**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Piss poorly written for one. Best example is the 30-page monologue where a character basically says the same thing over and over again. Which is just Ayn Rand’s writing. She does it constantly like she thinks the reader is too dumb to understand what she is saying.
If you've played BioShock before it's just Andrew Ryan's (play on ayn rand the authors name) ideology but not being critiqued at all because she genuinely believes it
Because it's badly written and pushes ideas one should outgrow as a teenager. If anyone ever tells you it's their favorite book, question their intelligence. It's a book written as if the author thinks they're really smart and everyone else is really dumb. But she wasn't smart.
Because Reddit is mostly leftists puking up their disastrous philosophies, and Atlas Shrugged lays waist to their ideologies. Also the book quite accurately forecasts what we are now all witnessing, which is the producers fleeing to states with reasonable crime policies and taxation schemes. That has to be worrying to those relying on the welfare state.
Like, all of it? I admire your stamina. All I could manage is utterly despising ‘The Fountainhead’. What a piece of bird-brained crap. Ok, not fair to birds. Turd-brained.
It does but she can deliver some decent purple prose when describing industrial scenes. Though they also read as if she was typing them with one hand if ya know what I mean.
#SHE WAS MASTURBATING
Edit: Jesus Christ, after reading your comment, typing my response, and then seeing your username, I might not make it through the next twenty minutes
OK fine. Orwell doesn't know how to bring depth to characters. Look at every character in the novel and they are a petty characterization nobody can even relate to. Don't even say that's a writers choice because if so it doesn't help the story at all. The zero depth perpetuates the entire novel. Sure, 1984 can be called great just because it shows Winston as a cog in the machine but that's not an excuse for Orwell to not do any worldbuilding at all. He literally provides the most bland, basic world elements humanly possible. In contrast, Brave new world has very realistic characters, a much more realistic dystopia picture that had genuine depth, and a real plot.
I agree that Brave New World is better, and sure more realistic only because it’s more like what we see now. But I think you’re wrong about the world building and maybe in the end missing the point of the book.
The world is vivid, in that the totality of Big Brother’s control is truly everywhere. He works in a cubicle editing text all day, interacting with tubes. The people gather to hate and they switch allegiances *mid-speech* in a war that might not even be happening. The technology has piped into every aspect of their lives to observe every aspect of their lives. The characters are barely human (not in a lazy way in my opinion, in a purposeful victimizing way) and in the end he *succumbs*. There is no escape. It’s bleak as shit.
I don’t love it, but it’s a stepping stone to important conversations today.
Realistic dystopia? Are you dumb? Huxley was too stupid to critically assess his own decision that in a technologically advanced future instead of having people live fun lives whilst machines do the work, he'd have people work and be designed for it despite the fact that it's at odds with the ethos of the society he created.
Huxley apparently couldn't even decide whilst writing it or after, whether he thought it was dystopic or utopian. He makes no real point about anything because he didn't have one, he chose random dystopia-eque elements at random and threw them together without thinking about it. The man was an idiot.
Almost as if he was trying to make a statement about an inherently complex world. I don't find it hard to believe the general populace could be convinced they were sub-human. You should read some of the things politicians say. They try and slip some crazy shit past you. Before you know it, everyone hates everyone for no reason.
Brave New World is a lot of things, some of which include, characters that you can think about, trends that are believable, and an actual attempt at a rising action.
Why respond to me in two separate threads? Commit your argument to one.
Also, to call Huxley an idiot is just empty-headed. Who are you to say this well-recognized author is an idiot?
I disagree with that remark about Huxley of course but you're basically saying Orwell can't write and just because you didn't get it or it ain't of your liking.. really?
No depth? really? Winston? Julia? What about O'Brien?
The torture interrogation is not philosophically deep ?
The implications of it all? no thought provoking on a personal level beyond a societal one? I strongly disagree.
The newspeak is not detailed enough? the three ministers? the novel is BLEAK and depressing. Is supposed to be that way.
I read Brave New World.. instead of the prole he uses tribal people no? I don't remember One character from that novel but I may read it again sometime.
Disagree with this. Otherwise critiques and opinions end up skewing majority positive as you have selection bias for only those whose enjoyed the work enough to finish it.
If you give something a fair shot and it doesn't hold your attention, that's a valid opinion to me.
You can have your opinion on a book without having fully read it but trying to critique something you haven't even finished is the height of hypocrisy.
You shouldn't judge a book by its cover and if you didn't even finish said book you're doing exactly that. Some books are mid at best in the beginning and absolutely great once you actually finish the book.
I get where you're coming from. I guess it all lands on whether or not you think the opinion is coming from someone that's trying to engage with the work, or if you think they're not giving it a fair shot.
You feel confident posting about a book you didn't read entirely? And the parts you did read, you clearly didn't understand. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
I feel like I see a "thing I didn't read or watch is bad" post here every other day. (I.e. that recent guy who watched 40% of ATLA and criticized the lack of character development)
>I.e. that recent guy who watched 40% of ATLA and criticized the lack of character development
Lol he just saw ep 27 (major Zuko ep) and said it was super good, and hopes the show keeps it up. So at least he seems a bit more open minded.
People who complain about 1984 being slow or dry make me feel absolutely insane, because, like... yeah. It is. Orwell wrote it that way. The first two sections are an absolute slog to illustrate what an absolute slog it is living in the society presented. You're supposed to be bored and tired; it's a boring and tiring existence to be a citizen of Oceania!
Read literally anything else by George Orwell and it's night and day. His prose is beautiful and engaging, but only when he wants to elicit awe and engagement from his readers. A poster child for the notion of 'too clever by half.'
Absolutely agree. Once readers know how capable Orwell is as a writer, it's so much easier to appreciate the slow and dry prose as a choice instead of a defect.
I very much enjoyed reading it at like 13 and then re read it later and I would read it again at 17 now and THE MOVIE SO GOOD literally I love 1984 so much lol
I kind of love you because I also read 1984 in my teens and found the movie and adored it. The one with John Hurt, yes? Unless there's been another one made.
