What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
339 Comments
- dowelly, on 05/11/2009, -2/+239doubleplus ungood
- shagg187, on 05/11/2009, -2/+236One of the best books I've ever read. Great article too.
- presidentraygun, on 05/11/2009, -1/+200We've always been at war with Eurasia.
- mgraham80, on 05/11/2009, -3/+106Pffft. Everyone knows a novel by a "two legger" is always ungood. Now four legs, on the other hand...
- Tanktunker, on 05/11/2009, -2/+100What kind of message does that send?
That you're a mindless drone?
You may have misunderstood what 2+2=5 signifies. - Wiini, on 05/11/2009, -3/+99I've got 1984 sitting on my desk here at work. I've read it twice. Masterpiece.
People talk about "big brother" and "room 101" all the time, like they know what they are, or even what the book is about.
After you've read the book, those things are even scarier. - anexanhume, on 05/11/2009, -1/+71A classic. Anyone who reads this should also read Huxley's Brave New World. Given our current state of over-medication and talk of "designer" babies, I find it very relevant to our current society.
- thorstrongstone, on 05/11/2009, -1/+66This was a great little article. And here I had always thought the title was just the year, flipped.
And, as this is DIGG, a quote:
"The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering-a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons-a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting-three hundred million people all with the same face.”
Man, look at that. Orwell was more of a prophet than that nancy, Nostradamus. - seanstuart, on 05/11/2009, -3/+63Orwell's understanding of how millions of people can be manipulated into loving their oppressive government was astonishing. So many of Oceania's techniques at public control that he described closely resemble those used today in America by political parties, institutions of government, and corporations.
Perhaps the most important work produced in the last century. - covertbadger, on 05/11/2009, -4/+581984 is the most misunderstood book ever written. People continually glom onto the superficial bits like constant surveillance (CCTV cameras! OMGWTFBBQ 1984!!) and miss the central warnings about the nature of complete totalitarian power. The future is a boot stomping on a human face forever, and all that.
- Myonosken, on 05/11/2009, -1/+49YEAH ROCK ON MAN.
Seriously, stop being one of the retards on Digg who quotes 1984 endlessly and actually read the message. What you just said is the complete opposite to it. - Zdorab, on 05/11/2009, -0/+47This, kids, is intelligent and (mostly) respectful debate on the internets, an extremely rare phenomenon.
- Psygnosis, on 05/11/2009, -1/+40One could argue that the book helped him live forever....
- geoman2k, on 05/12/2009, -1/+39omg, newspeak = bs, wtf. ppl would nvr talk like that.
english ftw. lol! rotflmao
ttyl, bbs - Krrf, on 05/11/2009, -0/+38"George Orwell was an optimist"
- Inflammo, on 05/11/2009, -0/+36Orwell was a master
- chuckDontSurf, on 05/11/2009, -0/+35Wow, an actual literary debate on digg. Never thought I'd see the day.
- Zdorab, on 05/11/2009, -0/+32It's funny because he combined quotes TWO books by Orwell!
- covertbadger, on 05/11/2009, -6/+38@roodammy44
How would a cctv camera help you control someone's thoughts? Do you understand the significance of the Thought Police? O'Brien? Newspeak? Goldstein? Have you even READ the book, or do you just parrot what other people say about it?
The surveillance was misdirection. Superficial. It deals with trivial things like making sure people do their morning exercise. That's why it's so irritating to see people misrepresent the whole book in terms of its most unsophisticated concept.
Throughout the whole novel Winston is aware of the cameras and controls his emotions and actions when in view. One of the central ironies is that it wasn't his public, camera-visible actions that condemned him, it was his most secret and clandestine behaviour out of view of the cameras, where he was manipulated by the insidious and sophisticated Thought Police. When Winston and Julia were caught, it wasn't because of the telescreen behind the picture. - nearlyfond, on 05/11/2009, -1/+31read the book, the movie sucked!
- roodammy44, on 05/11/2009, -2/+31@covertbadger:
Yes I have read the book, one of the most influential books I have ever read.
How do cctv cameras control people's thoughts? It makes me think you haven't read the book!
Winston may have been rebelling, but the rest of the population were not. They were conforming because of the cameras everywhere and the social conditions in the families.
Winston was an exceptional character in the story purely *because* he could fool all of the cameras, and he still got caught. When most people have no freedom of action, they will be conditioned into certain behaviour and thoughts.
Any kind of open rebellion was impossible in such a situation.
You could equate some of the modern drug laws with this effect - because they are told drugs are bad from authorities and suffer consequences such as going to prison if they are caught with a certain drug, they associate some drugs as being "wrong", even though prescription drugs can be worse. The only reason people would think otherwise is if they try them themselves - impossible if you are constantly watched.
The form of govt described, in which thoughts can be dictated, isn't even possible without constant surveillance. - rodrigo74, on 05/11/2009, -1/+30All written to you?
