ from his. As we have seen, Winston has this obsession of the past and trying to find out what was hidden by it. He expresses that through the collection of objects , such as the coral object he bought at the junk shop. That leads us to see their different concepts of truth. As they speak of the news she claims that she doesn't watch it because they are "all lies anyway". In contrast to Winston who these kind of things revolt , she seems to have a pacifist approach, she does not seem to care that much about truth and lies. One can not deny their huge hatred for Big Brother , in fact it s what makes them fall in love. However she is less about taking action."She hated the Party... but she made no general criticism of it. Except when it touched upon her life she had no interest in Party doctrine." You can see that as long as she was left to live happy alone, she did not mind. Her life is about getting as much pleasure possible and of course covering up for herself. As we see, she is extremely involved in various activities which backs her up well. Concerning their relationship, Winston is a little more paranoid about it, or rather realistic, he knows their days are numbered meanwhile Julia seems to believe that her game is smarter than the parties and that she can go on without any danger. Also, for Winston's side, Julia is his first love experience that makes him gain courage and a little more hope in humanity, a hope for a better future. 

The image posted above, is something I found randomly and though it'll be interesting to look upon our society, are we truly free? Would love to hear your opinions 

December 18 2012

‘‘For a moment the lids flitted down over his eyes. He began asking his questions in a low, expressionless voice, as though this were a routine, a sort of catechism, most of whose answers were known to him already.’’ (179)

After reading a couple of pages, I fell on this one and I instantly knew that it was quiet different to the structure or meaning of this chapter/passage. It is the first time Winston describes O’Brien as being some kind of programed machine. I have the impression that all tension has vaporized instantaneously and that the world seems to be following a specific conduct. It reminds me of criminal T.V shows like NCIS, because It seems like Winston is the criminal and O’Brien the detective/cop. 

Regardless to the turned off tele screen, I still had the inside feeling that something was listening to them. After this weird sensation I do not trust O’Brien as much anymore, even though it is hard to trust any character in the book, O’Brien seems even more suspicious.

There are questions that I have been asking myself... 

• Are Winston and Julia able to trust O’Brien? 
• Is O’Brien actually a member of the so called ‘‘brotherhood’’? 
• Are we able to trust Julia? 
• Is the waiter, Martin, an actual actor, like Winston implies with stating ‘‘It struck him [Winston] that the man’s whole life was playing a part, and that he felt it to be dangerous to drop his assumed personality even for a moment’’? And does the ‘‘brotherhood’’ exist?
• Why does Julia’s presence seem to be unimportant? 

Tina: The Soviet Union and Oceania

During the Soviet Union the people were oppressed. Neighbors were sent to spy on their neighbors. Sisters were sent to spy on their brothers and mothers on their daughters. This caused a lot of doubt among the people and made them choose who to trust very carefully. This is similar to the struggle Oceanians have to face. However the children of the Soviet Union were always the ones that were not affected by the influence of the government. They were also the ones that came up with the ideas of revolution and change. If the children would have been monitored more closely would this have prevented the idea of a revolution in the Soviet Union? Furthermore in the Soviet Union it was common to live in small, grey, always alike apartments which Oceania and the USSR share in common. How would such a surrounding/ atmosphere impact the people and the mind and how does this benefit the government? I personally find it extremely fascinating how, unlike Oceanian citizens, the oppression and control bonded the people of the USSR having them understand that they can only depend on each other and that by helping others they will help them in return. It has caused people to rely more on each other and bonded the nation. Why is this the opposite in Oceania? Finally literature, music and art played an important role in the Soviet Union. A person that was involved in music, literature or dance was always someone that the others respected greatly. Most importantly out of the arts was ballet, it was always said that one could tell the political situation of the nation just by watching the ballet that was broadcasted on all channels. Of course every art, literature and music piece was sent to the department of art in Moscow that would give the permission for use. Why would Orwell eliminate this aspect in Oceania?