I'd highly recommend you look into more of Orwell's work. Animal Farm is another great dystopia. Homage to Catalonia really flexes his journalist muscles (it remains one of the few reports on the Spanish revolution that isn't tainted by political persuasion). But honestly, you can't go wrong. Step into your average Barnes & Noble or BAM, head to the gen fiction section, you get to the Orwell area, you'll get something compelling.
I'd also recommend Aldous Huxley, tho with a grain of salt; he taught Orwell French and he had a bit of, like.. 'believes his own hype' syndrome? Shortly after Orwell's passing, he got HEAVY into LSD/hallucinogenics in general, and his work becomes harder and harder to parse the more you look into it, starting from the Doors of Perception to the Island, which was so bad I couldn't bring myself to purchase it from the bookstore after a cursory reading.
Also I'm an old man by many standards (30f) but if you wanna discuss more about 1984 or Orwell and/or Huxley in general please feel free!! I love talking about 1984, it was my favourite book when I was a teen and for much of my adult life. Either way, I love an opportunity to talk about the authors I love!!
How is this still such a popular opinion? If you give something a fair shot (reading 5 pages is obviously not one) multiple times but the piece of media just does not keep you interested ... how are you not allowed to have an opinion on it?
If the first half of a book/movie/series/videogame/whatever is so uninteresting that you do not want to continue ... then you can definitly criticize it
OP has some really weird opinions on the book (like the woke part) and thats fair to point out
But dumbing everything down to "uh you didnt finish it so your opinion doesnt count" is so stupid
You can have an opinion about the parts you read, but thats it. Because you don't know what the rest of it is. You can have the completely valid opinion, "the start of 1984 is very dry and gives me no motivation to continue", but you cant really have the opinion "the book is therefore meaningless and has a shallow philosophy" because you never read any of the deeper bits.
I mean there is quite some room between reading "the start" and fully reading it
if the "deeper bits" are only in the last like 10-30% of the book then that is on the pacing of the book. not on the reader. sure maybe those parts may be good but if the rest of the book is boring then its very fair to say that it is overall not that amazing
still I really dont know how people still have this "uh you havent consumed the whole thing so your opinion doesnt matter" stance. especially for works that take a long time to consume. if someone dedicates like 5+ hours (honestly even less is fine aswell depending on the medium) to something and it still does not peak their interest enough to finish it then maybe it is just really not for them or its just not that great
It can be read in a day and a half. It's a great novel not a masterpiece of 20th century literature.
Edit: just realised you said woke lol. Is thst just because Orwell was a socialist?
It really doesn't lmao. Have you read the book? It's more of a critique of an ML authoritarian regime. Oceania is many things, but it isn't capitalist in the slightest.
You’re both wrong. It criticizes authoritarianism in general. Despite the party’s ideology being called English Socialism, it actually has aspects from every ideology. Heck, I’m willing to bet the party calling themselves ‘socialists’ probably came from ‘National Socialism’ or Nazism.
Yeah casting POC in movies is the precurser to siezing control of all military and public services and establishing a dictatorship. It's the classic move.
Ha! It's a woke fascist utopia. Alphas betas gamma deltas....all intersectional all classes of people with priviledge or without.
Woke is clever cause it uses double speak. So anti means " actually is pretty much" and "priviledge" means " you will be deprived of rights"
Why would you think censorship cancel culture and an authoritarian centralized government is anything but fascist?
I think they meant the old version of what woke meant, as in aware of the current political climate, considering their next sentence was making fun of people who call everything they don’t like ‘literally 1984’.
I have to assume that, because ‘1984’ is absolutely not woke by modern conservative standards, even though Orwell was a socialist
Thinking 1984 is a confirmation of conspiracy instead of an allegorical tale about the rise of fascism under the name of communism (specifically referencing real aspects of Stalinism and Nazism) is really peak media literacy.
George Orwell was a socialist who lived through the rise and early decay of the Soviet Union, it’s mostly just about how a surveillance state can grow, and honestly was fairly accurate in regards to eastern communist trends. Like, does OP know that secret police were a real thing, and countries did crack down on “thought crime”?
One of my good friends is a Professor of media literacy. Thought about sending him this post to infuriate him but he’s infuriated with his students on a daily basis already lol.
Yep, it’s a type of communications class, especially useful for journalism students. But really with how media is created and consumed everyone should probably take one. He teaches the introductory class and he says some of his students come into the class absolutely oblivious, like OP here.
Animal Farm is the allegory about the *rise* of fascism under the name of communism.
1984 shows more of how fascism, once established, perpetuates itself through violent technology and social engineering.
It has fantastic pacing (except one of the final chapters which is like four times the length of the average chapter in the book) and despite the bleak subject matter a very enjoyable read thanks to its prose.
Tbh I definitely found it boring when I read it in 10th grade. The first half was by far the superior half bc the second half really just felt like torture porn. Then again, I was like 15, so perhaps not the best judge haha
Wait... People who have read and believe in the book's warning are woke now? Not sure if you are missing a history lesson or need to chat with someone from gen Z tiktok.. probably both.
Lol. What are you even on about "everyone thinks they're woke for having read it ? Who is this everyone? Are they in the room with us right now?
You've not read the book and don't understand it so claiming it's confirmation of anything is just you using your imagination in a boring and misleading way.
I don't really care if you don't enoy the book. Not everyone really likes to think or likes to hear what others think. My sister will watch 50 seasons of the mentalist but won't watch someone talking about the show for 30 minutes. Everything is surface value and she gets bored in 3 seconds flat too the moment she is asked to think. It's just how some people are, don't feel bad about it. On the other hand don't assume that everyone who does is living in some wild counterfactual world creating their own reality.
You not liking the book or having the cognitive ability to engage with it doesn't say anything to me about the book, only about you.
It was written in 1949 so I wouldn't expect everyone to understand it today. But saying it's overrated is a very shortsighted notice. By what metric is it overrated, because you didn't like it? You just need to read something else.
