1984 is the most well known book I've written a review for so far. It's a classic novel published in 1948 by George Orwell; now considered one of the most important books of the 20th century.
The book is a staple in high school English classrooms, along with Orwell's Animal Farm and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World—forming a trio of politcal fiction. They share common themes of government overreach and the dangers of consolidated power.
All things considered, 1984 was intriguing and well written. At a relatively short length of 328 pages, it manages to deliver a moving, yet concise, message.
Power to the Party
I found the third act of the book to be especially powerful: the character of O'Brien is given center stage to play the role of a power obsessed sociopath. His fervent devotion to his political party and its ideals is both scary and intoxicating.
O'brien is symbolic of authoritarianism itself. He describes how as an individual he is insignificant, yet his role as a member of the Party, collectively known as Big Brother, imbues meaning to his existence:
Alone—free—the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.
— George Orwell, 1984, pg. todo
Through O'Brien's inarguable worldview and motivations, the reader is given an illustration of power in its most absolute form. O'Brien believes his party's political power actually gives them complete command over all domains: physical, mental and temporal. He actually argues the Party are able to manipulate the laws of nature.
O'Brien explains to his prisoner, Winston, the concept of doublethink: the ability to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously in the mind without being aware of any incongruency, and being able to utilize these beliefs at will. I see how one could argue this is a form of control over reality. If the Party controls all written and spoken facts, they ultimately decide what truth is:
When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometers away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?
— Orwell, pg. todo
O'Brien hammers this idea into Winston: there is nothing outside the party.
Earlier in the book, Winston asserts that "Freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equal four" and from which all other truths should be attainable. O'Brien vehemently rejects this idea and punishes Winston for believing in it. O'Brien's philosophy is an extreme form of metaphysical solipsism—he belives that the mind is the only thing that exists. Since the party controls the minds of the populous, then the Party controls everything and all that is true.
Winston counters this argument with Descartes' famous declaration: Cogito, ergo sum. Winston knows he exists and the party cannot convince him otherwise. Yet again, O'Brien squashes this line of thought; the Party can erase Winston from history and can ensure he is never spoken of again. It's like the tree-falls-in-a-forest thing...If someone is killed in the Ministry of Love and no one is allowed to mention them ever again, did that person really exist?
Proletariat Paradox
One aspect of the story I found slightly confusing was the working class "proles" (an abbreviation of proletariat). This social group makes up over 85% of Oceania's population. They are generally looked down upon by the Party members and considered to be "less human"; at least that's how Big Brother wants them to be viewed.
By all accounts it sounds like the Party is unconcerned with the actions and conversations between the proles. They don't have propaganda-pushing telescreens in their homes and they aren't monitored like Winston and other Party members are.
Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. [...] The great majority of proles did not even have telescreens in their homes. Even the civil police interfered with them very little. There was a vast amount of criminality in London, a whole world-within-a-world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug peddlers, and racketeers of every description; but since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance. In all questions of morals they were allowed to follow their ancestral code. The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished; divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it.
— Orwell, pg. todo
It seems odd that a authoritarian government would only care about controlling 15% of its citizens. I get that the proles are the working class and are too busy working and having enough to eat to have any time to organize a revolt. But still, 85% of a population that numbers in the billions is a lot of people to turn your back to.
Along with an increase in freedom the proles enjoyed, they also seemed to have access to a number of things that the outer Party members, like Winston, did not. Proles are able to congregate en masse at pubs and enjoy beer, while party members cannot meet in large groups and are forced to drink a fake gin called Victory Gin. Proles are able to travel throughout the country freely, while Winston worries about taking a single trip to the countryside without attracting attention?
For distances of less than a hundred kilometers it was not necessary to get your passport endorsed, but sometimes there were patrols hanging about the railway stations, who examined the papers of any Party member they found there and asked awkward questions. However, no patrols had appeared, and on the walk from the station he had made sure by cautious backward glances that he was not being followed. The train was full of proles, in holiday mood because of the summery weather.
— Orwell, pg. todo
It just struck me as strange that Winston's greatest desire is to live with freedom, not under constant fear of Big Brother, yet this is something that most of the population already has. They also seem to enjoy a similar standard of living, if not even better in some ways.
It's stated in the book that Party membership, and in general one's social class, is not hereditary. Anyone could end up at any rung of society. So I'm not convinced that Winston was "trapped" by the Party. Could he not have subceded into the proletariat class and been able to enjoy the simpler lifestyle and greater freedom that they posess? This question was left unanswered for me.
Final Thoughts
It'd be hard to disassociate 1984 from its historical context, and the timing of its publication is no doubt a big reason for its fame and significance. I didn't find Orwell's writing to be particularly interesting or captivating in any way— I suspect that the quality of his novels are rooted in their substance and less about their style.
The first two thirds of the story are somewhat flat and predicable. They set up the world of Big Brother but it's ultimately a standard description of an authoritarian government: surveillance of citizens, socialist ideals, widespread inequality, propaganda, and police brutality. I'm not saying that these sections were unnecessary, I just think the true greatness of 1984 lies in its climactic final act. Orwell introduced us to the world of Big Brother in order to set up the delivery of O'Brien's magnificent and terrifying "cleansing" of Winston. I was thoroughly engrossed by this part of the novel. It's what makes reading 1984 worthwhile, in my opinion.