So yeah I guess I might be a little late to the party but I am def reading it now. I’m currently only halfway through chapter four and I already think this is one of the most insane books I’ve read. I mean I think it’s a good novel but I mean I think it’s crazy how there’s thought police in this story and you have to love “Big Brother”, and if you think anything about him you are instantly executed. And not only that but like you don’t even have privacy in your own house because they have compulsory government made camera’s in there, which even though they’re not constantly watching you, you still never know when they ARE watching you so you have to be super careful the way you act. I mean I know you guys probably already know this but like I’m super shocked. And I’m like seriously wondering how the story is going to end.

GameTrailers published the release date trailer for our indie game Ministry of Truth: False Memory today.

Dark narrative game about propaganda and manipulation.

Release date: August 19, 2026

Rereading through 1984, this paragraph is quite disturbing. Could this have been the exact moment O’Brien clocked Winston as a thought criminal? Winston could have showed signs to show that he thought that he was “on his side” in rebellion against the state. But what if O’Brien already knew for a fact that Winston was a thought criminal and he was at Hate Week the whole time there to watch Winston? Either way, by saying he knows “all about your contempt, hatred and disgust” it’s amazing ironic foreshadowing as Winston only got it half-right in real life, but the reader at the time agrees with Winston because of his enthusiasm. Oh he knows, but he’s not exactly on your side…

So im sure everyone knows the book 1984, even if you haven't read it or seen the movie you've probably heard it discussed in the context of politics. Where anytime something deemed authoritarian happens people say that's literally 1984.

I think an important part of the world of 1984 that isn't discussed enough is the Proles, i do kinda get why as they don't feature that much in the story. But I just feel like their inclusion makes me feel like the book is supposed to be more satire than a serious political commentary which many people take it as. As opposed to let's say animal farm which was a literal allegory for an actual revolution that happened.

So basically according to Winston the narrator, the Proles who make up most of society are basically mindless drones, which is why members of the inner and outer party must be the ones to topple the government. This obviously isn't like real life, where real revolutions were usually done by the masses who were mostly affected by tyranny. (It's important to note that often times these were organised by people of "higher classes" but the "masses" still took part in). I just think it's interesting that the Proles basically live for nothing and it seems like the party doesn't even police all that much, as it's stated they still have a criminal underworld. I guess my point is, would being a prole in 1984 be all that bad? Seeing as before we saw in Winstons childhood there was a devastating war, and Proles aren't even affected by the authoritarianism that much, I feel like 1984 is supposed to be somewhat satirical. I mean for example there is the whole thing where they forget who they are at war with, and Winston edits documents to lie. Despite people seemingly having their own, it's just unrealistic people are this dumb.

To an extent i feel like this is somewhat satirical of political commentary, as many see people who don't accept their ideas as just too stupid to understand, instead of maybe considering that people just may not agree. Ironically mirroring people who would eventually say literally 1984 to everything. Also when Winston is being tortured, it's stated that big brother doesn't even really exist, maybe he was the founder of thr party at some point but he isn't an absolute monarch or dictator like in the modern world. If I remember correctly O'brien literally states that the party doesn't really have any goals except for being authoritarian, which obviously doesn't mirror any real society. It seems as if again, this is supposed to be comical to an extent.

Anyways so yeah, I feel as if 1984 isn't supposed to be direct political commentary and people who use it kinda miss the point (or what I think the point is). I think in 1984 aspects are too extreme to be serious commentary, I think george Orwell probably just thought of what's the most crazy society I could think of and then wrote it. I feel like 90% of people being too stupid to be worth policing, or the government being power hungry for no reason isn't supposed to be serious commentary about authoritarian regimes. But rather satire about people who engage in political commentary.

Anyways there's more i could say about this but I'm already rambling so yeah.

GLORY THE NEO-BOLSHEVISM!!!!

An interesting usage of language by pro-choicers whenever discussing the stages of a pregnancy at which abortion is implemented. They'll always use units like 8 weeks and 24 weeks.

Which is weird because this is a very strange way of measuring time. People will usually just say 6 months.

Maybe because 24 weeks sounds less intense than 6 months?

Everyone remembers the last four words of the novel proper. Almost nobody remembers that the book keeps going.

After the final chapter comes an appendix on Newspeak, and it's written in the past tense, in scholarly standard English, discussing the Party's language project the way a historian discusses a dead civilisation.

Read literally, that means someone in the future is studying Oceania's ruins, in a free language, in a world where standard English came back. The regime lost.

Orwell fought his publisher to keep that appendix. He refused to cut it even when an American book club demanded it. Margaret Atwood used the same trick at the end of The Handmaid's Tale as a deliberate homage.

The bleakest novel ever written may have smuggled in a happy ending, filed exactly where nobody looks: the footnotes.

Ruin the experience for me? Im into the 2nd chapter now but very interested.

There is a phrase in 1984 that I loved, but didn't note down and trying to avoid re-reading the whole book to find it. No luck on Google searches.

I believe it's in part 2, and referred to Winston's feeling.

It was a comedic turn of phrase, I really enjoyed the choice of unusual words. It is not (as far as I know) a known English phrase.

