1984 by George Orwell, rightly, is a major classic of political literature (and wrongly co-opted by the right, as Orwell was always a democratic socialist. That’s a conversation for another day).

Although Orwell’s dystopia was powerful and expertly written, timeless and unfortunately relevant in all eras when authoritarianism rises again and again, it is not perfect. No work of art is. And one of the ways 1984 has been criticized has been in its treatment of women. In the character of Julia specifically, Winston Smith’s somewhat younger lover who was treated as a plot point in the main protagonist’s journey isn’t quite a three-dimensional person in her own right, mostly just someone for him to love and later betray, without much motivation herself.

This is a fair take, and in my view it doesn’t take away from the novel. It was ultimately about Winston’s point-of-view, how a man like that would be affected in a totalitarian world. It’s not necessarily about woman’s oppression, or the lower class proles, or racial minorities who are victims of imperialism. Not every book has to be about everything. Still, 1984 is remarkably universal.

Julia by Sandra Newman, is a new novel—approved by the Orwell estate—retelling the 1984 story from the perspective of Julia. It’s a longer and more emotionally-detailed story, continuing even after Winston’s ending and expanding upon the world. And that’s the good and bad of it.

I’m not sure that Big Brother’s Oceania really needs more lore. The power of 1984 rather needs its brevity, its mystery. The reader is never even sure if Big Brother and Goldstein truly exist, if the tales told about the outside world is real or not. The evil manipulator and torturer O’Brien insists that history has been frozen at a particular point in time, but can he be trusted? Is the superstate destined to always win, as he insists and seems to be proven right, or could the system crumble without anyone in the Outer Party even aware of it?

Julia delves much more into these subjects, and it is interesting subject matter for what it is, but probably does not improve on 1984 as a standalone work. Frankly, we do not need more lore. But on its own merits the novel is an intense read. It has been said that it is a feminist retelling, and indeed Julia’s and her comrades at the hostel are uniquely oppressed by the system for being women. Pregnancy and assault are common issues among the Anti-sex League members. And it is graphic, from the miscarriage early in the novel to her many gruesome torturers in the latter parts. The purpose of this sort of story is horrific, and it succeeds at that. However, this horror is mostly a character study on Julia herself, the main focus, and thus feels less like a social critique.

The strongest parts of the novel are backward in time and concern Julia’s childhood and the degradation of the state and the citizens’ freedom which she grew up in. The story of her mother is particularly heartbreaking, and worth reading the entire novel for this backstory alone. Newman’s writing is well crafted, vivid, and engaging.

The ending of the book would be the most controversial, and it shouldn’t be spoiled, but much of the unsolved mysteries of the original novel are made explicit. Do we need to know Big Brother’s real name? Old war stories from his former colleagues now imprisoned? Descriptions of the crystal palace where he lives? I’m not sure.

Perhaps one of the boldest choices, is about the subject of hope. 1984, in the end, is hopeless. It is supposed to be. The underground, if it ever existed, was simply not to overthrow the dictatorship. Indeed, on the related subject of Orwell’s other seminal work Animal Farm, that even recently had a failure of an adaptation which added a “happy ending.” Among other strange choices in that animated rut, it totally ruined the classic fable. That may go for the book Julia as well. It can be satisfying for the reader, that there may be a chance for these poor people to finally escape and be free. Yet, if that’s the case then is it still even an Orwellian dystopian warning anymore…

This sentence has been bugging me for days. In Part 2 Chapter 4 we see Winston read the old school Clock's hand say "seventeen-twenty" -- which would mean 5:20 on the clock, right? But the real time as he says was nineteen-twenty (7:20). So was that a typo of seventeen instead of seven? Or was the clock slower by two hours than the Oceanean time? If it was slow does that mean later in Chapter 10 we are told the wrong time?

How do you guys feel about the album and the idea of Bowie making a stage adaptation of nineteen eighty four if he would've made it do you think it would've been good

I bought this at a used book store last weekend and I haven’t been able to find anything about this edition online

Don't take it too serious

The party is in every thing: in what is

And in what tomorrow will smile in the sun

It’s in the wheatfield and in each grain

And in the life that never dies anon …

It’s in the baby in the cradle

And in the gray-headed man

Bronze bust . H-14 cm

The game name is Auris, its on Steam, it’s depressing and there will be many more references to the book

Can anyone help me create or sell me a reproduction dust jacket? Thanks a ton. Just need one for my own copy.

After recently reading 1984 I’ve become immensely disappointed with it and its writing. To be honest, the only thing of value that can even be taken away from the book is the wisdom of the ever benevolent Big Brother and his quote which goes as follows: “2 + 2 = 5”

Every page I read of this book that Involves the mention of O’Brien I can’t help but sigh at how gay Winston sounds for him. I know it’s about his obsession with feeling understood and connecting on an intellectual level but my god this guy is in love. If he could he’d kiss O’Brien without missing a beat. The way he never is able to hate O’Brien, and instead still keeps on feeling connected to him even after he betrays him and tortures him so much. And the way he creates this imagination in his head that O’Brien is still connected to him.

