Skip to main content

1,984 reasons why I hate Orwell

Sorry, that was clickbait. I don't actually have a list of 1,984 reasons to hate Orwell, but I do have some big problems with him that I'll be hashing out here (aka ranting).

  1. He is obsessed with torture. 1984 is a study in human nature. However, Orwell chooses to study human nature through the lens of torture. I understand his desire to make Oceania such a deeply horrific society, but I think he goes far past the point of appropriateness. He seems like part of that group of creepy old-school psychologists who thought that any lengths could be taken in the name of science. Even though everything in 1984 is obviously theoretical, it's unsettling to me that Orwell has mentally worked out so many intricate details about the brink of human sanity in relation to torture. Creep.
    1. He is sexist. I think I've already written a post about this one, but I'll say it again: there is no female independence in 1984. All the social and political leaders are men, and the only female characters appear as motherly figures or sexual objects. The fact that Winston doesn't even encounter any other women in his life besides his neighbor, his mom, and Julia is ridiculous and unrealistic to the point where it's clear that Orwell is unwilling to give any of his "precious time" to creating well-developed and multi-dimensional female characters. It's kind of ironic that he did so much writing to promote socialism but didn't even see women as equals.
    2. He is (probably) racist and homophobic. I made these deductions from subtleties in the book, but also from the fact that he was a white man born in 1903 (he was also born in India because his dad was working in the Imperial Civil Service - not a good look). In the book, there's only one comment made about sexuality, but it's a derogatory comment about people in the labor camps having same-sex relationships. It's mentioned alongside other degenerate behavior that people in these camps resort to, so to me that makes Orwell's views of gay people pretty clear. He also never mentions racial diversity within Oceania (which is impossible because Oceania is North America and England, which had lots of racial diversity when this book was written), and the only racially-charged comments he makes are gross stereotypes of prisoners from Eurasia and Eastasia. So, lots of bad things going on here. Once again, ironic that his idea of equality has so many asterisks.
    Those are my three biggest reasons for disliking Orwell. I'm sure if I thought about it for long enough I could get 1,984 but I think this will do for now. Do you agree with my criticisms? Are there some big ones that I missed?

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Will the Party lose steam?

    In terms of optimistic book passages, I can't say this one is at the top of my list. Basically what we learned from chapters III-V of Part Three is that the Party will rule the world for all of eternity, and there is no situation in which they will not succeed. Winston protests when O'Brien tells him this, arguing that the Party will self-destruct at some point, or at least some spiritual force in the universe will prevent the eternal rule of the Party. However, O'Brien just mocks Winston. O'Brien makes a very convincing case for the Party, but there is one potential loophole that could topple the Party - decreasing devotion to the cause.  In revolutions, the most passionate generation is the one that actually revolts (obviously). In 1984 , that is the group that is currently running the Party. However, as authoritarian regimes pass down through the generations, this revolutionary fervor dies down, and those in power either loosen their grip enough to destabilize themse...
    11 comments
    Read more

    The Curse of the Cubs

    I wrote my final project about a person who embodies the Cubs' 108-year World Series drought. My story starts with the Cubs winning the 1908 World Series, and skips around to a few significant moments in the main character's life before ending with the 2016 World Series. Here's a few important things to know about the Cubs and baseball before you start reading: The World Series is a best-of-seven series, so you have to win 4 games to win To get to the World Series, teams have to win a different best-of-seven series, called either the National League Championship Series (NLCS) or the American League Championship Series (ALCS). The Cubs play in the National League, so they have to win the NLCS to advance The Cubs won the World Series in 1907 and 1908 and appeared in a few more after that, but didn't appear in a World Series from 1945-2016 The infamous Bartman Incident occurred when a Cubs fan (Steve Bartman) deflected a foul ball out of reach of Cubs outfielder Mois...
    14 comments
    Read more

    Isolating the variable: setting in The Plague

    Today in class, we talked a lot about how Camus establishes the setting for The Plague . To be honest, a lot of the first section of this book blended together for me - the middle-class French men with unmemorable names, the rats (and then humans) gruesomely dying in the streets, the conversations among medical professionals - many of the finer details are difficult for me to recall. However, the description of Oran stuck with me. The narrator describes one of the blandest and ugliest towns I have ever imagined, with not very nice humans living in it.  At first, I thought it was strange that Camus had selected such a boring setting for his book. Then I realized how intentional it was, and how important. Camus is using the story of the plague as a medium through which to analyze fascism and the Nazis. That is his primary focus, and in order to fully focus on the plague he needs to eliminate all distractions (e.g. a noteworthy setting). He is isolating the variable by placing it in a...
    9 comments
    Read more