1984 #9

War is Peace

• US+Britain(+Austrailasia+S. Africa)=Oceania
• Russia+Europe(+rest of landmass, inc. N. Africa)=Eurasia
• Eastasia arises later, weaker: China, Japan, varying portions of Mongolia, Tibet, Mancuria
• All three countries: warmongering fierce, although pointless: self-contained & no winner
• Fighting over mid-Asia: 1/5 ppl live there, desire cheap labor
• Purpose of war: use up abundance so that concentration of power still exists
• Other ways to spend money, but attitude of war also necessary for patriotism
• Only existence of science for superweapon to defeat other countries
• Atomic bombs: unspoken agreement not to use b/c would ruin power, but stockpile
• No contact with foreigners - cannot see other ppl are like self
• All three countries are same - all pyramid, Ingsoc/Neo-Bolshevism/"Obliteration of the Self"
• No need for efficiency when war cannot end
• Eternal war = eternal peace ==> WAR IS PEACE

Ignorance is Strength

•  Three groups: High, Middle, Low
• High: Stay high
• Middle: Become high
• Low: Equality for all
• History repeats self: middle conquers high by falsely with low, low stay low afterwards
•  This time, permanent retention of high
• Before, classes necessary for order; now, prosperous enough that not so
• Middle now supports high b/c fears & does not desire equality
• 1930s, given up on equality just as equality becomes important
•  Major diff: More conscious of what doing, more focused on crushing opposition than prior more liberal totalitarian states
• Possibility of constant surveillance not available prior
• Ingsoc operated main goal of socialism
• Four ways for gov't to fall
• Conquering by external sources - passed by that point
• Poor enough ruling to stir the masses - theoretical only; never revolt of own accord, w/o comparison don't even know what is missing
• Middle rises up - fixed by constant monitoring
• Top loses self-confidence/willingness to govern - biggest issue, large liberal/skeptic diversion bad for party, so need constant education
• BB only telescreen, never die; Inner Party brain, Outer Party hands, Proles
• Theoretically, not born into  position; Proles don't advance, Inner/Outer only slightly as appropriate (Outer up if ambitious, Inner weaklings go down)
• Not hereditary = beneficial in formative years
• Proles to stupid to rebel; Party too heavily watched
• Crimestop: not thinking too much if going to commit thoughtcrime
• Blackwhite: For enemy, black is white, regardless of facts; for ally, white is black, if told so
• Modification of past: first, no comparison; second, Party always right
• Party's view of past: Not objective, memory and records; ctrls both (mind via doublethink)
• Highest, most privileged = most deluded: intelligent = crazy, b/c both != power stable

1984 #3

Syme is both similar and dissimilar to Winston. They are similar in that both of them recognize the paradox behind doublethink; Syme is different in that he believes that this is fine - or "doubleplusgood." This is illustrated by his brief discussion on duckspeak. He calls it "one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings" (54). Syme recognizes the contradiction in the party's statements and words; he is an intelligent, thinking man. He is aware of the paradox in doublethink, yet he believes that this paradox is correct. Winston describes Syme as lacking "a sort of saving stupidity" (55). Because Syme knows how the party functions, he is in danger. He is highly intelligent and understands the party, so despite his support for everything they are doing, he is more forthright with the party's goals than the party itself, and therefore, Winston believes, will be eliminated. Syme is the intelligent supporter of stupidity: his discussions on language illustrate that, despite his recognition of everything the party is trying to hide, he still supports the party; indeed, he supports the party because of the very concepts Winston is attempting to resist, and that is the difference between Syme and Winston.

1984 #1

                George Orwell’s discussion of more modern writing’s tendency to become unnecessarily complex illustrates why there seem to be fewer popular elevated works in more recent history than in the decades and centuries prior. In the 19^th century, for instance, popular books included works such as The Scarlet Letter, whereas today works such as The Hunger Games and Harry Potter are more popular. One reason for this is that such works resist the tendency for long, winding phrases unnecessarily utilizing sesquipedalian loquaciousness. Because they are aimed at children and teens, they need to avoid long and complicated sentence structure. As such, they innately repel many of the problems that Orwell mentions in more elevated writing: the tendency for "verbal false limbs" and "pretentious diction" is reduced.

