Fishbowl per.5 1984 147-167
posted by annes @ 7:44 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
- Unknown
- saram
- Aylar
- EmilyH
- Laurab
- hannahs
- alexd
- Phillip
- zachf
- michelleg
- chelseah
- lindsey c
- KathrynT
- Kaity
- Shelbyb-mom
- paigen
Previous Posts
- Fishbowl per.2 1984 147-167
- Dearest Period 5 here is your blog post for pages ...
- Period 2's Breathtaking Discussion Presses On!
- 2nd period's Scribalicious post
- Period 5 Scribe
- Mission: Period 5 scribe
- April 12 Scribe...........woot
- Fishbowl per.5 1984 117-147
- Fishbowl per.2 1984 117-147
- Period 2 Scribe
106 Comments:
lets get this party started
You wish
poor dan
What are the benefits of having a fake war? In what ways would the Party control the people more?
Keeping the people afraid and occupied.
The benefits of having a fake war would be building morale for the country.
Well, if the Party declares a fake war and drops bombs, the people will be fearful. People are willing to accept leadership or give things up if they are fearful. Having a fake war would keep the people under control and make them easier to control.
hannah-the benefits have a wide variety, but not all of them are benefits that will improve society. It's more to cause fear which leads to more control for the Party.
Ben said they should make the proles fight in war, and I agree, but why doesn't the party?
I think that the war isn't happening. It is very possible that the Party is making it up, like they do for most everything else. Also, where does the Party get their troops? You never read that anyone in the book has been sent to fight in the army (if they have one) yet. Kari has a good point. The rocket bombs never fall on anyone, but they make a point, that the "war" is still going on.
Hannah- Well is it really a fake war or is that what we want them to think? I think that maybe in that way they have control over them.
maddy, the Proles are unstable, and hard to control.
With a fake war, all the results can be controlled to fit the Party's needs, and we all know that there's nothing the Party enjoys more than ultimate control.
I think taht the benefit of having a fake war is that you can make the peple do what you want. You can tell them how much gin they can drink or how many cigarrettes they can have if you just say that its to help support the war.
Hannah,
The fake war allows them to ration food and control the people.
Hannah, I think that Big Brother would benefit from the fake war in the same way that he benefits from controlling society: having complete controll. I think that he feels that if he can bring the people together over a common cause(as being enemies against another country) they will feel united in a way. The people feel that they have a purpose in helping to do their jobs which could possibly help them win in the war.---I dont know, maybe.
shelby-why would they want their citizens to think its a fake war? how would that benefit the Party or gain more power?
I think that it is a fake war. Why would people be fighting a war for soo long? Don't you think that someone would give up after a while or something like that?
There is an actual war going on in my opinion. There are prisoners of war, (and there needs to be a war).
Also, the proles need to have an outlet for their emotions. With sex and other emotional outlets banned, the party controls the proles with two minutes of hatred and fear from Eurasia and Eastasia's bombs.
Well that's true Zach and Sarah, but it seems that the actual bombs don't matter. What matters is that the war is going on which gives the party control over more levels of society. When there is a war on people are more likely to accept a more controlling government. Look at our history.
Yeah, wouldn't having large numbers of proles be a big advantage? (If the war was real that is) I guess that if the Party didn't care for or pay attention to the proles and didn't want to have anything to do with them, then not letting them fight in a war would keep it consistent.
Do you think the people love or fear BIg Brother?
If you were a leader, what would you rather be to have people obey you?
I agree with Tom. The Party controls everything, so why not control the war, too?
madison- i agree. Doesn't he also do this with all of the Two Minutes Hate that bonds the society under one purpose
Maddy,
I think that the party memebers are drafted and they do fight.
riley,
what if the POW's are the people who have disappeared? What if Syme will show up with the next batch.
emilya-i think both factors are used to have control but in this book we see more of the fear come out.
I agree that this is a fake war, because they change their enemies so often that it doesn't make sense.
I think people fear Big Brother, everyone seems to be on edge and under constant surveillance, so I think they produce fake love for Big Brother to escape being killed.
EmilyL, they might draft the Party members, but you never hear about it.
Hannah, I think that it definetly keeps the people in hand because it makes the people think about the war instead of thinking about something such as rebelling.
