Maybe it could be IBfied a bit more. As it stand, its still pretty much just 1984.
One thing that would be possible is that the type of society described is a bit different based on the world of IB. *Here* the book was written as as a reaction to totalitarian regimes (such as stalinism and nazism) as well as Orwell's fear of a renewed British Empire. While you do have SNORism *there*, other types of regime could have caused him fear. For example, he could been afraid of "ultra-condominiumism" were every man is literaly his own country. In this context, Winston Smith's counterpart could be a man secretly trying to unite with others and stop being an individual. After discovering that [Goldstein's couterpart]'s Underground Unification Front was just a cruel joke made up by a bored man, he has a nervous breakdown and the novel could end with him sitting by himself saying "Big whole world, I hate you all".
Another option could be that the novel is actualy "utopian". --Marc Pasquin 15:12, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- Heh. :-) So, it'd be more of a comedy than a dystopia? Nik 15:16, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- Hmmmm. I would personally prefer it still be dystopian, but fitting with both IB and Eric Blair. Zahir 15:27, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- To answer Nik, the utopian version probably would have to be comedic to be interesting although it could be one of those novel written by a true believer (funny despite his intentions).
- The "alone in the crowd" version I propose though could be presented straightfaced: the horror of isolation experienced by "Winston" and the fictional UUF being symptoms of a disfunctional narcisistic race. I'm sure that the fact that a large number of ethnic groups on IB are neither fully part of one nation or another must sometime create feeling of uncertainty. We usualy went with the view that condominiums *there* work better then *here* but its bound to create some problem we never have to face *here*: Instead of nationalism, monoism.--Marc Pasquin 15:34, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- I haven't really sat down to write this, and will gladly take your information under advisement...I'll let you know when it's ready to proposalize. BoArthur 15:54, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- Hmmm ... an interesting thought. A slight variation, perhaps every person is a member of several different political entities, Condominium-style, and, therefore, is constantly finding himself torn by conflicting demands of those states.
- One thing to consider is that *here*'s Orwell was a socialist, and 1984, like Animal Farm, was, on one level, about the betrayal of those ideals. Perhaps *there*'s Fferreir wrote about some other betrayed ideology ... say, Ecotopia? Or maybe the loss of colonies was part of the inspiration - an extreme disintegration. He lives in the People's Ecotopic Republic of North Castreleon or something similar. Nik 16:02, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- Something that I thought about would be, that even if we kept it similar to Orwell's, we'd still have to re-think about how the three world powers would be aligned. You wouldn't have the same divisions that Orwell thought of when he wrote 1984. Doobieous 16:59, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- That was a lot of what I'd thought, actually...the world powers would be vastly different, and I'm also planning on Orwell and his first wife, Shaughnessy not dying when they did so there would be more darkness forthcoming. As for "aloneness", that's an integral part of 1984 *here*, as each person is encouraged to inform on neighbors and spouses, and they're all VERY much alone. BoArthur 17:04, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- The big difference between 1984 and what I described though is that Ingsoc makes you a well defined cog in a well oiled machine, unable to express your individuality. What I propose is the flip side: everyone is unique and any attempt at building bridge (or creating norm) is seen as obscene and rejected. In that kind of world, everyone would be free to connect, no one wants to. --Marc Pasquin 17:25, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- Your idea of it being a utopian novel woudl be a nice bit of irony, as well. :-) Nik 19:29, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- Orwell would've had to lead a _very_ different life *there* for that to be plausible to me. He lost his first and second wives because of a botched surgery and lack of medical attention, and died himself of TB, having barely survived a gunshot wound through the neck in the Spanish Civil War, &c, &c. BoArthur 19:32, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- So, this is the same individual, then? Nik 19:37, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- I'm thinking very similar, but that he will have longer to live and more dystopian novels to write. BoArthur
The more I think on it, the more I believe this is a really fascinating challenge. Presuming for a moment that IB's Eric Blair has essentially similar passions and insights as *our* George Orwell, we're talking about someone who saw with great vividness the terrible possibilities of current trends. He saw only too clearly that Socialism could be an excuse to do things exactly as before, and he saw also how a ruling class would go to nearly any lengths in order to maintain itself. It is also interesting to note that he, unike Huxley in Brave New World, understood that the urge for power is a sadistic one. And in 1984 he portrayed a true nightmare--a world where hope really was doomed, beyond redemption without some kind of apocalypse to start all over. That is heady stuff. Zahir 21:06, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- For the record, Eric Arthur Blair is George Orwell *here* (found that out today, meself!) BoArthur
- Actually, I already knew that. That is why I referred to them that way, as if they were the same man. Because they were/are. There's a really, really good documentary series called A History of Britain and the last episode deals with the XXth century. It is called "The Two Winstons," namely Churchill and the hero of 1984, Winston Smith. Really interesting stuff. And the movie with John Hurt and Richard Burton is brilliant. Brutal, ugly and disturbing, but brilliant. Zahir 22:12, 8 March 2006 (PST)
- A History of Britain also mentioned his colonial service in Burma, which was an influence on his intellectual development. Would that be the same in IB, or would it be played out in a different part of the Empire. I thinking of the incident where Blair had to shoot an elephant and it took an embarrassingly long time to die. - AndrewSmith 01:15, 9 March 2006 (PST).
