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.

1984: Julia

Julia's declaration to Winston that she loves him is, in my opinion, highly suspect. She knows nothing about him other than what her impressions are, and what his name is. She has also never spoken to him. I don't believe that Julia loves Winston-- I believe she is using him to rebel only. She calls him "dear," a term of endearment usually depending upon the longevity of a relationship, yet she uses the term immediately, removing some of its value. Her falsified love is a rebellion. In contrast, Winston's love for her is a mixture of rebellion and affectionate emotion.

Julia appears to be rash, unguarded, deceptive, careful, and unwise. She said that her first love affair occurred at the age of 16 with a 60-year-old Party member who committed suicide. She does not seem to care for the man at all, since she says to Winston "Better off that he died, since he couldn't tell anyone about me." Winston, on the other hand, seems to show at least slightly more concern for the people around him and for love and marriage. And yet, their outlook on relationships does share a similarity: Winston disregards his wife, while Julia disregards her lovers.

Winston's wife poses another disparity between himself and Julia. When Winston tells Julia that he contemplated shoving her over a cliff, he afterwards modifies his opinions, saying that killing her would not have resolved anything. Julia, on the other hand, argues that killing Catherine at the time-- a rash, dangerous, inconsiderate act-- would have been an excellent decision. This also demonstrates, as Winston pointed out, Julia's lack of wisdom and experience. She seems unable to forsee consequences to her actions.

Winston and Julia share an overwhelming similarity of contempt for the Party. Julia's is, however, much more acute, angry, and vocalized. Winston feels afraid to express his displeasure, while Julia is loud, even swearing about the Party.

1984 Blog and Twitter Posts

Blog English

Winston appears to be significantly diverging from the path the government wishes for him to walk. He not only walks among the Proles, but he goes into a shop to purchase delicacies no longer approved by the government/society. However, he does not do so without trepidation. His guilty conscience wracks him with physical ailments. Also, his desire to discover the past among the proles is not powerfully driven yet; he seems to be merely looking to confirm, or discredit, the words of a child’s textbook out of a latent curiosity. He does not persist long in trying to obtain information from the old man, therefore he is likely not yet motivated to the point of taking any sort of decisive action.

It is clear that Winston is dissatisfied with his government. He writes it in his journals; however, I don’t believe that he yet knows why he is dissatisfied. He knows that the government allows people to live wretched and poor, yet he cannot pinpoint what it is he lacks: he suggests that his bones ache for what they know is missing, yet he can’t trace the desire. Still, Winston has taken active steps to pursue the source of this desire, trying to find what is missing, by wandering among the proles. For this reason, I believe that Winston is beginning to become a rebel against the government actively rather than inactively, albeit he still harbors a significant amount of self-doubt.

Winston’s dissatisfaction is progressing. Where will it end? It is not likely to end soon. My prediction is that he will become a full-blown anti-government character, a sort of anarchist, fighting for the plight of the all-too-accepting proles. He will incite their power, of which he has already alluded to, and drive the masses against the government, a leader. All he must do is leap beyond himself, his fears, and his self-consciousness, to focus on the anger that he feels.

TWITTER POST:
Hamlet Summary in Newspeak

H c Ghost=ungood, go mad, C&Pol test w/ O, c no unlove. H kill Pol, scr unjoy ma. H-> Eng by C, O selfkill, H goback, ma, C, H dual unlive.

Lear Summary Newspeak

L unluv C, land->G&R. G&R mk L ungood, L->storm unjoy. Edm plot nomore Edg, trick Glou. Corn uneye Glou, Edm Erl, FrXEng, C,L,G,R, Glou die.

Privacy Threats: 1984 and 2013

Thusfar in the novel 1984, there have been a nearly infinite number of threats to privacy expressed. Telescreens invade life at every moment. Spies are a perpetually undisclosed threat. Thought police monitor such private things as personal thoughts, and the repercussions of violating thought policies are extremely harsh.

These violations seem extreme, and clearly suppress opposition, such as Winston. He is intimidated into submission, afraid of expressing thoughts or even facial expressions that betray his displeasure towards the Party. However, these violations are not nearly as extreme as they seem, since they occur within our daily lives, unbeknownst to us.

Call me a conspiracy-theorist, but I believe firmly that the government and police watch us when we do not expect it. We already know that they spy on our emails, phone calls, and other interactions. They also spy on us visually...perhaps even via the tiny camera in our laptop monitor.

I spoke the other weekend with a homeless woman sleeping on the street. She was well acquainted with what transpires on the streets of Boston. She stated that the owner of the store in front of which she slept had had a video camera installed by his front door against his volition, and that he could not take it down with a "special laser that the police bring in" which can take years to acquire. Albeit the woman's words should be taken with a grain of salt, I believe her story is a true representation of what is occurring in our society today. Cameras are everywhere, against our will, watching us. Why? Certainly they are only searching for signs of terrorism, so the officials claim. But my question is, what can they define as terrorism, and will that definition change? Will the definition one day be "thoughtcrime", as in the novel 1984? And, more importantly, will be all submit to the terror of privacy invasion, as Winston does?

Poem Explication: Weighing the Dog

Weighing the Dog commences abruptly, divulging immediately into a sentence without commas during the first two lines of the first stanza. The imagery in the first stanza also creates an image of unease and discomfort and awkwardness in lines such as "small bathroom" and "shaky blue scale". It is possible, also, that Billy Collins chooses the color blue for the scale because it is a commonplace and docile color, not fitting to the discomfort and oddness of the event occurring upon it.

The second stanza is the only one the does not begin with a capitalized word, leading it to serve as an explanatory thought for the first stanza. It is an excuse stanza, elaborating on why he is weighing the dog on a small scale. The author also conveys somewhat of a sense of the difficulty of training a dog to sit on a scale with his use of lengthy syntax, conveying the amount of time it could take.

The third stanza continues with the previous idea of perpetuating the awkwardness and arduousness of the situation and the poet writes out the process of subtraction in relatively expansive detail given to arbitrarity of the task: "with pencil and paper I subtract my weight from our total to find out the remainder that is his."

The third paragraph differs from the rest because there are no commas to break it up, like a run-on thought, only a period at the end. It is a confirmed statement, and this was it is made more pronounced and profound. The poet speaks the message of the poem here, saying that he never knew what his dog amounted to until he was subtracted from the equation.

The final stanza demonstrates the relationship that Collins has with his dog. It also has the same syntax as the previous stanza, preserving the aforementioned profundity, for Collins is saying that the he and his dog have remained important to one another through difficult times.