Hannah- Fear is a very controlling element. The Party's thinking is that if you can convince the public that they are in danger and that the only safety lies in the Party, you can keep them under control. It's almost a form of propaganda, if you could say that.
Emilya- I think they fear Big Brother, but maybe they crave it because they want something to disobey.
Lauraf, I think so. That is a very probable reason for the Two Minutes Hate. If the people feel united, then they feel like they are doing the right thing.
mphair, we change enemies alot too...
I don't think the Party wants to get too involved with the proles; they want to leave them be. It would be too difficult to convert them all to Party members, and they're already blindly patriotic, so it's probably better not to risk an uprising by leaving them alone.
That is possible Sarah, but I think if the people that disappeared are POWs the party would wait until nobody remembered them anymore.
Sarah, that's an interesting thought. That could be a possible way to solve the loophole of the POWs.
I agree with Ty, it occupies the minds of the citizens to create thoughts of nationalism, not rebellion.
Do you guys think that he should trust O'Brien?
rsinn_butnotfire-
How do we know the Party isn't just taking proles and others who commit "thought crime" as their prisoners of war.
tom-i agree with you. Also, is the war a way just to make sure the proles know that the Party has the power to crush them if they do get out of hand, not that they care to rebel or even have the thought of it
tomr- I agree with you. I think that they outnumber them too much that they just do not try. I also think they cause no harm to there society... yet.
I would agree with Tom. It seems that the proles are serving their purpose successfully by just being. Does that lead to the possibility that the party seeks out young proles who have an amount of understanding and brainwashes them early in order to remove them as a risk?
sarah-
didn't it say in some point in the book that the prisoners of war looked different, like they came from a different place? I dont remember, but that's an interesting thought, traitors are rooted out and turned into prisoners. But than, if that were true, wouldn't the next batch of prisoners try and communicate with the proles while they are carried past them, instead of fearfully staying quiet like they did?
If the party is not faking a war, why do they insist on constantly being at war? Are there other ways that the party could control the people without war, fake or not?
emily, nobody remembers them after 3 days, or at least they don't talk about them...and i didn't say they use them right away, they have to leave time for their appearance to change enough. Or, the disappearances could be just because people look different, or can change appearances easily, like, maybe Parsons will be taken because once he loses weight, no one will recognize them. They also have to make the people not tell someone who they are.
Question time. We have already establilshed that Julia cares only about their generation and thinks that BB is undestroyable and therefore you should live the best life you can. How has this mindset been influenced by the Party. At first glance, she seems of strong character and determined to bring down BB. How is Julia's comment a demonstration of the control held by the Party?
sheblyb-
I think he should get to know OBrien a little but more before he decides to trust Obrien or not.
Shelby- No, I don't think Winston should trust O'Brien. O'Brien is obviously very smart and very shrewd, much like Syme. These qualities are what made Syme "disappear," however. Why hasn't O'Brien disappeared by this point if he is as smart and shrewd as he seems? What gives him this "immunity"?
hannah- I think that the Party stays at war so society can have something to hate instead of the the Party themselves in which the "good" side points back to their own govt. and big brother
Shelby- I think he should trust O'Brien, he has nobody else, he's pretty much alone in his cause. If O'Brien has his back then it will benefit Winston, and if not, at least Winston tried to make a difference. He will either come through with his rebellion or die trying.
I think the point tom brought up is key in the book. The party doesnt care about converting the proles because they dont believe they ever could. they are already going along with the party so why try to change that? What is key in the book is the idea that they might. Winston keeps thinking what would happen if the proles would just overthrow the government, so why dont te proles think about it? Why DONT the proles think about it? If they did, would the world change, or would they all just be vaporized and proles would cease to exist?
Shelby, I find it strange how eager Winston is to find trust in people. Right away after meeting Julia, he puts full trust in her. And now after meeting OBrien, he also seems very trusting almost instantly. I think this is strange because we would think that especially in this society, people would refrain from trusting people because the line between truth and lies is very subtle, but Winston is very trusting right away before people even prove themselves to him. I think this is because Winston is very sure with his opinions and he is desperately looking for someone who may support him.