Ps. This post is a lighthearted joke and I’m aware that the intention of the author was completely different lol. I wrote it simply because after a point it’s funny to read the way Winston talks about O’Brien.

BUT NO ONE CAN CONVINCE ME THAT WINSTON WASN’T GAY AS FUCK FOR O’BRIEN.

I don't even speak French but I got this anyway because the art is so gorgeous.

When answering questions regarding the meaning of certain aspects of 1984 on here, some people found my explanations unique and helpful and asked me to directly share it in a post of its own, so I hope it's okay if I now do just that.

That said, while I appreciate their complement, I gotta right away point out that while my interpretation might seem unique, it really, really isn't. What I am gonna give you now and what I am always giving is simply the standard interpretation of 1984 that basically any and all Marxist and Hegelian intellectuals would give you, it's just that since Eric Arthur Blair is of course criticizing and lampooning their ideology to no end, they usually won't share that insight with the general public since it would make their ideology look bad.

So, seen from that perspective, what Eric Arthur Blair is really criticizing isn't just mainstream communism on the surface, but instead he is directly criticizing the Hegelian ideology behind it - and that ideology embraces opposites.

A lot of people don't get that because mainstream communist followers are absolut materialists. But just like there are inner and outer party members in 1984, there is an inner circle among communists and the communist leaders unlike their mainstream followers are actually the exact opposite of absolute materialists and are instead absolute idealists. To be more precise, they are Hegelians. Marx himself (during his time) was originally seen as a Young Hegelian (which has nothing to do with his age, but rather is the name for the more radical revolutionary branch of the Hegelians).

And Hegel taught that our physical reality would not be real and would be an illusion or even a prison for what he called the Geist (which means both mind and spirit). And that's what 2+2=5 symbolizes in 1984. It symbolizes the Hegelian Gnostics rejection of objective physical reality.

This is exactly INGSOC's stance. Just like real life socialist organizations such as the Fabian Society (with which Eric Arthur Blair was very familiar) and which BTW was founded in London in 1884. INGSOC reflects their Gnostic, idealist Hegelian position:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

And of course ultimately Winston gets tortured and brainwashed by O'Brien and so ultimately comes to "realize" or even "enlighten" to the alleged "secret higher truth" that:

"Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. ‘If I wished,’ O’Brien had said, ‘I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.’ Winston worked it out. ‘If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.’ Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: ‘It doesn’t really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.’ He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a ‘real’ world where ‘real’ things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.”

Basically what I am trying to say is that Eric Arthur Blair is using fiction to satirize and expose the otherwise hidden agenda some socialist organizations such as the Fabians have and uses reductio ad absurdum to satirize them.

This culminates in 2+2=5 where he reduced their absolute idealist Hegelian ideology to its essence and demonstrates just how absurd it really is. As I said, 2+2=5 symbolizes their rejection of objective physical reality, as Hegel taught that only what he called the Geist (mind and spirit) would be real, whereas objective physical reality would be a mere illusion controllable by the mind (kinda like in the Matrix) so as long as you just believe hard enough that 2+2=5, it becomes true. Which is of course absolutely ludicrous, which is the point Eric is making (which is the OPPOSITE point of the Matrix BTW - so while the two science fiction franchises might seem similar, their actual message is diametrically opposed).

And of course feel free to ask questions or have me elaborate further on any of the aspects or concepts I mentioned.

So, I have read a book and it seemed that United States and the America continent as a whole belongs to the Oceania proper -- Which in itself is very huge.

But that beckoned me a question -- What 'happened' exactly during the revolution? How come that the federal government of United States simply.... gone?

Did they basically merge themselves into the Inner Party along with the rest of UK cabinets? Along with other nation leaders?

What made the alliance 'went wrong'? I feel that it seemed unlikely to happen by force and might happened through popular uprising instead or through government mandate at first, before the situation eventually deteriorate into INGSOC taking over and become a superstate full of despots.

Surely Oceania couldn't have evil goal and administration ever since their conception?

:)

NeoValues link

how eastasia become so powerful in such a short time and become rival of oceania and eurasia?

War and lack of industrialization

But how they become so powerful after literally 3 wars?. Japenese invasion, communist civil war, then another brutal civil war that formed eastasia which started during 50s and ended a decade later in the 60s. Eastasia mustve been in ruins after that. Also add the lack of industrialization in the territories that make up eastasia.

Also, eastasia didnt have as much natural resources as the other two states cuz of the extent of its territories. Eurasia and oceania controlled many resource-rich parts of the world.

Another weird part is how eastasia could control japan? A country with many fanatics and nationalists among it population, and i'm sure majority of them hated china. So how could they control Japan without them starting a giant rebellion that would have made the occupation very costly for eastasia?