George Orwell Books

This is the first time I have ordered a book online and was a little hesitant due to time restraints. My daughter needed George Orwell's 1984 for school and being unable to find it in a local bookstore, we tried ordering it off the internet. Supposedly delivery was delayed and we began to wonder if it would get here within 10 days for her deadline. The book arrived in 3 days in new condition and saved the day!

Discomfiting, penetrating, imaginative, and very grey, this book deserves its fame not for elegance of prose (it is only adequately written) nor for an interesting plot (not much happens, at least as novels usually go), but for its indelible, devastating portrait of human degradation and its far-fetched-yet-just-around-the-corner description of the hows and whys of totalitarian power. If not quite a must-read, at least a dramatic, illuminating one.

It really doesn't make much sense to review a classic. I wish we continue to maintain a critical mass of people who read this book at least once. The words "orwellian" and "doublespeak" should never leave our lexicon. We already have department of "defence", if our kids don't discover or forget this book, the ministry of love will follow.

1984 is one of the best novels ever written in English. The dismal world of the "future" presented here is beyond belief but also seems within reach. Although it may seem to be a warning against communism (some of the elements are found in A Darkness at Noon - a true critique of the pogroms of Stalin), it is in fact a warning against excess that can occur in any government system.
The foreward by T. Pynchon provides some insights, especially about the last chapter on newspeak, but be warned that it does provide spoilers.

1984 is without a doubt one of the best books ever written. It shows the reader the consequences of having an authorative government going to the extremes in controlling the thoughts and actions of its citizens. 1984 also brings up in interesting idea about the reasons for wars. According to Orwell, wars are fought not to gain territory but to get rid of the excess of material and wealth the citizens create. Another way to look at the book is to take our contempary setting of today and see what would happen if people didnt stand up for their rights and beliefs and laid all their trusts and fears upon their government.

I believe the other reviews of this book to be quite accurate; rightfully noting its annoyingly bad layout(lacking index, missing page headings of what you're reading, etc). Disregarding these shortfalls, Orwell's writing itself easily makes up for--and surpasses--were the publishers have blundered. I read these essays with child-like Christmas morning joy; finding pleasure in them as if peeling away the wrapping paper from the presents, leaving me engulfed with intrigue over Orwell's subjects, prose and opinions. This book is a real treasure trove for all those who enjoyed Orwell's most famous, if not cliche, works of 1984 and Animal Farm.

This is a beautiful, compact, hardcover, volume with a cloth bookmark built into the binding. If you are an Orwell fan, this book is well worth the money. It contains a very wide selection of Orwell essays, including the most popular ones such as "Shooting an Elephant," but also the rarer ones as well. I especially enjoyed reading Orwell's "As I Please" columns from the Tribune; these are difficult to find in compiled form.

I highly recommend this volume, but I must echo the same complaint of other reviewers: There is no index, and this makes it impossible to find Orwell's essays on a specific topic unless you already know what to look for. For example, Orwell's "As I Please" columns are labeled by the sequence number of their creation with no indication of topic. This is not very useful, as Orwell wrote about so many varied things.

All in all, a good value, but I must deduct one star because of the lack of an index. Also, I would certainly recommend this book for the Orwell aficionado, but not necessarily for the new or casual Orwell reader. Read Orwell's novels first; you will have a better appreciation of the essays afterwards.

In these by times highly emotional essays written in the 1930s and 1940s George Orwell gives us with in depth analyses his personal viewpoint on the literary, political and socio-economic scene.

In literature, he sees the novel as `a Protestant form of art, a product of the free mind, of the autonomous individual.' Orwell's aim was to `push the world in a certain direction: a battle against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism.'
In his criticism he searches for the essential (hidden) message of the author.
Dickens's rather naïve creed is: `If man would behave decently, the world would be decent.' His ideal is `a hundred thousand pounds, a quaint old house, a sweetly womanly wife, a horde of children and no work.'
Henry Miller's books are `a passive acceptance of decay and evil.'
H.G. Wells dreams of a utopian World State.
R. Kipling is a jingo imperialist, but he didn't understand that `an empire is primarily a money-making concern'.
W.B. Yeats is in essence a defender of feudalism, `a great hater of democracy and of human equality, of the modern world, science, technology and the concept of progress.'
A. Koestler's main theme is `the decadence of revolutions owing to corrupting effects of power.'
P.G. Wodehouse's real sin is to present the English upper classes as much nicer than they are.
In `Gulliver's Travels', J. Swift delivers a frontal attack on totalitarianism and shows that he is a disbeliever in the possibility of happiness.

Orwell's view on world matters is rightly `no Law, only Power'.
Nationalism is inseparable from the desire for power.
The concentration of the media in the hands of a few rich men puts the freedom of the press and intellectual liberty under attack. The `very concept of objective truth' is lost.
The Spanish war showed him the essential horror of army life.
He is extremely severe for the British establishment: `The British ruling class thought that Fascism was on their side.' For them, `it is better to inherit, than to work.' `In an England ruled by stupidity, to be `clever' was to be suspect.'

