One connection between 1984 and Animal Farm is the statements made by those in charge about improving conditions. In Animal Farm that is the extent of the pigs' argument is that they simply say that things are better. In 1984 however, they back it up with statistics on boot production and fake history books about how bad capitalists are. The extent that the party goes to preserve itself is a lot farther than the animals on animal farm.
Another idea that puzzled me about 1984 were the proles. What are they and why can they live like normal people as Winston says on page 165, "The proles had stayed human". It is another concept that I think Orwell really leaves unanswered.
On page 181 there is a perfect example of people being easily convinced of what government says, "His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings" etc. "It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened." This shows that perhaps good speech making along with making a convincing argument using emotion (tugging on heartstrings) is part of the reason why people accept what they are told at face value.
Friday, March 2, 2012
1984 Post 2
Now let's look at some more scary topics from the future (or past, do we even really know what time it is?)
One thing I find interesting is that on page 152, Julia says that, "she refused to believe that widespread, organized opposition existed or could exist." I kind of see where she is coming from because the party is so powerful yet at the same time, how can the idea of organized opposition not creep into your mind at all? That organized opposition is the symbol of hope for the future of society and she openly rejects that concept.
On the next page a curios statement is made, "The rocket bombs which fell on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself." This is an example of how the government can say they are protecting us. They may say they must fight a war because we are under attack, but who is attacking us? They can do this to create a genuine support for the war, not the fake support at Hate Week or the ridiculous propaganda used. This reminds me of the movie "V for Vendetta" when the government gives out a cure to a disease they created. They are the solution to their own problem.
One thing I find interesting is that on page 152, Julia says that, "she refused to believe that widespread, organized opposition existed or could exist." I kind of see where she is coming from because the party is so powerful yet at the same time, how can the idea of organized opposition not creep into your mind at all? That organized opposition is the symbol of hope for the future of society and she openly rejects that concept.
On the next page a curios statement is made, "The rocket bombs which fell on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself." This is an example of how the government can say they are protecting us. They may say they must fight a war because we are under attack, but who is attacking us? They can do this to create a genuine support for the war, not the fake support at Hate Week or the ridiculous propaganda used. This reminds me of the movie "V for Vendetta" when the government gives out a cure to a disease they created. They are the solution to their own problem.
1984 Post 1
This post is intended as an outlet for everything I found interesting in 1984 rather than use for my big question, but I'm sure it will help anyway.
On page 65 the book talks about how the party encourages prostitution as an outlet for sexual desires. This is completely contradictory to what the party believes as a whole. They promote permanent abstinence but then encourage sex as a chore but then they go and say prostitution is O.K. It is just illogical. Their goal is to eradicate love but they encourage some form of it. Then the book says, "Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy." Didn't they just say that they encourage prostitution for that very same reason. It is this kind of circular reasoning (see I knew this would help with my paper) that allows a government like this to function.
Another way a government like this can function is a boring monotonous routine. This is present in both 1984 and in Animal Farm. Winston has been worked so hard that he can't even remember the year his wife left him (pg 75). This is a scary concept to imagine. Not only is the physical history changed by the Ministry of Truth, but the memories of individuals are changed as well (spoiler alert).
On page 65 the book talks about how the party encourages prostitution as an outlet for sexual desires. This is completely contradictory to what the party believes as a whole. They promote permanent abstinence but then encourage sex as a chore but then they go and say prostitution is O.K. It is just illogical. Their goal is to eradicate love but they encourage some form of it. Then the book says, "Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy." Didn't they just say that they encourage prostitution for that very same reason. It is this kind of circular reasoning (see I knew this would help with my paper) that allows a government like this to function.
Another way a government like this can function is a boring monotonous routine. This is present in both 1984 and in Animal Farm. Winston has been worked so hard that he can't even remember the year his wife left him (pg 75). This is a scary concept to imagine. Not only is the physical history changed by the Ministry of Truth, but the memories of individuals are changed as well (spoiler alert).
Animal Farm Post 3
An interesting thing I noticed on the character analysis page about a minor character, Mollie, from Animal Farm. The analysis says it is confusing what or who she represents in Russia but that is really unimportant to me. What caught my attention and it is something is that she is a conformist in the beginning which is exactly the type of thought process I want to question in my paper! However she is one of the few characters in the book who escapes because she understands that the conditions are worse after the revolution. Here is what the website had to say, "In either case, Mollie was never really in favor of the revolution. She went along with it, but she didn't actually engage in the fighting. Mollie didn't mind being a 'servant' to the humans, since she was constantly being pampered by them...She eventually flees the animal farm to live elsewhere in Willingdon." (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-animal_farm.html) This shows that she went along with it in the beginning but fleas to find a better life. This made me wonder if she would have had the sense to flea if the humans didn't treat her so nicely. Probably not.
