Orwell's Message

With the conclusion of the book, I am horrified. The psychological manipulation that was a constant theme throughout the book is illuminated to its fullest within the final portion of the novel. Here, we see the appalling torture methods used by the Ministry of Love, an ironic name in itself. I think the reason why this is so alarming is because Winston is the most rebellious character introduced, even those among him in his cell were convicted of only petty crimes. But he was willing to fight against the Brotherhood. By the end, he submissively accepts the principles set forth by The Party and finds comfort, rather than hatred, in the sight of the face of Big Brother. He believes that "forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache” (245).

Even though it had been clear to the reader through the duration of the novel that the meaning was the dangers of a totalitarian rule, we can also see the possible outcomes if we as a populace remain bystanders.  Through the characters of Julia and Winston, Orwell shows that although they’re rebellious in manner, their actual actions remain submissive and are alike the other bystanders. Their way of fighting Big Brother is doing activities that are prohibited, such as sex and writing, rather than taking the initiative to destroy the government. Even after he contacted the Brotherhood, his actions don't really change. Imagine if our Founding Fathers had never fought against the British tyranny and remained docile. The empire would eventually become more powerful and spread, just like Big Brother does.

1984 shows us the dangers of a totalitarian rule as well as the consequences of remaining pliable. For it only allows the ruling class to prevail and eventually enables people, like Winston, to “win the victory over himself” (245), referring to his past mental hostility towards Big Brother and his transition into submissiveness.

With further investigation on Orwell, I was surprised that to discover that he was actually a socialist. But his views remained slightly ambiguous, due to expressing anarchist sentiments, a contradictory view in itself. Usually, a socialist is for strong government. I think that he is against totalitarian rule like Stalin, but believed in socialism as a feasible method of economics, being most successful without the control of tyrannical rule. This brings up the question: how much say should government have in economics or in people’s lives, if any at all?

The article about his religious and political views can be seen here

All in all, I really enjoyed this book and the warning and consequences of totalitarian rule. But I think I should give dystopian novels a break for awhile, since that I have already read 3 of them this year. Though I have learned many important lessons from this book such as the importance of individualism, nonconformity, and balance of power in government.