Modern literature at it's finest! (Minor spoilers), 30 Oct 2008
Let's get the gracious comments out of the way... This is, without a doubt, the most ideologically-brilliant book I've ever read; so much so it's hard to believe this was written over 60 years ago. I just finished reading it on the bus this morning and, much to the oddity my friends, a cheeky grin was here all morning.

It has to be said though that the grin was built more on admiration for Orwells writing standards than the sad final sentence of the novel, for beneath the futuristic subject matter you may believe this entails lies a world of deception, propaganda, and violence - the harsh realities of a world that ceases to re-write history.

I'm sure from the other reviewers you've got the jist of the plot. In a 3rd person narrative, we see life around the protagonist Winston; a worker for the Ministry of Truth in the year 1984. Though Winston is a 'Party-Hater' (he secretly rebels against the way society is run) his job is to endlessly take documents from the past and present, and to simply re-write them to suit the needs of the party. And those needs can change at any time; whether it be who fought who in a battle, or why the sky is blue.

The roots of this diabolical society lead to 'Big Brother', who throughout the novel, remains a mysterious leader; a "face" on posters and TV, as its to anyone's guess whether he is indeed real or manifested by The Party (the name of the centralised government). All The Party want is Political power - and with millions of people in 'love' with Big Brother, they have total control on what they hear, see, and should do.

The novel is split into 3 main chapters; Part I, Part II and Part III, each separating important moments in the story, while sub-chapters allow you to bookmark the book easily. Orwell's division of these Parts is particularly clever; Part 1 can be seen as a more progressive, atmosphere builder, while Part 2 engages excitement and romance, leaving the thrilling Part 3 as a brutal and, sometimes, cringing section that you never want to end.

What I love about the novel is that while Orwell has superbly boxed most questions, the story also creates questions that have no answer. Is Big Brother made up? Was Julia a member of The Party? Was Mr Charringtons shop a means of exposing party-haters? Without wanting to expose the spoilers the story, their are so many themes which can be analysed; the sign of a clever writer, particularly as Orwell was ill for most parts of the writing.

The accuracy to which this book is written is also astounding; the fact such modern ideals are highlighted is incredible. Orwell uses one of his Party character's (O'Brien) near the end of the novel to highlight the collapse of the Nazi party, and the beginning of the Cold War, though of course in the story, Winston is forced to believe that the Big Brother society is perfect in every way; surpassing any previous controversial party in the past, which of course O'Brien highlights. As far as I could read, their were only two sections I scratched my head at... Firstly, Winston in Part 2 with Julia explains how a particular field they were laying near had an Atomic Bomb dropped on it "30 years ago". Of course, we all know that it would take over 50 years just for it decontaminate, with the ozone not clearing for over 100 years... The second was quite simple; O'Brien explains how The Party will go as far as to destroy the humans orgasm in an attempt to rid of feeling/love for others. Yet in the same chapter, he explains that babies will be taken from their mothers at birth... How would the babies be conceived then? I'm sure theirs some explanations.

Though the novel sets out to highlight the strong hold of the party, it is the affect it has on poor Winston, who is described as "the last 'real' man alive". He is broken down from an sane, healthy man who remembered his past and despised the party, to a baby like state as he is forced to believe in the ideals of The Party through brutal means. I believe "the mirror" scene to be turning point in the book; such emotional narrative that breaks Winston into little pieces.

It would be easy to ramble on further, but I'd only spoil the story. Cut long story short this is one of the best novels I've ever read - Orwells language is so straight to the point, while his ideology, particularly his chapter on Goldsteins vision of the party, is stunning. If the Labour Party of now want to stay in power, then feed this to the Secondary Schools - not books that are 100 years out of date!

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."

Modern literature at it's finest! (Minor spoilers), 30 Oct 2008
Let's get the gracious comments out of the way... This is, without a doubt, the most ideologically-brilliant book I've ever read; so much so it's hard to believe this was written over 60 years ago. I just finished reading it on the bus this morning and, much to the oddity my friends, a cheeky grin was here all morning.