But his solution is also naïve: `common ownership of the means of production. The State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee.' In other words, he pleads for a massive bureaucracy.
But he contradicts himself when he complains that `everything in our age conspires to turn the writer into a minor official!'

These essays contain also vivid memories of his public school life (`irrational terror') and of his Indian life ('Shooting an elephant'). He comments on sports (`war without shooting), detective stories (J.H. Chase), poetry (`the most hated art form'), mildly pornographic comic postcards (`a harmless rebellion against virtue') and ends with a superb portrait of Ghandi.

These remarkable essays, written by a fearless superb free mind, a fighter for justice and a true `révolté' (A. Camus), are a must read.

As a lit major very interested in politics, I find this collection to be fascinating and instructive. Mr. Orwell's views on what corporations would do to the news media and the stifling effects of politically correct speech are vital today, and should be required in civics and political science classes.

Mr. Orwell managed to anger and inform both liberals and conservatives by exposing hypocrisy and dull-minded dogma. His writing style is sharp and free of tiresome twists and turns. In fact, "Politics and the English Language" (954) targets academic writing that is puffed up for no reason other than to hide the fact that the writer has little to say. (And this article should be required reading in graduate literature classes!)

The power of his insights and imagery can be seen in "How the Poor Die," a sad, upsetting essay that made me want a shower and a drink when I finished reading it. (Again, this is current today with the horribly neglected and virtually unregulated "assited living facilities"--and even the Walter Reed outpatient scandal.)

So few writers have had such vision that it is worth repeating the cliche: George Orwell was a social prophet--a genuine one.

Because of Mr. Orwell's deep understanding of political systems and human nature, his excellent style, and the breadth of his subject matter, I think it would not be over-praising him to say that this volume ranks with Montaigne's collected essays.

This volume is lovely, both in binding and text size; however, as other reviewers have pointed out, the publisher should have taken the trouble to include an index at the end of 1363 pages of essays! (Write to Knopf/Random House to complain!)

I'm going to contact my county library to arrange donating a copy of this; it is a shame this book isn't on the shelves!

George Orwell: 1984 and beyond


The futurist novels 1984 and Animal Farm are George Orwell's primary literary legacy. He contributed the phrase "Big Brother" to the language, and is remembered... if at all...as a novelist and social commentator.

But Orwell was much more than that - during the Second World War he worked for the BBC as a commentator, essayist and writer. He was a consummate professional, a brilliant satirist, and an indefatigable correspondent. He volunteered in the Spanish Civil War and wrote "Homage to Catalonia" from his experiences.

What is more surprising is that Orwell ...who died at 46... left voluminous essays, letters and reportage which have been compiled in four thick volumes by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus. * (George Orwell: Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters; Volumes 1-IV, Nonpareil Books, 2000), and in his Collected Essays.

. He lived as a tramp for a while, got arrested for being drunk, worked low-level jobs and wrote "Down and out in London and Paris" from his experience. Orwell struggled personally and financially; his first marriage ended with h is wife's death, his second was short, and he was usually broke. That changed with the publication of l984 and Animal Farm...the latter a satire on the Russian Revolution. Ray Bradbury's classic "Fahrenheit 451" owes a debt to Orwell. His BBC broadcasts during the War were classics.

In his short life, Orwell produced a huge body of work: his Collected Writings run to 20 volumes, and his essays fill four books. He is one of the major figures of 20th Century English writing.
Major Works

"Down and Out in London and Paris" 1933
"The Road to Wigan Pier" 1937
"Homage to Catalonia" -- 1938
"1984: 1945
"Animal Farm" 1949
"Selected Essays" 1957
"Orwell: The War Broadcasts" 1985

Animal Farm and 1984 are classic literature. You've probably already read them.

This edition presents them in a classic manner -- it is a lovely book, lovely dust jacket, and Christopher Hitchens does the intro. I usually find him funny and a little snarky, but in this intro, he is serious, high-minded, informative, and respectful.

I wanted to read 1984 again, since so many people are kicking around the terms "Orwellian" and "Big Brother" regarding current politics. I'm so glad this is the volume I bought. I know I would have gotten the same *words* in a flimsy paperback, but this was a really nice read.


I read both novels again. It has been... 20 years? Maybe longer since my first read-through. I'm a different reader than I was before.

Now it seems to me that the people who shout "Orwellian" the loudest, the people that warn of "Big Brother" most fiercely, are the ones who really want to be Orwellain Big Brothers. Interesting.

I've got that grisly Room 101 scene back in my head -- I had forgotten that one. Thanks, Mr. Orwell.

This is a lovely edition. Treat yourself.

Animal Farm and 1984 are two of my favorite books. I reccomend them for anyone. Although 1984 is sometimes a bit mature.

George Orwell was a genuis and if he were alive, he wouldn't have to be spinning in his grave right now, watching the world of '1984' descending upon our heads.

For those of us who read it before '1984' it was a frightful tale of a possibly impending future. For those of us who grew up after '1984' it's more of a big "So what?" as it isn't nearly so different from the current reality as it ought to be, unfortunately.

