Universally relevant, 12 Sep 2008
It is tempting with the `wisdom' of the twentieth century to dismiss as irrelevant a book guilty of false prophecy. However the achievement of George Orwell's masterpiece is not to be found in the accuracies of his predictions, but in its warning about the danger of power unchecked and the lengths to which those in power will go in order to remain there.

We are presented with a vision of the future (now our past) in which the world is divided amongst the totalitarian superpowers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Our story is set in a London controlled by `The Party' - who presence is felt by the ubiquitous Big Brother and its enforcement arm the Thought Police; told through the figure of Winston Smith: a lonely and silently dissident low-level member of the regime, who embarks on a prohibited sexual affair with a fellow party member, plots to work against `The Party' for an underground revolutionary movement called `The Brotherhood', only to discover he has been set up by Thought Police and is subsequently subjected to imprisonment, torture and eventually the destruction of his individuality.

The structure of the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four is basically a series of pieced together clichés and most of the characters descend into caricature, but it is never intended as a character study or a work of great literary merit or storytelling; the merit of the work is found in Orwell's handling of the mechanics of totalitarian control. At no point does Orwell try to assess the character of such a state and how it develops, but his genius is found in the way he handles methods of political control and taking these to a fantastical extreme in order to present the terror of uninhibited state control. In fact the real ingenuity of Nineteen Eighty-Four lies in the political weapons Orwell attributes to `The Party': newspeak, Big Brother, thoughtcrime, doublethink and many others.

Moreover, Orwell is particularly adept at exposing the political lie and how governments use this to enslave its citizens. The concept of the mutability of the past, whereby the past is continually falsified through physical record and the practice of doublethink (which involves the power to hold in one's mind simultaneously two contradictory beliefs, and accepting both of them) in order to demonstrate the omnipotence of Big Brother and `the Party', executed with horrifying perfection by the regime is the highlight of Orwell's achievement. Here Orwell demonstrates to us the fragility of objective knowledge and the process by which governments could (and in some cases do) distort reality. The servitude the citizens of Oceania find themselves in is not physical in its nature (since very few things are physically prohibited), but a mental imprisonment (thought crime being the only culpable act, as one of Smith's fellow prisoners bluntly puts it in Part 3). Through the process of falsifying what is considered objective fact in conjunction with doublethink, the means of intellectual liberty are denied since the concepts we take as given and infallible such as truth, reason and justification can no longer be relied upon. During Winston's interrogation, O'Brien (`the Party' incarnate) says to him `it is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it should be.' This appears to be the key point of Orwell's message, that freedom is attached to thought and absolute freedom is the freedom to be incorrect.

Orwell rams this point home even further in the concept of Newspeak. This is a language devised by `the Party' that reduces all speech to simple monosyllabic words or short combinations of these. Whereas in the language we use a particular concept may be covered by any number of words (e.g. the concept of good is covered in English by seemingly limitless adjectives), the aim of the creators of Newspeak is to reduce concepts to single words that contain both its affirmative and negative and therefore removing the need for antonyms for one (e.g. the word good, an affirmative, becomes an negative with the affix `un', so the opposite of `good' becomes `ungood' therefore removing the need for `bad' and its various synonyms). The mechanics of the new language are too complicated to discuss at length here (and the novel has as an appendix a short essay on Newspeak) but the idea Orwell entertains in this concept is that if thought is in some sense dependent on language (certainly the two coexist, although the relationship is unlikely to be one of dependence), then by reducing the capacity of language then the capacity of thought, or free thought, itself is curtailed. If language is simplified according to ideology and the means to express certain concepts such as freedom, justice, truth and love are removed, then, Orwell reasons, these concepts disappear altogether. Newspeak, then, is the ultimate weapon against human intellectualism and the liberty of the individual.

Orwell's message is a dramatic one, a warning against all kinds of power: it provides us with reasons to be suspicious of any regime and politician that seeks power and disguises its real aspirations behind propaganda and claims to be serving the greater good. As O'Brien tells us `The Party' seeks power not as a means, but as an end: `One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship...The object of power is power.' The danger and future as Orwell saw it as summed up by O'Brien is: `If you want to imagine a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.'

It is this resonant and rallying cry in favour of maximal personal liberty and the curbing of political power, in spite of it lacking the subtlety of Kafka's The Trial or the penetrating wit of Huxley's Brave New World, which will make Nineteen Eighty-Four a book of universal appeal and significance for many generations still to come.


A complex, haunting masterpiece, 29 Aug 2008
The first thing to remember about '1984' is that Orwell wasn't trying to predict what life would be like in 1984, or even in 2008. If the book is any good, it's not because it's an accurate picture of life as we know it. It is, however, a pretty faithful depiction of life in a totalitarian society; little happens in the book that didn't really happen in Germany between 1933 and 1945, or in many of the Eastern bloc countries between 1917 and 1989.

The second thing to remember is that Orwell was not against socialism. He described himself as a believer in "democratic socialism", and he was one, which is something that socialists who don't believe in democracy but in party discipline have never forgiven him for to this day. The horror of '1984' is not the horror of life in a socialist society; Orwell was a supporter, albeit a wary one, of Britain's post-war Labour government. The book is about life in a society which is entirely politicised - where there is nothing that doesn't relate to the political ends of the administration. There have been such societies, they still exist (hello, North Korea) and what Orwell was suggesting is that our own could become one too, if we aren't careful.

Winston Smith is not a mouthpiece for Orwell. Winston is more sentimental, more naive and more bourgeois than Orwell, or at least than the 'Orwell' persona (Orwell the man is not always to be identified with the persona he adopted as a non-fiction writer). '1984' is not a straightforward novel about two sensitive people in an uncaring world, and nor does it suggest that a totalitarian society is just a matter of a lot of CCTV cameras. It is deeper, darker and weirder than that. Simple-minded right-wingers have claimed that the book is an attack on socialism as such, but that's obviously wrong. Authoritarian left-wingers are enraged by the book's distrust of revolutionary shibboleths. It will go on being read as long as it seems to say something to us about the kinds of government we most fear and hate.

Worth a look, 05 Aug 2008
Its amazing this book was wrote in the forties. Its very modern and alot of what George Orwell wrote come true, very worrying. Maybe not his best work, still a classic though. Sixty years later and 1984 is still going strong. He has, in my opinion wrote better books but I would definitely recommend this book. Orwell's last masterpiece.

The greatest dytopian novel? Certainly the most influential., 04 Aug 2008
The book that gave us 'Orwellian', 'Room 101' and 'Big Brother', but it gave us so much more.

Orwell's final and greatest novel is a wonderful combination of important ideas expressed in simple language. It is an easy read and can be read in a short time, but will remain with you long afterwards. It challenges you to review how you interact with society and most importantly the state.

One of the major themes that is often overlooked is that which examines why we are good or bad. Is it because we want to be good or is it that we are afraid of punishment if we are bad.

Another interesting theme is the use and abuse of language, Orwell believed that the very language one uses influences how one thinks. He examines how, by the restriction of language, the state can restrict ideas.

Of course Orwell wrote the novel as an examination of one possible future and it is both fun and frightening to compare his predictions with the course history has taken. Indeed, whole passages can leave you thinking "My God, he was right."

Is it relevant today?, 26 Jun 2008
I read this book having been unable to ignore the hype surrounding it. As with anything like this you usually stand to be dissapointed, but I was pleasantly surprised at how the book fitted my expectations very well.
The story is slightly sketchy in some places but this is the beauty of it - it keeps a good pace and concentrates on the authors suggestions of possible government structure in 1984 rather than centralising on the characters too much.

Where the characters are heavily detailed, this is to help create a tangible picture of the points the author is trying to make.

The words in our everyday use which originated from this book are taken for granted by us i.e. "Big Brother", "Room 101", And the author paints a powerful picture of their meaning.

Whilst writing this book in the 1940's, George Orwell obviously tried to predict the kind of technology we would be using by 1984 - and this must have seemed a world away for him. However, by 1984 the technology he had spoken of was easily possible and currently is far surpassed.

The overall setting of the story seems (at points) impossible to comprehend, but when you break down each part of Oceanic society and the circumstances that created it, it is generally easy to see "some" similarity with our own situation in the 21st century.

Universally relevant, 12 Sep 2008
It is tempting with the `wisdom' of the twentieth century to dismiss as irrelevant a book guilty of false prophecy. However the achievement of George Orwell's masterpiece is not to be found in the accuracies of his predictions, but in its warning about the danger of power unchecked and the lengths to which those in power will go in order to remain there.

We are presented with a vision of the future (now our past) in which the world is divided amongst the totalitarian superpowers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Our story is set in a London controlled by `The Party' - who presence is felt by the ubiquitous Big Brother and its enforcement arm the Thought Police; told through the figure of Winston Smith: a lonely and silently dissident low-level member of the regime, who embarks on a prohibited sexual affair with a fellow party member, plots to work against `The Party' for an underground revolutionary movement called `The Brotherhood', only to discover he has been set up by Thought Police and is subsequently subjected to imprisonment, torture and eventually the destruction of his individuality.

