Fishbowl per.2 1984 225-274
posted by annes @ 8:03 AM
Smith's 9th Honors Class Blog
Thoughts, observations, comments, and concerns regarding our readings and classroom discussions.
Contributors
- elyseh
- Kjerstinl
- Adriana
- Karl Fisch
- HarryPotterFreak(danh)
- shaunam
- Unknown
- Connor DUCETIME
- AnnaD
- annes
- Alex_Manning
- Anoel
- Mphair
- jbarry
- Kim C. 2010
- Spencer Z
- Tom
- bawachmu
- Hannah J
- KendraS2009
- KariB
- maddyg
- emilya
- Shelbyb-dad
- sarahc
- LindsayS
- briang
- krump
- Alexaaaaa
- Dan
- Declan "Danger"
- tanal
- adamb
- Lisa Madsen Crellin
- endsleye
- TyC
- Shelby B.
- Unknown
- EmilyLu
- lauraf
- saram
- Aylar
- EmilyH
- Laurab
- hannahs
- alexd
- Phillip
- zachf
- michelleg
- chelseah
- lindsey c
- KathrynT
- Kaity
- Shelbyb-mom
- paigen
Previous Posts
- The Period 5 Discussion Continues Over Pages 167-224
- Period 5's 225-274 Adventure: The Conclusion
- Greetings, 5th Hour Comrades!
- Period Two's Awesome Scribe-y-ness
- Scribe For the Cool Kids. and Connor.
- Period 2: The Discussion Continues/The Discussion:...
- My amazing scribe for whom else, but period 2!
- ¡Period 5's Funkadelic Scribe April 17th!
- Fishbowl per.5 1984 167-224
- Fishbowl per.2 1984 167-224
79 Comments:
Let's get started.
Ok I have a question........which one is better; freedom or happiness?
What symbolism, if any is behind Emmanuel Goldstien, and what does he do for the story.
Wow. Thats a good question.
I don't know. But if you have one, wont you have the other?
I think that happiness is better because you can be free, but not happy. But if you are happy it doesn't matter if you are free. Maybe that is how the Party endures, the people might not be free, but they are happy.
I think that freedom comes with happiness.
good question elyse.
i think that it depends on the circumstances. you can have freedom, but necissarily be happy, but then you can also be happy without freedom.
elyse- I think that freedom entails happiness, so freedom is better, since it includes all of the above... does that make sense?
well i think that happiness and freedom go hand and hand. Because if you have freedom then you can have happiness. But maybe not so much the other way. Because you can be happy with what you have but might not have freedom. Im not sure which one is better.
He is the symbol of hatred and he keeps hatred alive in the story like O'Brien said that they want to keep hate strong and only love the Party and BB.
Elyse I think happiness is better because freedom is nothing if you are miserable.
I really dont think that he does anything. O'Brien said that he worte the book. But, if anything, Goldstien is a hated character among the people.
elyse--
thats a great question.
i think that happiness is more important that freedom. But, I think that that depends on the person.
elyse-That is a very tough question. Freedom and happiness really go hand in hand...like one really isn't complete without the other. When you're free, you can be happy, and when you're happy you should be free. In 1984, I think that the Party only wants people to be happy, but their freedom is non-existant.
I am not sure if Goldstein is an actual person, but I think he is more of an idea. The Party uses him as a common enemy, but the "insane" people use him as sort of a hope for freedom and a non-oppressive government.
Elyse, that kind of reminds me of the movie, "The Pursuit of Happiness". In 1984's case though, I think that freedom would be more important because I think happiness would come in hand with that. Like Winston was happy with his little feeling of freedom, happy to be with Julila. Yet again, hand in hand.
emily-
freedom doesn't always mean happiness.
I agree with you Paige, i think its better to have happiness because you may not be free but you can still be happy, but you could be free but unhappy which i think is worse.
I agree that freedom entails happiness but then again you could be free and not happy but if you are happy you could be free or unfree but still happy so I think it is a really hard decision and honestly i have no idea which one is better.
THis is kind of going along with Shauna's comment on the Book and Goldstein. Do you really think that O'Brien and the Party wrote the book? Or do you think that Goldstein wrote it? If the Party did write it, does that mean that the Party IS Goldstein.
Also i really think it depends on where you are and what time era you are from whether happiness or freedom is better. Here in the united States i think its better being free, and in 1984 i think it would be better to be free, but there might be other situations that wouldn't be better to be free.
The goverment could defeat the goldstien, eurasia, and eastasia if they wanted to, but if they did that would remove the hate of others. The goal of the party is to take away humanity without it knowing it.