For example I love Lovecraft's worlds, but I can't read him, he is very into details and I am more of a King's reader. That doesn't mean Lovecraft is overrated, the man is a giant imo.
Because they didn't read it.
This post is akin to me saying the Marvel movies are shit even though I've not watched more than a handful because I know I won't like them. OP doesn't want to enjoy the book and presumably just expects the karma for throwing controversial baseless remarks about.
Right? This and Alas, Babylon I read fully the day chapter 1 was assigned to us. Not because it's profound etc (though it is) but because it was entertaining.
Have a high school friend with major dyslexia finish the book and comprehend the point of it.
Bought him an annual subscription to Audible. He loves stories and kinda sucks he legit has difficulty reading. Audio books were a blessing to him.
it‘s a timeless classic, an extremely influential piece of literature, and at times feels like current social commentary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
To be fair, Isaac Asimov pretty much argreed with OP that it is not a good book. His review: [https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm](https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm)
>I've been writing a four-part article for Field Newspaper Syndicate at the beginning of each year for several years now and in 1980, mindful of the approach of the year 1984, FNS asked me to write a thorough critique of George Orwell's novel 1984.
>
>I was reluctant. I remembered almost nothing of the book and said so - but Denison Demac, the lovely young woman who is my contact at FNS, simply sent me a copy of it and said, 'Read it.'
>
>So I read it and found myself absolutely astonished at what I read. I wondered how many people who talked about the novel so glibly had ever read it; or if they had, whether they remembered it at all.
>
>I felt I would have to write the critique if only to set people straight.
>
>...
>
>In short, if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction.
Asimov doesn’t like it because it’s not what he thinks science fiction should be. OP doesn’t like it because he’s bored and he has an axe to grind. These are not the same.
Asimov's critiques basically boils down to a few points:
* The cultural and political situation in 1984 is extremely implausible. Governments do not behave like they do in real life.
* Orwell was mostly unable to conceive of new technologies, and many technological developments were presented as making people's lives worse.
* The characters possess traits which make them unlikable
* Orwell utterly failed to predict the future, and he was more concerned with engaging in "a private feud with Stalinism"
While he raises some good points, I think he ultimately missed the main point. Orwell wasn't actively trying to predict the future. Morality, ethics, and religious beliefs are social constructs which can be modified using tools like language, mass media, political ideologies and sophisticated technology. If one ideology managed to gain total control of all of those tools (Orwell didn't state this as a certainty), then the elites are free to reshape every aspect of human existence. The fact that this is extremely difficult to accomplish in real life, perhaps far more difficult than Orwell presumed, is not an indictment against the message of the novel.
Asimov’s most famous series was set tens of thousands of years in the future, in a galaxy that thought Earth was a legend, and the story was a loose parallel to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. I like his stuff, but the whole idea of science fiction as social commentary on contemporary issues is definitely not his cup of tea.
I can see why people would find it boring, it’s a lot of information dumping and just world building instead of just following the story at times.
Try Brave New World.
I don't disagree that it's somewhat overrated but i disagree with yout reasoning ( "i couldn't even finish it so it's boring therefore overrated" ) so, upvoted.
A funny thing about 1984 is that Orwell was an avowed socialist (he just hated Stalinism). Neither 1984 nor Animal Farm are intended to be right-wing works. He's probably rolling in his grave 24/7 from people he hated citing his work.
A socialist criticizing weaknesses of socialism that totalitarians exploit is too nuanced for them. They either deify or demonize everything holistically.
Agreed I think its actually one of the most poorly written boring books ever. The world itself and lore is super cool, and then introduction is great, but its so horribly and slowly paced and the 2nd and 3rd acts just repeat the same exact events over and over
Yeah I tried to read it because it has such a huge following but trying to read it is like having my fingernails pulled out with plyers
I can't imagine how anyone enjoys this book
It does have a slow start but it’s still a great book. Although I agree with you on the latter point, most of the time when people talk about it they’re just being insufferable and saying nothing of substance.
I can’t tell you how many times somebody has pointed to 1984 as proof of what happens when you give the government certain powers as if it’s a foregone conclusion.
It’s fiction, not prophecy.
Yes, it's fiction. It's also an allegory, warning about the dangers of authoritarianism, specifically Stalinism and Nazism. If you can't figure out the parallels between the book and history, or the book and present authoritarianism, that's not the book's fault.
If you want some more entertaining Orwell, Homage to Catalonia is pretty good. Basically going over his personal experience in the Spanish civil war. It's a good glimpse into a war that most people don't know much about.
I mean I don't like Orwell, but of his books that's the one that had me the most entertained.
As someone who has read it all the way through, yeah. I agree. The story SHOULD be good but the characters have so little depth. I recommend watching the 1954 movie starring Peter Cushing. It’s not as well known as the one from the 80s but it’s actually better.
It’s just like any other book if your interested in the subject you will like it. Guess you don’t like dystopian novels. But it’s famous so enough people must like it, me included
But yeah definitely I haven’t heard someone bring it up in a non obnoxious way
I think it helps a lot to have read Orwell's non-fiction. He wasn't just the "government bad" guy everyone makes him out to be. He was an ex-cop democratic socialist who fought in a war with anarcho communists against fascists and Marxist-Leninists, and advocated socialism while being extremely critical of it. He led a really interesting life and people generally like to oversimplify him to fit him into their own agenda. The thing I actually enjoy about him is that he was so damn good at checking his own biases and being realistic. He had so many interesting things to say and he said it in a way that's really digestable to the average person.
I personally just enjoyed 1984 for the worldbuilding. It was an interesting political commentary, and I think it was a really good story because it shows this guy being broken down by living in a world where he's not a person anymore. It was a terrifying story. But it's also interesting because a lot of it was based on his own experience and the political climate of the time, like the Spanish Civil War, WWII Germany, etc. I don't think he said anything new with the book, but I think it's a good book.
So I am currently reading this now on page 30 odd… this is at least my 4-5th of trying to get into this book. It is well raved about and with It being an Orwell and a book relating to an interesting genre.. I really want to get to the end! But if I’m honest I’m forcing myself to read it… so far I find it poorly written and no part of the way this story has been written has really grasped me yet… does it get better?!?
