Instructions
Complete your reading of George Orwell's novel 1984 by Wednesday, December 3, 2008. When you reach one of the stopping points given below, respond to the Essential Question for that section of the novel. For each of the essential questions, you must respond to the question in 100-300 words and respond to the comments of at least one of your classmates in separate posts of the same length. Since this is a Web Log, your comments will not be nested, so be sure to identify the question and response you are addressing. Given that there are four stopping points and Essential Questions, I expect at least 8 responses from each of you.
NOTES: There is a cut-off date by which you must complete your responses to each essential question. I expect to read direct references to the novel and relevant discussion of pertinent ideas. Lastly, sign your posts with first name and last initial. Like this--John D.
Respond to the following question by Wednesday, December 3, 2008. Your comments must be posted by midnight that night.
Given Winston's acknowledgment that he is under constant surveillance, and that it would be only a matter of time before the Thought Police caught him, no one in his world could be trusted. Prior to his capture, which character or characters did you envision betraying Winston? How did you foresee his ultimate conclusion? Did you feel that he would overcome the forces aligned against him, and fulfill his wish to conquet The Party?
79 comments:
I feel that Charrington was trying to warn them all along. The evidence in the book points to Charrington trying desperately to warn them. He knows he will have a hard time doing this because he knows of the existance of the telescreen behind the painting. He trys to sell Winston the painting and accents the point that its fixed to the wall, but can be removed. I feel here he was trying to tell Winston, "This government is here, its tough, but it can be removed. If you want it down only say the word, reveal yourself as a rebel and I will reveal the evil in such an innocent society, it all starts with a telescreen behind this painting". Winston, oblivious as usal, ignores this warning and takes it as a hint that Charrington would like to sell him that painting. Charrington tried making it seem very odd, an old man with an unsuccessful shop living by himself in the "bad" part of town. He would have those long converations about nothing with Winston. He tried to make it obvious that something wasnt right. He even foreshadowed with the "here comes the chopper to chop off your head" poem. Why didn't Winston find that odd at all? The point is: although Winston was rebelling in the only way he knew, by playing lovers with Julia, Charrington was trying to gain followers by utilizing his natural right to rebel against a tyrannical government. So I feel that Charrington was utilizing his important job as a thought police agent to attract fellow rebels. When Winston could not take a hint, Charrington was forced to discard him because Winston was more of a liability than a suitable rebel.
I thought that Julia was a prime candidate to betray Winston. Didn't it seem odd, after all, that she sees him for like a moment a day for a week, then falls in love with him? Wasn't it odd at all that she knew exactly where to go should someone want to disobey the government. I didn't trust her at all from the begining. Especially if I was about twenty years older than her.
-Locke
In response to Mr. Locke's comment:
I must disagree with your interpretation of Charrington, because you give much credence to the strength of an individual. In theory, the government of Oceania exists for the happiness of its citizens. As far as this theory goes, it is a wonderful idea and a beautiful system to benefit hard-working employees like Charrington. From the beginning I instinctively felt he would betray Winston out of duty for his motherland. From his perspective, the ongoing state of emergency in Oceania justified his need to protect the common good by eliminating potential rebels, no matter how well-meaning their intentions. He knowingly adopted a persona to attract Winston and Julia, and for all practical purposes did his duty well. It is of utmost importance for a citizen to trust his own government, if it would protect the fortunes of the largest number of people. So I do not see Charrington as benefiting from an anarchist, individualist view of his fellow human beings. He gained political power by viewing his comrades dispassionately in relation to the massive duty he owed his country. Yet you portray Charrington as the real rebel, not Winston! This is somewhat naively assumed of humans in general, because people should not take action with other people in mind – this leads to internal weakness. They should act with the State in mind.
In the same vein as Charrington, I also suspected O’Brian. As an Inner Party member he stands to lose too much from dallying in insignificant rebellion. In Oceania he was at the top of the political and economic ladder – why would he want change? The way Goldstein’s book was written also felt like a redaction of Winston’s feelings about individual freedom. This was for good reason: it seemed obvious that O’Brian was part of a commission to write material rebels would want to hear. When they were caught, he did his duty as a patriot, not as an empathetic co-conspirator. The torture and interrogations were meant to be conditioning procedures, because Oceania requires examples of converted rebels, and of patriotism, in order to combat war weariness. The unity of the whole country was required to survive in order to sustain the theory of oligarchical collectivism. What O’Brian does is a sane, conscious, necessary evil.
@ Mr. Demosthenes' comment above:
I am appalled at your daft use of the words "sane" and "necessary" to describe the actions of O'Brian. How can you possibly consider a bloke sane for trying to gain the trust of a good friend, and then without any external signs of remorse or mercy, torture him almost to death? O'Brian is indeed a sadist. He has fun destroying other people. In fact, the only time he felt close to Winston was as he was "conditioning" him. This is not a sign of a merciful government. But I digress.
Winston lacked foresight to take action against his enemies, but he also managed to stay sane because of his devotion to O'Brian, Julia and Charrington. With his reliance on his friends he refused to subscribe to the paranoia that broke people apart in Oceania. This isn't a weakness, because the one thing Oceania lacks is real camaraderie and above all, trust. In my previous statement, I stated that the strength of individual's right to oppose tyranny by banding with others is a source of power. It is well known that there is power in numbers. Winston rebelled by reaching out to other people, and if he had encountered a sufficient amount of people like Julia or Charrington who worked as islands among men, he may have succeeded in overthrowing Big Brother. The force that would "tear the Party to pieces" (p. 126) is the power to find strength in numbers, and in doing so, oppose tyranny. If Winston had somehow realized this, he may have found a powerful ally in Charrington and avoided the treachery of O'Brian.
-Locke
In response to Mr. Locke’s comment:
It is surprising that you would find O’Brian’s actions as evidence of sadism. Nothing O’Brian does or says indicates that he takes pleasure in torture. This is a world of stark reality, Mr. Locke, and sometimes certain questionable acts cannot be avoided in order to protect the nation from internal threats. Although we agree that Winston is a relatively innocent and unfortunate byproduct of Oceania’s system of terrorist removal, he does foolishly place himself in danger by taking far too many risks. He knows the consequences of dallying with Big Brother, as they are enumerated countless times to the citizens. The government makes no mincemeat out of the reality of the threat. In effect, the system is still justified in principle.
It is imperative that operatives like O’Brian must weed out rebels to ensure the safety of himself and his country. The possibility of rebellion includes threats like spreading diseases and setting off bombs in civilian areas. When revolt tries to overthrow a government, innocent people are inevitably killed and written up simply as “collateral damage.” When O’Brian asks if Winston would be willing to throw acid in the face of a child if it would suit the Brotherhood (p.172), he is being ironic. In a way, he is checking to see how dangerous Winston is, or could be, if given the opportunity to overthrow Big Brother. Whether or not O’Brian knows that the wars abroad are real, he is acting to protect his country by destroying a very real and internal threat that Oceania certainly cannot afford. He and his comrades must destroy the threat at whatever cost. In this capacity he commits the “sane, necessary evil” that you so disdainfully abhor. In effect, O’Brian puts the long term well-being of the many above the instantaneous lusts and needs of people who feel the need to live dangerously. In conclusion if relying on the suffering of the few to protect the ones you love is sadism, than I do not wish to be compassionate.
If anyone was going to betray Winston, I would have chosen Syme. Syme was a threat to Winston because he was more intelligent than most people. He still had the ability to think for himself a little and easily could have recognized Winston’s thoughts. Late in the book, we find out that Syme was vaporized for his intelligence just like Winston had predicted. This proves that Syme was a smart and capable guy, too smart for his own good. He probably did recognize the nature of Winston’s thoughts at one time or another in their conversations.
To the end of the book, I held the belief that Winston would somehow truly convince O’Brien that The Party was evil and that they would work together to destroy it. It seemed that O’Brien and Winston liked each other as people, even though O’Brien tortured Winston. I figured that this compatibility would soften O’Brien so that he would listen to Winston, giving Winston the chance to explain how evil The Party really is. Alas, this was not to be, and eventually, like always it seems, O’Brien was able to break Winston down to the point that he even loved Big Brother more than Julia.
