For Book Experts - "1984"

Definitely read it, studied it for English Literature Classes...

Arthur C. Clarke: Childhood's End

BaldFriede wrote: Umberto Eco actually is a main character in a novel by French author Laurent Binet called "The Seventh Function of Language" which I highly recommend. He appears in the last third of the novel only but is central there.

For those who see rural life as ideal/utopic; I recommend the novel Cold Comfort Farm. No spoilers. Just read it, hahah.

BTW I love both country life and city (including metropol) life; because from my birth forward, I've experienced both in long and short terms, in turns. I'm happy to have the chance to know their pros and cons. Now, I'm at my summer place in winter. But it is not actually "winter" as the weather is very warm. Anyway... Good to be in a sparsely populated area during the Covid-19 thing.

Utopias and dystopias... Generally fun. Sometimes scary... Not anymore for me. They only serve as means to grant us/me our/my precious "temporary suspension of disbelief" fun. It is always a plus to get some real benefit while having fun, though.

Umberto Eco actually is a main character in a novel by French author Laurent Binet called "The Seventh Function of Language" which I highly recommend. He appears in the last third of the novel only but is central there.


Edited by BaldFriede - December 13 2020 at 05:50

I get that, and of course there is a place for evaluation of artistic merit, scientific merit and so on. It's the cocksure attitude of some critics (both academic and armchair) that gets up my nose who I think arrogantly make claims instead of presenting a nuanced thesis. A thesis can lay down a framework of evaluation and come to a valid conclusion (with sound reasoning) without stating it in no uncertain terms. I like the scientific epistemology where conclusions are tentative, open to new evidence and re-evaluation, and check for bias.

There are legitimate ways to approach the evaluation of art, but many critics of art don't seem to be open-minded enough, are too confident in their assertions and too sure of their conclusions.

There is a canon of greatest (that which many have recognised), and if there was a more skilled opera composer of the 19th Century than Wagner and Verdi that wouldn't make it greatest (greatest has various connotations and requires recognition). In the future another opera composer my get more recognition and be listed amongst those greats. I rather think of how certain Hollywood cinema and directors wwere re-appraised by certain French intellectuals and found to be very worthy of merit in its own right.

Now I'm confident that 1984 would be considered a great work by many intellectuals, and not just for the ideas, but I think the rather prosaic style, which I think suits the work rather then lessens it, might lower it for some. I wonder how Jane Austen would have written that? I think James Joyce would have done a good job, not sure about James Baldwin. ;)

My issue is with those who are cocksure, and those who perhaps lack the creativity to think outside of a certain orthodoxy. We all have our biases, and what others have taught us to value biases us, and this can become self-perpetuating. A new outlook may come along which throws standard thinking on its head (at least in some circles).

I would be very sceptical about claims of none in these cases. Ultimately certainty is a concern of mine (especially ultimate certainty lol), as one will remember from certain others things I've written such as in the Bertrand Russell topic.

Edited by Logan - December 12 2020 at 19:02

I wouldn't readily compare Orwell to those others, each can be taken on its own merits.

I have enjoyed reading Umberto Eco (especially Foucault's Pendulum) but I love Orwell's prose, characterisation and imagery. There was a time that I planned to become a film critic (though more from an ideological/ philosophical/ sociological and historic angle) but I take issue with claims of excellence and quality even from the most talented commonly. He's not even from the same background. There's a kind of patronising, arrogant didacticism that comes from some that make similar claims of merit. Sometimes one is comparing apples with oranges instead of trying to appreciate a work on its own merits (of course we compare), and one may not understand quite where that author has come from. For me, the prose fits the story brilliantly (and it might help that I have a significant English background, and a certain sort of English background).

I often take issue with those who make claims of excellence while not recognising the subjectivity of it. I can understand one not thinking of it as great literature in certain classic styles, and Blair (aka Orwell) was a journalist (and a critic and essayist too) and that journalistic style comes through in much of his work to me.   A lot of criticism is far too sure of itself, subjective opinions masquerading as truth writ large (I think that notions should be open to re-assessment, and approached with humility). I favour agnosticism and take issue with much orthodoxy. I wish for instance that the ratings at PA had purely subjective explanations, and I have trouble with quantifying art. A lot of critics are up their own arses... one might say. ;) So sure of themselves, so confident in their beliefs, and so very arrogant in certain cases.