The structure of the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four is basically a series of pieced together clichés and most of the characters descend into caricature, but it is never intended as a character study or a work of great literary merit or storytelling; the merit of the work is found in Orwell's handling of the mechanics of totalitarian control. At no point does Orwell try to assess the character of such a state and how it develops, but his genius is found in the way he handles methods of political control and taking these to a fantastical extreme in order to present the terror of uninhibited state control. In fact the real ingenuity of Nineteen Eighty-Four lies in the political weapons Orwell attributes to `The Party': newspeak, Big Brother, thoughtcrime, doublethink and many others.

Moreover, Orwell is particularly adept at exposing the political lie and how governments use this to enslave its citizens. The concept of the mutability of the past, whereby the past is continually falsified through physical record and the practice of doublethink (which involves the power to hold in one's mind simultaneously two contradictory beliefs, and accepting both of them) in order to demonstrate the omnipotence of Big Brother and `the Party', executed with horrifying perfection by the regime is the highlight of Orwell's achievement. Here Orwell demonstrates to us the fragility of objective knowledge and the process by which governments could (and in some cases do) distort reality. The servitude the citizens of Oceania find themselves in is not physical in its nature (since very few things are physically prohibited), but a mental imprisonment (thought crime being the only culpable act, as one of Smith's fellow prisoners bluntly puts it in Part 3). Through the process of falsifying what is considered objective fact in conjunction with doublethink, the means of intellectual liberty are denied since the concepts we take as given and infallible such as truth, reason and justification can no longer be relied upon. During Winston's interrogation, O'Brien (`the Party' incarnate) says to him `it is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it should be.' This appears to be the key point of Orwell's message, that freedom is attached to thought and absolute freedom is the freedom to be incorrect.

Orwell rams this point home even further in the concept of Newspeak. This is a language devised by `the Party' that reduces all speech to simple monosyllabic words or short combinations of these. Whereas in the language we use a particular concept may be covered by any number of words (e.g. the concept of good is covered in English by seemingly limitless adjectives), the aim of the creators of Newspeak is to reduce concepts to single words that contain both its affirmative and negative and therefore removing the need for antonyms for one (e.g. the word good, an affirmative, becomes an negative with the affix `un', so the opposite of `good' becomes `ungood' therefore removing the need for `bad' and its various synonyms). The mechanics of the new language are too complicated to discuss at length here (and the novel has as an appendix a short essay on Newspeak) but the idea Orwell entertains in this concept is that if thought is in some sense dependent on language (certainly the two coexist, although the relationship is unlikely to be one of dependence), then by reducing the capacity of language then the capacity of thought, or free thought, itself is curtailed. If language is simplified according to ideology and the means to express certain concepts such as freedom, justice, truth and love are removed, then, Orwell reasons, these concepts disappear altogether. Newspeak, then, is the ultimate weapon against human intellectualism and the liberty of the individual.

Orwell's message is a dramatic one, a warning against all kinds of power: it provides us with reasons to be suspicious of any regime and politician that seeks power and disguises its real aspirations behind propaganda and claims to be serving the greater good. As O'Brien tells us `The Party' seeks power not as a means, but as an end: `One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship...The object of power is power.' The danger and future as Orwell saw it as summed up by O'Brien is: `If you want to imagine a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.'

It is this resonant and rallying cry in favour of maximal personal liberty and the curbing of political power, in spite of it lacking the subtlety of Kafka's The Trial or the penetrating wit of Huxley's Brave New World, which will make Nineteen Eighty-Four a book of universal appeal and significance for many generations still to come.


A complex, haunting masterpiece, 29 Aug 2008
The first thing to remember about '1984' is that Orwell wasn't trying to predict what life would be like in 1984, or even in 2008. If the book is any good, it's not because it's an accurate picture of life as we know it. It is, however, a pretty faithful depiction of life in a totalitarian society; little happens in the book that didn't really happen in Germany between 1933 and 1945, or in many of the Eastern bloc countries between 1917 and 1989.

The second thing to remember is that Orwell was not against socialism. He described himself as a believer in "democratic socialism", and he was one, which is something that socialists who don't believe in democracy but in party discipline have never forgiven him for to this day. The horror of '1984' is not the horror of life in a socialist society; Orwell was a supporter, albeit a wary one, of Britain's post-war Labour government. The book is about life in a society which is entirely politicised - where there is nothing that doesn't relate to the political ends of the administration. There have been such societies, they still exist (hello, North Korea) and what Orwell was suggesting is that our own could become one too, if we aren't careful.

Winston Smith is not a mouthpiece for Orwell. Winston is more sentimental, more naive and more bourgeois than Orwell, or at least than the 'Orwell' persona (Orwell the man is not always to be identified with the persona he adopted as a non-fiction writer). '1984' is not a straightforward novel about two sensitive people in an uncaring world, and nor does it suggest that a totalitarian society is just a matter of a lot of CCTV cameras. It is deeper, darker and weirder than that. Simple-minded right-wingers have claimed that the book is an attack on socialism as such, but that's obviously wrong. Authoritarian left-wingers are enraged by the book's distrust of revolutionary shibboleths. It will go on being read as long as it seems to say something to us about the kinds of government we most fear and hate.

Worth a look, 05 Aug 2008
Its amazing this book was wrote in the forties. Its very modern and alot of what George Orwell wrote come true, very worrying. Maybe not his best work, still a classic though. Sixty years later and 1984 is still going strong. He has, in my opinion wrote better books but I would definitely recommend this book. Orwell's last masterpiece.

The greatest dytopian novel? Certainly the most influential., 04 Aug 2008
The book that gave us 'Orwellian', 'Room 101' and 'Big Brother', but it gave us so much more.

Orwell's final and greatest novel is a wonderful combination of important ideas expressed in simple language. It is an easy read and can be read in a short time, but will remain with you long afterwards. It challenges you to review how you interact with society and most importantly the state.

One of the major themes that is often overlooked is that which examines why we are good or bad. Is it because we want to be good or is it that we are afraid of punishment if we are bad.

Another interesting theme is the use and abuse of language, Orwell believed that the very language one uses influences how one thinks. He examines how, by the restriction of language, the state can restrict ideas.

Of course Orwell wrote the novel as an examination of one possible future and it is both fun and frightening to compare his predictions with the course history has taken. Indeed, whole passages can leave you thinking "My God, he was right."

Is it relevant today?, 26 Jun 2008
I read this book having been unable to ignore the hype surrounding it. As with anything like this you usually stand to be dissapointed, but I was pleasantly surprised at how the book fitted my expectations very well.
The story is slightly sketchy in some places but this is the beauty of it - it keeps a good pace and concentrates on the authors suggestions of possible government structure in 1984 rather than centralising on the characters too much.

Where the characters are heavily detailed, this is to help create a tangible picture of the points the author is trying to make.

The words in our everyday use which originated from this book are taken for granted by us i.e. "Big Brother", "Room 101", And the author paints a powerful picture of their meaning.

Whilst writing this book in the 1940's, George Orwell obviously tried to predict the kind of technology we would be using by 1984 - and this must have seemed a world away for him. However, by 1984 the technology he had spoken of was easily possible and currently is far surpassed.

The overall setting of the story seems (at points) impossible to comprehend, but when you break down each part of Oceanic society and the circumstances that created it, it is generally easy to see "some" similarity with our own situation in the 21st century.

The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox by Maggie O'Farrell, 08 Sep 2008
This is a bookring that I joined and I am so glad I did

Synopsis:

Set between the 1930s,and the present, Maggie O'Farrell's new novel is the story of Esme, a woman edited out of her family's history, and of the secrets that come to light when, sixty years later, she is released from care, and a young woman, Iris, discovers the great aunt she never knew she had. The mystery that unfolds is the heartbreaking tale of two sisters in colonial India and 1930s Edinburgh - of the loneliness that binds them together and the rivalries that drive them apart, and lead one of them to a shocking betrayal - but above all it is the story of Esme, a fiercely intelligent, unconventional young woman, and of the terrible price she is made to pay for her family's unhappiness.
I read this book in a matter of hours, it was gripping, exciting and impossible to put down. This book caused a whole host of emotions as I read. I laughed and nearly cried at several parts of the book. My heart broke when I read what happened to Esme and I was disgusted and angry at her family.

My favourite characters where Iris and Esme, very similar characters I thought. I loved their passion and how they did as they pleased. Esme was so unconventional, not a typical 1930s girl and I admired her for taking a stand and being herself.

I enjoyed this book from page 1. The ending confused me a little but once I thought about it it made sense. It isn't how I would have ended the book but I still liked it.

I have never read Maggie O'Farrell before but I will definitely read more of her work. She dealt with issues of mental health, family, society and love delicately and extremely well.