That is a good thought Mr. Locke. Now that you mention it, Charrington does appear to try to warn Winston about the danger. Looking back, the song and the offer to take down the painting do seem like strong hints that no place is safe. It is easy to believe that Charrington does run or participate in some kind of underground organization that is actively moving to over throw The Party. Then again, if Charrington knew that the house was not safe from the ears of Big Brother, why would he allow Winston to rent the room. He probably had a good idea of what would go on and would be spoken up there. If anything, he could be accused of providing a meeting place for conspirators. That was a dangerous move for him, yet he was probably in desperate need of some money and figured he could get away with renting it to them for a while. Charrington could have gone either way really when it comes do deciding if he turned them in or not. There is evidence to support both debates provided by Mr. Locke and Mr. Demosthenes.
I did not really see anyone betraying Winston, but especially not Mr. Charrington. He was the last person that I would suspect would betray Winston and Julia. He seemed so nice and innocent, lending them his room and working in his rarely visited antique shop with all of his old fascinating artifacts. Who would have guessed that the picture in that shabby old room would have a telescreen behind it? In the end I thought that Winston was going to change the history of Oceania. I thought that he was going to get his point across and everyone would follow him; first with the proles, then eventually the party. It was probably just my wishful thinking for a storybook ending, but I really did think that it would come true and Winston and Julia would live happily ever after in the peace of a new, revolutionized country. I also was extremely puzzled by O’Brien. I kept wanting him to stop torturing Winston and tell him that he was finally a member of the brotherhood; that he had made it through all of the torture and his mind was a gift. That he was just like O’Brien and could now enter the inner party, but this never happened. Instead O’Brien brainwashed Winston to insanity.
In response to Locke:
It is a great point the Mr. Charrington does seem to make many attempts at telling Winston that something is not right. He draws much attention to the painting as to tell Winston that he is not safe and the government is everywhere, no matter where you go Big Brother is still watching. Unfortunately Winston is too infatuated by the room and his new freedom to be alone and with Julia, to write in his dairy or read books or do whatever he wants. He is too wrapped up in the idea that he is in paradise and that none of the proles have any type of surveillance to realize that they really are being watched. The "here comes the chopper to chop off your head" poem is also a huge hint that Charrington was trying to tell Winston, but Winston was too blind by happiness to see it. Also, Julia does seem to make a very good betrayer. She is very knowledgeable of all the right hiding spots and where to meet, but the only thing that gets me is that if she were to betray Winston she could not do so without turning herself in as well. So, that is why I would find it hard to believe that she was the one to betray Winston.
In response to Mr. Demosthenes:
Sir, with all due respect you base your point on a principle not worth fighting for. The "theory of Oceania" hardly draws water in relation to its practice – it depends entirely on human compliance, and compliance as a permanent way of life is hard won indeed. With such a goal in mind, the government would be forced to take extreme action, where criminals hold court in the highest bastions of power and the sane cower under a constant blizzard of falsehoods. Here, no freethinking citizen would take power without being compelled to resort to the most animal methods of conversion and extraction in order to ensure such hegemony. Therefore, their debt to the system would not only endow them with absolute power, but in doing so would also fundamentally change them. Even if O'Brian was once an idealistic, ordinary human, power has corrupted him and turned him into something he is not. Charrington, however, acts as a free agent with only a peripheral government mandate to guide him. In his position he no doubt has regular access to those outside the government's control, and therefore understands that human cooperation is as potent a governing power as control. Unlike O'Brian, Charrington is exposed to the idea that he is not indebted to the system and can thus change it. I for one suspected O'Brian for what he was on the grounds that he had been in such a high position for so long. It is impossible to conceive that any revolutionary leader would stay so under the realization that his own happiness depends on the suffering of others. This is the theory and the practice of Oceania. Nothing, not even the most grievous and dire circumstances of war, would justify the torture and oppression of any people except that it might ensure the absolute rule of the few. This is an inhumane notion, and therefore not applicable to our discussion. If you are human Mr. Demosthenes, as I am human, then you will understand that the "principle" of Oceania's government is not worth defending under any pretexts. It is better to live a few short, free years making real progress than to spend a lifetime in a prison of telescreens.
-Locke
I saw Winston as the one sliver of hope that the party would not be able to squish. Yes, they may catch him and kill him but he would still have control over his thoughts and hatred toward the party. This is what I thought, however the opposite pretty much occurred. I expected that he would eventually get caught just because someone would catch on to his unusual behavior and notice how much time both him and Julia spent in Mr. Charrington’s place. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was one of his friends that turned him in like Syme or Parsons or even one of Parson’s kids. I was most definitely surprised when Mr. Charrington revealed his secret identity as a though police. I guess I tried to see the best in Mr. Charrington and also saw hope for him being someone who could help Winston conquer the party and even start the rebellion within the prole community. Sadly, I was very mistaken also with O’Brien. O’Brien turned out to be the exact opposite of what I thought him to be and instead of a being a party rebel he was a devoted party believer. All of this really threw me aback and it definitely made Winston’s plan much more difficult but I still wanted to have hope. I would like to believe that this could never happen and that Winston could rise up and rebel but it doesn’t seem likely. In fact it may be impossible.
In response to Locke’s first comment:
I do find this point interesting that Mr. Charrington could actually be trying to warn Winston. It would make me feel a little better about trusting him so easily if he once may have had good intentions for Winston. I’m not sure if all the pieces point to this conclusion though and I still have some doubts. I would agree that there is some subtle foreshadowing about Mr. Charrington’s true identity such as the “chop off your head” song. I also wonder, were Mr. Charrington’s intentions just to use Winston to find more rebels or was he actually trying to help him by warning him? I don’t see Mr. Charrington as a fellow rebel because he did turn in both Winston and Julia but it is also difficult for me to see him as one of the thought police. Sadly, I think he was brain washed by the party just like everyone else and this is why he joined their ranks. I also think that Winston was not being completely oblivious when not picking up on Mr. Charrington’s possible warnings because I still am not certain that Mr. Charrington was ever trying to help Winston. I think that Winston’s fate was inevitable. The fact that it came from the hands of what seemed like a close friend, just shows the true power that the party had over both its people and their minds.
I never thought of anyone betraying Winston. I was optimistic and foolishly thought that if he got caught; it would be because of thoughtcrime. If I had to guess, the character most likely to betray him would be Syme. The way their brief conversations were described in the book gave the sense that Winston’s actions of being uninterested were obvious and that Syme, supporting the party, would’ve noticed how Winston did not share the same enthusiasm as his comrades. I honestly thought that by the end of the book there would be some beginnings to an uprise. However, once he was captured, I knew there would be no hope. I thought it was interesting how they didn’t kill him; they changed his thinking and then released him again. It showed how much control the party has and how confident they are in their power.
I agree that Mr. Charrington was trying to tell them something, but I think he could have done more. If he really wanted to save them, he could have just said that his place was not for rent, and then slip them a note or something when there was no telescreen. I had a question though. Why is there a random telescreen in a room that no one uses? And did Charrington get in trouble for housing the “thought criminals” or no? As to the question, no, I did not see Winston succeeding against the party simply because it was just to overwhelming. I thought maybe he would lead a small revolt and get crushed, but there was no way he could succeed against the sheer brainwashed power of the party over the proles. The only way to succeed was the proles, and there was no way to change their minds. He never really had a working plan. He just read a book and had a room he thought was safe and hoped that no one would notice for a while. It was just a matter of time.
In response to Meredith R.:
An interesting pick in Syme, I would agree with you. Syme seemed to most loyal and willing to give Winston up. As to why they didn’t kill him, I thought it made sense. If they killed him, Winston wins. He had the thought “stored” way back in his mind that he would release before the bullet killed him, and that was the last thing they wanted. They wanted him to just live out his miserable life and die like the rest of the people, impotent against the larger powers. In fact, I doubt that they really killed anyone, unless they were so dumb they could not grasp the thoughts. They had to change them, otherwise it was the same as the “inquisitions” of before, and they would become martyrs. Once they become martyrs, they begin to get some momentum, and people begin to turn against the party, and then they lose power.