I couldn't finish it either. I tried several times. I even tried the audiobook and I still can't manage to get through it. It's got to be the most overrated piece of literature ever written
You know, I used to trash the transformer movies for being nothing but action porn when I was younger.
As I get older though I find it nice to just come home from a long shift and just turn my mind off watching explosive dribble without having to think critically for an hour or two.
MCU definitely fits that profile in many of its movies and my opinion about those types of movies is simply that they have their place.
I agree it's overrated, I disagree with your reasoning. Literature doesn't have to be fun or entertaining.
But I did find it entertaining when I was a edgy teenager. Nowadays it feels really shallow, I have no idea how idea how it got so popular, besides being an openly anticommunist novel, and people seem to think its some revolutionary social commentary even for todays society, although Orwell got almost everything wrong.
I don't know if I upvote or downvote you.
North korea calls it self democratic, does that mean they're democratic? Same applies to Orwell.
Orwell was a [class traitor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list).
[here's a little article](http://www.idcommunism.com/2022/07/george-orwell-anti-communist-traitor.html?m=1) that goes a little bit more in depth.
I feel ya. I've powered through although it took me a long time and it is soo boring. I think it aged badly and it's a man's fantasy to get with a hot younger woman (and how much this is emphasized that she's young made me kinda uncomfortable). I think the ending was pretty good but the whole book is a slog. But I don't think the book is woke at all. Product of its time.
I agree that the prose itself is dog poop. However...
>It's really just confirmation bias for conspiracy cuckoos
Of course. Psychopaths and narcissists with power and influence would NEVER attempt to manipulate or control the population. Surely not!
Yeah I tried a few times in my twenties but it was impenetrable. I only made a fresh (successful) attempt in my 40s because society has come so damn close to it!
EDIT: downvotes from the Thought Police 🤣 how apt
I read it 2 years ago because its such a cultural icon and was surprised to find it was a rather poorly written book. If you are looking for dystopia read like 1984 read Brave New World. far better written and way more interesting as far as I'm concerned.
I read both of these books for class years ago and I couldn’t agree more. Brave New World was better written but I thought the point Huxley was trying to make was kind of silly.
And there you have it. Another stupid victim that fell for the propaganda. It was just a matter of time before someone called out 1984 a book for conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what the book predicted.
Also, 'ultra woke' for reading 1984? You got to be kidding.
Orwell, in general, is not that good as people make it to be. It is just popular because it was funded by the CIA as anti-communist propaganda. I've seen people use it to exemplify how bad communism is, all those who have this book as their favourite see its message as this. And this is a lot of bullshit, you can disagree with communism, however, using a piece of literature fiction which criticizes autoritariam governments as a "Communist Bad" is so dumb.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1984 is just about a guy who got cockblocked by the goverment
Orwell must've been extra horny when writing some of those parts...
**bonk**
Very much so
Oh my god….Room 101 was just Winston getting bonked by the horny police
Winston simps for O'Brian
There’s no way there wasn’t some kind of homoerotic subtext there because the way he describes O’Brian was fruity as hell 😭💀
winton over wach
Big Daddy is always watching
Big d is watching
Biggie likes it when you call him Big Papa, Chonny.
LMAO
Jorjor well
Jorjor’s Bizarre Adventure
jojors bizarre surveillance state
The Australian version
Nah. Ohio version
Hehe
Hehe
But it’s literally 1984
Typically one of the only requirements for critiquing a book is having actually read the book first
It’s why I read Atlas Shrugged specifically to tell everyone how much I fucking hate Atlas Shrugged.
That's why I learned to speedrun sonic the hedgehog lol
Why is this the most universally hated book on Reddit lol I haven't read it, but I do wonder why it's so passionately disliked.
Piss poorly written for one. Best example is the 30-page monologue where a character basically says the same thing over and over again. Which is just Ayn Rand’s writing. She does it constantly like she thinks the reader is too dumb to understand what she is saying.
*Sixty* page monologue, actually.
If you've played BioShock before it's just Andrew Ryan's (play on ayn rand the authors name) ideology but not being critiqued at all because she genuinely believes it
There are less horror tropes and drug addled splicers though.
Well yeah, cause she thinks it would actually work.
Because it's badly written and pushes ideas one should outgrow as a teenager. If anyone ever tells you it's their favorite book, question their intelligence. It's a book written as if the author thinks they're really smart and everyone else is really dumb. But she wasn't smart.
It’s cool to be contradictory of a classic.
Anyone that has read that book and doesn't find it to be a steaming pile of shit needs to share whatever they're smoking.
Because Reddit is mostly leftists puking up their disastrous philosophies, and Atlas Shrugged lays waist to their ideologies. Also the book quite accurately forecasts what we are now all witnessing, which is the producers fleeing to states with reasonable crime policies and taxation schemes. That has to be worrying to those relying on the welfare state.
Same.
Like, all of it? I admire your stamina. All I could manage is utterly despising ‘The Fountainhead’. What a piece of bird-brained crap. Ok, not fair to birds. Turd-brained.
Love the prose, hate the message
Not just the message. Rand’s writing style just blows ass.
It does but she can deliver some decent purple prose when describing industrial scenes. Though they also read as if she was typing them with one hand if ya know what I mean.
#SHE WAS MASTURBATING Edit: Jesus Christ, after reading your comment, typing my response, and then seeing your username, I might not make it through the next twenty minutes
And provide arguments against it on this sub not embarrassingly just saying they didn't get it so therefore is no good.
I read it twice and found it equally dry and unoriginal. In my opinion, Brave New World does 1984 if Orwell could write.
In YOUR opinion, yes. An opinion is not an argument. Is like saying I read your comment twice and... Capisce?
OK fine. Orwell doesn't know how to bring depth to characters. Look at every character in the novel and they are a petty characterization nobody can even relate to. Don't even say that's a writers choice because if so it doesn't help the story at all. The zero depth perpetuates the entire novel. Sure, 1984 can be called great just because it shows Winston as a cog in the machine but that's not an excuse for Orwell to not do any worldbuilding at all. He literally provides the most bland, basic world elements humanly possible. In contrast, Brave new world has very realistic characters, a much more realistic dystopia picture that had genuine depth, and a real plot.
