Showing posts with label Orwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orwell. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Closing the lid of January



The first month of the year has ended. You know what that means. Only February to suffer and then it is almost legitimate to start waiting or spring. Being a citizen of a Nordic country this is a big deal for me because the snow piles, low temperatures and overall darkness can get a bit uninspiring.
 
Anyhow, the upside is that when it's cold and uncomfortable outside, the more time to read.
 
I finished 6 books in January, which was my first month of blogging and more "systematic" reading. Six is not maybe that much, but considering that two of them were chunksters, I think it is more or less decent number.
 
In total I read 3039 pages in January.
 
 
 
The books were
 

I have no idea how February will turn out. I am still reading "1Q84" (which is a little bit disappointing in many ways, but I will write about that at later day), I started "Germinal", which is awesome but which I want to devour in small pieces, I started "Howards End" in Estonian and made it until page 90 before fully realising that reading Forster in Estonian equals a small sin, and I also started the ultimate Sherlock Holmes collection I found this weekend. I also found a nice copy of "Jane Eyre" and am quite tempted to start that re-read (it has been many, many years and I am very curious how I might see this book at this age).
 
Plans for blog posts this week include thoughts on "The Woman in White", which I haven't had time to write about, and show off the new books from last week.
 

Monday, January 7, 2013

Review: "1984" by George Orwell


Warning (in case there is even a person left who has not read this book): (minor) spoilers ahead.
 
Whoah. This is one of those books that provokes too many thoughts and at times it feels like someone is twisting spaghetti in your brains, with a fork. Legendary novel published in 1949, set in the year 1984, which I read in 2013 - that was a promising springboard.
 
First of all I think it is appropriate to say that people probably read this book very differently. I think a college student from America or Australia might get a pretty different experience from this one than, for example, people older than teens who are born in the eastern side of Europe. I was born in Estonia, so I qualify as a person having stronger connection to totalitarian regimen to begin with. That means that some things in the book, which to some may seem totally bizarre, crazy, unthinkable, stupid, pointless - are not all those things for some others; these are pretty similar to life that they have lived, or that their parents or grandparents have led.
 
Okay, to shake this gloom off a bit, I have prepared a neat (muahahahaha) lit'l chart for you:

"1984" food chain (approach with humour)
 

The novel describes a dystopian society led by mysterious Big Brother and the Party. Party is divided into two: inner and outer. If you are member of the elite, you get real coffee, red wine, crackers, servants and the option to switch off the Eye for some time in your apartment (the telescreen that sees and hears all, plays propagandistic/militaristic music 24/7 and in normal cases, cannot be turned off). If you are member of the outer Party, you get oatmeal, synthetic gin and cigarettes that are basically non-smokable. In the bottom of the chain are proles - they are basically like hippies living in poverty. No-one pays them much attention, they have more liberties to do what they like than, say, outer Party members, but since they are practically starving, all they can do is drink, smoke and try to keep their sorry souls alive.
 
We follow the story of Winston - 39-year old outer Party member, whose life is a shithole not so good. Winston's problem is that since he has managed to maintain some amount of independent brain work, he fully realises that his life is crap. He is contacted by his fellow party member Julia, with whom he has never exchanged a single word (apparently it's better if Party members do not talk to each other because it can end in trouble) and to whom Julia delivers a note saying "I love you". Wth, right? And she's not 16, she is 25. Well ok, let's see... Despite the dangers and threats, they start secret meetings and develop a physical relationship. Of course, it is not difficult to guess that as in a proper totalitarian world, the Eyes are everywhere, and big problems commence.
 
The novel is divided into three parts. Part I introduces Winston and his life, and in general the society of super-country called Oceania. Part II focuses on Winston's and Julia's relationship, and part III, in large, shows how the Party tries to convert Winston into the society of duckspeakers.
 
I think since I was fairly familiar with the contents of this novel even before reading, I was trying to focus on side-things. For example, the relationship between Julia and Winston. Nowadays, or in a "normal" world, they would have been just sex buddies, I think. It seemed that their love for each other was just love for another person who too cannot stand the system. Didn't seem to matter that much who that person was exactly. Since they have quite a bit of age difference, Winston himself ponders at times over Julia's lack of enthusiasm to come up with some plan to, well, destroy the barricades. He says
 
But she only questioned the teachings of the party when they in some way touched upon her own life. /p. 160/
 
and
 
"You are only a rebel from waist downwards," he told her. /p. 165/
 
So I didn't really buy the love story, but of course, we all (more or less) have needs, so I kinda got that part.
 
Orwell spends good deal of time and paper space by describing the plans for new language that the Party and Big Brother are trying to root. It's called Newspeak (as opposed to Oldspeak - the old English language) and for me, some of the spooookiest moments in the novel associated with that.
 
"Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?" /p. 55/
 
Erm... and how is that a good thing, exactly?
 
"By 2050 - earlier, probably - all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron - they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be." /p. 56/
 
Ugh... given how words were being destroyed and the existing ones, well, merged (there was "good" but no "bad" - that was to be "ungood", you catch the drift), I don't really see what point there was to keep any texts at all.
 
I can see how people go screaming after they read the ending of "1984", but I'd say that was realistic, as much as one can imagine things being realistic in the conditions like that. So I didn't really mind. But overall, depressing reading, of course. And thought-provoking.
 
My regret is that I did not read "1984" in "tender" age, like, in high-school. It would have made an enormous impact on my persona, no doubt. After you get older, and maybe take extensive literature courses in uni and so all, you can go kind of numb to certain texts and become too analytical as opposed to experience properly.

"2 + 2 = 5" /p. 303/
 
 ---

326 pages 

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Brain Food Purchase

Stumbled upon a book sale here in Helsinki... Oooooops :)


From top to bottom:
  1. Wilkie Collins "The Woman in White" - considered to be one of the first "mystery novels". Of course I am intrigued. How did they (attempt to) write spooky stuff in the 19th century?
  2. George Orwell "1984" - probably the most famous of all dystopian novels, which I, sadly, missed in the high-school. There must have been a choice between this book and some others, and for some totally unexplainable reason, I must have chosen that something else. Though, plowing my way through it now, I feel like I have already "read" it - afterall, if you have seen "Equilibrium" and read "Fahrenheit 451" (R. Bradbury) and "Brave New World" (A. Huxley), added the occasional flirt with marvellous Anne Applebaum (who writes of this stuff in terms of how it really was - I read her enormous and spooky to the bone "Gulag: A History"), how much new can it be in regards of book-burning and turning the whole society into mindless duckspeakers?
  3. Hunter S. Thompson "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" - because the movie was not too shabby and what better way to spend a snowy evening than getting drifted away by delusional drug-induced journeys of a few Americans?
  4. Jeanette Winterson "Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal?" - because how can you possibly not want to read a book with such a title? 
  5. Ernest Hemingway "For Whom the Bell Tolls" - my last contact with Hemingway goes back many years and I think now I am again ready for the overload of testosterone and his, apologises for the expression, but what I remember as quite plain writing style. (O the things we go through for you, authors of classics!) 
  6. William Faulkner "The Hamlet" - because I felt it is about time to rekindle my love for this Mississippian master of written word.