It has to be said though that the grin was built more on admiration for Orwells writing standards than the sad final sentence of the novel, for beneath the futuristic subject matter you may believe this entails lies a world of deception, propaganda, and violence - the harsh realities of a world that ceases to re-write history.

I'm sure from the other reviewers you've got the jist of the plot. In a 3rd person narrative, we see life around the protagonist Winston; a worker for the Ministry of Truth in the year 1984. Though Winston is a 'Party-Hater' (he secretly rebels against the way society is run) his job is to endlessly take documents from the past and present, and to simply re-write them to suit the needs of the party. And those needs can change at any time; whether it be who fought who in a battle, or why the sky is blue.

The roots of this diabolical society lead to 'Big Brother', who throughout the novel, remains a mysterious leader; a "face" on posters and TV, as its to anyone's guess whether he is indeed real or manifested by The Party (the name of the centralised government). All The Party want is Political power - and with millions of people in 'love' with Big Brother, they have total control on what they hear, see, and should do.

The novel is split into 3 main chapters; Part I, Part II and Part III, each separating important moments in the story, while sub-chapters allow you to bookmark the book easily. Orwell's division of these Parts is particularly clever; Part 1 can be seen as a more progressive, atmosphere builder, while Part 2 engages excitement and romance, leaving the thrilling Part 3 as a brutal and, sometimes, cringing section that you never want to end.

What I love about the novel is that while Orwell has superbly boxed most questions, the story also creates questions that have no answer. Is Big Brother made up? Was Julia a member of The Party? Was Mr Charringtons shop a means of exposing party-haters? Without wanting to expose the spoilers the story, their are so many themes which can be analysed; the sign of a clever writer, particularly as Orwell was ill for most parts of the writing.

The accuracy to which this book is written is also astounding; the fact such modern ideals are highlighted is incredible. Orwell uses one of his Party character's (O'Brien) near the end of the novel to highlight the collapse of the Nazi party, and the beginning of the Cold War, though of course in the story, Winston is forced to believe that the Big Brother society is perfect in every way; surpassing any previous controversial party in the past, which of course O'Brien highlights. As far as I could read, their were only two sections I scratched my head at... Firstly, Winston in Part 2 with Julia explains how a particular field they were laying near had an Atomic Bomb dropped on it "30 years ago". Of course, we all know that it would take over 50 years just for it decontaminate, with the ozone not clearing for over 100 years... The second was quite simple; O'Brien explains how The Party will go as far as to destroy the humans orgasm in an attempt to rid of feeling/love for others. Yet in the same chapter, he explains that babies will be taken from their mothers at birth... How would the babies be conceived then? I'm sure theirs some explanations.

Though the novel sets out to highlight the strong hold of the party, it is the affect it has on poor Winston, who is described as "the last 'real' man alive". He is broken down from an sane, healthy man who remembered his past and despised the party, to a baby like state as he is forced to believe in the ideals of The Party through brutal means. I believe "the mirror" scene to be turning point in the book; such emotional narrative that breaks Winston into little pieces.

It would be easy to ramble on further, but I'd only spoil the story. Cut long story short this is one of the best novels I've ever read - Orwells language is so straight to the point, while his ideology, particularly his chapter on Goldsteins vision of the party, is stunning. If the Labour Party of now want to stay in power, then feed this to the Secondary Schools - not books that are 100 years out of date!

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."

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.

Modern literature at it's finest! (Minor spoilers), 30 Oct 2008
Let's get the gracious comments out of the way... This is, without a doubt, the most ideologically-brilliant book I've ever read; so much so it's hard to believe this was written over 60 years ago. I just finished reading it on the bus this morning and, much to the oddity my friends, a cheeky grin was here all morning.

It has to be said though that the grin was built more on admiration for Orwells writing standards than the sad final sentence of the novel, for beneath the futuristic subject matter you may believe this entails lies a world of deception, propaganda, and violence - the harsh realities of a world that ceases to re-write history.