These books are very entertaining, mind you, and very well written; but they were not written to entertain, but to instruct. I would suggest you read them with an open mind and for entertainment, the first time, and then go back later and read with the understanding that he intended to highlight some of the more despicable aspects of society and the world at large.

Two classics of 20th and 21st century political thought. Animal Farm discusses the dangers of communism and totalitarian governments. 1984 is as relevant today as when it was first published over 50 years ago. I was born in 1984, and even though Big Brother and the Thought Police were not around then, we still might face big government intrusians in the future. As for this edition, two classics handsomely bound in hardcover for under $15, come on people, buy it already!!!

On 1984:
In George Orwell's 1984, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. So goes the slogan that describes life in dystopian London, a city monstrously ruled by the totalitarian state of Oceania. Along with Oceania, the states of Eurasia and Eastasia rule the world. Their co-existence isn't peaceful, however, as the three states are perpetually at war with each other. In Oceania, the government's figurehead is Big Brother, who is a personification of the collective power of the state and not a real person. His "face" fills the streets on the poster fronts plastered all over the city with the words "Big Brother is Watching You" underneath his overbearing glare.

Winston Smith, the novel's main character, works for the Party (the government). He despises his job along with the Party and Big Brother, but under no circumstances is he allowed to show it. In fact, to so much as even think a thought against the Party or Big Brother is considered treasonous and punishable by death! At present time, the Party doesn't have the technology to read people's minds, but they are working on it. Instead they control behavior through telescreens (television panels) and microphones. In London, telescreens are ubiquitous and cannot be turned off or interacted with. Presumably there are agents monitoring activity nearly everywhere that a member of the Party might frequent through these devices. In addition to technological surveillance, there is also human surveillance offered by both children and adults. Citizens of Oceania and members of the Party in particular are encouraged to report any unusual behavior which is interpreted as disloyalty to the state. It becomes virtually impossible, then, to get away with saying or projecting any kind of dissidence towards the Party. Individualism of any kind is considered unorthodox and a threat to the state. Winston would not be allowed to read this review without risking his life.

Oceania's population is divided between Party members, who make up 15%, and the unintelligent and underprivileged proletariat, which round out the remaining 85%. The "Proles" as they are known, could theoretically rebel and destroy the Party, but they are too ignorant and simple-minded to even dream of it. Winston knows this to be true, though still reserves some faint hope that he could be wrong and that the Proles could rise against the machine. The only other hope he has of an overthrow lies in the mysterious existence of the Brotherhood, a shadow collective inside of Oceania seeking to eliminate the Party and establish a democratic government. Winston has never met a member of the Brotherhood because it is impossible to even approach somebody to find out if they are disgruntled with the Party. To do so would be to risk your life. If they caught you, you would be eliminated and dubbed an unperson in Newspeak (the official and preferred language of Oceania). You will never have existed.

This is why Winston was apprehensive when Julia, a girl working in the same government building, slipped him a note. Initially he had suspected that she was a member of the Thought Police, an organization involved with seeking out heretics or disloyal Party members. Was she trying to snuff him out? Had she tapped into his mind and found a reservoir of anti-government angst? Winston thought his days were numbered, but was she the one that would reveal this to the authorities?

Orwell has given the world a political and psychological masterpiece. Written in 1948 as a vision of how the world would look in 1984, Orwell's only fault has been the fact that the novel is more relevant today than during its namesake. In our ever-advancing technoage, 1984 stands as a caution and a warning against governmental controlling measures. But to view his novel as a reaction against totalitarianism is to miss the boat. Orwell also explores human nature from a multiplicity of levels. He examines the human thirst for power and how this thirst intensifies when a group fuses their collective thirsts into a giant groupthirst (to use Newspeak). He asks what ultimate loyalty really means and how it can be redistributed from one object to another. What will such a task require? Can pain or love or any human longing outlast or outperform the other? Can truth be altered? And if so, who has the right or the power to alter it? These questions and more are asked in 1984. Will your answers to the questions tow the Party line, or will you sigh in paranoiac relief that you can think for yourself?

On the quality of the edition:
The cover is hard and firm, just what you'd want from a hardcover edition. Unlike other hardcovers which bend easier, however, this version takes quite an effort to keep the book fully opened and bent back to read. This makes it impossible to read with one hand holding the book up. I read with the book placed on a surface, so I have no problems. But for others, this might be an issue. All in all, I am very satisfied with the quality of this edition.

The last review that I did on George Orwell's work was Homage to Catalonia, his compelling story of his involvement in a Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) left-wing militia regiment in the Spanish Civil War. I noted there that this is the Orwell that today's militant leftists need to read. The current compilation of articles that he did during World War II and shortly thereafter are not in that same category although they are, as always with Orwell, well worth reading. No matter the subject matter of the articles they conform to the points that he made in Politics and the English Language about using precise, clear and rational political language. Unfortunately, at the time of the Tribune writings Orwell had already made his peace, even if critically, with British imperialism. This is obvious from the subject matter of some of the articles, particularly those in defense of holding on to the old empire or at least its prerogatives. The articles themselves vary from the topical and mundane under war time conditions to the speculative but as always written in a bit of a tongue and cheek manner. That said, although Orwell by this time was an anti-Stalinist socialist of some sort he preferred to outsource the fight against Stalinism to world imperialism. Apparently, as the recent furor over his naming names of British communists to British intelligence indicates, he had no such qualms about doing so. Certainly this was not his finest hour. He left that in Spain.