Would East Asia be a form of reunited China + some other bits next to it? --Sikulu 03:46, 9 March 2006 (PST)
- *There* 1994 would've been written and published before the partition of China, so I should suspect that he expected China to still be a going concern. BoArthur 08:09, 9 March 2006 (PST)
Impact of 1994
I'm a bit puzzled about 1994's impact. Presumably, it struck a similar chord *there* as 1984 did *here* but seeing why at all is tricky. One question that immediately comes to mind is--when was it published? I would suggest during the darkest days of GW2 simply to note the horrid parallels of unending war and shifting alliances. Maybe it, like LOTR, grew in popularity over time? And also, perhaps the Anti-SNOR Movement more-or-less adopted the book as their own? What do you think? Zahir 19:43, 22 May 2006 (PDT)
- Yes, it should strike a similar chord to 1984, and I'm more than happy to have your collaboration on this project. Feel free to tweak what I've written to make it fit better. It was published in 1949, hence 1994 (1984 *here* because it was published in 1948, the same year Orwell died *here*.) When you say that the Anti-SNOR adopted it, what did you have in mind? I'm intrigued... BoArthur 06:29, 23 May 2006 (PDT)
- Well, this book is about a political nightmare made horrifying flesh, about the death of hope and pleasure and happiness in favor of political power. The Anti-Snorist Movement was all about seeing the world in a new way, about not repeating the failures of the past lest they lead to an apocalypse of which GW2 was merely an appetizer. 1994 could have been a portrait of what they said was the future unless the direction of civilization changed. As for collaboration, let me give it some thought. I have an idea or three. Let me simmer them on the back burner for a bit. Zahir 08:19, 23 May 2006 (PDT)
- Sounds like a plan. I must say I do enjoy our collaborations, quite fruitful. :) I look forward to seeing what you think of. BoArthur 09:08, 23 May 2006 (PDT)
That strikes me as too much of a rip-off of Big Brother, and a more formal-sounding name, at that. Maybe instead, he should be Father? Nik 21:22, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
- I like that. BoArthur 06:11, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
- I see your point, but on the other hand I don't see "Father" as being particularly different from "Brother" in this context. The book *here* was trying to create an icon for the ultimate all-knowing Leader and if 1994 is going to continue with that idea, some kind of familial title seems appropriate. On the other hand, other possibilities include simply "Leader" or "Number One" (shades of The Prisoner) or "Monarch" or "The Prime" or some such. JMHO. Zahir 06:52, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
- The Prisoner was a British series (what we would call a "mini-series" these days) in the late 1960s starring (and created by) Patrick McGoohan. He played an unnamed secret agent who resigned and was immediately kidnapped, waking up in a strange place called The Village. There, people were referred to only by numbers and were under the authority of a rotating official known only as "Number Two." The identity and goals of "Number One" was one of the show's ongoing mysteries, as the people in the Village sought to make the Prisoner talk. He was too valuable to simply break, so they used increasingly elaborate ruses to try and trick him into giving up and hopefully joining them. But part of the whole idea of the series was that The Village was simply using extreme methods of what society does to force conformity. The Prisoner was given a chance, for example, to run for the office of Number Two--only to run afoul of a corrupted political process. Another time he tried to distinguish between the real prisoners in the Village versus the guards pretending to be prisoners so as to organize an escape--but his efforts to do so were perceived as proof by others that he himself was one of the guards! It was fascinating, frustrating, at times very surreal.
- Dystopias are tricky, IMO, because they seem to work best when they plug into a common fear of the future. Anthem by Ayn Rand shows a world where the concept of individuality has been lost, and the word "I" simply does not exist. The Prisoner played with the notion that society really is just a jailcell with subtle bars, while the novel 1984 posits that tyranny is on its way to becoming so brutally efficient that successful rebellion becomes not only impossible, but ultimately (and literally) unthinkable.
- Okay, unclicking my soapbox icon for now... Zahir 07:49, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
- Nonono! I'm enthralled, seriously! I'd love to see The Prisoner now... Please, feel free to add anything that you think that would improve my draft of 1994 :) BoArthur 08:14, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
Please let me know what you think... Zahir 08:53, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
What would be the disputed area there? My ideas would be -
--Quentin 11:28, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
- Uh...methinks maybe you posted this in the wrong place maybe? (Don't feel bad--my first article here was a misadventure in its own right) Zahir 11:38, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
Are you meaning as disputed in the novel? I fully anticipated the whole of Louisianne across to Oregon as no-man's land between the Latin-American country and the Commonwealth territories. I hadn't thought much of the euro division aside Eurasia against the commonwealth lands, and such. BoArthur 13:21, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
- Oh! If that is what you mean then please never mind my comment. Oops. My bad. Zahir 18:15, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
This is a proposed exention -
Perhaps falling after LOTR, the author gave several "appendices" to the novel, explaining the historical situation of the 1994, an explanation of Newparol, some maps of the World, Britain and Castreleon and a ficticious postcard supposedly from this world, postmarked 1994. It contained also a ficticious leaflet concerning "protection against foreigners" and speech.
- I'll have to think about that. BoArthur 16:04, 28 December 2006 (PST)
Shall we consider this novel and its influence de-proposalized? Zahir 13:58, 22 May 2007 (PDT)
Yes, I suppose we could, and rightly should. BoArthur 17:33, 24 May 2007 (PDT)