- ShingoEX, on 05/11/2009, -0/+28They hated it because it didn't have any pictures in it
- DirtPile, on 05/11/2009, -1/+26Are you illiterate?
- ahhell, on 05/11/2009, -1/+25Red? Personally, I prefer to orange it.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -2/+25Everyone should read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. It's the account of him participating in the Spanish Civil War, and an account of the politics leading to the war.
- trizzleatl, on 05/11/2009, -1/+24Most who read it probably did so in school, although I personally chose to read it and Animal Farm on my own time just to see what all the fuss was about. Turns out they are actually very good reads and very relevant to the world governments and politics as we know them today.
- covertbadger, on 05/11/2009, -2/+25"Winston was an exceptional character in the story purely *because* he could fool all of the cameras, and he still got caught."
Here's a question for you. How many of the people arrested in the book were arrested as a result of the telescreen? Ampleforth? No. Parsons? No. Rutherford et al? No.
No-one had any difficulty avoiding the cameras, Winston included. In fact it was Julia who worked out how to pass the note without the telescreen picking it up. That's the whole *point* about Winston - he wasn't exceptional in any way, he was the epitome of average, an anti-hero.
The telescreens were an unsophisticated and over-obvious form of control. The significance of the telescreens was that they were right in everyones faces, which led poor dim fools like Winston to think that if they could avoid them then they could rebel. It's no coincidence that Winston's very first act of rebellion is to write a journal out of view of the telescreen, which O'Brien nevertheless knows about. Avoiding the telescreen is *easy* - the point is that doing so makes no difference.
"The form of govt described, in which thoughts can be dictated, isn't even possible without constant surveillance."
It's pretty clear that you have absolutely no idea of the importance of Newspeak in 1984. Orwell's misdirection was too clever by half. It's stated over and over again through the novel that the Party cannot bear the existence of a contrary opinion. Through Newspeak they aimed to make it impossible to think anti-Party thoughts. There's whole passages about how if a wrong thought is allowed to happen, the Party is too late. Given this, what use is a telescreen? If all it does is let you watch people, it is doing absolutely nothing in line with the Party's goals. - bobjohnsonmilw, on 05/11/2009, -1/+23Hands down the only book I've ever felt compelled to read cover to cover numerous times.
- kspirit, on 05/11/2009, -0/+22Thats awesome. The whole theory on why the 3 SuperCountries were at war actually made economical sense.
- Hetman, on 05/11/2009, -3/+251984 is a great book. But for whatever reason after reading animalfarm I had this unnatural fear of pigs walking up right. For some reason even now it still disturbes me.
- Fhwqhgads, on 05/11/2009, -5/+27and the owners of the world are seeing to it that this book becomes a true story.
- nickcommie, on 05/11/2009, -2/+23No, smartass, the book was a commentary about totalitarianism, which obviously has no allegiance to any particular economic system. Orwell himself was a self-described democratic socialist, fought in the Spanish Civil War, and had obvious Trotskyist sympathies as can be understood if you actually read 1984 or Animal Farm, as both of the texts have the characters of the Russian Revolution in them, portrayed in different lights.
- Bertu, on 05/11/2009, -0/+21Four legs good, two legs better!!!
- covertbadger, on 05/11/2009, -11/+311) You just don't get it, do you? The fact that you can go to Wikipedia and see counter-evidence to CNN's footage is all the proof you could ever want that 1984 is not here. In the novel, when Winston finds just such an example of contradiction it's the first time he's EVER seen such a thing - and even then it's indicated that it was a deliberate plant by O'Brien. And did you really just refer to the Pearl Harbor movie as a serious example of revisionism? Since when is Hollywood a document of record?
2) Ah, another person who doesn't understand what Newspeak was in the novel. It's depressingly common. Newspeak was not just an expression of doublethink. It was not just the appropriation of words to misrepresent a campaign or conflict. It was a sustained and methodical attempt to make it intellectually impossible to think revolutionary thoughts. If you really think that naming something the 'Patriot Act' is equivalent, I suggest you find someone who understands adult literature and ask them to explain the novel to you, very carefully.
3) Funny, I must have imagined all that footage of Iraqi citizens throwing hostile looks at US soldiers, or telling the TV cameras that they wish they would leave. Or are you going to tell me that every Iraqi citizen who has shown non-violent dissent has been dragged off to be tortured?
4) And how many cases have there been in NYC of a parent saying "down with Obama" in their sleep, and as a result been turned in for torture by their 6-year-old? The NYC calls for public vigilance are not the same thing and you know it.
5) And yet, we are still continuing this seditious conversation without fear of arrest, and your argument is fatally wounded by this simple fact. - REV0R, on 05/11/2009, -1/+21He probably realized the second paragraph was going to be as bad as the first and did us all a favor.
