Questions about the book 1984 (1 Viewer)

[KyleK]

**spoilers**(duh)

OK, I just read the book and I loved it (kinda depressing), but I have some questions.

1. Who the heck was this O'Brien guy? At first he is on his side and then he tortures him in the Ministry of Love?

2. Was Mr. Charrington always a member of the Thought Police, and was the telescreen always behind the picture?

3. What was the bit about the bullet entering his brain in the last paragraph?

Great book, highly reccomended.

 

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

Haven't read this in 5 years (and for a 20 year old, that's a long time), but I think I recall one of the answers you seek: The bullet in the final paragraph is either A) Metaphorical or B) Literal.

I tend to prefer the A route. Essentially, he's sold out his lover, his spirit has been crushed, he might as well be dead.

B) He's receiving his punishment for opposing the party. They've stripped him of everything else, now they're taking his life.

 

[Philip_G]

I haven't read the book since 1993. man time flies.. anyway

B) He's receiving his punishment for opposing the party. They've stripped him of everything else, now they're taking his life.

this is mostly how I take it, in the book they make reference to rehabilitating you, then setting you free is part of the punishment, then shooting you, but you never know when.

 

[Joe_C]

I had to write a 20 page paper on George Orwell, analyzing the man and his works, and every critic/resource I used that talked about 1984 stated that it was a literal bullet. While many mentioned that there was the metaphoric aspect as well, he actually does cease to exist after a non-metaphoric bullet enters his skull.

 

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

Okay, I'll accept that. I still think it's a metaphorical bullet, but you're free to believe what you will.

Anyway, about the other questions: I don't really think there are answers to them. You're free to speculate about them, but there's nothing concrete in the book, about those or many other subjects. Anyway, great book.

 

[rob kilbride]

Read the book about 5 years ago and if I remember correctly Obrien hands the main character a note that he is part of a revolutionary group to trap him into confessing his crimes. So he was always a bad guy, just pretended to be good to find out everything the main character had been up to. I loved this book, its always been a bit of a phobia for me wondering how I would hold up under torture if the only way out was to sell out my country or someone I love. A very disturbing book.

 

[Kirk Gunn]

For those familiar with the Communist's rise in Russia in the early 20th century, read Orwell's "Animal Farm".

A very quick read and equally as powerful.

I haven't read "1984" in 20+ yrs, may have to pick it up again ! Thanks for the inspiration.

 

[john harshman]

hi all

i just finished reading this book and have a few questions

why did the ministry of love spend so much time on these people just to kill them?

o'brien worked along side winston for 7 years

?not very quick on uncovering people against the party

and to me i think everyone propositioned to stand up against the party would be wanting to join up because the thought police are going to kill you anyway

who was the party?

how did o'brien become so high up? was he big brother?

now the dream winston had about o'brien saying they would meet in the room with no darkness and how did o'brien know every thought winston had when he was being tortured?

is o'brien a real person?

and the ending

was winston fully brainwashed did he really love big brother?

very disturbing book

power is power over suffering people and letting them know that just to kill them

what a downer

 

[Kenneth]

I haven't read this book since the early 80's but it is memorable. I found all three of the great dystopian novels to be powerful (Brave New World, 1984, Anthem). The analysis performed when they covered 1984 on the Discovery Channel program "Greatest Books" was very interesting also. I find a certain irony that we are only now starting to get the technical aspects coming true but without the political overtones. It seems as if there are cameras everywhere now. We also seem to become more Newspeak like everyday in our use of language. Very interesting.

Kenneth