Why People Born After 1995 Can't Understand the Book '1984'

[Herbalist]

This is an excellent podcast. It's very long, but check it out.

http://www.cracked.com/podcast/why-people-born-after-1995-cant-understand-book-1984/

Your thoughts?

[Smaug]

My favourite book, together with At the Mountains of Madness by H. P. Lovecraft and The Saxon Tales by Bernard Cornwell.

[Herbalist]

I think the guy on the podcast may be missing a point. For those of us growing up in the Cold War yeah, 1984 was a cautionary tale, but younger people in the post-9/11 world are brainwashed in a similar way to give up their privacy in order to keep us safe from terrorists, who are the new Soviets for this younger generation. So, they are thinking the same "I need to keep safe".

[Not a Cop]

I was born in 1994, and got no idea how much did i understand it, but i liked Brave New World and Animal Farm much more

[Jackson]

It's a great book.

[MarkyMark]

Lol. My school district mandates every student reads 1984. And they never fail to grasp the main points of cautioning against government surveillance and propaganda.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

1984 was not really about being watched so much as screwing around with the language and definitions to warp people's mind, which is another thing that happens all the time.

I hate all the crap with data saving/mining. Presidential polls really ruin politics, too. If they can know exactly what issues will make people change a vote they can just concentrate on splitter issues and aside fromt hat do whatever the hell they want.

[blogen]

In the 80' America was at war with communist Sovietunion and in alliance with Israel, the pre-Al Kaida Islamists in Afghanistan and Arabia.
In the 90' America at war with the socialist Iraq in alliance with Arabian Islamists and the socialist Syria.
In the 00' America at war with the Al Kaida Islamists and the socialist Iraq in alliance with the Arabian Islamists and the ex socialist Europeans and sometimes Russia (against the Islamists).
Now, in the 10' America planned war with the socialist Syria and in alliance with Israel and the Al Kaida Islamists and the Islamist of Arabia.

These sharp changes, and Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama or Merkel/Hollande/etc. does not fail, since the American and the European voters' majority does not see it what's going on, that these wars in the Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong quadrilateral are aimless and maybe they do not remember who was the enemy with ten years before. This is the reason why problem that the young persons do not read this book!

[mr. logan]

The techno surveillance concept has appeared so much in movies, that is trendy and accepted. Education is through movies now.

[Jackson]

In the 80' America was at war with communist Sovietunion and in alliance with Israel, the pre-Al Kaida Islamists in Afghanistan and Arabia.
In the 90' America at war with the socialist Iraq in alliance with Arabian Islamists and the socialist Syria.
In the 00' America at war with the Al Kaida Islamists and the socialist Iraq in alliance with the Arabian Islamists and the ex socialist Europeans and sometimes Russia (against the Islamists).
Now, in the 10' America planned war with the socialist Syria and in alliance with Israel and the Al Kaida Islamists and the Islamist of Arabia.

These sharp changes, and Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama or Merkel/Hollande/etc. does not fail, since the American and the European voters' majority does not see it what's going on, that these wars in the Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong quadrilateral are aimless and maybe they do not remember who was the enemy with ten years before. This is the reason why problem that the young persons do not read this book!

Thats what it seems like from my perspective. Like selective Amnesia. People do not remember the important things because they are too involved in other pointless things. A part of me says that we deserve what we get, but them i realise that people who do pay attention to what is going on are tied to the same sinking boat.

[sean]

I barely know any zoomer who truly appreciates 1984.

1984 is not what our current society is heading towards even though we may share some similarities insofar as technological advancement, media control and the surveillance. It has some merits particularly around doublethink avoiding cognitive dissonance and mass surveillance, but it's unrealistically extreme. Brave New World is chilling in how accurate it is.

BNW is more appropriate piece of literature to discuss in terms of how a book would correlate to this particular time, the feelies, state sponsored drug use, and indoctrination of the youth to accept the current trends is also right there with us.

1984 is a dichotomy on the nature of government in society, Brave New World is more about how human society will naturally impose inhumanities on itself through our ambition for technology.

Any surveillance we see in the west reminiscent of 1984 for the most part exists to design better targeting systems for advertisements and products. Orwell predicted a dark dictatorship state, meanwhile Huxley predicted an insidious aristocracy and the truth being drowned into garbage information rather than 'censored.'

