Abstract: Through a historical lens, this essay discusses how George Orwell’s famous dystopic novel, 1984 ,should be acclaimed less for its quality as a work of fiction and more for its attempt to prompt social activism during a time when western civilization needed motivation most. To start, many of the characters in the novel are thinly veiled caricatures of real-life people with important roles in world history; and from those characters, none are portrayed as heroes which downplays the virtues of humans. Similarly weak is Orwell’s attempt to imagine a distinct setting for 1984. In short, Orwell rejects the development of literary elements that will draw in the reader in favor of a tone, setting and characters that are not well received by the reader. For Orwell, it is less important that people appreciate the artistic nuances of his novel than they respond to it by rejecting totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is defined as “Of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy” (Merriam-Webster). Since the establishment of modern Western democracy in the 18th century, there have been three primary attempts at such a government: Hitler’s Nazi Party in the 1920’s and 30’s; Mussolini’s National Fascist Party during the same period; and the Communist Party of Josef Stalin during and after World War II, which persisted the longest and brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation for over four decades. In the 20th century, these three totalitarian states presented a consistent and serious threat to the so-called “free world,” and of these, the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union represented the direst threat. From his rise to power in 1922 to his death in 1953, Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party, influenced greatly by Karl Marx, ruled with an iron fist and established themselves as a very effective political counterpoint to the fundamental principles of democracy: freedom of expression and thought, individual opportunity to rise or fall in fortune depending on one’s desire and talents(Gitlow, Comrade). As the world struggled to recover from the horrors of World War II, and quickly descended into the Cold War, it was unclear whether any nation would be able to prevent a Soviet takeover.
During this era, when most of the world saw the color red as synonymous with the enemy, and the Soviet Union had developed enough of a nuclear arsenal to obliterate western Europe and the United States, many leading thinkers and artists in the Western world offered visions for the ultimate outcome of the great strife between Soviet communism and Western democracy. Among them, noted authors such as George Orwell predicted that, without resistance from all members of free societies, the fatalism of the totalitarian state could overwhelm the optimism of democracy. Orwell’s experience with European imperialists and Marxism prior to and during the Second World War directly influenced his portrayal of a dystopian world in his famous novel, 1984. Despite the fact that 1984 is one of the most widely read literary works of the 20th Century, it should be acclaimed less for its quality as a work of fiction than for its attempt to prompt social activism during a time when western civilization needed motivation most.
Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name, George Orwell, was an English author and critic who lived in the first half of the 20th century. Orwell traveled for much of his life around Europe observing the differences between societal classes and was fascinated by the oppressive forces that render society discontented and fearful (Leab, Daniel J). The most powerful of these forces during Orwell’s time was the Soviet Union under the rule of Joseph Stalin. Orwell would use this force as a theme in many of his literary works. His most famous pieces, Animal Farm and 1984, contain thinly-disguised references to Stalin and the Soviet Union in character, setting, and theme. However, although 1984 was widely read, it was unsuccessful in terms of the author’s intended impact for the novel: to unite the free world against the Soviet Union and the spread of totalitarian government, as the world became ever more starkly defined by the divide between Western democracy and Soviet communism.
Although 1984 is considered by some to be one of the greatest works of science fiction of all time, it actually presents little fiction at all (Lynch, Sean) . To begin with, many of the characters in the novel are thinly veiled caricatures of real-life people with important roles in world history. The most obvious example of this is seen in the resemblance of Big Brother to Josef Stalin. All the way down to the mustache Orwell does little to differentiate the supreme ruler in his novel from that of the Soviets. Orwell’s primary intention for the novel – to inspire people to take action against the spread of totalitarianism – undermines the novel’s literary quality. In terms of supporting a strong narrative with compelling characters, Orwell’s portrayal of Big Brother as a man who does not have a name largely fails, and is distracting and cause for imaginative criticism (Asimov, Isaac). Consider also the obvious similarity between the character Emmanuel Goldstein in the novel and the great political leader Leon Trotsky of the Soviet Union. Trotsky was Stalin’s chief opponent for rule over the Soviet Union, and in order to ensure public support Stalin portrayed Trotsky as a villain while representing himself as a hero who came swooping in to save the day for Soviet society. We see a similar scapegoating of the character Goldstein in the novel, only in the story Big Brother is on the receiving end of Goldstein’s unfair social crucifixion (Asimov Isaac). Even the physical descriptions of Goldstein and Trotsky are similar: Goldstein, like Trotsky, has a “lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard” (Orwell, George). But these direct comparisons between real-life figures and primary characters in the novel actually distract more than inspire the reader, and in effect weaken the story, since the reader is not asked by the author to fully engage his or her imagination in the development of the plot or in the consideration of character.