I'm sure from the other reviewers you've got the jist of the plot. In a 3rd person narrative, we see life around the protagonist Winston; a worker for the Ministry of Truth in the year 1984. Though Winston is a 'Party-Hater' (he secretly rebels against the way society is run) his job is to endlessly take documents from the past and present, and to simply re-write them to suit the needs of the party. And those needs can change at any time; whether it be who fought who in a battle, or why the sky is blue.

The roots of this diabolical society lead to 'Big Brother', who throughout the novel, remains a mysterious leader; a "face" on posters and TV, as its to anyone's guess whether he is indeed real or manifested by The Party (the name of the centralised government). All The Party want is Political power - and with millions of people in 'love' with Big Brother, they have total control on what they hear, see, and should do.

The novel is split into 3 main chapters; Part I, Part II and Part III, each separating important moments in the story, while sub-chapters allow you to bookmark the book easily. Orwell's division of these Parts is particularly clever; Part 1 can be seen as a more progressive, atmosphere builder, while Part 2 engages excitement and romance, leaving the thrilling Part 3 as a brutal and, sometimes, cringing section that you never want to end.

What I love about the novel is that while Orwell has superbly boxed most questions, the story also creates questions that have no answer. Is Big Brother made up? Was Julia a member of The Party? Was Mr Charringtons shop a means of exposing party-haters? Without wanting to expose the spoilers the story, their are so many themes which can be analysed; the sign of a clever writer, particularly as Orwell was ill for most parts of the writing.

The accuracy to which this book is written is also astounding; the fact such modern ideals are highlighted is incredible. Orwell uses one of his Party character's (O'Brien) near the end of the novel to highlight the collapse of the Nazi party, and the beginning of the Cold War, though of course in the story, Winston is forced to believe that the Big Brother society is perfect in every way; surpassing any previous controversial party in the past, which of course O'Brien highlights. As far as I could read, their were only two sections I scratched my head at... Firstly, Winston in Part 2 with Julia explains how a particular field they were laying near had an Atomic Bomb dropped on it "30 years ago". Of course, we all know that it would take over 50 years just for it decontaminate, with the ozone not clearing for over 100 years... The second was quite simple; O'Brien explains how The Party will go as far as to destroy the humans orgasm in an attempt to rid of feeling/love for others. Yet in the same chapter, he explains that babies will be taken from their mothers at birth... How would the babies be conceived then? I'm sure theirs some explanations.

Though the novel sets out to highlight the strong hold of the party, it is the affect it has on poor Winston, who is described as "the last 'real' man alive". He is broken down from an sane, healthy man who remembered his past and despised the party, to a baby like state as he is forced to believe in the ideals of The Party through brutal means. I believe "the mirror" scene to be turning point in the book; such emotional narrative that breaks Winston into little pieces.

It would be easy to ramble on further, but I'd only spoil the story. Cut long story short this is one of the best novels I've ever read - Orwells language is so straight to the point, while his ideology, particularly his chapter on Goldsteins vision of the party, is stunning. If the Labour Party of now want to stay in power, then feed this to the Secondary Schools - not books that are 100 years out of date!

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."

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.


Nothing Has Changed, 05 Jun 2008
Born and bred in Wigan.I had read 1984 and Animal Farm but had put off reading TRTWP until I was 50.
Orwell writes of the hopelessness of the masses and concludes that they accept their lot because of the "palliatives" of modern technology i.e.cheap clothing (dream of being Greta Garbo or Clark Gable) , alcohol,the movies, radio, the football pools etc.
The government massage and manipulate statistics to show unemployment levels and poverty to be a fraction as bad as they really are.
The middle-class believed that the poor should be instructed to spend their means tested allowance wisely eating tasteless but healthy food,wholemeal bread,oranges,raw carrots etc and to shun alcohol and tobacco etc.
Tell me as anything really changed or have we come full circle under New Labour.