People like to imagine we live in 1984, not because we do, but because fighting the evil oppressor state is heroic while fighting your own hedonistic desires is hard and requires self-reflection.

Science fiction however is never meant to be a genuine prediction of the future. It's fiction about current day issues amplified by technological and societal change. Both 1984 and Brave New World show blown up versions of things that were already happening. Huxley saw the growing importance of entertainment, while Orwell saw the powerful getting more and more influence over people's personal lives.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1553458993228.jpg

[JamesBond007]

^ reading books has always been an elite niche anyway, yeah, quality post Sean.

People cannot be free if they are ignorant, and the more knowledgeable a person is, the more likely he is to be free -- or to be able to free himself. But because the information available to people is overwhelming in volume, it is necessary to develop good criteria for selecting the information you imbibe. Here are some helpful rules:

(1) Prefer books to periodicals. Books are far more likely to have enduring value; periodicals are, by their very nature, transitory in worth.

(2) If you like something an author writes, read more of his stuff. An author whom you find interesting is more likely to have written other material that will please you than an author you have no knowledge of.

(3) Modern books are usually better than older ones. This is partly because modern books benefit from more up-to-date knowledge (tho they don't always), and partly because the publishing business is now very competitive, unlike in earlier days, years, or centuries; and competition means the best will generally rise to the top (ie, get published). A great many older books ('classics') are much overpraised, but it took me a long time to figure out that it was the books which were lousy, and not my taste.

(4) Don't waste your time reading lousy stuff, even if it is supposed to be 'important'. If it's lousy, chances are it's not important at all, at least for your purposes.

[Daco Celtic]

I consider Brave New World by Aldous Huxley a far superior book and far more predictive of the modern world.

[PaleoEuropean]

I consider Brave New World by Aldous Huxley a far superior book and far more predictive of the modern world.

Yea I think the Orwellian perspective was based off irrational fears from rational events. I personally don't see an issue with the Wests efforts to keep Communism at bay, it was and through Cultural Marxism is still a real threat. I don't think the West ever wanted to veer into full on Fascism but knew that elements of Fascism helped keep the status quo the status quo.

[Zeno]

I barely know any zoomer who truly appreciates 1984.

1984 is not what our current society is heading towards even though we may share some similarities insofar as technological advancement, media control and the surveillance. It has some merits particularly around doublethink avoiding cognitive dissonance and mass surveillance, but it's unrealistically extreme. Brave New World is chilling in how accurate it is.

BNW is more appropriate piece of literature to discuss in terms of how a book would correlate to this particular time, the feelies, state sponsored drug use, and indoctrination of the youth to accept the current trends is also right there with us.

1984 is a dichotomy on the nature of government in society, Brave New World is more about how human society will naturally impose inhumanities on itself through our ambition for technology.

Any surveillance we see in the west reminiscent of 1984 for the most part exists to design better targeting systems for advertisements and products. Orwell predicted a dark dictatorship state, meanwhile Huxley predicted an insidious aristocracy and the truth being drowned into garbage information rather than 'censored.'

People like to imagine we live in 1984, not because we do, but because fighting the evil oppressor state is heroic while fighting your own hedonistic desires is hard and requires self-reflection.

Science fiction however is never meant to be a genuine prediction of the future. It's fiction about current day issues amplified by technological and societal change. Both 1984 and Brave New World show blown up versions of things that were already happening. Huxley saw the growing importance of entertainment, while Orwell saw the powerful getting more and more influence over people's personal lives.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1553458993228.jpg

This. So much this. In Brave New World, the element of degeneracy is also really, really apparent. It's very telling by the character Lenina, and by the end of the book, where people are aroused by John, the main character, whipping Lenina almost to death. Which indicates that life nowadays is centered a lot around sex.

Also, the notion of the government desperately trying, especially through sponsoring drug use, to force the population to accept the current societal norms is also absolutely relatable in our days. In fact, only the element of forced drug use hasn't been implemented in order to force us to accept the current norms!

And in the pics you posted:

"Huxley feared what we love will destroy us"

So painfully accurate, yet almost no one will wholeheartedly admit just that.

[Armenian Bishop]

The fact that it's more and more difficult for me to find a place to piss behind a public tree (without being observed), tells me that the world is becoming more crowded, more urbanized, and with less opportunities for privacy.