I was wary of julia the whole time. She was all like "I Love You" even though i don't know you at all. She was so anti-sex too that when they went to that little space outside, i thought winston was gonna get booked for sure. she was such a likely suspect, she seemed so brainwashed. Then she was denying it all, and i still didn't trust her. She could just be going as far as possible to get winston for a whole list of crimes rather than like one or two.
-Matt Sulikowski
In response to Big Brother:
There is quite a bit to be said here about hindsight. Unless you were reading this book as a mystery, full of clues and twists in the plot, it would be difficult to take Mr. Charrington’s or Julia’s actions as anything more than what they were. Instead of looking at every thought as having a deeper, more cynical meaning, for most of the story I believed that Winston and his friends were beacons of hope, standing up against Party rules. I think that George Orwell gained the reader’s trust in these characters through his way of first introducing them. With Mr. Charrington, Julia, and even O’Brien, there is skepticism of their motives when Winston first encounters them. Julia is a strict member of the anti-sex league, Mr. Charrington owns a shady antique shop in the midst of the proles, and O’Brien is an Inner Party official. But once Winston gets to know each of them, the thought of ulterior motives that align with the Party fades and they gain Winston’s trust. In doing so, they also gain the reader’s trust, at least to a certain extent. So after instilling trust in each of them to be different than the other party members, I had no idea that they would each eventually turn against Winston. Sure, now I can read the signs of how and why they warned Winston and/or betrayed him, but before the betrayals happened I did not see them coming. I thought that with the help of his comrades he weeded out among party members, he would make strides towards the eventual destruction/failure of the Party.
-Lela D.
In response to Locke and Demosthenes and the debate on Charrington:
If Charrington were really trying to give clues to and help Winston and Julia, his attempt was feeble. Sure he may have been acting under party orders in how he behaved and what he did for Winston and Julia i.e. giving them a “safe” room. But if he really wanted to do something for Winston and Julia he would have made a more direct attempt to help them. I think all these “clues” such as the song and trying to sell the painting were really just means for Charrington to demonstrate to Winston his trust in the case that Winston confronted him or seek further assurance that things were safe in that room. I think it was inevitable that Winston would have been caught under Charrington’s care. Someone can’t just be aligned with the thought police and then make feeble attempts to sabotage the thought police force’s efforts. If he had really been trying to warn Julia and Winston he would have found a much better method.
-Lela D
Not knowing anything about the book, I initially assumed Winston would overcome the forces against him. This was just because most books end happily. By about halfway in, though, I started feeling like it was "too good to be true" that everything was going right for Winston all of a sudden. When he first went to meet Julia, I thought it was a setup, especially since she was getting him to meet her in an extremely isolated place. After it became clear that Julia was nothing but a sex hungry quasi-hippie looking to take risks, I realized the happy ending was not going to happen. Winston and Julia were simply islands in a rapidly rising sea of forces far beyond their control. After reading Goldstein's book and understanding the massive scope of Oceania's campaign against individualism, it became clear that rebellion either didn't exist, or only occured in small pockets of people. Hope, for me, didn't lie in the proles since they were throughly intellectually shackled by the government.
As a last note, the betrayal of O'Brian came as a big surprise to me, because I somehow romantically thought those in power might still exist to help the rebels. Now I realize that there wasn't a lot of sense in that argument.
I thought Winston would eventually be captured by the thought police after being tipped off by Charrington, and the torture scenes would progress as written, but without O'Brian as the ringleader.
In Locke's third comment, he says "I for one suspected O'Brian for what he was on the grounds that he had been in such a high position for so long." This idea that power corrupts is fundamental to the reason why 1984 has an unhappy ending. If I had foreseen the strength of Oceania's power for what it was (it rests on the assumption that men are greedy)I wouldn't have been so surprised when O'Brian turned out not to be the revolutionary he pretended to be. As a side note, I also highly respect your point that totalitarian governments "allow criminals to hold court in the highest bastions of power." This is true, and it is shocking that so many nations in history have seen their citizens submit to the rule of lawlessness.
Finally, it makes sense that although Charrington may have been trying to help Winston, he would have no trouble turning him in if circumstances called for it. At the end of everything, the safety of Charrington, and thus of the first organized rebellion, depended on silencing Winston who was too wrapped up in his own, perhaps selfish, ideal of freedom. Thus (in response to Lela D.) Charrington's warning was not feeble, it was very discreet. After all, there was a telescreen behind the picture frame! Although he led a double life as a thought police agent, he could afford to spout poems in the name of "luring dissidents" but not to outright invite him to the rebellion. Everything Charrington did was test of Winston's attention to detail and weighing of risks.
For sometime, I was incredibly suspicious of Julia. I imagined that she was the thought police trying to bait possible social deviants. It was weird the way she just picked Winston out of the crowd and knew that he would want to engage in an affair with her. The way she just sees him a couple times in the lunchroom and then just knew to pick was suspicious. Even after it appeared that she was just a girl on the prowl, I never felt good about her. In my mind, she seemed likely to betray Wilson in someway. I thought that she would be cornered by the government and then place the blame on Wilson and that is how he would meet his end. I really thought that she would be the source of the eventual betrayal. I was never comfortable with O'Brien either, but I began to trust him after he gave Winston the Goldstein book. Winston's somewhat warm feelings towards O'Brien at the beginning of the book made me feel uneasy for some reason. I never suspected Charrington wasn't just some prole. I never imagined that the thought police would allow an affair to go on, so it did not seem likely that an agent would supply a room for a crime. It is not like the government needed to gather evidence to erase Wintson and Julia. I would have thought that Charrington, a tought police agent, would just arrest them both as soon as Winston showed signs of deviation by buying the coral or diary. I knew that it would end badly for Winston. It was obvious that he would get caught and killed. When he first started writing in the diary, he predicts his fate himself. Thought crime is death. I never felt that Winston had the capacity to take down the entire government. With all the talk of razor blades and people committing suicide prior to arrest, I thought that Orwell was trying to foreshadow Winston killing himself.
To my good friend, Mr. Locke:
I admire your chivalry and devotion to the idea that power corrupts. In my defense I do believe in freedom as the best of all moral situations. When I say “principle”, though, I speak mainly of doublethink, and when I say “justified” I refer to the self-confirming circumstances that arise from it. An example will clarify this.
You must understand that doublethink is not a unique condition: it is omnipresent. Even when analyzing part of a discussion, for instance, it is necessary to consider both to be true in order to be able to formulate a strong counter-examination: conflicting pieces of data must be at least momentarily retained in the mind. Also, if it turns out something you heard was misreported, you may replace a truth with its direct opposite. To do this, you must have been at least subconsciously prepared to believe both truths.
I oppose your theory of self-confirmation through group-wise cooperation or “banding together” because it models ideas spreading outwards from isolated points within society, like bacteria in a petri dish. Instead, I propose that convictions evolve from superior, dynamic forces as a survival imperative: O’Brian and Charrington survive by agreeing with the shifting truths and untruths within an increasingly complex society. When truths change, their convictions change. When Winston comes in contact with O’Brian, their separate “truths” clash. In an unusual situation, O’Brian must choose which truth to regard as correct. Characteristic of doublethink, he must select the truth that has the greater survival value. Thus “the Principle” is a natural outgrowth of doublethink and is confirmed by the majority which indefinitely sustains it. Your type of freedom can only develop from circumstances that cause the balance of truth to shift in its direction, and does not have the critical mass needed to support itself in small groups – it would not be prudent. In conclusion, the principle of Oceania does not necessarily come from a just cause, but rather a natural cause.
