{Book Review} Nineteen Eighty Four -1984-

[Giest4life]

I just hope this is killed before it gets out of hand. Well, books are fine, as long as you guys don't do reviews of the books containing philosophy. These reviews are often borne of a cursory reading of the subject material--and sometimes not even that--and really take away from the essence of the book.

ExtrCredits tried their hand with some philosophical stuff, and they totally butchered the subject material, sometimes with an apology and sometimes without. For the same reason, doing Machiavelli is a bad, bad idea.

I'm not exactly sure what your concern is.

That because I review books I will not give them adequate time and study? Or that in this review in particular I didn't cover the subject material quite thoroughly?


I read 1984 this summer, twice. And I've read the Prince 8 times since last year. And have written multiple essays on both.

Yes, I can see your point. Due to the constraints, I can't make this a college thesis in length that many such books deserve, but I don't think I butchered the material.

You're right, I think I was a bit vague in pointing out my concerns. But I certainly did not intend to take a shot at your scholarship, and neither do I think that you butchered this review of 1984.

It's on general principle that I object; reviews, such as this one, create a lot of misconceptions. Most people won't take heed of your advice, and they won't read the book. Instead, they will pretend that they know that which is worthwhile in the book, and pass of your view of the book as their own. It's not really your fault. Everyone does it. Most recently, I saw Will Durant commit the same mistake in his review of Nietzsche in his The Story of Philosophy.

But as I said before: it would be the most dangerous to review books of philosophy than of anything else. As Will Durant said, philosophy is regina sicantarium--queen of the sciences.

 

[insectoid]

Every time I read this book I get something new from it. The scariest thing by far is the completeness to which the Party works, and the utter hopelessness of even thinking to work against them. I believe the Party's ways work so darn well, because they don't control in order to gain something - they do it for the sake of doing it. It's because of that purpose, that they will never make a mistake - they simply don't have any desires or ambitions that could possibly distract them from crushing society.

I agree that the book is a little dry at times, but it honestly gets better each read, and the more you think about it. The 'book within a book' is easily the most 'boring' section, pandering to Orwell's inner essayist, but it so perfectly explains the world of Oceania and the terrifyingly well-thought-out control mechanisms of the Party that it only serves to make the horror of Party control all the more chilling. It's just so perfect.

The scariest idea presented in the book though, is the idea of limiting language. Imagine not being able to express a thought? You wouldn't even know you couldn't, because you would have no language with which to describe the feeling - you wouldn't even know anything was wrong. If you can't express something, it doesn't really exist (same with the re-writing of history - if there is no proof except for a persons' memories, did that event really exist? you can't prove anything because only the Party's version of the truth is kept on record, and even that is changed at will). It is the on-going control of records, history and the media, combined with the constant limitation of the very language in which ideas are expressed that create the Party's complete control over society.

Great book, and really well written piece.

 

[Augustus Drakken]

You're right, I think I was a bit vague in pointing out my concerns. But I certainly did not intend to take a shot at your scholarship, and neither do I think that you butchered this review of 1984.

It's on general principle that I object; reviews, such as this one, create a lot of misconceptions. Most people won't take heed of your advice, and they won't read the book. Instead, they will pretend that they know that which is worthwhile in the book, and pass of your view of the book as their own. It's not really your fault. Everyone does it. Most recently, I saw Will Durant commit the same mistake in his review of Nietzsche in his The Story of Philosophy.

But as I said before: it would be the most dangerous to review books of philosophy than of anything else. As Will Durant said, philosophy is regina sicantarium--queen of the sciences.

Fair enough. I can see your point. I still plan to do The Prince, because I must put a smile on the face of the pretty little lady above, but after that I will think about how to confront this issue or simply stop altogether.

Great book, and really well written piece.

Thank you. And I really appreciate you sharing your in depth thoughts on the book.

I personally liked the "book within a book" part, but I may just be strange. I'll pick it up again soon to see if it does get better and better. Thank you.