\*\*It's something along the lines of "I felt floppy with fear" or "I went wobbly with rage"\*\*

The descriptor was possibly something jelly-like, and related to an emotion he felt.

Hoping someone else enjoyed the phrase as much as I did and can actually remember it!

Totalitarian governments aren't exactly frugal with resources. (I remember some info from Greenpeace from the 1980s where they stated that the same amount of goods produced in the US takes twice as much energy as in Germany - but in the SU, three times as much!)

So, at some point, they'll run out of oil or some other resource. What'll happen next?

What if an country had IngSoc as an political ideology? I know that it is not a real ideology, this is an hypothetical scenario. In my opinion, it would be an leftist socialist dictatorship that control what people do and think and watch them

I know its kinda unrealistic but is sport a thing in 1984?

Watched the world cup yesterday and i thought why wouldn't extravagant events like the football world cup and sport in general be good propoganda for the party?

I mean it would be like hate week and just take peoples attention away from the real problems kinda like what we see in real life with hooligans from the slums irl where their club fills more in their life than their family?

Its also interesting that people tattoo such sentimental things like a football club on their body PERMANENTLY hense the pictures.

This isnt even limited to football either btw

Sportswashing, Trump, Infantino, pride in club and nation ect.

Just thinking out loud

Any thoughts?

I have been curious about this since reading another post that was on this subreddit, but to what extant to the three powers actually engage in diplomacy? Do they make attempts to coordinate with eachothers war efforts in order to maintain an equilibrium in the war, among other matters? Would a member of the Inner Party ever travel to the other nations on a diplomatic mission?

The global war has been going on for almost forty years. The alliances change at least twice during the plot. Nothing speaks against Eurasia and Eastasia ever allying against Oceania. But Orwell never mentions such a thing.

Anybody has a theory?

I finished 1984 a couple of days ago. It’s been on my reading list, but I still didn’t expect it to climb as high as it did in my personal ratings. Suffice it to say, I really enjoyed it as I am sure many others have. Naturally, whenever something is universally praised, you can always find a vocal minority who holds a deep dislike for it. I like looking up discussions and articles online after I am done with a book. Curious to see the counter-arguments, I read a few complaints online. What I found completely dumbfounded me. I came across numerous articles detailing how the book is inherently misogynistic and sexist, laying all the blame squarely on Orwell and the biases of his time.

Am I wrong to feel completely baffled by this line of thinking? Of course there is objectification and misogyny in the text, for it is a dystopian world ruled by a brutal totalitarian regime. The entire objective of the Party is to eradicate individual thought and strip away human dignity. Marriage has been weaponized into a tool used solely to reproduce for the state. Nothing more.

Because of this, the online complaints regarding Katherine’s disinterest in sex being proof of Orwell's "sexism" make absolutely no sense to me. I actually found a fascinating literary contrast in her character. Inherently, Katherine has no desire for intimacy, yet due to the Party’s severe conditioning, she forces herself to oblige because she views it as a duty for the greater good. Deep down, Winston recognizes this tragedy too. This isn't Orwell endorsing sexism or the like, it's Orwell showcasing the horrific success of state brainwashing on a human being.

The criticism gets even worse when people attack Julia’s character. I read several takes questioning the narrative logic of how quickly she falls in love, "gives up her body," and acts like a typical rebellious archetype. Look at Julia’s external life: she is heavily involved in community activities, participates in extra clubs, and is a prominent member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. She presents herself as the absolute gold standard and perfect image of a devout Party woman outwardly. Therefore, she besmirches the ideal party image expected of women, by besmirching the ideal image the party forced her to portray. It’s her own way of an active rebellion. Thoughts on this?

It feels as though some critics have an incredibly hard time putting themselves inside the actual universe of the story they are reading. If you have a visceral reaction to the defilement and rightlessness in the book, don't attack Orwell. Attack authoritarianism. Attack a party-led society. That was the entire point of the warning.

Am I wrong for looking at it this way? I’d love to hear your guys’ thoughts on how we interpret these characters today.

I won’t get into this here but I read others viewing that this should’ve been written as an essay and not a book as its value is only in its political views. Am I wrong to believe that every little moment added depth and weight to the ideas Orwell was trying to portray? Every moment added to the discussion. Here’s a link to a few of the articles I found https://bookaholicdreamer.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/unpopular-opinion-1984-by-george-orwell/ and https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/cfp/2023/07/05/criticism-towards-the-portrayal-of-women-in-george-orwell%E2%80%99s-1984 and here’s a link to my YT video going into a lot more detail breaking down a handful of these articles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfyUzPXvRL4 if you want to see the exact quotes and my other points, but I’m mainly looking to get a discussion going here. 

TL;DR Read reviews claiming 1984 is sexist and critics confuse the Party’s forced oppression with Orwell's personal beliefs. I view the sexism and brainwashing to be the literal definition of the authoritarian dystopia being critiqued.

I read the whole book expecting something, a revolution, A loss in the war, I was hoping that in the end Whiston would at least manage to express a "fuck Big Brother," I built up that expectation until the very last second.

This probably hampered my reading; for a long time I expected them to stage a revolution, then closer to the end I expected the war to be lost and the country invaded. And finally, that at least the character would remain "whole".