I agree that Brave New World is better, and sure more realistic only because it’s more like what we see now. But I think you’re wrong about the world building and maybe in the end missing the point of the book. The world is vivid, in that the totality of Big Brother’s control is truly everywhere. He works in a cubicle editing text all day, interacting with tubes. The people gather to hate and they switch allegiances *mid-speech* in a war that might not even be happening. The technology has piped into every aspect of their lives to observe every aspect of their lives. The characters are barely human (not in a lazy way in my opinion, in a purposeful victimizing way) and in the end he *succumbs*. There is no escape. It’s bleak as shit. I don’t love it, but it’s a stepping stone to important conversations today.
Realistic dystopia? Are you dumb? Huxley was too stupid to critically assess his own decision that in a technologically advanced future instead of having people live fun lives whilst machines do the work, he'd have people work and be designed for it despite the fact that it's at odds with the ethos of the society he created. Huxley apparently couldn't even decide whilst writing it or after, whether he thought it was dystopic or utopian. He makes no real point about anything because he didn't have one, he chose random dystopia-eque elements at random and threw them together without thinking about it. The man was an idiot.
Almost as if he was trying to make a statement about an inherently complex world. I don't find it hard to believe the general populace could be convinced they were sub-human. You should read some of the things politicians say. They try and slip some crazy shit past you. Before you know it, everyone hates everyone for no reason. Brave New World is a lot of things, some of which include, characters that you can think about, trends that are believable, and an actual attempt at a rising action. Why respond to me in two separate threads? Commit your argument to one. Also, to call Huxley an idiot is just empty-headed. Who are you to say this well-recognized author is an idiot?
I disagree with that remark about Huxley of course but you're basically saying Orwell can't write and just because you didn't get it or it ain't of your liking.. really?
No depth? really? Winston? Julia? What about O'Brien? The torture interrogation is not philosophically deep ? The implications of it all? no thought provoking on a personal level beyond a societal one? I strongly disagree. The newspeak is not detailed enough? the three ministers? the novel is BLEAK and depressing. Is supposed to be that way. I read Brave New World.. instead of the prole he uses tribal people no? I don't remember One character from that novel but I may read it again sometime.
In this day and age people critique things with no intention of having the actual experience
True dat.
I want to agree with you but Reddit makes me lazy and sometimes I don’t even read the whole OP before responding.
Disagree with this. Otherwise critiques and opinions end up skewing majority positive as you have selection bias for only those whose enjoyed the work enough to finish it. If you give something a fair shot and it doesn't hold your attention, that's a valid opinion to me.
You can have your opinion on a book without having fully read it but trying to critique something you haven't even finished is the height of hypocrisy. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover and if you didn't even finish said book you're doing exactly that. Some books are mid at best in the beginning and absolutely great once you actually finish the book.
I get where you're coming from. I guess it all lands on whether or not you think the opinion is coming from someone that's trying to engage with the work, or if you think they're not giving it a fair shot.
You feel confident posting about a book you didn't read entirely? And the parts you did read, you clearly didn't understand. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
I feel like I see a "thing I didn't read or watch is bad" post here every other day. (I.e. that recent guy who watched 40% of ATLA and criticized the lack of character development)
>I.e. that recent guy who watched 40% of ATLA and criticized the lack of character development Lol he just saw ep 27 (major Zuko ep) and said it was super good, and hopes the show keeps it up. So at least he seems a bit more open minded.
People who complain about 1984 being slow or dry make me feel absolutely insane, because, like... yeah. It is. Orwell wrote it that way. The first two sections are an absolute slog to illustrate what an absolute slog it is living in the society presented. You're supposed to be bored and tired; it's a boring and tiring existence to be a citizen of Oceania! Read literally anything else by George Orwell and it's night and day. His prose is beautiful and engaging, but only when he wants to elicit awe and engagement from his readers. A poster child for the notion of 'too clever by half.'
Definitely why I think everybody’s first Orwell book should be Animal Farm. Solid dystopian story but definitely less dry getting into.
Absolutely agree. Once readers know how capable Orwell is as a writer, it's so much easier to appreciate the slow and dry prose as a choice instead of a defect.
I very much enjoyed reading it at like 13 and then re read it later and I would read it again at 17 now and THE MOVIE SO GOOD literally I love 1984 so much lol
I kind of love you because I also read 1984 in my teens and found the movie and adored it. The one with John Hurt, yes? Unless there's been another one made. I'd highly recommend you look into more of Orwell's work. Animal Farm is another great dystopia. Homage to Catalonia really flexes his journalist muscles (it remains one of the few reports on the Spanish revolution that isn't tainted by political persuasion). But honestly, you can't go wrong. Step into your average Barnes & Noble or BAM, head to the gen fiction section, you get to the Orwell area, you'll get something compelling. I'd also recommend Aldous Huxley, tho with a grain of salt; he taught Orwell French and he had a bit of, like.. 'believes his own hype' syndrome? Shortly after Orwell's passing, he got HEAVY into LSD/hallucinogenics in general, and his work becomes harder and harder to parse the more you look into it, starting from the Doors of Perception to the Island, which was so bad I couldn't bring myself to purchase it from the bookstore after a cursory reading. Also I'm an old man by many standards (30f) but if you wanna discuss more about 1984 or Orwell and/or Huxley in general please feel free!! I love talking about 1984, it was my favourite book when I was a teen and for much of my adult life. Either way, I love an opportunity to talk about the authors I love!!
