Scan barcode
A review by isabellarobinson7
1984 by George Orwell
4.0
Second read: 26/04/22 - 29/04/22
Rating: (actually) 4 stars
My path to rereading 1984 went like this: In the middle of reading a Le Guin story collection, I forgot whether the narrator of the then current story (The Diary of the Rose) was male or female (a weird thing to both forget and be bothered by) so I looked up the Wikipedia page for a synopsis (the narrator was female, if you care) to find a certain aspect of the story was comparable to thoughtcrimes from Orwell's 1984. I then went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole of skimming 1984-centred articles, such as newspeak, Oceania (the fictional one, not the one I live in), doublethink, 2 + 2 = 5, Ingsoc and so on. Safe to say they all sent my mind into a tizzy. I then realised that my original opinion of 1984 (read in original review below) was somewhat skewed by the romance in Part II and that I kind of missed the brilliance of the broader concept (plus I was reading the book as part of a reading challenge so I was zooming through them). So the next morning I found both an ebook and audiobook copy for free (Apple Books and Australian Audible Plus catalogue if you want to check it out) and started reading it for the second time.
I soon realised the reassessment I had had the night before was spot on. The romance was more or less completely overshadowed by the world George Orwell had crafted. His fundamental understanding of the human mind astounds me, especially Part III, which is absolutely amazing. In my original review I likened Part III to a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Upon closer examination I can see that 1984 was a direct influence on the writers of that episode, they just replaced Winston with Picard and O'Brian with that Cardassian whose name currently escapes me... dammit now I want to watch that episode again.
So yeah. I think I am keeping my (re)rating at 4 stars, because Orwell's style of writing in general tends to be too heavy handed with the messaging for my taste (again, read below) kind of in a similar way to how C.S. Lewis is in The Chronicles of Narnia but with a completely different message and target audience, obviously. Like Lion=Jesus, Witch=Satan, Napoleon=Stal- oops that was Animal Farm. It's like he doesn't leave any room for the reader to form their own opinions. But I suppose every now and then it is good to read something where the interpretation is spoon fed to you, instead of having to think really hard about what the frickety frack the author is trying to get at. Like, out with it, come on. ANYWAY, 1984, 4 stars, review over, thank you, goodbye. *exits*
First read: 26/12/20 - 26/12/20
Rating:?? 4 stars
Edit 25/04/22: it has been almost a year and a half since I finished this book, and I think I can recognise its brilliance now more than I originally did. I know why the romance was there, I always did, but I actually completely forgot it even took place until I reread my review. So yay. 4 stars.
I have been sitting on it for two days, and I am still undecided as to how I should rate 1984. It started off really great. George Orwell was a bit heavy handed in some of the messages he was trying to get across (literally "look! Here's a school textbook that the character is going to read that is going to give you social commentary because I don't trust you to work it out for yourself!") but I was expecting that, given how on the nose he is in Animal Farm (no one can read that and see anything but animal communism). The third and final of the three books was really well done, and reminded me a lot of the TNG episode Chain of Command, Part II (you know, "THERE… ARE… FOUR LIGHTS!"). But the thing that stumps me is the romance. What... what was its purpose? Yes, I could see as the book went on why it occurred, but was it absolutely necessary? Perhaps this is my biased perspective saying this, but couldn't we have achieved the same thing using something else? We could've reached a similar conclusion using another plot device, couldn't we? Again, I recognise and thus emphasise my predisposition against amorous, as opposed to platonic, relationships (wow, that came out rather brainy), so this is more of a critique based on personal taste, instead of an "objective" error. But everything is subjective, so what can I say, really.
Rating: (actually) 4 stars
My path to rereading 1984 went like this: In the middle of reading a Le Guin story collection, I forgot whether the narrator of the then current story (The Diary of the Rose) was male or female (a weird thing to both forget and be bothered by) so I looked up the Wikipedia page for a synopsis (the narrator was female, if you care) to find a certain aspect of the story was comparable to thoughtcrimes from Orwell's 1984. I then went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole of skimming 1984-centred articles, such as newspeak, Oceania (the fictional one, not the one I live in), doublethink, 2 + 2 = 5, Ingsoc and so on. Safe to say they all sent my mind into a tizzy. I then realised that my original opinion of 1984 (read in original review below) was somewhat skewed by the romance in Part II and that I kind of missed the brilliance of the broader concept (plus I was reading the book as part of a reading challenge so I was zooming through them). So the next morning I found both an ebook and audiobook copy for free (Apple Books and Australian Audible Plus catalogue if you want to check it out) and started reading it for the second time.
I soon realised the reassessment I had had the night before was spot on. The romance was more or less completely overshadowed by the world George Orwell had crafted. His fundamental understanding of the human mind astounds me, especially Part III, which is absolutely amazing. In my original review I likened Part III to a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Upon closer examination I can see that 1984 was a direct influence on the writers of that episode, they just replaced Winston with Picard and O'Brian with that Cardassian whose name currently escapes me... dammit now I want to watch that episode again.
So yeah. I think I am keeping my (re)rating at 4 stars, because Orwell's style of writing in general tends to be too heavy handed with the messaging for my taste (again, read below) kind of in a similar way to how C.S. Lewis is in The Chronicles of Narnia but with a completely different message and target audience, obviously. Like Lion=Jesus, Witch=Satan, Napoleon=Stal- oops that was Animal Farm. It's like he doesn't leave any room for the reader to form their own opinions. But I suppose every now and then it is good to read something where the interpretation is spoon fed to you, instead of having to think really hard about what the frickety frack the author is trying to get at. Like, out with it, come on. ANYWAY, 1984, 4 stars, review over, thank you, goodbye. *exits*
First read: 26/12/20 - 26/12/20
Rating:
Edit 25/04/22: it has been almost a year and a half since I finished this book, and I think I can recognise its brilliance now more than I originally did. I know why the romance was there, I always did, but I actually completely forgot it even took place until I reread my review. So yay. 4 stars.
I have been sitting on it for two days, and I am still undecided as to how I should rate 1984. It started off really great. George Orwell was a bit heavy handed in some of the messages he was trying to get across (literally "look! Here's a school textbook that the character is going to read that is going to give you social commentary because I don't trust you to work it out for yourself!") but I was expecting that, given how on the nose he is in Animal Farm (no one can read that and see anything but animal communism). The third and final of the three books was really well done, and reminded me a lot of the TNG episode Chain of Command, Part II (you know, "THERE… ARE… FOUR LIGHTS!"). But the thing that stumps me is the romance. What... what was its purpose? Yes, I could see as the book went on why it occurred, but was it absolutely necessary? Perhaps this is my biased perspective saying this, but couldn't we have achieved the same thing using something else? We could've reached a similar conclusion using another plot device, couldn't we? Again, I recognise and thus emphasise my predisposition against amorous, as opposed to platonic, relationships (wow, that came out rather brainy), so this is more of a critique based on personal taste, instead of an "objective" error. But everything is subjective, so what can I say, really.