Well Paige, I think we have to figure out who wrote the book by finding out what side O'Brien is really on. He has shown both sides and I admit that not it does seem that he is with the party. Winston still seems to love him though and that still makes me wonder if O'Brien is wholy with the Party.
I think that the Party did write the book and that there is no Goldstein because when Winston asks O'Brien he says he exists in the same way you do and you do not exist, or something like that so I don't think O'Brien is real. They wrote the book as a trap once you read it the Party can catch and tortue you just because you have read it.
That's a good point Paige. O'Brien did make the comment that he and Goldstein wrote the book. Maybe Goldstein was at one time a member of the party? And the book was meant to be something explaining the mentality of the Party? However, O'Brien did say that Goldstein was real, so how could he actually be the Party?
I have another question, if you guys are ready haha....
What do you guys think has or is happening to Julia?
what do you mean by the party is Goldstein? Everyone hates Goldstein. Why would you make yourself seem lower...?
Paige-
on page 261 O'Brien says that he is the one who wrote the book.
Paige, I still think that Goldstein doesn't exist. It seems like the party created him to unite the country by hating one person so I think the Party created him and the book for situations like this.
AlexD-
I really like your insite on how they are not really fighting the war because they need it to keep the people together. However, I think that the are not capable of defeating them, but I am just going by what the Book says.
Paige- i dont think that the party wrote it, because the basis of any government like this is limited knowledge, so by publishing that book they would have planted ideas in the minds of people, ideas that could lead to true rebellion, which means destruction of the party. Goldstein, or someone like goldstein if he doesn't exist, wrote it so he could plant ideas in the minds of people.
Why would O'Brien write the book?
Why would he do that?
And if he has been taken by the thought police already then why would they allow him to create that book?
Paige,
That's a really good question a good thought provoker. I think that it is possible that they are Goldstein, and that they media covered it up by saying that he was an enemy of eurasia, but then again i don't think that they would allow the two minute hate if Goldstein really was O'Brien and the Party.
Chelsea-
I think that either Julia is dead, or she has escaped. Maybe she was severely tortured.
They take children away from their parents and train them to spy on their parents.
SaraM
I agree with you. I don't think that Goldstein is an actual person. But the idea of him kind of inspires polar opposites (the Party hating him and the rebels looking up to him).
Off of alexd's comment, I thought that it was strange how Parsons thought his daughter saved him.
thats a really good question paige.
in the last part of the section O'Brien said that he took part in writing the book. and that not just one person writes a book and that many members of the party helped with writing the book. So i'm not sure if that makes the Party Goldstein. Or Goldstein the Party. Or neither. I have no idea. But now i wonder.
Chelsea-I think that the same thing is happening to Julia that is happening to Winston. Maybe not at the same degree of torture, but similar things. They will probably break her down in different ways, since she didn't really care too much about bringing the Party down like Winston did. The only reason she was really arrested is because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Shauna-
ya i know. But he was saying that he was glad before he had said something that he would have regretted. But doesn't saying "Down if Big Brother" just as bad in the eyes of the party as you can get?
As the inner circle said, everyone who are for the party are against it when they are unconscious.
That's a good point paige. I think Goldstein's existence in the society is simply to either unite people, or help the party catch the people who want to rebel.
i agree with you shauna, but i thought it was a little ironic how it was his daughter who turned him in, but he was still so proud of her. he kept saying how he trained her well and stuff, and even though he was probably never gonna see her agian, and never leave the ministy of love, he was still so proud of his little daughter..
Endsley-
Thats what I was thinking too. What else could be so extreme?
Chelsea
I am not quite sure what happened to Julia. But in the book it said that she confessed everything and she was a "textbook case". But I am not sure if O'Brien was lying or not. I don't think that Julia would crack that quickly but why would O'Brien lie about that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
shauna--
That was very interesting. Parsons is so overwhelmed with the government and feels ashamed that he disobeyed the thing that probably means the most to him. So, he wants to show his loyalty by being proud of his daughter and feeling saved from himself.
Alot of people are afraid of themselves. They depend on others to keep them together and to show them how they are supposed to be.
As the inner party said, everyone is watched by the telesreens.
Jess-O'Brien probably wrote the book so that he can catch people commiting thoughtcrime and other things against Big Brother. He makes people like Winston think that he is the rebellious type, when really he is a true Inner Party member trying to catch people that don't think like everyone else.
Shauna-
I really dont know.
alexd--
i dont think its everyone, it probably just some of them, even when they think they are for the party. subconsciously, they stay stuff and do things that are against it and BB.
alexd-
ya the inner party said that but not really everyone because the inner party has the ability to turn the telescreen off. Even though its for a little bit they can still turn it off.