Sorry for the prank in the headline, it is not a comment on Orwell but a quote from the book, from the essay 'The English People', written in 44, but published later. Orwell tries to characterize the English. I would never have dared to write that myself.
This is volume 3 of 4, and the first that I give 5 stars. It is less uneven, less self-contradictory, probably more honest than the previous 2. GO had grown up, I assume. The bulk of the book are his leaders under the name that the collection carries: As I please. He comments on events of the time, and does it with lasting interest.
I don't want to repeat my friend Jim Egolf's summary of the book, nor his assessment of its historical value. All true.
But Jim left out an important subject that Orwell also included, and that I want to bring to your attention. The fact is that GO was an impossible romantic about England. He honestly thought that there was merit in English cooking! One essay is called: In Defence of English Cooking.
He lists a few items that we are supposed to accept as proof of his odd point of view. Believe it or not, one of the items which supposedly prove the high standard of English cooking are English apples. I rest my case.
'It is not a law of nature that every restaurant in England is either foreign or bad.' Written 1945. My regular visits in recent years, all in basically friendly intention, make me conclude: if anything changed, then for the worse, because now even many of the foreign restaurants are bad.
Dui bu qi.

I don't know if George Orwell is the best writer this century has produced, but he is among the most decent human beings who was also an extremely talented writer. And that decency, that honesty and sense of fair play come through loud and clear through this wonderful mix of editorial pieces and personal letters. It does not matter whether he is writing about the Socialist movement, the Monarchy, the manner in which Americans were treated in England during WWII, the English language, writing, colonialism, nationalism, anti-Semitism, or how to make a proper cup of tea, his honesty is ever-present. For he wrote these essays (I think) because although "emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, [they] should be able to exist side-by-side with reality. But this requires a moral effort." If you are prepared to make such a moral effort-or simply want to spend a few nights with a truly wonderful human being and gifted writer, I highly recommend this book.

George Orwell' (1903-1950)anthology titled AS I PLEASE is an interesting collection of his careful literary criticism and political insights which were much more often right than wrong. Readers can learn so much about not only the situation and conditions in Great Britian between 1943 and 1945, they can learn much about the international situtation and Orwell's complete disillusionment with the "Left" both in Great Britain and in Europe.

This reviewer thinks that Orwell's literary criticism of Arthur Koestler is the best article of literary criticism. Orwell focused on Koester's DARKNESS AT NOON which Orwell thought was Koestler's best work. Orwell argued that Koestler was a supporter of the "Left" during the Spanish Civil War and was arrested and faced the prospect of being shot. Koeslter escaped but had to know how the Stalinists betrayed the Spanish Left during the Spanish Civil War. Koestler was a member of the Hungarian Communist Party, knew of the Stalinist purges of Lenin's Bolsheviks, and saw a repeat of all this in Spain.

Orwell also had intelligent commentary of literature and humor. Orwell stated that good humor had all but disappeared in Great Britian because of political and religious sensitivity. Orwell stated that the best comedy was that which attacked hypocrisy and pretensioness. Orwell cited Aristophanes, Rabelais, Shakespear,Voltaire, etc. who did not hestitate to mock and write comedy of the self righteous and "high and mighty." Orwell was bothered by the fact that such humor almost disappeared from English litature during his life time. An interesting aside is that Orwell complimented Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton for their humor. Orwell was critical of both in some of the other essays in this anthology.

Orwell not only wrote good literary criticism, he wrote solid political commentary. Readers can see the beginnings of his best known novels-ANIMAL FARM and 1984. Orwell's comments on ill feeling between British and American troops. Orwell stated that since American troops were paid at least five times as much as British troops, social divisions and hard feelings were almost inevitable. Orwell also commented that many American troops refused to admit that British casualties were larger than American casualties which indeed they were.

Orwell's best political commentary dealt with such concepts as Fascism, Pacifism, the Trotskyites, the Stalinists, etc. Orwell's major criticism of the "Leftists" was that because they were anti-Fascist, they would not become anti-totalitarian because of refusal to oppose the Stalinists and Big Communism and its obvious record of mass murder and concentration camp brutality. Orwell makes hash out of the accusation that the Internatianl Jews heavilty subsidized Britian's Trotskyites. Orwell commented if that were true, one had to ask why Trotsky's supporters were always so poor. Orwell accused much of the "Left" of refusing to accept facts and assessments of World War II. For example, many of the British and American leftists commented that the Soviet Union was an example of the biblical inscription that the meek shall inherit the earth. Orwell noted that those who made this remark obviously had not read Soviet anti-German propaganda which was full of hatred and violent vengence. Orwell also noted that the Left expected British military failure while extolling Soviet victories during World War II.