Now I expect Eco was nuanced in his views and I wouldn't judge Eco without reading his whole diatribe, or essay. Anyway, I seem to think we had this discussion before (or something very similar).

Some of my favourites even if not great literature:

Philip K. Dick - Ubik and Dr. Bloodmoney
Kurt Vonnegut - Breakfast of Champions, Sirens of Titan (most recommend Slaughterhouse 5 for this topic)*
Cormac McCarthy - The Road
Kazuo Ishiguro - Never Let Me Go
Margaret Atwood - Oryx and Crake and Year of the Flood
Stanislaw Lem - Also Sprach Golem
George Orwell - 1984
Aldous Huxley - The Island
Isaac Asimov - The Gods Themselves
Arturo Perez-Reverte - The Club Dumas
Jose Saramago - Blindness
Umberto Eco - Foucault's Pendulum
John Irving - The World According to Garp
Franz Kafka - The Metamorphosis
Anthony Burgess - A Clockwork Orange
Stephen King and Peter Straub - The Talisman

Of course you can agree with him, and others can feel differently. I'm more comfortable about talking about what I like rather than what I think is great (and there are certain literary conventions and expectations). I know that none of my stories would be considered great literature. Ultimately, I don;t personally care if someone is deemed to have the literary talent, I just care how it affects me, and 1984 is one of those novels that profoundly affected me (as did more modern ones such as The Road and Never Let Me Go). Dick is often considered to be a pulp writer, yet his stories have really affected me more than various literary greats, and often that is reconsidered and an author(auteur) is re-evaluated and canonised by establishment.

For me the writing style and word choice fits 1984 so well.

EDIT: * wow, I sometimes type of words so badly.

By the way, I do hope that the OP reads 1984 and chimes in ere too long. I'd love to read the impressions of someone who is new to it. Love, hate, meh, I don't mind. Sharing is caring....


Edited by Logan - December 12 2020 at 18:29

I questioned how much it related at the time, but I almost mentioned Blindness, I should have mentioned it, fits the topic well, and is one of my very favourite reads of the past 15 or so years, not that I’ve read a great many novels in that time. Of the modern ones, Blindness, Never Let Me Go, The Road, Oryx and Crake and I think Club Dumas by Arturo Pérez-Reverte particularly stand out. I don’t read as much now in terms of books due to eye issues. For a light read, I also read Good Omens in that time.

Cosmiclawnmower wrote: Logan wrote: ^^ I love Bradbury's style. My favourite of his growing up was The Martian Chronicles,by the way. I love his short stories. ... By the way, not mentioning this as something terribly 1984, but a very favourite of mine in the sci-fi realm is Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, but not everyone will grok it. Golden Apples of the Sun was the first book of his i read when i was about 12/13 along with the Earthsea books by Ursula le Guin and Michael Moorcock's Elric books.. We lived in the middle of nowhere and had a travelling library which was a great help to a spotty youth who prefered state was to lose himself in books. I book i have re-visted recently (and still find it hard work but definately worth it) is Olaf Stapledon's 'Star Maker'..  And of course Doris Lessing's Canopus in Argos quintet...

I loved The Golden Apples of the Sun (beautiful imagery, wonderful short stories -- poetic...), and read those Earthsea books to one of my young children (those had a big effect on me and stay with me). You've given me some further reading to do.

Epignosis wrote: Greatest horror novel ever written.

Well, there is this: ;)



1984 is quite horrific and I thought moving, and brilliantly put together. My wife found it too depressing even though she loved The Road by Cormac McCarthy and got me to read it, and Atwood's Oryx and Crake. Now the Road is a great novel that deals with a horrific situation (gave me nightmares).

While not strictly a horror genre novel, The Lord of the Flies is great and is one that might well appeal to may of those who like 1984. For horror genre, I don't mind saying that I love lots of Stephen King. And Philip K Dick's Ubik might be called a kind of sci-fi horror, and I find that excellent.