10/10


Gripping read, 13 Aug 2008
I read this book because I had nothing else to read and loved it. I couldn't put it down and when I did, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It's well written, sad, shocking in parts and thought provoking. i recommend it and I shall read more of Maggie O'Farrell books.

abit of a let down, 06 Jul 2008
I had heard that this book was a brilliant read, this is true. However, it is quite difficult to determine which character is speaking sometimes and found that the relationship between Iris, Alex and Luke was completely pointless, it has no effect on the story whatsoever. I guessed the twist in the story very early on and was on the edge of my seat waiting for another - it never came. I found the ending hurried and abit vague. I was left dissapointed, with a sense of not understanding what had happened. Nevertheless it is a very good read, that will have you reading page after page. It is a moving and poignant read.

Gripping but vague in places., 15 Jun 2008
I actually enjoyed reading this and felt very sad for the character of Esme Lennox. It was certainly a page turner and kept me engaged throughout. My only complaints were that the ending seemed a bit hurried and that the sub plot involving Iris, Luke and Alex was not really necessary or needed as the novel would have been better had it been fully focused on Esme.

Although I have a couple of criticisms about the book, it was definitely a page turner and is worth reading.

Very moving read, 02 Jun 2008
This is a very moving and sad story of a lady, Esme, who is put into an institution by her family, and spends over sixty years of her life there. She only seems to be able to leave in the end because the place is being closed down.
The tale tells of little incidents during her childhood which her family frowned upon, when really she was just an expressive, inquisitive child who wanted something different for herself than being married off and having to put on all the airs and graces of her class. And for this she is punished by her cold family, who send her to be locked away. All those years later enter Iris, who didn't know of Esme's existence.

Intermingled with remembrances of the past, the story tells of the new relationship formed between Iris and Esme, and those around them. For me, an interesting parallel was drawn between the characteristics of the too of them.
It is not a very long read, and I think it was just perfect at the length it is. Very well written and unputdownable, thought-provoking and tragic.

So sad to think that this situation was a reality for many women too in times gone by?
I have read one previous novel by Maggie O'Farrell which I think I enjoyed but it wasn't terribly memorable. I think she has dramatically improved her writing with this book.

Universally relevant, 12 Sep 2008
It is tempting with the `wisdom' of the twentieth century to dismiss as irrelevant a book guilty of false prophecy. However the achievement of George Orwell's masterpiece is not to be found in the accuracies of his predictions, but in its warning about the danger of power unchecked and the lengths to which those in power will go in order to remain there.

We are presented with a vision of the future (now our past) in which the world is divided amongst the totalitarian superpowers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Our story is set in a London controlled by `The Party' - who presence is felt by the ubiquitous Big Brother and its enforcement arm the Thought Police; told through the figure of Winston Smith: a lonely and silently dissident low-level member of the regime, who embarks on a prohibited sexual affair with a fellow party member, plots to work against `The Party' for an underground revolutionary movement called `The Brotherhood', only to discover he has been set up by Thought Police and is subsequently subjected to imprisonment, torture and eventually the destruction of his individuality.

The structure of the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four is basically a series of pieced together clichés and most of the characters descend into caricature, but it is never intended as a character study or a work of great literary merit or storytelling; the merit of the work is found in Orwell's handling of the mechanics of totalitarian control. At no point does Orwell try to assess the character of such a state and how it develops, but his genius is found in the way he handles methods of political control and taking these to a fantastical extreme in order to present the terror of uninhibited state control. In fact the real ingenuity of Nineteen Eighty-Four lies in the political weapons Orwell attributes to `The Party': newspeak, Big Brother, thoughtcrime, doublethink and many others.

Moreover, Orwell is particularly adept at exposing the political lie and how governments use this to enslave its citizens. The concept of the mutability of the past, whereby the past is continually falsified through physical record and the practice of doublethink (which involves the power to hold in one's mind simultaneously two contradictory beliefs, and accepting both of them) in order to demonstrate the omnipotence of Big Brother and `the Party', executed with horrifying perfection by the regime is the highlight of Orwell's achievement. Here Orwell demonstrates to us the fragility of objective knowledge and the process by which governments could (and in some cases do) distort reality. The servitude the citizens of Oceania find themselves in is not physical in its nature (since very few things are physically prohibited), but a mental imprisonment (thought crime being the only culpable act, as one of Smith's fellow prisoners bluntly puts it in Part 3). Through the process of falsifying what is considered objective fact in conjunction with doublethink, the means of intellectual liberty are denied since the concepts we take as given and infallible such as truth, reason and justification can no longer be relied upon. During Winston's interrogation, O'Brien (`the Party' incarnate) says to him `it is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it should be.' This appears to be the key point of Orwell's message, that freedom is attached to thought and absolute freedom is the freedom to be incorrect.

Orwell rams this point home even further in the concept of Newspeak. This is a language devised by `the Party' that reduces all speech to simple monosyllabic words or short combinations of these. Whereas in the language we use a particular concept may be covered by any number of words (e.g. the concept of good is covered in English by seemingly limitless adjectives), the aim of the creators of Newspeak is to reduce concepts to single words that contain both its affirmative and negative and therefore removing the need for antonyms for one (e.g. the word good, an affirmative, becomes an negative with the affix `un', so the opposite of `good' becomes `ungood' therefore removing the need for `bad' and its various synonyms). The mechanics of the new language are too complicated to discuss at length here (and the novel has as an appendix a short essay on Newspeak) but the idea Orwell entertains in this concept is that if thought is in some sense dependent on language (certainly the two coexist, although the relationship is unlikely to be one of dependence), then by reducing the capacity of language then the capacity of thought, or free thought, itself is curtailed. If language is simplified according to ideology and the means to express certain concepts such as freedom, justice, truth and love are removed, then, Orwell reasons, these concepts disappear altogether. Newspeak, then, is the ultimate weapon against human intellectualism and the liberty of the individual.

Orwell's message is a dramatic one, a warning against all kinds of power: it provides us with reasons to be suspicious of any regime and politician that seeks power and disguises its real aspirations behind propaganda and claims to be serving the greater good. As O'Brien tells us `The Party' seeks power not as a means, but as an end: `One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship...The object of power is power.' The danger and future as Orwell saw it as summed up by O'Brien is: `If you want to imagine a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.'

It is this resonant and rallying cry in favour of maximal personal liberty and the curbing of political power, in spite of it lacking the subtlety of Kafka's The Trial or the penetrating wit of Huxley's Brave New World, which will make Nineteen Eighty-Four a book of universal appeal and significance for many generations still to come.


A complex, haunting masterpiece, 29 Aug 2008
The first thing to remember about '1984' is that Orwell wasn't trying to predict what life would be like in 1984, or even in 2008. If the book is any good, it's not because it's an accurate picture of life as we know it. It is, however, a pretty faithful depiction of life in a totalitarian society; little happens in the book that didn't really happen in Germany between 1933 and 1945, or in many of the Eastern bloc countries between 1917 and 1989.

The second thing to remember is that Orwell was not against socialism. He described himself as a believer in "democratic socialism", and he was one, which is something that socialists who don't believe in democracy but in party discipline have never forgiven him for to this day. The horror of '1984' is not the horror of life in a socialist society; Orwell was a supporter, albeit a wary one, of Britain's post-war Labour government. The book is about life in a society which is entirely politicised - where there is nothing that doesn't relate to the political ends of the administration. There have been such societies, they still exist (hello, North Korea) and what Orwell was suggesting is that our own could become one too, if we aren't careful.

Winston Smith is not a mouthpiece for Orwell. Winston is more sentimental, more naive and more bourgeois than Orwell, or at least than the 'Orwell' persona (Orwell the man is not always to be identified with the persona he adopted as a non-fiction writer). '1984' is not a straightforward novel about two sensitive people in an uncaring world, and nor does it suggest that a totalitarian society is just a matter of a lot of CCTV cameras. It is deeper, darker and weirder than that. Simple-minded right-wingers have claimed that the book is an attack on socialism as such, but that's obviously wrong. Authoritarian left-wingers are enraged by the book's distrust of revolutionary shibboleths. It will go on being read as long as it seems to say something to us about the kinds of government we most fear and hate.

Worth a look, 05 Aug 2008
Its amazing this book was wrote in the forties. Its very modern and alot of what George Orwell wrote come true, very worrying. Maybe not his best work, still a classic though. Sixty years later and 1984 is still going strong. He has, in my opinion wrote better books but I would definitely recommend this book. Orwell's last masterpiece.

The greatest dytopian novel? Certainly the most influential., 04 Aug 2008
The book that gave us 'Orwellian', 'Room 101' and 'Big Brother', but it gave us so much more.

Orwell's final and greatest novel is a wonderful combination of important ideas expressed in simple language. It is an easy read and can be read in a short time, but will remain with you long afterwards. It challenges you to review how you interact with society and most importantly the state.

One of the major themes that is often overlooked is that which examines why we are good or bad. Is it because we want to be good or is it that we are afraid of punishment if we are bad.

Another interesting theme is the use and abuse of language, Orwell believed that the very language one uses influences how one thinks. He examines how, by the restriction of language, the state can restrict ideas.

Of course Orwell wrote the novel as an examination of one possible future and it is both fun and frightening to compare his predictions with the course history has taken. Indeed, whole passages can leave you thinking "My God, he was right."