Off of Hannahj's comment, do you think that O'Brien can read minds? When Winston is being tortured, O'Brien knows what he is thinking. Why?
Paige--
Maybe O'Brien lied about that in an effort to get more out of Winston, or to be able to get him to crack sooner.
I think it is more subdule for some but stronger for some.
Chelsea, you bring up a good point. Earlier in the book it said that children turned in their parents a lot. But I don't understand why he was still proud of her, maybe he thought that if he started hating his daughter, he would be punished even worse by the Party.
Ya Shauna that is a good question, that is really weird. I think in a way that O'Brien is controlling Winston's mind so he has an idea of what he is thinking or at least what he should be thinking.
showing that he is proud of his daughter in a room full of telescreens may also get Parsons in a little less trouble, or so he thinks. Although Parsons probably does love the Party.
Shauna-Wasn't Winston being monitored in different ways? He probably had some kind of thing attached to Winston that would show his brain waves making it possible for O'Brien to read his mind. I don't know something like that.
Hannah-
Why would the gvt try to get people to go against them though? That doesn't make sense. They want to keep people under control, so why let them rebel?
Paige--
That confused me a little too, but i think i remember Mr. Parsons saying something about how he is glad she turned him in because that shows he is training her right, and therefore she will be able to grow up "normal" and not have to go to the Ministy of Love like him, because she is doing what the party asks her to. does that make sense?
This is kind of random but the inner circle was talking about humanity again. And I read somewhere that the perception of time defines humanity, and in the book Winston said that he didn't know whether it was night or day or how long it has been. Does that mean in the Ministry of Lover, you are not human any more.
Shauna-
maybe O'Brien was also trained as a thoughtpolice and then was moved to the inner party. Because he did do that a lot during Winston's interrogation. But maybe its because he is so smart or so experienced that whenever he asks the same question he gets the same response from everyone he interrogates.
Tana that is a really good point and it would completely make sense if O'Brien was controlling Winston's mind because he always knows what Winston is thinking.
Also Parson's could have been relieved when his children finally turned him in and could have been proud of them because they are doing their jobs and his children are going to grow up to be good thought police, but thats just an idea.
Ok I have something different.
I think that Winston just stopped challenging the system. Instead of really continueing saying that 2 and 2 is 4 and let himself be tortured to death, he was actually trying to believe in BB and see 5.
That makes sense Chelsea. Because his daughter turned him in, she will never have to go through what he is going through right now.
Jess-
I don't think they TRY to get people to go against them, but it is a way of breaking them down more. It's like in Macbeth. When you build up and up, it hurts more when you fall and lose it all.
Jess-The government doesn't really let people rebel. O'Brien finds peopel that potentially have rebellious thoughts and sets them up for arresting them. Even if they don't really want to rise up against the government, BB won't take any chances with people, so they'll torture and kill them anyway. Does that makes sense?
Paige, thats a good question, and a good point. Maybe that is one of the goals of the Ministry of Love, to break a person down to where they are almost not human, and then build them back up to the kind of person they want them to be. Right?
Haha ya Paige. Thats what i was trying to say.
Ya shauna i agree with that and he was just telling O'Brien what he wanted to hear so that he could stop being tortured \.
Paige that's a really good point, because once he is almost done being tortured, O'Brien says you are not man anymore and that he is humanity and its remains and he is in this place that is trying to make him inhumane, and he looks like a disaster. Humanity is dying, humanity in this book is almost dead.
paige-
I like that insight. So, when you can't tell what time it is, when your discombobulated (i can't think of another word) then you become more humain?
I wonder if thats true.
True Shauna. But I think that he kind of still is because even though his conscious mind is trying to see 5, his subconscious mind won't let him. So even though he wants the pain to stop, he still can't believe in the Party.
Hey guys my blogger account would not let me sign in on Friday during class so I just want to post some things I wrote down during Fishbowl.
Elyse, about your question, I think that neither is better than the other. For instance, just because you are free does not mean you are happy. People in America are free, but are they all happy? And secondly, you can be happy without freedom. This is seen in Winston because he is certainly not free in his society, yet when he is with Julia he is happy. On a larger scale I would say happiness is more important, but it could go either way. Alexd, good point, if you are happy, then you are in yourself free.
Josh about your question about the symbolism of Goldstein, I think that Goldsteins one and only purpose in the society of 1984 is to be hated by the people. I believe he is fictitious and that the government, to have the people’s hate be focused on one person, created him. It is like what we discussed in fishbowl, if you have hate, then you must have the opposite, which is love. The Party created Goldstein so that the people would HATE him, but on the other hand, LOVE Big Brother.