I found it an ironical ending to the novel when two people both trying to take down the government could not somehow join forces and utilize their assets. Although Charrington was Thought Police, he made the biggest mistake by letting Winston use a supposedly ‘secret’ room even though he knew about the telescreen behind the painting. Yet to Charrington’s credit, he did lend out heavy hints to tip Winston about the telescreen such as offering to sell it and that it was fully removable off the wall. The fact that Winston was far to caught up in his plans to overthrow Oceania does not excuse him however for not realizing the danger he was getting himself into. For a government completely devoted to diligence with no lack of spare anything, why would there just happen to be an old room in the bad part of town? It was Winston’s ignorance that, in end, led him to his own betrayal. Charrington’s nor Julia’s presence helped in one bit either. I find it hard to believe that a couple can fall in love when they all see each other for only a few brief moments a day, yet in the context of the story, I suppose anything is possible. --
Kurt S
I could never imagine that Winston was being watched closely by the Thought Police before he was finally caught. But, the Party definitely has a sense of omnipresence. The Party must have a reason for leaving Wilson and Julia to themselves for long time before finally imprisoning them. They probably wanted to see how far Wilson was willing to go to undermine the Party. They found that Wilson was willing to risk everything and even commit atrocious crimes just to weaken the Party. Julia also had many affairs before Winston. The Party probably knew of these as well. If they can replace a piece of dust on a notebook, I am sure they must be able to uncover the affairs within the government. As Wilson felt that he had succeeded in his efforts to weaken the Party, I also was under this false impression. However, the Party just proved to be even more powerful, as they were able to manipulate Wilson into falling into its trap.
I did not foresee O’Brien betraying Winston, but I did envision Julia to. I thought that O’Brien’s and Winston’s plan to conquer The Party would eventually happen. With all of the information that O’Brien told Winston about how Goldstein and the Brotherhood were real, and with all of the questions that he asked Julia and Winston like if they were ready to murder or commit suicide, all sounded very convincing to me. I was really convinced that O’Brien wanted to overthrow The Party when he went to such extreme measures like putting “the book” (Goldstein’s book) in Winston’s briefcase, or inviting Winston and Julia to his place. One obvious foreshadow about the betrayal of Winston was the line that was used frequently in the book, “we shall meet in the place where there is no darkness”, which was where O’Brien and Winston did end up meeting when Winston was supposed to die. I was very suspicious of Julia throughout the book. I did not think that she was as careful as she should have been in hiding her relationship with Winston. For example: Julia and Winston went together to O’Brien’s house, which was very risky, and they also met up by Mr. Carrington’s shop together. They should have met where they knew there was not one person. It was a little odd how Julia loved Winston before they even spoke a word to each other. I did not think that Winston was going to betray Julia, but I did believe that O’Brien and Winston would somehow succeed in their plan to overthrow The Party until I realized that O’Brien had betrayed Winston.
I agree with Megan concerning her suspicions of Julia. If I knew someone was going to betray Winston, I would definitely point my finger at her. At first, I didn't understand how she was able to get away after being involved in so many affairs, especially since most of them involved Party members. This gives the impression that while the Party may seem powerful, its base was weak. I had an idea that Winston would eventually be killed, but I never believed that Mr. Charrington would be the one to report him. After all, why would a member of the Thought Police work in an antique shop amongst the Proles for so many years? It's surprising that he just left Winston be even after he bought the notebook and the coral paperweight. However, it was a little odd when Charrington lent him the room for an affair. And O'Brien is the most sketchy character of all. I wonder why Winston admired him even during the torture sessions. O'Brien was definitely had access to his thoughts for a while though. It was as if he wanted to see how a rebel mind works, so that he could successfully reverse their thinking.
In response to ZahraW and Megan:
I think the thought police let the lovers have their affair for an extended period of time because they want to highten the feeling of despair when they finally find out it was all a sham, especially when O'Brian reveals the photos of Winston and Julia that were taken over the course of several months. By destroying every possible outlet of hope, the TP make it a lot easier to crush and convert even the staunchest rebels. It's a psychological trick.
The betrayal of O'Brian felt like a sucker punch. The way in which he and Winston made contact (through the eyes) was so genuine that it was improbable to suspect. I guess an act of discretely discrete rebellion is the best way to flush out people like Winston. More than anything, I thought that the Parson kids would find the journal or simply report Winston out of paranoia. Julia seemed innocent enough, but her ability to avoid getting caught for so many years is questionable.
In general, I completely agreed with Winston's initial instincts that the only person to trust was O'brian. Really, because it is hard to build close relationships in Oceania, Winston had no one to trust. For, anyone who did become close, you had to question motive and why risk getting in trouble.
Allison-
The best way to stay alive in Oceania is to maintain control. For people who are happy and oblivious, they have control through routine. For people like Winston, maintaining control is a struggle because they must calculator risk vs reward. When Winston rents Charrington's place, he basically hands control over to an old stranger while he's with Julia. It is a moments like these that--a lapse in judgment--that Winston is most likely to be betrayed. Thus, it makes sense that Charrington and O'Brian would turn out to be traitors. O'Brian controlled Winston's actions after their meeting.
Personally, I thought that Julia was going to betray Winston. I only thought this because I was unsure if Julia's love for Winston was true and that her rebellious intentions against the Party were justified. Julia and Winston had affairs (three times to be exact) without the Party knowing (or so they thought), but Julia also said she would scream her heart out at the rallies and protests. Was she doing this to fit in with the crowd or was she actually brainwashed by the Party? It's a difficult case. When Winston said to Julia, "You are only a rebel from the waist down," was he actually correct? In a world where you cannot trust anyone, it is definitely hard to tell whether Julia was really on Winston's side.
On the other hand, the thing that surprised me the most was Mr. Charrington! He was definitely the LAST person I would expect to betray Winston.
Originally, I saw the ending as a glorious revolution. I wanted to see the proles actually take over the Party and see Winston lead this rebellion. The fact that the Thought Police caught Winston simply dissappointed me. Instead of reading about Winston being tortured by O'Brien, I would have rather liked to see Winston escape from this treachery and put his plan into action.
I actually thought that Winston had the power to overcome the Party. The proles made up a majority of society and, most of all, had feelings. Although they were unaware of the problems of society or did not care, I still believe that Winston could have shown them something (maybe the photograph) that could spark a lightbulb inside their heads.
Bad ending. Encough said.
Will Chan-
I agree with the fact that the only way to survive in Oceania is by maintaining control. You certainly are correct on the note that Winston lost this control right after he rented the room. In a society where everyone is watching him (even seven year-olds), he needs to maintain individual power or go about suffering a life of little or no control. By renting that room, Winston only gave himself more to worry about rather than less. Just think of it as giving a complete stranger your social-security number. That stranger will practically know everything there is to know about you. You have opened up new doors to corruption and fraud and possibly life-threatening situations. The stranger has you by the strings and can manipulate your life in any way that suits his or her needs. Strangers can not be trusted. In "1984", Winston proved to readers that no one (friends included) can be trusted in Oceania by letting some random guy named Mr. Charrington have control over his life. Keeping a good head on your shoulders and watching out for yourself will lead you to the ultimate individual control.
While reading the book I was constantly skeptical of Julia. It might seem hard to believe that Julia would turn Winston in because she is so free spirited and against the party; however, I could draw that same parallel with O’Brien because he expressed hatred and rebellion against the Party when in reality he was working for them the whole time. Obviously the Party allows for people working for them to disobey their laws for the purpose of catching those who really, genuinely hate the Party. Julia also was incredibly smart and knowledgeable about the location of various things in Oceania. She could map out directions for Winston as if she had a map in her head, and that seemed to me like a perfect characteristic of someone working in the Party. The stupidity that Winston picked up on could have been an act. In the end Julia betrayed Winston, just not in the same fashion that I envisioned.
I’m not sure whether the book purposely expressed signs of hope, or if it is my human nature that longs for a happy ending, but I felt as though Winston would escape and begin a revolt. The principles in which the Ingsoc government were founded were so ridiculous that it seemed as though a rebellion of truth would result at some point.
In response to Locke:
I would agree with the fact that at some points Charrington provides possible hints to Winston, in order to help him out. However, many of these hints are things that Charrington probably used so that Winston would not question his legitimacy. Charrington knew that Winston wasn’t going to buy a large painting, because there was no way he could bring it all the way home. His meaningless conversations with Winston only furthered his cover. Charrington acted out the role of an innocent antique-shop owner very well.