Is it relevant today?, 26 Jun 2008
I read this book having been unable to ignore the hype surrounding it. As with anything like this you usually stand to be dissapointed, but I was pleasantly surprised at how the book fitted my expectations very well.
The story is slightly sketchy in some places but this is the beauty of it - it keeps a good pace and concentrates on the authors suggestions of possible government structure in 1984 rather than centralising on the characters too much.

Where the characters are heavily detailed, this is to help create a tangible picture of the points the author is trying to make.

The words in our everyday use which originated from this book are taken for granted by us i.e. "Big Brother", "Room 101", And the author paints a powerful picture of their meaning.

Whilst writing this book in the 1940's, George Orwell obviously tried to predict the kind of technology we would be using by 1984 - and this must have seemed a world away for him. However, by 1984 the technology he had spoken of was easily possible and currently is far surpassed.

The overall setting of the story seems (at points) impossible to comprehend, but when you break down each part of Oceanic society and the circumstances that created it, it is generally easy to see "some" similarity with our own situation in the 21st century.

The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox by Maggie O'Farrell, 08 Sep 2008
This is a bookring that I joined and I am so glad I did

Synopsis:

Set between the 1930s,and the present, Maggie O'Farrell's new novel is the story of Esme, a woman edited out of her family's history, and of the secrets that come to light when, sixty years later, she is released from care, and a young woman, Iris, discovers the great aunt she never knew she had. The mystery that unfolds is the heartbreaking tale of two sisters in colonial India and 1930s Edinburgh - of the loneliness that binds them together and the rivalries that drive them apart, and lead one of them to a shocking betrayal - but above all it is the story of Esme, a fiercely intelligent, unconventional young woman, and of the terrible price she is made to pay for her family's unhappiness.
I read this book in a matter of hours, it was gripping, exciting and impossible to put down. This book caused a whole host of emotions as I read. I laughed and nearly cried at several parts of the book. My heart broke when I read what happened to Esme and I was disgusted and angry at her family.

My favourite characters where Iris and Esme, very similar characters I thought. I loved their passion and how they did as they pleased. Esme was so unconventional, not a typical 1930s girl and I admired her for taking a stand and being herself.

I enjoyed this book from page 1. The ending confused me a little but once I thought about it it made sense. It isn't how I would have ended the book but I still liked it.

I have never read Maggie O'Farrell before but I will definitely read more of her work. She dealt with issues of mental health, family, society and love delicately and extremely well.

10/10


Gripping read, 13 Aug 2008
I read this book because I had nothing else to read and loved it. I couldn't put it down and when I did, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It's well written, sad, shocking in parts and thought provoking. i recommend it and I shall read more of Maggie O'Farrell books.

abit of a let down, 06 Jul 2008
I had heard that this book was a brilliant read, this is true. However, it is quite difficult to determine which character is speaking sometimes and found that the relationship between Iris, Alex and Luke was completely pointless, it has no effect on the story whatsoever. I guessed the twist in the story very early on and was on the edge of my seat waiting for another - it never came. I found the ending hurried and abit vague. I was left dissapointed, with a sense of not understanding what had happened. Nevertheless it is a very good read, that will have you reading page after page. It is a moving and poignant read.

Gripping but vague in places., 15 Jun 2008
I actually enjoyed reading this and felt very sad for the character of Esme Lennox. It was certainly a page turner and kept me engaged throughout. My only complaints were that the ending seemed a bit hurried and that the sub plot involving Iris, Luke and Alex was not really necessary or needed as the novel would have been better had it been fully focused on Esme.

Although I have a couple of criticisms about the book, it was definitely a page turner and is worth reading.

Very moving read, 02 Jun 2008
This is a very moving and sad story of a lady, Esme, who is put into an institution by her family, and spends over sixty years of her life there. She only seems to be able to leave in the end because the place is being closed down.
The tale tells of little incidents during her childhood which her family frowned upon, when really she was just an expressive, inquisitive child who wanted something different for herself than being married off and having to put on all the airs and graces of her class. And for this she is punished by her cold family, who send her to be locked away. All those years later enter Iris, who didn't know of Esme's existence.

Intermingled with remembrances of the past, the story tells of the new relationship formed between Iris and Esme, and those around them. For me, an interesting parallel was drawn between the characteristics of the too of them.
It is not a very long read, and I think it was just perfect at the length it is. Very well written and unputdownable, thought-provoking and tragic.

So sad to think that this situation was a reality for many women too in times gone by?
I have read one previous novel by Maggie O'Farrell which I think I enjoyed but it wasn't terribly memorable. I think she has dramatically improved her writing with this book.

Homage to fascism, more like, 26 Mar 2008
Note how the great Orwell never says anything positive about those doing the bulk of the fighting against Franco - in fact, note how he barely mentions Franco and fascism at all! In the course of the events he descibes in this book, he spends most of his time doing nothing, like the rest of his Trotskyist and anarchist friends. Meanwhile, the Republicans, whom he slanders from afar, were fighting and dying in the front line against the Nazi and Italian forces who enabled Franco's victory. Note also how he never says a positive word about the Soviet Union, which was the only country to help the Republic, while the British and French governments helped Hitler and Mussolini to intervene.

Homage to freedom and equality, 19 Mar 2008
The Spanish civil war is possibly, alongside the Paris Commune of 1871, the period of history I wished to have taken an active part in. George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is the best portrayal I've read so far on this period and an inspired and inspiring piece of literature. A very personal account of the war that doesn't neglect the social and political background, its implications and the influence it had on 20th century history. Ever wondered why the Spanish Civil war meant so much to so many around the world? Think you know what it really stood for? Ever questioned why the leftists (socialists, communists and anarchists) lost? Then this is the book for you.

Famous first-hand account of Spain's 1936-7 Civil War, 24 Feb 2008
A recent trip to Barcelona made me pull this book off my bookshelf, where it had been gathering dust since I first read it as a teenager 12 years ago. At the time I was very much into Orwell - his socialism, his hatred of Capitalism and his championing of the working classes. Though writing half a century earlier, he seemed to voice much of what myself and the other youths I hung around with believed.

Out of all Orwell's books that I read, I found this the least enjoyable and the most hard-going. I couldn't make head nor tail of who the different sides were, who was fighting who, what each side was fighting for and the complicated party politics of a Spain that existed nearly 60 years in the past.

The book is akin to Down and Out in Paris and London in that Orwell throws himself into an impoverished and dangerous situation which is not necessary for one of his social class and talents. Yet he does it anyway, mainly, I think, to provide the raw experience from which he can create these masterful literary accounts. In Paris and London Orwell writes about poverty and homelessness. Here he is writing about a war which, at first at least, he sees as being between 'the Fascists' and 'the working classes' (a perfect Orwellian subject). In the earlier book Orwell becomes a tramp. Here he becomes a soldier - a militiaman in a foreign army. Strange and noble that he should suffer so much for his art. However, 12 years on from my first reading, I can't help viewing Orwell's behaviour as a slightly patronising kind of 'social tourism'. When he has had enough, Orwell is able to, and in fact does, escape back to a comfortable middle-class existence back in England. This escape clause is not open to the real tramps, 'peasants' and militiamen he mixes with. This is not a severe criticism, though. Undoubtedly Orwell did genuinely care about the social injustices he witnessed and he was clearly trying to draw attention to them and strive for reform (he was instrumental in setting up the NHS in the 1940s).

This time I understood little more of what was going on than first time round. However, despite my lack of understanding, and despite having a markedly different political stance than I did as a teenager, I found the book to be much more rewarding this time round. Orwell's matter-of-fact reportage of trench warfare and street fighting is fascinating. His vivid descriptions of the antiquated weapons, attacking an enemy position, the freezing nights and the human lice - not to mention of getting shot through the throat ("The whole experience of being hit by a bullet is very interesting and I think it is worth describing in detail") - are vivid and eloquent. Also, you can see here embryonic elements that made it into Nineteen Eighty-Four (the systematic suppression and even murder of those that disagree with the state view, for instance).

This time round I was gripped all the way to the last sentence, by which time Orwell has returned home and finds England "sleeping the deep deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs." Chilling when you reflect that this book was published in 1938, only a year before WW2 broke out.

A brilliant book, author and anarchist, 20 Oct 2007
Orwell has been slandered slightly with the title of socialist. This book well and truly shows his colours - multicoloured of course. The book is an outstanding account and description of the Spanish Civil War, an excellent portrayal of effective anarchism in action in Barcelona in those early days, a brilliant advertisement for pacifism, and an excellent insight into the mind of someone whose lasting influnce in the world has even changed the language. Thought police, Big Brother, Room 101 - all terms inspired by true events outlined in this classic book. There's memorable glimpses into the horrors of life in war - the food shortages, rats, the seemingly-trivial issues of looking for firewood, the lack of actual fighting, but the fun and camaradery too.

There's so much in this little book - masculinity, class, war, socialism, anarchism and descriptions of the Ramblas in Barcelona that have stood the test of time.

