1984
In a few sessions (kids running around me and luckily I had it on my DVR) I watched 1984 last night - the version with John Hurt. I was saddened by his recent death as I was a fan of much of his work. But, this was the first time I had seen this movie. The torture at the end was tough for me to get though. I actually skipped some of it. It gave me nightmares last night. Man, it was brutal. But, what a fascinating story. I read the book for the first time a few months ago so I was interested in seeing this. Any others here see this? And, what did you think? The young lady who played Julia was great. That scene where Winston is sitting there by himself in the Ministry of Love, out of his mind, calling her name was heart wrenching.
True, as ewv and dbhalling remind us, he was a socialist
(communist/fabian - excuse my ignorance of the nomenclature).
He had thought patterns, beliefs, different from most on this forum.
What is undeniable, apart from superb command of language and story telling, is the honesty.
He saw what was going on in the Soviet Union,
it was not the same as the image presented, or what the supporters claimed,
and likely not what he wanted to see.
Words that he invented to describe what was happening are often used in this forum,
correctly and maybe without contributors knowing the source.
His books, 1984 and Animal Farm, tho' novels,
are devastating critiques of communism in practice.
The left hate him.
It may be that he did not see that what happened was inevitable.
He may have thought that communism could have a 'gentler kinder face'.
This lack of analysis and insight are to be criticized.
The monumental genius of his work still stands.
I read it finally because an adult friend of mine (with a degree in history, interestingly) kept prompting me to read it, saying I'd enjoy it. This is in contrast to a vast majority of adults who say, "Oh, they made me read it in high school. I don't remember it." How could one not remember it? For the same reason they wouldn't understand it. They hadn't lived long enough or seen enough to make the connection.
I wish he had lived long enough to see the economic collapse of the "democratic socialist" states, including Britain and Sweden before they began instituting market reforms.
I thought at one time that he couldn't see the consequences of Socialism, but on further reflection, I agree in part with you: he saw the effects as they were occurring, but separated them from the idiotology itself. He couldn't see that Socialism/Communism, what have you, would "always" produce tyranny and abuse of power. He fought for Social Justice, but couldn't see the implications of its consequences, nor could he, apparently, see there are other ways to help improve the economic lot of a people, other than to destroy their individuality.
It doesn't matter what kind of socialist, collectivist, whatever term you want to hang on Orwell. He saw social injustice, primarily in the colonial states of Southeast Asia, and wanted to alleviate it. He resorted to a type of social "awareness", and self-identified as a Socialist, not understanding that any attempt at trying to bring about social equality---notice I did not say equality under the law, which is a different thing entirely---necessitates totalitarianism. Also, he couldn't see that there are other means to improve the economic lot of people, then by destroying their individuality.
End of problem, as my physics professor used to say, as he was erasing the equations before I had a chance to write them down,.
employing violence and coercion, much of it deliberately trying to provoke the police into appearing to be the violence.
As for teaching Objectivism, Ayn Rand advocated that people who agree with her go into the professions, including teaching and writing, and apply her ideas (not endlessly squabble over what 'Objectivist' group they feel accepted in).
I worked as a reporter, for a while, and you actually had to sneak any Objectivist guided thought in just before press time. It was all about collectivism and altruism if you did the job as the editor wanted. I quit after several years and went back into our accounting partnership.with my husband. I still write letters to editor, which I can get in with non-collectivist ideas. Teachers are quitting right and left, older ones, who could have taught AS, the newer ones are sadly brainwashed. I feel so lucky that when I was in college, I had the head of the philosophy dept., a great fan of Rand, include it her philosophy in his lessons, and encouraged me to read more of her work, which I could not get enough of. He opened up the avenue to Philosophy becoming my co-major. Not all colleges are as positive toward Rand, obviously.I have heard some say she is not a philosopher. Luckily, I never had to study under them. As to acceptance, an Objectivist does not not seek nor care about acceptance, That does not mean that disagreements cannot be civil for the sake of the betterment of both sides of the debate. I read Trump was a fan of AS, but he could temper his outburst and remember not everyone is to the point of having grasp AS yet.
It was required reading a million years ago when I was in school.
I don't really care that he was a socialist. I have found truth in far stranger places.
How poor would l be if the only people I learned from were other Objectivists.
I have a decent library that I am sorta proud of, but only a dozen books or so were written by Objectivists.
But 1984 is something I've pondered before...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
It was awful that that kindly hotel operator turned on them. I remember thinking I couldn't imagine a world with a microphone in every room. Now I live in such a world.
I saw a play version of it ten years ago at the Overture Center, and I found the torture scene extremely tiresome. The book had this looming threat of the place of no darkness and Room 101. The drawn out torture scene I saw was gratuitous.