- Schralpy, on 05/11/2009, -0/+18B/c his favorite book is magazines.
- pintomp3, on 05/11/2009, -2/+20That wasn't the government, that was me.
- armo, on 05/11/2009, -0/+17Do it, do it now.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html - SpruceCaboose, on 05/11/2009, -1/+18Fantastic novel. Along with Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, Anthem, Catch 22, and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Nineteen Eighty-Four is one of the greatest books written to me.
- Schralpy, on 05/11/2009, -0/+17I didn't know he was in such a bad state when he wrote 1984, makes it all the more impressive. His dedication is really amazing, forgoing medical treatment to get the book finished. I've always tried to model his ability to be as succinct as possible and not use overly flighty language. Good article.
- proliance, on 05/11/2009, -0/+17I like the part where you start and end a new paragraph with "Also,."
- covertbadger, on 05/11/2009, -2/+18"I want to make my argument clearer:
When people consciencely break laws they consider two things"
Let me make it clearer. In 1984 the Party wanted to make it IMPOSSIBLE to consciously commit a crime. There are pages and pages of exposition from O'Brien about this, which you apparently skipped over or simply didn't understand.
The telescreens are completely incompatible with the ultimate goal of the Party, and utterly irrelevant to their vision of society. Newspeak was intended to make it impossible to even formulate a criminal thought, much less action - so of what use would a telescreen be?
"If you had a breathalyser inside every car with a report sent to police, I bet you could guarantee the problem would be much smaller. Would you be willing to install a breathalyser like this? If not then why would you accept cctv cameras?"
What does this have to do with anything? This isn't about whether CCTV cameras are a good or a bad thing, it's about the fact that sticking a few cameras on street corners DOES NOT mean we have a society even remotely comparable to Airstrip One.
"Imagine living in a world where every aspect of your life is watched, and if you deviate from any prescibed action then you will suffer bad consequences."
We've already seen that it was easy to avoid the telescreen. You are dodging the fact that a telescreen could only prevent action, not thought. To argue that it was even vaguely of the same importance as Newspeak is simply to reaffirm your lack of grasp of the key concepts of the novel. - inactive, on 05/11/2009, -11/+27Almost every restaurant/diner/whatever around here blares Fox News in the background. Every so often, they'll come blasting with a "FOX NEWS ALERT," in which everyone in the place will look and start grumbling about whatever the story is.
They usually last about 2 minutes.
It's two minutes of hate, if you will. - Twinfire0, on 05/12/2009, -0/+16We're at war war with Eastasia.
We've always been at war with Eastasia. - roodammy44, on 05/11/2009, -2/+17I want to make my argument clearer:
When people consciencely break laws they consider two things:
- What is my chance of getting caught.
- How much trouble am I in if I get caught.
At the moment, drink driving is a problem. In the UK, you get up to 6 months in prison for doing it, so why do so many still do it? Because the chances of being caught are small.
If you had a breathalyser inside every car with a report sent to police, I bet you could guarantee the problem would be much smaller. Would you be willing to install a breathalyser like this? If not then why would you accept cctv cameras? - edwartica, on 05/11/2009, -0/+15The book is what, 124 pages long? READ THE FREAKING BOOK! ITS NOT THAT LONG!
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -3/+18'Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4.'
That's the line, that would be like getting Led Zeplin tatooed on your body. - MxM111, on 05/11/2009, -1/+16doubledigg
- vbullinger, on 05/11/2009, -7/+21Wow, judging by the responses to your comment, it seems that people think that unless every single word is exactly what is happening, and not just like... 2/3rds of the way there, that this isn't a true statement by any means.
We're so far down the road to a similar fate that the comparison is fair. You don't jump from total freedom (1776) to total slavery (1984) in one fell swoop. You look at what the people in power are doing, write down what they want to do in the future (10, 20, 100 years from now) and watch the dominoes fall into place. They're really behind schedule, but it was quite an aggressive schedule.
Orwell wasn't just making stuff up: this was a very educated guess. Aldous Huxley took an educated guess, as well, with his Brave New World. They weren't hyperbolizing or exaggerating at all. They were just skipping all the steps in between 1776 and 1984. You have to do things like that incrementally.
The love of freedom really gets in the way of tyranny. Even fairly unintelligent people will rebel at some point. It's hard to break everyone's spirit, so it will take a long time to get to 1984. But Orwell fairly accurately predicted that World War 2 would start around 1940 and arise due to a scuffle between Germany and Poland. Then he predicted that World War 3 would start around 1980 and arise due to a scuffle between the US and Iraq. Since Iraq didn't exist at the time, he got more specific and named a city: Basra. He wasn't just goofing around: it was a very educated guess. The love of freedom got in the way and derailed these plans (yes, plans) and that's why we're here and not there. -
Show 51 - 100 of 349 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is