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 # 21, Gone With The Wind

I read Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchellin 3 days. Yes, you read correctly, 3 days. All 1024 pages of it (that's the number I have off the top of my head--I might be off a few pages...). I read it at work mostly. The final results?

I can't decide if I love or hate the book.

What I Love: The story is really compelling. I've always been a sucker for Historical Fiction, and this book fits into that category. It addresses so many social issues and puts a spin on the Confederacy that you don't normally see. I felt the plight of the southerners and was upset with the Yankees. How could Sherman do that to people? And then the North let the carpetbaggers ravage the south! Yes, I got sucked into the story line. The characters could be real people, and all of them have faults--even the amazing Miss Melly (or Mrs. Wilkes). I loved reading about the character interactions. To top it off, the story is clean. Sex is mentioned, but there are no real details.

What I Hate: *SPOILER!!!* My hatred focuses on this: IT'S NOT A LOVE STORY IF THERE'S NO HAPPY ENDING!!! Scarlett O'Hara's life is a circle of pain starting when she's 16 and continuing to the end of the book. She tries so hard to find happiness and protect her family, but time after time disaster falls. I know that this happens to many people, so it makes the story more true to life in many ways. I could have taken all of that; all of what she suffered, even her cynicism and dislike for other people. What I can't take is the ending. Yep. The ending made me hate the book.

Honestly, it's a book everyone should probably read, love or hate. It's one I HIGHLY recommend, even if I hate it. You know an author has done a good job when you end a book with such conflicting emotions. It made me smile. It made me cry--not just a few tears either. I BAWLED. Books can make me teary eyed, but no fictional book I've ever read has made me cry that hard!

I really respect Margaret Mitchellin as an author. She truly created a masterpiece.

BBC # 13, Birdsong

I have to admit I DID NOT finish this book. Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks is a very emotional, moving book--but it has ridiculous amounts of sex. I'm not talking about sex being mentioned. I'm talking about details. I tried skipping those chunks, but then I'd miss part of the story. And there's no point in even reading a book I have to skip part of the story line for. I got about half way through before I gave up.

If you don't have a problem reading sex pieces, you'll probably really enjoy this book. The story is moving. The people's emotions are very real. It delves into love and war, loss and hope. I think it's a good book--if you could take out the sex scenes. As is, I can't personally recommend it, but like I said, if you don't have a problem with reading about sex, you'd probably enjoy the book.