Ironically, the main difference between the characters in 1984 and those in real life during the time of Soviet rule is that Orwell offers no heroes in the book. Orwell downplays the actual and potential virtues of humanity and makes all his characters weak or sadistic in one way or another (Asimov, Isaac). Regardless of whether or not this was intentional, it is difficult for the reader to sympathize with Orwell on this issue for in every historical period of tyranny, there have always been brave individuals willing to die for their opposition to that tyranny and for the cause of overthrowing regimes that advance that tyranny. Those who dedicate themselves to such a worthy cause remain luminous in the dark corners of history; however, in 1984, Orwell gives us no such humanitarian lights. Rather, Orwell presents a world where compliance with the totalitarian regime is complete, and the resistance contemplated by Winston and his counterpart, Julia, is only temporary and ineffective. In the end, there is no escape for any member of 1984’s society from the repression of Big Brother. The fact that Orwell chooses, or fails, to provide characters capable of successfully resisting totalitarianism in the novel is not only at odds with human history but may be one of the primary reasons why the novel failed to deliver the societal impact the author intended it to have. People are roused to action more by hope than by despair, and 1984 ultimately fails to offer enough messages of hope to foster the kind of social movement Orwell thought was necessary to defeat Stalinism and whatever forms of totalitarianism would be spawned by it.
Other literary elements of the novel are similarly weak. For example, Orwell seems to have put little effort into imagining a distinctive setting in 1984; the setting of the novel is barely distinguishable from the real-world setting of the Soviet empire. Although the novel is supposed to be set in London in the year 1984, it is evident that the setting is more like Moscow, 1000 miles to the east of London, in the early to middle 20th Century. Orwell claims to be predicting a revolution in Great Britain, however he is really simply retelling what had already occurred in the USSR. Orwell’s creation of a setting only superficially different from real life, in a novel that asks a lot of the reader—to believe in a fantastical future in which individualism has been eliminated—does little to help draw the reader in and become fully engaged with the story. The fact that certain plot elements reinforce the sense that there is little difference between the novel’s setting and the Soviet capital under Stalin also does little to invest the reader in the novel beyond a certain level of intellectual curiosity. For instance, the series of purges that Ingsoc, or the English Socialist Party, undergoes in the novel quickly recalls to the reader the series of purges that the Soviet party went through in the 1930’s. There is little attempt by Orwell to use fresh fictional details in building the setting for 1984, and while this fact does not take away from the seriousness of the novel, it causes the reader to become distracted, even preoccupied, by the similarities between other world historical events and periods and the novel’s plot (Bossche, Edmond Van Den).
In the end, Orwell’s 1984 delivers a certain raw beauty and power as a work of literature. It is not, however, a great work of art in the way that other masterpieces of world literature, such as Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment or Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, are. 1984 does not, like these stories, offer the reader extraordinary characterization, memorable plot, and settings that recall real-life places and time periods yet nonetheless stimulate the imagination. In a sense, 1984 tries to repel the reader rather than engage him. Orwell rejects the development of literary elements that will draw in the reader in favor of a tone, setting and characters that are distasteful. For Orwell, it is less important that people appreciate the artistic nuances of his novel than that they respond to it by rejecting totalitarianism.
Many authors, such as Charles Dickens and Jonathan Swift, have used the novel form of literature to encourage social change. And other works of the science fiction genre have relied upon a dystopian vision of the future to promote a more critical public consideration of issues such as technology and political theory in the present day. 1984 aspires to do both of these things, but it is uninspiring in its effort. 1984 has been acclaimed as a masterpiece of science fiction, but it is not much of either science or fiction, except for the fact that it is set in the future. Regardless of what genre this novel belongs in, its noble intention is undermined by its literary flaws. One can accept a troubling vision of the future, and perhaps even be moved to rebel against that future, if the vision provides a ray of hope. 1984 provides no such hope, and Orwell’s unimaginative setting and characters do not help the reader get past the bleak forecast to care about the plot outcomes. Ultimately, people care more about people and what happens to them than about political theory. Orwell seems to have forgotten that truth in 1984, and while it is not essential that a story be appealing to be meaningful, a story whose characters and setting have no appeal, which provides no reason for optimism, and which does little to engage the imagination of the reader, can never incite the degree of real world social change Orwell hoped for.
Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. “REVIEW OF 1984.” REVIEW OF 1984 By Isaac Asimov I. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Bossche, Edmond Van Den. “THE MESSAGE FOR TODAY IN ORWELL’S ‘1984’” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Dec. 1983. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Gitlow Comrade. “Soviet and American Communist Parties.” Soviet and American Communist Parties. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
Leab, Daniel J. “George Orwell: An Exhibition from the Daniel J. Leab Collection, Brown University Library.” Brown University Library. Brown University, Sept. 1997. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Lynch, Sean. “1984: An Alternative Analysis of the Classic Dystopian Novel.”Understanding Weakness. WordPress, 09 Sept. 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Orwell, George, and Mike Dean. 1984. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2003. Print.
captainkirk98 