Orwell also expressed serious concern over the distortions and falsification of history. For example, both the "Allies" and "Axis" claimed victory when their was defeat. Casualty figures were distorted as were events. What was worse was the description of non-events or events that never occured. Orwell commented that the Leftists never wrote a word about the SovietGerman "Non-Aggression Pact" which was negotiated in 1939 with the secret protocol of the Soviets and Germans to invade Poland.

Orwell made comments that his novel titled ANIMAL FARM was censored or kept from publication because of British concerns of offending their Soviet "allies." Little did Orwell know that this novel would be a best seller after he died. Orwell can also see the outlines of his 1984 in this collection of essays.

One development that concerned Orwell toward the end of World War II was the emerging anti-Semitism in Great Britain and to a lesser degree in the United States. Orwell was clear that accusations and slurs agains Jewish people were patently false. Yet, Orwell was clear that facts and reason were of no avail to many because they were immune to knowledge and reasoned thinking. Orwell attributed much to a weakened Great Britain at the end of World War II, and the British Empire would soon be dismantled. Orwell argued that nationalism and the fear of the loss of Empire incited anti-Semitism among people who would otherwise not fall for such nonsense.

While Orwell was wrong in some of his earlier predictions, he was honest enough to admit this and explained why which something most "intellectuals" are loathe to do. If Orwell had lived another 50 years, he would know that his important predictions came true. This reviewer was pleased to see Orwell admit he was wrong as this showed a degree of honesty that is sadly lacking.

This reviewer did not like the format of the book. As this reviewer stated elsewhere, the book should have been arranged by topic rather than by chronology. However, this is a matter of taste. This reviewer strongly recommends this anthology which is part of a four volume set of Orwell's thought. This is yet another excellent collection of Orwell's great writing.

It is a pleasure to read Orwell. I think that there are two major reasons for this. Stylistically he an exceptionally clear writer. His work has a quiet elegance. Secondly, he is a writer who says meaningful things. Whatever subject he writes about he writes about not only with knowledge but with real ' sense'.
In this third volume of his collected essays, jouralisms, and letters there are a number of outstanding longer pieces, including those on 'The English People' 'Notes on Nationalism' and 'Anti- Semitism'
He is an excellent letter writer and I especially enjoyed his insights into literature. His remarks on Conrad and Koestler and European as opposed to British Literature are sensible and insightful.
All through this work there are scattered gems of humane perception.

In these days of Echelon, Satellite spying, and the ever-increasing proliferation of surveillance cameras, 1984 will definitely leave you with an uneasy feeling.

The story of one man's doomed rebellion against almost total totalitarianism, where even the text record of the day and the past can be altered to suit those in power.

Many concepts from this novel have entered the common lexicon.

In a society that has eliminated many imbalances, surplus goods, and even class struggle, there are bound to be deviates; Winston Smith is one of those. He starts out, due to his inability to doublethink, with thoughtcrime. This is in a society that believes a thought is as real as the deed. Eventually he graduates through a series of misdemeanors to illicit sex and even plans to overthrow the very government that took him in as an orphan.
If he gets caught, he will be sent to the "Ministry of Love" where they have a record of 100% cures for this sort of insanity. They will even forgive his past indiscretions.

Be sure to watch the three different movies made from this book:
1984 (1954) Peter Cushing is Winston Smith
1984 (1956) Edmond O'Brien is Winston Smith
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) John Hurt is Winston smith

1984

I think Orwell spent 2 much time on developing his world and his own language (new-speak) and not enough time on the story and chartacters. This is quite a simple book and very stright-foreward. The characters seem unrealistic and not very likeable, but his world is amazing in it's intricate structure. He planned out Oceania down to the very last detail, If only he had spent the same amount of time on the story and charactersthen This would have been a definite calssic, but as is, I still cannot say I found it as amazing as the other reviewers. But this is a great introduction to literature, just don't take it in a classroom setting as it kills the enjoyment of reading it

1984 overview/review
In the beginning of 1984, Winston, you might think, is a normal Outer Party member, but when you get to the second chapter, it becomes clear that he is against Big Brother, the hero of the totalitarian state he lives in.
An obscure friend of his, Syme, lectures him on newspeak at cafeteria's, his "Girlfriend", Julia, appears before as another Outer Party member, slipping a note into Winston's pocket in the bathroom, reading, "I love you". Confirming the fact that Julia does not want to kill Winston, but the exact opposite. O'Brien, the friend of Winston, though also his torturer in the Ministry of love, (Miniluv) incorporates him into a secret society, "The Brotherhood." O'Brien gives Winston a quick glance, in turn beginning their friendship. Eventually Julia and Winston are found out by the Thought Police and both are brought to the Ministry of Love for torture, after which, Winston finds himself in a café. Winston is brainwashed into thinking certain ideas, ending with Winston himself succumbing to the thought police. A truly depressing and suspenseful book, a book that all should read.