In retrospect, there is some evidence in the book that points towards Charrington as a betrayal suspect. In the initial description of him, Winston notes that he had an “air of intellectuality” to him, and this is very out of the ordinary for a man that owns an antique shop in the bad part of town. Also, Charrington somehow remembers Winston as the person that bought the diary even though he bought it well before their first official meeting. It would be difficult to pick up these small hints while reading it but they are nevertheless there.
While reading the end of the book I was hoping that the Ingsoc government would somehow get destroyed by a Winston-O’Brien coalition but I knew that it wouldn’t happen. The ending was upsetting but it was very consistent with the suffocating and oppressing theme of the book.
I envisioned Julia betraying him. The way she knew all these secrets and trusted Winston quickly made me feel like she had some sort of betrayal plan behind it all. They met and she was instantly “in love” with him in about a week, which is highly suspicious. It was also weird that she knew that he was the one who was also against the Party and was not afraid to share that with her. O’Brian was also a suspect until he gave Winston the Goldstein book, which was still suspicious, but not as much as Julia. I was really shocked when it ended up being Charrington who betrayed Winston. Either way, I knew that things would end pretty badly for Winston, though part of me still wanted to believe that Winston would be able to overcome the Party. I was hoping there would be some crazy twist at the end and was a little disappointed when Winston completely lost to himself and to the Party. I almost wish he would have just committed suicide (which was falsely foreshadowed) and died with dignity and hatred of BB rather than giving in and proclaiming his love for BB.
I agree with Chris M with the hope that O'Brian and Winston would join and somehow bring the Party down. O'Brian was the most likely candidate to help Winston carry out his original goal to end the Party. It was unfortunate how things ended in the book with O'Brian torturing Winston, but again I had hoped there would be some sort of twist where O'Brian would come to his senses and he and Winston could carry out the end to the Party's control over Oceania. Basically, I really hated how the book ended.
In response to Zahra W.
I didn’t think that the Thought Police were ever after Winston, the only person I envisioned betraying him was Julia, and I especially did not think that Mr. Charrington was a part of the Thought Police. Because of all of O’Brien’s intense questioning, I agree that the Thought Police wanted to see how far Winston would actually go to overthrow The Party. Winston was willing to go to extreme measures to overthrow the Party, which is why I was surprised when he gave in and betray Julia. This just shows how much control The Party actually had over Winston.
As noted, throughout 1984 Winston and Julia both admitted to their inevitable capture and eventual death. However, even in light of Winston’s constant reminders and convictions of imminent termination, I did maintain a small hope that Winston, Julia, and O’Brien would overcome their challenges and, somehow, survive happily. Nevertheless, I never suspected O’Brien of all people to end up being a source of Winston’s betrayal, much less his interrogator and torturer. Quite honestly, it may have seemed more appropriate that Julia might have divulged Winston’s true beliefs. As for Mr. Charrington, I was skeptical in the beginning, but then grew comfortable and trusting of him. It was a shock to see his transformation and learn of his association with the ThoughtPolice. Concerning the third portion of Orwell’s novel, I was, not discouraged, but a bit startled by the conclusion. While it’s likely my mind was forecasting Winston’s demise, my heart most definitely harbored a strong position that Winston would prevail. Even though his success may have been marginal, I still expected some. However, George Orwell did a fantastic job, even though it may have been sad. The manner in which O’Brien and The Party mastered Winston’s mind and instilled “true sanity” was remarkable. The betrayal made available for knowledge all the components The Party and Oceania truly had at its disposal.
Allison:
I truly agree that it was difficult to foreshadow anyone betraying Winston, much less doing the things done to him. The near metamorphosis that Mr. Charrington underwent was not only a work of art on the behalf of the writer, but also astonishing to the reader. Seeing and near feeling so many of Winston’s grievances and emotions really did instill a tough hope that Winston could and would overcome The Party and kickstart a sort-of revolution. At the very least, I expected him to survive and prosper somewhere with his opinions, beliefs, and mind intact. Similarly, O’Brien’s behavior puzzled me. I was not only surprised by his true loyalty, but also disturbed by Winston’s steadfast feeling of a connection with the man. I was unsettled by the fact that O’Brien could do so much harm to both Winston physically and mentally, and yet Winston would still cherish his unlabeled relationship with the monster.
I never imagined that Winston was going to be betrayed by O’Brien. The only person I saw as a small threat to Winston was Julia. The whole part of her just suddenly falling in love with him after only saying a few words to him, and always having secret spots to hide out in made me a bit suspicious. But I never really thought that she would ever betray him, I figured at most he would be caught confessing his doubts on a microphone. I was so optimistic that a miracle who happen and Winston would be able to take over the government that I did not notice that O’Brien could possibly be a threat. I was immediately impressed with his sneaky behavior, along with his official questions he had Winston answer at their meeting. I never saw O’Brien using Winston’s responses as proof of his betrayal of the party, I only saw O’Brien as a future friend for Winston and additional help to stop the Party.
In response to J.R.:
I agree with your response to the ending. Although I was cheering for Winston to prevail and take over all of Oceania, I thought George Orwell handled the ending extremely well. It was definitely more believable I thought than my complex plan that Winston needed to complete flawlessly in order for him to take over the Party. J.R. pointed out that it showed how well the government of Oceania is set up. For someone like Winston, who has been scheming plots of revenge to be able to truly love Big Brother at the end, reflects the controlling and knowledgeable components of the Party. The scene that followed Winston’s release from the Ministry of Love with Julia showed that Winston was not a unique case and the government does have the power to control everyone’s thought.
I could not comprehend that the thought police was watching winston so closely. They took so long until they finally decided to capture both Winston and Julia. It is possible that maybe the thought police wanted to see what Winston would do to hurt the party in order to stop any other rebellions like Winston's in the future. Unfortantely the party turned out to be more powerful and ended up leading Winston into a trap.
JR
I agree with you that O'Brien was the most likely candidate for someone to betray Winston. Mr. Charrington was a little sketchy at the beginning but as you said i gained his trust as I continued to read the book. I really wanted Winston, Julia, and O'Brien to be able to overcome all of their challenges and somehow beat the party.
Jason:
You make a good point about Julia. It seems as if her heart and brain had been dedicated to the control of Oceania whereas the rest of her was for her own desire. You cannot help but wonder if Winston was just being used by Julia to have a little fun. Even if the Thought Police knew of her affairs, all three of them, with Winston, she could have been holding out on reporting him until his true rebellious tendencies came forward. Before that, Julia was potentially just fooling around for kicks. I think however the hardest part about this novel to grasp is the human nature aspect. Orwell exemplifies Winston as a rebellion trying to chase a dream and getting lost in the thought of happiness. However did not all of us portray this in a slight way when we were reading? I do not think anyone wanted Winston to be tortured in that horrid room and become brainwashed by a country he despised. Deep down all of us had, at one point, the hope that Winston would some how overthrow Oceania. The human nature of people seeking happiness is natural and everyone does it. That’s why it’s called human nature--
Kurt S
I thought of any of the characters that would betray Winston it would be Julia. I found it extremely suspicious from the beginning that out of no where she told Winston that she loved him. I also couldn’t understand how Julia could be an active participant in so many clubs and activities within the party and still truly hate it. I thought the conclusion of the book was going to be that Julia had been gathering as much information on Winston as possible before turning him into the thought police. I was totally shocked when it was Mr. Charrington that turned Winston and Julia in and that there had been a telescreen behind the painting all along.
When Winston was being held in his cell and being tortured by O'Brien I really thought that Winston was going to be able to hold out and not give in so easily. I felt as though Winston didn't put up a strong enough fight. He talked about revolting against the party so much but it was all just talk no action. I am actually really disappointed in Winston and how it all ended and how he gave up Julia so quickly.
I didn't think the cage of rats in room 101 was that bad of a punishment. Once O'Brien said they would eat Winston's face, that was it Winston was done and he loved Big Brother. I thought there was going to be some bigger device in the room that was going to show more power and sophistication to the party.