                Older writing avoided these tendencies by carefully going over every word. Consider the symbolism so intricately wound into works such as The Great Gatzby and Heart of Darkness; at times the author must carefully choose each specific word, considering their work so carefully as to focus on each individual word of their work. Vergil spent years crafting his twelve-book several-thousand-line poem The Aeneid, writing about 15 lines a day; he ordered his servant to burn it at the time of his death because, although he had finished it, he intended to spend the next two years editing it. This is why modern writers do not form enduring works as past authors do: because they focus on appearing to be a good, intelligent author, using longwinded structure to appear well-educated, unlike authors of popular works, who typically write for children, and authors of centuries prior, whose works are so precise that one could write an essay about a single page of their work.

Heart of Darkness IV

Marlow concludes the book by illustrating how being in the darkness has affected who he is today. He has ventured up to the edge of the Abyss; due to looking at Kurtz, he was able to avoid falling in, but he still stands on the edge. Despite how he hates to lie, being in the darkness has caused him to do so. Deception slowly crescendos into a full-blown lie. At first, he is simply avoiding the truth with ambiguous statements such as "he was a remarkable man" and "his end [. . .] was in every way worthy of his life" (161, 163). His statements while the girl interpreted them as praising Kurtz, could equally well, and, given Marlow's perspective and the story that has just been told, should be taken as a criticism of Kurtz. His double-meaning statements show a deception that approaches a lie that one would guess him to abhor based on his earlier claim about his contempt for lies, which in turn shows how being in the Congo has changed him and moved him towards the darkness, how he has not yet fully left the abyss. These deceptions sharpen to a point when he directly lies about Kurtz' last words; here, it becomes dreadfully clear that the journey has changed him to the point where he will lie despite his former honesty, where he remains in the darkness despite having been so far from it prior to his journey. In this way, Conrad makes it painfully clear that although Marlow had Kurtz as a warning so as to know not to fall into the abyss, Marlow has not yet left the abyss, and so remains darkly pragmatic.

Heart of Darkness III

The extent to which Conrad removes agency from the Africans is so complete that it must have been a conscious decision rather than a subconscious act of racism; the details that Chinua Achebe saw that generated her paper were so overwhelmingly obvious in some places that it is hyperbolic, and therefore sarcastic - therefore, Conrad was not a racist, for he consciously chose a point of view that is more extreme than any racism in real life. His use of metonymy and synecdoche to represent the blacks is so complete that it must have been deliberate. At one point, for instance, Marlow narrates that "the bush began to howl" (121); it might have made more sense, logically, to say "the Africans began to howl," but Marlow goes so far out of his way to take agency away from the Africans themselves that it would seem impossible that Conrad did not intentionally exaggerate Marlow's racism and detachment from the Africans. At other points, Marlow refers to components of a body to mean an African, such as "human limbs [. . .] of bronze color" (121). Marlow almost never speaks of the Africans directly, instead referring to them by something related - for instance, a part of their body or environment. This is so consistent and so deliberate that it must have been a conscious choice by Conrad - were it simply underlying racism in his opinion, then he would not go so far from a conventional way of speaking in order to take away the Africans' agency; such an effort could not be subconscious. Therefore, either Conrad deliberately chose to remove the Africans' agency because he genuinely believes the Africans to be less aware of what they are doing than animals, who would have agency, and is therefore a highly extreme racist, even for the late 1800s, calling blacks not merely animals, but less than animals; or he made a conscious decision to do so to exaggerate the general viewpoint of the people of the time in a criticism. Therefore, it is unlikely that the evidence Chinua Achebe presents to indicate his racism (e.g. the use of black parts of the body to represent black people) is anything other than the author using hyperbole upon the viewpoint of the time.