Notes on 'The Road to Wigan Pier'., 01 Apr 2006
'The Road to Wigan Pier' is split into two parts. Part one is George Orwell's recording of his experiences in the North of England, meeting miner's families and reporting at first hand what he saw and heard. Orwell records with sincerity the working class condition. There is no blame or embellishment of what Orwell saw. Orwell's descriptions of the people in the boarding houses he was staying in, are wonderful. You really get a sense of the filth and depravation, and yet the people make you feel at home, to the point of marking your bread and butter with "a black thumb-print on it". I appreciate Orwell's candid writing. The stark reality of poverty is brought to life by Orwell, from his description of the conditions of working in the mines, to the weekly shopping bill and food consumption.
Part two is Orwell's polemic on what he saw and experienced. I found this part of the book filled with passion, anger and justifications. Orwell always makes sure to explain the reasoning behind his arguements and even apologises for his background. Part two consists of political theories, language, class distinction and the personal journey Orwell experienced whilst researching part one.
In my opinion, 'The Road to Wigan Pier' is a wonderful snapshot of a time and a place. It still has a place in literature today as a reminder to us all that there are still destitute people in the world and that things haven't changed as much as we hoped.

The Picture Speaks for Itself, 14 Nov 2002
This book is divided into two sections. The first is a devastating account of the lives of coal miners in the north of England. While this account may be exaggerated it is completely conceivable that life in this time under such social and political conditions might have been like this. He goes to considerable length to explore the personal reactions and methods of endurance of the people he met. Orwell's dedication to exploring what life was really like for the coal miners was made at considerable personal discomfort and were as heroic as Jonathan Kozol's efforts in our present time.

The second half of the book is a long argument by Orwell of the negative aspects of socialism. He does this in order to provoke a serious discussion over how socialism can be implemented in our society. He understood well, as demonstrated in 1984, that many political parties use propaganda as a means of convincing the public that theirs is the right way. But, by taking the opposing view and criticising his own beliefs, he is able to bring the issues of the party into an open forum to consider implementations of change rather than party rhetoric. He does this most sincerely and in no way tries to hide the faults of the socialist political system of thought. In doing so he proves himself to be quite dignified in his system of beliefs. The juxtaposition of these two sections provides a striking idea of the immediate need for political reformation. He did not need to defend socialism because the need for a political change that could effect the lives of the lower class he investigated was obvious. This showed that Orwell's political ideas didn't exist on some ideological utopian plain, but were firmly rooted in the immense danger a political system could inflict upon a large population. It would be wise to remember this in reading the more popular 1984 and Animal Farm as well.

This book is compelling not just for people interested in politics, but also for anyone interested in history and the human condition. It is something you will be able to learn much from and provide you with inspiration.

unflinching look at social conditions and Orwells politics, 02 Jul 2002
George Orwell, commissioned by the Left Book Club, tours the recession hit mining areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire in 1936 and his report on the harsh social conditions he found there (the first part of this book) pulls no punches. No-one before or since has done reporterage like George Orwell and the vividness and directness of his prose with its underlying blazing committment to social justice strikes the reader, even at this remove of time. Orwell's descriptions, couched in his superb prose, will remain in your mind for ever and should be re-read by everyone as a reminder of just how harsh life was for many people, within living memory. Orwell is particularly good about the desperation, the struggle with respectability and the terrible psychological and social toll of unemployment and poverty.

The second part of the book charts Orwell's personal odyssey from public schoolboy and officer of the Indian Imperial Police in Burma to crusading Left-wing author and journalist. Along the way Orwell expounds his personal strategy for Socialism. Although dated, his insights are fascinating, describing as they do the origins of the class struggle ideas that infested and inflamed British politics right up to the 1990s. Orwell is bitingly caustic about many of his fellow Socialists, castigating the obsession with mechanical progress, the worship of Russia and the crank tendencies (still evident in the British Labour Party) - "...the dreary tribe of high-minded women...and the bearded fruit-juice drinkers that flock to the idea of 'progress' like bluebottles do to a dead cat". With incredible prescience Orwell identifies the factors that would eventually kill the traditional "Old" Labour Party - firstly - the dichotomy between the Labour voter in the street (who, by and large, wanted/wants a better standard of living from better working and living conditions), and the "orthodox" hierarchy and activists of the Labour Party (who, by and large, at least in theory wanted a complete change in society), secondly - the accretion on to socialist politics of a huge amount of crank ideas (Orwell's acerbic and caustic put-downs of crank thought forms some of the book's most memorable, and funniest, passages).