Dan-
Does it seem a little selfish that she just wants to live her life and the fullest and not try to bring down BB? She is one of very few who can live her life like that.
Hannah, I am sure that there are other ways the Party could take control without faking a war, but the method seems to be working efficiently. Why change it?
anna, O'Brien has teh same immunity as Julia...he is involved and has a mask.
Sarah, I think Riley was right. At some point in time Orwell mentioned that the POWs looked like foreigners.
I personally do not trust O Brien. He seems too nonchalant to be trusted. To me, he kind of has a sly way about him. It is kind of hard to explain, but I dont' trust him.
And that's what the labor camps could be for...
emily-
i agree, i think that Julia and Winston need to learn more about o' brien and mr. charrington before they trust in the hiding place and o' briens brotherhood. We haven't seen a member of the thought police yet. Could either of these characters be a member covertly gaining information on winston and julia?
Sarah, how can you trust that the "mask" is not simply another mask? A double agent, of sorts.
Ty-
I agree with you. If you stop the constant war you would be going against one of their slogans:
War is Peace.
Emilya- How can Winston get to know the "real" O'brien if he is different from other people in the party. Winston cannot get to know O'Brien if he opposes the party because he will incriminate himself. O'Brien has to maintain an image of loyalty to Big Brother even if he doesn't like the party.
Hannah,
War provides the biggest base of trust in a government. At the time this book was written there was already evidence of people allowing their liberties to be taken away "for the sake of their country." This book excentuates that and shows that war is the easiest medium in which the government can gain complete power over its people.
sarah- good point, but why could Winston pick him out as someone who he wanted to talk to...what is different about o'brien and julia that Winston was so afraid of her until the note, but Winston felt like he could trust O'brien?
Erin--Don't you think that anyone could live like that if they had the will to? The Party has weaknesses; all that's needed to exploit them is a shrewd mind and the will to do so.
Why is the Party trying to prevent the Party members from having kids, but they allow the Proles to?
Lindsey- The Proles don't have a reason to go against the Party. So why would they. The Party has not bothered the Proles that much they let them think on their own and let them have their own thoughts. I do think that they could get the Proles to rebel and I think they would loose all of the control that they "seem" to have.
Feelings are very influenceing laura...
Sarah,
Anna is right. There is a double agent in this book. Their society would not be able to function without it. Who it is up in the air.
laura b- I think they don't let the Party members have kids because they are afraid that the parents do have secret thoughts and they will rub off on the kids. However, the proles are not effected by the Party and don't have any inclination of rebellion to give to their kids.
erin- i dont think that it is selfish because nobody else, at least that we know of, is willing to defy big brother in any way, so why should she? She is rebelling in the only way she knows how, not just to rebel, but for her own pleasure. By having sex, se is taking away the partys ability to control her. It is everybody else choices whether or not they want to rebel and only when they all discover the same desire to do so is it her obligation to organzie the rebellion.
The proles have almost no purpose except to show the party members "how good they have it."
Laura- It's interesting that Winston's first impression of Julia was completely wrong. Could his first impression of O'Brien have been wrong also?
Emily,
Who it is up in the air.
What does this mean?
Lane, that's a good point, the proles provide another necessary outlet for hatred, one that exists in large number in their own world, as opposed to the "foreign" Eurasians and Eastasians.
To provide an answer for my earlier question- War also gives the government means to assume a wider range of power. It happens today in our society as well, so war is a benefit because it allows government to have more power.
Erin: It is, in a sense, selfishness, but you have to wonder if there is reason behind here thoughts. Is the Party really indestructible? Is there any way out of the oppression?
I meant that the person in this book who is a doubleagent has not been revealed yet. Sorry!
hannahs- Image is very important in this book, I agree. I think that if Obrien says or hints something to Winston about being a rebel against the party he will start to trust him. Yet, if Obrien does not then he will keep quiet and not say anything about rebeling even if Obrien is just too scared to say something...
Erin- I don't think that it's selfish for Julia to just live her life and not rebel because she doesn't owe anyone anything. I don't think she is obligated to changing society just like people in our own society.
Has anyone noticed how in F 451 there is a girl, Clarisse, who shows Montag a different way to look at the world, and in 1984, there is Julia who shows Winston a different world? Just a thought.
k, How do we KNOW there is a doubleagent?