Another thing I noticed from the analysis of Boxer that I hadn't thought of before is that Boxer uses circular reasoning a lot. He convinces himself of many things because he finds it rational with circular reasoning.
Another thing I noticed from the analysis of Boxer that I hadn't thought of before is that Boxer uses circular reasoning a lot. He convinces himself of many things because he finds it rational with circular reasoning.
Animal Farm Post 2
Here is a lot of evidence I found about animals being convinced easily.
On page 9 Napoleon says, "Almost overnight we could become rich and free" "Justice will be done". Alright so they trust Napoleon here because he is promising a brighter future. However, as leader he cuts rations almost immediately as leader he cuts rations and increases the workload for all animals. The only ones to rebel are the chickens/hens (page 76) while the others feel that their lives are actually better. Why do they feel this way? Because their leader says so. Another example of this is on page 119 when Boxer gets hurt badly because he overworked himself. And what does the great leader do to help save his most faithful worker? He has Boxer sent off to be slaughtered. Some of the Animals realize this and try to do something about it. When they confront Napoleon about this matter, Squealer tells them that it was an ambulance that just said slaughter house on it. And why do the animals buy into this story? Because the alternative is a lot scarier to think about. To believe what they had originally thought would be to give up their peace of mind about Boxer and also to comfort themselves in case the same thing ever happened to them.
On page 9 Napoleon says, "Almost overnight we could become rich and free" "Justice will be done". Alright so they trust Napoleon here because he is promising a brighter future. However, as leader he cuts rations almost immediately as leader he cuts rations and increases the workload for all animals. The only ones to rebel are the chickens/hens (page 76) while the others feel that their lives are actually better. Why do they feel this way? Because their leader says so. Another example of this is on page 119 when Boxer gets hurt badly because he overworked himself. And what does the great leader do to help save his most faithful worker? He has Boxer sent off to be slaughtered. Some of the Animals realize this and try to do something about it. When they confront Napoleon about this matter, Squealer tells them that it was an ambulance that just said slaughter house on it. And why do the animals buy into this story? Because the alternative is a lot scarier to think about. To believe what they had originally thought would be to give up their peace of mind about Boxer and also to comfort themselves in case the same thing ever happened to them.
Animal Farm Post 1
Page 84 of animal is the slaughter in fact massacre of numerous animals. The reason the were massacred? They confessed to crimes that they didn't commit. Now this is strange to me. It makes sense that the hens would confess to conspiracy because they had protested about laying the eggs. But why do the other animals confess? They most likely have done nothing wrong but confess to conspiring with Snowball and Snowball said this and that. Yet they confess to these crimes after seeing the other animals slaughtered right in front of their face. Was this a trick of Napolean? Did he convince the animals that they actually were in league with Snowball? That is really the only logical explanation that I have for it. If anyone has any ideas about this please comment.
From a conspiracy perspective perhaps Napolean tricked them into confessing promising higher rations or something like that. I understand that Orwell probably did this to demonstrate how cruel communist rule can be. But, is this really what people did in communist states? Confess for no reason. In 1984 they confess out of fear and because they are tortured. I find it really peculiar that Orwell did not specify why the animals confessed.
From a conspiracy perspective perhaps Napolean tricked them into confessing promising higher rations or something like that. I understand that Orwell probably did this to demonstrate how cruel communist rule can be. But, is this really what people did in communist states? Confess for no reason. In 1984 they confess out of fear and because they are tortured. I find it really peculiar that Orwell did not specify why the animals confessed.
The Big Question
What is the big question? More importantly what is my big question? I hear time and time again on the news 'the experts say.....' and we people really believe what is being said because the "experts" said so. When I hear people say the economy is doing better I just laugh. My dad is employed he never lost his job so therefore when I hear the economy is doing better my life has really been unaltered. So is it really doing better? I'm not trying to hate on Obama I'm just saying, what if things weren't actually doing better? It is certainly a possibility. But you know, not too many people really think about issues like this. When we hear a respected official say something we have to either take their word for it or delve for the answer ourselves. Now I really want to know why we accept this so easily. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to conspiracy (I love conspiracy theories) and say the economy isn't doing better at all and the American public thinks that it is doing better because the President and the news says so. Why are we willing to accept this as a valid answer? (remember we are conspirators now) Is it because the alternative would mean believing in a worse economy and we choose to think that the economy is good because it makes us feel better? Or is it because we genuinely believe our respected officials (which I find strange because I can think of A LOT of reasons why we should never listen to anything anyone from Washington says.)
In both novels conditions are clearly worse than before their respective revolutions, but people and animals think that they are better simply because they are told that they are better. So my question is WHY? Why do we so easily believe what we are told by respected officials when our gut tells us otherwise?
In both novels conditions are clearly worse than before their respective revolutions, but people and animals think that they are better simply because they are told that they are better. So my question is WHY? Why do we so easily believe what we are told by respected officials when our gut tells us otherwise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)