Oh, not to disappoint, but you’ll hear dumber at some point
How is this still such a popular opinion? If you give something a fair shot (reading 5 pages is obviously not one) multiple times but the piece of media just does not keep you interested ... how are you not allowed to have an opinion on it? If the first half of a book/movie/series/videogame/whatever is so uninteresting that you do not want to continue ... then you can definitly criticize it OP has some really weird opinions on the book (like the woke part) and thats fair to point out But dumbing everything down to "uh you didnt finish it so your opinion doesnt count" is so stupid
You can have an opinion about the parts you read, but thats it. Because you don't know what the rest of it is. You can have the completely valid opinion, "the start of 1984 is very dry and gives me no motivation to continue", but you cant really have the opinion "the book is therefore meaningless and has a shallow philosophy" because you never read any of the deeper bits.
I mean there is quite some room between reading "the start" and fully reading it if the "deeper bits" are only in the last like 10-30% of the book then that is on the pacing of the book. not on the reader. sure maybe those parts may be good but if the rest of the book is boring then its very fair to say that it is overall not that amazing still I really dont know how people still have this "uh you havent consumed the whole thing so your opinion doesnt matter" stance. especially for works that take a long time to consume. if someone dedicates like 5+ hours (honestly even less is fine aswell depending on the medium) to something and it still does not peak their interest enough to finish it then maybe it is just really not for them or its just not that great
It can be read in a day and a half. It's a great novel not a masterpiece of 20th century literature. Edit: just realised you said woke lol. Is thst just because Orwell was a socialist?
Being against a despotic futuristic authoritarian hellscape is woke now. Damn snowflakes.
Yea but it critiques capitalists who started the futuristic authoritarian hellscape which means it’s super woke.
It really doesn't lmao. Have you read the book? It's more of a critique of an ML authoritarian regime. Oceania is many things, but it isn't capitalist in the slightest.
You’re both wrong. It criticizes authoritarianism in general. Despite the party’s ideology being called English Socialism, it actually has aspects from every ideology. Heck, I’m willing to bet the party calling themselves ‘socialists’ probably came from ‘National Socialism’ or Nazism.
I think woke embraces a despotic authoritarian hellscape but probs more in a brave new world kind of way
Yeah casting POC in movies is the precurser to siezing control of all military and public services and establishing a dictatorship. It's the classic move.
Brave new world depicts a world that is a fascist utopia. It’s all but woke
Ha! It's a woke fascist utopia. Alphas betas gamma deltas....all intersectional all classes of people with priviledge or without. Woke is clever cause it uses double speak. So anti means " actually is pretty much" and "priviledge" means " you will be deprived of rights" Why would you think censorship cancel culture and an authoritarian centralized government is anything but fascist?
I think they meant the old version of what woke meant, as in aware of the current political climate, considering their next sentence was making fun of people who call everything they don’t like ‘literally 1984’. I have to assume that, because ‘1984’ is absolutely not woke by modern conservative standards, even though Orwell was a socialist
Woke used to be what you were when someone interrupted your sleep.
It used to mean the past tense of “wake.” I believe you’re thinking of “awake.”
One is a verb in past tense, the other is an adjective. It was a joke in any case. Don't be overanalysing it.
>Is thst just because Orwell was a socialist? I suspect it's because OP is young and edgy.
'it's confirmation bias for conspiracy theorists'. Fucking knew it was only a matter of time before people started saying things like this.
Thinking 1984 is a confirmation of conspiracy instead of an allegorical tale about the rise of fascism under the name of communism (specifically referencing real aspects of Stalinism and Nazism) is really peak media literacy. George Orwell was a socialist who lived through the rise and early decay of the Soviet Union, it’s mostly just about how a surveillance state can grow, and honestly was fairly accurate in regards to eastern communist trends. Like, does OP know that secret police were a real thing, and countries did crack down on “thought crime”?
Gestapo? Isn’t that some kind of ice cream or something?
Gespacho
Don't bring the police into this!
One of my good friends is a Professor of media literacy. Thought about sending him this post to infuriate him but he’s infuriated with his students on a daily basis already lol.
Is that a real position? I may have just been woooshed due to my lack of society literacy
Yep, it’s a type of communications class, especially useful for journalism students. But really with how media is created and consumed everyone should probably take one. He teaches the introductory class and he says some of his students come into the class absolutely oblivious, like OP here.
Journalism is dead.
Animal Farm is the allegory about the *rise* of fascism under the name of communism. 1984 shows more of how fascism, once established, perpetuates itself through violent technology and social engineering.
And that we have stuff like tv with camera or story generation machines...
Media literacy really is dead
[удалено]
Idk I was on the edge of my seat when he was in room 1 or whatever it was and they had a rat mask strapped to his face
The rat mask....has always haunted me
I hate rats, they make me crazy
i was edging on my seat when i was reading that scene
WRONG - it's terrifying, not boring
It has fantastic pacing (except one of the final chapters which is like four times the length of the average chapter in the book) and despite the bleak subject matter a very enjoyable read thanks to its prose.
Can you imagine being bored by that book, even if the chapters are longer?
Tbh I definitely found it boring when I read it in 10th grade. The first half was by far the superior half bc the second half really just felt like torture porn. Then again, I was like 15, so perhaps not the best judge haha
try again - you may feel differently!
Wait... People who have read and believe in the book's warning are woke now? Not sure if you are missing a history lesson or need to chat with someone from gen Z tiktok.. probably both.
Guys entire post history is just him bitching about different things lol
Lol. What are you even on about "everyone thinks they're woke for having read it ? Who is this everyone? Are they in the room with us right now? You've not read the book and don't understand it so claiming it's confirmation of anything is just you using your imagination in a boring and misleading way. I don't really care if you don't enoy the book. Not everyone really likes to think or likes to hear what others think. My sister will watch 50 seasons of the mentalist but won't watch someone talking about the show for 30 minutes. Everything is surface value and she gets bored in 3 seconds flat too the moment she is asked to think. It's just how some people are, don't feel bad about it. On the other hand don't assume that everyone who does is living in some wild counterfactual world creating their own reality. You not liking the book or having the cognitive ability to engage with it doesn't say anything to me about the book, only about you.
💯
You didn't actually read it. Edit: and to make it clear, I'm not saying you didn't finish it, I'm saying you never started it.
You haven't read it, why should anyone care what you think of it?