What he does to the story is he focuses the hate of the people, and gives light and hope to those who are against the Party. Perhaps he is a trap for Party members to find the slightest bit of rebellion amongst the people. If they agree with him, then the Party knows they are an enemy.
Off of Paige's question about the Party being Goldstien, Obrien said he wrote the book and that it was published by many other people in the Party as well. Why would they write this book? I think they wrote it to entice people who want to rebel against the Party. The actual book must be hard to get a hold of by the people, so if someone had one or someone was looking for one, they would be immediately arrested for thoughtcrime. Again, I think the Party created this to find any bit of rebellion the people have.
I agree with Jessb on the idea of parsons being proud of his daughter for turning him in. It may very well be that parsons is not proud of his daughter and is actually mad that she would turn him in. But, because he knows his own fate now, he said he was proud of her for doing so to illustrate his last piece of loyalty to the Party. He wanted the people and the Thought Police to know that he was proud of the justice system and maybe by saying this they might be less harsh on him. Although that would probably never happen. He also is happy that his daughter will not end up in the same position he is due to her being loyal completely to the Party by turning him in.
One final thought I had, when shauna said that Winston had stopped challenging the system, I don't believe he stopped on his own, I think he was forced to stop. The torture that was inflicted on him began to control him and train him. This goes back the experiment on the dog and how when he heard the bell he would start to salivate. At first Winston knows that the number is 4. But after so many times of being tortured his mind has started to make him believe it is 5. His mind has been erased by the torture and he is basically only a body. Obrien is molding his mind by brainwashing him and then telling him things. Winston doesn't know any better, all he knows that if he says 5 he will not be tortured, so therefore now he will say it is 5. Its almost like they have turned Winston into a dog rather than a human. Does that make sense?
Winston "hears the bell" and says 5.
I was gone on Friday, so here are my comments as I read through the outer circle dicussion:
Elyseh-- To add to your question about freedom versus happiness, I think that happiness often comes from freedom. For example, you are much more willing to do something if it is out of your own choosing. You are much happier when you do your homework at the time that you choose instead of when your parents tell you to.
Also, Happiness can result from freedom, but being free doesn't always mean that you are happy, and you can be happy without being free. You can be free and on your own without anyone to tell you what to do, but that may mean that you are not happy because you have no friends or food or anyone to watch out for you. So, to answer your question, I think that Happiness is better than freedom, because people often come to America in search of freedom, hoping that it will bring happiness. Everyone wants to be happy, and so they want freedom because they think it will bring more happiness.
JoshB-- You asked about Goldstein. I think he doesn't have much of a point in the book. He is the opposite of Big Brother and is the aim of hate. I suppose he can serve as something for people to be negative towards. It seems that it is human nature to be upset at times, and often it gets taken out at the people and things around them. So maybe the party doesn't want negativity to be aimed toward them and Big Brother, so Goldtein's image was created for people to take their negative feelings out on.
This continues with PaigeN's comment about who wrote Goldstein's book: I'm not completely sure if Goldstien is real or not. Before, O'Brien said that Goldstein definately wrote the book and is real. Now, however, O'Brien said that he wrote it. It is possible that Golstein isn't real and is just an image, like Big Brother may be just an image. I think that we determined that Big BrOther is just the face of the oligarchy of the party. In the book, Winston had asked if Big Brother is real and exists, and O'Brien answered that he does exist, only he dodged the question when Winston asked if he exists in the same sense as Winston does. So this may mean that Big Brother is not a real person, and thus, Goldstien may not be a real person either. So, to answer paige's question, I think that the party did write the book and that they are both Goldstein and Big Brother. This goes back to Josh's question; they need a face for hate to be aimed at and for love to be aimed at.
At 8:53, tana responded to elyse's question. In response to what she said, I ask, whether or not the people of 1984 are really free. In a sense, they are free because they have no rules, but at the same time, they are enslaved by the party and can commit crimes that are not outlawed and be punished for them. What is the definition of freedom then? It brings us back to the slogan, "Freedom is Slavery."
Alexd-- "The goal of the party is to take away humanity without it knowing it." What do you mean by this? Also, what is humanity? In 1984, they question humanity too.
kjerstinl brings up a good point. Whose side is O'Brien really on? I think that he is on the party's side, but he has rarely done that characteristic gesture in this section of the book, so that could suggest that the party is using a fake O'Brien to humiliate and get to Winston even more.
Here is a question: Humanity and Humiliate have the same word root. What could this mean about humans? How do these words relate to each other?
