1984 #9: War Is Peace, Ignorance Is Strength

186. War is no longer fought with the purpose of victory, but it is still just as hysterical and bloody if not more

187. Each country is so big that the other two would never be able to conquer it, and that they would never need to for any material/economic purpose

187. Cycle of more territory -> more labor -> more arms

188. Boundaries constantly fluctuating

188. "the object of waging war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war"

188. "The primary aim of modern warfare ... is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living"

189. The world stopped progressing after the revolution because critical and independent thinking became undesirable

190. Final phase of capitalism - 1920-1940 (refers to Great Depression?)

190. Goal is to control supply but not production

192. You need to have destruction to maintain this certain kind of order and structure, and war justifies that destruction

192. War makes it easy to maintain a wartime mentality in all citizens

193. Innovation is not allowed unless it is used by the Party to combat the humanity of society

195. All three countries have similar atomic siege schemes,

none of which will ever work

196. Countries don't push boundaries too much because they can't have contact with foreigners

196. All 3 superstates have similar tyrannical omnipotent governments, even though everyone in a given country is taught of the barbarism of the other two

197. Therefore conquering a superstate would not accomplish anything because there is nothing one could gain

197. Reference to 2+2=5

1984 #3

The Party that rules the world of 1984 attempts to convince the reader that “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”, which is one of the Party’s three major slogans (4).  Winston’s first personal encounter with ignorance is with the family of a fat and boyish Parsons.  He speaks proudly of his two children who have recently had a man killed because “he was wearing a funny kind of shoes” (57).  Since the Party keeps children like these in ignorance, they remain fiercely loyal to Big Brother; they have become the Party’s single most abundant and most useful domestic fighting force.  If anyone thought to question what Big Brother asked of the Children of Oceania, the force of young Spies would not be nearly as powerful or as threatening to the generation above it because the entire nation would not be united.  Similarly, the Party controls the memories of his subjects, which allows it to control the thoughts and emotions of everyone in Oceania.  The Party encourages celebration when they “raise” the ration of chocolate to twenty grams, when in objective reality they have just lowered it to twenty grams from thirty (58).  Since no one knows any better, this history-changing announcement joyfully brings the nation together.  If one person decides what an entire nation does and does not know, then ignorance is strength because ignorance is union.

1984 #1

Orwell writes in more than one of his publications about the direct relationship between the scope of a society’s vocabulary and the capacity of that society to think independently.  In a 1946 essay titled “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell warns that “if thought can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought.”  He cautions his readers of the vicious circle of certain usages becoming too familiar and as a result losing or altering their connotations.  Orwell predicts that this effect on language could either limit or expand the consciousness of a civilization.  Naturally, Orwell utilizes this tactic in the very etymology of his new language, Newspeak.  In the appendix of 1984, which Orwell wrote two years after writing his essay, Orwell describes the language that he invents in order “to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism” (299).  Orwell portrays this Socialist society as dangerous and imprisoning, so it follows that “The purpose of Newspeak was…to make all other modes of thought impossible” (299).  The language accomplishes this by taking broad concepts and groups of terms that Ingsoc would like to do away with and condensing them into simple compound words.  For example, “All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality…were contained into a single word crimethink,” the word crimethink meaning ‘heretical and forbidden thought’ (305).  Newspeak disposes of freedom by making it literally impossible to ponder; when a child does not grow up knowing a word associated with the concept of having the ability to do what you wish, it would be too difficult for the child to think of that concept without words, and the child could live his entire life never pondering the possibility of freedom.  The Party that rules Oceania can therefore control its people’s thoughts by limiting their vocabulary and abbreviating any concept that might be dangerous to the Party’s power, thereby limiting the thoughts that it is even possible to think.

Winston, the protagonist of 1984, is often caught up in the waves of passionate hatred toward people who deviate from the Party.  However, Winston sometimes catches glimpses of independent thought during which he can see the way the Party has brainwashed the people of Oceania.  During one of these short instances of independent thought, he makes eye contact with O’Brien, a fascinating and mysterious government agent.  At this moment, from this simple exchange of glances, Winston knows he is not alone.  An entire conversation passes between their eyes, one that says, “I know precisely what you are feeling.  I know all about your contempt, your hatred, your disgust [of the Party].  But don’t worry, I am on your side!” (17).  This instantaneous conversation is the antithesis of the way the Party uses abbreviated thought.  It shows how abbreviated thought can not only suppress thought, but serve as a vehicle for more abstract thought.  Instead of hiding the connotations of Winston’s thoughts of dissent, his eye contact with O’Brien carries them further than they could ever get with words.

Heart of Darkness - Section 5: Kurtz's Intended

When Marlow calls on Kurtz's Intended to speak with her, it appears as though she had forced herself to believe that Kurtz is the man of her dreams, and in doing so, she has turned her back on the true Kurtz.  Kurtz's Intended seems to have no idea that Kurtz becomes deranged during his time in the Congo.  She speaks nostalgically of her fianceé's admirability, as though she believes that he still has the charisma and gravitas that Marlow imagines Kurtz to have before actually meeting him (161).  She also describes Kurtz (or her impression of him) in greater detail than Marlow does.  It is as if she believes that she has been with him the entire time, when in fact Marlow has seen Kurtz more recently and probably more intimately than she ever has.  However, she does not let Marlow guide the conversation about Kurtz.  She continually cuts Marlow's sentences short, finishing them with words Marlow would clearly not use, such as her claim that it is impossible not to love Kurtz if you ever meet him (161).  In this way, Marlow says that Kurtz's Intended "talked as thirsty men drink" (161).  By using this diction, Conrad gives the impression that Kurtz's Intended is searching frantically for descriptions of Kurtz that will make her more at ease about her feelings for him.  Since her neighbors evidently do not approve of her relationship with Kurtz, she feels the need to find a way to justify that relationship, namely through a man who actually has had a first person encounter with Kurtz.  She is scrambling for proof that her Intended was worthy of love, even if she has to prevaricate that proof herself.

Heart of Darkness - Section 4

The more the reader learns about Mr. Kurtz throughout Part II of Heart of Darkness, the less perfect Kurtz becomes.  When Marlow first learns of Kurtz, all we know is that Kurtz is “a first-class agent” who “Sends in as much ivory as all the other [agents] put together” (85, 86).  Since all the reader knows of him are the effects of his actions and awed perceptions of the other men involved in the Belgian Congo campaign, Kurtz is initially an enigma, a mysteriously omnipotent Wizard of Oz figure.  However, as Kurtz’s character develops during Part II, Marlow’s story exposes Kurtz’s flaws and imperfections.  As Marlow continues on his treacherous journey to reach Kurtz’s stronghold in central Africa, he compares Kurtz to “an enchanted princess sleeping in a fabulous castle” (117-118).  This concrete image of effeminate helplessness is unlike anything the reader has heard thus far pertaining to Kurtz.  It paints Kurtz as inert, impatient, and even spoiled, contrasting sharply with the glorious stories Marlow has heard over the course of his journey.  Later, Marlow points out that, according to Kurtz, “everything belonged to him [Kurtz]” (126).  The apparent sarcasm of Marlow’s comment displays his apparent annoyance with the way Kurtz perceives the world around him.  This is the first time Marlow directly points out one of Kurtz’s imperfections, the first time the reader sees Marlow admit that the man with whom he has been fascinated all this time may not be the deity he is expecting.  As Marlow comes closer and closer to Kurtz, he begins to realize that he may finally be forced “pay…attention to the man behind the curtain.”