I just finished my first read of 1984. It was a fantastic book. While reading, I kept wondering if there was any army fighting the war. I don't recall seeing anything about anyone from the Party or a prole fighting as a soldier. The Ministry of Truth is making up stories and showcasing false war heroes, which seems to point that it's all being made up. War is more about control and resource management in the book, so it would make sense to make it all up.
However, it is my understanding that there is real fighting going on in neutral zones. Now that would mean that there is an army. Who fights in it? I feel it's an important question because if we assume that there is no army, wouldn't that suggest to Party members or proles that the war is fake? Nobody in London enlists, but there would be plenty of soldiers to fight the war for decades? Maybe I'm overestimating the reasoning capacity of Party members and failed to capture all the nuances of doublethink, but to me it doesn't make much sense.
So, is there an actual army in 1984, or is it all made up?
Answer
There was an actual rather than "fake" war, so the implication of an actual army is a rational conclusion.
Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war, but it was evident that there had been a fairly long interval of peace during his childhood, because one of his early memories was of an air raid, which appeared to take everyone by surprise. Perhaps it was the time when the atomic bomb had fallen on Colchester. (1.3.12) (Book 1, ch 3 p 12)
Also fighting on land, though if this represents a civil war or not is open to question.
Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. ((1.3.16)Book 1, ch 3 p 16)
Tanks and planes indicate an army ...
On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns – after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces – (2.9.3)
There was also a scene where Winston saw a number of Eurasian prisoners of war being unloaded from transport by soldiers. Can't find the page reference at the moment. There is another clue (thanks to @Thunderforge for this comment): Winston volunteers at a munitions factory.
Orwell had a purpose in not being explicit. 1984 is a master work, in part due to the writing style used and things left unsaid. It can also be a different read based on what you bring to the table when you read it.
A side note: authors can work long and hard to get the right "voice" for a work, and for sections of a work. It can be a difficult creative process.
I read it about 40 years ago for the first time. I read it 20 years ago for the second time. (After more life experience and after some harsh training about what being a captive of a totalitarian state holds as a challenge). My life experience changed the reading experience.
The other point is context: put yourself in Post War (WW II, 1950ish timeframe) London and also the 1950ish "world" -- that's context. It is my read that he was in part commenting on the Cold War and on the 20th century's rise of "the warfare state." England had in Orwell's lifetime dipped into the warfare state twice for two world wars. So too had other modern nations. As a keen observer of both politics, propaganda, and political rhetoric (I've a collection of his essays that is excellent reading) his expertise informs the style of his book.
Comments
Post a Comment