Chelsea-- I think that Julia is still alive and that she has not betrayed Winston. I think that because she is younger, she probably has not been tortured quite as much, but certainly she has been tortured and has confessed.
In the book, Room 101 keeps appearing. What do you think is in there? Do you think that Winston will end up there? How about Julia? Will she go there? I think that Julia and Winston will meet in room 101, but they will be very different people. It seems like there, people endure the worst torture and they face their fate.
Paige, regarding Chelsea's question about Julia, I think that O'Brien did lie about it, just so that he could get to Winston more. If this is a fake O'Brien, then he surely would want to push Winston's buttons as much as possible.
Alexd-- "Everyone is watched by the telescreens." I think that even when the telescreens are off, they can still hear and record what is said in the rooms. Otherwise, how would they have the recording of Winston and O'Brien's conversation? Here is a thought: Winston said that he could only vaguely recongnize one of the voices as his. So is it possible that the other voice wasn't actually O'Brien's?
I really think that the O'Brien that Winston has had contact with in the Ministry of Love is not the real O'Brien. It would be hard for a person to be so double faced.
About Parsons, I think that everyone, at some point, must go to the Ministy of Love. It seems like no one dies of natural causes. Parsons was stupid enough to believe anything, and so he could believe that his daughter turned him in, even if she didn't.
PaigeN-- At one point, when Winston is asking O'Brien questions, O'Brien tells him that winston does not exist. Also, at one point, he says that if Winston is man, then he is the last man. What does that make everyone else? Your question along with my question about humiliate, humans, and humanity too.
Shauna, while Winston is on the table and he is trying to see 5 insted of 4, O'Brien asks him if he really does want to see 5, or if he just wants to convince him that he is seeing 5. O'Brien says that he really is trying and wants to see 5 instead of 4. So you are right.
There is the end of the conversation. I have added a few questions, so I hope some of them get answered. Nice discussion guys!
Ok, I was gone for the discussion, but I posted some of my opinions on the @ home continuation. I'll put the rest here. Way to make it hard for me Kathryn. Now I feel like my blog has to be long to. :)
I guess I'll just have to use clever, area-consuming formatting.
THIS IS THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
First I wanted to respond to the question about happiness and freedom. I agree with what a couple people said(not many seemed to have this opinion) about how freedom doesn't guarantee happiness. Throughout the history of our country alone, there have been free and very miserable people. Take, for example, the factory workers of the industrial revolution and even many people today who are struggling to support themselves and their families. I'm not saying that slavery is happiness or anything, I'm jsut trying to point out that free doesn't necessarily equate to happy. In F451, the people are free only in some ways, but they are not happy. I just thought about how they too are losing "humanity" as we know it. There are practically no family relationships anymore. None of the Mildred's friends would ever perform sentimental but useless actions such as hugging a baby. It seems to me, then, that you can lose freedom of expression and maybe part of what some people might call humanity or the spirit of man, but still be happy. People might argue that characters such as Mildred aren't really happy, but they sure seem to be. At least until they down a whole bottle of pills. Maybe Mildred didn't even realize she was lacking something in her life. she might have been living in her own inner reality like in 1984.
To answer some of Kathryn's ideas/questions.
That's an interesting thought about how Winston could barely recognize his voice in the recordings. The minitrue does have voice actors, so it would be possible for them to fake conversations. Because of the state he's in, they could probably get Winston to believe whatever they wanted by making up conversations. Even if he couldn't remember them, he was tortured, and people do tend to believe authority figures.
about Goldstein: I think that both sides need him. The gov. could have created him as an enemy, and maybe that made rebels choose to rally around the idea of him. I think it's funny how he helps both sides.
I think that the O'Brien in the Ministry of Love is the 'real' one. Maybe he hasn't done his little characteristic gesture in a while, because he is just acting when he does it. I think he uses it when he wants to trigger certain emotions. I've also bee wondering if make-up and other things are used to change his appearance, such as the times when Winston saw him as old and tired.
I wasn't here for the discussion so here are my ideas from reading it...
About the freedom or happiness question. Happiness is more important. If people are happy, they don't give as damn if they aren't free. People just want to be happy and to feel good. They will do what it takes to be happy, even giving up their freedom. People don't like freedom because with freedom comes responsibility and work. People are lazy and don't want that responsibility.
So even though freedom is theoretically better happiness is more important to humans, it is the ultimate goal that they strive for.
The symbolism behind Goldstein is nothing but a way to realize the people's one emotion, hatred. He may, and probably was once was, alive. The party just kept him around to help control the people.
That's my thoughts about the conversation.
Post a Comment
<< Home