Tina: The lady with the laundry

While Winston is the room he rented above the Prole antique shop he observes a Prole lady hanging up laundry outside and singing at the same time. His thoughts wonder to the simplicity and purity of the task she is preforming influences him greatly. He starts to feel more of his constrain of freedom and thinks of future generations. How is this passage significant? and why did Orwell include it in the novel?

Tina: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is commonly discussed and used by linguists. It states that there are certain thoughts that an individual can think in one language and that can not be understood in another and that the way people think is strongly affected by their native language. Keeping this hypothesis in mind how can the influence of Newspeak affect the thoughts of the citizens of Oceania? what control would that give the authority? How does this hypothesis change your view on Newspeak? and above all what is the nature of the english language? Please react.

Ignorance is Strength.

I am not a moderator for this week, but I was reading a post made by Rabea about the glass paperweight and the churches in the song. I found this to be really interesting because I made some sort of connections from the book to what we said in class.

"'Orange and lemons,' say the bells St. Clement's, 
'You owe me three farthings,' say the bells of St Martin's -" (102)

I find it weird as to why a church would be mentioned. We all know that a church is a house of worship. It is a holy environment where people of religion would gather, and that makes me wonder, why would several churches still be here? Ignorance is strength, right? Ok, is that what the brotherhood is trying to imply? Tristan made a controversial comment in our class a few classes ago about how religion is ignorance, I don't agree with that but that's my opinion, but if his assumption is right. Then, is the church the Party's strength? Also, I ask you this, after all these year, after burning all the history books and all the records, why leave the churches? They could easily burn the churches down, but why didn't the Party do so?

I'm really interested to hear your comments because this seems pretty mysterious to me.

Sex and love

   Forbidden by the "law", the fact that people are not allowed to have relationships with each other is just the most inhuman thing that can come up to my mind. It is just one of these elements that you do not have the right to express as a member of the party, even married people should not have any emotional link. This whole concept to me is absurd, feelings and emotions are the most natural thing a human can have. The question is where is the instinct of these people, it is quit understandable that they can obey to "basic" things such us how their work is controlled 24/7 and that they are not permitted to say anything bad about Big Brother or things like that, but once it comes to their feelings, how can you control that your whole life. I feel like this whole process is the dehumanization of the people, emprisonning them emotionally is of of course a great way to keep them in control. The less people will be attached to each other, the less chances they ever have to realize the dystopia  they are living under. Also, once you allow them to surpass the limit, be allowed to develop their feelings or envies, they will indeed gain some kind of mental freedom and that is far beyond from what the government would like to see. A scene that marked me was meanwhile Winston describes the moment where he has sex with his wife. That was to me a real slaughter of desire. Desire , would be too big of a word for what he had with his wife as it was simple intercourse for the only goal of "making a baby", as she calls it. "The sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion. Desire was thoughtcrime."In my opinion, this really is what keeps the people from rebelling, a part of their brain is shut down, their inability to express feelings, emotions is the first step for release them of the mental enslaving. The way she was just laying there, waiting for the act to be done was perturbing to me for its lack of passion. The only thing humans can ever be sure of to be true is what you feel, the way you desire somebody, love or hate them. If that is taken from you then apart of your identity as a being is stolen away from you. Once you release your instincts, how you feel, the rest will come alone, it s just is how humans are. Its for this reason that Smith strongly believes in the power of the Proles on how they are the only hope. They can love or hate, but it was given to them as a natural right so they do not know what its like without it. Meanwhile, the party members do not know what it s like to have it given. What needs to be done, to trigger a riot is for the Proles to have their right taken away and  the party members have it offered. Once they will taste it, they will understand and once "the savages" will be forbidden from it they will rebel as they knew better. 

Winston's Encounter with Mr Charrington

St. Clement's Dane

Glass Paperweight

I know we have read past the end of Part 1 in Orwell's novel 1984, but I was rereading through the last section and was wondering what you might think about "St. Clement's Dane" and the "Glass Paperweight." What do each of them represent (symbols; how they might contribute to a certain theme or motif in the novel)?