What Orwell cannot have forseen was that the second war, the moderate 1945 Labour government, the end of the British Empire, Baroness Thatcher and the rise of a knowledge, finance and service based economy would change the face of England permanently. But however dated the social and political conditions under which he wrote, George Orwell is always worth reading, always hard-hitting, always vivid and detailed, always committed and honest, often hilariously funny.

Read this book, read everything that George Orwell wrote.

Its Grim up North!, 13 Apr 2002
Quite how Orwell can manage to make the price of groceries in pre-war England compulsive reading is a little puzzling, but this essay compiled on a protracted journey around this country's northern industrial towns is once again a shining example of Orwell's uncomplicated and conversational style. Though the reportage is characteristically charged with Orwell's socialist dogma, it should have appeal far beyond the socialist reader for its vivid renderings of these towns and their inhabitants. The passages describing the work and living conditions of these people are particularly enlightening and Orwell really colours the north of the past for those who - like Orwell at the time - rarely stray beyond the Watford Gap. The essay, while only really a record of the past, still manages somehow to be an eye-opener, and is tinted with that irresistible darkness, present in so much of Orwell's pre-war work of a world and a society teetering on the brink of a disastrous but necessary changing of the order.

Perhaps predictably, Orwell never arrives at the symbol of escape from the difficult lives of his characters, Wigan Pier.

Modern literature at it's finest! (Minor spoilers), 30 Oct 2008
Let's get the gracious comments out of the way... This is, without a doubt, the most ideologically-brilliant book I've ever read; so much so it's hard to believe this was written over 60 years ago. I just finished reading it on the bus this morning and, much to the oddity my friends, a cheeky grin was here all morning.

It has to be said though that the grin was built more on admiration for Orwells writing standards than the sad final sentence of the novel, for beneath the futuristic subject matter you may believe this entails lies a world of deception, propaganda, and violence - the harsh realities of a world that ceases to re-write history.

I'm sure from the other reviewers you've got the jist of the plot. In a 3rd person narrative, we see life around the protagonist Winston; a worker for the Ministry of Truth in the year 1984. Though Winston is a 'Party-Hater' (he secretly rebels against the way society is run) his job is to endlessly take documents from the past and present, and to simply re-write them to suit the needs of the party. And those needs can change at any time; whether it be who fought who in a battle, or why the sky is blue.

The roots of this diabolical society lead to 'Big Brother', who throughout the novel, remains a mysterious leader; a "face" on posters and TV, as its to anyone's guess whether he is indeed real or manifested by The Party (the name of the centralised government). All The Party want is Political power - and with millions of people in 'love' with Big Brother, they have total control on what they hear, see, and should do.

The novel is split into 3 main chapters; Part I, Part II and Part III, each separating important moments in the story, while sub-chapters allow you to bookmark the book easily. Orwell's division of these Parts is particularly clever; Part 1 can be seen as a more progressive, atmosphere builder, while Part 2 engages excitement and romance, leaving the thrilling Part 3 as a brutal and, sometimes, cringing section that you never want to end.

What I love about the novel is that while Orwell has superbly boxed most questions, the story also creates questions that have no answer. Is Big Brother made up? Was Julia a member of The Party? Was Mr Charringtons shop a means of exposing party-haters? Without wanting to expose the spoilers the story, their are so many themes which can be analysed; the sign of a clever writer, particularly as Orwell was ill for most parts of the writing.