Simply Brilliant , 06 Dec 2006
This book is truly essential reading for anyone interested in the Spanish Civil War, or for that matter anyone with an interest in war, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism or in Literature. Orwell's account of the Spanish Civil War is more than just a brilliant account of life in a civil war, it is a first hand account of the horrors of Stalinism, and Orwell's experiences in Spain explain why he later wrote his best known works, 1984 and Animal Farm, to warn of the dangers which he knew so well.

The book starts out recounting Orwell's experiences of arriving in Spain as an eager volunteer wanting to help fight Fascism. He is shocked to discover the disorganisation and inefficiency of the Republican militias. The book then goes on to give a telling account of the boredom of trench warfare, where the naïve Orwell wants to be able to kill at least one Fascist to do his part in the struggle for freedom, but ends up mainly having to contend with lice, rats and the freezing weather.

This alone might make for an interesting read, but the book really comes into its own in the latter chapters, where Orwell describes the struggle going on within the Republican controlled region of Spain. A wounded Orwell returns to Barcelona, where the Stalinists who have seized control of the government turn on their political rivals. Orwell is well placed to describe the May fighting between the Stalinist police who wish to enforce state control and the idealistic anarchists who want to defend their revolutionary gains.

Following the government victory, Orwell's small political party the POUM is made a scapegoat for the fighting and is outlawed. A stunned Orwell is forced to go on the run from the very Republic for which he had been so willing to risk his life. This makes for a damning indictment of totalitarianism that is still capable of gripping and infuriating the reader generations after the events described. Orwell shows that he is one of the finest writers in the English language, and this is probably his finest work, deserving to be read by all.

Universally relevant, 12 Sep 2008
It is tempting with the `wisdom' of the twentieth century to dismiss as irrelevant a book guilty of false prophecy. However the achievement of George Orwell's masterpiece is not to be found in the accuracies of his predictions, but in its warning about the danger of power unchecked and the lengths to which those in power will go in order to remain there.

We are presented with a vision of the future (now our past) in which the world is divided amongst the totalitarian superpowers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Our story is set in a London controlled by `The Party' - who presence is felt by the ubiquitous Big Brother and its enforcement arm the Thought Police; told through the figure of Winston Smith: a lonely and silently dissident low-level member of the regime, who embarks on a prohibited sexual affair with a fellow party member, plots to work against `The Party' for an underground revolutionary movement called `The Brotherhood', only to discover he has been set up by Thought Police and is subsequently subjected to imprisonment, torture and eventually the destruction of his individuality.

The structure of the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four is basically a series of pieced together clichés and most of the characters descend into caricature, but it is never intended as a character study or a work of great literary merit or storytelling; the merit of the work is found in Orwell's handling of the mechanics of totalitarian control. At no point does Orwell try to assess the character of such a state and how it develops, but his genius is found in the way he handles methods of political control and taking these to a fantastical extreme in order to present the terror of uninhibited state control. In fact the real ingenuity of Nineteen Eighty-Four lies in the political weapons Orwell attributes to `The Party': newspeak, Big Brother, thoughtcrime, doublethink and many others.

Moreover, Orwell is particularly adept at exposing the political lie and how governments use this to enslave its citizens. The concept of the mutability of the past, whereby the past is continually falsified through physical record and the practice of doublethink (which involves the power to hold in one's mind simultaneously two contradictory beliefs, and accepting both of them) in order to demonstrate the omnipotence of Big Brother and `the Party', executed with horrifying perfection by the regime is the highlight of Orwell's achievement. Here Orwell demonstrates to us the fragility of objective knowledge and the process by which governments could (and in some cases do) distort reality. The servitude the citizens of Oceania find themselves in is not physical in its nature (since very few things are physically prohibited), but a mental imprisonment (thought crime being the only culpable act, as one of Smith's fellow prisoners bluntly puts it in Part 3). Through the process of falsifying what is considered objective fact in conjunction with doublethink, the means of intellectual liberty are denied since the concepts we take as given and infallible such as truth, reason and justification can no longer be relied upon. During Winston's interrogation, O'Brien (`the Party' incarnate) says to him `it is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it should be.' This appears to be the key point of Orwell's message, that freedom is attached to thought and absolute freedom is the freedom to be incorrect.

Orwell rams this point home even further in the concept of Newspeak. This is a language devised by `the Party' that reduces all speech to simple monosyllabic words or short combinations of these. Whereas in the language we use a particular concept may be covered by any number of words (e.g. the concept of good is covered in English by seemingly limitless adjectives), the aim of the creators of Newspeak is to reduce concepts to single words that contain both its affirmative and negative and therefore removing the need for antonyms for one (e.g. the word good, an affirmative, becomes an negative with the affix `un', so the opposite of `good' becomes `ungood' therefore removing the need for `bad' and its various synonyms). The mechanics of the new language are too complicated to discuss at length here (and the novel has as an appendix a short essay on Newspeak) but the idea Orwell entertains in this concept is that if thought is in some sense dependent on language (certainly the two coexist, although the relationship is unlikely to be one of dependence), then by reducing the capacity of language then the capacity of thought, or free thought, itself is curtailed. If language is simplified according to ideology and the means to express certain concepts such as freedom, justice, truth and love are removed, then, Orwell reasons, these concepts disappear altogether. Newspeak, then, is the ultimate weapon against human intellectualism and the liberty of the individual.

Orwell's message is a dramatic one, a warning against all kinds of power: it provides us with reasons to be suspicious of any regime and politician that seeks power and disguises its real aspirations behind propaganda and claims to be serving the greater good. As O'Brien tells us `The Party' seeks power not as a means, but as an end: `One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship...The object of power is power.' The danger and future as Orwell saw it as summed up by O'Brien is: `If you want to imagine a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.'

It is this resonant and rallying cry in favour of maximal personal liberty and the curbing of political power, in spite of it lacking the subtlety of Kafka's The Trial or the penetrating wit of Huxley's Brave New World, which will make Nineteen Eighty-Four a book of universal appeal and significance for many generations still to come.


A complex, haunting masterpiece, 29 Aug 2008
The first thing to remember about '1984' is that Orwell wasn't trying to predict what life would be like in 1984, or even in 2008. If the book is any good, it's not because it's an accurate picture of life as we know it. It is, however, a pretty faithful depiction of life in a totalitarian society; little happens in the book that didn't really happen in Germany between 1933 and 1945, or in many of the Eastern bloc countries between 1917 and 1989.

The second thing to remember is that Orwell was not against socialism. He described himself as a believer in "democratic socialism", and he was one, which is something that socialists who don't believe in democracy but in party discipline have never forgiven him for to this day. The horror of '1984' is not the horror of life in a socialist society; Orwell was a supporter, albeit a wary one, of Britain's post-war Labour government. The book is about life in a society which is entirely politicised - where there is nothing that doesn't relate to the political ends of the administration. There have been such societies, they still exist (hello, North Korea) and what Orwell was suggesting is that our own could become one too, if we aren't careful.

Winston Smith is not a mouthpiece for Orwell. Winston is more sentimental, more naive and more bourgeois than Orwell, or at least than the 'Orwell' persona (Orwell the man is not always to be identified with the persona he adopted as a non-fiction writer). '1984' is not a straightforward novel about two sensitive people in an uncaring world, and nor does it suggest that a totalitarian society is just a matter of a lot of CCTV cameras. It is deeper, darker and weirder than that. Simple-minded right-wingers have claimed that the book is an attack on socialism as such, but that's obviously wrong. Authoritarian left-wingers are enraged by the book's distrust of revolutionary shibboleths. It will go on being read as long as it seems to say something to us about the kinds of government we most fear and hate.

Worth a look, 05 Aug 2008
Its amazing this book was wrote in the forties. Its very modern and alot of what George Orwell wrote come true, very worrying. Maybe not his best work, still a classic though. Sixty years later and 1984 is still going strong. He has, in my opinion wrote better books but I would definitely recommend this book. Orwell's last masterpiece.

The greatest dytopian novel? Certainly the most influential., 04 Aug 2008
The book that gave us 'Orwellian', 'Room 101' and 'Big Brother', but it gave us so much more.

Orwell's final and greatest novel is a wonderful combination of important ideas expressed in simple language. It is an easy read and can be read in a short time, but will remain with you long afterwards. It challenges you to review how you interact with society and most importantly the state.

One of the major themes that is often overlooked is that which examines why we are good or bad. Is it because we want to be good or is it that we are afraid of punishment if we are bad.

Another interesting theme is the use and abuse of language, Orwell believed that the very language one uses influences how one thinks. He examines how, by the restriction of language, the state can restrict ideas.

Of course Orwell wrote the novel as an examination of one possible future and it is both fun and frightening to compare his predictions with the course history has taken. Indeed, whole passages can leave you thinking "My God, he was right."

Is it relevant today?, 26 Jun 2008
I read this book having been unable to ignore the hype surrounding it. As with anything like this you usually stand to be dissapointed, but I was pleasantly surprised at how the book fitted my expectations very well.
The story is slightly sketchy in some places but this is the beauty of it - it keeps a good pace and concentrates on the authors suggestions of possible government structure in 1984 rather than centralising on the characters too much.

