1984: A Beautiful Conclusion

I thoroughly enjoyed the ending of 1984, albeit it was not what I initially expected. I wrongly expected of Orwell a more generic finish to the overdone storyline. Angry dissenter causes anarchist eruption in face of evil government and overthrows the evil against all odds. Orwell’s conclusion was not at all this. In fact, following a course of logic concurrent with the novel, the end makes more sense. Angry dissenter dreams about inflicting change, yet is conquered brutally by the omnipotent, tyrannical government. As history will often tell us, oppression so powerful as Ingsoc will extinguish opposition. Thus, Winston and Julia are snubbed even before they have a chance to ignite—even before they finish reading Goldstein’s book.

The violent, politically charged ending of the novel apologizes for the monotonous, monochrome storyline up to this point. Throughout the book, Winston has appealed as Hamlet’s foil, acting rashly on decisions which propel him forwards towards wisdom, insight, and rebellion.  However, this never reaches its climax. Instead, we are left with a character more Hamletine in appearance and in impact, a grand disappointment, when Winston is hauled away. In effect, the development of Winston’s promising character is abruptly halted by his incarceration, leaving me with a sort of lingering disappointment. At least we are given a dramatic twist to charge the otherwise lacking plot and set. We are taken from a grey city clouded by Winston’s uncertainties and unelaborated trysts, and we are plunged into a place “of no darkness” where truths are revealed. Through the finale is graphic and grim, the reality of Orwell’s dystopia is revealed in its full, ugly light, and in parallel, we are given a glimpse into the dystopian societies of today.

I am pleased that Winston, at the end of the book, loves Big Brother. Not because of the stunning political commentary framed by Orwell (though indeed it is impressive) but because of the extermination of tension. Throughout the novel there is an undying, repressive tension in Winston’s thoughts, actions, expectations, and from the Party to the proles. Once Winston surrenders, the tension dies and we can breathe a sort of sigh of relief. Yet I wonder, what does this opinion voice about by own tendencies or dispositions? Does it hint that I am a reluctant power, and would rather succumb to the delicious simplicity of surrender? 

"The Book" Blog

"The Book", in my opinion, legitimizes the complaints and assumptions of those opposed to the Party. It causes me to further dislike the Party, much as Winston does, and to see it as a system achieving nothing other than circuitous self-destruction. It is made clear by the book that the wars of the Party are essentially worthless, and that the wars circulate within the society itself, producing a weakened, war-torn population. 

I understand the Party more so now as being a digressive rather than a progressive entity, though to what avail I know not. Technologies have regressed, and the only leaps made have been in technology for the purpose of war. The knowledge of society has decreased; the number of poor has increased; all for a war without a foundation. The Party no longer seems at all like one that propels itself forwards technologically or otherwise, like other futuristic societies are often portrayed as doing. 

What I found interesting that was mentioned in "The Book" was that the distribution of wealth is not quite as disproportionate as I originally assumed. It points out that the members of the Party have only few more possessions than the proles, since it is mere necessities that separate the haves from the have-nots in the society. This is contrary to the societal critique I originally expected from Orwell. I imagined that he would have separated the wealthy from the poor greatly as a commentary about the poor distribution of the wealth. Instead, he seems to be commenting on the poverty of the entire society—still a plausible concern, but not what I would have imagined. 

I was also intrigued by mention of the fighting areas. I wonder whether we will be told more about the floating fortresses. I found it interesting that the fighting happens in the disputed territories only. Since this is the case, do the rocket bombs that frequently fire, killing many proles (yet no Party members) originate from the Party itself? If so, then Orwell is making his commentary on the evil nature of a totalitarian power even more clear. 

Explication of A Considerable Speck by Robert Frost

Frost's poem "Considerable Speck" at first conveys the notion that Frost thinks "idly" of a microorganism; likely a bit of dust dancing across the paper, in all other instances invisible. Frost does not think of the dust's "life," a thing which he later attributes to it despite recognition in the "collectivistic regimenting love with which the modern world is being swept."

Frost conveys a sense of compassion for the speck to the reader by personifying it, giving the thing emotions, anger, fear, and most potently, a desire to continue living. The speck has "inclinations", and "suspicion" of the pen which Frost contemplates using to end its life. Frost, too, makes it apparent his own affirmed belief in the speck's life with strong diction such as "plainly" in describing the intelligence of the organism. We are made to sympathize with the speck when we are alerted that it very much "didn't want to die."

The speck then pauses, awaiting the fate appointed by Frost, pen poised, and we wish that Frost will not terminate it. Frost leads us then to a disclaimer in his disbelief of the love of the modern world, though follows his statement by undercutting it with "But this poor microscopic item now!" Frost is doing precisely what he decried-- attributing life and a love for a piece of dust.

Frost comments that he let it lie "to sleep" for the reason that he knew no evil of it. Here, Frost seems to be making a comment: that we all too often attribute evilness to objects undeserving. In the final stanza, Frost changes the rhyme scheme to signal the close of the poem and his final thoughts. He leaves us with this: that the inanimate object on his paper to him represents a mind, which no matter the size or relevance, is to him worth saving.