Even though Oceania is a controlled government, it still has signs of falling apart. Oceania is in constant war, and indicates that it is destroying itself, for the sake of the war, perhaps for propaganda. Newspeak is the language of Oceania, and a propaganda language as well, the three slogans that the party has, "Ignorance is Strength," "War is Peace," and "Freedom is Slavery." Are quite untrue, but the Proles choose not to worry about it, while party members use "Doublethink" mostly.

Suggesting this is a good book is unworthy, this is an AWESOME book, so you should read it, get depressed.

Brilliant literature!
I recommend all books by this author.
I also love the fact that the publisher, 1stWorld Library has made the text slightly larger which is a blessing for my thirty-something eyes. Great job. I have dozens of books by this publisher.

The Second Declaration
Every Day A Miracle Happens

In a society that has eliminated many imbalances, surplus goods, and even class struggle, there are bound to be deviates; Winston Smith is one of those. He starts out, due to his inability to doublethink, with thoughtcrime. This is in a society that believes a thought is as real as the deed. Eventually he graduates through a series of misdemeanors to illicit sex and even plans to overthrow the very government that took him in as an orphan.
If he gets caught, he will be sent to the "Ministry of Love" where they have a record of 100% cures for this sort of insanity. They will even forgive his past indiscretions.

Be sure to watch the three different movies made from this book:
1984 (1954) Peter Cushing is Winston Smith
1984 (1956) Edmond O'Brien is Winston Smith
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) John Hurt is Winston smith

1984

I first read this novel in the early 1970s and again more recently.

Reading the novel during the cold war period, the comparative focus was inevitably on totalitarian socialist or communist states as the likely villains. Of course, the closer the world moved towards 1984, the more we wondered how closely the world would resemble the picture drawn by Orwell.

Reading the novel again after 1984, and especially now that the cold war has ended and been replaced by other threats to humanity, it is interesting to think about what Orwell's message really might have been about, and its relevance today.

Certainly, the psychology of fear and abuses of authority remain central issues. Media manipulation has been elevated to an art form and control of information probably doesn't matter much if people are not well enough educated to dissect facts from interpretation and possible consequences from likely causes.

1984 is a great novel. It invites the reader to think about the shape of the future and about a more ideal society. One, perhaps, that optimises the balance between individual rights and responsibilities, and collective safety and obligations.

Prescience, irony or paradox? Thankfully, each reader can form their own view(s).

Highly recommended.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

The book 1984 by George Orwell is wonderful book about the effects of communist on society. Orwell does amazing job, showing both sides, society and ruler point of view. I think this book is for someone who willing read a challenge and has to have an understanding of what there reading.

In a society that has eliminated many imbalances, surplus goods, and even class struggle, there are bound to be deviates; Winston Smith is one of those. He starts out, due to his inability to doublethink, with thoughtcrime. This is in a society that believes a thought is as real as the deed. Eventually he graduates through a series of misdemeanors to illicit sex and even plans to overthrow the very government that took him in as an orphan.
If he gets caught, he will be sent to the "Ministry of Love" where they have a record of 100% cures for this sort of insanity. They will even forgive his past indiscretions.

Be sure to watch the three different movies made from this book:
1984 (1954) Peter Cushing is Winston Smith
1984 (1956) Edmond O'Brien is Winston Smith
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) John Hurt is Winston smith

1984 is extremely influential on the way we as a society label each other and our government with names such as "Big Brother" Orwellian and such. These names like calling someone a Nazi allow us to appear to argue but actually allow us to dodge the real issues. This is fairly ironic considering the origin of such terms. Basically 1984 is set in London in the distopian future. Orwell wrote it in response to Stalin's corrupting the ideals of Socialism. He was a socialist and so was really bothered by that failure.

The plot to 1984 isn't so important as the setting. Basically the story follows Winston Smith. Smith harbors less than perfect views of his environment, for which he will one day be arrested regardless of his actions. Not loving the government (thought crime) is the only crime that is recognized. Hidden cameras and microphones are omnipresent in the city, included mandatory TVs which can't be turned off, only show a single government station and contain hidden cameras through which "thought police" may monitor what is in front of the TV at any time. Social interaction doesn't exist, since that would be considered weird and therefore criminal.

There are three classes of people in London: Inner Party members, Party members like Winston and the proletariate, who aren't watched so closely because they aren't considered human. In this world Winston goes from merely not liking the government to engaging in unusual behavior. He starts by buying decorative antiques at a proletariate shop and progresses to having a girl friend, who he can only meet with in remote country side settings on account of social interaction is not allowed by the government. It is obvious to him that he will one day be taken to the Ministry of Love, a windowless building which handles law enforcement, and never fails at getting thought criminals to love the government.

The novel is always dark. No happy beginning, no happy middle and no happy ending. Still it is important to read it before throwing around terms like "Orwellian" It has been so influential on society that it is required reading - if you want to pass your tenth grade English. Failing to read is a sign of insurgence against the government.