Also something I noticed in the novel that seemed different and significant to me was that room where Winston and Mr Charrington talk. Mr Charrington said that the room did not have any "telescreens." After they talk about the paintings, there is a quote that states: "'Here comes a candle to light you to bed, Here comes a chopper to chop off your head' ...'Here comes a chopper to chop off your head' they brought their arms down and caught you" (Orwell, 102). I am not sure if you have already discussed about this in class since I was absent, but what do you think that phrase might indicate? Does it perhaps foreshadow something that might happen to Winston? (Maybe think of the fact that there are supposedly no telescreens in the room, and that the only powerful force that we are introduced to in the novel that has the authority to "c[atch] you" is the Party and the Thought Police).

Propaganda & Structure

PROPAGANDA

Last week Tina suggested that perhaps the novel itself is one elaborate piece of propaganda. What do you think? Does fiction that addresses political issues function as a subtle form of propaganda disguised as art? What is the distinction between propaganda and simply voicing one's political opinions? Can literature or, more generally, art change anything?

STRUCTURE

As we've just finished reading Part I and have moved on to Part II, I want to pose some questions about the novel's structure. What similarities do you notice between the beginning and ending of Part I? What function does Part I serve in the novel? Consider this, not much happens in Part I: Winston writes in a diary, goes to work, thinks a lot, drinks gin, talks to his colleagues, is fascinated by a female party member, and buys a paperweight. Or, would you argue that more takes place? Is Part I simply and a very long and involved exposition? While you've read very little of Part II, what differences do you notice already? 

The Old Man in the Pub

What's the point of this moment in the novel? Winston poses a simple question: "If you could choose, would you prefer to live then or now?" (96) The answer Winston receives is far from satisfying. Nothing is learned. No insight gained. He's frustrated. We're frustrated. So I return to my original question, what's the point? Why did Orwell include this scene?

Glimpse into the Past?

          
   We just read about a time when Winston is searching through children books for some sort of reliable evidence as to what really happened in the past, as if it could serve as a key to what life was like before the revolution. The Party claims that Oceania has a reduced infant mortality rate, increased literacty rate, and much more food compared to years ago. Without reliable official records though, there is no way to know if this is true. Winston has no way to prove either side, since the history books are written entirely by the Party itself. The government is made up of lies and secrecy, and Winston continually seems to discover something that makes him question them even more. This reminded me of an incident in which he saw a few, (very elderly) governmental leaders sitting at the Chesnut Tree Cafe. A song played in the background- "Under the spreading chesnut tree / I sold you and you sold me" (80). Shortly after, one of the leader/party members began to weep. I want to pose the question about what the song refers to and the relevency regarding the situation around it. I realize that we need to read more of the novel in order to understand the meaning of the song; however, do you think that we have been given insight into the past and how things used to be?

I am curious about your opinion of love and desire in this novel. Specifically on physical desire, and how the Party controls and suppresses this. So just brainstorm..!

Week Two

This Week's Moderators are Sandy and Ms. Cox. Just a reminder of everyone's responsibilities ...

Moderators: You are responsible for posting at least once for each reading assignment. These posts must be substantial and thought provoking. You are also in charge of the blog for the week. You should be responding to comments, questioning, etc. The goal is to push and challenge your classmates' thinking and to keep the conversation flowing.

Non-Moderators: You must read and comment on ALL posts by Moderators. If you feel everything has been said, you must add a post of your own.

Please note, comments that simply restate other comments or what has already been said in class do not add depth to our conversation.

Finally, you can listen to author, journalist, and filmmaker Lawrence Wright talk about why he urges others to read Orwell:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6124822

Monday, December 10 2012

Trust is Death

When reading these two quotes, 

(1) "At any rate, one question was settled. There was no doubting any longer that the girl was spying on him. She must have followed him here, because it was not credible that by pure chance she should have happened to be walking on the same evening up the same obscure backstreet, kilometers distant from any quarter where Party members  lived. It was too great of a coincidence. Whether she was really an agent of the Thought Police, or simply an amateur spy actuated by officiousness, hardly mattered. It was enough that she was watching him. Probably she had seen him go into the pub as well"(104-105)  

(2) "He could keep on her track till they were in some quiet place, and then smash her skull in with a cobblestone. The piece of glass in his pocket would be heavy enough for the job. But he abandoned the idea immediately, because even the thought of making any physical effort was unbearable. "(105)

- What do you think about trust between the people in the Party?