In response to Locke:
I didn't think of all the ways that Mr. Charrington could have been warning Winston. It is very true that it is extremely odd that Mr. Charrington just randomly brought up that strange poem out of nowhere. Also that he brought up the picture mounted on the wall and how it couldn't move. I think Winston was just so caught up in finding history in small items that the party could not change, that he could not see these hints to save his own life.
I feel as thought Charrington was trying to set Winston and Julia up the whole time. To me, his act of lending Winston and Julia a room in the attic with no telescreen arouses some suspicion that he might be a member of the Party, since his loyalty to the Party could be so absolute as to not need a telescreen. I interpret that Winston thought that the place where he and O'Brien would meet (in the place where there is no darkness)would be a society free from the Thought Police and the Party. However, it turns out that the place where there is no darkness is simply a prison cell where the lights are never turned off. I didn't think that Winston could overthrow the Party, simply because he would have to have a great force comprised of those members of Oceania courageous enough to sacrifice their life for even the slightest hope of a better future.
In response to Paymon:
It did seem a little suspicious that with all the things Winston was doing he still wasn't being noticeably pursued by the Thought Police. Unfortunately, Winston's intentions of trying to outsmart the Party by being secretive did not follow through.
I feel that the ultimate conclusion to Winston’s tale was not a surprise. George Orwell articulates constantly throughout the book the inevitability of capture by the thought police. What confused me though was why it took so long for O’brian and the rest of the party to act. It seems to me, that the thought police could have taken Winston very early in the story. I feel that their end goal of coercing him back to the ideals of the party would have encountered less resistance had they taken him earlier. It seems counterproductive to allow Winston to sway away from the ideals of the party only to be driven back.
I thought at the start of the book that Winston would be succesful in overthrowing the party. Since the beggining of the book we have seen the world from Winston's perspective therefore seeing the party as bad. By seeing through Winston's eyes we weren't aware of the extent to which he was watched. The way he saw it in his mind was that the party knew what he was doing through the telescreen, secret microphones and spies. So like him, I thought as long as he wasnt being followed by a spy when he was walking the streets near the Proles and he was careful with his actions the party would be unaware of his rebellion. But, the party knew everything he was doing, there wasn't a second that passed that he wasn't being scrutinized. Since we were seeing through Winston's point of view we thought he was outsmarting the party, but it was the other way around. The party knew about his rebellion from the start. Winston never had a chance.
In response to Locke.
I also found it suspicious that Julia loved Winston so quickly and out of the blue. They never even had a real conversation but she loved him. It was a tad strange.
I do agree with what you said about Charrington, the poem and the painting were hints, however charrington didnt have a choice when Winston read "Goldsteins book outloud" He might as well have just ran in the middle of the street and said I hate Big Brother, I'm a rebel. As a citizen of Oceania he should know how careful he supposed to be with what he says and his facial expressions.
Henry,
I also found it incredibly strange that Winston did not get caught earlier. It just seemed like the government would be better at discovering deviants. After some thought, perhaps Orwell put in place the lengthy time period in order to suggest that Big Brother is not as omnipotent as he seems. Perhaps, they cannot really read thoughts. The thought police could just be the equivalent of security guards that watch monitors for trouble, except they are more stringent and have disguises and are a lot more intrusive. Julia evaded the government for so long. Winston was a conquest in a string of many for her. I was sort of surprised when it became apparent that she had carried on affairs for such a long time. With the amount of terror surrounding them, I though the thought police would be more efficient.
Throughout the book I was never truly optimistic that Winston would succeed in destroying the party. From the beginning of the book Orwell emphasized the sheer power of the party and their ability to know all and see all through the prominent telescreens and the thought police. Not only did that hinder my hope for a happy ending, but also Winston's fatalism in the fact that he mentioned numerous times that he was sure that he would eventually be caught by the thought police. As 1984 progressed I did find glimmers of hope in the possibility of O'brien being in the brotherhood, but at the same time I was suspicious of Julia which kept be doubtful of Winston succeeding. I was suspicious of Julia because it didn't seem plausible that she could instantly fall in love with Winston without actually knowing him. I did believe that she would be the one to turn Winston in among the other characters. So yes, like many of you, I was shocked to discover that O'brien was not in the brotherhood after all.
Since we were seeing through Winston's point of view we thought he was outsmarting the party, but it was the other way around. The party knew about his rebellion from the start. Winston never had a chance. -Megan.
I would like to respond to both Megan and Locke. Initially, readers see through Winston's eyes. Since he constantly disobeys rules and does not get punished, many assume that his actions go unnoticed. However, I did not make this assumption, as under these conditions, the party could not possibly function. If Winston could violate the laws of Oceania and not get caught, how could the society so uniformly function? It seemed clear that there was a high level of enforcement. So, eventually, it seemed, Winston would be caught. It is clear that while Winston presents his life in a way that rebels the norm, the party must be conscious of these actions, as the party is aware of everything. What must be happening is they are studying his every move, learing how people like Winston behave. After all, it is only to the benefit of a society to take note of his actions, as they are not an immediate threat by any means. To add Locke’s point however, Charrington presents ideas that seem quite odd, yet Winston passes them by as nothing. While clues are evident of the possibility of the party seeing Winston, it’s hard to tell at the beginning of the book if they are truly observant of his actions. One must believe, however, that this is happening as the party could only function correctly if this were true. In this sense, I believed that Winston was being monitored, and it was only a matter of time before he would be punished.
Towards the end of the book, I had narrowed down a list of people I thought would betray Winston. On the bottom of my list, as many seem to also have, was Charrington. Charrington seemed like a genuinely friendly human being. I thought that Winston would randomly be caught by some powerful government figure just walking down the street, noticing some small, disobedient motion of his body that seemed not to flow with the others.
I always had a feeling O’Brien would betray Winston. During the Two Minutes Hate in the beginning of the book, O’Brien is described as, “a member of the Inner Party and holder of some post so important and remote that Winston had only a dim idea of its nature.” This made him seem like the type of person Winston should not trust. Later I felt as though O’Brien wanted to be someone Winston could trust, but he was under control of the Party. It made me think that O’Brien would help Winston get far in his rebellion and then turn around and stab him in the back. I always did think Winston would somehow overthrow the Party, and I was very disappointed to find that he did not. I think the point of view of the book is what caused me to truly believe Winston would find a way to bring down the Party because we never really got a chance to see his life from the view of someone in, perhaps, the Thought Police. If I, as a reader, saw that Winston was being watched as much as I should have anticipated then it would have been a simple prediction.
In response to Lela
I think your analysis of Orwell was very accurate. He did do an excellent job in building trust within not only Winston but also the reader. Charrington was portrayed as such a genuine character. He seemed so kind and he was relatable to Winston through his interest in the past. The reader wanted to find hope in this and to see the good within such a negative utopia that Orwell created. I think that this is perhaps why many may have overlooked the subtle hints such as the conversation about the painting and the underlying meaning. This same idea holds true in the depiction of O'brien. Orwell built up trust and eliminated a lot of doubt-at least for me-during the meeting where he shared Goldstein's book.
I think there is a definite connection between the concept of Winston and the reader trusting characters such as O'brien and Charrington and the citizens of Oceania trusting the party. Both believe that their trust is justly placed, yet it is just an illusion.
In response to Locke…
Reading your response has made me realize how many hints Charrington gave Winston about how he was part of the Thought Police. I didn’t realize it when I was reading, but looking back I do see many hints that lean toward Charrington betraying Winston. The “here comes the chopper to chop off your head” poem is a huge clue. Winston never suspected anything, and neither did I.
Also, I agree that Julia seemed like someone who would betray Winston. I found it very odd that she decided she was in love with him after hardly ever seeing him let alone talking to him and getting to know him. It was also very strange that she knew so much about the city and where to go to disobey the government.
Ultimately it did not matter who betrayed Winston. He betrayed himself years ago, as O'Brien states. He knowingly trusted people when he knew that no one could be trusted. He practically handed himself over to the Thought Police. He wanted so desperately to have someone who felt and hoped, feared and dreamed as he did. The act of Mr. Charrington betraying him is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. Winston knew, or must have known, that whatever furtive gambits he took must be inevitably in vain. He clung madly to hope, knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was doomed. Even in his dreams he was a slave to doublethink.