I've read this book twice: as an adolescent as required reading in a literature class, and as an adult. It was creepy but unbelievable (to me) the first time. Now, I'm not so sure.

George Orwell's masterpiece holds two important themes: political parties controlling what people say, do, and even think; everyone watching, monitoring, or spying on everyone else. I think that we are still far away from the first aspect. It was attempted in the former Soviet Union, and is still being tried in Communist China and Cuba, but those experiments have failed in many ways. After more than seventy years of outlawing religion in the Soviet Union, it quickly resurfaced after the fall of Communist control; suppression does not equal erasure. What would have happened if it had continued another seventy years? Who knows? But thought control is MUCH harder than behavior control (which isn't easy either).

As to the second theme of everyone watching everyone else, we are slowly drifting in that direction. In didn't happen by 1984, as Orwell feared, and our drift in that direction is more for safety reasons than for reasons of political control, but the slow crawl is there. Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, there was a big debate about the police in various cities using surveillance on the public to catch wanted criminals. Many people were outraged. My feelings were mixed, because of the potential for violation of civil liberties AND the potential to catch dangerous criminals. Where was the lesser harm? Now, following the terrorist attacks, we are pushed, by necessity, one step closer to Big Brotherism. If you don't think so, visit your local airport, if you can get in. Is this bad? I don't know. Is it necessary? Maybe. Risk of further crime and terrorism is weighed against safety. Again, where is the lesser harm? It's not an easy question, but we will have to answer it. The debate over the Patriot Act shows how hot a topic this remains.

Sociopolitical implications aside, George Orwell's "1984" is a well-written, imaginative, deep book about serious and thought-provoking issues. I can't call it "enjoyable", but it definitely is valuable and well-done and pertinent.

This fourth volume concludes the excellent essay collection from a man who died much too young and with whom I do by far not always agree, but who provided me a very satisfying and instructive reading experience.
I chose the headline from one of the essays in this volume because it gives Orwell in a nutshell, including my own ambiguities about him. He argues against the Soviet apologists, in the early post war time, who say that one must break eggs to make an omelette. (Is that a Lenin quote, btw?) His question: so where is the omelette? strikes me as witty and appropriate, but at second glance as callous and cruel. After all he seems to imply that yes, you may kill a few million people for a 'good' purpose, but the purpose must be met.
In such moments Orwell is deserted by his own devotion to clarity and he gets caught in his own puns. That does happen to him. As much as he lambasts against bad language, he will write e.g. 'I could multiply these examples endlessly' (talking about bad stories from the Soviet Union), when he actually means, he could add to these examples for some time.
Reading the man for 4 volumes gives me the conviction, that this suspicious interpretation of mine is unfair. No, he would not have intended to mean that.
The title 'In Front of Your Nose' refers to our ability to harbor contradictory notions without suffering too much from it: the English intelligencia in the 30s was able to oppose Hitler as well as disarmament and conscription. Another example: the gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus descended from Abraham and David through his father Josef, and then proceeds to tell us that Josef was in fact not the father. (I am sure theologists are perfectly able to talk this contradiction away.)
Vol. 4 has plenty of worth while literary criticism as well, like the previous 3. The essay on good bad books predicts that Uncle Tom will outlive the complete works of Virginia Woolf. (Frankly speaking for me that has already happened.) Jack London could tell his stories well, but they are not well written.
Let us close our Orwellian peregrination with a timeless reminder: political language is designed to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Right, my AFs in the much afflicted US?

The late James J. Martin stated that one could learn great prose from reading George Orwell. Orwell's anthology titled IN FRONT OF YOUR NOSE is a good book to learn political insight and excellent writing. Orwell was not only knowledgeable, but he expressed some of the political tragedies and problems of the 20 th. century in this book. Readers should note this book is the fourth volume of essays of Orwell's essays literary criticism, political protest, etc.

Orwell was one of the very few who realized what a disaster W.W. II was for both Europeans and Asians. His essays on the forced repatriation of millions to the Soviet Union to miserable die in concentration camps were among the first to publicize this tragedy. Orwell's essays were blunt in stating that the only real winner from W.W. II was Big Communism especially in lieu of the rapid disintegration of the British Empire.

Orwell gave a good description of the inconsistent thinking of the British people. The British wanted total victory at any cost, and found themselves in bad economic shape. Many British complained about the immigration of Polish refugees to mine coal in Great Britain. Yet, the British public also complained (whined) about coal shortages. Orwell indicated the inconsistency of these remarks and commented that the British failed to see the logic between acts and consequences. Orwell Presented a clear picture of what was to occur with the British Empire which disintegrated rapidly after "victory" during W.W. II.

Orwell's essay on Gandhi is an interesting case study of Orwell's honest assessment of political leaders. Orwell is clear that he could not live like Gandhi, and Orwell admitted that he probably could be friends with the Hindu leader. Yet,Orwell highly praised Gandhi's courage, policy of nonviolent resistence to the British rules, and Gandhi's honesty. Orwell gave Gandhi praise for being honest and a decent man among political rogues, hypocrites, and cowards. Whether one agrees with Gandhi, he was indeed a brave, honest man. Among poltical figures these are rare traits indeed.

