What are you reading now?

[Petrushka]

Enemy Coast Ahead by Guy Gibson.

i think I must have read all of the classic Second World War books very many years ago but for some unaccountable reason, not this one. Happily found this particular copy, a 1970 Pan paperback, in a local street book cupboard last week and quickly snapped it up.

My father was stationed at RAF Scampton (among many other places) at around the same time as Gibson and wonder if their paths might have crossed.

[french frank]

Just about to reread Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's weird that although the date is now long in the past, the title retains its powerful overtones.

[Bryn]

Just about to reread Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's weird that although the date is now long in the past, the title retains its powerful overtones.

How about following up with 1985, both Milligan (Goon Show) and Anthony Burgess options. Some recent FB blather about immigration heading the UK towards Islamic statehood put me in mind of the latter. Loved the idea of St Paul's Cathedral becoming a major mosque.

[french frank]

How about following up with 1985, both Milligan (Goon Show) and Anthony Burgess options. Some recent FB blather about immigration heading the UK towards Islamic statehood put me in mind of the latter. Loved the idea of St Paul's Cathedral becoming a major mosque.

It was being reminded of two quotations today (which reminded me of the US and Russia) which made me consult the bookshelves to see if 1984 was there:

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.”

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it."

Orwell just got the date wrong.

[Norrette]

I read the Penguin edition (David Magarshack) and, having recently been diagnosed as epileptic, I couldn't wait to get to the episode of the Chinese vase ( ' … as soon as the prince entered the drawing room, he sat down as far as possible from the Chinese vase … ') . And it comes very close to the end.

But I have got through novels that were hard going (Hesse's Glass Bead Game) and did it by limiting how much I read at a time - a chapter, say, if they were relatively short - each night. With the Hesse I found I was suddenly completely captured about half way through, and sat up until the small hours in order to finish it.

I picked up an old copy (trans Magarshack) from the shelf and now about 20% in. But I've found a four part BBC recording with Paul Rhys as the Prince. Asking myself, do I need to finish the text? Is Crime & Punishment easier? Certainly the print font on my copy is less dense

[french frank]

Orwell just got the date wrong.

Coming back to Nineteen Eighty-Four, I've just read this Guardian CiF on Putin's apparent current standing in the Russian polls (interesting reading for the Ukraine thread too).:

"But it’s not all positive news for Russia’s political class: an absolute majority, 55%, expects an improvement in political life over the coming months. They cannot be disappointed. This will have to be created – if not in real life then in the virtual world."

Compare with Orwell (p 63 in the Penguin 1954 edition):

"Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics proving that people to-day had more food, more clothes, better houses, better recreations - that they lived longer, worked shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, more intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago. Not a word of it could ever be proved or disproved."

But …

[Belgrove]

Coming back to Nineteen Eighty-Four…

I shall be intrigued to learn of your thoughts ff, on Orwell’s idea that the purpose of Newspeak - to make anti-Party expression and thought impossible - can be achieved by depleting English of its rich vocabulary.

I reread Nineteen Eighty-Four a few years back (first encounter was a set text for O-Level), and was struck just how good it is. But I never found a convincing reason for the Party expending such effort to convert dissenters and heretics into devotees before killing them. Is it for the Inner Party to maintain its ‘integrity’?

[french frank]

I shall be intrigued to learn of your thoughts ff, on Orwell’s idea that the purpose of Newspeak - to make anti-Party expression and thought impossible - can be achieved by depleting English of its rich vocabulary.

This was an idea I found particularly fascinating. Instead of adding new words, each succeeding edition contains fewer words as those 'no longer needed' are dropped; and from then on they will no longer appear in any official statements. Logically, Winston Smith's job would be to go through the old sources and remove/'correct' outdated words - though I don't remember that that was something he had to do retrospectively. But it fits with the Party's aim to force a collective amnesia on the populace. For me the interest is in present usage: if you expunge the words needed to discuss a particular topic it gradually becomes impossible to discuss that topic at all. Not quite there (yet!), but the way the meaning of words gradually changes means that it eventually becomes impossible to use them in their original meaning because they will be misunderstood. And what you wanted to say would require you to find alternative ways of saying it. Can you form concepts at all without words? (I think some linguists say you can, but I'm doubtful).

I reread Nineteen Eighty-Four a few years back (first encounter was a set text for O-Level), and was struck just how good it is. But I never found a convincing reason for the Party expending such effort to convert dissenters and heretics into devotees before killing them. Is it for the Inner Party to maintain its ‘integrity’?

I'm certainly finding it quite chilling, and prescient when considering Putin's Russia in particular, but the whole misinformation culture confuses and leaves people not knowing which version of the truth to believe. As for your precise question, it isn't one I'd thought of. Maybe it was just in case there were remnants of memory and doubt about what these enemies had been spewing out? It had to be made clear that these had all been lies to put all doubts to rest. Then execute the traitors for their crimes.