Of course all that is said in hindsight. Originally I pegged O'Brien as the one to betray him. Julia was too young and equally uninterested. Meaning while although she rebelled against the Party, she was as Winston said " a rebel from the waist down." She seemed only interested in finding a way to break the rules and get away with it. She was a child. When Winston spoke of change and revolution, she either dozed off or displayed disinterest in such politics. O'Brien was still a mystery to Winston and he embodied all that Winston imagined him and the rebellion to be. Even in the end, whilst being brutally tortured, Winston saw O'Brien as his savior, his protector.
To be honest...for a while, I actually thought that Julia and Winston had a bit of a chance. Call me a hopeless romantic (hear me out), but, like Winston, I had some faint glimmer of hope towards a better future. In hindsight, even entertaining that idea was a foolish, silly thing to do. I suppose that there is an ever-optimistic part of us all that fights tooth and nail against oppression, just as Winston let himself foolishly believe that there was some way to overthrow the Party. However, it eventually became obvious, with foreshadowing and suspicious actions on both Julia and O'Brian's part. I especially loved O'Brian's particular quote: "We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness." All in all, the build-up to Winston's capture was eerie, and riddled with signs of what was coming. I suppose that I should have suspected Julia, as her "falling in love" with Winston was rather suspicious, though I DO think it is possible, in such a restrictive culture, to glean hope and the possibility of love from a fleeting glance from person to person. After all, what else do they have besides that spare second, that locking of eyes? They can call nothing else that they share theirs - everything else is somehow controlled or owned by the Party. In that case, their fragile relationship is all that they can do to rebel against the Party. Ultimately, it destroys them.
This is a continuation to my previous response because I did not answer the prompt fully. I foresaw the outcome of the story being something like it happened. Although, at times I did envision the book to have a happy ending, with Winston toppling the Party and reaching perhaps even a messianic status. However, I think that such a ending would serve no purpose and would be awfully cliched. I think the story is more powerful because it ends on a sorrowful note.
Yousef-
You bring up a great point about Julia. I forgot the important detail that she always dozed off whenever Winston was discussing the intricate details of their act of rebellion against the Party. In hindsight, she did seem quite childish in her fervent need to simply rebel, no matter how or why. She was fighting blindly for something that she did not understand - whereas Winston fought passionately to understand all that he fought for, and against.
This is response to Henry Cornillie's posting
I agree that Winston's ultimate fate was one of doom. In an attempt to answer your question as to why O'Brien waited so long, I can only speculate. Perhaps it was to show Winston just how omnipotent the Party and by extension Big Brother is. Winston was so devote in his belief and not only in that, but in his knowledge, his firm and concrete knowledge that the Party was a lie. Yet, at the end they were still able to turn him. He built himself a tower of hope and they razed it to the ground. Also, perhaps by letting him carry on for so long, he would be able to implicate others and make it easier for the Party to capture Thought Terrorists. Or perhaps it was just because the Party could. It just simply did not matter when or how they took him. It would have made no discernible difference in the grand scheme of things. Again the Party is omnipotent.
The conclusion of the novel left me in a bit of a disappointment. A part of me knew that Winston would never be able to overthrow Oceania, but I was still hoping for the possibility that he would succeed. The fact that he was not able to provides a more powerful message. I believe that I was ignorant to the fact that any of the characters, that gained a close relationship with Winston, would go against him. The readers gained the trust of the characters as Winston would be trusting of the different individuals. I never thought that Mr. Charrington would go against Winston. It makes sense now, looking back and seeing the clues, but at the time I was so hopeful on seeing Winston achieve his goal that I ignored the signs. I didn’t have the feeling that Julia would turn Winston in but I did feel a little unsure about her. The fact that she was a part of the anti-sex league, yet at the same time she possessed a strong passion for sex did not make any sense. Nor that she seemed to be in love with a man she barely even knew; there were only a few encounters between herself and Winston. In the end I acted in much the same way that Winston did in the sense that the closer people got to him and the more he trusted the individuals the closer he was bringing himself to his ultimate downfall. He was oblivious to what was taking place and as a result was unable to overthrow the Party and would never be able to organize any followers.
I always envisioned Julia betraying Winston. Their relationship seemed way too good to be true. She began to LOVE him SOOOOO fast!? And, the fact that she claimed she had been having affairs with other party members is quite interesting. Julia also knew exactly where to go so that they wouldn’t get caught in the act. She seemed to me like a political seducer to catch naughty men committing crimes because she appeared to be tricking men that she didn’t really care about how the society was run. When she was lying in bed with Winston as he read The Theory and Practice of Oligarchial Collectivism, she began to fall asleep which showed her lack of interest. Julia took a lot of personal pleasure in her life as it is that Winston’s concerns about the government did not concern her. Julia said she didn’t believe in the party and its enemies, which made me extremely skeptical about her actual plans for Winston.
In regards to ending, I always thought that O'Brien would team up with Winston to conquer the party, but in the end O'Brien ended up torturing the poor fellow! O’Brien’s relationship with Winston ended up being very strange. It is just so odd to me that Winston felt such a deep connection to him that he began to love O’Brien more than Julia? O’Brien manipulated Winston back into insanity amongst the rest of the citizens. I thought Winston had his thoughts in control about the society, and I never thought he would go back to praising his government. I guess it is easier said that done to conquer a totalitarian government.
In response to Yousef:
That’s an interesting point about Julia. I always felt that there was something about her that did not quite fit. She acted very immature and fought only for the thrill of being able to break the rules. She did not truly believe in a revolution. That sort of thing, as you stated, bored her and she would doze off when the topic of the revolution or the politics of the matter were brought up. As far as the deal with O’Brien, I believe that the reason Winston still saw O’Brien in this light is because he was still hoping that somehow or other O’Brien would still be able to provide some sort of assistance for the overthrow of the Party and that the only reason that O’Brien was torturing Winston was to ultimately save himself, he had to keep up his own persona. Like I said this I s simply a guess as to what could have possible been going through Winston’s mind.
In response to Allison M:
I never saw Mr. Charrington betraying Winston either! Who knew a telescreen would be behind that picture? I really need to go back into the book and look for the clues like Mr. Locke was talking about. I guess even the most caring people have an evil side. And, I agree with Allison, I really thought that he would find some way to conquer his doubts about the society. It would make the story really interesting if it turned out that he gained control of the proles and the party, but the book contains a strong, significant message about power. Or, I would have really liked Winston to somehow leave Oceania like the main character in Brazil because their “utopias” are so depressing! They should definitely be living in a better place like maybe the utopia Kurt, Amy, and I presented in class! Living in a tropical rainforest is exactly what Winston needs! Just kidding! I also agree with Allison about O’Brien’s torture points. I never imagined that O’Brien would destroy Winston like he did. He even used rats to scare poor Winston!
It is impossible not to have hope. The human spirit demands it. We are all led to believe there is some triumph; some small, subtle victory. But there is no triumph. There is no hope. There is only the party, and hatred. And love. The book ends in a wonderful way, with many pages left, leading one to believe there is more to the story. But there is not. There is only the infallible love for Big Brother. That is what makes 1984 perfect. It is truth.
It has been roughly a year since I first read it, and I can’t add much weight to the idea of what I thought was to be. I know I had hope, and I remember the uncontrollable rage that those last four words produced. I know this because I’ve seen it in every single person who has finished the book now. 1984 is the death of hope. The biting reality that you cannot change the words on the page. I cannot bring back those feelings in their true form, but, because there was no other way to counsel my rage, I wrote some things down in the margin of my book. In all capital letters.
“I reject your reality and I substitute my own.”
"Idealists, dreamers change the world. We are not remembered as a name, but as a catalyst for change. History is not a catalogue of names in which one preserves oneself. History is a river, and you will not be remembered by history for flowing with it, even most successfully. You must be the rock that divides the flow, that alters it to a different course. When you are the reason for a future incongruous with the past, then you will be remembered."
