[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 155 KB, 400x654, 1984.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483811 No.2483811 [Reply] [Original]

How is this book really?

>> No.2483821

pretentious trash by a socialist

>> No.2483828

worth reading at least once. Not really a great book, but a pretty good book, and an important one.

>> No.2483830

>>2483811
blegh, its what you would expect of a totalitarian dystopia. It's neither subtle nor particularly interesting. In fact its basically the archetype for a social satire. I found Aldous Huxley's Brave New World to be a far more interesting social satire.

>> No.2483835

>>2483830
OP here, This is the main issue with this book for me. I've read the first two chapters and the book feels like it's puking "IT'S A DYSTOPIAN FUTURE, LOOK, SEE? DYSTOPIA" I just can't get myself into the book and have no idea why it's held so highly.

>> No.2483837

you gotta give orwell credit for making such a book that reads like a future-esque book today in the year 19-friggin-49.

>> No.2483844

>>2483837
>implying Huxley didn't completely stomp all over Orwell's shit in terms of accuracy

>> No.2483849
File: 323 KB, 1236x2045, fahrenheit-451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483849

>>2483844

A challenger appears

>> No.2483857

>>2483844
Excuse me? Accuracy? Besides which BNW and 1984 cover entirely different ground, Brave New World describes a scientific dictatorship which primarily maintains the support of its citizens through propoganda and having the state raise them and formulate all their thoughts for them. 1984 describes an authoritarian, fascist dictatorship which maintains its power structure by coercing its citizenry into submission.

>> No.2483869

>>2483857

Right, which means Huxley was more accurate in portraying the future.

>> No.2483881
File: 407 KB, 495x3952, huxley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483881

>> No.2483892
File: 407 KB, 573x379, FeUEB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483892

>>2483869
It's really a mixture of both. Start spreading dangerous ideas and jimmies get rustled.

>> No.2483901

>>2483881
They were both mostly wrong, but Network was right.

>> No.2483903

It's good

>> No.2483912

>>2483869
>>2483892
yeah I agree. I think Huxley more or less portrayed the present with Brave New World but the future will be a synthesis of Brave New World and 1984

>> No.2483917

who gives an actual shit which projected the future more accurately? huxley's prose sucks shit and orwell's is deft as hell

>> No.2483921

People tend to forget that it was written by a trotkist, and use it as capitalist propaganda.

>> No.2483928

Both got it wrong. The problem is with most of humanity itself.

>> No.2483957
File: 32 KB, 300x246, 8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483957

>>2483917
I think as far as social satire goes the ideas being conveyed are more important than how elegant the writing is. However I don't even agree with this statement. I was actually moved quite a bit more by Brave New World on the whole. In fact I remember one scene where there was a very vivid description of some music that actually evoked a feeling of nausea.

>mfw the music he described is pretty much Lady Gaga

>> No.2483963

I liked it. I've read it a couple time (once for school). All of Orwell's stuff is awesome.

>> No.2484165

>>2483844
>>2483869
Huxley may have been more accurate overall, but not everywhere. North Korea is pretty damn Orwellian.