- Do you think it is an over reaction of Winston or do you think this is foreshadowing something? 

- What else comes to your mind when reading this? (Think of the amazing title I wrote)

What would Orwell say?

Some information about the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Russian female punk band Pussy Riot.

Occupy Wall Street Principles of Solidarity: http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/principles-of-solidarity/

Court in Russia bans video clips of Pussy Riot online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20539819

'The Power of Facing'

Christopher Hitchens, the author of Why Orwell Matters, depicts George Orwell as a nonconformist who resolutely faced up to unpleasant truths ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/10/the-power-of-facing/303081/

Map of 1984

Even though I'm not a moderator for this week thought it would be interesting to get a visual of the world of 1984. And as well some background info if you are interested: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/1984-background-info.htm

Appendix

Located at the end of the book the Appendix of 1984, speaks to us about the Principles of Newspeak. This passage treats a very important aspect of the book that the image I posted above to my opinion represents very well: brainwashing. This new language ,  Newspeak, imposed on the people is to my opinion the fatal last step that will mentally  enslave the population of Oceania forever. It was extremely shocking to me the extend to what Big Brother has changed the whole system to control the people even more. Taking the most natural right of the people: words , freedom of language. The goal of this  "new concept" that fits the mentality of the government is to reduce vocabulary, decreasing the chances of the people to think;furthermore have an opinion and consider rebelling. But the question that I m the most confused about and that I would like to hear your opinion concerning it, is whether words are the only accurate way of communication that encourages thinking process and personal opinions. Or are human beings able to rely on their instincts and simply express their opinion without the need of specific words. Also, the whole concept of ignorance as a strength, can we agree on that? Is it because we have never heard of the chance to have a "better situation" that we will suffer less from it. Makes senses to me;however, can't we rely on our emotions and feelings to express the need of change. There has eventually been a first time for the birth of the concept of human rights and it was eventually because it was needed. So no matter how much the government makes them forget through a cold, limited and emotionless new vocabulary, can they ever realize and revolt or will they simply not realize the oppression they are being victims of. 

"Was the Party's hold upon the past less strong, he wondered, because a piece of evidence which existed no longer had once existed?"(82).

"Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy."(83).

These quotes taken from chapter 7 reinforce the theme of "the meaning of past and history and its relation to truth". Winston clearly shows that in chapter 7 that after all, although he knows that the Party is wrong and he is right, since the past and the external world "exists only in the mind" and the mind is "uncontrollable" he too is unable to conclude that the Party is wrong. How does the Party deal with evidence that people gather through their senses? What is evidence if it can exist one day and become "non-existent" in another day, is there such thing as evidence? By the end of chapter 7 the narrator informs us that Winston "was writing the diary for O'Brien". What is the value of this and why O'Brien? Orwell says to us that the diary would be like a letter that no one would "ever read" but it was addressed to someone anyway and "took its colour from the fact" - what does this mean?

Two and Two Makes Five

To think about and comment on:

• DESIRE: "Desire was thoughtcrime" (71).
• The PROLES: "'Proles and animals are free'" (75). Who are the proles? To what extent - if any - does contemporary life resemble the life of the proles? Why does Winston assert "If there is hope ... it lies in the proles" (72)? Do you agree? Would you rather be a prole or a party member? 
• The CHESTNUT TREE CAFÉ: What is this place? Who meets there? What might be the significance of the strange song Winston hears? 
• The SENSES: What role do the senses - specifically sight and hearing - play in the novel? 
• KATHARINE
• LONELINESS vs. UNITY: Think about the tension between the two in the novel. 