Being completely honest, I felt that Winston would eventually overcome the Party, or ,at the very least, escape Oceania. I am a sucker for hero stories and I thought that this had a feeling like a hero story. I was so engaged in to Winston's struggle that after every downturn, i thought that he would escape. Even when he was completely brainwashed, up until the last four words, I thought that Winston would somehow escape. Or 'snap out of it'. But, having this ending does explain why this is such a well-known book. It strays from the hero storyline meanwhile providing a great, interesting read.
I did not foresee Mr.Charrington betraying Winston at all. I believed that Mr.Charrington is exactly who he was made out to be. A quiet, little lonely prole. I also never expected O'Brien to be anything but the leader of the Brotherhood. Maybe I am naive to expect a happy ending, but it is what I wanted.
If anyone was to betray him, I figured it would be the most obvious character, Parsons. I also had an inkling of feeling that it would be Julia, but that is only because she was the closest person to Winston. And I thought it might just be perfectly horrible enough if Julia was from the though police.
I agree completely with Jessica (Jflo). I, too, envisioned O'brien helping out Winston, even to the end. The false belief of a Brotherhood was an ingenous plan by the party. I was so sure that O'brien would help Winston to success particularly because of the scenes where Winston and him lock eyes. Winston said he saw somehting in common with O'brien's eyes and I believed up until the last words of the story that O'briend would come back to help Winston to take over the party.
I also agree with a lot of the speculation about Julia. She seemed so in to the relationship the she had with Winston, it was scary. She seemed to confident about the success of their relationship and it made me wary of her as a character.
I agree with Yousef that Julia was a child. She could not fully understand what Winston was really hoping to achieve because she was so uninterested. She mistakenly pegged herself as a revolutionary instead of a young rebel. Her acts were rebellious in the way that she did not do as she was told. But to fit in so well and to partake in extra curricular activities were her defining characteristics as a rebel. Although she said that she was completely against Big Brother, it was only because she wanted to break a rule, whereas Winston wanted to break a specific one. He knew why he hated the society and what he wanted to do about it; Julia was just in for another frivolous ride.
I always thought that Julia was betraying Winston. He was so much older than her and her love was so sudden that she didn't even know the man before she claimed she "loved" him. Even Winston didn't know what she saw in him! I also noticed in the end that Julia had earlier said she had been with many men. However, her and Winston end up getting caught. How did Julia manage to have relations with other men without getting caught but coincidentally not Winston? Also her numerous "disobeyments" of the Party were almost too much to be realistic. She had connections to get makeup, coffee, secret hiding places, anything and everything that was banned by the Party. The fact that she could somehow manage to get all of these items by the ways she claimed to obtain them is extremely skeptical. Especially because Winston was against the Party as well, and had no way of obtaining any of the things she had. Also, her countless participation in Party activities was also sketchy. She said it was a cover-up, but to be involved in as many things as she was seems to be a little more than a coverup. To have enough time in the day to rebel as much as she did while devoting so much time to the party doesn't seem real. I think she was working for the Party all along.
In response to Kevin C:
I still believe that Julia betrayed Winston, but I have to agree that Charrington betrayed them a little as well because he could've just said the room was not for rent. Now that I think about it, I doubt the telescreen was in the room before Winston rented it. Mr. Charrington could've really betrayed Winston by putting it in there because he knew Winston was using it to have relations with Julia. This goes along with the whole theme of Oceania, that no one can be trusted. Even your own children can't be trusted! I think it would only make sense that Charrington would also betray Winston.
Due to either my wish for a happy ending, or just being used to so many similar stories having those endings, I didn't expect Winston to fail entirely. I am unsure if i didn't see him being betrayed. O'Brian definitely could have betrayed him, he's in a position of high power over all of Winston's life, his rebellious lifestyle and his law-abiding one. With a snap of a finger O'Brian could eliminate Winston. I think Winston was somewhat naive to believe that O'Brian, a person who benefited so much from the Party's power, would risk so much to rebel against it. While it was nice to believe that people would place morality over personal gain, one can't just expect that to be true of anyone who could be making that choice. However, much of this could be hindsight bias, as I read the book the first time quite a while ago, so I don't remember my thoughts from the first read through.
@ Locke
I don't believe that Julia was a likely person to betray Winston. She was far too cynical of the governmental system to help them in anyway. True, her falling in love with him was a little suspicious, and Winston had his suspicions about her at the beginning. But, after he got to know her, you see that's she's mostly just a content cynic. She won't do anything to change the system, to help it or hurt it, but she will break rules as far as they make her life better.
In response to Yousef’s response:
I couldn’t agree more. It makes perfect sense that the party has no incentive to capture Winston early. In the long run, Winston’s personal insurrection has very little importance to the party. He has no capability to harm or threaten IngSoc. So, it makes sense to let him cement his own disdain for the party, because it allows them to prove their complete and utter control over humanity, when they turn his ideals back inline with the party. The delay in Winston’s capture and inevitable demise serves only to prove to O’brian just how powerful he actually is.
Looking back, I was not expecting anyone to betray Winston. I honestly thought that he was going to be able to destroy the party with the help of O'Brien and Mr. Charrington. I couldn't have been more wrong. I was shocked when Mr. Charrington revealed his true identity and when O'Brien turned out to be a loyal party follower. However, as I look back this is less surprising to me now because O'Brien benefitted so much from the Party that he must have considered it foolish to rebel against it. The book ended quite differently than I expected. The people I thought were Winston's allies ended up being his enemies.
in response to Meredith:
I agree that Julia was not helpful in Winston's revolt against the Party because she was not interested in justice, but only a chance to rebel against something. She claimed to be agaisnt Big Brother, but she never showed it. I never fully trusted Julia or believed that she was in love with Winstone.
I never suspected that Charrington would have betrayed Winston. Looking back on the circumstances, I now realize that if he really wanted to tell Winston about the telescreen, he could have done so on the lower floor, or could have passed a note to him. There can be no doubt as to the genuineness of his betrayal. However, Charrington put up a remarkably good façade. I would never have expected a shop owner living among the proles to be the one to betray Winston. I would have expected it to be one of his coworkers, since they were the most heavily brainwashed by the Party and could not have understood the importance of free speech. The children in his apartment building were also prime suspects, since they were often known to betray their parents. Upon further reflection, though, O’Brien seemed very suspicious, and if I were Winston, I’m not sure I would have gone to him. It is unclear why a person looking to organize a rebellion would work in the Inner Party, or why a person in such a high position should seek to subvert the existing social order. If I were organizing the rebellion, I would have gone out among the proles and attempt to organize a revolution in their ranks. Goldstein himself admits that revolutions led by the Middle never result in equality for the Low, so I would have wanted to meet the leader of the Brotherhood among the proles rather than in the Party. O’Brien’s position is suspicious at best, and surely someone interested in freedom of speech would not be so keen on withholding information from Winston. I was not too surprised when I found out that O’Brien was behind Winston’s betrayal.
I was only suspicious of Julia. The fact that she would make such a bold statement so quickly made me weary of her. Why would she so readily send a criminalizing note to an almost-stranger?
While reading the book, I was honestly just waiting for the thought police to catch Winston. This came partially from evidence in the book of the power of the party, but also from my general skepticism that Orwell would write such a book with a happy ending. However, I expected them simply to kill Winston, but his fate was much, much worse. The final brainwash of Winston fulfilled Orwell's commentary perfectly, and made the book all the more powerful.
@ Locke:
That is an extremely insightful view of Charrington. I did not think of him as a rebel after his betrayal at all, I only felt disdain. This intricate form of rebellion is far more intelligent and interesting than I could have ever assumed by myself. The fact that he would discard Winston on the point that he was an "unsuitable rebel" stings, but is quite true.
The painting symbolizing the government's intrusive nature is also an interesting thought. Charrington highlighting the fact that it is removable and pointing it out so blatantly makes Charrington as such a rebel much more believable. After all, if Charrington was only in with the party, why would he want Winston to find out about the telescreen, after which he could run from the thoughtpolice?
Post a Comment