This reviewer disagrees with part of Orwell's criticism of James Burnham. Orwell correctly shows Burnham's errors in predicting the outcome of W.W.II. However, Orwell should have recognized Burnham's book THE MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION was a solid account that political and economic affairs were to be controlled by managers and "experts" rather than a market economy and by traditional political processes.

Orwell's anthology has interesting essays of literary criticism and correspondence. Orwell was suprisingly well versed with continental European poltical leaders and literary figures. There is an interesting letter that Orwell wrote to Arther Koestler, author of DARKNESS AT NOON,in which Orwell favorably compares this book with Orwell's own 1984.

Orwell also has some disturbing remarks regarding "allied" abuse and torture of defeated German prisoners of war. Orwell reflected that he remembered British and U.S. propaganda against the Germans before and during W.W. II. Yet, right in front of his nose, the "allies" were acting in the same beastial manner against those caught on the wrong side of the war. This was quite disturbing to Orwell, or any thoughtful person.

This reviewer has always been very impressed with Orwell's work. Any thoughtful individual who is not afraid of clear writing, honesty, and truth would enjoy Orwell. Unfortunately, the number of such people is small. As Orwell wrote one time, propaganda and lying do not decieve people. Propaganda and lying only help people who want to be deceived.

Essays and journalism and very good footnotes deal with starvation in Europe, prevention of literature, Gandhi, an attempt to form an organization which would deal with issues like expelling people from their homes, people forced back to Soviet Russia, and much more including civil liberities for anarchists.

It's a must read for whoever whants to know the truth about "equality" and "justice" in all communist countries.

El Sr. Jones no sabe lo que estaba a punto de ocurrir en su granja pero continuaba con su patron de explotacion hasta el dia en que los animales se levantaron para hacer justicia y buscar la igualdad. La trama gira en torno a la manera en la que los animales producen y llevan a cabo esta revolucion. Este es un clasico el cual estuvo prohibido y censurado en muchos lugares. Hoy podemos disfrutar de esta excelente obra de George Orwell. En esta edicion encontrara un prologo nunca antes publicado escrito por el autor, el cual es analizado en su contexto. Excelente obra facil de leer, entretenida y con un potencial historico extraordinario.

Uno de los libros mas poderosos en la historia del mundo. Se trata de una granja donde los animales se revelan contra el granjero. Este libro ha sido proibido en los Estados Unidos, y sigue siendo proibido en partes de America Latina.

Despues de leer este libro, te acostaras en la esquinita de tu habitación en posición fetal mamandote el dedo y canturreando "El Ratoncito Miguel."

Si, soy un enfermo.

In a society that has eliminated many imbalances, surplus goods, and even class struggle, there are bound to be deviates; Winston Smith is one of those. He starts out, due to his inability to doublethink, with thoughtcrime. This is in a society that believes a thought is as real as the deed. Eventually he graduates through a series of misdemeanors to illicit sex and even plans to overthrow the very government that took him in as an orphan.

If he gets caught, he will be sent to the "Ministry of Love" where they have a record of 100% cures for this sort of insanity. They will even forgive his past indiscretions.

Be sure to watch the three different movies made from this book:
1984 (1954) Peter Cushing is Winston Smith
1984 (1956) Edmond O'Brien is Winston Smith
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) John Hurt is Winston smith

1984 is extremely influential on the way we as a society label each other and our government with names such as "Big Brother" Orwellian and such. These names like calling someone a Nazi allow us to appear to argue but actually allow us to dodge the real issues. This is fairly ironic considering the origin of such terms. Basically 1984 is set in London in the distopian future. Orwell wrote it in response to Stalin's corrupting the ideals of Socialism. He was a socialist and so was really bothered by that failure.

The plot to 1984 isn't so important as the setting. Basically the story follows Winston Smith. Smith harbors less than perfect views of his environment, for which he will one day be arrested regardless of his actions. Not loving the government (thought crime) is the only crime that is recognized. Hidden cameras and microphones are omnipresent in the city, included mandatory TVs which can't be turned off, only show a single government station and contain hidden cameras through which "thought police" may monitor what is in front of the TV at any time. Social interaction doesn't exist, since that would be considered weird and therefore criminal.

There are three classes of people in London: Inner Party members, Party members like Winston and the proletariate, who aren't watched so closely because they aren't considered human. In this world Winston goes from merely not liking the government to engaging in unusual behavior. He starts by buying decorative antiques at a proletariate shop and progresses to having a girl friend, who he can only meet with in remote country side settings on account of social interaction is not allowed by the government. It is obvious to him that he will one day be taken to the Ministry of Love, a windowless building which handles law enforcement, and never fails at getting thought criminals to love the government.

The novel is always dark. No happy beginning, no happy middle and no happy ending. Still it is important to read it before throwing around terms like "Orwellian" It has been so influential on society that it is required reading - if you want to pass your tenth grade English. Failing to read is a sign of insurgence against the government.