[Belgrove]

Interestingly, just after posting, Michael Rosen discussed with linguist Nick Enfield his new book Language versus Reality:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017480

where Enfield argues that language is better suited to perform a social function rather than conveying abstract/scientific ideas. Science has long co-opted existing words to convey new concepts, making them technical. But if a word does not exist, it does not prevent an idea from being formed or articulated, however clumsily (perhaps this explains why academic philosophy is a challenge to assimilate).

The Proles will not end up speaking or reading Newspeak, so presumably will be immune to the Party’s covert indoctrination. I seem to recall that Orwell/Smith believed the prospect for change lay with the Proles, who could shed the Party like a horse shaking off flies.

[french frank]

Interestingly, just after posting, Michael Rosen discussed with linguist Nick Enfield his new book Language versus Reality:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017480

where Enfield argues that language is better suited to perform a social function rather than conveying abstract/scientific ideas.

Must listen to that before attempting a proper response. Not sure what it means that language is 'better suited' to one rather than the other.

Science has long co-opted existing words to convey new concepts, making them technical. But if a word does not exist, it does not prevent an idea from being formed or articulated, however clumsily (perhaps this explains why academic philosophy is a challenge to assimilate).

I suppose there's abstract theory/ideas which are gradually thought through but might not need new language from the outset; and there is empirical science which surely doesn't need new language to describe, but may recruit new usages/neologisms to explain?

The Proles will not end up speaking or reading Newspeak, so presumably will be immune to the Party’s covert indoctrination. I seem to recall that Orwell/Smith believed the prospect for change lay with the Proles, who could shed the Party like a horse shaking off flies.

Yes, Winston keeps saying he thinks the Proles will hold the key to what will happen in the future (can't remember the phrase he uses).

[muzzer]

This was an idea I found particularly fascinating. Instead of adding new words, each succeeding edition contains fewer words as those 'no longer needed' are dropped; and from then on they will no longer appear in any official statements. Logically, Winston Smith's job would be to go through the old sources and remove/'correct' outdated words - though I don't remember that that was something he had to do retrospectively. But it fits with the Party's aim to force a collective amnesia on the populace. For me the interest is in present usage: if you expunge the words needed to discuss a particular topic it gradually becomes impossible to discuss that topic at all. Not quite there (yet!), but the way the meaning of words gradually changes means that it eventually becomes impossible to use them in their original meaning because they will be misunderstood. And what you wanted to say would require you to find alternative ways of saying it. Can you form concepts at all without words? (I think some linguists say you can, but I'm doubtful).



I'm certainly finding it quite chilling, and prescient when considering Putin's Russia in particular, but the whole misinformation culture confuses and leaves people not knowing which version of the truth to believe. As for your precise question, it isn't one I'd thought of. Maybe it was just in case there were remnants of memory and doubt about what these enemies had been spewing out? It had to be made clear that these had all been lies to put all doubts to rest. Then execute the traitors for their crimes.

Autocorrect and syntax checkers are causing the tangible reduction in the number of words in circulation, in my view. As are the translation tools. If only I had the capacity to provide examples.

[french frank]

Interestingly, just after posting, Michael Rosen discussed with linguist Nick Enfield his new book Language versus Reality:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017480

Some interesting ideas there on the uses and limitations of language. I was struck by the example of 'lawyerly' use of language and the idea that this is a 'good' use: language used to put a case, to justify, to defend an idea. A prime example (for me!) was what I was talking about on the Ukraine thread about the expression 'Nato expansion' and I can understand now why I see that as being used by critics of Nato. 'Nato expands' means Nato is the subject; expanding is what it does. If one spoke instead of, perhaps, 'Nato enlargement' Nato becomes the object, it doesn't 'enlarge'; it 'is enlarged'. Nato expands and moves forward (to attack); Nato is enlarged to defend (safety in numbers).

[french frank]

But I never found a convincing reason for the Party expending such effort to convert dissenters and heretics into devotees before killing them. Is it for the Inner Party to maintain its ‘integrity’?

I've just come to O'Brien's explanation, and I'm not sure I'm convinced either. He says, 'No one who has ever strayed is ever spared.' So regardless of whether they confess, recant or whatever, they will still die. He references the medieval heretic who is burned at the stake still 'proclaiming his heresy'. But the Party will "make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist ... Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation." It's all strong stuff (not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight after this last chapter!) but is any of it 'convincing'?

[Belgrove]

I've just come to O'Brien's explanation, and I'm not sure I'm convinced either…

I’m glad it’s not just me! I’d forgotten that speech by O’Brien, but it’s religious connotation does chime with the notion that the dismal Chestnut Cafe is a secular purgatory.

[french frank]

it’s religious connotation does chime with the notion that the dismal Chestnut Cafe is a secular purgatory.

Haha, the Chestnut Cafe as Purgatory The concept of religious purgatory did cross my mind, though thinking about it, it would imply that there is an after-death heaven for them to go. Imagine a heaven populated entirely by 'purified' Party members. Bliss.