The accuracy to which this book is written is also astounding; the fact such modern ideals are highlighted is incredible. Orwell uses one of his Party character's (O'Brien) near the end of the novel to highlight the collapse of the Nazi party, and the beginning of the Cold War, though of course in the story, Winston is forced to believe that the Big Brother society is perfect in every way; surpassing any previous controversial party in the past, which of course O'Brien highlights. As far as I could read, their were only two sections I scratched my head at... Firstly, Winston in Part 2 with Julia explains how a particular field they were laying near had an Atomic Bomb dropped on it "30 years ago". Of course, we all know that it would take over 50 years just for it decontaminate, with the ozone not clearing for over 100 years... The second was quite simple; O'Brien explains how The Party will go as far as to destroy the humans orgasm in an attempt to rid of feeling/love for others. Yet in the same chapter, he explains that babies will be taken from their mothers at birth... How would the babies be conceived then? I'm sure theirs some explanations.

Though the novel sets out to highlight the strong hold of the party, it is the affect it has on poor Winston, who is described as "the last 'real' man alive". He is broken down from an sane, healthy man who remembered his past and despised the party, to a baby like state as he is forced to believe in the ideals of The Party through brutal means. I believe "the mirror" scene to be turning point in the book; such emotional narrative that breaks Winston into little pieces.

It would be easy to ramble on further, but I'd only spoil the story. Cut long story short this is one of the best novels I've ever read - Orwells language is so straight to the point, while his ideology, particularly his chapter on Goldsteins vision of the party, is stunning. If the Labour Party of now want to stay in power, then feed this to the Secondary Schools - not books that are 100 years out of date!

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."

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.


Nothing Has Changed, 05 Jun 2008
Born and bred in Wigan.I had read 1984 and Animal Farm but had put off reading TRTWP until I was 50.
Orwell writes of the hopelessness of the masses and concludes that they accept their lot because of the "palliatives" of modern technology i.e.cheap clothing (dream of being Greta Garbo or Clark Gable) , alcohol,the movies, radio, the football pools etc.
The government massage and manipulate statistics to show unemployment levels and poverty to be a fraction as bad as they really are.
The middle-class believed that the poor should be instructed to spend their means tested allowance wisely eating tasteless but healthy food,wholemeal bread,oranges,raw carrots etc and to shun alcohol and tobacco etc.
Tell me as anything really changed or have we come full circle under New Labour.

Notes on 'The Road to Wigan Pier'., 01 Apr 2006
'The Road to Wigan Pier' is split into two parts. Part one is George Orwell's recording of his experiences in the North of England, meeting miner's families and reporting at first hand what he saw and heard. Orwell records with sincerity the working class condition. There is no blame or embellishment of what Orwell saw. Orwell's descriptions of the people in the boarding houses he was staying in, are wonderful. You really get a sense of the filth and depravation, and yet the people make you feel at home, to the point of marking your bread and butter with "a black thumb-print on it". I appreciate Orwell's candid writing. The stark reality of poverty is brought to life by Orwell, from his description of the conditions of working in the mines, to the weekly shopping bill and food consumption.
Part two is Orwell's polemic on what he saw and experienced. I found this part of the book filled with passion, anger and justifications. Orwell always makes sure to explain the reasoning behind his arguements and even apologises for his background. Part two consists of political theories, language, class distinction and the personal journey Orwell experienced whilst researching part one.
In my opinion, 'The Road to Wigan Pier' is a wonderful snapshot of a time and a place. It still has a place in literature today as a reminder to us all that there are still destitute people in the world and that things haven't changed as much as we hoped.

The Picture Speaks for Itself, 14 Nov 2002
This book is divided into two sections. The first is a devastating account of the lives of coal miners in the north of England. While this account may be exaggerated it is completely conceivable that life in this time under such social and political conditions might have been like this. He goes to considerable length to explore the personal reactions and methods of endurance of the people he met. Orwell's dedication to exploring what life was really like for the coal miners was made at considerable personal discomfort and were as heroic as Jonathan Kozol's efforts in our present time.