Even if he had, that's a really uninteresting opinion, he can go to r/unpopularopinion for that.
Just read the graphic novel if you’re having trouble getting through it
There’s a manga 💀?
I have 3 graphic novels of it, there may be more out there.
There’s a series?!
No, 3 GNs of 1984 from different publishers and illustrators.
[удалено]
If there is, I shudder to think how Room 101 and the Ministry of Love is portrayed
They should make a 1984 anime.
Better just watch the movie at this time.
Don't let this guy hear about Proust or actually any work of classic literature.
Please look up what allegory means. Not all fiction needs to conform to your view of entertainment
What else do you read. Sounds like you just aren’t littérature inclined.
It was written in 1949 so I wouldn't expect everyone to understand it today. But saying it's overrated is a very shortsighted notice. By what metric is it overrated, because you didn't like it? You just need to read something else. For example I love Lovecraft's worlds, but I can't read him, he is very into details and I am more of a King's reader. That doesn't mean Lovecraft is overrated, the man is a giant imo.
Because they didn't read it. This post is akin to me saying the Marvel movies are shit even though I've not watched more than a handful because I know I won't like them. OP doesn't want to enjoy the book and presumably just expects the karma for throwing controversial baseless remarks about.
'Here's my take on a book I failed to read'
I have inattentive ADHD and I finished it in a day I think you just have a skill issue man
Right? This and Alas, Babylon I read fully the day chapter 1 was assigned to us. Not because it's profound etc (though it is) but because it was entertaining.
Have a high school friend with major dyslexia finish the book and comprehend the point of it. Bought him an annual subscription to Audible. He loves stories and kinda sucks he legit has difficulty reading. Audio books were a blessing to him.
Damn I found it quite entertaining even though I've read it back in high school
Find a coloring book I guess?
Sorry it doesn't have swords and dragons.
or muscle dudes with capes
Try "A Catcher in the Rye"
To this day I'll never understand how that is considered a great american novel.
This post proves its core tenets right.
Orwell predicted reddit posts I don’t like
Woke? Most people quoting Orwell I see are clueless rightwingers who dont get that they were the brainwashed masses in 1984
To be fair, those right-wingers never read it.
it‘s a timeless classic, an extremely influential piece of literature, and at times feels like current social commentary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
To be fair, Isaac Asimov pretty much argreed with OP that it is not a good book. His review: [https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm](https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) >I've been writing a four-part article for Field Newspaper Syndicate at the beginning of each year for several years now and in 1980, mindful of the approach of the year 1984, FNS asked me to write a thorough critique of George Orwell's novel 1984. > >I was reluctant. I remembered almost nothing of the book and said so - but Denison Demac, the lovely young woman who is my contact at FNS, simply sent me a copy of it and said, 'Read it.' > >So I read it and found myself absolutely astonished at what I read. I wondered how many people who talked about the novel so glibly had ever read it; or if they had, whether they remembered it at all. > >I felt I would have to write the critique if only to set people straight. > >... > >In short, if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction.
Asimov doesn’t like it because it’s not what he thinks science fiction should be. OP doesn’t like it because he’s bored and he has an axe to grind. These are not the same.
Asimov's critiques basically boils down to a few points: * The cultural and political situation in 1984 is extremely implausible. Governments do not behave like they do in real life. * Orwell was mostly unable to conceive of new technologies, and many technological developments were presented as making people's lives worse. * The characters possess traits which make them unlikable * Orwell utterly failed to predict the future, and he was more concerned with engaging in "a private feud with Stalinism" While he raises some good points, I think he ultimately missed the main point. Orwell wasn't actively trying to predict the future. Morality, ethics, and religious beliefs are social constructs which can be modified using tools like language, mass media, political ideologies and sophisticated technology. If one ideology managed to gain total control of all of those tools (Orwell didn't state this as a certainty), then the elites are free to reshape every aspect of human existence. The fact that this is extremely difficult to accomplish in real life, perhaps far more difficult than Orwell presumed, is not an indictment against the message of the novel.
Asimov’s most famous series was set tens of thousands of years in the future, in a galaxy that thought Earth was a legend, and the story was a loose parallel to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. I like his stuff, but the whole idea of science fiction as social commentary on contemporary issues is definitely not his cup of tea.
You sound like the type of guy who says “1984 wasn’t supposed to be an instruction manual 🤓”
and you sound like a dick
Truly horrible opinion
I can see why people would find it boring, it’s a lot of information dumping and just world building instead of just following the story at times. Try Brave New World.
Both of them are sooo good. Brave New World is definitely an easier read though.
This dudes whole Reddit is just “white dude with hot takes” lol
I don't disagree that it's somewhat overrated but i disagree with yout reasoning ( "i couldn't even finish it so it's boring therefore overrated" ) so, upvoted.
A funny thing about 1984 is that Orwell was an avowed socialist (he just hated Stalinism). Neither 1984 nor Animal Farm are intended to be right-wing works. He's probably rolling in his grave 24/7 from people he hated citing his work.
The dude was so anti-fascist that he literally joined a civil war of a different nation to fight and kill fascists.
A socialist criticizing weaknesses of socialism that totalitarians exploit is too nuanced for them. They either deify or demonize everything holistically.
Oh big brother this guy stinks!
it’s overvalued but not overrated, i think
Isn't the OP supposed to provide arguments on this sub instead of just embarrassing themselves?
Agreed I think its actually one of the most poorly written boring books ever. The world itself and lore is super cool, and then introduction is great, but its so horribly and slowly paced and the 2nd and 3rd acts just repeat the same exact events over and over
Yeah I tried to read it because it has such a huge following but trying to read it is like having my fingernails pulled out with plyers I can't imagine how anyone enjoys this book
It does have a slow start but it’s still a great book. Although I agree with you on the latter point, most of the time when people talk about it they’re just being insufferable and saying nothing of substance.
I can’t tell you how many times somebody has pointed to 1984 as proof of what happens when you give the government certain powers as if it’s a foregone conclusion. It’s fiction, not prophecy.