Where the characters are heavily detailed, this is to help create a tangible picture of the points the author is trying to make.

The words in our everyday use which originated from this book are taken for granted by us i.e. "Big Brother", "Room 101", And the author paints a powerful picture of their meaning.

Whilst writing this book in the 1940's, George Orwell obviously tried to predict the kind of technology we would be using by 1984 - and this must have seemed a world away for him. However, by 1984 the technology he had spoken of was easily possible and currently is far surpassed.

The overall setting of the story seems (at points) impossible to comprehend, but when you break down each part of Oceanic society and the circumstances that created it, it is generally easy to see "some" similarity with our own situation in the 21st century.

The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox by Maggie O'Farrell, 08 Sep 2008
This is a bookring that I joined and I am so glad I did

Synopsis:

Set between the 1930s,and the present, Maggie O'Farrell's new novel is the story of Esme, a woman edited out of her family's history, and of the secrets that come to light when, sixty years later, she is released from care, and a young woman, Iris, discovers the great aunt she never knew she had. The mystery that unfolds is the heartbreaking tale of two sisters in colonial India and 1930s Edinburgh - of the loneliness that binds them together and the rivalries that drive them apart, and lead one of them to a shocking betrayal - but above all it is the story of Esme, a fiercely intelligent, unconventional young woman, and of the terrible price she is made to pay for her family's unhappiness.
I read this book in a matter of hours, it was gripping, exciting and impossible to put down. This book caused a whole host of emotions as I read. I laughed and nearly cried at several parts of the book. My heart broke when I read what happened to Esme and I was disgusted and angry at her family.

My favourite characters where Iris and Esme, very similar characters I thought. I loved their passion and how they did as they pleased. Esme was so unconventional, not a typical 1930s girl and I admired her for taking a stand and being herself.

I enjoyed this book from page 1. The ending confused me a little but once I thought about it it made sense. It isn't how I would have ended the book but I still liked it.

I have never read Maggie O'Farrell before but I will definitely read more of her work. She dealt with issues of mental health, family, society and love delicately and extremely well.

10/10


Gripping read, 13 Aug 2008
I read this book because I had nothing else to read and loved it. I couldn't put it down and when I did, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It's well written, sad, shocking in parts and thought provoking. i recommend it and I shall read more of Maggie O'Farrell books.

abit of a let down, 06 Jul 2008
I had heard that this book was a brilliant read, this is true. However, it is quite difficult to determine which character is speaking sometimes and found that the relationship between Iris, Alex and Luke was completely pointless, it has no effect on the story whatsoever. I guessed the twist in the story very early on and was on the edge of my seat waiting for another - it never came. I found the ending hurried and abit vague. I was left dissapointed, with a sense of not understanding what had happened. Nevertheless it is a very good read, that will have you reading page after page. It is a moving and poignant read.

Gripping but vague in places., 15 Jun 2008
I actually enjoyed reading this and felt very sad for the character of Esme Lennox. It was certainly a page turner and kept me engaged throughout. My only complaints were that the ending seemed a bit hurried and that the sub plot involving Iris, Luke and Alex was not really necessary or needed as the novel would have been better had it been fully focused on Esme.

Although I have a couple of criticisms about the book, it was definitely a page turner and is worth reading.

Very moving read, 02 Jun 2008
This is a very moving and sad story of a lady, Esme, who is put into an institution by her family, and spends over sixty years of her life there. She only seems to be able to leave in the end because the place is being closed down.
The tale tells of little incidents during her childhood which her family frowned upon, when really she was just an expressive, inquisitive child who wanted something different for herself than being married off and having to put on all the airs and graces of her class. And for this she is punished by her cold family, who send her to be locked away. All those years later enter Iris, who didn't know of Esme's existence.

Intermingled with remembrances of the past, the story tells of the new relationship formed between Iris and Esme, and those around them. For me, an interesting parallel was drawn between the characteristics of the too of them.
It is not a very long read, and I think it was just perfect at the length it is. Very well written and unputdownable, thought-provoking and tragic.

So sad to think that this situation was a reality for many women too in times gone by?
I have read one previous novel by Maggie O'Farrell which I think I enjoyed but it wasn't terribly memorable. I think she has dramatically improved her writing with this book.

Homage to fascism, more like, 26 Mar 2008
Note how the great Orwell never says anything positive about those doing the bulk of the fighting against Franco - in fact, note how he barely mentions Franco and fascism at all! In the course of the events he descibes in this book, he spends most of his time doing nothing, like the rest of his Trotskyist and anarchist friends. Meanwhile, the Republicans, whom he slanders from afar, were fighting and dying in the front line against the Nazi and Italian forces who enabled Franco's victory. Note also how he never says a positive word about the Soviet Union, which was the only country to help the Republic, while the British and French governments helped Hitler and Mussolini to intervene.

Homage to freedom and equality, 19 Mar 2008
The Spanish civil war is possibly, alongside the Paris Commune of 1871, the period of history I wished to have taken an active part in. George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is the best portrayal I've read so far on this period and an inspired and inspiring piece of literature. A very personal account of the war that doesn't neglect the social and political background, its implications and the influence it had on 20th century history. Ever wondered why the Spanish Civil war meant so much to so many around the world? Think you know what it really stood for? Ever questioned why the leftists (socialists, communists and anarchists) lost? Then this is the book for you.

Famous first-hand account of Spain's 1936-7 Civil War, 24 Feb 2008
A recent trip to Barcelona made me pull this book off my bookshelf, where it had been gathering dust since I first read it as a teenager 12 years ago. At the time I was very much into Orwell - his socialism, his hatred of Capitalism and his championing of the working classes. Though writing half a century earlier, he seemed to voice much of what myself and the other youths I hung around with believed.

Out of all Orwell's books that I read, I found this the least enjoyable and the most hard-going. I couldn't make head nor tail of who the different sides were, who was fighting who, what each side was fighting for and the complicated party politics of a Spain that existed nearly 60 years in the past.

The book is akin to Down and Out in Paris and London in that Orwell throws himself into an impoverished and dangerous situation which is not necessary for one of his social class and talents. Yet he does it anyway, mainly, I think, to provide the raw experience from which he can create these masterful literary accounts. In Paris and London Orwell writes about poverty and homelessness. Here he is writing about a war which, at first at least, he sees as being between 'the Fascists' and 'the working classes' (a perfect Orwellian subject). In the earlier book Orwell becomes a tramp. Here he becomes a soldier - a militiaman in a foreign army. Strange and noble that he should suffer so much for his art. However, 12 years on from my first reading, I can't help viewing Orwell's behaviour as a slightly patronising kind of 'social tourism'. When he has had enough, Orwell is able to, and in fact does, escape back to a comfortable middle-class existence back in England. This escape clause is not open to the real tramps, 'peasants' and militiamen he mixes with. This is not a severe criticism, though. Undoubtedly Orwell did genuinely care about the social injustices he witnessed and he was clearly trying to draw attention to them and strive for reform (he was instrumental in setting up the NHS in the 1940s).

This time I understood little more of what was going on than first time round. However, despite my lack of understanding, and despite having a markedly different political stance than I did as a teenager, I found the book to be much more rewarding this time round. Orwell's matter-of-fact reportage of trench warfare and street fighting is fascinating. His vivid descriptions of the antiquated weapons, attacking an enemy position, the freezing nights and the human lice - not to mention of getting shot through the throat ("The whole experience of being hit by a bullet is very interesting and I think it is worth describing in detail") - are vivid and eloquent. Also, you can see here embryonic elements that made it into Nineteen Eighty-Four (the systematic suppression and even murder of those that disagree with the state view, for instance).

This time round I was gripped all the way to the last sentence, by which time Orwell has returned home and finds England "sleeping the deep deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs." Chilling when you reflect that this book was published in 1938, only a year before WW2 broke out.

A brilliant book, author and anarchist, 20 Oct 2007
Orwell has been slandered slightly with the title of socialist. This book well and truly shows his colours - multicoloured of course. The book is an outstanding account and description of the Spanish Civil War, an excellent portrayal of effective anarchism in action in Barcelona in those early days, a brilliant advertisement for pacifism, and an excellent insight into the mind of someone whose lasting influnce in the world has even changed the language. Thought police, Big Brother, Room 101 - all terms inspired by true events outlined in this classic book. There's memorable glimpses into the horrors of life in war - the food shortages, rats, the seemingly-trivial issues of looking for firewood, the lack of actual fighting, but the fun and camaradery too.

There's so much in this little book - masculinity, class, war, socialism, anarchism and descriptions of the Ramblas in Barcelona that have stood the test of time.

Simply Brilliant , 06 Dec 2006
This book is truly essential reading for anyone interested in the Spanish Civil War, or for that matter anyone with an interest in war, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism or in Literature. Orwell's account of the Spanish Civil War is more than just a brilliant account of life in a civil war, it is a first hand account of the horrors of Stalinism, and Orwell's experiences in Spain explain why he later wrote his best known works, 1984 and Animal Farm, to warn of the dangers which he knew so well.