The second half of the book is a long argument by Orwell of the negative aspects of socialism. He does this in order to provoke a serious discussion over how socialism can be implemented in our society. He understood well, as demonstrated in 1984, that many political parties use propaganda as a means of convincing the public that theirs is the right way. But, by taking the opposing view and criticising his own beliefs, he is able to bring the issues of the party into an open forum to consider implementations of change rather than party rhetoric. He does this most sincerely and in no way tries to hide the faults of the socialist political system of thought. In doing so he proves himself to be quite dignified in his system of beliefs. The juxtaposition of these two sections provides a striking idea of the immediate need for political reformation. He did not need to defend socialism because the need for a political change that could effect the lives of the lower class he investigated was obvious. This showed that Orwell's political ideas didn't exist on some ideological utopian plain, but were firmly rooted in the immense danger a political system could inflict upon a large population. It would be wise to remember this in reading the more popular 1984 and Animal Farm as well.

This book is compelling not just for people interested in politics, but also for anyone interested in history and the human condition. It is something you will be able to learn much from and provide you with inspiration.

unflinching look at social conditions and Orwells politics, 02 Jul 2002
George Orwell, commissioned by the Left Book Club, tours the recession hit mining areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire in 1936 and his report on the harsh social conditions he found there (the first part of this book) pulls no punches. No-one before or since has done reporterage like George Orwell and the vividness and directness of his prose with its underlying blazing committment to social justice strikes the reader, even at this remove of time. Orwell's descriptions, couched in his superb prose, will remain in your mind for ever and should be re-read by everyone as a reminder of just how harsh life was for many people, within living memory. Orwell is particularly good about the desperation, the struggle with respectability and the terrible psychological and social toll of unemployment and poverty.

The second part of the book charts Orwell's personal odyssey from public schoolboy and officer of the Indian Imperial Police in Burma to crusading Left-wing author and journalist. Along the way Orwell expounds his personal strategy for Socialism. Although dated, his insights are fascinating, describing as they do the origins of the class struggle ideas that infested and inflamed British politics right up to the 1990s. Orwell is bitingly caustic about many of his fellow Socialists, castigating the obsession with mechanical progress, the worship of Russia and the crank tendencies (still evident in the British Labour Party) - "...the dreary tribe of high-minded women...and the bearded fruit-juice drinkers that flock to the idea of 'progress' like bluebottles do to a dead cat". With incredible prescience Orwell identifies the factors that would eventually kill the traditional "Old" Labour Party - firstly - the dichotomy between the Labour voter in the street (who, by and large, wanted/wants a better standard of living from better working and living conditions), and the "orthodox" hierarchy and activists of the Labour Party (who, by and large, at least in theory wanted a complete change in society), secondly - the accretion on to socialist politics of a huge amount of crank ideas (Orwell's acerbic and caustic put-downs of crank thought forms some of the book's most memorable, and funniest, passages).

What Orwell cannot have forseen was that the second war, the moderate 1945 Labour government, the end of the British Empire, Baroness Thatcher and the rise of a knowledge, finance and service based economy would change the face of England permanently. But however dated the social and political conditions under which he wrote, George Orwell is always worth reading, always hard-hitting, always vivid and detailed, always committed and honest, often hilariously funny.

Read this book, read everything that George Orwell wrote.

Its Grim up North!, 13 Apr 2002
Quite how Orwell can manage to make the price of groceries in pre-war England compulsive reading is a little puzzling, but this essay compiled on a protracted journey around this country's northern industrial towns is once again a shining example of Orwell's uncomplicated and conversational style. Though the reportage is characteristically charged with Orwell's socialist dogma, it should have appeal far beyond the socialist reader for its vivid renderings of these towns and their inhabitants. The passages describing the work and living conditions of these people are particularly enlightening and Orwell really colours the north of the past for those who - like Orwell at the time - rarely stray beyond the Watford Gap. The essay, while only really a record of the past, still manages somehow to be an eye-opener, and is tinted with that irresistible darkness, present in so much of Orwell's pre-war work of a world and a society teetering on the brink of a disastrous but necessary changing of the order.