"All words are pegs to hang ideas on." - Henry Ward Beecher

Consider Beecher's words in light of Ninety Eighty-Four. What role does language play in Orwell's dystopia? You will want to think (and write) about Newspeak as well as Syme and his work on the Eleventh Edition ... "'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words'" (54). Also consider the following: memory, history, and love. You should be familiar with and prepared to talk about concepts such as doublethink and facecrimes. Our goal for tomorrow's class and for your comments/posts is to be precise and to make specific references to the novel; our discussion on Monday was a bit fuzzy for my tastes. A reminder, participating in the blog is a requirement of the course. It is NOT optional!

And now for a dose of trivia ... Henry Ward Beecher was born in what picturesque, might I say quintessential, New England town?

A little history...

George Orwell was born in India on the 25th of June, 1903, as the son of english parents Richard Walmesley Blair and Ida Mabel Lemozin. With the age of one his mother took him and his sister Marjorie with her to Oxfordshire in England. After an exemplary school carrer, in 1921 he joined the Indian Imperial Police and was hence sent to Burma. Out of protest against the approaches used by British colonial power, of which he was a part, he however quit his services after 6 years. With the intention to become an author he returned back to England in 1927, but already a year later moved to Paris where he first worked as an English teacher and then as a peon, doing everyday, low payed jobs. Sick and devastated he moved back to England in 1929 where he kept his head above water with small articles and literal tasks. In 1937 on the side of the "Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista" (the "Workers' Party of Marxist Unification), a communist party in Spain, he took part in the Spanish Civil war. After 1939 Orwell worked increasingly as a critic and later produced war propaganda for WWII.
For another 2 years he then worked in the Indian Section of the BBC, in which he became very experienced with British, German and Soviet propaganda.

Judging from what you have read so far, what parallels can you draw between George Orwell's life and the novel? What message might he be trying to convey through the book?

For your consideration ...

Two articles on the use of CCTV in Britain ...

Hi-def CCTV technology threatens our democracy – we must act now

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/high-definition-cctv-threatens-democracy

Is the use of CCTV cameras in schools out of hand?

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/12/cctv-cameras-schools-out-of-hand

Bravo ... and more to think about

I know I said I wasn't going to post again (and it's not that I don't have complete faith in our worthy moderators), but I suppose I, a bit like Big Brother, have trouble relinquishing control. First, bravo to those of you who have already commented. I've been very impressed by what I've read so far and have commented on some of your comments.

Here are some links to articles on dystopian fiction, specifically YA fiction: The Hunger Games, etc. It seems to be a trend and some argue this is because high school is a sort of dystopia. I don't know about that, but here they are:

From the New York Times ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/magazine/20FOB-WWLN-t.html

And from Wired ...

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/dystopian-ya-novels/

Also, a link to "Politics and the English Language" - a brilliant essay by Orwell on writing. Interesting to consider in light of Newspeak ...

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

First Reactions (from the New York Times and you)

Before you begin reading Nineteen Eighty-Four, take a minute to read and think about the following excerpt from the original New York Times' review of the novel (1949):

"James Joyce, in the person of Stephen Dedalus, made a now famous distinction between static and kinetic art. Great art is static in its effects; it exists in itself, it demands nothing beyond itself. Kinetic art exists in order to demand; not self-contained, it requires either loathing or desire to achieve its function. The quarrel about the fourth book of Gulliver's Travels that continues to bubble among scholars -- was Swift's loathing of men so great, so hot, so far beyond the bounds of all propriety and objectivity that in this book he may make us loathe them and indubitably makes us loathe his imagination? -- is really a quarrel founded on this distinction. It has always seemed to the present writer that the fourth book of Gulliver's Travels is a great work of static art; no less, it would seem to him that George Orwell's new novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a great work of kinetic art. This may mean that its greatness is only immediate, its power for us alone, now, in this generation, this decade, this year, that it is doomed to be the pawn of time. Nevertheless it is probable that no other work of this generation has made us desire freedom more earnestly or loathe tyranny with such fullness."

As we read, keep in mind this question of static versus kinetic art ... 

After reading pages 3-31, post your first reactions to the novel. Remember, your posts must be written in complete sentences.