I know the inner circle mentioned this, but how else can we elaborate on the differences between Winston and Julia? How are their views different? How are their ideas of rebellion different? How does their difference in age affect their ideas, views, and actions?
I have a new question: Why did Orwell think that 1984 was an appropriate year to have the book set in?
emilya-or is O'brien pretending to be a rebel to find others to turn over, just like Julia was the exact opposite of what Winston thought?
laura,
Julia did show Winston another world, but she didn't push him there. He went himself.
LauraB- It seems like they are a little more agresive and they seem to know the true answers. Women seem to have a broader view of what the world looks like and I think there is still a lot more to learn from Julia.
Laurab- Does your thought relate to women in any way? If so, what does it say about the influence of women? In what way have women played the part of bringing to light a different world?
Ty: This is funny! Orwell's publisher didn't like the original title of the book, The Last Man of England, so he told him to change it. Orwell simply took the year he wrote the book, 1948 and flipped the last two numbers. 1984!
Madison-
I think that Julia's idea of rebellion is really suddle. Winston wants to be big but he doesn't know where to start.
Does today's society have similarities with the society in the book?
ty, Wikipedia said that he initially wanted to name it The Last Man in Europe, but the publisher said that 1984 would be better for marketing, and it was taking so long to write it that is was initially supposed to be 1980, but he had to push it farther into the future.
Tom, that is precisely what I was getting at. Thanks.
Julia is truly a "rebel from the waist down." She has let countless partners become victims of the though police why now does he let himself trust her?
I don't think we do know that there is a doubleagent, but too me, it seems like the whole relationship with Winston was pretty open and quick to start. Also, it seems that if Julia was truly not a doubleagent, she would know that Winston was off limits.
madison- Wiston's rebellion is in focus to change society and bring down the Party so that it can return to life of the real past, whereas Julia doesn't believe that can happen so she just lives to live and rebel for the day and not for future generations.
To elaborate a little more on the previous dicussion, all of the members of the Party are selfish. It's a dog-eat-dog world and people have to fend for themselves. People seem content to wile away their years shouting quite rudely at Goldstein and ignoring the plights of others. They think the proles live a horrible life, but they think it's because they're stupid and that's what they deserve.
Lauraf- Good point. I guess this book is about taking risks and seeing what comes out of it...
I agree with Lane's point. Why should Winston trust Julia, if she has turned in countless Party members before? To me, he shouldn't have trusted her.
laura, Julia could really just be a rebel.
tyc-
Orwell probably thought that the conformity and fear was spreading so fast that by 1984 everything would be like this. Alike, no emotions, no freedoms, nothing.
emilou- i dont think that Winston will wait for O'brien to come forth and tell him about his rebellion because Winston has already let down his guard so much because of Julia that maybe he will take the first step and realized that he was right about O'brien and they will oranize a rebellion OR he could be totally wrong. Right now, we cant really know what Winston is going to do because before he was too scared to even think against the party and now he is having sex and "stealing" food (<- technically Julia is, but he is eating it too).
He has alraedy changed so much that it is really kind of out in the open right now.
Oh, sorry about that! I wrote that the original title was "The Last Man in England," but I meant to type "The Last Man in Europe."
I had a quick question- On page 159 it says "the end is contained in the beginning" and I was wondering what this meant.
Hey guys, I wasn't here for this but I'm sorry I missed it. You guys had a great discussion!
Hannah--I think that "the end is contained in the beginning means that the way they are doing things will not have a happy ending. It's saying that by starting this way, they are condeming themselves to a soon and "ungood" ending.
Madison--I think the biggest difference between Julia and Winston is their age and experience. Winston seems to see so much more than Julia about their society and government, and because of this wise sight, he is more careful. He has a bigger purpose behind his rebellion, and his end goal is to help his whole society. Julia seems only concerned with having fun, a kind of selfish fun that only benefits herself. I think that in the end, this will be her downfall.
Ty--I think that Orwell picked 1984 because it seemed like a long way off. It would be like us picking some year in the 2030's. I don't think that he really had any specific reason for setting his story in 1984. I think he just wanted a random year in the 80s and 1984 seemed like the best one.
Post a Comment
<< Home