The book starts out recounting Orwell's experiences of arriving in Spain as an eager volunteer wanting to help fight Fascism. He is shocked to discover the disorganisation and inefficiency of the Republican militias. The book then goes on to give a telling account of the boredom of trench warfare, where the naïve Orwell wants to be able to kill at least one Fascist to do his part in the struggle for freedom, but ends up mainly having to contend with lice, rats and the freezing weather.

This alone might make for an interesting read, but the book really comes into its own in the latter chapters, where Orwell describes the struggle going on within the Republican controlled region of Spain. A wounded Orwell returns to Barcelona, where the Stalinists who have seized control of the government turn on their political rivals. Orwell is well placed to describe the May fighting between the Stalinist police who wish to enforce state control and the idealistic anarchists who want to defend their revolutionary gains.

Following the government victory, Orwell's small political party the POUM is made a scapegoat for the fighting and is outlawed. A stunned Orwell is forced to go on the run from the very Republic for which he had been so willing to risk his life. This makes for a damning indictment of totalitarianism that is still capable of gripping and infuriating the reader generations after the events described. Orwell shows that he is one of the finest writers in the English language, and this is probably his finest work, deserving to be read by all.


a worthwhile read, 26 Aug 2008
Very easy to read and exceptionally well written. This is a novel that each generation can take something different from. I liked the descriptions of many of the Victorians as the spaceships came from the sky - such a solid British image of "they won't make me leave home". An image I could vividly imagine. It's a short read that has packed a lot into it. Words aren't wasted, which is why it is the length it is. I'm sure HG Wells could easily have added more description but it wasn't necessary. A fabulous story.

the greatest science fiction novel ever., 08 May 2008
this book was first written in 1898 and is as poweful today as it was then. a great read

Clobber the Curate, 08 Nov 2007
Having just finished this novel, many scenes and incidents are still reverberating in my mind's eye. The martians had the good sense to invade during the summer, thus providing wells with the opportunity to describe many beautiful days and sunsets. I don't think I will ever be able to skirt a clay pit without listening out for hammering or nervously glancing around for puffs of green smoke. A novel of wonderful invention, it is crying out for a faithful filmic representation that will do it justice. As one other reviewer has mentioned, the comments on the SF site were clearly made by an idiot.

The ultimate sci-fi story. , 10 Oct 2007
I'm sure most of you are aware of the premise of this book; what with two motion pictures, a musical, a double CD and an infamous radio program . I still feel, however, compelled to write a short review to reminds us all why this relatively short and simple Sci-Fi book is one of the best ever written.

From start to end it is a fascinatingly, absorbing read and almost believable account of alien invasion (hence maybe the panic after the 1938 radio show!) And not once did I forget this book was written in the 1800'S, before many people had even considered life outside our planet, let alone the threat it could pose.

The story itself is told through an individual who survives and witnesses much of the invasion. His version of accounts shows how humanity responded to this threat, behaved towards each other and the invasion itself. The scene of the steam battleship confronting one of the alien Tripods is very touching, as is of course, the lead character's (whom we never know by name) efforts to find his loved ones.

Needless to say , the descriptions of the aliens and their technology (the Tripods are very scary in any medium!); their ruthlessness to dominate and extinguish human kind would astound readers today. What they made of these ideas back in 1898 we can only imagine! One could also believe the Martians are a parody of humankind; portraying our recklessness and drive to consume or destroy without thought; "intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic" ...

In short, this is one book you MUST read (it wont take you long!). And do not be put off if you have seen any of the above versions. I only read this recently after seeing all of the above (not the musical) and still found it an amazing read and comfortably up there with the best books Ive ever read. Sci-Fi or other!

I believe the best Sci-Fi stories combines humankind, as we know it, with the unknown and unimaginable. What HG Wells does with War of The Worlds, is to bring the unimaginable to man's doorstep, and gives us one heck of a fright!

Contains fascinating speculations, 29 Jun 2007
While I did enjoy War of the Worlds, it did not take me by the scruff of the neck in quite the way I had been led to expect. Over a hundred years of science-fiction literature and horror flicks stand between its publication and my reading of it. So it is worth bearing in mind that its acclaim is rooted in its historical context - pitiless alien invasion and hopeless human subversion: for a modern reader, the idea is no longer spectacular.

That aside, what struck me most was the believability of the story. There are some very interesting ideas in here - including unsettling and sinister speculations on our further evolutionary development - and the resolution is clever and above all satisfyingly credible. Wells's education in the biological sciences is noticeable and lends real substance to the narrative.

The book really grabbed me in those moments where Wells allows himself to intrude most loudly in the narrative, such as during the detailed description of the aliens' physiology and the hypotheses to which it gives rise. The final scenes are also fantastic: Nature's seeming cruelty is given a fresh justification as the intruders themselves succumb to an invasion in the form of - well, read it and you'll find out. Through this final, spectacular event, the species of earth are united in a rare and shattering way to rival any openly pantheistic writings. The co-dependence of terrestrial species is thrown into sharp relief and man's hubris is dealt a fatal blow: that message, delivered by Wells in a poetic but modest way, is as relevant today as it ever was.

Universally relevant, 12 Sep 2008
It is tempting with the `wisdom' of the twentieth century to dismiss as irrelevant a book guilty of false prophecy. However the achievement of George Orwell's masterpiece is not to be found in the accuracies of his predictions, but in its warning about the danger of power unchecked and the lengths to which those in power will go in order to remain there.

We are presented with a vision of the future (now our past) in which the world is divided amongst the totalitarian superpowers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Our story is set in a London controlled by `The Party' - who presence is felt by the ubiquitous Big Brother and its enforcement arm the Thought Police; told through the figure of Winston Smith: a lonely and silently dissident low-level member of the regime, who embarks on a prohibited sexual affair with a fellow party member, plots to work against `The Party' for an underground revolutionary movement called `The Brotherhood', only to discover he has been set up by Thought Police and is subsequently subjected to imprisonment, torture and eventually the destruction of his individuality.

The structure of the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four is basically a series of pieced together clichés and most of the characters descend into caricature, but it is never intended as a character study or a work of great literary merit or storytelling; the merit of the work is found in Orwell's handling of the mechanics of totalitarian control. At no point does Orwell try to assess the character of such a state and how it develops, but his genius is found in the way he handles methods of political control and taking these to a fantastical extreme in order to present the terror of uninhibited state control. In fact the real ingenuity of Nineteen Eighty-Four lies in the political weapons Orwell attributes to `The Party': newspeak, Big Brother, thoughtcrime, doublethink and many others.

Moreover, Orwell is particularly adept at exposing the political lie and how governments use this to enslave its citizens. The concept of the mutability of the past, whereby the past is continually falsified through physical record and the practice of doublethink (which involves the power to hold in one's mind simultaneously two contradictory beliefs, and accepting both of them) in order to demonstrate the omnipotence of Big Brother and `the Party', executed with horrifying perfection by the regime is the highlight of Orwell's achievement. Here Orwell demonstrates to us the fragility of objective knowledge and the process by which governments could (and in some cases do) distort reality. The servitude the citizens of Oceania find themselves in is not physical in its nature (since very few things are physically prohibited), but a mental imprisonment (thought crime being the only culpable act, as one of Smith's fellow prisoners bluntly puts it in Part 3). Through the process of falsifying what is considered objective fact in conjunction with doublethink, the means of intellectual liberty are denied since the concepts we take as given and infallible such as truth, reason and justification can no longer be relied upon. During Winston's interrogation, O'Brien (`the Party' incarnate) says to him `it is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it should be.' This appears to be the key point of Orwell's message, that freedom is attached to thought and absolute freedom is the freedom to be incorrect.

Orwell rams this point home even further in the concept of Newspeak. This is a language devised by `the Party' that reduces all speech to simple monosyllabic words or short combinations of these. Whereas in the language we use a particular concept may be covered by any number of words (e.g. the concept of good is covered in English by seemingly limitless adjectives), the aim of the creators of Newspeak is to reduce concepts to single words that contain both its affirmative and negative and therefore removing the need for antonyms for one (e.g. the word good, an affirmative, becomes an negative with the affix `un', so the opposite of `good' becomes `ungood' therefore removing the need for `bad' and its various synonyms). The mechanics of the new language are too complicated to discuss at length here (and the novel has as an appendix a short essay on Newspeak) but the idea Orwell entertains in this concept is that if thought is in some sense dependent on language (certainly the two coexist, although the relationship is unlikely to be one of dependence), then by reducing the capacity of language then the capacity of thought, or free thought, itself is curtailed. If language is simplified according to ideology and the means to express certain concepts such as freedom, justice, truth and love are removed, then, Orwell reasons, these concepts disappear altogether. Newspeak, then, is the ultimate weapon against human intellectualism and the liberty of the individual.