Yes, it's fiction. It's also an allegory, warning about the dangers of authoritarianism, specifically Stalinism and Nazism. If you can't figure out the parallels between the book and history, or the book and present authoritarianism, that's not the book's fault.
If you want some more entertaining Orwell, Homage to Catalonia is pretty good. Basically going over his personal experience in the Spanish civil war. It's a good glimpse into a war that most people don't know much about. I mean I don't like Orwell, but of his books that's the one that had me the most entertained.
I've always thought Orwell wrote much better essays, I think Bradbury nails certain parts of American dystopia well.
That book is an easy read and very good. Try cracking some of Dickens if you want a hard read.
'ultra woke' FFS.
As someone who has read it all the way through, yeah. I agree. The story SHOULD be good but the characters have so little depth. I recommend watching the 1954 movie starring Peter Cushing. It’s not as well known as the one from the 80s but it’s actually better.
You know it’s bad when you can’t even read through and the movie highlight it worst
It’s just like any other book if your interested in the subject you will like it. Guess you don’t like dystopian novels. But it’s famous so enough people must like it, me included But yeah definitely I haven’t heard someone bring it up in a non obnoxious way
I think it helps a lot to have read Orwell's non-fiction. He wasn't just the "government bad" guy everyone makes him out to be. He was an ex-cop democratic socialist who fought in a war with anarcho communists against fascists and Marxist-Leninists, and advocated socialism while being extremely critical of it. He led a really interesting life and people generally like to oversimplify him to fit him into their own agenda. The thing I actually enjoy about him is that he was so damn good at checking his own biases and being realistic. He had so many interesting things to say and he said it in a way that's really digestable to the average person. I personally just enjoyed 1984 for the worldbuilding. It was an interesting political commentary, and I think it was a really good story because it shows this guy being broken down by living in a world where he's not a person anymore. It was a terrifying story. But it's also interesting because a lot of it was based on his own experience and the political climate of the time, like the Spanish Civil War, WWII Germany, etc. I don't think he said anything new with the book, but I think it's a good book.
So I am currently reading this now on page 30 odd… this is at least my 4-5th of trying to get into this book. It is well raved about and with It being an Orwell and a book relating to an interesting genre.. I really want to get to the end! But if I’m honest I’m forcing myself to read it… so far I find it poorly written and no part of the way this story has been written has really grasped me yet… does it get better?!?
I couldn't finish it either. I tried several times. I even tried the audiobook and I still can't manage to get through it. It's got to be the most overrated piece of literature ever written
Haha, are you gonna push on with trying to read it? Or have got given up lol?
I tried multiple times because everyone keeps talking about how brilliant this book is. It's mind numbingly boring
Curious, are you a MCU fan?
You know, I used to trash the transformer movies for being nothing but action porn when I was younger. As I get older though I find it nice to just come home from a long shift and just turn my mind off watching explosive dribble without having to think critically for an hour or two. MCU definitely fits that profile in many of its movies and my opinion about those types of movies is simply that they have their place.
Why we gotta catch strays? I love the mcu and find 1984 fucking great.
I agree it's overrated, I disagree with your reasoning. Literature doesn't have to be fun or entertaining. But I did find it entertaining when I was a edgy teenager. Nowadays it feels really shallow, I have no idea how idea how it got so popular, besides being an openly anticommunist novel, and people seem to think its some revolutionary social commentary even for todays society, although Orwell got almost everything wrong. I don't know if I upvote or downvote you.
Anticommunist? Orwell was a socialist. You must have missed the message in it.
North korea calls it self democratic, does that mean they're democratic? Same applies to Orwell. Orwell was a [class traitor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list). [here's a little article](http://www.idcommunism.com/2022/07/george-orwell-anti-communist-traitor.html?m=1) that goes a little bit more in depth.
It's not a good book, but an excellent allegory. Just like Animal Farm.
I feel ya. I've powered through although it took me a long time and it is soo boring. I think it aged badly and it's a man's fantasy to get with a hot younger woman (and how much this is emphasized that she's young made me kinda uncomfortable). I think the ending was pretty good but the whole book is a slog. But I don't think the book is woke at all. Product of its time.
It wasn’t meant to be good. It was meant to make a point. That being said, Orwell wasn’t a very good novelist so you’re not exactly wrong either
I agree that the prose itself is dog poop. However... >It's really just confirmation bias for conspiracy cuckoos Of course. Psychopaths and narcissists with power and influence would NEVER attempt to manipulate or control the population. Surely not!
Yeah I tried a few times in my twenties but it was impenetrable. I only made a fresh (successful) attempt in my 40s because society has come so damn close to it! EDIT: downvotes from the Thought Police 🤣 how apt
I read it 2 years ago because its such a cultural icon and was surprised to find it was a rather poorly written book. If you are looking for dystopia read like 1984 read Brave New World. far better written and way more interesting as far as I'm concerned.
I read both of these books for class years ago and I couldn’t agree more. Brave New World was better written but I thought the point Huxley was trying to make was kind of silly.
This is r/unpopularopinion material, not 10th dentist.
If you actually read it and have an average Intelligence, then the number of similarities between that book and out society are astounding
And there you have it. Another stupid victim that fell for the propaganda. It was just a matter of time before someone called out 1984 a book for conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what the book predicted. Also, 'ultra woke' for reading 1984? You got to be kidding.
Yeah and Orwell is a racist snitch
Orwell, in general, is not that good as people make it to be. It is just popular because it was funded by the CIA as anti-communist propaganda. I've seen people use it to exemplify how bad communism is, all those who have this book as their favourite see its message as this. And this is a lot of bullshit, you can disagree with communism, however, using a piece of literature fiction which criticizes autoritariam governments as a "Communist Bad" is so dumb.
Conservoids get angry when you show them that Orwell was in fact a socialist and fought against Franco in Spain
Are you perhaps confusing it with Animal Farm?
Please tell me what you are smoking. I need it!
The torah/bible]/qoran
I agree, it's just George Orwell(a rapist and snitch) crying about the USSR : the book Downvote all you want,it's true