BBC #8, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

THIS ENTIRE POST WILL PRETTY MUCH BE A SPOILER. If you're ok with that, keep reading.

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is one of the most thought provoking books I've read so far. I finished it today and since the moment I finished it, I've found myself contemplating what it says.

This book was first published in 1949 as a warning of where the world was headed if something didn't change. According to Orwell's "vision", we were headed for continuing World Wars (can't really blame him since the one he'd just come out of was the second in only a matter of decades) until 3 large totalitarianism states emerged. The nature of the wars would change, but it would continue indefinitely. These totalitarianism states would rule under the guise of "socialism" and protecting the people, but really be lead by the elite, power hungry, political leaders of the day simply as a means of achieving the ultimate power--complete control of human thought. As is written near the end of the book "Power is God." These leaders didn't care one whiff about the people in their countries. They simply cared about becoming "gods."

The main character in the book is a man named Winston Smith. My guess is the name Winston came from Winston Churchill as the character was supposedly born in the late 1940's, right after WWII. Smith is simply the most common last name. In other words, he's a normal man named after one of the most influential exponents of freedom during his time. Winston, like his namesake, is a believer in freedom. The novel follows his discoveries of lies and untruths behind the totalitarian party (Ingsoc), his search for freedom, and his ultimate failure.

I have several problems with the positions Orwell takes in the book, however many of these issues are derived from the fact I'm reading this book in 2011 (17 years after the story "happened"), not in 1949 when it was written (34 years BEFORE it "happened"). For example, in the countries that make up the fictional "Oceania", there is a far greater middle class than is depicted in the book. The book depicts an upper elite--the Inner Party, a middle class--the outer party, and the lower class--the proles (proletarians). The Proles make up 85% of the population. They are the uneducated, the poor, the ones who do the basic jobs of society. Going back to original Roman usage, and supported by statements made by Orwell ("the woman down there had no mind, she had only strong arms, a warm heart, and a fertile belly"), The proles were the nothings of society. They had nothing to offer but menial labor and a continuous supply of new children to grow up and become more proles.

In today's society, in America, and in Britain where the book is based, the poor of the poor--the true proletarians--are a rather small percentage of the population. It's only by expanding the word proletarian to include the working class, as Marx did, that we come even close to that number. Still, the middle class is larger than the book says, making the number of proletarians smaller--and most of these proletarians are fairly well educated. If all of the working class of today is included as proletarians then Orwell's assumption that the proletarians don't have the consciousness to rise up is false. However, the level of education that existed for the lower class in 1949 is completely different. Also, more "middle class" (intellectual, not manual labor) jobs have been created since that time due to increases in technology.

"If there is hope it lies in the proles".

Unlike the end of the book concludes, I agree with Winston's statement. The proletarians, the working class, are truly where the hope of society springs from. The elite do not "hope" for change. Change may take them out of their seats of power. The middle class may dream of change, but they are generally content enough to not force a change. They have "enough". It's the people on the bottom, the people who have nothing that will make the changes.

Of course Orwell didn't have past experiences showing him the hope the proles themselves offered. He hadn't seen the Berlin Wall fall. He hadn't seen the Soviet Union collapse. Why did these nations do that? Because the proles had enough.

Another good example is what's happened in the middle east lately. First Tunisia, then Egypt and now Libya. The proles have had enough. And they're fighting for themselves.

Unlike the books statements, my fear isn't that the proles won't ever stand up for themselves. It's that the proles will take their cause too far. We don't need another French Revolution.


**Edit August 31, 2011: So, most of this was written on June 25, 2011. I finished the book and felt crazy motivated to write it. Then I got tired, didn't know how to finish and put it aside for later. And forgot. Until today. I finally decided to post it. Since I'm probably going to finish another book in the next few weeks, I figured I'd get this out before I forget I read it!!

BBC #17, Great Expectations

The first time I read Great Expectations by Charles Dickens was in 9th grade for my English class. The problem with books assigned by school teachers is you read them with the teacher's expectations in mind. We had in class discussions and had to write an essay on the book. My teacher expected us to focus on the symbolism in the book first and foremost. That's really not my style of reading, and while I can find symbolism, I hated having to focus on it. I had a good opinion of the book, but I don't think I got it and I never expected to read it again--or enjoy it. I've always enjoyed books more when I read them because I want to.

This was true of this read of Great Expectations. I don't know that I would list this as one of my favorite books ever, but I thoroughly enjoyed the read. I read it in two spurts. First night I read it, I read for almost 4 hours. Then I left it at home, my job situation switched, etc. I kind of forgot about it. This weekend I picked it up again. I read almost half of the book today, finishing only minutes ago.

I love the story line, a poor boy is confronted by a change in circumstances and we read of the effects this unguided social change has on his character and the the character of those surrounding him. Charles Dickens always seems to address important social issues of the day and he does a very good job of turning the "bad guys" into the "good guys" and vise versa.

Charles Dickens is a literary genius. The way he artfully twists the story line around, connecting all the characters so masterfully together, interconnecting the beginning and the end so beautifully, it's impossible to understand the characters fully or appreciate their depth until the end of the book. If you put it down in the middle, you'll never really "get it".

I believe a lot of the social issues addressed in this book shed light on the social problems of our day. We have different problems, but reading this book leaves me with the same haunting questions.

I give this book 5 stars. There is no question in my mind why after almost 150 years this book is still being read and critically acclaimed. It's literature in the truest sense. Charles Dickens knew how to write. This is why 5 of his novels show up on the BBC's top 100 list and I bet in another 150 years, people will still be reading his books where many of the other books on the list will be long forgotten.