Orwell's message is a dramatic one, a warning against all kinds of power: it provides us with reasons to be suspicious of any regime and politician that seeks power and disguises its real aspirations behind propaganda and claims to be serving the greater good. As O'Brien tells us `The Party' seeks power not as a means, but as an end: `One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship...The object of power is power.' The danger and future as Orwell saw it as summed up by O'Brien is: `If you want to imagine a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.'

It is this resonant and rallying cry in favour of maximal personal liberty and the curbing of political power, in spite of it lacking the subtlety of Kafka's The Trial or the penetrating wit of Huxley's Brave New World, which will make Nineteen Eighty-Four a book of universal appeal and significance for many generations still to come.


A complex, haunting masterpiece, 29 Aug 2008
The first thing to remember about '1984' is that Orwell wasn't trying to predict what life would be like in 1984, or even in 2008. If the book is any good, it's not because it's an accurate picture of life as we know it. It is, however, a pretty faithful depiction of life in a totalitarian society; little happens in the book that didn't really happen in Germany between 1933 and 1945, or in many of the Eastern bloc countries between 1917 and 1989.

The second thing to remember is that Orwell was not against socialism. He described himself as a believer in "democratic socialism", and he was one, which is something that socialists who don't believe in democracy but in party discipline have never forgiven him for to this day. The horror of '1984' is not the horror of life in a socialist society; Orwell was a supporter, albeit a wary one, of Britain's post-war Labour government. The book is about life in a society which is entirely politicised - where there is nothing that doesn't relate to the political ends of the administration. There have been such societies, they still exist (hello, North Korea) and what Orwell was suggesting is that our own could become one too, if we aren't careful.

Winston Smith is not a mouthpiece for Orwell. Winston is more sentimental, more naive and more bourgeois than Orwell, or at least than the 'Orwell' persona (Orwell the man is not always to be identified with the persona he adopted as a non-fiction writer). '1984' is not a straightforward novel about two sensitive people in an uncaring world, and nor does it suggest that a totalitarian society is just a matter of a lot of CCTV cameras. It is deeper, darker and weirder than that. Simple-minded right-wingers have claimed that the book is an attack on socialism as such, but that's obviously wrong. Authoritarian left-wingers are enraged by the book's distrust of revolutionary shibboleths. It will go on being read as long as it seems to say something to us about the kinds of government we most fear and hate.

Worth a look, 05 Aug 2008
Its amazing this book was wrote in the forties. Its very modern and alot of what George Orwell wrote come true, very worrying. Maybe not his best work, still a classic though. Sixty years later and 1984 is still going strong. He has, in my opinion wrote better books but I would definitely recommend this book. Orwell's last masterpiece.

The greatest dytopian novel? Certainly the most influential., 04 Aug 2008
The book that gave us 'Orwellian', 'Room 101' and 'Big Brother', but it gave us so much more.

Orwell's final and greatest novel is a wonderful combination of important ideas expressed in simple language. It is an easy read and can be read in a short time, but will remain with you long afterwards. It challenges you to review how you interact with society and most importantly the state.

One of the major themes that is often overlooked is that which examines why we are good or bad. Is it because we want to be good or is it that we are afraid of punishment if we are bad.

Another interesting theme is the use and abuse of language, Orwell believed that the very language one uses influences how one thinks. He examines how, by the restriction of language, the state can restrict ideas.

Of course Orwell wrote the novel as an examination of one possible future and it is both fun and frightening to compare his predictions with the course history has taken. Indeed, whole passages can leave you thinking "My God, he was right."

Is it relevant today?, 26 Jun 2008
I read this book having been unable to ignore the hype surrounding it. As with anything like this you usually stand to be dissapointed, but I was pleasantly surprised at how the book fitted my expectations very well.
The story is slightly sketchy in some places but this is the beauty of it - it keeps a good pace and concentrates on the authors suggestions of possible government structure in 1984 rather than centralising on the characters too much.

Where the characters are heavily detailed, this is to help create a tangible picture of the points the author is trying to make.

The words in our everyday use which originated from this book are taken for granted by us i.e. "Big Brother", "Room 101", And the author paints a powerful picture of their meaning.

Whilst writing this book in the 1940's, George Orwell obviously tried to predict the kind of technology we would be using by 1984 - and this must have seemed a world away for him. However, by 1984 the technology he had spoken of was easily possible and currently is far surpassed.

The overall setting of the story seems (at points) impossible to comprehend, but when you break down each part of Oceanic society and the circumstances that created it, it is generally easy to see "some" similarity with our own situation in the 21st century.

The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox by Maggie O'Farrell, 08 Sep 2008
This is a bookring that I joined and I am so glad I did

Synopsis:

Set between the 1930s,and the present, Maggie O'Farrell's new novel is the story of Esme, a woman edited out of her family's history, and of the secrets that come to light when, sixty years later, she is released from care, and a young woman, Iris, discovers the great aunt she never knew she had. The mystery that unfolds is the heartbreaking tale of two sisters in colonial India and 1930s Edinburgh - of the loneliness that binds them together and the rivalries that drive them apart, and lead one of them to a shocking betrayal - but above all it is the story of Esme, a fiercely intelligent, unconventional young woman, and of the terrible price she is made to pay for her family's unhappiness.
I read this book in a matter of hours, it was gripping, exciting and impossible to put down. This book caused a whole host of emotions as I read. I laughed and nearly cried at several parts of the book. My heart broke when I read what happened to Esme and I was disgusted and angry at her family.

My favourite characters where Iris and Esme, very similar characters I thought. I loved their passion and how they did as they pleased. Esme was so unconventional, not a typical 1930s girl and I admired her for taking a stand and being herself.

I enjoyed this book from page 1. The ending confused me a little but once I thought about it it made sense. It isn't how I would have ended the book but I still liked it.

I have never read Maggie O'Farrell before but I will definitely read more of her work. She dealt with issues of mental health, family, society and love delicately and extremely well.

10/10


Gripping read, 13 Aug 2008
I read this book because I had nothing else to read and loved it. I couldn't put it down and when I did, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It's well written, sad, shocking in parts and thought provoking. i recommend it and I shall read more of Maggie O'Farrell books.

abit of a let down, 06 Jul 2008
I had heard that this book was a brilliant read, this is true. However, it is quite difficult to determine which character is speaking sometimes and found that the relationship between Iris, Alex and Luke was completely pointless, it has no effect on the story whatsoever. I guessed the twist in the story very early on and was on the edge of my seat waiting for another - it never came. I found the ending hurried and abit vague. I was left dissapointed, with a sense of not understanding what had happened. Nevertheless it is a very good read, that will have you reading page after page. It is a moving and poignant read.

Gripping but vague in places., 15 Jun 2008
I actually enjoyed reading this and felt very sad for the character of Esme Lennox. It was certainly a page turner and kept me engaged throughout. My only complaints were that the ending seemed a bit hurried and that the sub plot involving Iris, Luke and Alex was not really necessary or needed as the novel would have been better had it been fully focused on Esme.

Although I have a couple of criticisms about the book, it was definitely a page turner and is worth reading.

Very moving read, 02 Jun 2008
This is a very moving and sad story of a lady, Esme, who is put into an institution by her family, and spends over sixty years of her life there. She only seems to be able to leave in the end because the place is being closed down.
The tale tells of little incidents during her childhood which her family frowned upon, when really she was just an expressive, inquisitive child who wanted something different for herself than being married off and having to put on all the airs and graces of her class. And for this she is punished by her cold family, who send her to be locked away. All those years later enter Iris, who didn't know of Esme's existence.

Intermingled with remembrances of the past, the story tells of the new relationship formed between Iris and Esme, and those around them. For me, an interesting parallel was drawn between the characteristics of the too of them.
It is not a very long read, and I think it was just perfect at the length it is. Very well written and unputdownable, thought-provoking and tragic.

So sad to think that this situation was a reality for many women too in times gone by?
I have read one previous novel by Maggie O'Farrell which I think I enjoyed but it wasn't terribly memorable. I think she has dramatically improved her writing with this book.

Homage to fascism, more like, 26 Mar 2008
Note how the great Orwell never says anything positive about those doing the bulk of the fighting against Franco - in fact, note how he barely mentions Franco and fascism at all! In the course of the events he descibes in this book, he spends most of his time doing nothing, like the rest of his Trotskyist and anarchist friends. Meanwhile, the Republicans, whom he slanders from afar, were fighting and dying in the front line against the Nazi and Italian forces who enabled Franco's victory. Note also how he never says a positive word about the Soviet Union, which was the only country to help the Republic, while the British and French governments helped Hitler and Mussolini to intervene.

Homage to freedom and equality, 19 Mar 2008
The Spanish civil war is possibly, alongside the Paris Commune of 1871, the period of history I wished to have taken an active part in. George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is the best portrayal I've read so far on this period and an inspired and inspiring piece of literature. A very personal account of the war that doesn't neglect the social and political background, its implications and the influence it had on 20th century history. Ever wondered why the Spanish Civil war meant so much to so many around the world? Think you know what it really stood for? Ever questioned why the leftists (socialists, communists and anarchists) lost? Then this is the book for you.

Famous first-hand account of Spain's 1936-7 Civil War, 24 Fe