Perhaps predictably, Orwell never arrives at the symbol of escape from the difficult lives of his characters, Wigan Pier.

The collected fiction of a great writer - horrible edition, though, 20 Aug 2008
I have huge admiration for Orwell's work as a writer and I am a strong admirer of his fiction, although apart from his last two novels I don't think it was the field he was best at. I urge any reader interested in his stuff to seek out his novels and read them. However, this is definitely not the best edition to read them in. Orwell's work was only subjected to proper editorial scrutiny in the late 1980s, with the release of Peter Davison's magisterial Complete Works. This book is a modern reprint of much earlier collection of uncorrected texts of his novels. The type is so tiny that the book is hard on the eyes, plus the texts of the novels are in most cases very corrupt.

If you want to read these books, the only reason you should get this edition is that you are very young, new to Orwell, have really good eyesight, and are too broke to afford buying each novel in the current individual Penguin editions, which are corrected texts. Otherwise, get them all individually; this book is both unreliable and almost unreadable.

The greatest writer?, 05 Feb 2008
Orwell has always been my favorite writer. Animal Farm and 1984 are his best known works but my own personal favorite is Coming Up For Air. By the way you will notice if you read that story carfeully that it has no semi-colons! Now isn't that comment worth a 'helpful' on your voting buttons?!! Anyway this is an excellent collection and well worth the money. An excellent way to savour Orwell.

Real Ability, 10 Jan 2008
It is always a pleasure when you discover someone who can actually write.

Many authors today try to write, but sadly they do not flow, they have no ease, they are not natural.
Many writers can of course write very well, but really good writers are not that common.
P.G.Wodehouse would be another really good example.

You can live in Orwells writing. It may not be all nice and pretty, but it is for real.
I get laughed at when I say this, but here goes, George Orwell may turn out to be the most prophetic author that ever lived.

One other thing..A true sign of greatness, may be the ability to re-read someones books, after a short gap, and still be entranced by them.
You can do that here.

Genius George, 29 Dec 2007
Prior to picking up this book i had only read snipets of george orwels work. This collection is a must read!!! Animal farm is pure genius and one of the few novels it is difficult to put down. while 1984 is thought provoking and simultaneously captures the imagination and shows what good writing is all about. This is the collection that all others aspire to be. A MUST BUY!!!

One of the finest writers of the Twentieth Century, 05 Jul 2007
George Orwell and Graham Greene are, for me, the two finest British writers of the twentieth century. Here Orwell's five novels are collected, and are well worth reading (get his non-fiction too). 1984 and Animal Farm are possibly the two finest pieces of fiction of the last century. The other novels are a mixed bag but still worth a look. BURMESE DAYS is a superb exposition of the reality of colonial rule in the early 1930s. A small group of English ex-pats forced together in a remote station in Burma. Gin soaked and bitter they lead miserable lonely lives. Local political machinations and the arrival of a young woman from England combine to shatter the fragile framework that holds them together. THE CLERGYMAN'S DAUGHTER is altogether a different piece and not quite sure what it is. It starts in the style of a D H Lawrence novel - the spinsterish daughter of the vicar; then it takes a comic turn as she loses her memory and ends up picking hops; then we have a Dickensian description of a grim private girls school; finally we return where we started. The tone is downbeat and the fact that nothing really happens is disappointing, though it is fun and interesting in parts. COMING UP FOR AIR is a nostalgic piece - an enjoyable description of life at the turn of the twentieth century, and the pointlessness of living in the past. KEEP THE ASPIDISTRA FLYING I find tedious. It is a long rant against the "money god" featuring a dull and self-obsessed young man. I am not sure what the purpose of it is, except to warn us against becoming too self-absorbed that we ignore reality.